Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

AFD history

What should be the exact placement of the AfD history on article talk pages? Not exactly the burning issue of the century, but we currently have contradictory information and a few more editors are needed to get a definite consensus. SpinningSpark 16:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close the {{Old AfD multi}} template should be placed after the Wikiproject templates. However, the User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD script places it at the top and User:Yobot is going round moving to the top ones that aren't already there. User:Magioladitis (the bot owner) argues that the top is correct as AFD counts as history. Which is correct? SpinningSpark 12:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that {{Old AfD multi}} is more related to {{Split from}}/{{Split to}}/{{Merged-from}}/{{Merged-to}} than to the progress of ITN/DYK/GA/FA/TFA, so it really goes at about positions 15-16. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64 it's been noted to me, I can't recall by whom, that the template is more related to article history (In some cases it can be merged there) and to templates such as Old prod. I do not have strong feelings on anything. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If I'm doing it manually, I usually put them after the WikiProject templates, as AfD/AI says - it's just more physically natural for me. It would honestly make more sense as article history (8) and thus on top, but I doubt very many people care. Ansh666 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, this is old. I just got a ping from Legobot about it...months later... ansh666 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Legobot is sometimes misunderstood. It goes through pages with the {{rfc}} template, looks at the first timestamp in the thread after that point (in this case 16:39, 4 September 2014), and if it is more than 30 days ago, removes the {{rfc}}. When sending "Please comment on ..." messages, the bot picks at random from pages in Category:Wikipedia requests for comment (all of which bear an {{rfc}} and are therefore are still open). So the bot doesn't care about the presence of comments from July. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I know how Legobot works. I'm just surprised that this is still open so many months later. ansh666 16:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussions may become RfCs at any stage, it doesn't matter how old they are. In fact, it's better if there is some sort of pre-discussion, in order to find out if a formal RfC is warranted. This discussion became a formal RfC three weeks ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
At which point it had exactly 0 comments after mine, several months ago! I'd just expected that it would be resolved by now, I guess. ansh666 19:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinging User:Writ Keeper who probably needs to be aware of this issue. SpinningSpark 17:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm regretting taking this case more and more... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be little interest in this and it has not been formally closed, but my assessment of what comments there were is that the AFD result should go after the wikiproject template. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to ask for a formal close. Magioladitis says he doesn't care and Redrose64 wanted them even further down (but no one else supported that) leaving two people (weakly) in favour of after the Wikiproject. I guess I support that as well, if for no other reason than that the only policy page to mention this (WP:AFD/AI) says that is what should be done. SpinningSpark 15:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Can I dredge this back up? I missed this conversation and I think it went about the wrong way. TPL has said for a very long time (I checked back to 2009) that "any article history banner" went above the WikiProject banners (as is logical—it is more important to keep notice of deletion discussions more prominent at a glance than the Project banners). Even so, there was never any reason to split "old AfD full" from the "any article history banner" grouping as if it was another class. As TPL is the formal reference and not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions, we should not be taking cues from an offhanded recommendation during an overhaul at the latter. (In fact, the AI overhaul addition went against the TPL advice at the time, likely inadvertently.) I imagine that, like me, many people will only realize that the official recommendation has changed after the fact. I would think that with the above diffs, we should consider reverting the recent TPL change and updating the AFDAI instructions accordingly. @MuZemike, Spinningspark, Magioladitis, Redrose64, Ansh666, and NinjaRobotPirate @ThaddeusB – czar 02:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would really like for old AfD, merge and split templates to be below WikiProject templates, as I think they're less important, but maybe that's just a personal opinion. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • That one page was the anomaly. All the other pages and scripts follow TPL, which said to put it above (arguably because it is more important to see at a glance than the Project banners). If the issue is consistency, I explained above how the Admin instructions were inconsistent with the rest of WP. – czar 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Czar: What other pages are in question besides WP:AFD/AI and WP:TPL? All of your links posted above point only to various aspects of those pages (the pages themselves and talk page diffs). I know that using the User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD script places that afd templates atop talk pages, but I don't feel that this should be a reason to change everything.
The way I'm perceiving this is that procedure at WP:AFD/AI for having the AfD tags below the project tags was enacted in August 2011 (diff), and procedure at WP:TPL for having Afd tags also below the project tags was enacted in February 2015 (diff).
At WP:TPL, this was the status quo until you changed it on 12 August 2015 (diff), and you also changed it at WP:AFD/AI on 12 August 2015, citing this discussion as the rationale why (diff1), (diff2). However, before this discussion was reinvigorated, the consensus, albeit a weak consensus, was assessed as for the AfD template to remain below the project tags, which is against the changes you recently performed. Furthermore, per more recent dialog here, I feel that consensus herein is leaning toward the Afd tags to be placed below project tags. See the summary below. North America1000 09:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion summary
User Position
User:Magioladitis It is stated herein that the user stated (somewhere else) that they prefer the AfD tags above project tags. However, in this discusssion, the user stated "I do not have strong feelings on anything".
Redrose64 Stated that AfD tags should be placed "at about positions 15-16" which is even lower than below the project tags
Ansh666 Stated a preference for AfD tags to be above the project tags, that it would "make more sense". However, they also stated that when manually adding the template, they place it below the project tags.
NinjaRobotPirate On 17 September 2014, stated a preference for AfD tags to be below project tags. Later stated on 1 August 2015 "It's not important to me"
SpinningSpark Assessed consensus on 5 October 2014, stating that "my assessment of what comments there were is that the AFD result should go after the wikiproject template". They also stated a preference for AfD tags to be below project tags, stating "I guess I support that as well".
Czar Prefers AfD tags above project tags
Jeraphine Gryphon Prefers AfD tags below project tags
Northamerica1000 Prefers AfD tags below project tags
Except that this isn't a vote? The table isn't helpful. My post above researches the background in depth (with links) and I don't think it has been disputed: (1) article history (incl. old afd full) has gone just above wikiproject banners forever, (2) our current 2014 discussion was about treating old afd full differently from the rest of article history tags based on AFDAI, and it went through with a lack of discussion only for the sake of making the two "consistent" (see the edit summary), (3) I established that AFDAI rules were the odd man out, likely just a typo in the page's rewrite—TPL was the consensus at the time and there was no stated reason for going against it, likely just an honest error, (4) if the issue is consistency, TPL has been the consensus, not AFDAI—this is proved by how the scripts, bots, and AWB follow TPL and not AFDAI's typo; if the issue is consistency, there has been no clear case made for treating old afd full separately from the rest of the article history tags; if the issue is consistency, AFDAI as a document conforms to TPL and not vice versa. Now if you'd like to change article history to go below project banners based on your personal preference, it's within your rights to start an RFC, but anyone arguing to do so for consistency's sake would have a hard time explaining that segregating old afd full from the rest of article history is consistent, especially on the basis of AFDAI's typo, when the rest of the encyclopedia has been using TPL and not AFDAI. – czar 10:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

