To discuss article changes, please use:


If you see comments on this page, they remain for archive purposes.


where to put the talk box

Wendy suggested in the preceding discussion that instead of placing the talk box on the article, we place it on the talk page to be categorized here. I think that's worth looking at -- do we want to go ahead and try it? —Scott (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wendy was suggesting that we have both, and that we (the admins) take care of adding the box to the article page if the contributor forgets to do it. I'm in favor of that, if other folks are. -- Danny (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I did misunderstand then. I think we'll have enough cleaning up after other people when WYSIWYG is introduced, so I'm not really a fan of adding to that. However, leaving the box off of the article altogether might be worth a try. We originally placed them there so that if someone browsed to the page, they'd see that there was an open question about it. With 13,000 pages now, the likelihood of that happening is not very high. Anyone who's going to be reading talk pages is doing so because they check the Active Talk category. Instead, we'd include a tag on the talk page which would solve the problem we all have that the talk pages themselves aren't what's linked in the category. —Scott (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
WYSIWYG? ugh. Is it optional? Anyhow, I meant what Danny thought, assuming that if it became impractical we might then consider having the box only on the discussion page, and mostly because I thought he and Andrew really liked the box on the article page. I'm fine with having the box only on the discussion page. -- Wendy (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool, let's try it out and see how it goes. For whatever it's worth, I've never seen another wiki place a talk box on the article page. Wikipedia has templates for when to merge articles and things like that, but not general active discussion.
And yeah, WYSIWYG. Ugh indeed. You'll be able to turn it off in your preferences, but new users will have it by default. Which, to me, means a lot of clean-up from mistakes made half of the time by humans and the other half by the software. —Scott (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Should we also put attention tages on the talk pages for the pages that need attention? I already know thata tag is put on the talk pages for articles in the still stumping category. --Minor muppetz 02:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Attention should stay as is. Stumping and Active Talk Pages, the issues are with questions on the talk pages, not necessarily with the articles. With Attention, it's the articles themselves which need work; all the talk page is for is to explain precisely what's needed. We'd *want* users to see the page that needs attention first, then the talk page if they need clarification or direction on where to start. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

table list

What's the purpose of the list of "Recently edited pages in this category" at the top of this category? If it were a list of recently edited talk pages in this category it might be useful, but that's not the case. Any page that's tagged with a talk template gets thrown at the top of that table even if there hasn't been any activity on the talk page for a week. Can we take that out? —Scott (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I love it; I use it all the time. Yeah, it would be better if it would track the edited talk pages, but it's still a good thumbnail sketch of what's new. Before we put this in, it was hard for me to figure out which were the newest talk pages. -- Danny (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
But what's the point when the activity doesn't reflect the changes on the talk page? That's what Active Talk Pages is concerned with, not which article has been edited most recently. Like the 'upgrade' to Recent Changes that displays the fluctuation page bytes, it's just not accurate, and in fact, misleading. —Scott (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the feature, but I tend to agree. At this point, might it be useful to find a way to categorize the talk pages themselves here, either in addition to or instead of the pages? It helps to have the pages here, I suppose, but like with attention, the major issue is or should be explained on the talk page, and with some conversations, quite frankly, the discussion sometimes has little to no bearing on the article, and is just someone's general curiosity. The talk icon on the article page is important, but I'm not so sure about how the category works now, especially since we've been experimenting with some of the other "attention" type pages. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's still relevant. If the article is being updated and there's a talk tag on it, then that means it's a live page, and we should either deal with the talk tag or take it off. I think this encourages us to clear dead talk boxes off the pages.
I'd like to hear what Wendy has to say about it; she's the other person who uses this page a lot. If all three of you hate it, then I'll agree to take it off. -- Danny (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually use the table, but I wouldn't say I hate it, and since Danny likes it so much I'm ok with leaving it. It seems like the edits are often unrelated to the discussion, so it doesn't help me keep track of things. Is there a wiki markup tag for bottom (as in, put this at the bottom of the page) that could be added to the box?? It might be a compromise to make it less prominent.
I completely agree with Andrew though that I wish this category linked directly to the talk pages as I find the extra click frustrating when I just want to see if a discussion has been updated. I like having the talk box on the article page, I just wish the link here were to the talk page directly. -- Wendy (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
See, now I'm really confused. Danny just took the code out of Category:Attention, but that's the one place where it makes sense. The page that's receiving the attention is the one we care about, and that's the one that moves up to the top of the list. —Scott (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay -- if Wendy doesn't like it either, then I'll take it out. I actually don't think it makes sense on Attention, because it doesn't matter in that section whether pages are active or not. They all need attention, and they'll get it whenever they get it. But if you guys like it there, then I'm okay with it; I don't use that page very much. -- Danny (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Briefly popping in from dossier purgatory. I'm in the middle. I tend to agree with Danny that activity on attention pages doesn't need to be monitored closely, especially since they're now also listed on the front page, and in general, with rare acceptions like The Muppet Show, they never involve active discussions. But I don't think it hurts there anymore than here, since in both cases they push the articles down, and right now, don't really help. with active talk pages, I think the *idea* is sound, I just don't think it's really useful in the long term unless we re-configure how we categorize talk pages. That is, actually categorize the talk pages themselves, either instead of or at the very least in addition to the articles which happen to have the tag. That would remove that additional step, and make it easier to see at a glance whether it's a question one can answer, an abandoned discussion, a stumper, or a general curiosity question; and then a table would be a considerable benefit, with a swift glance of dates showing which discussions are active or have been forgotten. Right now, I'm not sure how to propose such a category change, or if it's even worth the bother, since we're all used to adding the talk template on the article page, and I think that's important when stumbling on a page. But I just don't think the current category is as useful as it could be in general, and I think the table list at present just highlights that, rather than helping with it. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If we wanted to, we could make a second talk box that would go on the talk page, and the category tag would be connected to that. It wouldn't be hard, it would just be a matter of making it a habit. -- Danny (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Like this, for example: Template:Talkpage -- Danny (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That works for me; except of course that we're going to categorize everything under "T"; it'll be alphabetical beyond that though. I think it'll make the talk page category much more functional to have it actually list the talk pages! -- Wendy (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's a good point -- I just tweaked the template so it lists everything without a first letter, so it'll be alphabetical. I'd like to try this out, but I want a couple of people to say yes before I go ahead and change everything... -- Danny (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's extra work for very little effect. We try not to keep more than 20 talk pages active anyway, so I don't think having a list of Most Recently Edited makes much of a difference. Besides, it's tough enough to get folks to add a template to a page in the first place, nevermind asking them to add two. —Scott (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point too. Okay, I'll drop it. -- Danny (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually think it would be easier to get folks to add the new template to the talk page they're already editing, than it is to get them to add the old talk template to the article page separately, which is a somewhat confusing extra step. So even if they just add the talkpage template and skip the one on the article I think it would be an improvement, because it would be much much better to have the category link directly to the talk pages. I guess I don't see the horror of having to add the article tags ourselves and/or not have them in some cases. Having the list of most recently edited is, to me, a separate argument from which page gets the talk template; I just think it's arguably more useful when it keeps track of the talk pages themselves, but not the sole reason to change the tags. -- Wendy (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
So you think we should forgo the current talk template on the article and just do the new template on the talk page itself? That could work. —Scott (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Test of <forum>

