Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Template:Consensus
Hi Moxy. There's insufficient documentation on the use of Template:Consensus such that its usage varies too much to definitively say it is "high-priority". The other examples in that category are quite clear. Rather, this template is kind of like Template:FAQ in that way. --Bsherr (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I should add, although I have seen it used as a banner, the documentation seems to indicate it actually should be used in a section of a talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Most get it...but I guess it could be made more clear...it is very old. Not sure how exclusion is helpful here. ...don't really care either way....just noticed it's usage up again on COVID pages as we did with policies years ago.--Moxy 🍁 21:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr. I have reverted your revert. Based on it's current usage with Covid-19, it should be included. This is an info page, so providing additional examples isn't inherently bad. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay...WP:BRRD it is? I'll try to explain the problem a bit more clearly. I have taken just the first 10 article talk pages transcluding this template from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Consensus. Six of those pages have this template at or near the bottom: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Three use it at the top of sections: [7] [8] [9]. Only one uses where you have documented it should go: [10]. So, first off, this change–are you asserting you are documenting how the template is currently used, or are you changing how the template should be used? Next, what do we do about existing uses that do not conform, like instances where the template is not used to communicate a "high-priority" message? Should we keep using it in sections, or not? (Because, without including further explanation, a user could reasonably believe from this page that this template should only be used as a banner at the top of the talk page.) And then last, should we start moving it up to where TPL indicates it should go on all pages? --Bsherr (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Then fix it, move it down to some other place. Not every small change has to go through an excruciating discussion just to justify a change. It's a fairly well used template and is easily justifiable for inclusion here. If you disagree with the location in the list, then move it. And if the debacle about Annual readership/Talk header made anything clear, it's that this page is an info page and not policy, so no one needs to go around editing talk pages to make sure they conform to this page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, you may not be familiar, but we routinely passively edit talk pages to conform them to this page as a matter of course while making other changes in AWB: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes includes rearrangement of templates according to this page. I'm sorry this has been so excruciating for you, and I thank you for your conferral of trust to make an attempt at a consensus fix.--Bsherr (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep up the sarcasm, it obviously really helps (*sarcasm alert*). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't being sarcastic. --Bsherr (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, whatever. Either way, my point is to lay off the undo button. Your first comment above made it clear your issue was that the template wasn't added in the correct spot (not that you didn't think it should be added to the list). Instead of undoing in that situation, it makes more sense to just move it with an edit summary saying it fits better in a lower spot. Then, if Moxy or another reverts that, it leads to discussion. Thus, my point about every edit not needing in-depth discussion. It has nothing to do with your supposedly non-sarcastic "conferral of trust" to make a change and everything to do with just being bold and making a change. Sometimes discussion can be counterproductive if the fix is easy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't being sarcastic. --Bsherr (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep up the sarcasm, it obviously really helps (*sarcasm alert*). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, you may not be familiar, but we routinely passively edit talk pages to conform them to this page as a matter of course while making other changes in AWB: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes includes rearrangement of templates according to this page. I'm sorry this has been so excruciating for you, and I thank you for your conferral of trust to make an attempt at a consensus fix.--Bsherr (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Then fix it, move it down to some other place. Not every small change has to go through an excruciating discussion just to justify a change. It's a fairly well used template and is easily justifiable for inclusion here. If you disagree with the location in the list, then move it. And if the debacle about Annual readership/Talk header made anything clear, it's that this page is an info page and not policy, so no one needs to go around editing talk pages to make sure they conform to this page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay...WP:BRRD it is? I'll try to explain the problem a bit more clearly. I have taken just the first 10 article talk pages transcluding this template from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Consensus. Six of those pages have this template at or near the bottom: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Three use it at the top of sections: [7] [8] [9]. Only one uses where you have documented it should go: [10]. So, first off, this change–are you asserting you are documenting how the template is currently used, or are you changing how the template should be used? Next, what do we do about existing uses that do not conform, like instances where the template is not used to communicate a "high-priority" message? Should we keep using it in sections, or not? (Because, without including further explanation, a user could reasonably believe from this page that this template should only be used as a banner at the top of the talk page.) And then last, should we start moving it up to where TPL indicates it should go on all pages? --Bsherr (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr. I have reverted your revert. Based on it's current usage with Covid-19, it should be included. This is an info page, so providing additional examples isn't inherently bad. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Education project banners?
