Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout/Archive 2

RfC on promotion to guideline
The brainstorming phase is over, and whatever tweak on this can be made through additional discussion as with any other guideline. I say we promote it to guideline.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Update  Someone suggested it should be an "infopage" (see infopage) instead of a "guideline". I was not aware of this option, and this may be more reflective of what exactly we aim to achieve here.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose A solution in search of a problem.  Making it a guideline would not actually improve anything (which is the first requirement for any guideline). Collect (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. It would enable bot assisted cleanup on talk pages. Having well-structured talk pages makes it easier to engage in discussion, and is far less intimidating to newcomers. There shouldn't be any talk pages with 10 fully expanded WikiProject Banners instead of having them in a WPB, nor any articles with 6 AFD templates instead of having them in a articlehistory. Making things more accessible is the biggest improvement one could strive for.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need a guideline to cleanup/merge talkpage banners. --Farix (Talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mild Oppose I have a lack of enthusiasm because I see it mainly as creep. (My biggest layout concern about talk pages is about editors who do not properly indent, but we already have a policy for that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. This will help us reorganise talk pages and do some cleanup there. We have to sort an order for banners, templates, categories, etc. Right now admin categories are places randomly in the code. I also gave an example above that makes policy a neccecity: -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support infopage. It turns out that this is much better idea and avoids CREEP. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got to oppose right now; this is still a little immature to foist upon the community. Might this RfC be morphed into a general call for more opinions, as opposed to a referendum? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose. I don't think this needs to be so strongly codified as to call it a guideline, at least at this point in time.  It's too much of a detail-rule for a project that tries to avoid being a bureaucracy.  See WP:CREEP for the full treatment.  • I do think this idea is at least worth calling some attention to, though.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support infopage, though. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet I have not seen a case where this is needed... Per, it seems like a solution in search of a problem. --Falcorian (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See here, here, here, here, and here for examples. Some are well-structured others not so much. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then be bold and merge the banners that can be merged and discuss removing the "excessive" banners you think does not belong. The simple fact is, there is no need for this guideline, which serves no other purpose but to add to WP:CREEP. --Farix (Talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I have no problem with this in and of itself, but I don't think it needs to be a guideline to accomplish what it sets out to do. If we had another level called "recommendations" (more bureaucracy! =O ) between essays and guidelines, though, I'd support that. I'd support an Infopage designation, though. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose A solution looking for a nonexistent problem. This should not be a guideline. --Farix (Talk) 19:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it does not appear to be a problem across a wide range of pages. I don't see any reason to add guideline for something that really isn't a problem.  If there are bad talk pages, I think the solution is to be bold and fix them rather than creating more rules.  A new name 2008 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT - Labeling it as an informal . -- &oelig; &trade; 02:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no need, some of it does not reflect established practice, solution in seek of a problem that doesn't exist, instruction creep. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Infopage designation. Avoids the WP:CREEP while allowing bots etc. to do acceptable cleanup. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would just be another invented rule. How to handle the array of stuff (mostly useless) that currently blight the top of many talk pages is better dealt with on those individual talk pages - or, as in most cases, simply ignored. If it it really bothers you on some page you visit, then clean it up. Otherwise, it does no harm. I would also be concerned about the level of "consensus" behind this proposal. It looks like only two or three editors edited the proposal. Where is the basis in current practice for their decisions? Leave it run for a while and get wider input - it may take time, maybe a year, but if the proposers really want this, it will pay off for them in the end. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a guideline; Support as an infopage.  hmwith  τ   17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a guideline. Support as an infopage. :) Protonk (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as an infopage. It would be a nearly impossible guideline to uphold. – Turian   talk  12:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only way this would be needful is if editors are purposely undoing cleanup of talk pages. There is nothing stopping people cleaning up talk pages, and no guideline is needed to support those who want to do such things. Yob  Mod  18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I do support this as a guideline(as this will allow for general exceptions), but I do not support this becoming a policy. As there are currently several talkpage layouts (each depending on editor's tastes), I would suggest that the guideline be broken up to better recognize each of these layouts. In the event the guideline vote fails, I do still support this as an infopage. Smallman12q (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could be considered a supplement to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines?Smallman12q (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As this is a page describing layout, please consider adding pictures & diagrams.Smallman12q (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose both infopage and guideline. An infopage is taken by some to be something that has very neutral statements and reasonably strong consensus. The part about 'ordering' is instructional creep. This needs to be turned into a bot proposal.    M   04:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Project Banner Shells Update
Some folks over at WPB have been very busy. On 31 May 2009 the programming for WPB was changed so that it now calls WPBS with collapsedyes. What this means is if there were things that WPB did that you liked but WPBS did not do, those things are no longer done.

