Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Header templates dominate talk pages. They can be a burden on small screens. A simple improvement would be to eliminate wasted space at left and right. Another line can be recovered by eliminating the redundant duplicated phrase "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk header article."

1. Please maximise the width.
2. Please delete "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk header article."

Lightmouse (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this may be controversial, so I will ask you to discuss these changes and obtain a consensus first. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying both points are controversial? Lightmouse (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not confident that either of your two proposals are uncontroversial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's controversial about eliminating wasted space at the left and right? Where would I go to find out who wants the space? Lightmouse (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a suggestion at the village pump, I propose that this template has an option for maximum width (even if the default is smaller). This would allow verbose headers to consume less vertical space. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind what the width is, but would prefer that all these message boxes have a consistent look. If some pages use full width and others use 80% then it does not look tidy or professional. (By the way I have removed your {{editprotected}} until such time as there is consensus for a change.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should all be consistent. That's why I said at the village pump: "The coordination and justification is more than I can solve by myself". If you can tell me who or where this can be resolved, I'd be grateful. Lightmouse (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: the proposal by Lightmouse is to widen the template optionally, so that heavy text-loaded templates don't exessicve page length. Currently width:80%, that could be made into width:{{{width|80%}}} or switched 80% - 100%. -DePiep (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Custom widths are very bad ideas. They would break the uniform look that people work so hard to get, and would not match up any other banners present on the talk page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The other way around: width is set here, so it should be here. And atop: do you really mean to point to two places of talk? Even omitting the third one, where you were active in this? Why don't you just say right away: discuss everywhere, and let it bog down in the sandy tracks? -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, you changed your post [1] making me look like a fool. Removing your own edit from a talkpage we do not do. -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what kind of world do you live that one cannot refactor his own comments? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold you arrogace, mister (m/f). I responded to a post you put here. When you delete your post afterwards, my reply reads nonsense. Now you come complaining at my door for that? There is a guidance for that (and note that this is not your own talkpage). -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for your own replies. That you chose to ignore the edit conflict is your problem, not mine. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete a post, not even your own. You can strike. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to posts that have replies. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

qed. -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go take some basic logic classes. I modified my comment before you replied. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion to improve visibility and access to our dispute resolution processes, partly because newer users sometimes will get frustrated and leave due to edit warring etc. I propose that a link to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is added below the "Be welcoming" section. Also perhaps there could be an easy way for a user to flag the page as needing outside input, perhaps adding a category such as Category:Pages needing dispute resolution. Not sure, but part of the problem is a lack of eyes on disputes so this may help. Thoughts? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I've disabled the request. Please wait till you have a consensus before applying.) Personal opinion: a link might be useful but I would oppose any lengthening of this banner as it is already quite large. If you can replace an existing link with this one it might be okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that. Well, Be polite and avoid personal attacks could be replaced with "Be courteous" with a link to Wp:Etiquette, or to the talk page guidelines. That could work. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Martin/MSGJ on the not making it longer aspect. This template already suffers from major feature creep (full disclosure: I am one of the perpetrators). Which largely leaves us with the question of, "What's more useful in the banner?". I can't really come up with a compelling argument for either case. While WP:Etiquette covers "Be polite" pretty well, having an explicit "Avoid personal attacks" statement could be said to be of benefit for newcomers. All of the pages in question link to each other. I suppose one could say WP:DR is a consequence of the others, so stating the principles (do this) is more useful to the newcomer (they can click to find out how, if they don't already know). Lacking a compelling argument, I tend to fall in favor of the status quo. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the idea of a link to Dispute resolution, but I was going to hold off because I noticed this thread and the worries that the template was already too long. However, I also noticed that the four links on the right-hand bar were essentially all saying the same thing: "Act professionally". The list of four links used to be:

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming

I played around with the display and possible wording a little, and I found a way to include a prominent link to the DR page that doesn't expand the template (which I agree is quite length, and - as a passing comment - probably in need of an update: it's been the same since I joined Wikipedia, I think). Here's what I changed it to:

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• For disputes, seek dispute resolution

Does that seem okay? AGK [•] 19:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is done, and I don't really feel strongly enough to oppose, but I'd like to point out that the significantly longer wording causes major wrapping on all but the biggest of screens. Next time please consider that. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with New feature for Template:Talkheader I'd like to propose that

search=yes be the default when not specified otherwise. Rationale:

• I've lost count of the number of talk pages I've visited where I make this change before posting.
• Including it by default may encourage editors to search discussion archives and potentially avoid duplicated discussions, or at least easily refer to prior discussions in new threads.

Please note that because of the protection (and also the small matter of me having to research how templates work) I wouldn't be able to undertake any consensus change myself. Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: Though I think that every talk page with archives must have some search widget, this one is not the only option available. On some pages it is even hard to discover due to cluttered headers (several WikiProjects' templates, GA/FA, AfD history notes etc.). At the same time, there are unarchived talk pages, which shouldn't show this. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but with more sophisticated handling: search bar visibility should follow that of archive bar. If I'm not mistaken, that means the following change:

--- th.orig     Sun Dec 18 10:08:40 2011
+++ th  Sun Dec 18 10:10:58 2011
@@ -69,9 +69,7 @@
 {{#if:{{{noarchive|{{{noarchives|}}}}}}||{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 1|
 <tr><td colspan=4 style="text-align: center; border-top: 1px solid #c0c090; padding: 1px 3px">'''[[Help: Archiving a talk page|Archives]]:''' {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive index|[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive index|Index]],&#32;}}{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive A|{{Archive list alpha|nobr=yes|root={{FULLPAGENAME}}}},&#32;|}}{{Archive list|nobr=yes|root={{FULLPAGENAME}}}}</td>
 </tr>
-}}
-}}
-{{#if:{{{search|}}}|
+{{#if:{{{nosearch|}}}||
 <tr><td colspan=4 style="text-align: center; border-top: 1px solid #c0c090; padding: 0"><inputbox>
 type=fulltext
 prefix={{#tag:nowiki|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/}}
@@ -79,6 +77,8 @@
 break=no
 </inputbox></td>
 </tr>
+}}
+}}
 }}
 </table><noinclude>
 {{documentation}}

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This idea seems reasonable; I seem to find myself annoyed at the lack of a search box for archives quite often. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - is there any way of telling how many pages include this template, have archives, and have no archive search? What order of magnitude are we looking at here? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]