Template talk:Talk header/Archive 2

message: * Template:Talkheader2
* Template:Talkheader3
* Template:Talkheaderlong
* Template:Talkpagelong
* Template:Newtalk
* Template:Categorytalkheader
* Template:Templatetalkheader
The above templates duplicate the function of , for reasons which I don't think are valid any longer.  In some cases, they were created because the  template at the time had article-space-specific semantics.  That has since been corrected, and  can be used on any talk page, including templates.  In other cases, people propsing alternative forms for  actually created separate templates, which were then used a handful of times.  Those have universally fallen into disuse, with this "main" template being the clear popular choice.  I think these alternatives are suboptimal: We should try and reach concensus on what the talk header should be, not create a bunch of different templates for everybody's personal whim.  I propsose that these "legacy templates" be replaced with use of , and then submitted to TfD.  I started to do this, and then decided it would be better to check for any dissenting opinions first. So: Objections?  Agreement?  Suggestions?  Comments?  --DragonHawk 21:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: I just now noticed that this was apparently already done (for the most part, at least).  All of the templates listed above are now redirects to .  There are still a lot of pages which include the old names, which might be suboptimal from a maintenance standpoint, but functionally, this is done.  --DragonHawk 19:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy talkheader templates 

message: There needs to be an extra linespace placed after the first bullet statement that would appear when used on article talk pages.  This would make it similar to the spacing between the other bullets. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't understand.  What's going wrong with the spacing in the bullets?  Perhaps you could post example wiki code here so we can see what you're talking about.  Also, keep in mind that (by design) HTML renders differently from browser to browser and computer to computer, not to mention Wikipedia style sheet.  Layout spacing to be exact can thus be somewhat intractable. --DragonHawk 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at it in use on a talk page.  There's no extra space between the 1st and 2nd bullet that appears between the other bullets.  If you have done this, let me know and we can go from there. Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have been looking at it all along, and I still don't get what you're talking about.  :-)  You might also want to take a screen capture of what you're seeing on your computer with your settings and your browser, and post the image someplace.  As noted, the appearance of the web will vary from one user agent to the next.  --DragonHawk 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the latest Mozilla Firefox and IE 6, the problem should have been obvious.  The spacing that was just added should fix it though. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was obvious, I wouldn't be asking these questions, would I?  :-)  Could you please post a screen shot or describe exactly what you are referring to, for those of us who don't understand what you're talking about?  Note that "It looks bad" is not describing exactly you are referring to.  I want to work with you here, but I honestly don't understand.  In the current revision, on my computer, comparing article and non-article pages, there is more vertical space above and below the left bullet list (as a consequence of having one less bullet point item on non-talk pages).  The list is still centered vertically, which looks good to my eye.  Are you saying you would prefer it to be justified to the top or bottom, with more vertical space opposite?  Or something else? --DragonHawk 01:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: With the new added space (to replace the line breaks I used), the template looks great on article talk pages, but on non-article talk pages, an unattractive extra space at the top appears.  Perhaps there's another way to approach this? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there really a problem before? It looked fine on my system. Unfortunately, if there is a problem, it is best to have the articles talk pages aesthetically pleasing and the non-article ones less so. —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a problem before, more pronounced with Firefox than with IE6.  But now, the problem is reduced.  The template is now aesthetically pleasing (bullets all spaced apart evenly) on article talk pages, but not on project talk pages, for instance. I'm willing to accept this status quo, but it would be nice to engineer it better. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing 