Note that this was a change in programming so no formal approval was needed. Note also that it has been done and there is probably no way to get it undone.

Now for the really bad news -- When it was proposed that a bot run through all the pages with a shell and affix the correct shell I type a summary of the number of banners that should require either shell. Unfortunately, instead of typing ">=3" for WPBS, I typed "<=3" and the bot owner picked up on that so that if there are more that five banners WPB (actually WPBS with collapsedyes) will be applied and if there are two or three banners WPBS will be applied.

I screwed up. I do not know how to fix the results of my error. I apologize.
 * JimCubb (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Did it start already? I think it's obvious that the code should be: MANY templates then COLLAPSE. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And the merge was very careful to ensure that all previous options were supported as well, so I'm not sure what the third sentence means. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. Mergin of these templates is not bad news but good news. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for misstating the situation. What I meant to write, and did write on the shell talk page, was that I had originally summarized the guideline as "three or fewer banners, use WPBS" so that four or five banners could take either shell. The guideline is Now the good news is that I typed the above three lines on the shell talk page in time for the bot's logic to be changed. It was always the plan to leave shells that were already collapsed as collapsed. If there were only two banners in a collapsed shell on a page their shell is still collapsed. However if there were nine banners in no shell or in an uncollapsed shell they are now in a collapsed shell and the TOC should be visible.
 * If there are six or more banners use WPB (which is equivalent to WPBS with collapsedyes), else
 * If there are three or more banners use WPBS with no collapsed, else
 * Use no shell.

I am almost certain that the bot run is done. Talk pages are much less cluttered almost everywhere. (The only WP Biog articles that do not have three project banners are probably not notable enough to have an article but that is another discussion.)
 * JimCubb (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite wrong. The consensus at Template talk:WPBS (in which you participated) was what you say you originally summarized, and that's what AnomieBOT did; it did not do anything resembling your three bullet points, and in particular the only way it will ever remove a shell is if the shell contains zero banners. The bot run is done, but it did not go over all 100000 pages transcluding a banner shell, just the 14000 or so that were in Category:WikiProject banner shells with deprecated parameters. The other 86000 will get incrementally changed as AnomieBOT or other participating bots (if any) edit those talk pages for other reasons. Also, pages using WPB that had three or fewer banners were changed to WPBS; the only ones not changed were those explicitly using the  parameter rather than relying on the default behavior of either WPB or WPBS. AnomieBOT also did not even attempt to go through pages without a shell to add one, and chances are it will never do that even on pages it edits for other reasons. Anomie⚔ 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Article history
If interested, please see this discussion on whether the article history should be uncollapsed by default (and collapsed only when necessary). —Noisalt (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus for infopage or not?
From the discussion above I understoood that:
 * The majority of editors think this should be an infopage
 * Almost all think that the rules described are obvious i.e. they have consensus.

