Template talk:Talk header/Archive 10

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Please replace with the current version of the sandbox. See the difference here. Specifically, I want to replace

}} }}{{#ifexpr:{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|1|0}}*{{#ifeq:{{{disclaimer|}}}|yes|1|0}}| {{usertalkpage}} }}


}}}} {{#ifeq:{{{disclaimer|}}}|yes|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}|1|{{usertalkpage}}}}}}

to simplify the expression by chaining the ifs rather than multiplying the results and by testing the disclaimer parameter first, since it is less likely to be called. Note that, while here it appears as one line, there are multiple lines of parser function syntax that I am requesting be changed (see in edit mode); I couldn't figure out how to get it to separate the lines. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
MSGJ, I'm not exactly sure how/why, but I think your most recent edit may have added a blank line to the template, which can now be seen at the top of talk pages. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This edit should fix it. This is why we prefer proposed changes to templates to be made in the /sandbox subpage first and demonstrated in the /testcases subpage. Code blobs in a talk page cannot provide such testing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Speaking of not testing, and I'm really sorry, but it should have been namespace 3, not 1 ({{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}|3|{{usertalkpage}}}}}}) I'm really sorry for not trying it in the sandbox first --DannyS712 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Add Category:Templates that are not mobile friendly. This template isn't working on mobile. -- CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semantic error in HTML

The template definition contains a <table> element with four rows. The first and last rows contain a single cell element <td> each, which declare spanning across four columns: colspan=4. However, the remaining two rows contain only three cells, or even just two (depending on the template's arpol parameter).

That causes the W3C HTML validator to issue a warning for the row number 2:

A table row was 2 columns wide, which is less than the column count established by the first row (4).

and an error for the whole table:

Table columns in range 3…4 established by element td have no cells beginning in them.

See http://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipediam.org%2Fwiki%2FTemplate%3ATalk_header

Possible solution: reduce the colspan setting to 2, conditionaly to 3, depending on arpol. --CiaPan (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The validator also complains about a duplicated ID talkheader, but that results from an indirect code duplication (the template is displayed at the template's page directly, and then included by an included /doc subpage) and doesn't need fixing. --CiaPan (talk)

@CiaPan: Normally there are two columns. But under certain circumstances, one or two extra columns are added: if shortcuts are specified, or when |arpol=yes is set. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Yes, I suppose that's exactly what I described above. Any suggestions about improving it? I'd like to fix it myself, but I can't due to the template protection.... --CiaPan (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Oh, now I see I overlooked the case of four cells. But that's not a problem - the error isn't in just declaring a span of four columns, but rather in declaring four columns when there are actually just two or three. --CiaPan (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, you can't edit the live template - but you can edit its sandbox, which I have synchronised. Just follow the directions at WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thank you! Changes done: Special:Diff/936846961. Could you review, please? --CiaPan (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The gap at the top is significantly larger. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: After two hours or so of googling and experimenting under F12 with style attributes for the whole cascade (td - table - tr - td) I found it's enough to set style="border-spacing:0" for the inner table. However, when I tried to save the change, an edit conflict popped out, and I gave up. Feel free to close this thread as unresolved, rejected or whatever you like. --CiaPan (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Figured out why CiaPan's version added an extra space. When that version was expanded, the last four lines were

For some reason, MediaWiki interprets these empty lines as misplaced wiki markup and puts it outside the table. When the live template is expanded, the last four lines are

and these empty lines are, again for some reason, not interpreted as markup. So simply inserting a line break before </tr> got rid of the gap. Nardog (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Using multiple tables is counterproductive. Rather, the number of colspan should be responsive to shortcuts and |arpol=. Nardog (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe this does the job, though it kinda feels like bringing a cannon to a knife fight. Nardog (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Take a look at Template:Talk header/testcases. The shortcut box is not aligning the to right. Also, the right margin in the white cell is too small (the relative widths of the white and tan cells are also different than in the original, but I'm less concerned about that). --Bsherr (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The latest revision of the sandbox at the moment is my correction to CiaPan's version, not mine. Nardog (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Appearance on User Talk: subpages

On User talk:Evad37/rater.js, the talk page header says that "you can send messages and comments to Evad37/rater.js." Is there a way that can make the user name display on the banner (i.e. Evad37) instead of the full name (i.e. Evad37/rater.js)? Thanks, from TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 04:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

We would need to amend this:
This is [[{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]'s [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]], where you can send messages and comments to {{PAGENAME}}.
to strip out the subpages. I need to go to work soon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


@Redrose64 and Eumat114: I've fixed the issue in the sandbox here. Please adopt the sandbox version if it looks good. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"archives=yes" suppresses list of archive files?

