Template talk:Talk header/Archive 9

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

No links in headings

Hi all, a question was posted in the helpdesk by Anne Delong concerning this recent change. I agree with Anne that links in talk page subheadings are a regular custom and see no problem with links in headings on talk pages. I do not believe this change is supported by discussion. Since two editors have some issue with this edit, and since the template is highly used and protected against editing, I request the edit be undone by an admin, and the edit be discussed. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this change to the template is in conflict with wide spread practice on talk pages where linking terms in headings often helps to make a point concisely and without repetition. Talk pages have never been the subject of MOS and even MOS:HEADINGS allows for linked terms in headings in articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to notify the editor, Pigsonthewing, rather than assume he'll be watching the right page at the right time. Obviously he thought the change was a good idea. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing was informed immediately after I posted this topic. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
At the very least, one should wikilink the final word in that sentence to [[Help:Section]] and add a full stop. Or remove the full stops from each of the other bullet points. Jared Preston (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the change per WP:BRD. I currently don't have an opinion on the change itself, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There are two kinds of recommendation at MOS, although it's not always obvious which category a given guideline falls into. There are those aimed at making articles look neat, tidy and consistent (such as in MOS:HEADINGS where it says "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings"); and there are those that exist because of technical considerations (such as "Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page"). The former are directed primarily at mainspace; the latter at all namespaces. Templates in section headings can make a right mess of the TOC, of incoming links to that section, and of the edit summary in page history (example). Links are less of a problem, unless there are accessibility issues that I don't know about: Graham87, do clickable links in section headings cause trouble for screen reader users? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Not any more; JAWS fixed problems with links in section headers many, many years ago. Graham87 01:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Further to the good points made by User:Redrose64, Linking in headings makes it difficult, sometimes impossible, to open the relevant sections in Wikipedia's official mobile app. The change should be restored, ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I use the mobile app and I have no problem opening a section with a link in the name. Simply click the arrow to open a section like always. Links in talk page headings have always been used and a change in policy towards it should be discussed with a few more people, so I have asked for input at the policy village pump. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
About template use on a talk page heading I can follow the argument it is not wanted, but I feel it is not the type of vital info to put in this template, but more a thing that could be mentioned in a guideline. Has templates in headings been a large enough problem that it needs go be mentioned on top of talk pages? Most people wont know what a template is. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Both Anne Delong and Pigsonthewing referred to headings not headers; they are not the same thing. Headings are the text between paired equals signs; headers are those boxes above the first heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I had not noticed. I'll go make some changes so people will not be confused. Thanks again, Taketa (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
A rich source of them can be found here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Trying to disallow something so widespread because of a bug in the mobile app is silly. Bugzilla is that way. Anomie⚔ 11:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Like others, I agree that templates in subheads have the potential of causing major problems, and should not benecessary. Butthe probkllems by using links wouldseem fixable, and they really do help. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Anomie. The proper response here is to fix the bug, not to accommodate the bug by contributing to instruction creep and requiring people to change long-established usage. The use of links in section headings existed long before the mobile app did, and presumably it was in the doc when the app was developed. A new app needs to conform to the existing environment, not the other way around. If as Andy says the bug makes it "difficult, sometimes impossible" to read the section (as opposed to simply making navigation a tad more difficult), then that would warrant a high priority for the fix. I can't really speak to templates as I saw a template break a heading here yesterday, so that problem doesn't seem specific to mobiles. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring where links are the standard inserted by the wizard and WP:RPP where templates in the section headers is the standard practice? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Try making a link to a section in RPP and you'll find that you need to jump through hoops: WP:RPP#Jos.C3.A9 Lino Vargas (edit.C2.A0.7C talk.C2.A0.7C history.C2.A0.7C protect.C2.A0.7C delete.C2.A0.7C links.C2.A0.7C watch.C2.A0.7C logs.C2.A0.7C views) All those .C2.A0 are non-breaking spaces, and all those .7C are pipes. That .C3.A9 is a letter with diacritic (é) and won't appear in all the links. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The practice at WP:AN3 of putting user names in headers seems well-established. The effect of this is to put links in headers since User:Example is a link. But the use of template brackets in headers at WP:RFPP has always seemed quirky and there is an RfC to undo it at WT:RFPP#Proposal to change the format of RfPP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No thanks. I'd prefer not to give us another trivial thing to prompt edit wars. Protonk (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been nearly a week since the start of the discussion. Thank you all for sharing your views. A summary of my conclusions from this discussion:
  • I currently see no consensus for excluding links in headings.
  • I see a majority arguing for excluding templates in headings. A single exception was put forward, however the usage there is questioned as well.
The thing remaining is to discuss whether the fact that templates should not be in headings is important enough to put it in this header, or if it can be left out of this header and possibly be included in a larger guideline or advice text.
Personally I think most users would not be helped by putting the advice in the header and considering keeping the template small is important as well, I am in favor of not including a text about this. Please let me know your views about this and let me know if there is anything the matter in my summary above. Please do not let my summary stop anyone from continuing discussion. All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I was directed to this talk page because the anchor template in edit summary headings is keeping us from going to the summary. The anchor template in a heading breaks current practice for watchlists. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one fix to this problem might be simply "insert the anchor template, not 'in the heading', but 'after the heading ===' markup". --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
If anything other than whitespace or a HTML comment <!-- ... -->, such as an {{anchor}}, is placed after the closing == or === etc. on the same line, it breaks the heading itself (at User:Redrose64/Sandbox7, edit section 6 and notice that section 7 doesn't really exist). If a HTML comment <!-- ... --> is placed after the closing == or === etc. on the same line, it breaks the automatic generation of an edit summary (at User:Redrose64/Sandbox7, try editing sections 3 or 4, notice that the edit summary box is blank). As far as edit summaries and consistent reliable section linking is concerned, there are only two safe places to put a {{anchor}} which relates to a section heading: on the previous line or one the next line, but both have their problems. If placed on the previous line, it may get mixed up with the text of the previous section, even moved somewhere else on the page if the section is moved. If placed on the next line, the section heading might not be visible - it could be just off the top of the visible page, and for screen reader users, it won't be read out whether it's on screen or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I find this to be a bizarre place to be discussing this topic (I stumbled upon it quite accidentally). I'm rather famous for many things (probably infamous, really), but removing {{User}} templates from headings on AN/ANI is one of them. It does break the archiving really badly. I typically replace the template with the link to [[User:]] instead the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Want way to change search button label

