Template talk:Talk page watcher

This template was considered for deletion on 2015 February 24. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Removing WP:T3 tag

I am removing the speedy deletion tag applied to this template. This template provides a version of the {{talk page stalker}} template which complies with a change to Wikipedia's Harassment Policy (as a result of this discussion) through which consensus determined that the "stalker" terminology was potentially offensive and should not be used in this context on the site. See also the change noted at the deprecated shortcut WP:STALK. Ivanvector (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, {{Talk page stalker}} accommodates those that would rather have "watcher" instead of "stalker". This template is identical to that template and as such there is no reason this template needs to exist. I'll send it to TfD though since you are apparently opposed to deleting a redundant template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I didn't see that the functionality had been built into the other template. Discussing options there. Ivanvector (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker parameter

See User_talk:Alakzi#Watcher_template on Alakzi's talk page. Other thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably ok although the wikitext is incomprehensible. The point is that people can use tpw to produce what suits them and it defaults to a "talk page watcher" which is good. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My changes to {{Talk page stalker}} were reverted by User:Technical 13. Technical 13, I gave attribution when copying your code. Alakzi (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't what the revert was about. It was about {{Talk page stalker}} being 15 years old and {{Talk page watcher}} being 9 years old. If anything, {{Talk page watcher}} should be a wrapper for {{Talk page stalker}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole idea behind this was to discourage use of "stalker" and part of that means eliminating any dependence on the tps template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to have a switch in this template which produces "stalker" - we're not trying to force users to use "watcher". If your change allows an editor to transclude it and produce "talk page stalker" without passing switches, (i.e. {{tps}} produces (talk page stalker)) then it's fine. If it forces "talk page watcher" unless the switch is passed (i.e. {{tps}} produces (talk page watcher)), then it will break existing transclusions and we shouldn't do it. Also, if Technical 13 wants to own the template, then probably best to wait for a consensus to implement your changes. Ivanvector (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also: the {{tps}} template seems to be broken at the moment. {{tps}} should produce small text, shouldn't it? Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, it's just short for talk page stalker. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It does produce small text. Alakzi (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I'll rephrase. It's not specifically coded to produce anything different or special. It simply produces the same thing as {{Talk page stalker}}. I actually just looked, and it is working correctly. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what I meant; it's working correctly. Alakzi (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange that it produced normal-sized text when I subst:'d it in my comment, then, but it does seem to be working now. Ivanvector (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, it's not working when subst'ed. Compare: (talk page stalker): (talk page stalker); (talk page watcher): (talk page watcher). Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now fixed. Alakzi (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It works both ways. I'm more opposed to watcher than stalker as it is more offensive and scary to me. You can stalk my talk page all you want, but if you watch me, I'll get a protection order... Simple as that. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't work both ways. There was discussion and consensus about reducing the stalking term. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That discussion was about reducing the usage of the term stalker, not about changing or removing the templates. In other words, it was about changing user behavior. Also, as mentioned in that discussion, 'watcher', 'lurker', 'follower', etc are all just as bad if not worse than 'stalker', so changing it to any of those is of no gain to the encyclopedia. I'll say you are welcome to use whatever you want, assuming there are no direct objections on a per user talk page basis, I won't complain about you having your section of the bikeshed blue, I like mine red. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Technical 13 is technically correct, the discussion at WP:STALK was regarding its usage within the harassment policy, not site-wide. Or at least, that's my conservative impression. The discussion at WP:VPP is meant to expand that, but does not yet have consensus. Ivanvector (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Is there a problem? I haven't looked, but I would have thought that any disagreements about what tps does are not relevant here? Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Parameters have been added to this template that produce the stalker verbiage. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lot of cruft, and while I was thinking above that hidden stuff is not a problem, I take your point that there is no reason to conflate tpw and tps—the two templates will exist indefinitely, and no one will want to use tpw to produce "stalker", nor use tps to produce "watcher". The new code also does something with {{{term}}} which is presumably left-over junk. I would support the simplification from reverting those changes. I don't think there would be any change to the documentation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed support for "stalker" from this template. Alakzi (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral target?

Thanks everyone who commented in the recent RfC on the talk page stalker language. What seems to have come out of it is that editors want to continue using the {{tps}} series of templates exactly as they are with no changes to any of the language anywhere no matter who may be intimidated by it. That disappoints me but doesn't surprise me, and I'm not going to argue the decision. However, since there was a separate consensus to keep the {{tps}} and {{tpw}} series separately, because some users want to use more neutral language, I'd like to suggest we change the target of the {{tpw}} series to Help:Watching pages rather than the talk page stalker essay. I've been doing this myself for a bit (example). Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this template links to Wikipedia:Talk page watcher which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Talk page stalker. The proposal is to change the link to Help:Watching pages.

I think something better than that is needed. I'm too busy to look to see if anything exists at the moment, but the point of the link is to explain to a newbie that they asked editor X a question, but editor Y is answering, and that is a common and perfectly acceptable practice, and Y is watching X's talk. The proposed target is just gumph that would seem unhelpful to me, if I were the newbie. (Why start a reply to a question about, say, the revert of an external link with help about a totally unrelated topic? Should the newbie study that page to see if it has information on external links?) The tpw template might need its own essay to replace the redirect, or there should be a section on a using-talk-pages guideline which covers the issue, and the redirect should link to that. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]