Template:Multidel

Archives

Aug 2005 – Aug 2006 Aug 2006 – January 2007

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)[reply]

Here is a refactoring of some former discussions done by myself User:Quadzilla99:

• Basically the consensus is that the template should only be used on talk pages where it's guidelines have been violated and that it should not be added to any blank talk pages. Several editors expressed this very strongly and a clear majority of editors dislike the idea of arbitrarily adding it to talk pages. Additionally the now protected version of the template's page clearly states that in the description. See here and here.

• Various editors differed on the things that should be included in the template such as the guidelines that should appear, the size of the text, and the overall size of the template. Here are some of the discussions: Colors, More Colors, Guidelines, Style and appearance, Format.

• Several alternative versions were created such as smaller and longer versions. Universally these were all deleted and redirected to the talkheader. See here.

Feel free to refactor some your self or re-raise old issues.

Quadzilla99 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't want to experiment with important template like this but can sb incorporate the following into the first line: {| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk". For desired effect, see Talk:New York City.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I guess I should include code as well, here it be:

[[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Please sign and date your posts]] → [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Please sign and date your posts]]

Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Conti|✉ 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please provide a pointer to the new code for the template. --Ligulem 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? Gracenotes^T § 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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. Gracenotes^T § 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Small option revisit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the Article policies block, we should link to just Wikipedia:Attribution instead of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, as these 2 policy's have combined onto Attribution. Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 11:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that should change. Was about to go and do it, when I realized that the link should be more descriptive than "attribution" -- once they get to the page, yes, it'll be clear what it's about, but should we have a more descriptive link? "Attribute your sources" comes to mind; one person mentioned "cite your sources" when I asked on IRC. Any thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just link to the WP:V and WP:NOR sections of Attribution? -- Ned Scott 23:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because we want to make the banner smaller if possible.--Bejnar 00:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That won't make the banner smaller unless the conduct list is shortened, or they are otherwise refactored. —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Maybe "Attribute reliable sources" will work (since "attribute sources" sounds a bit too laconic, and reliable sounds like a good adjective, otherwise "cite reliable sources".) If this leaves space to add another policy below it, would there be some to to incorporate WP:NOT? Gracenotes^T § 02:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the draft to reflect the above (and included it in this section). • I'm not sure about adding WP:NOT. While that's one of the policies I cite the most, I'm not sure if it "fits" here. For one, it's not really an article policy, per se; it's a Wikipedia-wide policy. It doesn't seem to fit the "Do's and don't's" tone of the rest of this template (unless we just link it as Don't do this stuff :) ). There's also WP:BEANS to consider. Hmmmm. —DragonHawk (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually coming here to fix the same problem but I see someone has already brought it up. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the word "attribute" isn't the most common word in the English language so it might sound a little awkward, especially to newcomers (it also has a second meaning, furthuring the confusion). Maybe use the word "cite", or perhaps try "Back up your statements with reliable sources"? Axem Titanium 04:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No? Hmm... please agree with the text, then. This template will generate a big queue in the servers, must be used in over 50,000 articles. -- ReyBrujo 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. What does "please agree with the text" mean? Axem Titanium 03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ReyBrujo is trying to say "please agree on the proposed change [before making it, to avoid changing the template multiple times]". —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-10 11:03Z

I'd like to endorse the proposed "attribute reliable sources" text change. Dekimasuよ! 11:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the policy is called Attribution, I think this is fine. If no-one else objects, I can implement the change. Harryboyles 13:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as no-one has objected with the proposed text, I have implemented the change in the template and it is now live. - Harryboyles 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please bold the Click here to start a new topic text? // Laughing Man 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would rather see the "Click here" be a new, fourth bullet. But there are warnings on the template page about how we should hesitate to change anything. Does anyone else have an opinion? CMummert · talk 13:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{editprotected}} request for now until the changes are agreed to. Personally, I would just change the line to be:

• Click here to start a new topic.

—Doug Bell ^talk 10:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be conceptually better to rearrange the lines to start with "New user", then "How to sign", and finally "Click here". That is the natural progression of information for a new user. CMummert · talk 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Talkheader/Draft. CMummert · talk 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:ILIKEIT.  ;-) —Doug Bell ^talk 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the more logical progression of instruction. However, I object to removing the "Put new text under old text" instruction. They are not the same thing. The order of text (new comments last) applies both within existing threads (topic sections), as well for threads on the page. I'm going to put that back, pending a better idea. I do think that, if nothing else mattered, putting them on two different lines might be a good idea. But size does matter, when it comes to this template, if past discussions are anything to go by. —DragonHawk (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{editprotected}} I propose eliminating the "Click here" phrasing in this template, as "click here" is generally improper in web links, as established by the W3C. This is a very common template that can easily be fixed against this. See the template draft for my suggested format. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is improper when the link is an ordinary link, but in this case it is useful. Starting a new discussion is semantically a different sort of action than following a hyperlink. Ideally the link would be formatted differently, but since it is the same sort of link, we have to use text to distinguish it. Without the "Click here to" phrase, it looks like the link is for instructions on how to start a new thread.

