The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was } No action. Template may serve usefull during the merge. Please re-nominate after merging is complete. — Edokter • Talk • 23:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Template:Young Jedi Knights ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm listing this template here since it is related to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heirs of the Force - the outcome of that discussion will also affect this template. I recommend not commenting here, but rather at the AfD I linked before. - Lilac Soul ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 16:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete: AFD has been closed as Merge, so there's no need for a navigational template to link these articles. Robofish ( talk) 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Consensus is clear the the template's functionality, most notably the archive indexing, cannot be replaced by editnotices or MediaWiki:Talkpagetext, and that the template gives editors the choice between the standard Talkpagetext or extended text of this template. Redundancy has not been established, as noone has shown a working alternative that is already in place. — Edokter • Talk • 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Template:Talkheader ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is just pointless spam. It has been nominated for deletion before, most recently in December 2006: since then, it has become redundant, to MediaWiki:Talkpagetext for generic messages, but also to editnotices for notices specific to particular namespaces, page-hierarchies or individual pages. These alternatives are superior in functionality, and do not necessitate bloating the wikitext of talk pages themselves. The argument, bound to be made, that {{ talkheader}} provides information for people reading pages as well as those editing them is of no value, as the information there is only relevant to the latter class of users. If there is actually any reason to display information specifically to readers on any given page, then alternatives can be developed specifically for those pages. -- bainer ( talk) 11:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Redundant, plus excessively used. Garion96 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and delete all talk pages which would be blank without it. Leaving a red link would restore the benefit of being able to immediately know that a particular talk page contains no actual discussion. — CharlotteWebb 12:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You wish. There will always be 20 wikiproject tags on the article. Good old times when there actually was a discussion when there was a blue link. Garion96 (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Those can be dealt with next, or perhaps moved to a separate "banner space" for the benefit of those who find them useful. Custom namespaces are easy to create. — CharlotteWebb 13:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
      • It seems to me that some of the people who want this template deleted are really objecting to the proliferation of talk page templates in general, and/or objecting to the fact that such templates make a talk page into a bluelink when it contains no talk. I think it's better to address that issue head-on (not tangentially by TfDing talkpage message templates). CharlotteWebb's suggestion above is interesting. Perhaps a separate pair of namespaces for article "tags" would be appropriate. It could then be automatically transcluded into the article and/or article talk pages, and/or automatically hidden or JavaScript-collapsed. But really, this discussion should not be had on the TfD page for a single template. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I realize this is not the only template which is used as a placeholder for future discussion (rather than a beacon of guidance for existing discussion), but it is easily the most commonly used. As far as hammerbanner space goes I know I've suggested this somewhere before, probably in a more appropriate forum, but as I recall nobody seemed interested in it at the time. But to me the idea of creating talk pages with nothing but banner templates seems almost as absurd as "coloring in" every red link with a {{ stub}} template and a handful of categories, but no actual content. Perhaps I'll bring this up on the village pump, unless you'd rather. — CharlotteWebb 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, this template is bloody used everywhere, it includes functions for archiving and searching in them, it displaying shortcuts and probably good links to some. MediaWiki:Talkpagetext does not fill its functions. c h ¹⁰ · 12:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure whether these whistles and bells were added to the generic talkheader template to make it undeletable or for some other reason, but the important parts (like "this is not a forum for general discussion") are only important to users already planning to edit the talk page, so these can be moved to the MW interface. Wherever they are, I would suggest that the people who need to read it would be more likely to notice it if a less enclosed design is adopted. As for archive indices and whatnot, there is a template for that which is pretty easy to use. Why worry about archive links on pages which are yet to contain a single signed comment? — CharlotteWebb 13:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, but make sure archive and shortcut boxes are added where necessary (a.k.a. delete in a few years). — Ms2ger ( talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete - Just pointless templates. I see only Editnotices useful, as you make your own user talk rules. Versus22 _talk 15:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment - Perhaps this could go too? Versus22 _talk 15:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Multiple points:
  1. It provides essential information to newcomers. I suspect many regulars have forgotten what it's like to come to Wikipedia as a newcomer, having no idea about what the "Discussion" tab is actually for, nor having any understanding about things like WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. People expect a discussion board where they can put forward their pet theories and personal opinions, or at the least, ask general questions about the subject matter. They aren't aware of conventions like section headers. And frankly, sometimes some regulars could do well to be reminded not to bite those same newcomers.
