![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Is it permitted for the talkheader code to be placed on my wikimedia "meta-wiki" user talkpage which would say this, the links i've changed because of it being on the wikimedia site and not wikipedia, but am i allowed to have it on, if so could you leave a message on my user talk via this Link which will lead to my userpage on meta-wiki. SKYNET X7000 ( talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[template code removed]
On the draft, Jake the Editor Man changed "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject" to "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject, much less anything else". While I agree with the sentiment, I believe past discussion (here, and at the TfDs) shows a clear consensus for keeping this template as concise as possible, and that addition would make that line long enough to almost always wrap. • I'm also not sure how productive it really would be to put it in, though that's just a comment, not an objection. • If people think I'm off-base in my interpretation of consensus, by all means add it to the draft again, and/or comment here. Thanks! — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Having been looking for a template to post on a messy article talk page frequented by loads of what I assume are IP newbies it's good to find this template. However it's missing a comment about indenting replies, such as Please indent replies using a colon - : Your reply ~~~~
-- John (
Daytona2 ·
Talk ·
Contribs)
20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If you take a look at the draft page, I moved the "not a forum" line inside the box, where a free line was already available. This way it doesn't heighten the box at all. Please check it out. Note that this line doesn't normally appear anywhere but on article talk pages, so I also added the text explicitly so it would appear on the draft page. Take a look at an article talk page (like Talk:I Am Legend (film) to see how it normally appears right now -- notice the extra line that currently gets created in the topmost section of the template. This change eliminates that extra line. Equazcion •✗/ C • 09:26, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
The Talkheader is centrally aligned. Is there an option somehow to left align it?
If not perhaps extend this template to have that option or create another template TalkheaderLeft and TalkheaderRight? ChessCreator ( talk) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose integrating an archive list into the talkheader template, the same way the Village pump header template does. See the discussion at village pump proposals (try to keep discussion centralized). Thanks. Equazcion •✗/ C • 21:14, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I don't think this is a particularly controversial edit, so unless there's some objection, please replace the current template code with the code at User:Equazcion/sandbox3. This will just place archive links in the template, if any archives exist under the current page. If no archive pages exist, nothing will change. Thanks. See here for an example of what the integrated archive links will look like. Equazcion •✗/ C • 02:08, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have no problem with it per se, but it should be made as an opt-in, as per most template changes, so we don't have drastic changes cross-wiki. Also, for pages with extensive archives, it should be able to be turned off. -- Avi ( talk) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed the problem, and added the opt-out functionality. I created
Talk:Test article as a temporary demonstration. The noarchive
parameter will hide the archive list. Let me know what you think.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 23:09, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I've created a temporary template in the template namespace: {{ talkheader4}} (talkheaders 2 and 3 are redirects). I've begun placing this on a few talk pages that have lots of archive pages, to make for an adequate test. I figure this will be a good trial run, and eventually when the decision is made whether or not to implement the changes, we'll just redirect talkheader4 to the original talkheader. Take a look at some of the pages in this list to see what the changes look like live. I welcome any input. Equazcion •✗/ C • 03:05, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Regarding opt-in vs. opt-out, unless there is good reason, I believe we try to make as minimal visible changes as possible when changing templates. This template must be on hundreds of thousands of pages, to change them all in one fell swoop is not appropriate, in my opinion. -- Avi ( talk) 03:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(<-)I saw you tested it on Talk:Circumcision as well, looks pretty good. -- Avi ( talk) 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Another reason opt-out is important is that there are certain pages where archives are aggregated by topic, and not chronology, so it would be confusing to have to alternate indexing schema on the same page. -- Avi ( talk) 15:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that; however, sometimes the canonically-named archives are wikilinked to the archive boxes in a fashion other than by number, so the opt-out remains a necessary feature, I believe. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
← Thanks John -- I started using that list to post talkheader4 some more. HappyMelon might like to know that Talk:John McCain has non-standard archive names, and posting there shows that the archive line doesn't show up (which is good). Equazcion •✗/ C • 17:47, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Past experience suggests that using #ifexist
to generate a list of subpages might not be a very good idea
[1]
[2]. —
CharlotteWebb
19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
#ifexist
calls) by a factor of roughly 25 for frequently archived pages. Adding this to talkheader would increase the overall number of uses by a much greater factor. So while fewer ifexist would be made per page-load, more would be made overall. Shrug. Seriously though, how many article talk pages have ever been archived? One percent? Maybe less. Checking for archives should be disabled by default. Or just use prefixindex by default, and allow talk pages to be manually switched to the more sophisticated method in the uncommon situation where more than 3 or 4 archives exist. —
CharlotteWebb
21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
talkheader}}
with the contents of {{
talkheader4}}
??
