Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout

GA Nominee placement

Do you think GA Nominee should be place above or below Talk header? Right now the page says GA Nom should be above Talk header but into my eyes changing so that TH is always at the top looks better. I also take under consideration that at some point we discussed merging Skip to talk into Talk header. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Any disagreements if I move it after talk header? GoingBatty? Bgwhite? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no issues with moving {{GA nominee}} under {{Talk header}} or leaving it as is. (My concern was that AWB was moving {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} above {{GA nominee}}.) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No objections either way. As a GAN tag is, at least in theory, a temporary tag, it won't matter in the long run where it is at. I know this is primarily for bot purposes. I see humans doing the status quo. Bgwhite (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

OK I moved since it makes much more sense taking under consideration that skip to talk is like an extension to talk header and that GA Nom still goes up the banners and the WPBS. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I am returning this to the status quo for the time being. Unless there is some benefit to be derived from changing a long standing convention, it should not be done. You will now get humans placing the temporary tag on the top because that's the way it has always been done, and then a bot or semi-automated edit coming along and making a edit to move it, creating a needless watchlist alert. Unless there is a problem there is no need to go looking for a solution that then creates a problem. If there is a still a feeling that the tag needs to be moved, then open a wider discussion, and gain an appropriate consensus. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

SilkTork 9 months later you reverted an edit that was done after discussion. I do not think this is right. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll open a new discussion below, as the placement of the GA template also needs clarifying. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ease of use idea: Basic Templates For Talk Page Layout

The best part of Wikipedia is the respect you achieve over time by the quality of your posts. Many link builders and over-night users simply miss out totally on the pleasure of being part of the sharing education. They rush off to edit or add something and vanish. Now IF there were templates (per example on or via: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines) this would help such a user "get into the bath" so to speak. The TALK template would include some basic Wiki markup with comment tags as to their use. - Happy to work on this with a few others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchbeefy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Place archiving bot trigger above talk header template

Please place archiving bot trigger above talk header template.

If it's placed below this it screws up the talk page format and leaves a big ugly empty space often in between other templates.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Which archiving bot trigger? There are several. Also, please give examples of pages where this is a demonstrable problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

An example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

What was broken about the previous version that required {{User:MiszaBot/config}} to be moved to the top? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cirt? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it should be at the top of the talk page, and not the bottom. — Cirt (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cirt: Agree with who? Nobody (other than yourself) has said that {{User:MiszaBot/config}} should be moved to the top of the talk page. Your edit (linked by Magioladitis above) didn't move the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} from the bottom of the talk page, it moved it from the bottom of the first section - with the vague edit summary "talk page formatting". What I don't understand is why it is a problem at the bottom of the first section. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It creates ugly odd spacing, especially if placed in between other project tags. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

But it wasn't in between other project tags. It was right at the bottom of the lead section; and while there was a 30px gap between the {{Find sources notice|Sian Breckin}} and the TOC, that gap was no larger than the 30px gap that you have caused above the {{Talk header}} and is certainly no uglier. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK talk

Since the {{DYK talk}} is used at so many talk pages (63,401), it should defenitly be added somewhere on the WP:TPL-list. Right? -(t) Josve05a (c) 00:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I consider these to fall within 7 'Any "article history" banner'. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Ping! Do you agree that this would be classified as a #7? In that case, If you please could add it to the AWB program? :-) -(t) Josve05a (c) 11:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Josve05a I agree. I would like to wait a few days before implementing so more editors can read the discussion and express their opinion. GoingBatty what do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with #7, based on Template:Article history/doc. GoingBatty (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(Off topic...Magioladitis {{Oldhwypeerreview}} should be placed at the same place as normal olrpeerreviews, rigt?) -(t) Josve05a (c) 12:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Josve05a True but I don't want to do his case-by-case. It is time consuming. You are welcome to create full lists and save me some time :) I think this template could be deleted and replaced by normal olrpeerreviews. It has very few transclusions and categorising does not bring many. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Magioladitis: I will collect all of these templates I can find and then give them all togheter. :-) -(t) Josve05a (c) 12:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

rev 9816 support for {{DYK talk}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

It seems that {{afd-merged-from}} should be in group #7 (with "article history" banners) while {{merged-from}} and {{merged-to}} should be in #14 (with {{Split from}} and {{Split to}}). What do others think? GoingBatty (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

GoingBatty I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

rev 9815 AWB supports it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes

There are some oddities:

GA listing

The GA notice currently goes above high priority notices. This should not be the case. A GA listing should, like a FA listing, go below priority listings in the same place as the article history. If there is an article history, the listing should be in the article history.