message: I think many of the changes made by Centrx starting around here are good.  He's right, it isn't a tech manual, and the template does suffer from instruction creep.  Minimizing should absolutely be a goal with this.  (Perfection is achived when there is nothing left to take away.)  The phrasing of "This is not a forum..." is much better.  I didn't like that phrasing before and don't know why I didn't see that alternative.  I do have a few concerns, though.  One is the use of click here.  Another is the loss of "Place new comments after existing ones (within topic sections)".  The parenthetical could probabbly be dropped, but the base ("Place new comments after existing ones") is distinct from the section headings part -- replying to old threads vs starting new ones.  I also reiterate my concerns about having one link that takes an action while the rest are information.  I feel that violates the principle of least surprise.  It also looses the educational value of the ==Header example==.  Finally, a suggestion on method: Given that this template is protected due to high use, perhaps edits should be proposed here first, discussed, and then implemented.  Not everyone who wants to contribute to this template is an admin. --DragonHawk 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now made it semi-protected instead of fully. —Centrx→talk • 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  One quick comment before I get some much-needed sleep: Given the high-profile nature of the template, I still think it might be a good idea (for all involved) to discuss proposed changes here first.  Not saying it has to happen for every change, just something to think about.  :)  I'll response to the rest later.  Thanks again.  Cheers.  --DragonHawk 04:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is necessary to tell people that they need to put follow-up comments below the others. I have never seen this to a problem on pages that don't have Talkheader and on pages which have all sorts of other problems with anon's ordering sections and signing comments. I think it is pretty obvious that responses go below what they are responding to; it is not prone to the sort of common, reasonable error of putting new talk sections at the top or not knowing how to sign. I don't think the template needs to educate the formatting of sections; the people who need this template are often passers-by or new users, who figure it out soon enough and it is rather clear from looking at a page while editing. What do you propose to do about the link? It seems a useful thing, but maybe get rid of it entirely and just keep the advice that new sections go at the bottom with the header how-to? —Centrx→talk • 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the "new comments before old comments" problem on some pages.  Sometimes it's within existing topics; sometimes it's with new topics.  I suspect this reflects the posting styles debate for email.  At least one other person apparently agreeded, and put it back (I then cleaned it up).  It now says "Place new comments after existing ones", which I think is best, as it covers both the within-existing-topic-sections and starting-new-topic cases.  • Regarding section headings, you're right.  It's obvious when looking at existing wiki text, and this isn't a tech manual.  So, agreed, better to lose it.  • Regarding the new-topic link: I do think it should stay, as it is very useful.  I'd like to come up with some fancy CSS formatting that causes the link to appear different (perhaps more like a UI button), to make it clear that it takes an action.  For now, "click here" will have to do. --DragonHawk 01:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we want to go today? 

message: As you may be aware, this MediaWiki message [ MediaWiki:Talkpagetext <SMALL>--DragonHawk</SMALL>] is transcluded onto all talk pages, but is currently empty. There was some dispute a while ago about whether this template should be deprecated and replaced by that message, but it was agreed that including the whole contents of this template on every page would be too much of a nuisance.
The proposal is alive again, see MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext#Proposed final version for the suggested version. This version aims to clear up many of the objections that people had to other versions of the message. Comments are welcome. --bainer (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki:Talkpagetext 

message: I think this talkheader should appear as default at the top of every talk page. Can it also Include, Info about how "Click here to start a new discussion topic" is the same as clicking the "+" button and how : or :: ect... need to be put at the start of your own additions to other people's comments? Alan2here 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is technically possible to have a message presented when editing every talk page.  The mechanism is MediaWiki:Talkpagetext.  For discusison about this, see the archive for this talk page and MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext.  As yet, there is no clear concensus as to what should be included in said message.  It does appear that concensus is that too much instruction is unwanted, but the details of exactly what *is* wanted appears to lack concensus at this time. --DragonHawk 18:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default? 

message: It appears that some people (particularly Centrx) want this:
 * New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic.
while others (particularly me) want this:
 * Place new comments after existing ones.
 * Click here to start a new discussion topic.
I prefer the later form.  The two points are not the same.  One deals with starting new topics (threads/sections/etc).  The other deals with the ordering of comments (top vs bottom posting).  While new topics should go after existing topics, new comments within a topic should also go after existing comments within that topic.  I also prefer one point per bullet.  People are moe likely to read short bullets; that's why we put them there.  The longer bullet is more likely to wrap.  I don't want to edit war, so I'd like to see discussion about this.  Centrx?  Others?  --DragonHawk 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the second, though I'd change "after" to "below" to make it more clear. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Having two lines makes the template full and the instructions seem long and complicated when they're not. —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find the two-bullet form appears less involved/complicated.  By putting it all together in a single bullet, you're making a longer, compound sentence, which takes more effort to read and is more likely to wrap.  •  You're right that having two bullets will tend to use more vertical space.  However, there is a mitigating factor: The longer line is more likely to wrap, and will end up using almost as much vertical space as two bullet points if it does.  •  All of the other bullet points are shorter than the single-bullet form.  The longer line appears uneven with the rest.  That "looks funny" to me.  That's asthetics and personal preference, of course, but I suspect that's most of what this is about.  :) --DragonHawk 00:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you DragonHawk. Less to read for the Simpletons with two bullets. Thats three votes for, one against. I'd make the change. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 20:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruction on new discussion 

message: Says it all and is on every talk page edit screen.  violet/riga (t) 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't have the information about the purpose of the talk page and the civility guidelines. These are useful for talk pages where the discussion veers way off course into a general forum and for pages with heated arguments. Template:Talkheader originally was intended for only talk pages where the notices were important, and it is still useful for that. —Centrx→talk • 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to delete yet? 

