Template talk:Single notice

message: The above text is, in my experience, false, and for a few templates, confusing (templates like  that don't have "thank you").  I think it should be removed.  --Thinboy00 @905, i.e. 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  instead of "thank you" 

message: It doesn't seem to reduce any code in the final output. -79.176.25.233 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The "subst=subst:" parameter

message: Could some change the link for Meta:Help:ParserFunctions to Mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions, because the page has been moved form Metawiki to MediaWiki.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved page 

message: Should have an (optional) notice that templates are used by Twinkle similar to Template:Templatesnotice. ⁓ Hello71 02:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinkle use 

message: Can someone please add a parameter to this template to indicate an emitted category? For example,  adds tagged talk pages to :Category:User talk pages with Uw-sigdesign notices. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category parameter 

message: I was looking at Template:Uw-coi and trying to figure out how to edit the documentation. I expected a helpful [edit] link near the section heading, but it's not there. It seems that  doesn't output an edit link when transcluded? A series of helpful links do appear at Template:Single notice, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's no edit link because everything is done on the template page - to edit the documentation you need to alter the parameters of , rather than edit a separate page. We should probably add a link somewhere explaining what to do, though. (Until my 24 July edits to Single notice, it didn't have any documentation at all.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:MZMcBride and User:Mr. Stradivarius, feel free to tell me if you believe my edit  did the job. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks for the edit! I think this is a great idea, but I thought that having it at the start of the template might be confusing for people who just want to learn how to use individual single-use templates like , so I moved the notice to the end. I also made it shorter and put it in  tags to emphasise that it is a footnote, not part of the main documentation. What do you think? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Mr. Stradivarius: I'm afraid the current location at the bottom is non-standard and very easily missed. Furthermore, I must confess I find your rewording sufficiently technical that I might not have understood that it means "click here to edit" even if it were present when I first tried to find out how to improve the documentation. I think the ideal solution would be for the documentation frame to sport standard "V*T*E" links in its upper left corner (somewhere close to the  graphic). That's well beyond my capabilities, though. My reason for placing it where I placed it, however, was to place it as close to the top left as possible. That said, I have no objections to making it  and footnotey. Thoughts? CapnZapp (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  My main concern with putting it in the top-left is that it prioritises people who want to edit the documentation over people who want to read the documentation. The top-left is the first place anyone will look for information about the current template being documented, so to me it makes sense to use it for the most common use case, which is reading the documentation. It would be nice to have convenient editing links for people who want to edit the docs, but in my mind this should be secondary to making it easy for readers to understand the documentation contents. Speaking of editing links, the reason I left those out is because having the superscript "edit・talk・history" links inside  tags makes them look really tiny. Perhaps leaving out the  tags would be better? As for the positioning, maybe something could be done with Template:Documentation#Link box? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Mr. Stradivarius:Yes, thank you, I got why you moved it. My response was that the new placement as well as the wording makes it very difficult to use, and I would like your comment on that; my feedback. CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

text:  As for the V*T*E links, I think we misunderstand each other. My preference was not to add those in running text. I was thinking about the standardized little V*T*E links in the top-left corner of every most documentation frames. If we can't have those, I absolutely agree that re-creating them in running text is too tiny to be useful, not to mention that it is the context that makes them easily understandable - just a V*T*E in a sentence (much like just now) is again so non-standard their use likely is more of a hindrance than just using plain text (as I did in my first attempt). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   We could have the standardized V*T*E links, in theory. It would involve changing Module:Documentation, but there's no reason that that can't be done. I've started a thread about it at the module's talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, let's await developments there before fixing this particular case (I'm still unhappy with the current positioning/visibility, since to me it's so obscure it's as if it wasn't there at all). CapnZapp (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing edit link when transcluded