See Template:Search archives. In that search template there is this parameter:

  • searchbuttonlabel

Can that be added to Template:Talk header?

I need it here: Wikipedia talk:Bug reports and feature requests. I want to change the search button label there to

"Search talk archives"

That way it is clear to people that they are searching only the talk archives, and not the other archive. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 November 2014

Please replace: 

<td style="border-left: 1px solid #c0c090"><center>
; Article policies: </center>
* [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]]
</td>

with: 

<td style="border-left: 1px solid #C0C090;">{{Center|'''Article policies'''}}
* [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]]
</td>

to remove a deprecated HTML tag and bring this template up to HTML5 standards. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-standard archives

Is there any way we can modify this template so that under "Archives" it can show both numbered archive pages and also archive pages with non-standard names? I know that I can turn archives off and use {{archivebox}} instead, but it would be much more compact if we could have all in the same template. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops

I see this template is used on 200K+ pages. I hope the same thing didn't happen to the rest of those pages that just happened to my talk archives. It now says at the top: "This is Dank/Archive 42's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Dank/Archive 42." - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: Why did you put this template on the archive [1]? It is not intended to be used on the archives, but on talk pages. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I was confusing this with {{talkarchive}}. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: add explanatory wording

My proposal adds the words "at the end of your post." to the template wording directly after the parenthesis that encloses the 4 demonstration tildes. This helps new users to comprehend and comply with our standard practice in signing posts. Since the template is in substantial use, this wording will be widely observed by users who are new to talk pages. Thanks. Jusdafax 12:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary placement

Hello! Why shouldn't this template be added to any talk page? I've seen numerous examples in which having it in place would improve the talk page layout, as people wouldn't put new discussions on top, would sign the posts, etc. IMHO, and based on my experience, placing {{Talk header}} on any talk page can only be a good thing. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I worry that the more verbosity resides in peach-colored boxes at the top of talk pages, the more they will be disregarded and potentially even scare off noobs who are wondering onto talk pages for the first time to report factual errors, broken links, or the like. I prefer cleaner-looking talk pages, personally. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 02:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe some kind of a solution would be to slightly redesign the {{Talk header}} template so it visually fits better? It's just that I've seen much fewer misplaced or unsigned posts on talk pages that included the header. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't noticed this at all. Do you have some examples? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It's somewhat hard to provide exact examples as it's based on my experience and I haven't collected a list of exact talk pages. However, I'm not trying to skew anything, it's a honest observation. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 September 2015

Would be great to be able to add additional instructions to the template. For example if I wanted to tell people to please respond on my page, not on theirs.

Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You can put whatever instructions you like at the top of YOUR talk page. WP:Subst the template onto your talk page and edit the result to your tastes. Regards, Bazj (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Zackmann08 and Bazj: Subst:ing isn't an ideal solution, as it leaves a mess of unnecessary wikicode at the top of your talk page. I mocked up a cleaner way to seamlessly include extra instructions in Template:Talk header/sandbox. You can either use |custom_header= for extra text in the header (where |bottom=yes puts its text) or |custom_text= to put an extra bullet point in the white box. Of course, I wouldn't implement anything without consensus here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 September 2015

Please change this: 


}}{{#ifexpr:{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|1|0}}*{{#ifeq:{{{disclaimer|}}}|yes|1|0}}|
{{userpage}}
}}

To this, for more preciseness: 


}}{{#ifexpr:{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|1|0}}*{{#ifeq:{{{disclaimer|}}}|yes|1|0}}|
{{usertalkpage}}
}}

—Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 04:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. The only difference appears to be to change {{userpage}} to {{usertalkpage}} when the |disclaimer=yes parameter is engaged. The former is a true disclaimer, while the latter is just a "Welcome" template for talk pages. I don't see you garnering consensus for this; however, if you feel strongly about it, then you are welcome to try. Painius  20:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 Done – Mybad – I went to {{user talk page}}, an entirely different template. Painius  21:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Addition of essay

@SlimVirgin: Please remove the essay you've added to the full-protected template. An essay has no business being included in such a widely-seen template. --Izno (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I'll add that you don't have any business making a change like this to a template-protected template without any discussion at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done This change was already reverted by SlimVirgin. — xaosflux Talk 15:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: I've self-reverted. The essay, Wikipedia:Maintaining a friendly space, seems informative and appropriate there; this was the edit. It advises people how to frame questions, how to deal with harassment, etc. Do you object to the content, or just that it's an essay? SarahSV (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Moreso the latter off the cuff--I didn't review for content when I noticed the edit. I think we should avoid referencing pages which don't have an obvious consensus as a guideline (or policy) in a widely-used template (and especially without discussion, which I suppose is being held now). Maybe there is value in including the content in the already-included Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers or at the least the link in the see also section there. Heck, maybe we should rename "bite the newcomers" to a name similar to "maintain a friendly space" to make the intent clearer to everyone for WP:BITE. --Izno (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: it offers good advice that's absent from the other two links and wouldn't be appropriate to add to them, because it's not about civility or newcomers alone. I believe it's being used in edit-a-thons and so on. It was written by Harej, who is on the board of Wikimedia DC, so it's not something that has no consensus. SarahSV (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
You know that the chapters have little to do with en.WP consensus, and that we don't judge a document based on who wrote it but on what the document says. Similarly, we don't judge consensus by presumption but by actually requesting and providing evidence to show that a document indeed has consensus. There is a clear process to show consensus, and that page has not gone through that process i.e. it does not have consensus (as a guideline). I will stick to what I said earlier and say that the things we should be linking to in this template should clearly have consensus on en.WP; the suggested page does not. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I copied the essay from Meta because I thought it was a good essay, not as a reflection of my role on Wikimedia DC's board. It's based on the (quasi-)policy used on Meta for the Wikimedia Foundation grants programs, and there is a similar friendly space policy in force at Wikimedia Foundation-sponsored events such as Wikimania. I do like that there is some interest in promoting friendly space recommendations, but it is more important that there is broad Wikipedia acceptance of what the essay says. If Wikipedia at large were to accept the values of the essay, then linking to it from this template would follow naturally. Otherwise it's just words on a page. Harej (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"and anything related to"

The wp parameter adds some potentially problematic wording . Is WT:BIBLE really for discussing "anything" even "related" to the tasks of the project? Surely even Wikipedia Talk pages should be limited to discussion of topics related to Wikipedia, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Tasks of the project - if it's not about editing Wikipedia, then it's not about the tasks of the project. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
But it might be "related to" the tasks of the project. If what is meant "anything about the tasks of the project", then isn't that the wording it should use? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, wait... does the project mean Wikipedia? If so, it is ambiguous and on a bunch of pages (namely every WikiProject talk page) it strongly implies something it is not meant to... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Small change and font sized of header

I have made a small change...I have put the line "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." in the header...as it seems many miss this point and the fact its all part of one thought as in what the page is for. I think we should increase the size of the font in the header to 110%. What do others think? -- Moxy (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make this banner any more obtrusive. Kanguole 14:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, increasing the font size wouldn't be a good idea. I'm not even sure how useful is the performed expansion of the title/header line, while it surely eats up vertical space. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 May 2016