  2. While I can see the argument that this should only be presented on page editing, I can also see a counter-argument: Newcomers first click the "Discuss" tab, intending to discuss. When they see this notice at the top of the page, they can learn more without having to first click "Edit". By forcing them to click "Edit", you're taking them further down the road of posting a message, making them psychologically more committed to posting their two bits. Better to divert them to what they really want.
  3. For those newcomers who are determined to have their say, providing the "Click here to start a new topic" link really does tend to funnel them towards a new section. This at least isolates the damage, making it easier to identify, ignore, and/or delete. Anyone who's ever watchlisted a popular article's talk page will know what I mean.
  4. If anything, my argument would be that this template (or something like it) should be part of MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. However, in the past, that idea has been met with strong resistance, that this template should only be seen on pages that need it. In effect, this template is compromise between those who want it on every talk page, and those who want it deleted wiki-wide.
  5. Some complain the template wastes page space, but by folding in shortcut and archive functionality, it actually reduces the total footprint needed for templates on a page.
  6. I know lots of established editors find it obnoxious to see this template on talk pages. If it bothers them to that point, it's possible to hide it.
  7. A common complaint is that this template is overused. That's an objection to lots of templates. The solution is to remove the template when it is not needed, and/or address the overuse. Nominating for deletion is throwing the good out with the bad, and verges on WP:POINT-making.
  8. The problem with edit notices is that it would require admin intervention on every targeted page. This template is being used on tens of thousands of pages. Even if it is so overused that only 10% really need the notice, that is still thousands of {{ editnotice}} requests. Is that something administrators should be burdened with? Would it not be better to let the editor community as a whole manage this?
  9. While I realize consensus can and does change, it may still be worthwhile for people to review the four previous TfD discussions: 18 Sep 2005, 10 Oct 2005, 02 Feb 2006, 28 Dec 2006.

— DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 16:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hiding the talkheader template with CSS won't help me when I click on a blue "talk" link and find only a blank page. If this people find this template so useful that they are creating talk pages solely for the purpose of adding this template, then it ought to be presented via the mediawiki namespace rather than through the wiki-text of individual talk pages. Look at Talk:Powerslave (disambiguation), Category talk:Irish late night radio shows, File talk:0000b69a0c8r.jpg and thousands of other pages which contain nothing other than this template. Namespace pollution would be putting it too kindly. — CharlotteWebb 17:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

CharlotteWebb: I think it's fair to say that adding {{talkheader}} to a page which contains no other content is abuse of the template. The proper action in such cases is to delete the transclusion and speedy the page. One should also notify the contributor who put it there -- they're either unaware that consensus is against adding the template to all pages, or deliberately working against consensus. Perhaps the documentation for {{talkheader}} can be modified to make this clearer. But deleting {{talkheader}} simply because it's sometimes abused is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth one admin tried doing just that and got blocked for it. — CharlotteWebb 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Awww, geez, you gotta be kidding me. Got link? This I just *have* to see for myself. I can't fathom what the reasoning behind such a decision might be. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep I think the shorter notice is better most of the time, but for any topic where the discussion is likely to get heated, this is the appropriate one. It's better at setting the tone. DGG ( talk) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Anecdotally, I see a strong correlation between the use of this template and correct page etiquette on behalf of new and anon users. It is not "spam" to provide a handly link to appropriate policies at the top of a page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If it is needed on all talk pages, or even a significant fraction of them, it would be best to put it in the mediawiki namespace. If we want it to appear even before you start editing the page, there is an easy way to do that too. — CharlotteWebb 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • It's certainly possible that this would be better, but AFAIK we generally don't delete templates based on the potential that something else will come along to replace them. Were this template already surplus to requirements (which i don't think it is) then I wouldn't have a problem with it going. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