There seems to be an option, archives=yes that, when included, causes the list of archive files to be suppressed. Compare this talk page, with archives=yes (no "Archives: 1" above the search box) with this one, without archives=yes ("Archives: 1" properly displayed).

Is this a bug or an undocumented feature? If a bug, can it be fixed, please? If an undocumented feature, let me know and I'll take a stab at updating Template:Talk header/doc. TJRC (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

TJRC, I would assume undocumented feature. A mention in the documentation would be good! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm suspecting "bug" though; the parameter name doesn't really suggest that behavior. TJRC (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
TJRC, hmm, so looking at the code, it's {{{noarchive|{{{noarchives|{{{archives|}}}}}}}}}. So there's a variable to suppress the list that does so when it's set to anything, and that variable can go by one of three names: "noarchive", "noarchives", and "archives". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, that's interesting. So it seems that "archives" is an alias for "noarchives", which seems counterintuitive. TJRC (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
MediaWiki markup (whether used in templates or elsewhere) does not have the concept of variables.
In a construct like |archives=no, archives is the parameter name, and no is the parameter value. It is not a variable because the page that sets its value cannot read that value back.
In a construct like {{{archives|}}}, archives is the parameter name, and {{{archives|}}} is entirely replaced by the parameter value. It is not a variable because the page that reads its value cannot alter that value.
They're parameters, not variables. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but the question is: should specifying the parameter as archives=yes suppress the list of archives? Is that a bug or a feature? TJRC (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Given the search below, this is likely intentional. However, we don't document aliases in general. I don't see a large case to do so here. --Izno (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I would support removal of the alias for the parameter name given the confusion. There are only 40-some-odd uses. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. I had a heck of a time figuring out that that archives=yes was the reason archives were not displayed. It's certainly counterintuitive that archives=yes means the same as the documented noarchive=yes, and I can't think of any justification for it. TJRC (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What does parameter |display_title= do? – Possible bug

I don't understand what the parameter |display_title= does. I've tried it with different content/values but nothing happens. Are there any specific criteria to it? Nothing is specified in the documentation. I found the author, so a ping goes to @Mr. Stradivarius: --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It changes the article name specified in the"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the _____ article" text. Compare:
{{talk header}}
which renders as:
{{talk header |display_title=Bubble Gum}}
which renders as:
TJRC (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@TJRC: I think I found the issue. The parameter doesn't seem to work in conjunction with wp=yes. Is it a bug or an undocumented limitation? --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
If you are asking whether it is an intentional limitation, I don't think it is. --Bsherr (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

It looks like a recent edit added a line break at the top of the template. Could that please be removed? Thanks, (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Nardog (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted wording changes

There was a recent set of moderate copyedits to this template by EEng that were reverted by Sdkb in this diff. Setting aside any procedural disagreements about bold edits to heavily transcluded templates, I generally think EEng's wording changes were a wholesale improvement over the previous version - there are several mildly awkward bits of wording there that I'd never previously noticed. I'm interested to hear what the actual content objections are, and if there are tweaks that could be made to satisfy anyone involved. ~ mazca talk 13:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mazca, thanks for opening a separate discussion here in which we can focus on content. There are a bunch of distinct changes here that we should look at individually, so I'm going to open some mini-sections here. On taking a second look, I've warmed to some of them but remain opposed to others. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).Sign your posts with four tildes ( ~~~~ )