Please make these changes. Those inline style statements are already set by .tmbox and are thus redundant. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done ~ RobTalk 09:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: your edit made the talk headers squash by 80% on all pages. Please revert your edit and first you should verify that its working fine. Don't blindly address any request for such highly visible pages. —IB [ Poke ] 10:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Reverted. I did verify that it worked in the sandbox, but I happened to do so when I had two browser windows open, each on half of my screen. There was no visible change under those circumstances. ~ RobTalk 10:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I guess you must not have purged the cache. When I was using two browsers it was okay. But the moment I purged the cache it showed the talk header as being squashed to a side. —IB [ Poke ] 10:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I did purge the cache. It still looks fine when my browser is only open on half of my screen at Template:Talk header/testcases. The problem is that when the browser window is narrow enough, the regular version is also squashed down, so they look identical. I just happened not to be looking at it with the correct browser screen size to notice the difference. ~ RobTalk 10:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: "made the talk headers squash by 80% on all pages" since this is now reverted and the testcases don't actually show this problem, can you please explain where this would occur ? And again, it was tested. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@TheDJ: When I look at the testcases, the sandboxes are showing the problem again. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, it's only when the window is wider than a certain amount. Seems there is a bug that needs addressing in the core classes. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Compassionate727, BU Rob13: Figured it out. It's not the core classes that were broken. The problem was that this was using tmbox classes, but not the tmbox structure. The structure of tmboxes is VERY important as well, it makes sure that the dynamic sizing works. these additional changes convert this into a proper tmbox. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation

The introduction would benefit from the addition of a simpler outline as well as simplified sentences and language. It seems very wordy and it becomes distracting Currently: "a set of metabolic reactions and processes that take place in the cells of organisms to convert biochemical energy from nutrients into adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and then release waste products." Simpler: "the process of metabolic reactions by which the chemical energy of nutrients is released and partially captured in the form of ATP. ATP stores the chemical energy and can be utilized later by the cell." It is important to simplify and point out the basic purpose, *convert food into ATP* Before moving on to the specifics of Cell Respiration, I think there needs to be a brief outline in order to organize the thoughts of the entire page Something like: Cellular respiration can be divided into three main processes: glycolysis, the Krebs cycle(Citric Acid Cycle), and oxidative phosphorylation. Each of these occurs in a specific region of the cell.(INCLUDE A PICTURE)

1) Glycolysis occurs in the cytosol.

2) The Krebs cycle takes place in the mitochondriaL matrix.

3) Oxidative phosphorylation via the electon transport chain occurs on the inner mitochondrial membrane.

Important to note that in the absence of oxygen, respiration consists of only two metabolic pathways: glycolysis and fermentation. Both occur in the cytosol.

Moving on to the specifics of the article, each section appears to accurately explain the processes, but I think that pictures would be very beneficial, or even animations for the ETC explanation.

I think it is a very good addition to mention that there are a select few organisms that perform anaerobic respiration using a sulfate or nitrate and mentioning the conditions that have fostered this adaptation.

There is no apparent problem with bias in sources or information. Source 1 is simple and appropriate to the page. I am confused how Source 2 and 3 benefit the page. Simple textbook sources seem more appropriate for this Cell Respiration process overview.

Cariningram (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cariningram: You appear to be on the wrong talk page for your evaluation. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive boxes not showing

There seems to be a problem with this template displaying Archive links/boxes, both of these old versions of pages use this template: Talk:Rodrigues and Talk:Human body - or even this very talk page. The section above this links to a user finding the same on their talk page.

Can someone who knows this template well look into this - there is one change in October 2016 which looks pretty benign, so perhaps it is due to a change in one of the transcluded templates. My knowledge of markup is not good enough to trace the problem. |→ Spaully ~talk~  21:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Please ignore this - it was due to a 2009 version of my .css file for MonoBook that I had forgotten about. No problem with the template. |→ Spaully ~talk~  12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Monthly archives not showing on template

Lowercase sigmabot III archived parts of my talk page ([1], [2]) but they don't show up on the talk header template on my talk page. Does anyone know why? Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Zupotachyon:, mystery solved as you may find at Village Pump pointed out by another user - your archives are not numerical so will not automatically show up with this template. You could either make them sequentially numerical or use one of the other archive boxes to solve this. BW |→ Spaully ~talk~  12:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Custom message

The current message reads

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk header template.

or some variant of it. Could you add a parameter to add a custom addition to that

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk header template. <CUSTOM TEXT>

or maybe to simply override the default message

<CUSTOM TEXT>

This would be helpful to give messages such as "This is the talk page for X. To discuss Y, go here. To discuss Z, go here". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are there implied restrictions on the use of this template?

