Template talk:Talkback

Achth (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for deleting the lines but i don't see any data in the templates. So i killed the templates without rocket data. I will not do that anymore but i do not see the sense of this empty templates in August and September 1952.

Best regards Achim

Change wording

As talkback templates are often (maybe even usually) left for only one message, it seems it would make more sense if it said "You have one or more new messages" instead of "You have new messages." If you want to keep it briefer, it could read "You have new message(s)." —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 17:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This template is patterned after the orange banner that automatically appears for users when new messages are posted on their talk pages, which contains the same wording (irrespective of quantity).

So if such a change is carried out, it should apply to both messages. —David Levy 18:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove extra bold

Can someone remove the extra ''' around the "Hello, Talkback. You have new messages at Example's talk page." text, as the text is already bolded by default by the <div> element, and Firefox is rendering the text as being doubly bolded? Specifically, just do a search for the text ''' in the source, and remove it. Thanks. —mc10 (t/c) 02:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The <div> with font-weight: bold; is in the enclosing {{Umbox}}. Has that always been the case? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done It looks like a relic left over from the original talkback template code - the meta-template {{umbox}} came later. I've removed the extra bolding. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

bug

Bug when entering tildes:

Hello, Talkback. You have new messages at [[User talk:— kwami (talk)|User talk:— kwami (talk)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

and

Hello, Talkback. You have new messages at [[User talk:— kwami (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)|User talk:— kwami (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— kwami (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not supposed to sign inside the {{talkback}}, because the two positional parameters are used to create a link (there is one other parameter |ts=, see below). The two positional parameters are (1) either the name of a talk page, or the name of the user whose talk page you are directing them to and (2) the title of a section on that talk page. Thus, {{talkback|Kwamikagami|found sources}} creates a link to User talk:Kwamikagami#found sources, and {{talkback|Template talk:Talkback|bug}} creates a link to Template talk:Talkback#bug, as demonstrated on your talk page.

The |ts= parameter is used for a timestamp, which has five tildes, i.e. |ts=~~~~~ --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but just as you can use five tildes for a timestamp, you should be able to use three tildes for your name. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This template constructs just one link from the supplied parameters. Three tildes creates a string which by default includes two links - one to the user page and one to the talk page. It is difficult to extract the single link required from the default signature; but some users have custom signatures which have all kinds of extra links and fancy styling. How would the template know which link to use, and how would it extract it sensibly? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would think you'd be able to extract the talk-page link, but template syntax is pretty limited, so maybe not. It's just a surprise when you're used to signing that way. — kwami (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

--{{SUBST:WP:D}} (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC) please see new project governance for wikipedia

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

recent edit to List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Just what exactly do you call it, other than ethnic cleansing, when one ethnic population wages a war of conquest in which it expels the other ethnic populations from areas solely based upon their ethnic background. I have many sources that can support this, quite a few of them from Israelis, even Shimon Peres and the Shin Bet. It would bias the article if I wrote that the Israelis during this time were committing genocide, even though Israeli actions during this time and right through to today constitutes UN guidelines of what is and isn't genocide. Neutrality is something that is needed yes, but not for articles that are clearly backed up by multiple (reliable) sources that state that ethnic cleansing (as recognised by the United Nations to be a form of genocide) did occur on a massive scale. This article is proof that such atrocities did occur. To say simply that the towns were depopulated doesn't do the facts justice that they were forced out through acts of terror designed to instil fear in the Palestinians (see Dayr Yassin massacre and the testimonials by those in Israeli government and military who knew about the facts) or by being forcibly loaded onto trucks and expelled outside of the lands captured by Israel, or at the very worst for those who reused to leave or were just too much trouble they were shot.

Now please tell me how can this article have the neutrality that you wish for, while actually telling the real truth of what actually happened? Maybe change the opening line to "This list of Arab towns and villages that had their populations forcibly diminished by the Israeli armed forces; by means of terrorism, militarily forced deportation and massacres (or murders which ever you think is most neutral);during the 1948 Palestinian exodus gathers about 500 items.

But really if you don't call what happened to the Palestinians during this time an ethnic cleansing then you clearly 1. Dont know the history of Israeli aggression rhetoric towards Palestine and its inhabitants;

       2. Dont know what ethnic cleansing actually is; and
       3. Should not be moderating on articles that you don't have a clear understanding of.

By all means this is not supposed to come off as mean or vindictive towards you and i sincerely apologise if it has. If you wish to talk further on this or for me to provide the reliable sources for everything i have said i would be more than happy to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.227.205 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody delete this or move to appropriate location? 3dimen (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Two problems

1. For some reason, when I originally clicked on the link to this talk page, it could not be found. The URL had "/doc" in it. I had to edit the URL and remove the /doc.

2. In the usage section, the following instruction appears: "In the "Subject/headline" box, type "Re: User talk:username#section", where..." However, people don't really do this; they usually just say "Talkback". Can we simplify this instruction accordingly?

3dimen (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Substing Talkback

After my withdrawn TFD which can be seen here I will move the discussion regarding substing this template here. To see the few first comments please see the TFD. My proposal is to either say that this template should always be substituted or at least that old copys of the template that were posted onto pages a long time ago should be substituted. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. To see why this template should not be substd, see this edit. Some people prefer not to remove the message, but disable it with {{tlx}} - you can't do that to a heap of HTML. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There would be no benefit to subst'ing it, and in addition to Redrose64's comment, this is most often used on new users' pages where a great deal of formatting would be much more confusing than a simple talkback template. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the first 25000 transclusions of the template 7000 are in archives. If it were only on archive pages the template were substituted would this change your opinions? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What would be the benefit? As far as I can see, it would be an unnecessary edit increasing page size. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason templates on talk pages are generally substed in the first place is so that they remain the same as when they were first posted (rather than changing as the template itself does), this allows for accurate archives rather than archives with dynamic content that keeps having alterations to the text e.t.c. Also the number of pages dumped in the job queue each time the template is edited would be shorter by at least 10 or 15 thousand going by 7k instances being on subpages out of 25k ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ease of use was a primary design goal for this template. Substing it contradicts this. Substing in archives could be done with a bot. The job queue is of no concern, as this template is rarely edited. Compared with templates like navbox, which have millions of transclusion, 25,000 transclusions are peanuts. — Edokter (talk) — 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it should remain as it is on regular talk pages ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Templates on talk pages are not "generally substed". It is true that certain classes of messages (primarily those about pages up for deletion or warnings about behaviour) should be substed: and this is indeed so that they remain the same as when they were first posted. But it's not true of every user talk page template - see for example {{unblock reviewed}} or {{sharedIP}} - and I fail to see why it might be necessary with {{talkback}}. Is there a serious proposal somewhere to repurpose the template, which would dramatically change its meaning? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The only argument I have is to keep the text on the talk page the same as when it was first posted, {{unblock reviewed}} and {{sharedIP}} do not get archived the same was as conversations on a talk page, {{talkback}} still does, and although it doesn't get edited that frequently, it does still get edited. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

But unless there was a truly drastic change to it, the message "hey, you have a message" would remain intact. Who cares if the background color changes or if an image is added or something in the future so long as the message remains intact? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Talkback. You have new messages at Staceysavage1991's talk page.
Message added 09:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Talkback. You have new messages at Mraleksrs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hii :)