  • Removing "please" seems a little harsh, but otherwise I think this is okay. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this was one of the more unnecessarily verbose ones I was thinking of: this is broadly trimming word count without losing much. I get the point about the 'please', but as you imply below, this is a tight template. Signature use on Wikipedia basically is compulsory, and I would say we can do without it - though if it fits on the same line after we've lost the other two words, it's fair to include it. ~ mazca talk 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      As the deathless Strunk put it: A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. There's no please about it: sign your posts, period. EEng 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • As someone who grew up in an atmosphere of too many "please, thank you, and sorry"s (a bad habit, tbh) I think we can gut the "please" and the date part (since the sign does that). But perhaps we can go a step further: "a tilde"? Just me who thinks that's obscure? Just say "Sign your posts with ~~~~"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      What P.R. suggests (i.e. to shorten "four tildes ~~~~" to just "~~~~"); had occurred to me, but I'm on the fence about it. On the one hand, the non-savvy don't know what a tilde is. On the other, calling them by name before you exhibit them at least alerts the non-savvy reader that he's about to see something new; without that, they may not understand that ~~~~ is a thing to be typed -- they may think it's an error or be completely puzzled as to what they're being shown. EEng 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC) P.S. No surprise, but there's a nifty {{tildes}} macro that gives you, well, four tildes. Very handy for these discussions.
    • Another question: would it be preferable to use "~~~~" rather than "~~~~"? It is a piece of code, after all, and I think the code formatting is designed to make it easier to copy and paste. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      The old text used < kbd> instead of < code>, so I followed that. Your suggested format uses < code>, which is better. EEng 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.New to Wikipedia? Learn more about contributing.<br/>Confused? Ask questions, get answers.

  • I don't think creating a new line here is a good idea, since it separates WP:QUESTIONS from the "new to Wikipedia?" context. We want most questions asked on the talk page itself, and only want to redirect people to WP:QUESTIONS when they have more general questions about being new to Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • This is fair. I do get the point that if someone's come to this specific talk page to ask a specific question, that's not necessarily wrong. I hadn't noticed the break in the original edit, so I think I'd agree with leaving this bit broadly alone. ~ mazca talk 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I think the newline is an improvement, but trim the "Ask questions, get answers" (seems implied, we presumably aren't saying it because we're gonna leave them hanging). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      Trim to what? EEng 23:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      that part's your job "Confused? Ask questions here." or some variant thereof. What I mean is adding "get answers" reads slightly clumsy to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't think we need both the Learn more about contributing and the Teahouse Ask questions, get answers link. I suggest we cut it to just the Learn more about contributing link (which mentions the teahouse) just one of them. EEng 23:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      I do think it's helpful to offer the WP:QUESTIONS link (which is not my favorite page but does serve as the portal to more than just the Teahouse, such as the copyright questions page): instructions can be useful, but sometimes you're just stuck and need help from another human. If we're going to be updating this template, though, we should switch the introductory page link from the old WP:Contributing to Help:Introduction (I'm sure that'll get pushback from a particular editor, but the recent decision to add it to the left sidebar makes it clear it's the standard and there's no reason to repeat the debate again). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes definitely not help:intro any single page would be better. One of the worst things we have done as of late was mass link that intro. Rfc was populated by people not aware of basic reader behavior....second choice during the RfC was was the Wikipedia adventure that does not even work anymore... some decisions should be left to those that actually understand editor retention. look at the retention level..... absolutely pathetic and embarrassing for us ...2 pages linked from main page with 10,000 views...less then 10 percent of thoses 10,000 people click on a second page....less then 3 percent go on to a third page. We are working to redo our intro...should be done for the new year. Best lead these readers to a normal page that contains the info they are looking for over a 70 page tutorial that no one is reading thru. Whole thing has caused us to loss many new editors and more work for the rest of us.-Moxy 🍁 00:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Sigh, right on cue. I'm not going to get into a debate on that here. You presented all of those arguments during the RfC and consensus still swung the other way. The matter is settled at this point, and at some point continued litigation becomes disruptive. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
if you didn't bring it up all the time it would not be mentioned....cause and effect. It was very disruptive and detrimental to the project overall...as anyone can see by the stats. But at least it has caused us to start working on making new page for mobile consumption from scratch instead of implementing another failed adventure. Will let you know when the RfC for replacement will take place. One of thoses situations that will be fixed in time.--Moxy 🍁 01:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Followup: In my original comment above I got a bit mixed up about what was being linked. Bottom line is I think only one "newbie/intro" link should be included. You guys ^^^^ battle out which one. EEng 05:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Best to link the parent article that works for all platforms and lists the different options so readers can pick one of many intros.--Moxy 🍁 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Avoid personal attacksNo personal attacks!