Vital article

{{Vital article}} is essentially a project tag (it is an internal activity: "Some Wikipedia editors feel this article topic is important"), so should go in the WikiProject template.

"article milestone"

Internal activities such as DYK, On this day, etc, go in {{Article history}} - there are parameters for them in the template.

The GA listing just below the talkheader is a long established convention that needs discussion, and I'll open that below, inviting GA editors to take part. The other two are recent, so I'll change them now, and if there is disagreement we can open a discussion about them as well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Vital article

I think Vital article should not put inside WPBS since I do not think we should hide it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

SilkTork sorry for reverting but the change was agreed with more editors at User_talk:Josve05a/Archives/2014/May#Talk_page_fixes after their suggestion. I'll ask them to participate. Thanks again for starting the thread. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is nowhere written that Vital article is a WikiProject, it does not follow standard convention, its banner is smaller than the WikiProject ones. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Vital Articles}} is a WikiProject, {{Vital article}} is however not. Therefor I don't think it should be placed inside a WPBS. {{WikiProject Vital Articles}} (and other WikiProjet-templates) are ment to "refer" people to the WIkiProject, when {{Vital article}} has *no* link to a WIkiProject, and is only saying that that article is "vital" to Wikipedia. (t) Josve05a (c) 10:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Vital article}} is not built around {{WPBannerMeta}}, but {{tmbox}} plus {{category handler}}. It ignores the classes used by {{WPBS}}/{{WPB}}, and so is not collapsed by those wrappers. Whilst {{WPB}} will hide it, that is true of almost anything wrapped by {{WPB}} and doesn't mean that {{Vital article}} may be placed inside {{WPB}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Templates such as {{V0.5}} and {{WP1.0}} seem to fall in the same category as {{Vital article}}. Maybe a similar solution can be found for all of these? – Editør (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

These two templates, despite the similarity of names, are very different inside. {{V0.5}} is a table plus two transclusions of the {{WP1.0/categories}} template - again, not a WikiProject banner, so should not be enclosed by either {{WPB}} or {{WPBS}}. However, {{WP1.0}} is built around {{WPBannerMeta}}, linking to Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team, so may safely be enclosed in {{WPB}}/{{WPBS}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Was there any resolution to this discussion? No one responded to Magioladitis, Josve05a, or Redrose64, but WP:TPL still says to place {{Vital article}} in {{WPBS}}/{{WPB}}. Malerisch (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, anything that doesn't collapse (or change its appearance in some other manner) when enclosed by {{WPBS}} doesn't belong inside it, and therefore not inside {{WPB}} either. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Split & merge

Shouln't {{Split from}}, {{Split to}}, {{Merged-from}} & {{Merged-to}} be placed under #8 (*Any* "article history")? (t) Josve05a (c) 10:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Josve05a I wonder with there is a"-" in one of the two. This should be both or none. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

GA banners

Currently the GA listing talkpage banner goes directly under the talkheader banner, placing it above priority notices, such as discretionary sanctions. It seems more appropriate that guidance should be that the GA listing banner goes in the same place as other internal article milestone banners - either within {{Article history}}, or if that template is not yet on the talkpage, in the place where {{Article history}} would be.

Currently the GAN or GAR template goes below the talkheader banner, previously it was placed above the banner as it is a temporary banner. The FAC banner is also a temporary banner and that goes at the top of the page. When an article is undergoing a GAN or FAC, that is currently the most interesting/important aspect for editors of the article, and it seems appropriate that the banner should remain at the top. This also means that when the banner is placed, there is no need to search for the right place in the list, nor to disturb the existing listing.

