Wikipedia talk:Avoid using WikiProject talk page templates

WikiProject templates is NOT a recent trend
It seems to me that the use of adding WikiProject banner advertising templates to talk pages has been practiced for over two years:


 * The first time WikiProject templates were added to Template messages occurred on 18 February 2004 These were early version of these kinds of templates when we were still using the "msg" namespace instead of the "template" namespace.
 * Template:WikiProjectNotice, the standard model for WikiProject banner advertising templates, was first created on 8 September 2004
 * It is mentioned when WikiProject/Best practices was first created on 11 August 2004

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - so they're not recent. They still need to die. --SPUI (T - C) 06:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * Strongest possible oppose The situations where an article does NOT have a talk page is getting rarer and rarer. These templates help to build the community and help editors find articles that they may be able to improve. --InShaneee 03:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No shit - these situations are getting rarer because the WikiProjects keep spamming them. --SPUI (T - C) 06:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious categorical oppose. This will kill the entire concept of WikiProjects as we know it, as there will no longer be any effective way of recruiting new editors to the project.  (Not to mention that a number of projects are doing various functional things with the templates, like using them to store article assessments.) Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * An article assessment is discussion on a talk page. But a simple template does nothing of the sort - it's simply an annoyance. --SPUI (T - C) 06:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would hesitate to call a simple letter code stating the quality of the article "discussion". Kirill Lokshin 16:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you know how I realized there was discussion here (rather than on the main page under discussion)? Because the tab was blue. --SPUI (T - C) 06:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Annoying? Yes. But useful? Yes. — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not useful enough to outweigh the loss of utility in the tab color. --SPUI (T - C) 07:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My first question is how big is the problem that is being discussed. Does every single Wikiproject do it now? I came across a few today while nuking images, I just see them as empty pages need nuking. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Most highway projects have been doing it, as well as some states. I've come across talk pages with 2-3 of these and nothing else. --SPUI (T - C) 07:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty much every active WikiProject does it; pretty much every inactive one does not. Care to guess at the relationship between level of project activity and ability to advertise the project? Kirill Lokshin 16:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my compromise: WikiProject templates in the talkspace are permitted as long as at least one bit of conversation is posted there. That way, the WikiProjects can have their templates, and SPUI (and others) can utilize the color function. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 07:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I guess then it would be an expansion of the CSD; and db-empty. --SPUI (T - C) 07:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an expansion of CSD G8 (db-talk)?—Scott5114↗ 08:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not much of a compromise, considering how few talk pages actually have meaningful discussion on them. In most cases, a link to a WikiProject is more useful than having nothing at all. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility would be a separate "metadata" page and tab for this sort of stuff. That would take some developer work though. --SPUI (T - C) 07:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't necessarily think it's productive for editors to spam talk pages that have no traffic, but I also don't see how "I need my red tabs" is an important issue. I'd support general guidelines saying that it's a good idea to avoid putting multiple wikiproject adverts on one talk page (eg. keep only the most specific one), and that it's a good idea to avoid putting adverts on non-existent talk pages. But I don't think it's an important enough issue to have enforcable rules or to amend CSD over. --Interiot 08:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, having to add the tags is annoying (I usually forget) and screws up the red/blue tab convention.—Scott5114↗ 08:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, what does your first comment have to do with anything? It's not like you're obligated to add the tags; there are plenty of other people willing to do it for you. Kirill Lokshin 16:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I don't understand why it is even slightly important to know if there has been discussion on a page before. This isn't mentioned in the proposal. If I want to post a comment, I do so whether it is red or not. I don't care if some kid once added some "naughty words" to a talk page and turned the tab blue. What does this red/blue thing even tell you?

What I DO think is very important is that tens of thousands of talk pages on Wikipedia now provide valuable information to users on relevant WikiProjects, status of the article (failed WP:FAC etc.). Where should this information go, if not on the talk page? Walkerma 17:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Kirill Lokshin's comments in his vote above. Also I think that there are some articles which simply cannot be reduced down to one wikiproject given the diverse nature of the subject matter of the article and the more focused and specific nature of wikiprojects in general. I see no reason to have to make a jugement call on which project is "more" important in each case and I doubt this could be done in a satisfactory manner in many cases. --Chris Brennan 17:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as an inconvenience at most. Consider filing a feature request to display the number of discussion edits in the tab itself. GChriss 22:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the number of sections? Since the tags are always placed in section 0, that'll give a better estimate if multiple edits have been made to the tags themselves. Kirill Lokshin 22:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Unless Article validation is turned on (and how long has that been under development?), the entire WP:1.0/I project would be halted because someone is annoyed at the [lack of] color of a tab. Gee. If you've got something important to say, I hope a red tab doesn't stop you. There's no benefit to this proposal, as many editors find these useful. For an example, see Tropical Storm Leslie (2000): The article was created from a redirect,, then it got the hurricane template added to its talk page  , which caused Mathbot to log its creation,  which then started a discussion by making it visible. So, are these things evil, still? Tito xd (?!?) 00:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Stong Oppose. They are most usefull. They support the article validation scheme which is beginning to get legs and they bring new editors to the relevant project pages where they learn to be better editors by understanding the way project members have reached consenesus on a large variety of matters. --Bduke 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose You say, One can no longer find out if there is discussion on a talk page from the color of the "discussion" tab. Why is it important to find out if there is a discussion on a page. And btw, imho, the template itself is enough discussion. --Gurubrahma 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I think the advantage far outweighs this disadvantage. Especially as they're being used by Projects to help categorize articles by quality and importance like MilHist and am not seeing why it's important to know if there's a discussion going on or not -plange 23:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, this sounds like you'd also oppose putting talkheader for the same reasons, even though this is helping people to know how to start discussions and how to sign comments (things that newbies do not inherently know.-plange 00:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER  (TALK) 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Messedrocker. I will create a talk page template for the new NJ State Route WikiProject, but I will only put it on articles that already have discussion on their talk pages. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The templates are useful for categorisation, article rating, ... That far outweighs the disadvantage of talk page red/blue-linking. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose IMHO, the project tag is discussion.  TheronJ 14:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My take here is no one except maybe SPUI thinks this is an actual issue important enough to want to stop tagging articles. Oppose all variants on this proposal and put this to bed. ++Lar: t/c 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The templates are vital to WikiProjects. Other technical solutions may be possible (meta suggested above, my suggestion below). --kingboyk 22:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A thought...
Why not leave this an essay, and phrase it along the lines of "Please don't add WikiProject templates to empty talk pages." Seems like a simple enough thing, and I don't see why this needs the force of policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Project templates not only help recruit editors, but it also helps assess articles on quality and importance, a function that is needed on articles without discussion as well. Plus what about talkheaders? They go on blank discussion pages and serve a very useful function for newbies. plange 14:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree on talkheader. I proposed putting similar text into the Mediawiki message, but nothing happened. My bad I guess. --kingboyk 21:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The loss of a redlink is such a minor, even trivial, loss compared to the gain of knowing what the rating for quality and importance is that I really can't see even this compromise as a good idea, much less the original suggestion. Strong oppose and suggest this essay be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not consider this to be a "serious flaw". However, even if it were, the injunction should be to avoid putting templates like Template:Talkheader and other WikiProject templates on a talk page until after a discussion has been started on that talk page.

- 	: --Richard 06:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A simple solution
Have the developers make the discussion tab a different colour - perhaps green - if the only contents of a talk page are transcluded templates. Everyone's a winner! --kingboyk 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That or just have subpages along the lines of /meta on the Talk: page with the relevant templates and a notice at the top. Kamryn Matika 00:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)