  • We don't give the exclamation mark treatment to some of the other bullets, which I'd say are equally important, so I oppose this. It also messes up the consistency of not having punctuation for these bullets. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Taken on its own, I rather like the exclamation point to emphasise this one, but I do take your point about the fact that all the right-column items don't have punctuation. This one I'd also be happy to leave alone. ~ mazca talk 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • A ! is probably unnecessary, but I wonder if perhaps civility is a better page to link to (broader than PA, and civility facilitates better discussions too) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      The civility page is already linked under "be polite" in the first bullet. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
      Considering this further, I think it'd be better to put the "be polite" next to the "avoid personal attacks" than the "welcoming to newcomers", since being polite applies to everyone. I reflected that in the mockup below. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Avoid here is like please earlier in this discussion. There's no avoid about it: just don't! The exclamation point makes it brief and punchy, and the brevity – perhaps counterintuitively – makes it stand out. Which it should, because adopting the right stance toward other contributors is perhaps the most important aspect of a new editor's socialization to the project's norms. EEng 08:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

For disputes, seek dispute resolutionIf discussion stalemates, consider seeking dispute resolution

  • The main issue here is that the proposed wording is too long. It looks alright when the article policies module is not present, but when it is (i.e. on article talk pages), it goes onto a second line and squishes the white box (adding an extra line) and module (making it go from four to six lines), which is very ugly. I do think there's something to noting that dispute resolution is optional, though. I'd suggest the wording Seek dispute resolution if needed to address that. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • This is the one I was least happy with the status quo on, though I'm not sure I like the newer version either, particularly the use of 'stalemate' as a verb. Your alternate wording suggestion, I would say, is better than either. ~ mazca talk 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Regarding "smush" factor, I was looking at this template as possibly converting to be more mobile friendly anyway, so that's maybe not a big deal. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I think this one is an improvement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • the proposed wording is too long – Concision is my middle name, but it needs to say what it needs to say. It's absurd to tell readers to go somewhere "for disputes" and even after you fix that, as mentioned in my original edit summary we also don't want someone running to DRN the moment there's a dispute. DRN is for situations that are stuck ("if needed" doesn't express that – if needed by what criterion?). To shorten it, we could adjust:
      If discussion stalemates stalls, consider seeking dispute resolution
EEng 07:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


Okay, so taking into account the above, I mocked up a sandbox with the changes that we broadly seem to agree on. View it at Special:PermanentLink/990141091#arpol=yes to see it with the article policies box enabled. Let me know if there are any major objections; we can certainly continue discussion and make further tweaks if desired, but since I was the one who applied the breaks here, I want to take responsibility for making sure we carry this to some sort of implementation before we forget about it and it gets archived. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