Happy‑
melon
14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion, Perhaps you can add a note to the template documentation regarding the recent change. For example in what scenarios will archives be listed, where and how can they be turned off?. I'm currently interested why Talk:Scotland (for example) doesn't have them listed, while Talk:Adolf Hitler does and i've no desire to wade through that spaghetti of template code! Thanks/ wangi ( talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The namespace #switch produces non-intuitive results when used on a sub-page in "user talk" space, e.g. "This is MaryJo/Sandbox's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to MaryJo/Sandbox". Might want to split these apart with {{SUBPAGENAME}}, {{BASEPAGENAME}} and use them to write something that actually makes sense. — CharlotteWebb 19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This template has earned the respect of many editors for its calming, policy-based approach to editing and discussing articles. It has saved the day many times. One thing missing, though, is the injunction to editors to work at getting consensus for changes. WP:CON is one of the key behavioral policies. I would suggest adding the following to the template: "Editorial decisions are made by consensus." I could see adding this just below the first line that reads "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the XYZ article." It could be preceded by the word "Note." What do you think? Sunray ( talk) 14:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The recommended addition is:
This statement could be added in the top section of the box, just below: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Talkheader page."
In the section with the white background, just above the statement: "Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)."
Many times new editors (and even some that have been around for awhile) are unaware of WP:CON and how it works. It would be helpful in curbing edit wars to be able to refer combatants to the consensus policy in a nutshell (the quote) as a groundrule for talk page discussion. In my experience, this is not a perfect solution since a bunch of editors can gang up to prevent reasonable changes. However, such situations are rarely problematic, and there are other remedies, such as RfC and the dispute resolution process if it does happen.
Because of the importance of consensus for peaceful and productive talk pages, I recommend this addition. Sunray ( talk) 20:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There's strong past consensus to keep this template as compact as possible, so I think adding more verbiage might be a bad call. As an alternative, how about turning the word "discussing" into a hyperlink to Wikipedia:Consensus? My only concern then would be that the text is becoming over-linked. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 03:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it say below instead of under? as in: "Put new text below old text." -- Alexf 42 20:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} To make this less irritating, have it permanently collapsed.
class="messagebox standard-talk collapsible collapsed"
Also, change
<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/?title={{TALKPAGENAMEE}}&action=edit§ion=new Click here to start a new topic]</span>.
to
Click the New section tab to start a new topic.
This is educate new users on how to start new topics on talk pages without this annoying thing on it. LA @ 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
#talkheader {display:none;}
to your
user CSS to hide it from your own display. –
Luna Santin (
talk)
16:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Not done. Please gain consensus for these changes. --- RockMFR 06:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In the draft, I added some CSS magic to make the "New section" text look like the actual tab. I think that might address both the goal making it clickable for people who are confused, as well as teaching people what to look for. I also made the phrasing a bit more concise (at the cost of making it a statement, rather than a command, but that might be a good thing). It's still longer than it was, and longer than the other three always-present lines. Further improving the phrasing might still be possible. It also still suffers from the problem in that the other skins simply don't have tabs at all. Not sure what to do about that. Sufficiently advanced CSS magic might be able to make it vary by skin, but that's beyond my skill. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 18:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
id=ca-addsection
, but I don't know what to do with that. —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist)
18:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)How about making it dismissable? LA ( T) @ 06:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that adding the WikiProject banners into this one might be a good thing. I did some tweaking
here to add it. A few other little things changed, such as all of the borders being collapsed and the background for the big box changes from white to an off-white color, but that is about it. Everything from those two templates has been kept, except that to add the project banners, instead of |1=
it is |WikiBanners=.