GA nominee

This follows #GA Nominee placement and #GA banners. I propose to consolidate the entries for {{GA nominee}} and {{GA}} on the list at current position #4, such that #1 is deleted and #4 becomes "GA or GA nominee". It seems proper that these two templates should be in the same hierarchical position. --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A complication... we have {{Article history}} at pos. 9, and that template has parameters to perform the same function as {{GA}} (but not {{GA nominee}}). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Since a GA nomination is an active discussion, I don't think it does anyone a service to bundle that with things that have already passed and are simply on the talk page to categorize things in some way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Great feedback. How about this for a proposed new order, then?
  1. {{GA nominee}}, {{Featured article candidates}} (current nominations, if applicable)
  2. {{skip to talk}} (should only be necessary on talk pages with several banners)
  3. {{Talk header}} (or forks like {{Oregon Companies talk}})
  4. {{Vital article}}
  5. {{Ds/talk notice}}, {{sanctions}}, {{censor}}, {{BLP others}} and other high-priority/importance, warning/attention templates
  6. Specific talk page guideline banners, such as {{Calm}}, {{Not a forum}}, {{FAQ}}, {{Round in circles}}, etc.
  7. Language related talk page guideline banners, such as {{American English}}, {{British English}}, etc.
  8. Any "article history" (e.g., {{GA}}, {{FailedGA}}, {{Old AfD multi}}, {{Old prod}}) banner, preferably in an {{Article history}} template

…

--Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Where should {{Annual readership}} go?

