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 |
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 { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
How-to}}
. --
œ
™
02:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)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 |collapsed=
yes. 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 |collapsed=
yes) 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.
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)
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
|collapsed=
yes), else|collapsed=
, elseNow 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.
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.)
collapsed
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)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)
From the discussion above I understoood that:
This means that this is an infopage and not just an essay. Or not? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Too much stuff in an empty page -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
[2] shows that there isn't much control on the templates that added in talk pages. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
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: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot Mk V 2. – xeno talk 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Should_we_archive_low-value_templates? SilkTork * YES! 18:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 | =/\= | 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
On a seperate but related issue:
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)
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)
Where does go the {{ translated page}} template? Thanks. -- Eleassar my talk 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'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)
"This Wikipedia guide to talk page layout is an annotated..." Articles shouldn't start with "this wikipedia guide". It can be made better. OccultZone ( Talk) 11:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
{{
WikiProject Vital Articles}}
is a WikiProject, {{
Vital article}}
is however not. Therefor I don't think it should be placed inside a WPBS. {{
WikiProject Vital Articles}}
(and other WikiProjet-templates) are ment to "refer" people to the WIkiProject, when {{
Vital article}}
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)
{{
Vital article}}
is not built around {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, but {{
tmbox}}
plus {{
category handler}}
. It ignores the classes used by {{
WPBS}}
/{{
WPB}}
, and so is not collapsed by those wrappers. Whilst {{
WPB}}
will hide it, that is true of almost anything wrapped by {{
WPB}}
and doesn't mean that {{
Vital article}}
may be placed inside {{
WPB}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Templates such as {{ V0.5}} and {{ WP1.0}} seem to fall in the same category as {{ Vital article}}. Maybe a similar solution can be found for all of these? – Editør ( talk) 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
V0.5}}
is a table plus two transclusions of the {{
WP1.0/categories}}
template - again, not a WikiProject banner, so should not be enclosed by either {{
WPB}}
or {{
WPBS}}
. However, {{
WP1.0}}
is built around {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, linking to
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team, so may safely be enclosed in {{
WPB}}
/{{
WPBS}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Was there any resolution to this discussion? No one responded to
Magioladitis,
Josve05a, or
Redrose64, but
WP:TPL still says to place {{
Vital article}}
in {{
WPBS}}
/{{
WPB}}
.
Malerisch (
talk)
04:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
WPBS}}
doesn't belong inside it, and therefore not inside {{
WPB}}
either. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
07:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Shouln't {{
Split from}}
, {{
Split to}}
, {{
Merged-from}}
& {{
Merged-to}}
be placed under #8 (*Any* "article history")? (
t)
Josve05a (
c)
10:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. — George8211 / T 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
Okay, I will give some specific examples.
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 |
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 { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
How-to}}
. --
œ
™
02:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)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 |collapsed=
yes. 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 |collapsed=
yes) 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.
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)
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
|collapsed=
yes), else|collapsed=
, elseNow 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.
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.)
collapsed
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)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)
From the discussion above I understoood that:
This means that this is an infopage and not just an essay. Or not? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Too much stuff in an empty page -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
[2] shows that there isn't much control on the templates that added in talk pages. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
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: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot Mk V 2. – xeno talk 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Should_we_archive_low-value_templates? SilkTork * YES! 18:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 | =/\= | 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
On a seperate but related issue:
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)
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)
Where does go the {{ translated page}} template? Thanks. -- Eleassar my talk 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'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)
"This Wikipedia guide to talk page layout is an annotated..." Articles shouldn't start with "this wikipedia guide". It can be made better. OccultZone ( Talk) 11:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
{{
WikiProject Vital Articles}}
is a WikiProject, {{
Vital article}}
is however not. Therefor I don't think it should be placed inside a WPBS. {{
WikiProject Vital Articles}}
(and other WikiProjet-templates) are ment to "refer" people to the WIkiProject, when {{
Vital article}}
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)
{{
Vital article}}
is not built around {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, but {{
tmbox}}
plus {{
category handler}}
. It ignores the classes used by {{
WPBS}}
/{{
WPB}}
, and so is not collapsed by those wrappers. Whilst {{
WPB}}
will hide it, that is true of almost anything wrapped by {{
WPB}}
and doesn't mean that {{
Vital article}}
may be placed inside {{
WPB}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Templates such as {{ V0.5}} and {{ WP1.0}} seem to fall in the same category as {{ Vital article}}. Maybe a similar solution can be found for all of these? – Editør ( talk) 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
V0.5}}
is a table plus two transclusions of the {{
WP1.0/categories}}
template - again, not a WikiProject banner, so should not be enclosed by either {{
WPB}}
or {{
WPBS}}
. However, {{
WP1.0}}
is built around {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, linking to
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team, so may safely be enclosed in {{
WPB}}
/{{
WPBS}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Was there any resolution to this discussion? No one responded to
Magioladitis,
Josve05a, or
Redrose64, but
WP:TPL still says to place {{
Vital article}}
in {{
WPBS}}
/{{
WPB}}
.
Malerisch (
talk)
04:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
WPBS}}
doesn't belong inside it, and therefore not inside {{
WPB}}
either. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
07:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Shouln't {{
Split from}}
, {{
Split to}}
, {{
Merged-from}}
& {{
Merged-to}}
be placed under #8 (*Any* "article history")? (
t)
Josve05a (
c)
10:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. — George8211 / T 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
Okay, I will give some specific examples.