message: Veracious Rey had changed the color scheme of the template to somewhat bluish; I reverted his change.  While I am assume he meant well, I believe the full ramifications for the change do not bode well.  •  There is a set color scheme for "all" talk page templates.  This was agreed upon by concensus a long time ago, and should not be disregarded without some discussuion first.  • So, my thoughts on the change: I think the stated goal of "stands out from other talk page templates" is doomed for multiple reasons.  (1) There is something to say for consistency for the sake of asthetics (that's why we have a Manual of Style).  (2) Not everyone will agree this template deserves to stand out (heck, some think it should be deleted entirely).  (3) If the change were to stay, why not have all the other templates change color to stand out, too?  So eventually we have a bunch of multi-colored templates, none of which stand out now, but all of which clash. • Obviously, my opinion is clear.  :)  What do others think?  --DragonHawk 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I meant no harm, and I see your point. My reason for the change had to do with multiple talk pages being jacked up 'cause others don't know how to post. I thought the change might grab their attention. I'll ask first next time. Thanks for the clarification. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  And believe me, I sympathize with your intent.  Alas, I've learned that you cannot lead that particular horse to water.  Noobs will be noobs, and some people just refuse to read instructions, even if you put them in blinking yellow on black letters (the parent post is educational, too).  All we can do is put up a sign-post for those willing to look; we cannot force them to look.  (sigh)  Thanks anyway, though -- well-meaning contributions are always a good thing, even if they do not pan out.  Cheers!  --DragonHawk 05:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, I did add the beautiful red lettering up there. Now that is nice (if I say so myself). :) Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 05:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: Kind of a meta-talk issue here: This is a widely used template; it gets included on enough pages that it almost qualifies as a "high-risk template", or a kind of pseduo-MediaWiki Message.  Thus, any kind of edit war/revert war/etc on this template is harmful.  Even frequent edits on such are to be frowned upon, due to server performance impact (or so I understand).  The nature of this template attracts those who have a fine eye for detail, so little things may be magnified.  Point being: Preference should be given to discussing changes before they get made.  We have this nifty talk page feature to do that; let's use it.  I have made a note on the template doc page to this effect.  Thanks, everyone, and happy wiki'ing!  --DragonHawk 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Think and discuss before you edit, please 

message: It seems to me that I've been reverted and this box has been argued for not because it's a good idea, but because people have taken offense to how I've gone about addressing this issue. My apologies, I am in the wrong in that respect. Way too many times I've seen isolated talk pages like this think they have consensus because no one else is watching that specific page. Here I thought watching pages like Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Talk page templates were enough, but I didn't think to watch the templates as well. So yes, I was a bit frustrated to find that a new direction was being taken without a lot of input, and that somehow my opinion was not valid because it took me more than 10 days to notice the change. (Keep in mind I'm saying this is how it appeared to me. By now I know that everyone was acting in good faith and did not intend for such a situation)
If it is possible, forgive me and forget my flawed approach to this matter. I should have been more cool headed about it, and have now caused people to be needlessly on edge. If we can, lets look at the simple issue itself.
There already is a strong consensus to show that the talk header itself is not for every talk page, and that the header should be short, sweet, and to the point. Adding those links to the top of talk pages is an debate in-itself, my point is that it's not the job for this template. I know it seems like a "small" addition, but the history of the template shows how those small additions quickly get out of hand. This template should be about the talk page.
You can't force someone to read policy and guidelines in every talk template. There are much better ways to address issues where people are not aware of policies, so why not explore that instead? Don't get locked into the idea that only one thing will work. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WRT your approach before this point: Fair enough.  •  WRT this template: I do agree that this template has a high information density, and that is something to be aware of, at the very least.  •  There is, I think, some merit to the idea that this template should only be about the conventions of talk pages, and directives on article policy belong in another template/box.  I do think there are counter-points, though. NPOV/NOR/V are core policies that drive just about everything we do here at Wikipedia. Thus, those policies are relevant (albeit sometimes distantly) to pretty much all talk. Not like, say, WP:LIVING, which is only relevant to talk pages about living people.  Further, on the talk pages where this template gets used, there are frequently NPOV/NOR/V issues under discussion, so it's frequently very relevant.  •  Now, it can be argued that these points still belong in a different talk box template, but one common objection seen here and elsewhere is that there are too many talk boxes, taking up too much space and pushing talk page content further down. Putting these points in this talkbox is an attempt to help alleviate that problem.  Fixing one problem tends to cause another (in this case, further increasing info density), so we have to choose which evil we prefer.  —DragonHawk (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TPT#Small option has helped out a lot. Again, I point out Talk:List of Lost episodes. -- Ned Scott 12:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I'm just trying to figure out how to apply WP:TPT#Small option to this situation.  Create a separate template just with the article policies?  That seems like an error in the other direction (creating a template which has a very low info density for the space it takes up).  I've tried experementing with floating a box to the right of a regular template message box, and the layout gets all messed up.  It appears the browser sees the other box as affecting the margins and shifts the normally centered templates  to the left.  So I don't think attaching a small-talk box to the standard-talk  will work.  Thoughts?  Suggestions?  Anyone?  —DragonHawk (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting over