I would like to know what you all think. Oh, and even if this isn't accepted, could someone please go through and make sure all of the alpha characters in the color hex codes are made lower case and maybe squeeze out some of the unnecessary spaces in the style declarations?
LA (
T) @
06:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've just seen the archive option of the talkheader template in action and have to say I really don't like it. I knew from the edit history that the talk page had been edited to put the link to the archive in a different place but, even as an experienced editor, it took me a while to spot that link was.
I think the existance of archives needs to be far more prominent than is currently displayed in the talkheader. However, my suggestion isn't to make them more prominent in the template, butto remove the option from the template altogether. Instead, I think dedicated and more visible template such as {{ archivebox}} should be used for this useful and important function. Thanks for listening. GDallimore ( Talk) 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
noarchive=
parameter. So the separate box can be used on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I find that kind of solution ugly, and tending to invite non-harmonious editing, but it's an option. · As for broader scope: Personally, I don't see a clear consensus for having this feature or for removing it. I'd suggest inviting more discussion. Perhaps a post at
the pump, or an
WP:RFC. —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist)
02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)I'd like to suggest de-linking "talk page" in the template. New and unregistered users frequently post off-topic questions and comments on the WP:TALK discussion page (recent examples documented here), and I would guess that many of them have followed that link and then not understood where they were. PSWG1920 ( talk) 00:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see a function added to this that allows users to create customized links to their talk page archives, instead of automatically adding the links only with a standard naming scheme. Personally, I would like to use link to an old revision as my archives. Why? Personal taste, I guess. Any thoughts? -- HoboJones ( talk) 03:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The current "draft" doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Meanwhile, I've started a sandbox at template:talkheader/sandbox, where I'm going to be working on tweaks to this. Does anyone mind if I delete the draft template? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Is it permitted for the talkheader code to be placed on my wikimedia "meta-wiki" user talkpage which would say this, the links i've changed because of it being on the wikimedia site and not wikipedia, but am i allowed to have it on, if so could you leave a message on my user talk via this Link which will lead to my userpage on meta-wiki. SKYNET X7000 ( talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[template code removed]
On the draft, Jake the Editor Man changed "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject" to "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject, much less anything else". While I agree with the sentiment, I believe past discussion (here, and at the TfDs) shows a clear consensus for keeping this template as concise as possible, and that addition would make that line long enough to almost always wrap. • I'm also not sure how productive it really would be to put it in, though that's just a comment, not an objection. • If people think I'm off-base in my interpretation of consensus, by all means add it to the draft again, and/or comment here. Thanks! — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Having been looking for a template to post on a messy article talk page frequented by loads of what I assume are IP newbies it's good to find this template. However it's missing a comment about indenting replies, such as Please indent replies using a colon - : Your reply ~~~~
-- John (
Daytona2 ·
Talk ·
Contribs)
20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If you take a look at the draft page, I moved the "not a forum" line inside the box, where a free line was already available. This way it doesn't heighten the box at all. Please check it out. Note that this line doesn't normally appear anywhere but on article talk pages, so I also added the text explicitly so it would appear on the draft page. Take a look at an article talk page (like Talk:I Am Legend (film) to see how it normally appears right now -- notice the extra line that currently gets created in the topmost section of the template. This change eliminates that extra line. Equazcion •✗/ C • 09:26, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
The Talkheader is centrally aligned. Is there an option somehow to left align it?
