Template talk:Talk header/Archive 1

TfD debate
This template survived a WP:TFD debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 23:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It survived a second debate here. -Splash talk 01:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And a third here --DragonHawk 13:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Format fixes
I changed two things here: One, the obvious one, was a color change; admittedly that was a matter of taste, but heard from a few people they liked that better, and none opting to go back. Second and more important, fixed a problem with the rightmost text; in some browsers, the text was cut off; this seems to be fixed. So if anybody wishes to change the colors back, don't change that back, too. -- AlexR 10:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing a text problem I wasn't aware of. As for the colour change - yes I suppose it's personal taste, so something neutral as you've done has an obvious point. On the other hand, reducing its visual impact maybe also reduces its usefulness, if it blends into the page too much and people don't read it. Also, you imply that this template is being discussed elsewhere - can you link (or move) those discussions please? Rd232 13:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That was on IRC, so I can't move it here, sorry. From there also came the idea of shortening the text; since it looked so huge on talk pages, I was wondering whether to use a smaller font, but it was suggested that the text should be shortened instead.
 * As for it loosing impact, well, there is I think a limit for making one - after all, on pages where this is needed, obviously there are already people writing who ignored all offers of information already offered elsewhere. If that was a mistake, then I think the template still is noticable enough for them to see it -- and if it was not, not even making the text 48 points and blinking will make them follow those suggestions. Given that a large part of the template is still pinkish, a colour usually not seen elsewhere on a page, I think that it is still noticeable enough. The infamous tan/yellow has, methinks, not too many friends. -- AlexR 18:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was aiming for a sort of subliminal impact, since it will almost always be the first thing people see when they go to a Talk page. This would just be tone-setting; even if people don't actually read it again, they should be subconsciously reminded of the points made. This hoped-for effect is unlikely if the text is just part of the page's scenery. Rd232 18:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The colours I used are the same as a number of Talk page templates, such as Template:Featured, and quite a few wikiprojects (may even be the standard). See Talk:Evolution how it looks when there's five of these! Rd232 22:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Namespace issues
This template currently says it is for discussion on the Foo article. But here, and on the page Template talk:Sexual orientation and on any other Template talk pages where this is used it is a page for discussing the Foo Template. Nor is this just a terminology nitpick -- the link in the header in such cases is incorrect, follow the link on the above page and see where it goes. This template, as it stands, should not be used on pages in the Template talk or Wikipedia talk or User talk namespaces. Varations of this template appropriate to each specifc namespace could be constructed. DES (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rather then constructing different templates for each talk namespace, I would say a better thing to do is change the wording of this template to be more generic. Perhaps "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the main FOO page" would work? --DragonHawk 03:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversial version
See Template talk:Controversial for proposed changing of to match. Rd232 22:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk page archives
I'm wondering whether it's worth including talk page archives in the template in some way, via optional parameters, or even other things like featured status or wikiprojects. It might just be neater, particularly on pages like Talk:evolution. Thoughts, anyone? (Don't know how to do it myself anyway.) Rd232 23:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't how to do it either, but it sounds like a good idea. I actually experimented with an archives box, based on the standard talk-page message (cf. FAC), but it didn't quite look right. This template seems a better way of incorporating archives.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 00:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added this template at Talk:Ancient Greek phonology and I wonder if it needs an optional secondary table to provide links to archives of previous discussions. +MATIA &#9742; 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

For unregistered users
We're getting a lot of unsigned articles from unregistered users at Talk:Hurricane Katrina. Maybe there should be an addition about "even if you are not registered"? AySz88 ^ -  ^  17:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * For most pages, people seem to prefer a shorter Talk template. I've created a separate longer one - template:talkheaderlong - for pages where it's worth having more info for users. Rd232 22:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki integration

 * oppose, extensive propagation of this template would unnecessarily increase the computational burden of rendering the talk pages, and effectively constitute a Denial of service attack. Let's save our computational resources for the articles.--Silverback 11:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a bit extreme (DDOS!). The issue of computational burden applies to all other talk page templates as well (and I doubt they have that much impact on overall burden). Some of them could potentially be merged into (versions of) this page. And I think if incorporated in software the computational burden would be minimal in any case. Also, if the template works, it reduces computational burden by reducing unnecessary edits tidying up after people, and making discussions clearer and more efficient. Rd232 11:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to most talk page templates, except those that are temporary. They shouldn't stay on there forever.  The talk page is pretty straight forward.  Each template requires access to a separate file on the server, instead of just using cached internal rendering commands.  The first template doubles the file accesses, the second increases file accesses  another 50%, etc.--Silverback 11:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Evolution. With judicious use of parameters, all those could possibly be merged into one template. Rd232 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just struck me that probably by far the best place for what I'm trying to convey is actually after the user clicks "edit this page", above the edit box. That would need a software change, so that Talk pages could have their own messages separate from the article edit page. (Which probably makes sense anyway - the stuff about copyright and sources doesn't apply in the same way.) Done that way, it would be universal (which is much of the point, so newbies have help wherever they first encounter wikipedia) and no computational burden. Rd232 16:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. Presumably rendering the edit page occurs far less often than the talk page.--Silverback 23:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * So how to get support for the idea, and the thing implemented? Rd232 10:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there any progress on the plan to integrate this into the mediawiki software? That gets talked about a lot, and I think it's a good idea frankly. Is the plan still alive?Borisblue 07:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

