Template talk:Talk page of help
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 27 May 2011. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
Creation
[edit]With the idea of creating as clear a template as possible for new editors and users questions to be directed correctly. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Economics/Gross Domestic Product(GDP)
[edit]What happens to GDP when the owner of a small firm marries his secretary and stop paying for her work which she continues to perform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akabory (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Formatting issues
[edit]Centering the Teahouse link, despite the existence of the orange icon on the left, was quite a challenge. I had to use a workaround (a negative margin) that I don't think is displaying 100% properly. Also, for long page names that cause the text in this template to go onto two lines, the buffer between the orange icon and the text goes away for some weird reason. If anyone has the expertise to fix these issues, please do! Sdkb (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've restored back to the prior version as it reads better and looks better. I think it was also a significant enough change to the material that you should probably get consensus. Praxidicae (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae and LakesideMiners: I can understand that the original looks more familiar for those of us who are experienced editors, but we need to consider that this template has a special use case, i.e. it's directed at very new editors (the only editors who will be confused about the function of talk pages), and for them, it is best to give bold and simple direction. The milder version has essentially no use cases, as without any additional emphasis, it pretty much entirely duplicates
{{Talk page header}}
. The old version had a number of issues — it was less flexible for different types of pages, pointed to outdated resources (e.g. no teahouse), and had incorrect documentation. The reverts re-introduced these issues — even if you prefer the old formatting, those changes still need to be applied. It's worth noting that this template has not yet been as widely adopted as it ought to be (it's mainly at the Help:Intro series right now; I'm working on introducing it to more pages), but for pages like WP:About, I only recently introduced it as a standardization measure to replace a custom notice that was much closer to the new bold version than to the old version. Sdkb (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)- Aaaand, like clockwork, we now have new editors making test edits on pages using this template. I'm going to revert since neither of you have replied, but I'm happy to continue discussion if you so desire. Sdkb (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't realize you were involved here...no point in explaining.--Moxy 🍁 03:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae and LakesideMiners: I can understand that the original looks more familiar for those of us who are experienced editors, but we need to consider that this template has a special use case, i.e. it's directed at very new editors (the only editors who will be confused about the function of talk pages), and for them, it is best to give bold and simple direction. The milder version has essentially no use cases, as without any additional emphasis, it pretty much entirely duplicates