The template's documentation says stuff like "This template should only be placed where it's needed." Why? While I agree with the sentiment "Don't visit talk pages just to add this template" (as that statement prevents users racking up edits simply by mass placement of this template), why in the world do we want to actually deprive new editors of understanding what talk pages are, what they are for, and how to use them? When I was new editor, I learned a lot from seeing this template on every talk page I visited (it even tells you how to sign your posts). Now I rarely see it. How is a new editor supposed to learn all of these things, especially when it's extremely rare now for any editor to get a "Welcome" template of any sort? This template explains:

  1. How/where to start a new topic, and gives a handy link to click.
  2. How to sign and date posts.
  3. How/where to learn about Wikipedia editing and get answers to questions.
  4. How to request dispute resolution.
  5. Wikipedia's policies of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.

Clearly therefore, except for one single link (WP:BITE), it is a template for new and inexperienced users rather than for experienced users. Why do we therefore not have this template on every single article talk page? Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Jusdafax 12:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Because it's often useless clutter. If you want this on every page, make an RFC and have MediaWiki automatically transclude it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Please explain to me how informing editors, especially new editors, of:
  1. How/where to start a new topic
  2. How to sign and date posts
  3. How/where to learn about Wikipedia editing and get answers to questions
  4. How to request dispute resolution
  5. Wikipedia's policies of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF
... is "useless clutter"? Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I support the idea of an RFC. The talkheader also clarifies the purpose of the Talk pages, while in the case of no Talk page existing, creates them. There is great need to encourage new editors, and this template does that by welcoming them to comment on how to improve articles, instead of on the subject of the article. The talkheader is brilliantly designed. When an article is created, it should go up automatically, and it should be placed on all existing articles without them. Jusdafax 12:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree. It would also cut down on the number of content disputes that are constantly brought up on ANI, AN, and ArbCom, since it links directly to WP:DR. Also, Wikipedia has been scaring away new editors in droves for the past 9 years; this would certainly help in editor retention. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Allow me to suggest an RFC elsewhere than here, as this is a relatively isolated page. Perhaps WP:PUMP or someplace a good cross section of editors will see it. Jusdafax 23:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I support a RfC and would support having this on every article talkpage by default. This page is the appropriate place for the RfC, though it should be well advertised in order to bring in a wide cross-section of users. Listing on WP:CENT would help. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't like to see this on every talk page by default. Empty talk pages don't benefit from it, and a red-linked talk page signifies that it needs to be added to WikiProjects. Adding this template before adding projects removes this easily spotted marker. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • After reading the comments regarding the implied restriction on this template, I thought to myself: "We don't have to be limited to this way or that way...we can do better than that!" So, here's my idea: Add some code to MediaWiki so that this message would automatically pop up if certain conditions are met, like N postings per quarter would indicate this talk page would be busy enough to warrant such a message. Or something like that. The idea is to reduce the burden on editors and administrators to monitor those pages. Or have a separate section "outside" the content editing to present the message. As a useful side effect is that an administrator can easily put a message that read "You are blocked from editing" on an offending user talk page and lock that, for example. In fact I once had seen such an "edit war" between an admin and a blocked user that ultimately resulted in getting that talk page blocked as well. Automated adding of WikiProject templates with ability to further refining it also would be great. I keep finding such talk pages without WikiProject templates.
    In any case, I believe an RFC would be helpful, only if to make things ultimately more structured overall. --TheBlueWizard (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The reason not to place this everywhere is because if it appears everywhere, people learn to ignore it. There are already too many tags on our talk pages, at there is no distinction between important stuff (Arbcom warning) and merely informational stuff (translation notices), and the last thing we need is more templates on talk pages that don't need them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiyarbepsy (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, there is that problem...dunno what to say. --TheBlueWizard (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Layout idea

Should the bullet point lists be simplified as shown in the proposal? Atón (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Being primarily directed towards new users, I think the current template could benefit from being a bit more visual. It needs to stand out from all other talk page templates, and a bullet point list of policies might not be the best solution to attract attention. So I was thinking about an alternative and came up with this:

It gives the three sections of the template the same width. In the first one, the link to Help:Using talk pages might be more helpful than the two bullet points of the current template. In the second section, some conduct links have been removed, but I think the message is clear and the most important links are still there. Finally, the section of the content policies has a more prominent position, no longer pushed to the side. I'd like to know your opinion and suggestions. Is this a step in the right direction?Atón (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I like it. I think it provides a lot more visual clarity to what is there. I also think we should ask if this is for new users or not. If it is genuinely for new users, the archive links should be removed and placed elsewhere on the talk page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
How can it be for new users? It's used on talk pages in general, not on user talk pages. We have welcome templates for that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Easy, some new users go to talk pages. IPs, particularly, will see this message long before they get any kind of welcome. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it is an improvement. More clarity for novice users. --SubSeven (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it's an improvement, although I think divs should be used instead of a table to allow wrapping of the three boxes, so the display doesn't end up looking weirdly squashed on small phone screens (see Responsive web design). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The {{Talk header}} template does not show up on mobile view unless it is on a user talk page and the |disclaimer= parameter is set to yes. —MRD2014 19:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I personally find it very large. The text columns are also rather narrow at a very-standard 1024px width (very useful vs a full-HD-expanded-window to read text, preventing paragraphs from running completely from left to right of a large screen and allowing to show multiple vertical windows on a single HD screen). We don't use top-posting, the headers are before the TOC and already require a lot of scrolling down (there usually are WikiProjects, sometimes enclosed in the WikiProjects Shell to help; there often is a FAQ and ARBPS notice, etc). Moreover, the watchlist often does not directly link to the thread (via the too-small arrow, I now remember this), depending on what editor people use it seems, so using the TOC to locate the thread is a very common action. Since this template would usually be near the top, adding a jump-to-toc button/link on it may also be an idea to offset its large size (and that of other talk page headers)... —PaleoNeonate - 05:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh and if the jump-to-toc feature is considered a useful feature, perhaps a jump-to-bottom would also be useful... —PaleoNeonate - 05:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the problem of scrolling down, the most straightforward solution -in my view- would be to place the TOC above all headers, or directly below this one. Meanwhile we have {{Skip to talk}}. Atón (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Atón: The TOC cannot be placed any higher than the default position, immediately before the first section heading (with nothing else in between): anywhere else creates an accessibility problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the size, I've made the icons smaller, reduced the font size, removed some text, and increased a bit the column width [diff]. Not a big difference, but to me it looks like an improvement. Atón (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that it's an improvement, thanks. Would it also be possible to narrow the padding between the columns? This would likely allow a word or two more per line and also make it smaller vertically. —PaleoNeonate - 21:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Done [diff]. Atón (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
That's quite nice. —PaleoNeonate - 04:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I like it despite the icons that people don't lik. The icons actually catch people's eyes and draw their attention....would lead more to see it and read it in my view.--Moxy (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Summoned by bot. I personally like the proposed version as it is more clean, provides images for easier navigation, while not being too lengthy or large. Meatsgains (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I like it too. It's bigger, but it's also way cleaner and clearer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I like it, but I would suggest that "post new messages on the bottom" or something similar be retained on the template. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. By making Help:Using talk pages the very first link, I hope new users will immediately see it and click on it. The steps to add a new comment are explained there, along with information about signatures and indentation. It keeps the template simple and free of instruction creep while guiding new users to the appropiate help page. Atón (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

Per consensus above in Template talk:Talk header#Layout idea, please upgrade the code as in User:Atón/talk header. The new code would be: Note that the structure is the same as in the current template, but there are changes here and there, that's why I think replacing the whole code is easier than enumerating all changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atón (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Atón: Please don't paste proposed template code into talk pages. Instead, per WP:TESTCASES, use the template's sandbox (i.e. Template:Talk header/sandbox), so that it may be tested properly before deployment. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I did use the sandbox and checked the testcases, just didn't know I had to link to them. Is this request still valid or should I make a new one? Atón (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
We don't need yet another section. Really this thread need not have been a separate section either, since it's clearly a follow-on from the section above; so I've merged them. But any Template-protected edit request should have a {{edit template-protected}} so that it may be recognised as a formal request. This template includes sandbox links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: Shouldn't this new version mention say "Please sign your posts by typing four tildes" (~~~~)? The current talk header contains that sentence. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 18:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Help:Using talk pages is the very first link, which explains why and how to sign. New users will hopefully be guided to read it. Furthermore, MediaWiki:Talkpagetext will also remind them to sign. Ideally, the reminder should be as near to the ‘Save’ button as possible. To put it at the top of a talk page with several other instructions and banner clutter doesn’t seem effective to me; people will ignore it and, if not, they will forget it. That’s why I think it’s best to make sure that new users will easily find Help:Using talk pages, and to remind them to sign in the edit page with MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. Atón (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In some ways this proposed change is an improvement; however, the direction and link for starting a new topic, as well as the sig direction, should remain in this template to provide immediate direction to all editors. I don't think editors should have to click a link to get those instructions.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