Notifying the GA project, as this discussion may be of interest there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There was no positive (or negative) response for 3 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead should be edited

"This Wikipedia guide to talk page layout is an annotated..." Articles shouldn't start with "this wikipedia guide". It can be made better. OccultZone (Talk) 11:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

AFD history

What should be the exact placement of the AfD history on article talk pages? Not exactly the burning issue of the century, but we currently have contradictory information and a few more editors are needed to get a definite consensus. SpinningSpark 16:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close the {{Old AfD multi}} template should be placed after the Wikiproject templates. However, the User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD script places it at the top and User:Yobot is going round moving to the top ones that aren't already there. User:Magioladitis (the bot owner) argues that the top is correct as AFD counts as history. Which is correct? SpinningSpark 12:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that {{Old AfD multi}} is more related to {{Split from}}/{{Split to}}/{{Merged-from}}/{{Merged-to}} than to the progress of ITN/DYK/GA/FA/TFA, so it really goes at about positions 15-16. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64 it's been noted to me, I can't recall by whom, that the template is more related to article history (In some cases it can be merged there) and to templates such as Old prod. I do not have strong feelings on anything. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If I'm doing it manually, I usually put them after the WikiProject templates, as AfD/AI says - it's just more physically natural for me. It would honestly make more sense as article history (8) and thus on top, but I doubt very many people care. Ansh666 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this is old. I just got a ping from Legobot about it...months later... ansh666 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Legobot is sometimes misunderstood. It goes through pages with the {{rfc}} template, looks at the first timestamp in the thread after that point (in this case 16:39, 4 September 2014), and if it is more than 30 days ago, removes the {{rfc}}. When sending "Please comment on ..." messages, the bot picks at random from pages in Category:Wikipedia requests for comment (all of which bear an {{rfc}} and are therefore are still open). So the bot doesn't care about the presence of comments from July. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I know how Legobot works. I'm just surprised that this is still open so many months later. ansh666 16:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussions may become RfCs at any stage, it doesn't matter how old they are. In fact, it's better if there is some sort of pre-discussion, in order to find out if a formal RfC is warranted. This discussion became a formal RfC three weeks ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

At which point it had exactly 0 comments after mine, several months ago! I'd just expected that it would be resolved by now, I guess. ansh666 19:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinging User:Writ Keeper who probably needs to be aware of this issue. SpinningSpark 17:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm regretting taking this case more and more... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was invited by LegoBot. I never really thought about this, but I'm more used to seeing it after the WikiProject templates. I guess I would support its placement there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be little interest in this and it has not been formally closed, but my assessment of what comments there were is that the AFD result should go after the wikiproject template. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to ask for a formal close. Magioladitis says he doesn't care and Redrose64 wanted them even further down (but no one else supported that) leaving two people (weakly) in favour of after the Wikiproject. I guess I support that as well, if for no other reason than that the only policy page to mention this (WP:AFD/AI) says that is what should be done. SpinningSpark 15:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

