Template talk:Talk header/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Talk header. 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

→

Namespace detection tweaks

I've made a little tweak to the new sandbox code which presents the title of the page a little better in alternative namespaces (just template for now, but easy to expand later). Old output:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:NAME page.

New output:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NAME template.

Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-enabling - minor fix, otherwise the wikilink breaks on non-articlespace translcusions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK,

Done. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}
The last edit had a bug; on Category talk: and Image talk: pages, the link to the {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}} must be preceded by a colon (:). This bug is causing a lot of category talk pages to be erroneously listed as members of the respective category. Please copy the most current sandbox code to the template page. --Russ (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done — {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-sync

{{editprotected}}

Another sync with the sandbox requested to improve the shortcut box. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese Interwiki Link

The Portuguese interwiki link does not work anymore (apparently, it was deleted). If someone could change that and change the French link to fr:Modèle:En-tête de page de discussion, that would be awesome, too. Thanks! obento musubi 10:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links are part of the template documentation subpage, which anyone can edit. Just follow the boilerplate links at the top of the documentation box. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened?

The template looks fine on its page but on Talk:Ada (programming language), Talk:Alan Turing, Talk:Apollo program, etc. etc. the box looks wonky. It's cutoff on the lefthand side and has a whitespace on the left. I'll upload an image in a bit. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything like that. One thing to check is your browser window width; the template has a third column on article pages, and so wrapping issues can show up in article talk that don't show in other namespaces. Also try the usual WP:BYPASS and WP:PURGE. ♦ I know Happy-melon just did something of an overhaul, but it seemed to be more about behind-the-scenes implementation details, not to change the appearance of the template. ♦ I did just notice the first line ("This is the talk page...") is now aligned left for me, where it used to be centered; I'll try to figure out what that's about. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot I did ervything I could think of and can't see how it's a problem on my end... Vista/IE7. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It does work on Vista/FF2. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, it looks okay for me on a computer running MSIE 6 on Win XP SP2. Perhaps it's an MSIE 7 thing? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reproduced with MSIE 7 on Win XP SP3. Things looked okay at first, but if I widen the browser window past a certain point, all the other talk boxes keep getting bigger, while talkheader does not. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I notified Happy-melon. Hopefully this can be fixed soon. §hep • ^Talk 22:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-order bullets

Currently the talkheader seems to read:

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

It doesn't seem a logical thought-progression to me, and I'd propose the following sequence:

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

I think this makes more sense for the following reasons. 1) The need to communicate that the talk page is not a forum is really a primary purpose of the talkheader, and could be directly below the heading portion of the talkheader, where it would be: a) better connected to the talkheader's mission and b) in a better position to be noticed. 2) I think the bullets should be ordered according the order in which one might take action: go to the talk page to complain, discuss, argue, &c., write something on the talk page, sign the comment. 3) The appeal to seek more information is rather secondary, more of an afterthought, though rather helpful. It's not directly relevant, so I'd place it last. It would be nice if it could be placed first and people would notice and take heed, but it's more a matter of getting people through the process of using the talk page and then getting them to explore further.

Any thoughts? --Aepoutre (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've updated the sandbox. I've also been unhappy with the way the shortcut box displayed since the reorg, so have done some work to move it back to the right. If there are no objections I'll request re-sync. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Update

{{editprotected}}

Re-requesting sync with the sandbox per the above discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

One minor change I'd like—when used in article talk space, the current version has "Article policies" and "Behavior policies" (latter unlabeled) in two separates boxes, but your sandbox has them all in one box, with the label "Article policies". Please reseparate. Once that's done, enable the edit request again and I think it'll be good to go. Pagra shtak 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's deliberate - it's the only way to provide a sensible and consistent appearance when the shortcut box is included, without excessive table hacks. I'd rather this were kept. Are there any specific objections to the one-box version? If not, I'll re-enable the editprotected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is—I don't like having "Be polite" in a box labeled "Article policies" because it's not an article policy. Pagra shtak 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The box isn't labelled - the column is. But I've now added a divider to make that clear. Test cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it wasn't clear that it was a column label, since the first column didn't have a label. The divider works for me. Pagra shtak 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any other problems, so I've updated it. Pagra shtak 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The archive numbered links are now in bold, when they shouldn't be (only the word "Archives" should be in bold in that section). Please change it by finding the following code:

<th colspan="4" style="border:

And replacing it with:

<td colspan="4" style="text-align: center; border:

And you're done. Gary King (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, as mentioned below. Pagra shtak 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

General Wikipedia policies

This template contains a list of general Wikipedia policies:

All but the third item are a phrase that acts like a verb. The third item is a phrase that acts like a noun. I think this inconsistency should be changed (perhaps "Avoid personal attacks"?). If no one else comments, I'll request admin attention. Brian Jason Drake 05:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I still suggest changing "No personal attacks" to "Avoid personal attacks" (or something to that effect), as described in the previous comment. Brian Jason Drake 07:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Done Oren0 (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uneven margins all round

