Template talk:FRS message

I know the link in the header is useful, but the point is doing that encourages people not to read a message which they're not even getting very often. If we do that, we might as well get rid of all the guidance and just say "here's the RFC, go to it". Rd232 talk 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I may not be the best opinion in your favour as that is probably exactly what I would recommend, at least for >1 messages. :) I mean I click them and then read the RfC itself, the guidance is not necessary for me. And I am also of opinion that newbies won't sign up for this. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is really good and I personally want to use it. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Collapse box? Different subscription options? WP:CSSHIDE? There are degrees of newbienesss you know - there's a very long learning curve, and even relatively established users may not have that much experience with RFCs. Rd232 talk 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering the name change
Since Comment request service has a more general scope than RFC's comment duty, I will be sure to rework this template to reflect that. harej 10:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Making this template more helpful
Firstly, we should have all the code in here, including that of the heading. Right now, the bot is writing a heading, using text coming from somewhere else, then in a second action writing the message. This can be done all in one go. Or at very least, have the documentation for this template tell us where the bot's heading wording is.

Let's have more useful output. Presently this is one of the most frustrating templates on the system because it's so hard to tell what to click on to get the most obvious result. The #1 point is to get people to the RfC. The #2 point is to get people to the article so they can look at it to see if it's a topic they feel interested (or competent) enough in to comment on it. The #3 point is where advice is for how to respond, while #4 is to get people to the [un]subscribe features of FRS. Any more points than that are probably a waste of time, though technically they are #4, informing people what an RfC is (how could they sign up for FRS without already knowing?) and #5 is telling people where the talk page is. As anyone can see, these priorities are not being addressed in anywhere near this order, making this honestly one of the most frustrating templates on the system. It is not even using natural language to direct action, but linking unintuitively where we do not expect.

Proposed rewording (including the heading language)


 * Filled-out example : :
 * You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Julian calendar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. —  Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Julian calendar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. —  Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * List of changes : :


 * 1) Identify FRS in the heading; no one is liable to remember what Legobot is vs. various other bots, and it's nice to be able to ID what messages are what in the alerts & messages tool (the thing next to your username at top of page, if you've turned that tool on). Makes for easier user talk page table of contents scanning, too.
 * 2) Link directly to the RfC in the heading. We know that some screen readers for the visually impaired stop reading headings after first link in them, so it's essential that it be the #1 most useful one.  Sighted readers also don't want their time wasted.  Use natural language for this link: "Please comment" is the requested action, thus the link.
 * 3) Identify talk page separately from article page (using  and  ) - it's possible they could be the same in some cases, e.g. in rare RfCs about what to do about a talk page, and processes in which discussion is generally held on the page itself.
 * 4) Link directly to the article (or whatever) in the heading, if that page exists (there's a nolink override). We do not (at all) need to separately link to the top of the article's talk page as old version does. Usually  will be the article (or whatever page) name to which the RfC applies, but in some cases it could be something more generalized that is not a page unto itself.
 * 5) Remove anthropomorphizing; it's creepy to have bots express emotions.
 * 6) First link in message text is directly to the RfC, using natural language. (Old version linked on the words "request for comment", implying a link to WP:Request for comment.)
 * 7) Secondarily, state the topic, linked if applicable, as in the heading. Note that the topic is [usually] not it's talk page, and we don't need a separate link to the talk page.
 * 8) Remove additional pseudo-emoting. Also removing redundant mention of "the invitation" (to which we're not responding anyway; we're responding to the RfC).
 * 9) Tertiarily, link to how-to-respond instructions, clearly enough to also tell us where the page about RfCs is. "If in doubt" was rather vague.
 * 10) Finally, give more helpful FRS management options, clarifying that they're not just "quit". (note also use of  rather than , for brevity).

I've WP:BOLDly made some of these changes already (the ones that don't affect the heading or the parameters). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Shorter Message Please
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service I think this message should be shorter because it clogs talk pages.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on .

The above is my suggestion. SPACKlick (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Boldly Changed. SPACKlick (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)