      • More certainty than potential. We could orphan this template, delete all talk pages which become completely blank without it, and then transclude the template (or paste its contents, etc.) into the requisite MW namespace page(s). — CharlotteWebb 18:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per DragonHawk and Thumperward. I used to dislike this template, but it seems to help anonymous and new users. —  TKD:: {talk} 13:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per DragonHawk. We were all new users once, and wikipedia is initially quite bewildering (ah! I can do x, but should I?. Simple guidance like this helps a lot. I like to think that a note above the edit box would be an adequate substitute (as per the guidance which now appears when editing a dab page), but it seems that many editors don't read that guidance. I think that the eye gets drawn to the edit box, not to any other instructions on the page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as useless and redundant. (disclosure: I was "canvassed" by email ) -- NE2 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as redundant to editnotices and MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. Stifle ( talk) 11:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Refactor to an archive-index box (since so many pages use it for this purpose), & move anything useful & needed into the already-existing talk-page edit notice. -- This template does serve a very good purpose (for newbie education) as has been mentioned by comments above. However, its inclusion on a talk page is based on the whims of the editors placing it there (or removing it after it has been added, which happens). It would be better IMHO to just incorporate what is needed & useful from this template into the notice that already appears automatically when editing talk pages (& to make that notice more obvious/attention-getting, like by using a red stop-hand or some kind of background color to make it more obvious/attention-getting & less dissappearing into the rest of the edit page content.) Outsider80 ( talk) 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  I would agree that might work well, although if we want to put in something attention grabbing, it might be better to limit any large red boxes etc to talk pages where they're necessary (e.g. ones with past issues of new editors misusing the talk page) rather than putting them on every page, since if they're overused, people would tend to ignore them. Tra (Talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  Red backgrounds probably would get old, the red-stop hand is used underneath the edit box on some Wikipedias (don't remember which, French maybe) for the licensing / do not paste copyrighted text notice. (Maybe some other kind of pictogram could help grab attention to the MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. I googled around some and several other Wikipedias actually do have Talkpagetext which basically look just like this template (example: Spanish version), and zh:MediaWiki:Talkpagetext just uses a yellow background. Simple English Wikipedia also has newbie-helper-text in their Talkpagetext, though without any fancy attention-grabbing efforts ( simple:MediaWiki:Talkpagetext). Personally, I'm not really as hung up on how it is done, but at least it would be a project-wide approach, instead of adding/removing Talkheader from various talk pages. The template serves a good purpose, the main objections raised here are just that it is cluttering up the talk page. Just replacing it w/ a more robust talkpagetext would solve the clutter problem, while keeping the helpful text (& making it standard across all talk pages, projectwide) (my 2 cents) Outsider80 ( talk) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  We have other templates for linking to numbered archive pages, but they shouldn't be used until archives actually exist (which isn't the case in most places where the talkheader template is currently used). I figure for each affected page we should take one of the following actions:

  • (A) For talk pages which have a demonstrated pattern of off-topic or inappropriate postings we should replace {{ talkheader}} with some kind of stronger, more conspicuous notice. We could call it {{ talkpageguidelinesreminder}} or something like that. A non-generic color scheme—something that doesn't blend in with all the tile floor of other bannercruft—would be a good starting point.
  • (B) Of the remaining talk pages, those which do have archive sub-pages should be converted to use {{ archive box}} or something similar.
  • (C) For talk pages which are usually orderly and have no archives, the talkheader template should be removed outright.
  • (D) Talk pages which are blank after (C) should be deleted.