message: I can see people are clearly trying hard to improve this template, but what was wrong with this version? I'm sorry, but this template is getting uglier and uglier by the day. The grey background on "click here" is rather obnoxious, and the box around the tildes is just too much. Think simple. A newcomer doesn't need flashy boxes, colors, backgrounds, and the like. Simple instructions and hints. Please. AuburnPilottalk 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there.  Thanks for joining the discussion!  We desperately need more input here. • I agree that the gray box around "click here" (or whatever we end up calling it :) ) is still not good.  It started as an attempt to make that link look like a "button", i.e., something that causes an action and leads to a change.  This is significant because (1) I think most people expect links to be "harmless" and (2) all of the other links are info-only. • As far as colors and borders goes, they serve a useful purpose.  The catch and guide the eyes.  That's why there are borders and boxes all over Wikipedia.  Even the page backgrounds change color to reflect namespace changes.  • I am somewhat concerned that the template is at risk of being "too busy", but I'm also aware that that is a vague complaint that is hard to address. —DragonHawk (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me, or does the template look completely different on the transcluded talk pages? Click one at random on the "What links here" and see if I'm crazy. I've cleared my cache several times and even reloaded my browser, but it doesn't appear the same on the template's page and when transcluded. I temporarily uploaded a screencap of what I'm talking about here. AuburnPilottalk 07:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a feature (or so we believe :) ).  In article namespace, the template displays text which is relevant only to articles.  Namely, links to the major content article policies, and a reminder to talk about the article, not the article's subject.  But on, say, a template talk page like this one, those do not apply.  It also appears differently on user talk pages (see mine for an example).  Wonder of wonders, this is even documented in the template docs. :)  I <S>do think I'm going to take</S> Have taken your screenshot and turned it into a pemenent figure in the template docs, though. —DragonHawk (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better with the screenshot; I completely overlooked that line previously. AuburnPilottalk 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no harm in tweaking. This is a wiki, after all. -- Ned Scott 12:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not tweaking I object to; it's endless tweaking.  What has tended to happen with this template is that one person tweaks it one way, and then another person tweaks it a different way, and then the first person tweaks it back, and then the second person tweaks it back their way, and so on, ad infinitum.  It's like a low-intensity edit war.  Concensus is never reached.  At most, one party gives up first.  That's not the wiki way.  —DragonHawk (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the edit history I see what you mean.. that is some excessive tweaking. -- Ned Scott 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors and such 

message: The current draft has changed color schemes again.  For a while it had the brownish background all around, with the three "sub-boxes" with white backgrounds as blocks inside it.  Now it has a large lower area with a white background, and the other two sub-boxes are contained within that, with brownish backgrounds.  (For the record, I haven't been the one initiating any of these changes.)  The current draft at least matches the current "real" template.  I don't really have a preference for any particular one, but could we all please pick one color/layout scheme and stick to it, and not just endlessly tweak the template back and forth between our personal favorites?  :)  —DragonHawk (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no harm in tweaking. This is a wiki, after all. -- Ned Scott 12:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not tweaking I object to; it's endless tweaking.  What has tended to happen with this template is that one person tweaks it one way, and then another person tweaks it a different way, and then the first person tweaks it back, and then the second person tweaks it back their way, and so on, ad infinitum.  It's like a low-intensity edit war.  Concensus is never reached.  At most, one party gives up first.  That's not the wiki way.  —DragonHawk (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the edit history I see what you mean.. that is some excessive tweaking. -- Ned Scott 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sticking to a color scheme 

message: I'm thinking it might be better to link to Wikipedia:Questions instead of Wikipedia:FAQ.  The FAQ is directed mainly at answering people's questions about Wikipedia.  At the same time, many newcomers end up trying to use an article talk page to ask questions about the article subject.  I think that WP:Q does a better job of serving both needs -- it has links to the FAQ, but also the ref desk.  I've updated the draft to see what it would look like.  I added "get answers" to include another keyword.  Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link for questions 