{{Annual readership}} seems to be a common feature on many talk pages, including the Main Page's. I think that we should include a mention of this template in the layout order specified on this project page – where do you think it should be placed? My proposal would be to place it immediately after the WikiProject banners, such as is already the case on pages like Talk:Donald Trump. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably the last thing down, I'd say. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree, it should be the second last, above archives. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:TALKPAGECLUTTER" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:TALKPAGECLUTTER. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Bsherr (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Talk header

I understand there is a careful compromise on Template:Talk header that states that it may be used on talk pages that receive, as you put it colloquially, "a lot" of comments, but only proscribes its use on talk pages that have no discussion on them. This compromise exists to avoid edit warring on the use of the template on pages that have somewhere between zero and "a lot" of talk, which I think there is wide agreement we don't want. If we must have guidance on this page on the use of that template (and I hope we decide we don't need to), I believe it should reflect that. --Bsherr (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

(Just for clarification, by careful compromise, I mean the six TfD discussions and nine pages of talk archives.) --Bsherr (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Removing "(should only be used on talk pages that receive a lot of comments)" is not helpful, especially since this template should only be used on talk pages that receive a lot of comments and heated discussions. Tweaking to "Should only be necessary" to match the other language seems alright though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Headbomb: I can't find the longstanding revision of this page, to which you refer, that includes the guidance. Could you send me the diff? I'd like to take a look. --Bsherr (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that, depending on when it was, the guidance at Template:Talk header may have changed. --Bsherr (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
It should be pretty easy to find, it's the one before you removed the text. As for the text having changed, that's rather irrelevant because the spirit is the same. Don't spam the template unless there's a particular need for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that the guidance was first inserted here. But that was on January 3, 2020, and you seemed to say in your edit comment that the inclusion of this guidance on this page was "longstanding". Do you mean that it was there sometime before January 3? --Bsherr (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The idea that {{talk header}} should not be indiscriminately spammed is over 13 years old. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the idea that anything shouldn't be indiscriminately spammed has been around since the beginning of the internet, but I've reverted this page to the pre-January 3 state until we finish discussing, per BRD. --Bsherr (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
As to language, if there is consensus we need it, how about "(see Template:Talk header for appropriate use)"? --Bsherr (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Or, we can save them the click and simply state the obvious/in a nutshell version of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: What are we proposing to do here? It's not clear to me. Are we talking about adding {{Talkheader}} to every talkpage, or making changes to Talkheader? Doug Mehus T·C 02:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: the proposal by Bsherr is to remove this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
To summarize, the language identified by Headbomb above was added January 3. Previously, this page contained no guidance on the use of Template:Talk header. The language added conflicts with the actual usage guidance at Template:Talk header, which is what I am trying to fix, so they are both consistent. My first comment above explains why. --Bsherr (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
You should reread the actual usage guidance at Template:Talk header because it says black on white "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb, Oh, I've been adding that to every new talk page for consistency. What's the rationale behind that? I'd say I'm mildly supportive of that, unless there's a reason for not doing so. I don't think, truthfully, a lot of editors know this guideline as I've seen it frequently broken.
FYI: I've requested full protection for 1 week for the page. Doug Mehus T·C 03:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb, no argument with that. Indeed, that is the guidance. And if that's what WP:TPL said, I'd be okay with that. But that's not the same as saying the template should only be added to pages with a lot of comments. Nothing at Template:Talk header says that. --Bsherr (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
"A lot of comments" is shorthand for pages with lots of traffic and heavy discussion, aka when necessary. If you don't like "a lot of comments", "only when needed" is a trivial change, but outright removal is unhelpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:VPP or WP:VPR would be best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb, So it's fine to continue the discussion here, perhaps by adding an RfC, and then just tag the applicable pump(s) with a notification in Twinkle, right? Doug Mehus T·C 03:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Not really fussy, although I highly doubt you'll convince many to overturn something guidance that stood for 13+ years to indiscriminately spam {{talk header}} everywhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hold on, I'm not proposing any changes to how the talk page header is used. Only how that appropriate usage is described on this page. In short, there is consensus that the talk header should not be added to talk pages with no discussion on them yet; and there is consensus that "talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template." But there is no consensus on the middle, so saying, as was attempted here, that this template should only be added to talk pages with "a lot" of comments (whatever the heck "a lot" means) is simply not a correct statement of consensus, and neither is that reflected anywhere in the Template:Talk header documentation. If this page is going to give guidance, it should be the correct guidance. --Bsherr (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, the issue for me isn't really about "a lot of comments", it's about "should only" vs. "may". If you want the page to say "only when needed", that would be more preferable than the former language to me. I think it's a bit of a tautology, but at least it's not incorrect. But I think we can do better if we actually discuss it civilly. --Bsherr (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