We agree that editors should be able to know how to use talk pages without much problem. But a link to create a new topic is redundant when there is a default tab at the top right of the page. Why not teach new users to create new topics properly from the start? A reminder to sign is unnecessary when there is MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. And the bannerspace is already very cluttered, so adding more instructions might be counterproductive. In my view, the best way to make sure that new users learn how to use talk pages is to direct them to a clear help page with images, a video, and step by step instructions. A visible link to Help:Using talk pages is not problematic and seems to me cleaner, clearer, and more effective. Atón (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I hope I will be forgiven – this template serves readers and editors well just as it is, IMHO.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I've made a couple of accessibility improvements in the sandbox. The three decorative icons are CC-BY-SA, so have to be linked, leading to meaningless alt text and extra tab key presses for screen reader and keyboard users. Switching to public domain or CC0 alternatives would eliminate these problems. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Not seeing much sign of consensus on this request. Cabayi (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
There was a clear consensus before the request. But nevermind, what a waste of time. Atón (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Atón but I couldn't find a template to cover "You had some kind of consensus before the request but the subsequent discussion has caused it to crumble. Please go back and establish a new consensus". If you'd care to add such an option to {{ETp}} I'll happily go back and use it. The option of leaving an active request which nobody has acted on in 2 weeks and where the consensus had evaporated seemed pointless. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Matt Fitzpatrick just took two days ago the effort to clean the code and make suggestions (thank you, by the way). Regarding consensus, the only objection has been responded to[2]. I don't see the point in repeating the argument, nor in opening another RfC when consensus was very clear in the previous one and no new, argued objection has been raised. Atón (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to reactivate the request if you think I've read it wrong. Cabayi (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Change comma with hlist

Can someone change comma for separated archive links with something like {{hlist}}, I think it better and looked symmetric that way. --Hddty. (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Also, please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 February 2018

Could it be possible to change (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>) to (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)? L293D (✉) 01:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: no reason given why this is thought to be an improvement.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Went ahead and replaced the <code>...</code> tags with <kbd>...</kbd> tags as suggested below.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, JJMC89, your question came in just before I closed this. To be clear, the present code compared with the proposed code:
  • present: (~~~~)
  • proposed: (~~~~)
Note how the four tildes are separated from the parentheses in the present code. The present code is slightly better in my opinion.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I was suggesting to remove the <code></code> part:
  • present: (~~~~)
  • proposed: ( ~~~~ ) L293D (✉) 13:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The <code></code> tags are the standard way of showing how to enter raw wikitext that will be changed to something else by the parser. I don't see any good reason to remove them here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Semantically speaking, <kbd>...</kbd> would be better than <code>...</code>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I understood what you suggested; however, when you look at the first code you suggested, (~~~~), there are no spaces between the parens and the nowiki tags. Sort of crunches the code imo. Following is usage of Redrose64's suggested kbd tags:
  • (~~~~)
The four tildes are just a tad lower on my screen than they are when the <code>...</code> is removed, so it does look better than that; however, the tildes still appear just a little bit better just as they are, imho.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
PS. Of course, I would not be averse to adding spaces, as in ( ~~~~ ), to get an acceptable alternative. (PS added by  Paine  03:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC))

Archive 0

My talk page archives are zero indexed (User talk:Billhpike/Archive 0). When I use {{Talk header}}, the archive links start with 1. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: WP:ARCHIVE recommends starting at 1 for a reason (namely because all the templates and bots expect it). I am a page mover, so I can move User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_1 to User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_2 without leaving a redirect, and then move User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_0 to User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_1. Would you like me to do this for you? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Troubleshooting missing archive links from Talk header

I am trying to troubleshoot why the archives of the talk page for Michael Shermer are not appearing in the talk header for that page. The archive page (automatically created here by Cluebot here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Shermer&diff=prev&oldid=844643772&diffmode=source) is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Shermer/Archives/_1 but does not show up as part of the talk header template. Any suggestions for how to get it working? mennonot (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mennonot: The archive page's name was erroneous, I have moved it to "Archive 1" and the link now shows. —PaleoNeonate – 20:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"need"

Noticed Kfz-Technik Deutsch-Techniker removing this template from a few pages because "Edit history shows no need for talkheader template". I've never heard of there being a "need". I tend to add it to talk pages by default because it automatically includes links to archives and saw no downside to providing the information. Is there some specific usage criteria I'm not aware of? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to read the very clear instructions enclosed within a warning box on the main page of this template. Allow me to quote them for you:

"This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page."