message: Centrx has taken out the line which stated "Follow policy and respect talk page guidelines", with the comment "It is quite for people not to go read all the dozens of policies before editing, let alone commenting in a discussion; see also WP:IAR; & Talk guidelines link already in MediaWiki:Talkpagetext)".  I disagree with this change.  • I'm familar with WP:IAR.  Note that IAR says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."  I don't see how providing informative links will prevent anyone from doing anything.  As the essay WP:SIR notes, in order to ignore a rule, one has to be aware of it.  Someone who does not know "the rules" is ignorant of them, not ignoring them.  • This template is targeted at newcomers to Wikipedia.  These people are often unaware that Wikipedia does not work like the web site discussion forums or user-feedback-pages they are familar with.  These people frequently get tripped up around policy.  Giving them a pointer in the right direction would be quite useful.  • MediaWiki:Talkpagetext only displays when editing a talk page.  As noted by someone else on this talk page, it is useful to provide guidance at other stages as well. • Please, let's try and work things out here first, and avoid an edit storm on a busy template.  Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording "Follow policy" with a link to the full list of policies is presented as a recommendation and encouragement, and can even be interpreted as a rule for talk pages because this is an official-looking template that is present at the top of many talk pages. So, while providing a link can be nice (though it's not clear that flooding the user with links is very helpful), providing it in this manner is bad. Regarding Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules, this is nonsense created by a troll, and is directly contradictory to the relevant part of IAR; that is, someone reading, editing, or commenting on a Wikipedia article does not need to know the rules, they simply need to keep in mind that it is an encyclopedia and that they are in polite society. See . —Centrx→talk • 14:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see your point with regard to phrasing like "Follow policy" being potentially intimidating, and agree.  We want to be welcoming.  We don't want fear of the rules to get in the way of improvements.  I do think the links are potentially useful, though, and am still seeking a good way to phrase the linkage.  Ideas are welcomed.  • The source of WP:SIR is good to know, but I think the point I was making still stands: Knowingly disregarding a rule is not the same as being unaware of it. • If knowing that we are in a polite society was always enough, we wouldn't have 2/3rd's of the pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace.  Obviously, rules and regulations and all that crap are sometimes needed. IAR is deliberately ambiguous, but my understanding is it means "Don't let rules get in the way of making progress".  The other side of that coin is that if ignoring a rule impedes progress, perhaps ignoring it isn't such a good thing.  This template is intended to be used in situations where ignorance is making it harder to improve Wikipedia.  Sometimes talk pages threaten to disolve into chaos, and a dose of "the rules" will be a strong positive force.  • At least, that's my operating assumption.  Do you (or others) disagree? —DragonHawk (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I honestly believe that all of this shoving of Wikipedia policy in the newcomers' faces could be a violation of WP:BITE in a sense. Also, the bit below that says 'Article policies' should be renamed to 'Wikipedia policies', as all articles on Wikipedia have the same policies, not just that one article... or possibly rename to 'Policies on articles'.--HisSpaceResearch 10:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that WP:BITE is about not being hostible and forgiving newbies for ignorance.  It's filled with phrases like "some lack knowledge about the way we do things".  This template is an attempt to provide a map to those who are unfamilar with the territory and want to avoid stepping in holes.  So while I very much agree that the original phrasing was too strong, I don't believe promoting ignorance is the best policy.  Thinking back to when I've joined various communities, one of my biggest complaints as a newbie was not knowing the rules and customs. • "Article policies" is concise and is not meant to imply they only apply to a single article.  In English, "Article policies" can mean "Policies of articles" as well as "Policy of article".  "Wikipedia policies" was not used for the same reasons: Talk pages have looser standards vs articles.  —DragonHawk (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, sometimes the most obvious things are the hardest to see.  How about if "talk page" is a link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines rather than Wikipedia:Talk page?  The guidelines incorporate everything from the basic page anyway. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that they're gone now anyway. :)  Or rather, integrated into what was already there. —DragonHawk (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to policies and guidelines 