New proposals

Here are four proposals:

1 {{Talk header}} (see Template:Talk header for appropriate use) It doesn't say anything substantive, and the link may be a bit obvious, but there is no inconsistency either.
2 {{Talk header}} (should not be used on talk pages not having any discussion) It summarizes the most salient point of the template's use.
3 {{Talk header}} (talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template) Exact language from Template:Talk header, but it's wordy
4 {{Talk header}} (should be placed only where it's needed) a bit of a tautology, but accurate

Like any of them? --Bsherr (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, Prefer #2 per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. Alternatively, support #4 then #3 in that order. Neutral to #1. Doug Mehus T·C 04:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have a view yet but it would be unfortunate for the guideline to not give guidance. The idea that the template documentation should not be duplicated here is good, but following that means anyone can edit the template documentation and change the effect of this guideline—bad. I would hope the guideline would make two things clear: (1) Don't add any template unless there is a need; and (2) Don't make a fuss about imposing the guideline if the regulars on a particular talk page feel something else is better there (assuming the local view is not crazy). Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes on option 4 – Because this template overused and added to pages indiscriminately and inappropriately, strong language is needed that actively discourages its use, especially by a novice editor who may only glance at the documentation. I agree with @Johnuniq: that the documentation should explicitly state "Do not add this template unless there is a need." This template does have a purpose, but its use must be limited in order for it to be effective. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Hi, I definitely hate {{talkheader}} as priority on articles not obviously requiring the clutter (and I also hated it when logged in 2012-2015). On BLPs the top priority is IMHO the BLP info, i.e., WPBS blp=yes or blpo=yes, collapsed projects if too many, and only trumped by DS (discretionary sanctions, 1RR) where applicable. An archive info with {{archive banner}} should be at the bottom near the ToC, where folks look for meanwhile archived sections.
    A connected info directly before COI makes sense. Misc. info such as old PROD + old AFD + old GOCE + pending/failed GA can be arranged as desired, e.g., chronologically, in the middle. I'm still trying to achieve "my" 1st GA, it would be "vital" like the vital info immediately below WPBS (just my € 0.02). –84.46.53.116 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Option #4 with the addition of a link to Template:Talk header#Usage. So it would look like this: {{Talk header}} (should be placed only where it's needed - see Template:Talk header#Usage) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Of those, 4 is best. However, I'd prefer to mirror the already existing language "should only be used when necessary". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3; or Option 4 + Option 1. That is, continue to say somewhere the more specific things, and either say them in the guideline or incorporate them by reference. No one should be able to continue trying to WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:IDHT around the documentation so they can try to get away with slapping this clutter on 1,000 pages. Background comment: I routinely remove this huge noise-box from any page that isn't a hotbed of flaming, PoV pushing, meat-puppetry, or otherwise being an "attractive nuisance" that draws in noobs unaware of WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. If it's just some calm, slow-moving talk page with mostly regular editors, I take the template off (and put on an archive box template if necessary). The rate of these removals being reverted is around 1 in 30 or less, so in my estimation the criteria established in the /doc do have consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    I also remove it from any talk page that has no non-banner sections and no archive subpages (example). I think that one of the scripts used to add WikiProject banners will also add a talkheader. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, that might explain it. We need to hunt that down and get it fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish and Redrose64 my personal opinion is, what harm is it doing? I like 👍 Like the talk page header because it reminds users of cardinal rule numero uno (our most important rule, by the way): assume good faith. Many battle-scarred long-time editors and new editors alike either forget or are unaware of that rule. This header is harmless and, I think, promotes harmony among editors. It also reminds editors to sign their comments, and provides a convenient link to begin a new section (in case they don't know about the link in the toolbar). Doug Mehus T·C 16:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    I don't believe in misusing loaded English words like "harm" (cf. "violence", "hate", "love", etc.) to engage in argument to emotion and straw man fallacies. The problems with over-use (maybe any use) of this template are numerous, and the most obvious of them are: it grossly clutters the top of the talk page, which is a usability/accessibilty problem, especially on smaller-screen devices and for those who are not blind but have visual impairments; it browbeats approx. 