Template talk:Talk header/Archive 5

Talkpagetext colors
FYI: There is a discussion about what color MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext should be at Template talk:Fmbox. Seems like that discussion might be of interest to people watching this page. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hallo
editprotected please change to No personal attacks instead of Avoid personal Attacks per No personal attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arma virumque cano (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Amalthea  20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again: Establish consensus for that change first, please. Please do not reactivate the editprotected-template until then. Amalthea  20:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * how do i get consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arma virumque cano (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More or less as you just did. You propose something, and wait for people to chime in. Amalthea  20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
"Avoid personal attacks" -> "No personal attacks" per WP:NPA. This removes the false impression that personal attacks can be tolerated at all or are in any way acceptable Arma virumque cano (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Sure, why not? All the other 'commands' listed are imperative and unambiguous, and it makes sense since it links to "No personal attacks". We shouldn't validate any personal attacks with the excuse that sometimes we "just can't help it" or whatever else. No there shouldn't be any tolerance for it and the talkheader should clear about that. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I prefer the less aggressive "Avoid personal attacks" to "No personal attacks". If an editor ignores it he'll ignore it either way, I can't see the weaker wording as an opening. Also, "No personal attacks" is not really a sentence, but a slogan, and WP:Avoid personal attacks exists as well. Most importantly, the current wording assumes good faith, whereas the proposed one is a bit too aggressive for my liking, especially since it is placed on every second talk page. Amalthea  20:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose- The current wording does support AGF.Smallman12q (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This was changed deliberately, as the old construction didn't start with a verb. This is the most concise form which keeps the old sentiment. As others have said, it is hardly likely to be taken to mean that personal attacks are sometimes okay. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding placement
Is there any consensus as to the proper placement of the talkheader in relation to any other templates that may surround it? For instance, is it an established guideline to always place it at the top of the talkpage above any other WikiProject banners etc.? Or is it just on a case-by-case basis and it doesn't really matter much? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 20:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any guidelines. I was planning once to create a WP:LAYOUT for talk pages. You can start one and other will follow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's happening, I'd suggest that it be recommended that the template is placed above everything except skiptotoc. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have any other suggestions or ideas with regards to a WP:LAYOUT for talk pages, but I agree with Chris C. that it should always be above everything else except skiptotoc. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 05:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I am coming with the the following proposal: User:Magioladitis/Talk Layout. Please free to edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Placement on empty talk pages.
Apparently this is where the discussion should be (I don't agree, but whatever). How do you feel about deleting the talkheader template from (>1 month old) talk pages which only contains the talkheader template (and other banners)?Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen articles having talkheader for two years and no comments under. In fact, sometimes the presence of talkheader often dis motivates me from writing a short comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that fits the apparent consensus, i.e., talkheader doesn't belong on every page, use only when needed. • FYI and FWIW, in talkheader's 2009 March TfD, CharlotteWebb alleged that someone had been blocked for doing this (see comment at 15:02, 9 March 2009). However, no evidence was ever provided.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
We seem to have consensus that this template should only be used on controversial talk pages. Since many editors are automatically placing it on every talk page, we need to rewrite the template documentation to make this more clear than it already is. If there is no objection, I would like to do this. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think documentation is clear. I hope that Talk page layout will support this direction. We need a bot to clear talkheader when not needed. I also requested a filter but i won't think it'a going to be implemented. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't clear enough, because this template keeps getting added to non-controversial, low-traffic pages. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's make it more clear. I am usually warn new editors as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Errr, no, we absolutely do not have consensus on that point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, are you sure you aren't confusing this discussion with placement?  The current documentation already confirms this consensus.  The question at hand is whether it needs to be highlighted/reworded/rephrased to make it clear. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm certain that there is no consensus that "this template should only be used on controversial talk pages". The last big discussion was at the last TfD. Magioladitis is strongly opposed to the proliferation of this template, which is fair enough, but that is not a "consensus position" so much as one which is regularly repeated. Editors have also agreed with the sentiment that there is a correlation between use of this template and correct talk page etiquette by new / anon users, which is its primary purpose as far as I'm concerned, and that's actually more important on lower-traffic pages where there isn't an obvious precedent to follow or editors willing to go cleaning up after people. The current wording, which leaves that to the discretion of individual editors, is fine. It doesn't need to be made stronger. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And the anon users are usually found on controversial pages. How many controversial pages use this template as opposed to non-controversial topics?  The current template documentation says, "It is intended to be used on particularly active talk pages that attract commentary from inexperienced editors, and/or high levels of debate from everyone...This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page...Talk pages that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject controversy, and/or recent-and-highly-visible topics are usually appropriate for this template. Calm talk pages do not need this template." Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anonymous users are by far our most prolific contributors. They don't just comment on controversial issues. Again, the point is that the current wording, which leaves it to user discretion while pointing out when then template would best be used, is better than attempting to steer editors away from using it where there isn't consensus that it is inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But the template is used on active talk pages that attract high anonymous traffic; These pages are usually controversial. My point is that the current wording is wishy-washy and isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence for this. There is a general consensus that the template is not useful on empty pages; there is no such consensus for other situations. As such, the "wishy-washy" wording reflects the current nature of the debate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen pages having talkheader for 3 years and no comments on them. Removal of talkheader didn't change the situation to any worse. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a binary choice between "have them on every page, even empty ones" and "use them only on controverial pages". The current wording does enough to discourage their use on empty pages without going too far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the current wording inadequate. The template documentation should begin with, This template is used on active talk pages that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and/or recent-and-highly-visible topics.  Calm talk pages do not need this template. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But again, that's not what I see the main purpose of the template as being. In my opinion it's as useful on "calm" talk pages as anywhere else, because its true value is in providing a crash course in discussion for new users and anons (who comment on "calm" pages just as they comment on controversial ones). There is no consensus that it has a negative effect on "calm" talk pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's get beyond what you or I or anyone else sees. What is the main purpose of the template?  Why was it created and how is it used? Viriditas (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's used as a quickstart guide for discussion. It is primarily targeted at potential editors who haven't previously encountered our guidelines on talk page content, or who perhaps don't even know how to go about starting a new thread. Commonly it is used on any page where editors have frequently broken any number of rules of talk page wikiquette from top-posting new threads to not signing their posts to posting inappropriate content. It's also grown some other features such as built-in archive listing, to make it a general one-size-fits-all header for talk pages. It has been argued that ideally this kind of stuff should be built into the editing page, but while that hasn't happened it's the best we've got. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Is this purpose, as you have explained it, accurately reflected in the template documentation? Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's essentially what the documentation already says, yes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I liked it better when the docs just described it as something like "This template is intended as a short introduction for newcomers, and a reminder for experienced Wikipedians". (Full disclosure: I may have written that.)  In a very real sense, the current usage and documentation is a compromise between those who want this template plastered everywhere, and those who want it removed and burned with fire.  (Full disclosure: I'm in the "plastered everywhere" camp.) — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Given current consensus (or lack thereof), in the case of an otherwise empty talk page, I think adding talkheader is the Wrong Thing, and pages containing only talkheader should be deleted. (Note: This is my interpretation of current consensus, not my personally opinion on when talkheader should be used.) — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the reason this template gets added to pages where some people would rather not have it added is because some other people want it on more pages. Adding bigger and bigger warnings to the template documentation is not going to fix that. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All articles' talk pages need the talk header template. The articles here on Wikipedia are read by millions of people daily and the majority of them are not so familiar with Internet and Wikipedia. They do not know what a "discussion page" is and how to use it. There are so many talk pages where people post their comments without writing the section, and this template can help. A bot that automatically adds the template to every talk pages that do not contain this template should be a great idea! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR WIKIPEDIANS... IT'S FOR ALL!!! Remember that! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A bot that added this template to every page would be a bad idea. It's the wrong tech solution -- if consensus is every talk page needs this banner, it should be made a MediaWiki Message or an editnotice.  It's also against consensus -- while we don't have universal agreement on when this template should or should not be used, there's a sort of meta-consensus that lacking such agreement, it should remain a human judgment call.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'm proposing merging Notaforum with this template. I can't imagine a situation where one would be desired and the other wouldn't, and the message given by Notaforum is unambiguous and directive, just as the other points in this template are. I don't see a real need to have two separate templates. — Ω (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm don't really feel strongly enough to say I'm for or against the idea, but I will make an observation: It seems that gets used when "general discussion" is a particular problem a given talk page suffers from.  For example, see the Talk:Kid Nation mentioned in the docs for .  The major problem there was apparently lots of people talking about the supposed legality of the show.  Apparently, none of the other things  addresses were a big issue.  Hence that particular use of the template.  I've also seen  used with, presumably to emphasize the not-a-forum aspect.  So they may serve a useful purpose separately.   YMMV. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox sync
Requesting sync with the sandbox to add a new  parameter for WikiProject talk pages, as per the merge discussed at Template talk:WikiProject talkheader. Test cases at the bottom of /testcases. No impact to existing deployments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Update to /doc page requested
Would someone who is very familiar with the optional parameters for this template please add a "Full syntax" box under the "Usage" section? This would be consistent with other template /doc pages and would help explain how to use this template without having to read through several paragraphs of instructions, in order to find out what the possibilities are for its usage. Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of td template
editprotected Could the copy in the be copied over to live. The change is so that the td template is no longer used by this template as the code is now used directly. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Making Talkhead a Talk-space editnotice?
Rather than tag every last talk page with this, wouldn't it be more efficient to make this a namespace-wide edit notice? Also consider that it would reduce the clutter at the top of the talk page. @harej 18:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I correct in assuming that an edit-notice will only appear when the page is edited? What about those who are only there to read? -- &oelig; &trade; 03:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - and an important function of talkheader is to give newbies information before they click "edit". Also the template isn't supposed to appear on every page; and it can be hidden per user account. I think there are two perennial proposals for talkheader: make it an edit notice, and delete it! Rd232 talk 08:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither are on Perennial proposals. @harej 10:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack, sorry, didn't mean to imply that they were; it was an analogy. Or possibly a disguised proposal (to add them). Rd232 talk 10:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't tag every talk page with this tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you got rid of this, you'd need to add archiveboxes to a whole lot of talk pages, since many of them don't have them, and use the automated archived talk page lister in this template... and some editors even remove the archive box and instead use this template (which I think is a bad idea... since it can't list nonstandard locations, talk archives from merged articles, or give any info about the archives...) 76.66.197.30 (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Modify
We should at least get rid of duplicated MediaWiki:Talkpagetext


 * Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC).


 * Really? Newbies (mostly) have such trouble with this concept, there seems no harm in telling them twice (once before they click Edit This Page). Also deleting that line won't make the template any smaller in the current design. Rd232 talk 23:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Redundancy is beneficial when it comes to educating newbies. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of code work
Have a look at the sandbox and test cases pages: I've done a lot of work in removing the "lots of nested tables" look to bring this in line with other tmbox templates. If there are no objections I'll see about getting this synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that you put a lot of work into it. Personally, I think I prefer the separate boxes with the different background colors and contrasting divisions between each box that the template is currently using though. Visually it separates the sections whereas the combined version in the sandbox doesn't really do that. User talk header is kinda the same way. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Template:Talk header/sandbox: Visually distinguishing the sections is important for skimmability. All one colour also makes it look more like a banner ad - a skippable block. Rd232 talk 17:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think that is exactly what I found was "off" about it from an aesthetic sense. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's trivial to re-add colour blocks if they're required without having to physically structure the template as a series of nested tables. Have a look at the current sandbox, which contains a trivial change to approximate the old look. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That works much better from a visual standpoint. Do any of the other talk page templates use an outer white border the way the current version of talk header does? While I think that white border helps make it stand out, dropping that may actually help with the adoption of this template since it might look less out of place alongside other talk page templates. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The only other talk page template in heavy use is usertalkheader to my knowledge, and that's next on my list after I'm done here (it shouldn't be difficult to subclass it here). The styling here predates tmbox standardisation; it wasn't a deliberate decision to make the template stand out against other headers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So: thoughts? I think the current sandbox is good to go as a replacement for the existing code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * editprotected Requesting sync with sandbox: significant cleanup and simplification of code which also helps make this template less incongruous with other headers while still standing out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Thanks a lot for this work, I'd been meaning to do it myself for a long time. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk header merge work
editprotected

Sandbox contains a merged version of this and user talk header, which uses namespace detection to automatically switch to the user talk banner format when needed. This also means that user talk header picks up on some of our cooler features, such as archiving and search, for free. No impact to current talk header deployments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for your work here.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  19:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want that
Can you please revert the above edit? I don't want the crap starting with "This is a Wikipedia user talk page." like the top of my talk page has now. I just want the Talk page guidelines/links. Reywas92 Talk 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edit. While merging the templates might be a good idea, it doesn't seem reasonable to force this on every user using this template. Perhaps a parameter can be used to switch it on? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * done. There's now a  to turn this on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One last sync required to fix appearance on user talk pages without . Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check my simplified code. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That ParserFunction code is a little hairy for me, but it seems to work fine. :) Go for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

search won't work in a name with an apostrophe
Try searching "issues" in Talk:Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell. The template uses the HTML encoding of the apostrophe character instead of the character itself.

It uses this search string:


 * issues prefix:Talk:Stanley Meyer&amp;#39;s water fuel cell/

it should use instead:


 * issues prefix:Talk:Stanley Meyer ' s water fuel cell/

The first one doesn't work, the second one does. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, yah, I see this too. Playing around a little, it appears that when  is just used bare on the page, it works properly, but when  is placed inside  (which is how talkheader creates the search box), the apostrophe gets HTML entity encoded.  I dunno if this is a bug in the InputBox extension, or a MediaWiki bug that InputBox is tripping over.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you try the sandbox version, Talk header/sandbox? I think I fixed the problem.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  05:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just tested it and it works :) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, I updated the template. Let me know if there is a problem. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkbottom
Per Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_11, I have merged Talkbottom with this template. There may be a more elegant way to do this, or it may be entirely unnecessary. Feel free to discuss further, and/or revert my edit if there is a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I feel it's redundant with "Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.", and as such, might be a case of needless complexity, but I have no strong objection. Seems to work okay in my testing. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 11:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The number of articles talkbottom was used was very small. I think it's redundant too. I already said that in the TfD. Apart from that the implementation seems ok. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's best to just remove it? Or merge the text with the other bulleted text in the main box? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to consider this functionality to be unimportant. If I still feel that way when next I pass I'll propose removing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's remove it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)