message: I would be bold but for all the warnings everywhere about discussing changes to this template on the talk page.  Anyone care if I changed the wording to make it clearer that new comments go at the BOTTOM of a talk page; not the top where newbies inevitably want to put them? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with this is that new comments do not always go at the bottom of the page.  New topics go at the bottom of the page.  New comments withing a topic go after the text they are repling to.  For example, this comment I'm making is not at the bottom of the page.  Giving explictly incorrect instructions is bad.  How about "Put new text underneath old text"?  Also, remember, please don't bite the newbies; shouting is a little over the top (CAPS IS SHOUTING).  Also, there's a "Click here to start a new topic" link right next to the text in question.  If the newbiews cannot understand that, chances are, they're not reading the template at all.  There's only so much we can do. —DragonHawk (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I KNOW CAPS IS SHOUTING, I would have preferred to make it bold; but the special formatting in the template prevented it so after some deliberation I used caps.  The idea was emphasis "Look at me! I'm important information!".  At any rate; I'm not entirely sold on the caps myself.  As for the exact wording; why don't we change it to "New topics go at the bottom of the page; responses to existing topics go beneath other responses in the same section"? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is it's much more verbose.  There's a history of consensus for this template to be as concise as possible.  See disucssion elsewhere on this talk page, as well as the edit history of the template.  That also doesn't really say anything the shorter version does not.  We cannot and should not try to transcribe the entire Talk page guidelines page into this template.  —DragonHawk (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarity should not be sacrificed in the name of being concise.  "Put new text after existing text" was unclear.  The current version, "Put new text under old text" with a link to the new topic is better. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put new comments 

message: I think it would be good if the text in the template were set to 80% in order to make the template take up much less space at the top of the talk page. Here's what it would look like:
		
* Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes  (~~~~).
* Put new text after existing text. =edit§ion=new Click here to start a new topic.
* New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	
*Be polite
*Assume good faith
*No personal attacks
*Be welcoming	
Is this acceptable? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I prefer the full-size version. After all, a small talk header surrounded by the monstrosities that are some (like the CVG one, or the ones that include ratings, priorities, todos and all that). I would suggest leaving this one big and modify all the others to 80%, because for someone new is more important to read the guidelines for talk pages than the rating of the article. -- ReyBrujo 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually prefer all of them be 80% so all of them take up less space. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said, I "prefer", but don't object. After all, people changed it so that now we have virtually seven different font/tones (blue, bold blue, black, bold black, cyan, bold red, cream and brown). -- ReyBrujo 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer the larger size that existed before this change. I actually noticed the change on a talk page and came here to revert it. The text is just too small now and is a bit hard to read. Granted we almost all have completely different resolutions/settings, but I'm having a hard time reading this. AuburnPilottalk 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would prefer to see the text like it was before it got too small.  In particular, the tildes don't really look like tildes when they're that small. Robotman1974 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think 100% text size looks the best. Robotman1974 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be done for all talk messagebox's, at MediaWiki:Common.css. The only objection to it was that some templates use the talk messagebox class even though they are not talk headers, which just entails that they should be changed. The exact size, also, should be tweaked in order to make sure it looks fine for all browsers. —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In general, I don't really have a problem with making text bigger, smaller, rounder, whatever.  Just so long as it's consensus.  • However, it should not be done on a per-template basis.  It should be done in the stylesheets for Wikipedia.  There are a number of reasons for this.  One is consistency; we don't want all the templates having different sizes.  (That would be aesthetically poor, and prolly lead to edit wars over whose favorite templates get the biggest fonts, so let's just please not go there. :) )  CSS would also let everyone override things in their own styles, should they desire.  • Pardon me while I preach a bit on accessibility: Please remember that not everyone has your eyes or your computer.  Some people are on wide screens with huge resolutions; others are on tiny screens with low resolutions.  Some have their text big because they their eyesight is poor.  Some use small fonts to fit more on the screen (I do).  More still don't know any of this but do know they have trouble reading their screens -- much of the computer user community is "functionally computer illiterate".  Starting to tweak font sizes in the templates just seems like heading down the wrong path.  End of sermon.  :) —DragonHawk (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making text smaller 

message: How about we just loose the text coloring entirely?  Check out this draft to see what it would look like.  It appears that introducing non-standard colors into this template just leads to people tweaking it constantly (over time) to be more what they like.  Colors vary too much from display to display, and person to person, for us to ever make everybody happy.  At the same time, the plain-old-bold text looks fine to me.  Enough with the color tweaking, I say!  :-)  —DragonHawk (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "this is not a forum warning" can't it be in black. Quadzilla99 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I got confused it appears to still be there, it should be in black though. Quadzilla99 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of colored text 