---

• Can I dredge this back up? I missed this conversation and I think it went about the wrong way. TPL has said for a very long time (I checked back to 2009) that "any article history banner" went above the WikiProject banners (as is logical—it is more important to keep notice of deletion discussions more prominent at a glance than the Project banners). Even so, there was never any reason to split "old AfD full" from the "any article history banner" grouping as if it was another class. As TPL is the formal reference and not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions, we should not be taking cues from an offhanded recommendation during an overhaul at the latter. (In fact, the AI overhaul addition went against the TPL advice at the time, likely inadvertently.) I imagine that, like me, many people will only realize that the official recommendation has changed after the fact. I would think that with the above diffs, we should consider reverting the recent TPL change and updating the AFDAI instructions accordingly. @MuZemike, Spinningspark, Magioladitis, Redrose64, Ansh666, and NinjaRobotPirate @ThaddeusB – czar 02:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not important to me. If you want to revert to a prior consensus, I won't stand in your way. There was very little discussion about this back in 2014. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would really like for old AfD, merge and split templates to be below WikiProject templates, as I think they're less important, but maybe that's just a personal opinion. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fine with Czar's suggestion. My concern was the contradictory instructions, I have no strong view on the exact placement. SpinningSpark 07:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I prefer for the templates to be placed after Wikiproject templates, as per the way the admin closing instructions have stated for a long time ("normally below the WikiProject tags"), and in order to maintain consistency on Wikipedia pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• That one page was the anomaly. All the other pages and scripts follow TPL, which said to put it above (arguably because it is more important to see at a glance than the Project banners). If the issue is consistency, I explained above how the Admin instructions were inconsistent with the rest of WP. – czar 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Czar: What other pages are in question besides WP:AFD/AI and WP:TPL? All of your links posted above point only to various aspects of those pages (the pages themselves and talk page diffs). I know that using the User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD script places that afd templates atop talk pages, but I don't feel that this should be a reason to change everything.

The way I'm perceiving this is that procedure at WP:AFD/AI for having the AfD tags below the project tags was enacted in August 2011 (diff), and procedure at WP:TPL for having Afd tags also below the project tags was enacted in February 2015 (diff).

At WP:TPL, this was the status quo until you changed it on 12 August 2015 (diff), and you also changed it at WP:AFD/AI on 12 August 2015, citing this discussion as the rationale why (diff1), (diff2). However, before this discussion was reinvigorated, the consensus, albeit a weak consensus, was assessed as for the AfD template to remain below the project tags, which is against the changes you recently performed. Furthermore, per more recent dialog here, I feel that consensus herein is leaning toward the Afd tags to be placed below project tags. See the summary below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion summary

User	Position
User:Magioladitis	It is stated herein that the user stated (somewhere else) that they prefer the AfD tags above project tags. However, in this discusssion, the user stated "I do not have strong feelings on anything".
Redrose64	Stated that AfD tags should be placed "at about positions 15-16" which is even lower than below the project tags
Ansh666	Stated a preference for AfD tags to be above the project tags, that it would "make more sense". However, they also stated that when manually adding the template, they place it below the project tags.
NinjaRobotPirate	On 17 September 2014, stated a preference for AfD tags to be below project tags. Later stated on 1 August 2015 "It's not important to me"
SpinningSpark	Assessed consensus on 5 October 2014, stating that "my assessment of what comments there were is that the AFD result should go after the wikiproject template". They also stated a preference for AfD tags to be below project tags, stating "I guess I support that as well".
Czar	Prefers AfD tags above project tags
Jeraphine Gryphon	Prefers AfD tags below project tags
Northamerica1000	Prefers AfD tags below project tags

Except that this isn't a vote? The table isn't helpful. My post above researches the background in depth (with links) and I don't think it has been disputed: (1) article history (incl. old afd full) has gone just above wikiproject banners forever, (2) our current 2014 discussion was about treating old afd full differently from the rest of article history tags based on AFDAI, and it went through with a lack of discussion only for the sake of making the two "consistent" (see the edit summary), (3) I established that AFDAI rules were the odd man out, likely just a typo in the page's rewrite—TPL was the consensus at the time and there was no stated reason for going against it, likely just an honest error, (4) if the issue is consistency, TPL has been the consensus, not AFDAI—this is proved by how the scripts, bots, and AWB follow TPL and not AFDAI's typo; if the issue is consistency, there has been no clear case made for treating old afd full separately from the rest of the article history tags; if the issue is consistency, AFDAI as a document conforms to TPL and not vice versa. Now if you'd like to change article history to go below project banners based on your personal preference, it's within your rights to start an RFC, but anyone arguing to do so for consistency's sake would have a hard time explaining that segregating old afd full from the rest of article history is consistent, especially on the basis of AFDAI's typo, when the rest of the encyclopedia has been using TPL and not AFDAI. – czar 10:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Article history templates