99% of visitors to a talk page (when it comes to most talk pages, i.e. those without long-term problems addressed by this template) with stuff they already know; it has an inherent WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP and WP:DONTFEED issue (it subliminally suggests ways to be a pain in the ass on Wikipedia, especially at a topic one is emotionally invested in, that one might not have already thought of or tried out yet); it implies to our comparatively uncommon actual-newbie talkpage visitors (those who are not already at least occasional editors and with at least some idea what talk pages are for and how WP works) that WP is a problematic hotbed of dispute (i.e., it reduces perception of WP's reliability as an encyclopedia); it makes it actually harder to find talk page archives, which are otherwise almost always located via a sidebar template); and I could list a dozen more issues. This template is questionably a good idea of any kind at all under any circumstance, but at bare minimum it needs to be restrained to talk pages that are already hotbeds of flaming, PoV pushing, or meat-puppetry, or otherwise (in ways specifically addressed by links in this template) being an "attractive nuisance" that draws in noobs unaware of NOTFORUM and BATTLEGROUND policy. In short, don't make WP out to be something that people abuse as an alternative to Usenet and Facebook and 4chan and SlashDOt, except (to explain not to and why) maybe use such a template at the few pages where people are already doing this. And in general, don't add blocks of visual "noise" where they do not serve a useful purpose anyway. This template does not promote harmony among editors, whatever its intent; it sets them on edge and strongly suggests that the page they have walked into is a battleground. It makes them defensive, suspicious, and looking for a fight (warily/wearily or eagerly), not a collaboration. No one needs a link to create a new section, since one is already in the menu bar, and no one could possibly be competent to edit here even on a talk page if they cannot even figure out how to edit said page in the first place. This template reminds me strongly of {{Ds/alert}}; no matter how many times it is made clear that that template is not at threat or warning but a neutral notice, and is actually required to be delivered under various circumstances, it is universally perceived as menacing and intended to be menacing (even after it was overhauled to have friendlier wording). Similarly, it doesn't really matter why people thought {{Talkheader}} would be friendly and helpful for new editors, it simply isn't and it never will be, because it's a big pile of rule-mongering that is itself an AGF failure (it assumes they are here to make trouble and/or that they're too boneheaded to avoid trouble). It even chafes the regulars this way. {{Talkheader}} is obviously and palpably a failure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish, True, I don't disagree with what you're saying, particularly on it tending to browbeat good-faith editors. I wonder if we could have an alternate talk header that would be smaller in form factor that would be more of a menu, with a link to start a new thread? Sort of like the {{talk page of redirect}} and {{talk page of disambiguation page}}, except smaller because it wouldn't need that verbiage directing editors to the main article page? Perhaps a {{slim talk header}}? Doug Mehus T·C 18:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish, I also loathe the {{Ds/alert}} header. On controversial pages subject to 1RR sanctions, there's already an editnotice in place. Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on 1RR page/topic sanctions and, generally speaking, is it too liberally applied? (This may be an off-topic hornet's nest discussion...feel free to move to your talkpage if you wish.) Doug Mehus T·C 19:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's more for WT:ARBCOM. As for a {{slim talk header}}, we have had them before and they've generally been deleted. There used to be a large family of "This is a talk page!" banner templates, and they're almost all gone now (either deleted outright or merged into {{Talkheader}} with the understanding that it wouldn't be used everywhere just at hotbeds of tooth-gnashing). They're just not particularly helpful. Our basic menus get the job done. If they were themselves some kind of serious usability problem, the solution would be to improve them (probably with a a new "skin"), not to try to work around them with middle-of-the-talk-page banner blobs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    If we wanted (i.e. had overwhelming community consensus for) a banner of this kind on every talk page, we could do so by software means, like MediaWiki:Talkpagetext which is displayed to me as I type this. Then there are editnotices, these can be set to display on all pages in a given namespace - see for instance Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File talk. Either way, it's a waste of time spamming every page in sight (unless you're trying to break into the top eleven here). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    Dmehus, I would second what SMcCandlish said and go a little farther to recommend that you stop using "what harm does it cause" as an argument. The burden of proof for an edit isn't "what harm does it cause", it is "what good is it providing". Edits should provide benefit to readers or editors. Consensus discussion—not a specific editor's opinion—is the mechanism used to determine if something is beneficial enough to the masses to justify it being used. The key issue with mass addition of {{Talk header}} (and any talk page template), is the more it is used, the more it is ignored. If it is only on specific talk pages where needed, it becomes more impactful. That is why consensus is that {{Talk header}} should be added with discretion and with a specific purpose. It is also important to remember that most talk pages receive a fraction of views that the actual article page receives. As an example, Packers sweep has received almost 2,000 views over the last 30 days, while its associated talk page has received only 12 in the same time period (most of which are probably me). This breakdown is again one of the reasons why {{Talk header}} (and {{Annual readership}} for that matter) isn't needed on articles that aren't controversial or highly edited, since it really serves no purpose for anyone. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