  After this, the unused generic talkheader can be deleted. Anyone with me on this? — CharlotteWebb 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  Pages in B, C and D could be easily identified by a bot but A would need a human to find the relevant pages. The large number of pages involved would make this difficult. Perhaps there might be some way of looking for articles which are newsworthy, controversial and/or have active talk pages. Tra (Talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Merge into MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. I think we have to expand MediaWiki:Talkpagetext and remove this one. I can't see how can we create a rule for when this one should exist and when it should removed. I don't think we can have it in every talk page and it's mainly addressing to newcomers so an expansion of the Talkpagetext would be the solution. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep This template is not redundant to MediaWiki:Talkpagetext, it provides much more information that is invaluable to newbies. As a new page patroller I get a fair number of questions (and complaints) from new editors on my talk page. Since I added this to the top of my talk page, editors new and old are much more consistently creating topics instead of just tossing text at the top or bottom. I can actually read my talk page now. It's a useful template.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 20:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep there is a world of difference between an editor and an editor; the links and guidelines this banner provides are invaluable to new users - it's easy to forget how daunting the backstage of Wikipedia is to those unfamiliar with it - and it does not make sense to move all this content to the edit window. I don't know whether to find the suggestion that the inclusion of archive indices and searches was intended purely to make the template "undeletable" amusing or depressing. Happy‑ melon 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't disagree this is information that new users should get. I think we are discussing how they get it. If these messages are something everybody should read in almost every talk page we have to create a bot to add it everywhere. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep this is a valid and useful template for talk pages of articles where a lot of new users are visiting and want to post some remark. In particular, I've seen its usefulness in the media areas for new and recent releases, airing television series, etc. It provides basic reminders of course Wikipedia policies and reminds them that Wikipedia is not here to be a forum, generally discouraging most IPs and new editors from just posting to chat about new episodes and the like. MediaWiki:Talkpagetext does none of these things directly. It reminds people to sign, then expects new editors to click off to get a quick "in a nutshell" version of the talk page guidelines. Nor is it "pointless spam" just because it is sometimes incorrectly applied. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Why can't we expand MediaWiki:Talkpagetext? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Because the full text isn't needed on EVERY article, just on some. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

In which pages isn't needed? It's always possible that a new user uses a talk page as a forum, isn't it? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• • Please understand that this isn't about the contents of the message (which can easily be copied and pasted in either direction) but about whether it should be presented as a template manually added to every single talk page or as part of the mediawiki interface which appears at the top of the talk page without needing to create it first (that is whether it exists or not, and whether the user is viewing it or editing it and depending on which interface page(s) we choose to use for this). — CharlotteWebb 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - so long as it meets the requirements of Template:Talkheader#Usage, and sometimes it is, I don't see why this one should be erased. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 12:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - MediaWiki:Talkpagetext does not do nearly as much as this template. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep as per all of the above reasonings. Sjones23 ( talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete and merge into MediaWiki:Talkpagetext - This information belongs always visible above the editbox on all talk pages, not on the talk page itself. As for the archive links, there are other templates that achieve the exact same functionality and should be used instead. -- Blooper (Talk) 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep though consider the options of merging (at times) with the archive box info, etc. While the MediaWiki:Talkpagetext route is an option, I don't think it wise because first, the editor must actually start editing the talk page before they will see that, meaning they have to click-away from the edit page to read up, and thus may lose their edit spot, and secondly, it's a very non-discrete box that newer editors will miss in favor of the big white box of text for them to edit; an attempt to make the Mediawiki message more visible will likely irk regular editors that don't want that box drawing their attention away. -- MASEM ( t) 11:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yes, the information is mainly useful to editors, not readers. But its can be very helpful for newbies to see it before they actually click the edit button. Some newbies might notice this template rather than the editnotice. CharlotteWebb seems to be arguing that it needs to be on every talk page. True, but the mediawiki page is only visible as an editnotice rather on the talk page itself, so as it stands it's not a good replacement for this template. Wkdewey ( talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted ( CSD G2) by User:DDima. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Template:User runescape fan ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. This is not used, and tries to use a non-existent image. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't work, isn't used. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete, G3 as the band is a hoax. Blueboy 96 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Template:Dying Love ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only being used in soon to be speedy deleted unsourced articles on this no name band. Beeblebrox ( talk) 03:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.