message: I archived the talk page as there was a lull and it was 100+ kbs. Please feel free to look through the archives and refactor any old discussions you feel are not completed or need to be addressed. Quadzilla99 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Quadzilla99.  FYI, I did a small cleanup on the archive talk.  Somehow, a piece of text from the template documentation got stuck in there.  Not sure how that happened.  I noticed because it was messing up the table-of-contents (I was comparing it to the pre-archive page).  I removed the extra text.  Also FYI, and FWIW, I find the easiest way to archive a talk page is to move the top-level talk page to a new subpage (e.g., move "Template talk:Talkheader" to "Template talk:Talkheader/Archive_1").  That leaves a redirect page behind at the top-level, which I replace with the talk archive box and any other appropriate templates.  This moves the talk page history as well, which can be useful when researching past conversations.  Cheers.  —DragonHawk (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving of the old talk page contents and refactoring of previous discussions 

message: I don't want to experiment with important template like this but can sb incorporate the following into the first line: {| class="messagebox -talk". For desired effect, see Talk:New York City.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: enable small version 

message: A small little change, I just want to change the "Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages" to "Wikipedia:Signatures" to avoid the redirect that comes from the first one. Philip Gronowski Contribs 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I should include code as well, here it be:
 Please sign and date your posts → Please sign and date your posts
Philip Gronowski Contribs 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. --Conti|✉ 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Philip Gronowski Contribs 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change 

message: What if someone just thinks 'who the fuck are you to tell me to be welcoming?' They'll get blocked from editing, I guess...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that could be seen as somewhat patronizing.  On the other hand, Please do not bite the newcomers isn't exactly unpretentious, either.  One way or the other, it's a key part of Wikipedia: Without being welcoming, you can't really be something that "anyone can edit".  So I don't see much in the way of a better idea.  Do you? —DragonHawk (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'be welcoming' line sounds patronizing, in my opinion 

message: Wikipedia:Talk page templates#Small option discusses providing talk page templates with the option of writing them to the right with a smaller format.  This would allow the talk page TOC to be more visible.  Could we modify this template to include that option?  It seemed to work okay in the sandbox. --Bejnar 19:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a pointer to the new code for the template. --Ligulem 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I frankly don't think that this template should be small. It should be used at the top of a talk page, not later down. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? GracenotesT § 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the small option does not automatically make the use of the banner small.  It just gives that option.  Even a small banner is still displayed where it is placed.  If this banner is use in a small edition it can still be at the top of the discussion page.  It will just be at the right like an infobox. --Bejnar 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (a bit late) Yes, I am fully aware of that. I don't see the benefit of having the option, since I don't see the benefit of using it. But oh well. GracenotesT § 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do think it would be nice to have the option of making this template small.  However, simply throwing small-talk in the style list doesn't work for this template.  This template uses three columns on the assumption that there is more horizontal space than vertical; switching to small-talk invalidates that assumption.  Everything gets squished beyond readability.  So I'm unsure where to begin.  Perhaps if, in "small mode", this template was a single column, with rules (horizontal lines) or some other divider between "blocks"? —DragonHawk (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small option 

message: I had a go at trying to get this to work.  Check out User:DragonHawk/Temp5 for the template itself, and User:DragonHawk/Temp6 for test cases.  I managed to get something that looked half-decent for the small option, but now I'm running into problems with trying to put a conditional around table separators for the "be polite" and "article polices" boxes.  We would need it to be a column separator when not small, and a row separator when small.  Everything I've tried has been broken in some way.  I'm starting to suspect you just can't put a conditional around table separator syntax (it is a pretty hairy case).  Ideas are welcome; feel free to edit those pages if you have any ideas.  ·  One other approach would be to brute-force it and have three templates, one for each size variant, and a master with a single conditional including one or the other, but that's a toxic kludge and I'm really hoping to avoid it. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small option revisit

message: I occasionally see editors signing their additions to articles. This could be the result of them following directions: The accompanying template says, in an (unlabeled) demarcated area separate from the (unlabeled) editing-etiquette guidelines and the article-only ones,
:     * Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
:    * Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
:    * New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.
The last of those 3 is not unreasonable to construe as guidance global to WP (even tho experienced editors know the questions & answers belong on talk pages, not on articles, nor, really, in summaries). For instance,
:Click here to start a new topic. 
doesn't, until you try it out, even vaguely imply that it applies only to talk pages, rather than, say, starting a new section in the accompanying article. (And it inhibits trying it out, since it is far from obvious that that experiment would be easily reversible.) It is possible a few newcomer editors see those 3 unlabeled lines as the most general advice possible abt editing; WP could benefit by giving them a heading such as 
: About discussion (i.e., "Talk:...") pages 
or 
: Instructions for adding to this discussion page
--Jerzy•t 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  I can see where you're coming from.  It could be confusing.  The current layout came about because of the length of the various text links, not because of logical grouping, but you wouldn't know that from looking at it.  I suppose we could throw a "Talk page guidelines" heading at the top of the left column, but the "New to Wikipedia" wouldn't really belong to that, either.  And then there's the four etiquette links in the middle column; they should belong to the talk page guidelines.  Hmmmm.  Anyone else have thoughts on this?  —DragonHawk (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerous ambiguity 