Is it really "descriptive of common practice" to say article history type templates go above the WikiProject templates. While I don't very much care, this is directly opposite of what I have always seen done (including even the sandbox example here!) (The AH template itself may have generally gone above since it usually includes a GA/FA, but not so much the ITN/DYK/OTD templates.) Indeed, the DYK bot puts the DYK banner below the WikiProjects and I believe always has in its many year history. Seems to me this is purely prescriptive advice decided by editors here at some point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark, ThaddeusB what about moving the entire group of "FailedGA", "Old prod", "Old prod full", "Oldprodfull", "Afd-merged-from", "Old AfD multi", "Old AfD", "Oldafdfull ", "Old peer review", "Copied" after banners then? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of best-selling music artists

I've already asked someone about this once and they said it wasn't possible, but there any way the banners of this talk page can be made more concise? I doubt anyone can be bothered to read all of them. —George8211 / T 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you make this so convoluted???

Okay, seriously. I have spent 30 minutes trying to figure out how to make a comment to this Talk page: Talk:Messer_%28weapon%29.

As far as I can tell, there is NO, "Click here to start a new topic." button.

Then it took me a bunch more time to figure out that this Talk page was not like the others and to find the directions to post to one.

For novice editors, such as myself, this is quite tedious. Why not just have a Facebook-like interface? Click in a comment box, type in a comment, and hit post.

If you guys really want more participation--and donors--you need to streamline the process. I'm not likely to donate or volunteer when I can't help out with a lot of aggravation.

Another example of odd, convoluted protocols is signing one's name with four tildes. Really? I'm logged in, why not just have the program auto-sign it? Mithalwulf (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mithalwulf: I don't know what you mean by "this Talk page was not like the others", since the discussion page Talk:Messer (weapon) is no different from most others. You start a new thread by using the "New section" tab at the top; you reply to an existing thread by using the "[edit]" link to the right of the relevant section heading. It's covered at Help:Using talk pages, also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The "commenting system" (or lack thereof) really is an obvious problem with these wikis, but a possible solution is on the way: Wikipedia:Flow. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will give some specific examples.

@Redrose64: First, "New Section" is opaque. How would a novice know, intuitively, that "New Section" means, "Comment"? To me, it would mean, here is a new sub-section of information on the subject itself -- and not on the ongoing discussion/talk pages. Second, in a hierarchical and intuitive structure, "New Section" should at least be down one row, so that it follows that this is a "new section" under the Talk tab. Third, this is what I read on the Help Talk Page: "To discuss a new topic, start a new section by going to a new line and typing a title like this: == Heading ==, replacing "Heading" with a suitable title for the topic you wish to raise." No where does that day, "Hey, Dummy, click on the tab that says New Section, which is three over from the talk button." That's a pretty big gap from someone totally unfamiliar with this sort of format. Fourth, some of the pages *are* different in layout, which adds to the confusion. For example, if you go to a random page, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squirrel, there is a link that says, "Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic." This is clear and helpful, but the Messer page lacks this link. Mithalwulf (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This page is specially about the layout of talk pages. For how to use them, you want Help:Using talk pages, specifically Help:Using talk pages#Talk page use. However, I agree that this is currently confusing and not very user friendly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've clarified things on the page [1]. Is the current version clearer? Also, I don't see what's the difference with Talk:Messer (weapon) from any other talk pages on Wikipedia. Could you explain what's different about that one? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the {{talkheader}} banner, it's typically only used on talk pages that are particularly active or popular among new/unregistered users. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

GA nominee

This follows #GA Nominee placement and #GA banners. I propose to consolidate the entries for {{GA nominee}} and {{GA}} on the list at current position #4, such that #1 is deleted and #4 becomes "GA or GA nominee". It seems proper that these two templates should be in the same hierarchical position. --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A complication... we have {{Article history}} at pos. 9, and that template has parameters to perform the same function as {{GA}} (but not {{GA nominee}}). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Since a GA nomination is an active discussion, I don't think it does anyone a service to bundle that with things that have already passed and are simply on the talk page to categorize things in some way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Great feedback. How about this for a proposed new order, then?

