Template talk:Talk header/Archive 1

message: This template survived a WP:TFD debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 23:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It survived a second debate here. -Splashtalk 01:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And a third here --DragonHawk 13:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD debate 

message: This template currently says it is for discussion on the Foo article. But here, and on the page Template talk:Sexual orientation and on any other Template talk pages where this is used it is a page for discussing the Foo Template. Nor is this just a terminology nitpick -- the link in the header in such cases is incorrect, follow the link on the above page and see where it goes. This template, as it stands, should not be used on pages in the Template talk or Wikipedia talk or User talk namespaces. Varations of this template appropriate to each specifc namespace could be constructed. DES (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather then constructing different templates for each talk namespace, I would say a better thing to do is change the wording of this template to be more generic.  Perhaps "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the main FOO page" would work? --DragonHawk 03:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namespace issues 

message: See Template talk:Controversial for proposed changing of  to match. Rd232 22:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial version 

message: I'm wondering whether it's worth including talk page archives in the template in some way, via optional parameters, or even other things like featured status or wikiprojects. It might just be neater, particularly on pages like Talk:evolution. Thoughts, anyone? (Don't know how to do it myself anyway.) Rd232 23:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't how to do it either, but it sounds like a good idea. I actually experimented with an archives box, based on the standard talk-page message (cf. ), but it didn't quite look right. This template seems a better way of incorporating archives.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 00:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page archives 

message: We're getting a lot of unsigned articles from unregistered users at Talk:Hurricane Katrina.  Maybe there should be an addition about "even if you are not registered"? AySz88^-^ 17:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
:For most pages, people seem to prefer a shorter Talk template. I've created a separate longer one - template:talkheaderlong - for pages where it's worth having more info for users. Rd232 22:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For unregistered users 

message: *oppose, extensive propagation of this template would unnecessarily increase the computational burden of rendering the talk pages, and effectively constitute a Denial of service attack.  Let's save our computational resources for the articles.--Silverback 11:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
**That's a bit extreme (DDOS!). The issue of computational burden applies to all other talk page templates as well (and I doubt they have that much impact on overall burden). Some of them could potentially be merged into (versions of) this page. And I think if incorporated in software the computational burden would be minimal in any case. Also, if the template works, it reduces computational burden by reducing unnecessary edits tidying up after people, and making discussions clearer and more efficient. Rd232 11:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki integration 

message: I added an id value to the tables so people who don't like this template can hide it with their user stylesheet by adding
 #talkheader {display:none}
NSR (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  id added. 

message: Can we mention this:
*"Use indenting to keep the threads of the conversation straight."
in the template? Hyacinth 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is, a mention of how to indent should also be included, given that the new users who find the header useful probably won't know how to do it. GeeJo (t) (c) • 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indentation

message: Guys, can you please discuss this change - rather than dicking around with a heavily used template? Thanks/wangi 08:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  What's the problem with the blue?  (Besides "it looks stupid," as one editor has said). Exploding Boy 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: When this template is used for the talk page for a category, it places the category's talk page into the category itself. (In other words, using this template on "Category talk:Fictional lemurs" will place the "Category talk:Fictional lemurs" page into the "Category:Fictional lemurs" category.) Is this intentional, or a bug in the template? Kickaha Ota 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Keenan Pepper for fixing this bug with his latest change to the template. Kickaha Ota 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category talk pages 

message: As much as we would all love to stick to reliable sources, this isn't an ideal world. I think we should endeavour to keep the top of the template to one simple sentence, because people are already unlikely to read it, especially with all the other stuff (I'm tempted to say "crap" here) we expect them to read. Brian Jason Drake 08:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth emphasizing that talk pages are not for airing personal views, but are only for discussing content, and that boils down to discussing what the sources have said. I'm constantly running into situations where people are using Wikipedia as a glorified discussion group. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk pages are for discussing articles. That means discussing many things, including what should be included in a particular article (e.g. an article for a group of characters vs separate articles for each character), some of which do not require any sort of source. In fact, some of these things are nothing more than "personal views", but it is still important that we build consensuses on them and act on those consensuses. Thus the "reliable sources" sentence is both too restrictive to be accurate and unnecessary.The main point is about people discussing their own views on a subject and this is best covered by a short phrase, "not for discussing the subject generally." The shorter the phrase, the more likely people are to read it at all. Brian Jason Drake 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair points. I won't object if you change it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources? 

message: After leaving this alone for a bit to see how things progressed, I've just make a bunch of incremental changes to the actual template.  I haven't done anything with converting from two columns (sub-boxes) to one -- opinion is at least divided, if not generally against that concept, and so I'm not sure it's a good idea anymore.  But others have added some of the formatting and bullets, so I've taken that idea and run with it.  I've also tried to reduce the wording as much as possible (short and sweet and to the point is good when it comes to notices.  The thing that perhaps needs the most explanation is the first line of the left sub-box: I put a conditional (#if) around it.  That means the notice that the template is not a general discussion forum on a topic only appears in actual articles talk pages.  So Talk:Adolf Hitler says "This is not a forum for general discussion on Adolf Hitler", while Template talk:Talkheader does not.  That makes the most sense, I think -- we *are* discusssing the template, here.  As always, I welcome feedback! --DragonHawk 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right, the 'not a forum' notice really applies to the main namespace only -- on the Template namespace, there's nary a difference between a template's article and the template itself.  (The only difference is when there are <noinclude> or <includeonly> tags to deal with, but even then, it's a minor point only.) --Stratadrake 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just gave the template a bit of a going over.  The big thing was, I changed the entire template to have the "Talk template background color" style.  If you look at a busy talk page like Talk:Adolf Hitler, I really do think it looks better to have this template match the all-solid style all the other templates use.  I think it also does a *much* better job of separating the text one is supposed to type.  This also let me clean out a lot of HTML and CSS cruft that isn't needed anymore.  The last thing on my list is to find an icon for the template.  I think something either related to editing (a page with proof-readers marks, maybe?) or discussion (two heads with speech ballons, maybe?) would be good.  --DragonHawk 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My changes on 1 Aug 2006 

message: Is there an simpler, alternative template that just directs an editor to put new messages at the bottom of the talk page?  Seems like I've seen one, but I can't find it.  --Blainster 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative template?