MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Scratchpad

Since this page is protected from non-admins, use this section to propose changes. Edit it just like you would the main page, and then an admin can copy it over once stable.

Last updated

Netoholic @ 04:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Last updated

A similar version, not so distracting as the first purposal. --ShiningEyes 21:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Last updated

This is significantly smaller, and uses a style identical to the "you have a new message" box. I don't think the goal with this should be to replace Template:Talkheader, but instead to augment it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Last updated

And here's a larger version of the above which could replace Template:Talkheader. But I'd much rather stick with a friendly reminder of signing your posts (with a link to the talk page guidelines), than with something huge. =) Also, I think the bar-appearance would be a helpful visual clue that you're on (or not on) a talk page (so, for example, people who click usernames and then hit edit will (hopefully) realize they're not editing the users talk page, but their userpage!). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

I propose turning it into the empty string. --cesarb 18:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's very simple, I like Gerard Foley 23:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. The small possible benefits don't justify the constant annoyance. Superm401 - Talk 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• The choice seems to be either to make this built-in software functionw ork, or to preserve Template:Talkheader. I find Talkheader is a truly "constant annoyance" since it is always visible on the talk pages and detracts from other notices. The Talkpagetext is only visible while in edit mode, and can provide the same reminders. The choice is one or the other, since there is a strong consensus to keep the template, at least until we get agreement on Talkpagetext. -- Netoholic @ 14:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• On most pages, Template:Talkheader is not needed (that's why most talk pages do not include it, only those that attract significant amounts of newbies might need it). Most talk pages have only a couple of editors that know what they are doing anyway, and don't need a big notice to remind them. It is nice to have a choice per-page whether this template is useful or not. To put the whole text of Talkheader above every edit box will be more distracting than the box on the talkpage itself. Kusma (討論) 15:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I, and really no one, is proposing copy the entire text of the template. A mention of how to sign, and an etiquette reminder, would not need to take up much room at all. Keep in mind, this text only appears when editing talk pages, not "every edit box". -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think those are the only choices. I think a third choice would be using the single line version I proposed (which will remind people, always, of signing their posts and provide a link to the talk page guidelines for further info), and keeping Template:Talkheader around for pages which attract newbies. If nothing else, the MediaWiki text should help curb the number of unsigned posts. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remain Locked

As with the Main Page, this would be a draw to vandels due to it's impact on the entire site. What ever is eventualy placed here, it should remain locked and require concensus to edit. --Barberio 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

All pages in the MediaWiki namespace are permanently protected and can only be edited by administrators. Kusma (討論) 15:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This was intended as a subtle reminder to those with admin status not to unilateraly change this without consensus. The sad thing is that ocasionaly some admin do get twitchy and act before engaging the brain cells. --Barberio 09:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

What is this for? _ℑilver§^ℑide 00:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently a notice to be placed on top of talk page edit boxes. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Talkheader. æle ✆ 23:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This thing is huge and godawful. The link to the "main page" does not work outside of article-space, and neither does the "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Talkpagetext article." wording. Please make this less obtrusive. -- Netoholic @ 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any way to properly link to the main page (see Help:Variable). More importantly, there doesn't seem to have been any consensus or basis for adding this (Talrias said "apparently this works" but not why it might be a good idea). It's a major change (a big template on about half the pages on the site) and I think it's unnecessary; therefore, I am removing it. Please explain here before reverting. Superm401 - Talk 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. I'll do it if you don't. The minimum Talrias should have done was write up what e wanted to do and why here, publicise it on the VP for a day, then do it and be ready to answer questions and objections. E has done none of this, AFAIK. Revert it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Yes, the design was good when used as a template on talkpages, it does need to be redone now. Please decide on a design before you make changes, don't start a Wikipedia wide edit war with this. Gerard Foley 00:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• OUCH. This is huge, can we see a few proposedchanges here first, this goes on userpages to, and is not part of discussing changes to them... xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to the empty original version. Let's first decide on a better-looking version here, and on whether it's needed at all. --cesarb 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You're late to the party =D --Nkcs 01:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion there already ended, so why the revert? In the edit summary you stated that "is not really needed", this obviously isn't true, this template (or whatever it is) is quite useful for newbies and anonyms, and also will replace the old {{talkheader}}. --VsA 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That discussion was about deleting the template, not about posting it on every talk page edit screen on Wikipedia. People need to be aware of the actual issue, so I've posted a notice to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Talk Page Edit Message. Do not put back the template until people have had time to comment. Superm401 - Talk 04:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There should not be an automatic template on every talk page. Some pages have archives, they need a different treatment. Also, Wikipedia talk, User talk, Template talk pages are used for more than just discussing changes to the appropriate page. Kusma (討論) 18:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What I wrote above was based on the misunderstanding that this should be put on every talk page, not on every talk page edit box. If it is used for that purpose, it should not be more than one line long, and not include any formatting other than a link to Talk page etiquettes. It should not be distracting, especially if it can't be turned off. Kusma (討論) 19:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ughly, huge, and obnoxious. Ick. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kusma, the template surely should not be distracting. How about this one?