Bsherr, I'm not sure you are going to receive a whole lot more input, considering this page isn't widely watched. That said, it appears that everyone would generally be ok with variations of Option 4. Based on Headbomb's recommendation, I would also support matching the existing language; I also think the link that I proposed would be helpful for further reading. Thus I propose this discussion be wrapped up and the following be agreed upon:

{{Talk header}} (should only be used where it is needed – see Template:Talk header#Usage)

Johnuniq, Dmehus, Headbomb, Bsherr, and Senator2029, are you ok with this wording? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No strong feelings on the extra link, it's redundant to {{talk header}}, but not a big deal. However matching the language would be better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I switched it to "where" instead of "when", as this sounds more grammatically correct. I.e. the template is placed on a talk page where it is needed, instead of placed when it is needed. In my opinion, a minor change. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm content with that. It's consistent with the template documentation, which is my foremost concern. I'll request unprotection so we can implement. Thanks for taking the initiative to wrap up, and I appreciate everyone's input. --Bsherr (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I also think it is worth restating, should this topic be reviewed later, that I believe we are all in agreement that this language is in no way meant to change the status quo for appropriate use of the template, which is set forth on the template's documentation page. --Bsherr (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Would you kindly unprotect the subject page? --Bsherr (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with others, I too state that our consensus action doesn't change the purpose of the template, which already was limited in scope. Rather, this change strengthens its purpose (placing talk page guidelines as a header on talk pages that are actively being used inappropriately or incorrect). Starting a new talk page with this template has no benefit. Senator2029 “Talk” 09:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 00:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess we're not done yet. @Headbomb: Template:Tl's documentation states, "The template link template is a simple macro template used to display a template name as a link surrounded by braces, thus showing the template name as code rather than actually invoking it. Its primary use is in instruction and documentation where it is used to refer to a template by name without invoking it." This is not a situation for use of this template, because we are not instructing anyone to actually invoke {{talk header#Usage}}. It should be a regular section link, using Template:Section link. Because it's an inline crossreference, it really should be in a crossreference template too, in keeping with the preferred style for inline crossreferences. --Bsherr (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A way of making it shorter would be to use a piped link, if we want. --Bsherr (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no "preferred style for inline cross references", and {{Talk header#Usage}} is both succinct and functional. If you object to this for whatever reason, other alternatives exists, like ... see documentation.. There's zero need to involve {{Section link}} and {{Cross reference}} here, or to direct people to the /doc subpage rather than the to the documentation embedded on the template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll accept your suggestion of a piped link. The preferred style for crossreferences is documented at MOS:CROSSREF. Have a nice day. --Bsherr (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, having it look like "{{talk header#Usage}}" is just a mistake, since actually using that code would produce an error. What is meant is Template:Talk header#Usage (which can be prettified with {{Section link}}: Template:Talk header § Usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: we could also reference the live version of "see documentation", rather than stuff from weeks ago. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Chure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_layout/Archive_3&oldid=1146539345"