Hey, I wanted to let you guys know that some boxes within the box have uneven margins. For example, at the top, there is a huge margin to the left and a smaller margin to the right and top. I believe the box should be clean and should have even margins all around. If you need help, please contact me... Thanks! obento musubi 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives cell

{{editprotected}} Please replace

<th colspan="4"

with

<td colspan="3"

because this isn't a th and 3 is the maximum number of columns in this template. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Before making the above change (which I

Approve), please see Template_talk:Talkheader#Update as the text needs to be center-aligned before changing the TH to TD. Gary King (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops! The edit would then be to change <th colspan="4" style="border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color: #f8eaba; padding:1px 3px"> to <td colspan="3" style="border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color: #f8eaba; padding:1px 3px; text-align: center;">. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, also changed a close th tag to a close td tag to match. Please double-check me. Pagra shtak 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good Gary King (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-center first line

{{editprotected}} Minor style fix to center the first line. It used to be, but got broken in the recent switch from wiki-table to HTML-table syntax. Done in sandbox. Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ths actually are centered by default, so this shouldn't be necessary. If the line isn't centered for you, please do tell in what browser/OS combination(s) that happens. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it in Firefox 3.0.x, on Fedora Linux 8 and MS Win XP Pro SP2. On that same Win box, MSIE 6 centers the text. So MSIE is doing what we want, but Firefox is not. I dunno where the bug is. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New feature proposal: integrated archive search bar via parameter

Please see my proposal at WP:VPR#New feature for Template:Talkheader. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:12, 25 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editprotected}} Currently the archive search bar won't show up unless archive links also show up. This was by design at first, but after thinking it over I don't really see any reason for it.

To allow the search bar to show up even without archive links, the coding change would be taking the line towards the bottom that just has two sets of curly brackets:

}} }}

and moving them up to the line just above this:

{{#if:{{{search|}}}|<tr>

I don't see there being any objections to this, but if so lemme know. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:09, 25 Feb 2009 (UTC)

If the archive links aren't shown, it's presumably because there's a dedicated {{archives}} template on the page, and I added support for the search field to that last week. That said, I don't see why at least the option to show the search without the archives on {{talkheader}} shouldn't do what it's meant to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now: I have put my interpretation of your instructions in the sandbox. Please can you check that this is what you want and test that it works correctly? Thanks, Martin^msgj 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what's in the sandbox now is what I meant. Sorry if my instructions were confusing. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:10, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I tested the sandbox template with all combinations of |noarchive and |search parameters, and it seems to work as intended. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:59, 27 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if you notice any problems with it. Martin^msgj 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional Archive

Can someone add a feature to make the archive line optional? Some people go around deleting archive boxes because of the archive listing provided by this template on the theory that the archive box is redundant. In some cases, the archive box actually has more information. In any event, some pages have so many banners that new users wouldn't even look there for archives. -Rrius (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:talkheader/doc#Archive links and search. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Usability issue

Interesting comment here: mw:Project:Developer meet-up 2009/Notes/Usability#Community needs guidelines on usability:

Wording of templates can be confusing. For example, talk pages with a template saying "this is not a forum". People assume that means they should not post there - they don't understand that it means you're allowed to the discuss the article but not to give opinions on the topic!

Looking at the template, I think what may be happening is that people miss sentence "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the (whatever) article, because:

It's not flush left, where one's eyes typically focus when reading the body of a page; rather, because it is centered, it seems to be part of the very top of the page, where readers often find background stuff such as a subtitle.
It has the same background as WikiProject templates (see Talk:Algeria, for example), and therefore blends in.

So (judging from the comment from the usability study, above) readers' eyes often jump to the first line in the section that has a white background, the line that reads "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." That's a problem.

A couple of options come to mind to get people to read the top-most sentence first: (pick one or more, or suggest your own):

Make that sentence left-aligned, so that it is directly above the other four general instructions.
Make its background white, so it stands out more.
Put it into the box with the other four general instructions, as the first of the suggestions.
Change the "This is not a forum ... " sentence to be parallel to the others, something like "Do not post comments about how you personally feel about the article's subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board."

In any case, it seems to me that at minimum the lead sentence in the template should be reworded to begin:

This talk page is for discussing ...