1. {{GA nominee}}, {{Featured article candidates}} (current nominations, if applicable)
2. {{skip to talk}} (should only be necessary on talk pages with several banners)
3. {{Talk header}} (or forks like {{Oregon Companies talk}})
4. {{Vital article}}
5. {{Ds/talk notice}}, {{sanctions}}, {{censor}}, {{BLP others}} and other high-priority/importance, warning/attention templates
6. Specific talk page guideline banners, such as {{Calm}}, {{Not a forum}}, {{FAQ}}, {{Round in circles}}, etc.
7. Language related talk page guideline banners, such as {{American English}}, {{British English}}, etc.
8. Any "article history" (e.g., {{GA}}, {{FailedGA}}, {{Old AfD multi}}, {{Old prod}}) banner, preferably in an {{Article history}} template

…

--Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Where should {{Annual readership}} go?

{{Annual readership}} seems to be a common feature on many talk pages, including the Main Page's. I think that we should include a mention of this template in the layout order specified on this project page – where do you think it should be placed? My proposal would be to place it immediately after the WikiProject banners, such as is already the case on pages like Talk:Donald Trump. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably the last thing down, I'd say. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree, it should be the second last, above archives. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:TALKPAGECLUTTER" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:TALKPAGECLUTTER. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Bsherr (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Talk header

I understand there is a careful compromise on Template:Talk header that states that it may be used on talk pages that receive, as you put it colloquially, "a lot" of comments, but only proscribes its use on talk pages that have no discussion on them. This compromise exists to avoid edit warring on the use of the template on pages that have somewhere between zero and "a lot" of talk, which I think there is wide agreement we don't want. If we must have guidance on this page on the use of that template (and I hope we decide we don't need to), I believe it should reflect that. --Bsherr (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

(Just for clarification, by careful compromise, I mean the six TfD discussions and nine pages of talk archives.) --Bsherr (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing "(should only be used on talk pages that receive a lot of comments)" is not helpful, especially since this template should only be used on talk pages that receive a lot of comments and heated discussions. Tweaking to "Should only be necessary" to match the other language seems alright though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Headbomb: I can't find the longstanding revision of this page, to which you refer, that includes the guidance. Could you send me the diff? I'd like to take a look. --Bsherr (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that, depending on when it was, the guidance at Template:Talk header may have changed. --Bsherr (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be pretty easy to find, it's the one before you removed the text. As for the text having changed, that's rather irrelevant because the spirit is the same. Don't spam the template unless there's a particular need for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the guidance was first inserted here. But that was on January 3, 2020, and you seemed to say in your edit comment that the inclusion of this guidance on this page was "longstanding". Do you mean that it was there sometime before January 3? --Bsherr (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The idea that {{talk header}} should not be indiscriminately spammed is over 13 years old. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the idea that anything shouldn't be indiscriminately spammed has been around since the beginning of the internet, but I've reverted this page to the pre-January 3 state until we finish discussing, per BRD. --Bsherr (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As to language, if there is consensus we need it, how about "(see Template:Talk header for appropriate use)"? --Bsherr (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Or, we can save them the click and simply state the obvious/in a nutshell version of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Question: What are we proposing to do here? It's not clear to me. Are we talking about adding {{Talkheader}} to every talkpage, or making changes to Talkheader? Doug Mehus T·C 02:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: the proposal by Bsherr is to remove this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

To summarize, the language identified by Headbomb above was added January 3. Previously, this page contained no guidance on the use of Template:Talk header. The language added conflicts with the actual usage guidance at Template:Talk header, which is what I am trying to fix, so they are both consistent. My first comment above explains why. --Bsherr (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You should reread the actual usage guidance at Template:Talk header because it says black on white "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, Oh, I've been adding that to every new talk page for consistency. What's the rationale behind that? I'd say I'm mildly supportive of that, unless there's a reason for not doing so. I don't think, truthfully, a lot of editors know this guideline as I've seen it frequently broken.