All looks OK except the addition on your help intro page. I object to sending our readers to a non standard page as outlined above. Also don't think learn to edit is the intent of the link as it is now. It's a welcome page telling people about our purpose the benefits of registration etc.--Moxy 🍁 01:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
All looks good to me. I have no strong feelings either way on the intro page disagreement, but overall this looks to be a good incremental improvement. ~ mazca talk 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Implemented the sandbox changes. Regarding the intro link, Moxy is welcome to continue dissenting from the standardization around H:I, but the well-attended recent discussion on the question makes it clear their view does not align with the prevailing consensus. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 08:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You will need more input for that one change. Help:Introduction is only about editing..what we need is an intro about this place and a page that works for everyone --Moxy 🍁 12:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
That's a disingenuous argument and you know it. Our more general intro page for both editors and non-editors is clearly established as WP:About, not WP:Contributing, which is also only about editing. We wouldn't want WP:About as the link since, per WP:NOTFORUM, talk pages are about editing. You reverted to WP:Contributing, not WP:About, though, a clear abuse of your editing privileges. I am raising the matter at the dispute resolution noticeboard as this is part of a pattern for you and needs to stop. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
As was pointed out by me and others at a few other talks is that WP:Contributing to Wikipedia#purpose is a vital part of learning about the place. it's disheartening that the stats and studies about accessibility on how people navigate web pages hasn't change your mind about orpahing our main page on this topic that leads to different styles of intros.--Moxy 🍁 01:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, your revert introduced a grammatical error ("Welcome!; get help." is not proper punctuation or capitalization) that we should not let stand for too long. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I received a message on my talk page asking me to weigh in as I closed a prior related discussion assuming I understand the point of contention correctly, my interpretation of the procedure at this point is that Help:Introduction should be considered the status quo as far as revert-etiquette is concerned. The weakness of the consensus behind it means that it's fair game to continue to argue the points against using Help:Introduction (whereas immediately relitigating a firmer consensus on a talk page would be seen as tendentious), but in the absence of an alternative gaining any traction we should default to the status quo for the page itself. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in and for your edit. I hope we all can agree to put the question to rest at least for now. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Rosguill you just reverted to the new link that is disputed not the status quo link. Will chalk this up to inexperience ...all we can do is hope in the future Sdkb will think of what is best for the encyclopedia and listen to the recommendations of the Accessibility Project and Help project.--Moxy 🍁 01:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I had intended to make a few suggestions but I think I'll wait until you two have killed each other off. EEng 17:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you have in mind. ....it's horible that we all have to spend more time on your simple edit.--Moxy 🍁 00:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Seek dispute resolution if needed When is it needed? After someone says "I dislike this change"? I preferred the "when discussion stalemates" wording personally, or some variant of that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    ProcrastinatingReader, hmm, when I was previewing it in the sandbox, that wording was too long, but once I actually put it in the sandbox, it seems to just barely fit on my display. But it's still longer than the other items in its list, so it may be going onto multiple lines for others. Look at Template:Talk_header/testcases#arpol=yes and make your browser width just slightly narrower if needed to see the issue.
    My other concern is that I'm not sure "when discussion stalemates" adequately summarizes when it's appropriate to seek dispute resolution. "Stalemates" or "stalls" to me implies a discussion dying out in a deadlocked state, which might be one circumstance to seek dispute resolution, but there are situations in which a discussion is still active in which starting an RfC can be fine. I think it's largely self-explanatory that "seek dispute resolution if needed" means "seek dispute resolution if needed to help you resolve a dispute", so I'm not sure we need to spend the words explicitly spelling it out. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    It happens way too frequently that a naive user jumps to DRN (or ANI, or even Arbcom) at the first sign of not getting what they want. It does everyone a favor to help them understand that DRN is generally inappropriate so long as progress is being made in local discussion; that's only a first approximation, of course, but space is limited. Seek dispute resolution if needed is no guidance at all – its negation is Seek dispute resolution whether you need it or not, which is absurd, and when the negation of something is absurd that means the original statement is empty. I already mentioned that for brevity, we can change stalemates --> stalls. EEng 00:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages with only the talkheader template

Because there is a notice that says "Do not create a talk page that contains only this template", would a talk page be deleted if it only had this template? I have also changed the notice from "needed" to "a page requires it" since this makes sense to use this template for any talk page that needs it. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I cant find it but we had this discussion before. If i recall correctly...the idea of overwhelming the deletion process with 10s of thousands of pages considering Wikipedia does not need to "make more space" on its server was a waste of our voluntary resources.--Moxy 🍁 17:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Seventyfiveyears, I doubt anyone has bothered to set up a bot to speedily delete talk pages that contain only this template, but it seems from the documentation like that's what the consensus is, so if you'd like to put a request at WP:BOTREQ it'd probably get taken up. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sdkb: I did not mention a bot that can speedily delete talk pages with only the talkheader template. I just said that there was a notice that says to not create talk pages only with the talk header template. Would a talk page only with this template count as a test page? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't create a talk page just for this template, sure. That doesn't mean to delete them if that's all they have. This would be a gargantuan task with close to zero benefit. Oiyarbepsy (talk)
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 EEng 07:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


Any objection if I add parameter |sources= as an opt-in? If |sources=no then you don't get the find sources bit at the bottom. Some (many) mature articles with plenty/hundreds of footnotes simply don't need this (even short articles on obscure topics with every possible reference ferreted out and included), and it's just another centimeter or two of vertical space we don't need. I notice a trend in templates all over the place, of trying to deal with too much use of vertical space, and this is an easy fix. Default would be current behavior, "include find sources", so backwards-compatible and no conversion needed. I'm pretty busy, so if this ends up being a snow-yes and you feel like doing it before I find a time slot for it, be my guest. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me, although, there’s an existing param name in the opposite direction (hide_sources) so existing usages should be converted. It should be noted that for the original TfD I migrated over thousands of pages with ProcBot not specifying a param value explicitly, since it was enabled by default, which in hindsight was probably a decision lacking hindsight that it may become disabled-by-default in the future. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Sdkb can you ping me when you're done with Template:Talk header/sandbox for the wording change? I will eventually get to this, but I'll probably forget again, without the ping. Or, if you feel like implementing it at the same time as the wording, please be my guest. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Mathglot, I'll probably forget too haha. I just implemented the user talk change, so feel free to use the sandbox now. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)