Template talk:Talk

Template for flat-style discussion.

Synatx
The syntax is, where topic is subject of your comment, and ~ will be automatically converted to your signature.

For example,

may become

Example
For example, see 維客提案

Repurpose this template
Hello. I would like repurpose this template into a small notice to put at the top of active sections on talk pages.

This is an active discussion! (Remove this template when the issue is resolved.)

This template would also categorize active talk page discussions in something like Category:Active talk pages and, maybe, populate a dynamic page list.

My reason for this is because for about four days I was unable to post to the forums. I used talk pages to get help instead. However, some talk pages may not get seen as active. I do not know how often recent changes gets checked for activity on talk pages.

I know most users would use the forums, but some, like me, feel more comfortable using talk pages. I would be willing to make all necessary edits to the pages where this template is already used.

So, what do you think? Lady Aleena (talk) 23:07, November 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel that talkheader is more suited for this purpose, & you could simply apply a parser function to that template that automatically categorizes active talk pages, like so:


 * I believe that would negate the need for |this template.


 * Would the categorization go away when the current active conversation ends? Lady Aleena (talk) 23:56, November 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * Example: I asked a question on navbox talk back in August 2016. It is still unanswered by anyone, so it would still be an active discussion even over a year later. Lady Aleena (talk) 23:59, November 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * The categorization would go away at the turn of the month. If people were still active (& therefore editing) when that happened, then it would return fairly quickly. If the conversation was indeed over (& so no one is editing the talk page) at the turn of the month, then it would not come back. TL;DR, yes, but based on activity & not on whether a given topic was “resolved” or not.


 * It’s worth noting that if a talk page is left alone for several months, then the chances of it getting a reply decrease exponentially anyway, so unless your intent was to “keep the talk page open until someone replies” by keeping it in the active category, it shouldn’t matter.


 * That is why I added "(Remove this template when the issue is resolved.)" to the template. It would be removed when the issue is resolved. The template would also visually highlight the section with the active discussion. There could be an active unresolved discussion two sections from the bottom, while the bottom discussion is already resolved. The point of this is to make active unresolved discussions easy to find by categorizing them and a visual cue in the section. Lady Aleena (talk) 00:08, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * Basically you want a new maintenance category. I just considered to create a new Category:Broken topics for some talk pages (of protected pages) starting with Talk:Categories. But then I dropped the idea, because already does what I want, and "the rules" (last edited by me) claim that putting talk pages into categories is typically a bad idea. ;-)
 * If you add an issue on a Template_talk page all editors of the given template still interested in it should see this on their watch list. Otherwise you could post in the technical support forum to get more feedback. Or just edit the template, expecting a revert if it turns out to be a controversial issue.
 * Something like is common on talk pages, in theory archive bots could then move the thread to a talk page archive, or other users would immediately see that it's a resolved issue. –  Dunnoob &#x1F4A9;  00:43, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * done does seem to be ideal to me, I have seen it used on the interlanguage link requests page to great effect. Attaching a category to that, I think, or a similar template (as opposed to a flag that spans the width of the page) could be ideal.


 * Dunnoob, would you point me to the page that says "putting talk pages into categories is typically a bad idea"? I see no problem with putting talk pages in categories, Wikipedia has loads of talk page categories. Talk pages are great places to put middle to low priority maintenance categories.


 * Also, the point behind this is that the forums break upon occasion. I have yet to see talk pages break and not allow a user to edit them for ~four days straight. The talk pages are a far more stable and specific platform to get help and discuss other issues with a specific page whether it be a Help or Project page, Template, Category, etc. Also talk pages allow for proper threading whereas the forums are a threading mess.


 * But I digress. Repurposing this template to highlight active discussions on talk pages is not a new idea. See Wikipedia's help me template. I get most of my ideas from my time on Wikipedia. Lady Aleena (talk) 01:20, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * The 5th bullet in "the rules": Talk pages in odd numbered namespaces generally need no category or even should be in no categories. If you think that it's wrong simply remove it, please. More instruction creep would only make it worse. – Dunnoob &#x1F4A9;  03:08, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * Dunnoob, that looks more like a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule. Also, the categorization of the talk pages would be temporary.


 * By the way, I think we really need Wikipedia's outdent template right now. 8) Lady Aleena (talk) 03:33, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand you better now, Lady Aleena, the idea is a good one IMO.

I am not sure if I have any sort of approval for this. I want to do it, but not without some sort of admin approval. Lady Aleena (talk) 05:50, November 23, 2017 (UTC)
 * You have discussed it, there were no serious objections, ignoring minor nits like don't create maintenance categories if there are no volunteers for the maintenance. That's considered as consensus.  Folks are free to object later and find a new consensus for another solution not limited to undo, and of course staff can overrule any consensus they don't like. –  Dunnoob &#x1F4A9;  13:47, November 24, 2017 (UTC)