This means that this is an infopage and not just an essay. Or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Same here. Either infopage or Supplement, but certainly not essay. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support either infopage or supplement, without bias towards one or the other. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving to bottom discussions revived after a long time?
If somebody adds something new in a year old discussion it is easy to miss unless you look at history. Is it ok to move a section to the bottom in this situation? Edkollin (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronological Ordering of Section Creation
I think main topics/sections should appear at the top of the page. Discussions within topics/sections of course will have their own chronologies. I will learn more about archiving since very short article discussion pages present no problems but long ones do need to be cleaned up at least once a year (of course a archive record should be available). Perhaps a date can be set and displayed for the next cleanup/wipe "clean slate" of a discussion page. I don't see old discussions as that valuable unless marked as such. Codwiki (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No need for that level of specificity IMO, especially since it's not very much related to talk page layout. If stuff is better archived, then archive it. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A bad example
Too much stuff in an empty page -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Are talk pages the new playground?
shows that there isn't much control on the templates that added in talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to revert if you think it's ridiculous. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Already did. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot to add banner shells to talk pages
There is an open bot request for approval which seeks approval to add WikiProjectBannerShell to talk pages with four or more banners and at least one header. Any comments would be appreciated: Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot Mk V 2. – xeno talk 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on archiving some low-value templates
Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines  SilkTork  *YES! 18:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this an information page?
The page contains guidance and advice rather than hard information. It can be consulted by others who may then decide to follow the guidance or not. Its declared aim is to "identify good layout practices and make general recommendations", which is not providing information. And this page does not really have "widespread communal agreement as a neutral statement describing some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices". I think it would be inappropriate to misrepresent this page - statements that include the phrase "should be" are not information, but are "opinions or advice". I recommend placing a guidance essay tag on the page, which more accurately informs people of the intention and status of this page, plus giving advice on how readers may judge the overall consensus of the opinions and statements here.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an infopage. This page complements WP:LAYOUT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Find tag
The find tag is becoming quite popular and is generally placed below all the other tags. Would others agree that recommending placing find below maintained and above archives is appropriate?  SilkTork  *YES! 11:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree and I've added it, however Findsourcesnotice should be used to maintain the message box style. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Project banner ordering
Is there a prescribed order for WikiProject banners? I generally implement them in the order of most applicable, others do so in an alphabetical manner, and some don't have any ordering as far as I can tell. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Most applicable imo, but often things are done in a haphazard way. The only real rule is that the BLP warning should be at the top if present. – xeno talk 02:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Notaforum vs blp
As far as I understand we want blp to be above Notaforum and we want the latter to be above WikiProject banners. What we do if we have WikiProjectBannerShell with blp attached?

Check also my FR in AWB and raise your opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think "notaforum" makes more sense below the banners, closer to the actual "talk" where forumy-type stuff would occur. – xeno talk 14:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Do you suggest that we change put point 4 (notaforum, RecurringThemes, FAQ, Round In Circles, etc.) after point 6 (banners)? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Kindasorta. – xeno talk 14:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I personnally like the idea of moving this template to the top of the article directly below talk as well, I personally think that readers are prone to seeing the top or bottom of the stuff at the top of the talk page and they are less inclined to read through all the templates and banners in the middle. Especially less experienced editors or casual readers with an opinion on the topic. Since Talk page layout is just an info paper and not a "policy" the rules about what we can and cant do are alittle more flexible but whatever we do we should also update this documentation. As a side note, this template could also be merged into Talk header as a parameter thereby eliminating another limited use template. Per Jarrys template use counter] there are only 2177 transclutions of notaforum of which at least 520 (AWB will only allow me to pull in the first 25000 talk header articles so its likely higher) already have both the talk header and the Notaforum templates. Im not trying to turn this into a conversation about the use or non use of talk header I just wanted to point that out. --Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really like the idea of adding notaforum as a talkheader parameter, but also do not want the standalone notaforum template to be deleted as a result, because it would deny the user the option of placement, and placement of that notice really depends on the number and arrangement of the other banners on the page, as well as the amount/severity of "forum-chat" going on. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Non WikiProject Banner templates appearing inside wikiprojectbannershell
I have encountered several cases were talk page templates (other than WikiProject banner templates), were added inside the WPBS template. For the most part I dont really care personally if they are or not but I have a couple comments about this behavior:
 * 1) I think we need to determine which should and should not be allowed to reside in the WPBS. Although I have seen Talk header, DYK, Article history, Maintained and others in there I believe they should not be. The templates for Image needed, Infobox needed or the like are ok in my opinion though.
 * 2) If these templates are allowed to reside inside the WPBS template I believe they should be at the bottom below the WP templates.

On a seperate but related issue:
 * 1) With the Persondata being populated by bot and AWB logic now the need to have a {{para|persondata-needed} will soon be deprecated. I think we should start compiling a list of the WikiProjects that use it and be prepared to recommend to each of them that the parameter be eliminated from the code of their respective WikiProject Banners. --Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WPBS is for wikiproject banners exclusively. Other banners should stay out of it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion on point 1 should be done in Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell and on point 3 in WikiProject Biography. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominations
Where should nomination templates like GA nominee go? Looking around quickly, it looks like they're typically inserted either at the very top or just below the skip to talk template. Anybody feel like making it a formal decision and adding it to the article? (Or is is there somewhere and I'm just blind?) – RobinHood70 talk 08:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, you got it right. I added it to the list. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Question on where the tempate Image Requested should go
Traditionally, I've seen the template Image requested go after the WikiProject Banners. I looked at talk page layout and it doesn't mention where. What is the "official" policy on where the template should go? Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally directly after WikiProject banners. But if a WikiProject template has its own image request parameter use that one instead. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * , - I've updated the page with this info.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Translated page
Where does go the translated page template? Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It goes after the banners. Personally, I put it right after the first banner and before any image or infobox requested.  But, that is not "law", just my preference. Bgwhite (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkpages that only have banners or are redirects - indicator userscript
See User:Anomie/talklink. I've tested in Vector, and really like it.