See bug 6069. Brian Jason Drake 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Silverback's changes
I reverted Silverback's changes, which take it away from its intended purpose, namely to direct complete "I can edit a page?!" newbies in the right direction. My version is precisely worded - "comments that start a new topic" should get a new header, not all comments. For newbies the edit page tab is obvious in function; the + tab is secondary and potentially confusing, and if they can't figure it out for themselves they can learn about it in tutorial etc. Also discussing changes to the article was precisely worded: the talk page should be focussed on potential or actual changes to the article (which also covers ideas, plans, content disputes). Needless discussion or commentary happens anyway, but it's worth reminding everyone, especially newbies, that Wikipedia is not a blog. Hence discuss changes to the article, which implies action, not the article, which welcomes random comments, pointless carping and extemporising, etc. (Which we will always have anyway, but it's worth discouraging.) Rd232 11:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "changes to the article" is longer than "the article", and gives the impression that you discuss changes that already exist, i.e., after you have made the changes, which is what people are going to do anyway, but we don't want to encourage it.--Silverback 12:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a particular interpretation of a deliberately ambiguous statement; I don't know how common it is. We could say "existing or potential" changes to clarify, but that's clumsy and not, I think, necessary, particularly since the point of mentioning changes at all is to emphasise that Talk should ultimately be aimed at improving the article, not yapping about it or the subject in general. If there are better or clearer ways of doing that, by all means let's explore them, without losing sight of what's we're trying to with the template. Rd232 13:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the language of the Controversial template ("Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.") could be useful; but I don't see how to incorporate that thought without making the template longer again. Rd232 13:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

id added.
I added an id value to the tables so people who don't like this template can hide it with their user stylesheet by adding


 * 1) talkheader {display:none}

NSR (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

New thread technique
The normal way of adding a thread to a talk page is by clicking the neat + (plus) next to the "edit this page" link.

This allows entering a headline in the useful box, and saves the World from seeing how various people can understand the poetry of give them ==A Descriptive Header==.

I think that clicking the + should be mentioned in the template text. Conf 12:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. If it's mentioned in addition, it adds length and possible confusion. But replacing the previous reference removes something which aids complete newbies (no idea about wikimarkup) in understanding how a talk page works. Perhaps suggest a formulation. Rd232 13:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On second thought... maybe this can work. However it feels like too smart, and at the same time it instructs to do non-smart things. Showing a more forum-like way of doing things could be likely to better encourage a shy newcomer to jump in. Also note that references to documentation already take quite a lot of words.


 * It orders to go to the page bottom and place something there. By clicking the [edit] link at the bottom, that is? There may be or may not be one. What if I don't want to start a topic? That's when I really start to need wiki skills. Just actually *reading* the talk page below also looks like kind of a good idea, doesn't it :-)


 * I'm not satisfied with anything I can think of, but my possibly extreme solution would be changing


 * Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==.


 * to something like


 * To start a new topic, click " + " above. To reply to a topic, click [edit] next to the topic's title.


 * Conf 15:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think most users now know about tooltips. Suppose a user reads the tooltip "Start a new discussion" (easy, right?), then reads the confusing instruction "Place comments...bottom of the page...==A Descriptive Header==." Won't they be confused?

Proposed rewrite
I have a rewrite of this template I would like to put in place:

Rationale:
 * People are more likely to read individual bullet points.
 * Clearer division of concepts.
 * Highlights text one is supposed to type.
 * Scales better to low/high resolutions and font sizes (the two-column table wrapped badly).

Comments/commendations/condemnations?