Maybe it's quite simple, but it's ok for me. What do you think? --ShiningEyes 01:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the both templates proposed here and the template proposed for deletion. --Terence Ong 10:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Um... thanks for your opinion, I guess. 24.91.16.229 21:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this could be very useful - but we should keep it as short as possible - I would think 2 lines at most - I like Locke Cole's first version. Trödel•talk 02:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I also like that one best of all the proposals here. I don't think more links than these will really help. Kusma (討論) 03:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future?

What happened to this? Discussion has been stagnent for months it seems. Anyway, it seems like a good alternative to the ever-expanding {{talkheader}}. Any ideas on how to proceed? RN 04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I find {{talkheader}} to be a major annoyance too. Often I'll check a talk page and find it the only thing there. The automatic response, of course, is to think "if this text is so important, why isn't in Mediawiki space"?

The issue has come up again for me today because I've had my bot place {{WPBiography}} tags at the top of talk pages. My thinking is that if the person is living, the {{Blp}} warning displayed by that template is the most important boilerplate message to be displayed on the talk page so the template should be at the top. But, no, of course if talkheader exists that should be at the top (I've just been told on my talk page).

I don't think talkheader serves any useful purpose, I regularly remove them and never take any notice of what it says. Can we have another go at getting it deleted perhaps? --kingboyk 08:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this. Get rid of {{talkheader}} and put this on all edit pages by default, with instructions on how to adjust your site-wide css to hide it (or maybe an option in user preferences). I'd obviously end up hiding it, but getting rid of all of the templates that are somewhat randomly strewn about on talk pages would be a good thing. --Cyde Weys 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This would be great, especially if it lets us kill {{talkheader}}. Better make sure it isn't too overwhelming though, and hideability (is that a word?) would be nice. the wub "?!" 23:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a few examples above. How about something like this:

It's simple, and gets the main points across (although one might prefer to link to the talk page guidelines rather than to Wikipedia:Etiquette). We can use ParserFunctions tricks to make sure that the message displays only on the talk pages of mainspace pages, or displays a different message on certain namespaces and so on. --bainer (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I was wondering myself if parser functions would work in Mediawiki messages, if you're quite sure they do we can certainly overcome some of the objections above. --kingboyk 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

ParserFunctions can indeed be used in Mediawiki messages, see MediaWiki:Deletedtext or MediaWiki:Newarticletext. It's used there to achieve the per-namespace functionality we'd want here. --bainer (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this product. Ral315 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final version

 #talkpagetext { display: none; }

This is the version I suggest goes up there, although I haven't included the ParserFunctions stuff in this mockup, which will make it say "category" or "image" instead of "article".

This version (hopefully) addresses all of the objections listed above: it's small, it uses the hidden structure thingy to display only the key stuff by default, and it can be hidden by adding the following to one's personal CSS:

 #talkpagetext { display: none; }

Are there any further objections? --bainer (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's worthy of a barnstar Bainer. Excellent work. And it can even be totally hidden with CSS? (Instructions for how to do that maybe ought to be added to the hidden section, as a lot of folks will want to turn it off I suspect).