The pages I removed it from showed zero evidence of any edit warring, nor did they (nor were likely to) have archive pages. Its unnecessary inclusion results in unwanted clutter. Also, please respect that many folks now view on devices with smaller screen sizes, and so do not want their viewing 'real estate' obscured by needless clutter. Best, Kfz-Technik Deutsch-Techniker (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I ought to. Indeed I missed that. Looks like I'll need to find another way to display archives beyond the sidebar boxes that appear, to me, much more "cluttery." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
"This template should be placed only where it's needed." This is the actual wording of usage guideline. The page notice substituted "where" with "when"  (who wrote and added that page notice, by the way?),  but since the criteria for "needed" is not specifically defined in the documentation, its addition is left to the discretion of individual editors. Imo, there is more purpose for including the template than instances of edit warring. The template provides guidance for conduct and awareness of Wikipedia policies. I find that very useful and a good learning tool. And I don't consider the template to be "clutter". If readers choose to view Wikipedia articles on restrictive small mobile devices, that's their decision ... but the comfort of mobile users should not come at the expense of readers and editors as a whole, and the understanding of Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that some editors, such as myself, take a look at talk pages to see whether there are any issues that we need to be aware of before making an edit. If the talk page is blank, it's not blue-linked on the article page, so it's immediately obvious that there's no need to look. However, any edit to the talk page changes the link to blue. I'm always annoyed to find that there are no posts on a talk page, except for talkheader, status, and and other mundane stuff. I made a suggestion on the technical improvements page, requesting that the Talk link should not go blue unless an actual post has been made. The request was turned down as too difficult technically to implement. The best advice is to put nothing on the talk page, so that editors such as myself can see at a glance that there's nothing to see. It doesn't last of course, because someone eventually rates the article and the link goes blue. Akld guy (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
If there was agreement that every talk page should display {{talk header}}, we could do it very easily by creating an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Talk, like the ones that we have for some other namespaces, such as MediaWiki: or Category talk:. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Per page notice: "This page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it." Pyxis Solitary yak 09:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, namespace editnotices are highly protected. But since it would only be created once, and would rarely be edited, why would that protection be a problem? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Beats me. I'm not an admin. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Those are editnotices which display when one attempts to edit the page. What would be needed here would be to hardcode it into Mediawiki such that it displayed to all readers of the page, which is something different. It wouldn't be difficult, but you'd never get consensus for it; the mobile site now accounts for more than half Wikipedia's readership and that proportion continues to rise, and something that significantly inconveniences the majority of readers for a very marginal benefit to the minority who are still using desktop is never going to fly. If anything, starting an RFC at one of the broad-participation venues like the Village Pumps (which would be necessary for a decision affecting 6,825,835 pages) would be more likely to lead to a "why do we need this at all?" discussion and the deprecation of the template's existing uses along with much of the other clutter that currently appears as pointless banners at the top of the page that duplicate material already displayed as categories. (Take Talk:Upney tube station as a relatively typical low-importance medium-readership article talk page; every single thing in the clutter of banners is just duplicating what's already displayed in the categories, and none of it is of any relevance to readers; if I want to read about Upney tube station than this page is of high importance to me, regardless of whether someone has rated it low-importance.) ‑ Iridescent 07:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Re "If the talk page is blank, it's not blue-linked": adding WikiProject banners also turns Talk page link blue -- and their purpose is vital to the improvement of Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly what I said, if you read my post fully. That's why I requested a technical change so that the link wouldn't go blue unless a post was made, i.e. banners and ratings would have no effect. Akld guy (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The post was read.
"I'm always annoyed to find that there are no posts on a talk page, except for talkheader, status, and and other mundane stuff." I don't think of WikiProject banners as mundane or stuff. So, if we were supposed to assume that they were included in the quoted revelation ... the tea leaves weren't deciphered. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yep, they're mundane stuff when I come here to look for posts that might have a bearing on an edit I'm about to make. Akld guy (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Replace "under" with "below"

Could we replace "Put new text under old text." with "Put new text below old text"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No only could we, we should. Support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Below carries the sense of "lower than, but exact whereabouts not important", whereas under has the sense of "immediately beneath". Perhaps the OP might care to explain why the change might be important, or necessary. Akld guy (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
For my part, the reason I support this is because the use of under is frankly just odd sounding with text. Consider this: "The paragraph below..." or for that matter, as a counterpoint, "the paragraph above..." (which are everyday expressions), versus, well, any use of "under" or its counterpoint, "over", in connection with a text-related use. Meanwhile, since the sentence's instruction provides that for whatever direction word we choose, it is in relation to "old text", it is unambiguous where it goes, and so even if I agreed with the connotation you are pointing to, I don't think it would matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's why I opposed. Talking of a submarine, we would say it's below the surface for any depth down to its maximum dive depth, i.e. we are not being specific as to depth. On the other hand, we would say it's under the surface when it's just below the surface. There's a difference in shade of meaning. Akld guy (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Template_talk:Talk_header/Archive_9"