message: I would like to request the addition of the ar interwiki link
ar:قالب:رأس صفحة نقاش
Please note that the Arabic language is written from right to left. Thanks. --Meno25 14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be done by editing the Template:Talkheader/doc subpage.  At the bottom of that page, you will notice some text in "<includeonly>...</noinclude>" brackets.  There are already some inter-wiki links there.  Just add your own link there (be sure you do so inside the "<includeonly>" part).  That will propagate up to the parent template page.  For more on how this works, see Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern.  Cheers.  —DragonHawk (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link 

message: This is a minor thing, but one that’s been bugging me. Could we please change:
:This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
to
:This is not a forum for general discussion about the article’s subject.
Note the change in apostrophe from straight (') to curly (’), as it should be. Thank you! Max Naylor 10:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the benefit for doing this?  I would think we'd be better off sticking to ASCII (for greater portability) unless there's a good reason to introduce Unicode.  Proper spelling of native words is a good reason in my book; minor aesthetics are not.  But I might be in the minority on this, so others, please comment, also.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostrophe 

message: 
In the bold header text of this template, the words "talk page" link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This is what I believe to be the cause of the huge amount of random stuff written on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. With "random stuff" I mean everything from the usual spam and weirdness to useful comments by anons that were obviously directed at a specific talk page.
The template already includes several links to policies that extend the talk page guidelines. Removing the link will therefore not decrease the value of the template. --User:Krator (t c) 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done - Part of the point of the template is to link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you're interested in preventing vandalism to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, request that it be semi-protected. If you're worried about its talk page... well, the random stuff will either remain or move elsewhere - I don't see how this would help. Nihiltres(t.l) 19:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not worried about the vandalism to the talk page of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines per se. What I find worse is that new users who are eager to contribute to Wikipedia are finding and using the wrong page to do so because of this template. --User:Krator (t c) 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misplaced edits are pretty much an inevitable consequence of the spirit of Wikipedia.  At most, the link to TPG in this template means they are most likely to make that wrong posting at TPG rather than $RANDOM_PAGE.  Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Questions.  See the giant red banner at the top of the page?  Now look at the edit history.  Some people just don't get it.  There's not much we can do about them (short of requiring a reading comprehension test before allowing editing :) ).  And TPG does contain a lot of detail not present in this template or it's other links.  By having a link to TPG in this template, we can at least help those who are able to read directions.  Don't penalize people with a clue just because some people are clueless.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove link to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]] 

message: I realize the guidelines for usage have already been decided, but I was surprised to see the  template removed from an article I watch because it's "only for 'controversial' talk pages". (It happens that the article is about a controversial topic, but this hadn't been expressed on the talk page yet.) This is the first time I'd heard this. Now, I generally only add the tl to articles if someone is attempting to chat about the subject instead of the article, but I think it's welcoming to newbies to see the the talk page parameters right up there at the top, and might help them know what to do right away, rather than have experienced editors and bots sign and refactor their posts for them. I would certainly never remove one if it was already there, that seems like overkill. I know this won't change the guidelines, but I thought I'd express my opinion. In a nutshell: More information on Wikipedia protocol=Always good. Happy editing. Katr67 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing this banner over and over on otherwise empty pages: always bad. --kingboyk (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the template 

message: Please replace "" by "". 16@r 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request 

message: Please align template to left, to be in sync with other talkpage-related templates. Wikinger 19:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk-page templates are aligned to center... I can't think of any examples of ones aligning to the left.  Consider this request declined and  until there is a wider consensus for this change to be made. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_2000 Only main talk template is centered, rest of talk-related templates is left-aligned. Thus please don't decline my request. Wikinger 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every template on that talk page is centred on all the browsers I tested it with? --Stormie 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have them all left-aligned in Internet Explorer 5.5 under Windows Me. Thus please edit this Talkheader centered template in such way that it will remain left-aligned in IE 5.5 and remain centered in anything newer. Wikinger 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the talk page templates are supposed to be centered.  I've looked at Talk:Windows 2000, and by my reading of the HTML, your browser should be rendering them all centered.  If you can figure out a way to get everything to center properly in MSIE 5.5 on your computer, while still being standards-compliant wiki, HTML, and CSS markup, please post your proposed code.  Otherwise, I don't think there's much anyone can do.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request