Talkpages that are empty or only have templates on them, have orange Talk tab labels. Talkpages that are redirects have green Talk tab labels (changeable in your css). So good and useful. (Someone asked a related question in VPmisc, which reminded me of this script, and I thought it worth mentioning here). –Quiddity (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Nominee placement
Do you think GA Nominee should be place above or below Talk header? Right now the page says GA Nom should be above Talk header but into my eyes changing so that TH is always at the top looks better. I also take under consideration that at some point we discussed merging Skip to talk into Talk header. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Any disagreements if I move it after talk header? GoingBatty? Bgwhite? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with moving GA nominee under Talk header or leaving it as is. (My concern was that AWB was moving WikiProjectBannerShell above GA nominee.)  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No objections either way. As a GAN tag is, at least in theory, a temporary tag, it won't matter in the long run where it is at. I know this is primarily for bot purposes. I see humans doing the status quo. Bgwhite (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

OK I moved since it makes much more sense taking under consideration that skip to talk is like an extension to talk header and that GA Nom still goes up the banners and the WPBS. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am returning this to the status quo for the time being. Unless there is some benefit to be derived from changing a long standing convention, it should not be done. You will now get humans placing the temporary tag on the top because that's the way it has always been done, and then a bot or semi-automated edit coming along and making a edit to move it, creating a needless watchlist alert. Unless there is a problem there is no need to go looking for a solution that then creates a problem. If there is a still a feeling that the tag needs to be moved, then open a wider discussion, and gain an appropriate consensus.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 9 months later you reverted an edit that was done after discussion. I do not think this is right. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll open a new discussion below, as the placement of the GA template also needs clarifying.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead should be edited
"This Wikipedia guide to talk page layout is an annotated..." Articles shouldn't start with "this wikipedia guide". It can be made better.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 11:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes
There are some oddities: The GA notice currently goes above high priority notices. This should not be the case. A GA listing should, like a FA listing, go below priority listings in the same place as the article history. If there is an article history, the listing should be in the article history. Vital article is essentially a project tag (it is an internal activity: "Some Wikipedia editors feel this article topic is important"), so should go in the WikiProject template. Internal activities such as DYK, On this day, etc, go in Article history - there are parameters for them in the template.
 * GA listing
 * Vital article
 * "article milestone"

The GA listing just below the talkheader is a long established convention that needs discussion, and I'll open that below, inviting GA editors to take part. The other two are recent, so I'll change them now, and if there is disagreement we can open a discussion about them as well.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Vital article
I think Vital article should not put inside WPBS since I do not think we should hide it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry for reverting but the change was agreed with more editors at User_talk:Josve05a/Archives/2014/May after their suggestion. I'll ask them to participate. Thanks again for starting the thread. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is nowhere written that Vital article is a WikiProject, it does not follow standard convention, its banner is smaller than the WikiProject ones. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * is a WikiProject, is however not. Therefor I don't think it should be placed inside a WPBS.  (and other WikiProjet-templates) are ment to "refer" people to the WIkiProject, when  has *no* link to a WIkiProject, and is only saying that that article is "vital" to Wikipedia. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 10:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * is not built around, but plus . It ignores the classes used by /, and so is not collapsed by those wrappers. Whilst  will hide it, that is true of almost anything wrapped by  and doesn't mean that  may be placed inside . -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Templates such as and  seem to fall in the same category as. Maybe a similar solution can be found for all of these? – Editør (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These two templates, despite the similarity of names, are very different inside. is a table plus two transclusions of the  template - again, not a WikiProject banner, so should not be enclosed by either  or . However,  is built around, linking to Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team, so may safely be enclosed in /. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Was there any resolution to this discussion? No one responded to, , or , but WP:TPL still says to place in /. Malerisch (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To my mind, anything that doesn't collapse (or change its appearance in some other manner) when enclosed by doesn't belong inside it, and therefore not inside  either. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Split & merge
Shouln't, , &  be placed under #8 (*Any* "article history")? (t) Josve05a  (c) 10:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder with there is a"-" in one of the two. This should be both or none. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

GA banners
Currently the GA listing talkpage banner goes directly under the talkheader banner, placing it above priority notices, such as discretionary sanctions. It seems more appropriate that guidance should be that the GA listing banner goes in the same place as other internal article milestone banners - either within Article history, or if that template is not yet on the talkpage, in the place where Article history would be.