FYI: I've requested full protection for 1 week for the page. Doug Mehus T·C 03:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, no argument with that. Indeed, that is the guidance. And if that's what WP:TPL said, I'd be okay with that. But that's not the same as saying the template should only be added to pages with a lot of comments. Nothing at Template:Talk header says that. --Bsherr (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"A lot of comments" is shorthand for pages with lots of traffic and heavy discussion, aka when necessary. If you don't like "a lot of comments", "only when needed" is a trivial change, but outright removal is unhelpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Personally, I support adding the talk header to every talkpage per Bsherr's edit, but something this large should probably go to the WP:VP, or at least notified of them of this discussion and an RfC would be good. Not sure which pump, though...SMcCandlish, Headbomb, or Bsherr? Doug Mehus T·C 03:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:VPP or WP:VPR would be best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, So it's fine to continue the discussion here, perhaps by adding an RfC, and then just tag the applicable pump(s) with a notification in Twinkle, right? Doug Mehus T·C 03:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really fussy, although I highly doubt you'll convince many to overturn something guidance that stood for 13+ years to indiscriminately spam {{talk header}} everywhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm not proposing any changes to how the talk page header is used. Only how that appropriate usage is described on this page. In short, there is consensus that the talk header should not be added to talk pages with no discussion on them yet; and there is consensus that "talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template." But there is no consensus on the middle, so saying, as was attempted here, that this template should only be added to talk pages with "a lot" of comments (whatever the heck "a lot" means) is simply not a correct statement of consensus, and neither is that reflected anywhere in the Template:Talk header documentation. If this page is going to give guidance, it should be the correct guidance. --Bsherr (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, the issue for me isn't really about "a lot of comments", it's about "should only" vs. "may". If you want the page to say "only when needed", that would be more preferable than the former language to me. I think it's a bit of a tautology, but at least it's not incorrect. But I think we can do better if we actually discuss it civilly. --Bsherr (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are four proposals:

1	{{Talk header}} (see Template:Talk header for appropriate use)	It doesn't say anything substantive, and the link may be a bit obvious, but there is no inconsistency either.
2	{{Talk header}} (should not be used on talk pages not having any discussion)	It summarizes the most salient point of the template's use.
3	{{Talk header}} (talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template)	Exact language from Template:Talk header, but it's wordy
4	{{Talk header}} (should be placed only where it's needed)	a bit of a tautology, but accurate

Like any of them? --Bsherr (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, Prefer #2 per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. Alternatively, support #4 then #3 in that order. Neutral to #1. Doug Mehus T·C 04:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have a view yet but it would be unfortunate for the guideline to not give guidance. The idea that the template documentation should not be duplicated here is good, but following that means anyone can edit the template documentation and change the effect of this guideline—bad. I would hope the guideline would make two things clear: (1) Don't add any template unless there is a need; and (2) Don't make a fuss about imposing the guideline if the regulars on a particular talk page feel something else is better there (assuming the local view is not crazy). Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes on option 4 – Because this template overused and added to pages indiscriminately and inappropriately, strong language is needed that actively discourages its use, especially by a novice editor who may only glance at the documentation. I agree with @Johnuniq: that the documentation should explicitly state "Do not add this template unless there is a need." This template does have a purpose, but its use must be limited in order for it to be effective. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: Hi, I definitely hate {{talkheader}} as priority on articles not obviously requiring the clutter (and I also hated it when logged in 2012-2015). On BLPs the top priority is IMHO the BLB info, i.e., WPBS blp=yes or blpo=yes, collapsed projects if too many, and only trumped by DS (duscretionary sanctions, 1RR) where applicable. Any archive info with {{archive banner}} should be at the bottom near the ToC, where folks look for meanwhile archived section. A connected info directly before COI makes sense. Misc. info such as old PROD + old AFD + old GOCE + pending / failed GA can be arranged as desired, e.g., chronologically, in the middle. I'm still trying to achieve a GA, it would be "vital" like the vital info immediately below WPBS (just my € 0.02). –84.46.53.116 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)