--DragonHawk 02:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Terrific! I'd only suggest adding a small "information" icon... But I can't seem to find one around. - Ekevu (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's [[Image:Information_icon.svg|25px]]. I'll see what I can do to add that in there.  I might wait a day or two first, one to see what others think, and two because the Wiki servers appear to be glitching right now.  --DragonHawk 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like most of the changes, but I don't like losing the seperate inset box with the "assume good faith", etc. info. Sure, at lower resolutions (lower than 800x600) your proposed version probably looks better, but I really doubt many people are still using 640x480. And at higher resolutions, the inset box actually looks better; with the proposed template above, at higher resolutions, you end up with a large white space on the right side once the text fits on a single line. With the inset box, it continues to resize to fill in a good portion of the blank space. I like the highlighted text especially though, and would support adding that in immediately while we hammer out the other details. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Locke: the separate inset box should remain.--cj | talk 04:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding resolutions in that way: I've never liked the school of thought. The "all-the-world-is-a-PC" mindset is wrong.  "All-the-web-is-Netscape" is wrong, too.  Some people might be using a screen reader or a Braille "display".  Others might be browsing on their handheld device (cell phone/PDA).  Some people use Lynx.  Or maybe someone has a huge screen, but keeps their browser window smaller.  (That's what I do.  At 1920x1200, if I max Firefox, most web pages will at least be hard to read (text is too wide); others waste huge amounts of space.  I often have a browser window that's less then 800 pixels wide.)  Pixels are a bad way to measure anything, anyway.  Different font sizes and screen settings mean pixels don't mean the same thing everywhere.  In short, I feel the best way to design anything on the web is to make it universal, and let users adjust things if the like.  That's what HTML was designed for.  /POV
 * Now, switching back to concensus mode: If everyone wants that inset box, I should be able to stuff it back in there without too much trouble. I'll continue to watch comments here, and respond.  :-)  --DragonHawk 08:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's an updated revision:

This revision makes this template's color/formatting consistent with all the other talk page templates. --DragonHawk 07:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes... this version is more standard... but the previous version looks better. :o) A couple of suggestions below... (if it were already live I could be bold and edit them myself... please do that) - Ekevu (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "New here?..etc" - Take out its bullet. These aren't the talk page guidelines and the list will look smaller, which is more inviteful (inviting? invitable? err...).
 * Etiquette/AGF/be nice - Move it to first. It is the most important item after all, as (I think) Locke Cole observed.

Apart from highlighting what needs to be typed (shouldn't those boxes have a space at the beginning and end?), I don't like any of the proposed changes. I'm not convinced about the resolution argument, either: one concern raised in the past is that such boxes shouldn't take up too much vertical screen space, because in small resolutions it pushes the main body down too much. The proposed revised version is significantly taller. If there is a problem with the width of the box or with having an inset box, could somebody be more precise about when this problem occurs (x pixel window, Mac/PC, etc), and whether there's anything else that can be done about it in terms of "universalising" it? Rd232 talk 11:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done minor edits to this suggestion and created it as Template:Talkheader2. I like the way it is right now. —Michiel Sikma, 19:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC) PS: Here's what it looks like:

Indentation
Can we mention this: in the template? Hyacinth 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Use indenting to keep the threads of the conversation straight."
 * If it is, a mention of how to indent should also be included, given that the new users who find the header useful probably won't know how to do it. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Colours
Guys, can you please discuss this change - rather than dicking around with a heavily used template? Thanks/wangi 08:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. What's the problem with the blue?  (Besides "it looks stupid," as one editor has said). Exploding Boy 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Not a forum for discussing the topic generally"
I hope I haven't given this too much emphasis. Thoughts? --Doradus 14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I believe it was given too little emphasis. I personally love what it is written in the guidelines: In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. I would replace the Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally. with Please note this is not a forum. Feel free to discuss article improvements, not about the subject. or something like that, stressing in the "WP:TP is not a forum" feeling. -- ReyBrujo 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We could change
 * This is the talk page for discussing changes to the.
 * to
 * This is the talk page for discussing the, not the topic covered by the.
 * I think that "This is not a forum." is confusing. Isn't a forum basically just a place to discuss something? Removing the "changes to" will make it easier to read and mentioning that the page is not for discussing the topic at the top will give it more emphasis. Brian Jason Drake 08:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anything that clarifies the talk page is not for topic discussion but instead article improvement is fine enough for me. If possible, wikilink that to the proper section at WP:TP to provide a one-click justification, as this may bring a certain amount of discussion when trying to enforce the notion. -- ReyBrujo 12:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Doradus did something like my suggestion, but in the next edit Locke Cole moved the "not for the topic generally" bit into the main part of the template. This is ridiculous as both sentences are describing the purpose of the template, so they should be together. Brian Jason Drake 06:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Category talk pages
When this template is used for the talk page for a category, it places the category's talk page into the category itself. (In other words, using this template on "Category talk:Fictional lemurs" will place the "Category talk:Fictional lemurs" page into the "Category:Fictional lemurs" category.) Is this intentional, or a bug in the template? Kickaha Ota 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Keenan Pepper for fixing this bug with his latest change to the template. Kickaha Ota 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of tildes
I noticed that someone had added wording to the template to say that a signature could be done with three or four tildes. Though technically correct, I changed the template back to the "four tilde" method, since I feel that keeping this information simple is more appropriate, and given a choice between three (name only), four (name and date), or five tildes (date only), that the four tilde method (name and datestamp) is the best way to educate new users. --Elonka 16:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be possible to add a wikilink to WP:SIG somewhere in the header. Either having sign wikilinked (wasn't it before?), or adding a note about it (like: Please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or choose an alternative method. which would give them access to the other options. -- ReyBrujo 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is misleading to tell users to alway sign their comments with four tildas (without the mention of other methods), becuase that suggests that datestamp is obligitory in singed posts, which it actally isn't, and nor is it always neccasessary. Myrtone
 * How about: Please sign your comments (one way is to type ~ after them). Brian Jason Drake 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 99.9% of the time four tildes is what you want. Lets not confuse things. Thanks/wangi 11:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What's confusing? We link to the signature guideline page on the edit page anyway ("On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes ( ~ )." under "Your changes will be visible immediately.")! Brian Jason Drake 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying leave it like that - there's no need to confuse matters by changing the text to cope with 0.01% of usage scenarios. /wangi 14:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that we're voting, but I vote for reducing it to just the four tilde case. Like Wangi says, we don't need to cover every possible case. Indeed, I think we need to keep that in mind for this entire template -- it's not intended to replace the entire "Wikipedia:" namespace, but to point out the most common mistakes and get people started on the path to documentation. --DragonHawk 05:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