That's shorter by one word, and putting "talk page" to the left of the verb makes the reader more willing to continue reading, at least through the word "discussing". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a poke about in the sandbox to demonstrate what we're aiming for here? The code is reasonably clean these days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, see Template talk:Talkheader/Sandbox. Not perfect, but gives a sense of how to make the top-most instruction more "visible" to the inexperienced reader. I've also tinkered with the wording of each of the next four instructions, aiming for clarity for very new editors without being - I hope - too verbose. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the new "This talk page ..." intro. Good idea. • However, the rest of the new wording is, I think, much too verbose. Keep in mind that many people have narrower screens (especially mobile devices!). There was also clear past consensus to keep this template as concise as possible (check the archives). Partly to keep it small, and partly because concise instructions are more likely to be read on a signpost. Think road signs -- the sign says "Exit Only" and not "This lane can be used only to take the next exit" for good reason. The goal here should be to point people to documentation, not reproduce it, I think. • Oh, and don't forget, there's a third column that appears in article talk space. • I'll see if I can come up with any ideas. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what do people think of this? • FYI, I redirected that back to the "standard" sandbox. Also, be aware of the testcases. Also, my sandbox edit is "rigged" to show all four lines; fix the FIXME before putting into production. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this could work, though it'd be nice to have wider input - the lack of borders around colour changes is a little weird, so it would also be nice to come up with a solution to that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Abuse

Talk pages have to seriously cleaned by Talkheader. I already made this request. Some editors add it in every possible page. It has to be clearer in which talk pages it should be added. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see why its use has to be limited. Anecdotally, I see a strong correlation between transclusion of this template and correct posting etiquette by new or anon users. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I read in bold in the template`s usage "This template should be used only when needed. Do not add this template to every talk page.". This was the main reason we kept this template in a recent TfD. Otherwise, we can have a message every time someones tries to edit the talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this was a rather lame compromise - as was suggested in the TfD, ideally the important material here would be moved into the actual page editing UI and then we wouldn't need a template for it. However, for the time being, I'd rather the template were used more often and not less, given that the argument for removing it is essentially no stronger than "it takes up space" and there are several advantages to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with wider use of this template. This is not necessary for expert editors, it doesn't give much more information than many editors get with some welcome messages, etc.-- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, lots of people disagree with wider use, which is why I'm only voicing my opinion and not pushing for it. However, it is also true that lots of people see value in it, which is why the TfD failed and I disagree with the idea that we have to pre-empt people sticking it on fresh pages if they think it'll be conductive to better conversation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you notice many cases of wrong use of the talk page? Usually experienced users are there to fix the talk pages, give advice, etc. I think we have two choices: One is to add it only where is needed or expand MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. I am afraid that we may start adding big banners in article pages stating that "This is an article page. Please improve it by ading reference material....". Have a nice day/night. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I have seen plenty of newcomers who aren't familiar with Wikipedia doing things like not signing, not using sections, not ordering talk pages right, using talk pages as a forum, etc., etc. Yes, these can and usually are fixed, but it is better not to have to fix them. I still remember being a newcomer to Wikipedia, and being very unsure as to how things worked, and being caught be surprise on many things. A little "signage" to tell me about stuff like this would have been very welcome by me. • All just my personal experience/opinion, of course. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2 suggestions

I rather like the new Talk page banner, e.g. at Talk:Jim Baxter. A couple of points:

Would it be a good idea to bold the 2 bullet lists on the right (conduct policies and core policies) so they stand out better from the sandy bg? I think they're important and should be highly visible. PS queries about my eyesight will simply be answered with a sigh.
Would it be a good idea to float the banner to the right, so that the top of the TOC is level with the top of the banner? I know that on Talk pages that have too few sections for a TOC that might look a bit odd, but I suppose these Talk pages are rarely visited. OTOH on high-traffic artcile Talk pages (i.e. most) anything that makes it even slightly easier to get to the right section is good. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If the pages are rarely visited, why to add the talkheader then?? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd expect the header to be added to all article Talk pages. After all, even high-traffic FAs start as stubs. --Philcha (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Talk page banner" is a template, {{talkheader}}. It only appears if the transclusion is manually added to talk pages. • There is disagreement on how it should be applied -- some people want it on all pages, some want to get rid of it entirely, etc. Adding it to otherwise empty/quiet pages seems to be frowned upon, though. • Bolding/colors/etc. have been tried before, with little success. I think the problem is that people who ignore messages ignore them no matter what. Plus it got rather ugly. Meanwhile, this template works "as is" for those who read messages. • Floating talkheader right would probabbly only help if all other talk page message boxes were also floated right, so I would suggest it there. Be warned that that would be a big change, so it would be likely to attract lots of discussion. • See also {{skiptotoc}}. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with adding it in all talk pages. If Talkheader can be applied to all pages then it can replace MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. I think we can add and remove talkpages depending of the progress of the discussion. A high visible talk page also means that many editors take care of keeping it tidy. I am giving many warnings to new editors that talk pages are not forums. This helps them in using talkspace better in all cases. I encourage welcome messages with a lot of instructions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes individually warning users more efficient than posting banners centrally? While I agree that a move into the mediawiki namespace would be the ideal solution in the long run, it's not here yet, so we can't really rely on it to help for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)