If not perhaps extend this template to have that option or create another template TalkheaderLeft and TalkheaderRight? ChessCreator ( talk) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose integrating an archive list into the talkheader template, the same way the Village pump header template does. See the discussion at village pump proposals (try to keep discussion centralized). Thanks. Equazcion •✗/ C • 21:14, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I don't think this is a particularly controversial edit, so unless there's some objection, please replace the current template code with the code at User:Equazcion/sandbox3. This will just place archive links in the template, if any archives exist under the current page. If no archive pages exist, nothing will change. Thanks. See here for an example of what the integrated archive links will look like. Equazcion •✗/ C • 02:08, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have no problem with it per se, but it should be made as an opt-in, as per most template changes, so we don't have drastic changes cross-wiki. Also, for pages with extensive archives, it should be able to be turned off. -- Avi ( talk) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed the problem, and added the opt-out functionality. I created
Talk:Test article as a temporary demonstration. The noarchive
parameter will hide the archive list. Let me know what you think.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 23:09, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I've created a temporary template in the template namespace: {{ talkheader4}} (talkheaders 2 and 3 are redirects). I've begun placing this on a few talk pages that have lots of archive pages, to make for an adequate test. I figure this will be a good trial run, and eventually when the decision is made whether or not to implement the changes, we'll just redirect talkheader4 to the original talkheader. Take a look at some of the pages in this list to see what the changes look like live. I welcome any input. Equazcion •✗/ C • 03:05, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Regarding opt-in vs. opt-out, unless there is good reason, I believe we try to make as minimal visible changes as possible when changing templates. This template must be on hundreds of thousands of pages, to change them all in one fell swoop is not appropriate, in my opinion. -- Avi ( talk) 03:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(<-)I saw you tested it on Talk:Circumcision as well, looks pretty good. -- Avi ( talk) 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Another reason opt-out is important is that there are certain pages where archives are aggregated by topic, and not chronology, so it would be confusing to have to alternate indexing schema on the same page. -- Avi ( talk) 15:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that; however, sometimes the canonically-named archives are wikilinked to the archive boxes in a fashion other than by number, so the opt-out remains a necessary feature, I believe. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
← Thanks John -- I started using that list to post talkheader4 some more. HappyMelon might like to know that Talk:John McCain has non-standard archive names, and posting there shows that the archive line doesn't show up (which is good). Equazcion •✗/ C • 17:47, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Past experience suggests that using #ifexist
to generate a list of subpages might not be a very good idea
[1]
[2]. —
CharlotteWebb
19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
#ifexist
calls) by a factor of roughly 25 for frequently archived pages. Adding this to talkheader would increase the overall number of uses by a much greater factor. So while fewer ifexist would be made per page-load, more would be made overall. Shrug. Seriously though, how many article talk pages have ever been archived? One percent? Maybe less. Checking for archives should be disabled by default. Or just use prefixindex by default, and allow talk pages to be manually switched to the more sophisticated method in the uncommon situation where more than 3 or 4 archives exist. —
CharlotteWebb
21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
talkheader}}
with the contents of {{
talkheader4}}
??
Happy‑
melon
14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion, Perhaps you can add a note to the template documentation regarding the recent change. For example in what scenarios will archives be listed, where and how can they be turned off?. I'm currently interested why Talk:Scotland (for example) doesn't have them listed, while Talk:Adolf Hitler does and i've no desire to wade through that spaghetti of template code! Thanks/ wangi ( talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The namespace #switch produces non-intuitive results when used on a sub-page in "user talk" space, e.g. "This is MaryJo/Sandbox's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to MaryJo/Sandbox". Might want to split these apart with {{SUBPAGENAME}}, {{BASEPAGENAME}} and use them to write something that actually makes sense. — CharlotteWebb 19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This template has earned the respect of many editors for its calming, policy-based approach to editing and discussing articles. It has saved the day many times. One thing missing, though, is the injunction to editors to work at getting consensus for changes. WP:CON is one of the key behavioral policies. I would suggest adding the following to the template: "Editorial decisions are made by consensus." I could see adding this just below the first line that reads "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the XYZ article." It could be preceded by the word "Note." What do you think? Sunray ( talk) 14:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The recommended addition is:
This statement could be added in the top section of the box, just below: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Talkheader page."
In the section with the white background, just above the statement: "Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)."