I've just found the list at WP:TALKORDER, which will be helpful in showing where various things go on a talk page. What I don't see listed there is the "dashboard" from Wiki Ed (as in Talk:Tarita Teriipaia) or the lower-tech {{Educational assignment}}. Where do they fit, please? PamD 16:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- PamD, I usually place anything not listed at the end of the talk page banners, but before "Archives" templates. Feel free to be bold though and add it to WP:TALKORDER wherever you think it fits best! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The guideline says "Any WikiProject banners (in a {{WikiProject banner shell}} template when 2+ are present)"; however, the documentation of the template says it should be used with three or more banners. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
AfC and WIR
Both the {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} and {{WIR}} documentation say they go at the top of the talk page, which they do not by dint of WP:TPL. Where do they belong? Within the WikiProject banner shell or separately elsewhere? There are a lot of edit-a-thon banners too so would be useful for clarity on where those belong in the order. czar 17:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- WiR banners are usually placed below other project banners, and I feel they belong outside the banner shell as being somewhat different from other projects. AfC banners are usually before other project banners, and perhaps come into the grouping "Article history"? Certainly it would be helpful to have places for both defined in WP:TALKORDER, and the corresponding instruction added to the documentation for the templates (if any - there doesn't seem to be any for specific templates like {{WIR-175}}, while at {{WIR}} it says "near the top" which is OK as far as it goes but could usefully be more precise; {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} says " place this template at the top of the talk page" which is, as observed above, not quite right). PamD 18:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- The
{{WikiProject Articles for creation}}template uses{{WPBannerMeta}}and so is a WikiProject banner both in name and in function, so it definitely belongs with the other WikiProject banners; but it should not necessarily be the first of them, since{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}}has priority over all WikiProject banners. {{WIR}}, I would say, belongs somewhere after no. 10 ({{Image requested}}/{{Infobox requested}}) but before no. 15 ({{Annual readership}}); I'm not sure where it should go in relation to{{Connected contributor}}through{{Merged-to}}inclusive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 22 § Reference search tools talk page templates
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 22 § Reference search tools talk page templates. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Building guidance on collapsing banners
At the {{Banner holder}} documentation, I just added a list (based on browsing a bunch of transclusions) of which banners are generally collapsed and which are generally not. Should we have a larger discussion at this page to come to a broader consensus about banner collapsing that could be turned into more concrete guidance? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Sdkb, I think it's a good idea. I'd be concerned that collapsing banners by default defeats the purpose of displaying them at all. Specific to the list of what is and is not collapsed, many of the items appearing in the "collapsed" list are components of the article history template, which appears in the "not collapsed" list. Others, like the to-do list, are themselves collapsible, and I think it makes a lot more sense to show a collapsed to-do list, so folks can see it's there, than to hide it completely in the banner holder. Indeed, I think that's generally a better approach, to make individual banners collapsible than to hide them completely. I'm skeptical there is ever a good use for this template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
"Translated page" banner
The template {{translated page}} (shortcut {{translated}}) displays by default as a small box, not matching the other standard templates, and is not mentioned in this layout page although it is placed on the article's talk page.
I have started a discussion at Template_talk:Translated_page#Size_of_template_-_revisited. Editors interested in talk page layout might wish to contribute. PamD 17:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- PamD, just to clarify, this page doesn't include every single talk page template. This just tries to provide a representative overview of a majority of our talk pages. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)