I think it's good to have this at the top of the talk page, but we don't want it to be too large. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources?
As much as we would all love to stick to reliable sources, this isn't an ideal world. I think we should endeavour to keep the top of the template to one simple sentence, because people are already unlikely to read it, especially with all the other stuff (I'm tempted to say "crap" here) we expect them to read. Brian Jason Drake 08:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth emphasizing that talk pages are not for airing personal views, but are only for discussing content, and that boils down to discussing what the sources have said. I'm constantly running into situations where people are using Wikipedia as a glorified discussion group. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The talk pages are for discussing articles. That means discussing many things, including what should be included in a particular article (e.g. an article for a group of characters vs separate articles for each character), some of which do not require any sort of source. In fact, some of these things are nothing more than "personal views", but it is still important that we build consensuses on them and act on those consensuses. Thus the "reliable sources" sentence is both too restrictive to be accurate and unnecessary. The main point is about people discussing their own views on a subject and this is best covered by a short phrase, "not for discussing the subject generally." The shorter the phrase, the more likely people are to read it at all. Brian Jason Drake 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, fair points. I won't object if you change it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My changes on 1 Aug 2006
After leaving this alone for a bit to see how things progressed, I've just make a bunch of incremental changes to the actual template. I haven't done anything with converting from two columns (sub-boxes) to one -- opinion is at least divided, if not generally against that concept, and so I'm not sure it's a good idea anymore. But others have added some of the formatting and bullets, so I've taken that idea and run with it. I've also tried to reduce the wording as much as possible (short and sweet and to the point is good when it comes to notices. The thing that perhaps needs the most explanation is the first line of the left sub-box: I put a conditional (#if) around it.  That means the notice that the template is not a general discussion forum on a topic only appears in actual articles talk pages.  So Talk:Adolf Hitler says "This is not a forum for general discussion on Adolf Hitler", while Template talk:Talkheader does not.  That makes the most sense, I think -- we *are* discusssing the template, here.  As always, I welcome feedback! --DragonHawk 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right, the 'not a forum' notice really applies to the main namespace only -- on the Template namespace, there's nary a difference between a template's article and the template itself. (The only difference is when there are &lt;noinclude&gt; or &lt;includeonly&gt; tags to deal with, but even then, it's a minor point only.) --Stratadrake 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just gave the template a bit of a going over. The big thing was, I changed the entire template to have the "Talk template background color" style.  If you look at a busy talk page like Talk:Adolf Hitler, I really do think it looks better to have this template match the all-solid style all the other templates use.  I think it also does a *much* better job of separating the text one is supposed to type.  This also let me clean out a lot of HTML and CSS cruft that isn't needed anymore.  The last thing on my list is to find an icon for the template.  I think something either related to editing (a page with proof-readers marks, maybe?) or discussion (two heads with speech ballons, maybe?) would be good.  --DragonHawk 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative template?
Is there an simpler, alternative template that just directs an editor to put new messages at the bottom of the talk page? Seems like I've seen one, but I can't find it. --Blainster 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)