Currently the GAN or GAR template goes below the talkheader banner, previously it was placed above the banner as it is a temporary banner. The FAC banner is also a temporary banner and that goes at the top of the page. When an article is undergoing a GAN or FAC, that is currently the most interesting/important aspect for editors of the article, and it seems appropriate that the banner should remain at the top. This also means that when the banner is placed, there is no need to search for the right place in the list, nor to disturb the existing listing.

Notifying the GA project, as this discussion may be of interest there.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There was no positive (or negative) response for 3 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Article history templates
Is it really "descriptive of common practice" to say article history type templates go above the WikiProject templates. While I don't very much care, this is directly opposite of what I have always seen done (including even the sandbox example here!) (The AH template itself may have generally gone above since it usually includes a GA/FA, but not so much the ITN/DYK/OTD templates.)  Indeed, the DYK bot puts the DYK banner below the WikiProjects and I believe always has in its many year history. Seems to me this is purely prescriptive advice decided by editors here at some point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark, ThaddeusB what about moving the entire group of "FailedGA", "Old prod", "Old prod full", "Oldprodfull", "Afd-merged-from", "Old AfD multi", "Old AfD", "Oldafdfull ", "Old peer review", "Copied" after banners then? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of best-selling music artists
I've already asked someone about this once and they said it wasn't possible, but there any way the banners of this talk page can be made more concise? I doubt anyone can be bothered to read all of them. &mdash;George8211 / T 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you make this so convoluted???
Okay, seriously. I have spent 30 minutes trying to figure out how to make a comment to this Talk page: Talk:Messer_%28weapon%29.

As far as I can tell, there is NO, "Click here to start a new topic." button.

Then it took me a bunch more time to figure out that this Talk page was not like the others and to find the directions to post to one.

For novice editors, such as myself, this is quite tedious. Why not just have a Facebook-like interface? Click in a comment box, type in a comment, and hit post.

If you guys really want more participation--and donors--you need to streamline the process. I'm not likely to donate or volunteer when I can't help out with a lot of aggravation.

Another example of odd, convoluted protocols is signing one's name with four tildes. Really? I'm logged in, why not just have the program auto-sign it? Mithalwulf (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "this Talk page was not like the others", since the discussion page Talk:Messer (weapon) is no different from most others. You start a new thread by using the "New section" tab at the top; you reply to an existing thread by using the "[edit]" link to the right of the relevant section heading. It's covered at Help:Using talk pages, also Talk page guidelines. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The "commenting system" (or lack thereof) really is an obvious problem with these wikis, but a possible solution is on the way: Flow. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will give some specific examples.
 * First, "New Section" is opaque. How would a novice know, intuitively, that "New Section" means, "Comment"? To me, it would mean, here is a new sub-section of information on the subject itself -- and not on the ongoing discussion/talk pages. Second, in a hierarchical and intuitive structure, "New Section" should at least be down one row, so that it follows that this is a "new section" under the Talk tab. Third, this is what I read on the Help Talk Page: "To discuss a new topic, start a new section by going to a new line and typing a title like this: == Heading ==, replacing "Heading" with a suitable title for the topic you wish to raise." No where does that day, "Hey, Dummy, click on the tab that says New Section, which is three over from the talk button." That's a pretty big gap from someone totally unfamiliar with this sort of format. Fourth, some of the pages *are* different in layout, which adds to the confusion. For example, if you go to a random page, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squirrel, there is a link that says, "Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic." This is clear and helpful, but the Messer page lacks this link. Mithalwulf (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This page is specially about the layout of talk pages. For how to use them, you want Help:Using talk pages, specifically Help:Using talk pages. However, I agree that this is currently confusing and not very user friendly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've clarified things on the page . Is the current version clearer? Also, I don't see what's the difference with Talk:Messer (weapon) from any other talk pages on Wikipedia. Could you explain what's different about that one? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's the talkheader banner, it's typically only used on talk pages that are particularly active or popular among new/unregistered users. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)