Oh BTW, have a look at this for a little reinforcement of why this is a good idea ;) a talkheader and an archive header on a talk page that has never had a talk post; my removal reverted --kingboyk 09:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the concerns I had with this last time, is that it was going on every XXX_Talk: as well as Talk:, and simply may not be needed or wanted on many of those pages (e.g. MediaWiki Talk, User_talk). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but I think we're going to use conditional code to avoid that. --kingboyk 12:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Condintionals in this page, or in common? If in this page, is there an example? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just read up the page a bit mate :) Conditional parser code here, as used in MediaWiki:Deletedtext. Ought to overcome your objection? --kingboyk 12:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain that this is the best we can do for User talk pages. "This is the talk page for User Kusma" does sound less than perfect, and "This is the talk page for User Kusma/Sandbox" is just wrong. Kusma (討論) 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this would need some work. "Respect etiquette" is an awkward construction that should be replaced by "Be polite" and the signing can be more direct, without saying "remember to". The problem with previous revisions was this is used on non-article talk pages. I don't think the entire talk header—minus all the good parts about staying on-topic—should be included in this. For articles, it really should stay "for discussing improvements" and "not a forum for general discussion". And if it has to be opened up by a "Show" click, that rather defeats a lot of the purpose, most of the people the talkheader helps are not inquisitively experienced enough to click on a "Show", whereas the people who would already know about what to do on talk pages. This seems like too much template and instruction cruft. —Centrx→talk • 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(dedent) There is a problem with the last two versions; on the browser I'm currently using (IE 6), the 'show' button at the top overlaps the text, making it hard to read and looking ugly. --ais523 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at the moment but if nobody else comes up with a new version I'll see what I can do (probably not today). We also need to list the objections point by point so we can see if they've been overcome or not. Let's try to make this stick :) --kingboyk 08:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to address the objections above:

 #talkpagetext { display: none !important; }

 #talkpagetext { display: block !important; }

I've changed the wording slightly, corrected the CSS overrides, added more wikilinks, and changed the default hide/show (by manually substing the {{hidden}}s; now, the box is open by default (I think the hides/shows on these are persistent). I've also added margins that change with text size (using tables and visibility:hidden) to stop the overlap of the 'Hide' button with the rest of the text. I've noticed the namespace list on which this is shown currently seems to be Talk, Category talk, and MediaWiki talk. Personally, I'd favour this showing in all the talk namespaces, but I've left the namespace list as it was due to opposition above. --ais523 11:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that show-by-default doesn't work at the moment (various proposals at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.js), so I'm changing it back to hide-by-default, especially as it seems hides/shows aren't persistent in this context. --ais523 11:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the final version could also incorporate the function of {{skiptotoctalk}} so that it doesn't proliferate as has {{talkheader}}.--cj | talk 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This box goes on the edit screen. There isn't a TOC when editing. --ais523 14:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment A note to new users: TOC stands for Table of contents. For more information about this, please view this page. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem: The above "proposed final version" appears to be badly broken on my computer, with some kind of odd text wrapping/overlay issue. Screen capture. This is with Firefox 1.5.0.7 on Linux; I haven't had a chance to check on other OSes yet. --DragonHawk 02:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Talkheader at the top of every talk page automaticly? Is this the correct way to do it?

[edit] Can http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Talkheader be as Defult?

Can http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Talkheader be the defult thing to appear at the top of all talk pages? Alan2here 20:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose! That thing is huge, especially if destined for ALL talk pages. But then again I'm POV in that we shouldnt have one of these on any talk page outside of the Talk: namespace (e.g. slapping that on User_talk: may not be helpful). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it could turn into a small link after a user has made a cirtain number of edits? So regulars never see it? Alan2here 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We using this?

Are there any plans to use this? There hasn't been much discussion on this page recently, and I don't want to put something on the page if there's been an agreement somewhere else to leave it empty. _JD^talk 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was agreement to put the talk page header in it. I certainly disagree with it; this shows on all talk pages, not just article talk pages, but what do you propose? —Centrx→talk • 05:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It does display on all talk pages, but ParserFunctions can be used to only display something on article talk pages (or whatever other namespace is desired). The only question is what to display. We tried some versions above using {{hidden}} to make the message nice and small, but that trick doesn't seem to work correctly in MediaWiki messages. --bainer (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, you cannot pass parameters to a template in a MediaWiki page, due to an apparent bug. —Centrx→talk • 06:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Does something here really need so much fanciness like ParesrFunctions? What's wrong with just a box that has a few instructions that apply to all talk pages, like signing of comments, section headings, and civility and etiquette? _JD^talk 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because most of the people who have commented don't want a big message at the top of their user talk page. I do agree with you that a nice simple message would be a good idea. I suggest either the first version listed under #Proposed final version above, but modified so that the hidden part works properly, or simply a version resembling it but without any of the complicated hidden stuff, if people don't like that. --bainer (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of something more like what's in this section, but modified a bit.