Many times new editors (and even some that have been around for awhile) are unaware of WP:CON and how it works. It would be helpful in curbing edit wars to be able to refer combatants to the consensus policy in a nutshell (the quote) as a groundrule for talk page discussion. In my experience, this is not a perfect solution since a bunch of editors can gang up to prevent reasonable changes. However, such situations are rarely problematic, and there are other remedies, such as RfC and the dispute resolution process if it does happen.
Because of the importance of consensus for peaceful and productive talk pages, I recommend this addition. Sunray ( talk) 20:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There's strong past consensus to keep this template as compact as possible, so I think adding more verbiage might be a bad call. As an alternative, how about turning the word "discussing" into a hyperlink to Wikipedia:Consensus? My only concern then would be that the text is becoming over-linked. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 03:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it say below instead of under? as in: "Put new text below old text." -- Alexf 42 20:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} To make this less irritating, have it permanently collapsed.
class="messagebox standard-talk collapsible collapsed"
Also, change
<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/?title={{TALKPAGENAMEE}}&action=edit§ion=new Click here to start a new topic]</span>.
to
Click the New section tab to start a new topic.
This is educate new users on how to start new topics on talk pages without this annoying thing on it. LA @ 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
#talkheader {display:none;}
to your
user CSS to hide it from your own display. –
Luna Santin (
talk)
16:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Not done. Please gain consensus for these changes. --- RockMFR 06:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In the draft, I added some CSS magic to make the "New section" text look like the actual tab. I think that might address both the goal making it clickable for people who are confused, as well as teaching people what to look for. I also made the phrasing a bit more concise (at the cost of making it a statement, rather than a command, but that might be a good thing). It's still longer than it was, and longer than the other three always-present lines. Further improving the phrasing might still be possible. It also still suffers from the problem in that the other skins simply don't have tabs at all. Not sure what to do about that. Sufficiently advanced CSS magic might be able to make it vary by skin, but that's beyond my skill. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 18:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
id=ca-addsection
, but I don't know what to do with that. —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist)
18:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)How about making it dismissable? LA ( T) @ 06:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that adding the WikiProject banners into this one might be a good thing. I did some tweaking
here to add it. A few other little things changed, such as all of the borders being collapsed and the background for the big box changes from white to an off-white color, but that is about it. Everything from those two templates has been kept, except that to add the project banners, instead of |1=
it is |WikiBanners=.
I would like to know what you all think. Oh, and even if this isn't accepted, could someone please go through and make sure all of the alpha characters in the color hex codes are made lower case and maybe squeeze out some of the unnecessary spaces in the style declarations?
LA (
T) @
06:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've just seen the archive option of the talkheader template in action and have to say I really don't like it. I knew from the edit history that the talk page had been edited to put the link to the archive in a different place but, even as an experienced editor, it took me a while to spot that link was.
I think the existance of archives needs to be far more prominent than is currently displayed in the talkheader. However, my suggestion isn't to make them more prominent in the template, butto remove the option from the template altogether. Instead, I think dedicated and more visible template such as {{ archivebox}} should be used for this useful and important function. Thanks for listening. GDallimore ( Talk) 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
noarchive=
parameter. So the separate box can be used on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I find that kind of solution ugly, and tending to invite non-harmonious editing, but it's an option. · As for broader scope: Personally, I don't see a clear consensus for having this feature or for removing it. I'd suggest inviting more discussion. Perhaps a post at
the pump, or an
WP:RFC. —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist)
02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)I'd like to suggest de-linking "talk page" in the template. New and unregistered users frequently post off-topic questions and comments on the WP:TALK discussion page (recent examples documented here), and I would guess that many of them have followed that link and then not understood where they were. PSWG1920 ( talk) 00:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see a function added to this that allows users to create customized links to their talk page archives, instead of automatically adding the links only with a standard naming scheme. Personally, I would like to use link to an old revision as my archives. Why? Personal taste, I guess. Any thoughts? -- HoboJones ( talk) 03:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The current "draft" doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Meanwhile, I've started a sandbox at template:talkheader/sandbox, where I'm going to be working on tweaks to this. Does anyone mind if I delete the draft template? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)