If consensus develops to make the change, I'll do it, but it doesn't seem right to me. CMummert · talk 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the archives and template edit history. This has been suggested before, attempted before, and been shot down every time. Additionally, the suggested phrasing is a lot longer than the current text, and there is definite consensus to keep this template as short as humanly possible. I suspect it's a case of cost/reward; "Click here" is widely understood, all the suggested alternatives are not as good, and the use of "Click here" is not causing any demonstrated harm. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I wonder if there is a phrasing that would satisfy both ideals. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is relevant to DragonHawk's comment: while changing the custom header on my user talk page, I made a shorter version: "New discussions start below old; you can start a new topic." Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 21:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, we tried "You may start a new topic", but that still got shot down. It might be worth trying again. On the other hand, can anyone demonstrate any real harm "Click here" is causing? Most of the objections at Click here don't even apply in a case like this. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Since I am unable to, can an admin. wiki-link the part where it says: This is not a forum for... Understood? Lord Sesshomaru

Any edit to {{talkheader}} is quite heavy on the servers, so I'll leave this up for the time being to see if there are objections, or if any other requests come up. (To anyone else who wants a change to {{talkheader}}, now would be a good time to suggest it so all the changes can be made at once.) --ais523 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to bypass the redirect (i.e., [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM|not a forum]] rather than [[WP:NOT#FORUM|not a forum]]). Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link should include all of "not a forum for general discussion". The page is a forum for discussing the writing of the page, so just linking "not a forum" is not ideal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carl and McBride. Do we have consensus on this version, then: [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM|not a forum for general discussion]]?--Chaser - T 19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM|not a forum for general discussion]] or [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM|not a forum]] is good enough for me. The thing is, it should be linked for newbies who may treat the discussion page like a forum. Lord Sesshomaru

Done. Kusma (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}
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)[reply]

N 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I realize the guidelines for usage have already been decided, but I was surprised to see the {{talkheader}} 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)[reply]

Seeing this banner over and over on otherwise empty pages: always bad. --kingboyk (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace "{{/doc}}" by "{{template doc}}". 16@r 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please align template to left, to be in sync with other talkpage-related templates. Wikinger 19:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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  Not done until there is a wider consensus for this change to be made. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Every template on that talk page is centred on all the browsers I tested it with? --Stormie 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why would one put it on a talk page? Why would one NOT put it on a talk page? Why not just automatically have it displayed on all talk pages? Kingturtle (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The header gives basic information to new users, like how to sign and the guidelines. I remember an old discussion about why the template should not be put in all talk pages (not all pages need them, just articles in the main space, and only those that may attract a good number of users). And the fact that MediaWiki:Talkpagetext exists is not enough, apparently, to deprecate this template. Check the deletion discussions linked above to read why people think this template is necessary. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion about doing that, perhaps putting it inside a css block so that experienced editors can turn it off. I know this template really annoys a lot of established users - myself included - so it's a shame that nothing happened. On Wikipedia, things can move extraordinarily quickly (wikidrama) or extraordinarily slowly (inertia, failure to get consensus etc). C'est la vie. My guess is this template won't be around forever....

As for why put it on a talk page and why not, please see the instructions. I think it's very clear that the template should not be added as a default and should only be added when undesirable talk page activity demonstrates that it's needed. --kingboyk (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it permitted for the talkheader code to be placed on my wikimedia "meta-wiki" user talkpage which would say this, the links i've changed because of it being on the wikimedia site and not wikipedia, but am i allowed to have it on, if so could you leave a message on my user talk via this Link which will lead to my userpage on meta-wiki.SKYNET X7000 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[template code removed]

The {{talkheader}} template, like everything else on Wikipedia, may be copied and used however you like, provided you comply with the terms of the GFDL. Reusing Wikipedia content has details. • I had to remove your template code from this page, as there was an unclosed element (I couldn't find which) that was grabbing everything else after it (like my comment, here. You can retrieve the code from the page history (click edit to get the source; just don't save). —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the draft, Jake the Editor Man changed "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, much less anything else". While I agree with the sentiment, I believe past discussion (here, and at the TfDs) shows a clear consensus for keeping this template as concise as possible, and that addition would make that line long enough to almost always wrap. • I'm also not sure how productive it really would be to put it in, though that's just a comment, not an objection. • If people think I'm off-base in my interpretation of consensus, by all means add it to the draft again, and/or comment here. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having been looking for a template to post on a messy article talk page frequented by loads of what I assume are IP newbies it's good to find this template. However it's missing a comment about indenting replies, such as Please indent replies using a colon - : Your reply ~~~~ -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I know where you're coming from on that. I've toying around with the draft right now with some ideas for it. My only concern is that there has been a lot of previous desire to keep this template concise and brief, i.e., covering only the bare minimum and letting links do the rest. I'm not sure where indentation falls in that consensus. I suspect it makes the template too wordy. Information overload is a concern. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the draft page, I move the "not a forum" line inside the box, where a free line was already available. This way it doesn't heighten the box at all. Please check it out. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:26, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)