Something like this? _JD^talk 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Or make it more like MediaWiki:Newarticletext...

I prefer this one; I think the first one is big and bulky compared to this. _JD^talk 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ParserFunctions still work, just not template parameters. This should not be at the top of my user talk page. —Centrx→talk • 06:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So we're not using this page because one person doesn't want a box that could reduce the amount of unsigned comments and other stuff we don't want on talk pages from appearing on their user talk page when somebody edits it? _JD^talk 08:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Many people would not want it on the user talk page. With ParserFunctions, it does not need to show on the user talk page. Note, however, that this is a major change and a five-line addition referring to seven different guidelines seems excessive. Even with {{talkheader}} you can see people were concerned about over-use diminishing its impact. —Centrx→talk • 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We could start with something minimal that applies to the most cases, namely the line about signing with tildes. —Centrx→talk • 09:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shorter then? _JD^talk 09:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would go even shorter. Only one line would be fine. How about this for a basic version:

I still like the version with the hidden structures, and thanks to Centrx pointing out that template parameters don't work in MediaWiki messages, we can now try to modify that to make it work properly. Of course, the precise wording can be tweaked but I still think it's the best basic structure. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it. _JD^talk 13:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The short version seems like a good idea; make sure it's formatted like the other edit-screen messages (MediaWiki:Longpagewarning, etc.), and it shouldn't get in anyone's way too much. --ais523 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Made the change

Ok, I've gone ahead and changed the message to the version that appears immediately above. It's styled in the same way as other editing interface messages, as ais523 suggested. Currently it displays by default on all talk pages except for user talk pages, this behaviour can be changed by adding more lines like the one that currently says "|{{ns:3}}=none", the namespace codes are available at m:Help:Variable.

Let's see how this is received, then possibly the hidden part with the more detailed instructions. --bainer (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The styling is very slightly different, which shows up visibly on my screen when shown simultaneously with a longpage message; try this style from MediaWiki:Longpagewarning. --ais523 09:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

style="margin: 0 0 1em; padding: .5em 1em; vertical-align: middle; border: solid #aaaaaa 1px"

I think it's better that it looks a bit different; it stands out and is likely to get more attention. _JD^talk 09:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The bolding's fine, but bold and slightly smaller and slightly different margins and a slightly different border colour just looks unprofessional. I'd prefer to have the same size and margins as the other templates, and if this is meant to stand out the border should surely be darker, not lighter? The current version also doesn't have a perfect vertical alignment, which looks a bit strange. --ais523 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it was based on MediaWiki:Newarticletext, and I don't really see a difference to be honest, but since you like the other style better I've changed it. Ideally what we would do is put something into MediaWiki:Common.css to style all of these messages consistently. --bainer (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page guidelines

Shouldn't there be some mention of what exactly the talk page guidelines are? Granted, some people are going to ignore the notice entirely, but some will notice the text but not read the talk page guidelines. There is certainly a problem on some talk pages with people discussing the topic of the article, not the article itself. Or is this really a problem? —Dylan Lake 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this would be helpful; it was one of the few redeeming features of {{Talkheader}}. -- Visviva 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Which wasn't deleted :) - cohesion 04:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should replace this with the text from the talkheader template. Our first priority is to communicate information to newcomers and casual visitors. If it's important enough to put on some talk pages, why wouldn't we put it on all the rest? — Omegatron 23:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Talkheader}} is horribly large and irritating and really shouldn't be used anywhere. --bainer (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of namespace limitations

I've removed the namespace limitations of this message because not having it show up when editing pages like a User_talk: page is just silliness. New users frequently forget to sign posts to User_talk: pages, a friendly reminder seems appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Signature reminder would look even better in MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning (just under textarea), instead of "copyright" and "verifiable" sentences which imho could be removed on non-article namespaces. However, the biggest limitation here is using even namespace «Wikipedia:» for discussions. —AlexSm 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's a very interesting suggestion. I think you're right about the "copyright" and "verifiable" sentences being pretty unneeded on non-NS:0 namespaces. Very interesting... --MZMcBride (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Copyright violations can't be tolerated in any namespace, and though sources aren't required for talk page posts, people should still have verifiability in mind when suggesting additions. Superm401 - Talk 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)