I've added the following code to this category page as a test:

 <table style="border:1px solid black;">
 <tr><th colspan="2">Recently edited pages in this category</th></tr><forum>

This uses the m:DPLforum extension (written for Uncyclopedia and installed on Wikia) as a last-edit sorted list of pages in that category. It is similar to m:DynamicPageList (and was based on that extension) but has some minor tweaks that make it excellent for simulating a forum on a Wiki (See w:Forum:Index for an example of it used for forums).

Anyway, it was soon found to be excellent for maintenance categories too. Such as on Uncyclopedia: Uncyclopedia:Special:Prefixindex/Uncyclopedia:Maintenance and Uncyclopedia:Category:Timestamped maintenance (minor). It can be used in a template too (but the template cannot have any parameters inside the <forum> tags, only magic words). Note: You can put it on a page other than the category page, in which case you specify the category name specifically, rather than with {{PAGENAME}}.

Afterthought: You could also make a descending list to find old inactive talk pages that needed to have the template removed. Lemme know if you like/hate/don'tcare/needhelp/etc. --Splarka (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. It's a neat idea to help find which issues are the most current discussions and which are old and inactive (not sure how I feel about it being at the top of the category though). However the list shows the articles in the category that have been updated most recently - we're interested in which articles listed in the category had their talk pages updated most recently. You could have a 2-month old, inactive discussion sitting on the unedited talk page, but as long as the article itself is edited will show up as active on the list. Is there a way to get it to show which pages listed in the category had their talk pages edited recently? -- Brad D. (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This works by listing the articles in a category, so if we wanted to list the talk pages, then we'd have to put the category tag on the talk pages.
Still, I think this works pretty well for our purposes... A 2-month old inactive discussion should have the talk box removed anyway. If the article is getting updated, then we should either be paying attention to the question on the talk page, or remove the talk box. -- Danny (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
My only concern was (is) that an article with a talk box on it could have an active and current conversation going on the talk page, but if the article itself hasn't been updated since the talk box was added (while the active conversation is going on) it could be listed towards the bottom of the list of current conversations (or even cut off the list) due to the article itself not being edited. Likewise a page with a dead or inactive discussion on the talk page could be bumped up the list and appear current and active just by someone fixing an unrelated issue on the article. Look at Episode 0011 for example, the talk page conversation has been dead for well over a month, but it is the third item on the list because earlier today I fixed a minor formatting issue unrelated to the talk page issue. It seems deceptive and misleading and irrelevant to see when the page was updated – we should track when the discussion was updated - that would show which ones are current and active and which are old and stale. I like having the talk box on the article’s main page (not the talk page), but is there a way to rank when the talk pages of the articles listed in this category are updated rather than rank changes to the articles? If not, what information is this listing providing us in relationship to finding current or active discussions and the older dead ones? -- Brad D. (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the conversation is old and stale, then the talk box should be removed. We're supposed to take out talk boxes after two weeks -- either because the question was answered, or because it's been turned into a Still Stumping. Once the talk box is removed, then it's taken off this list. I like this a lot; I think it helps us look at the latest conversations. -- Danny (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been using this today to follow up on some talk pages, and I find it very useful. -- Danny (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

removing talk box

I saw that Danny added a note to the page today to removed the talk box from an article once the question's been answered. Certainly this will help in keeping the Active Talk Pages category tidy, but I've been in the practice of leaving it there for at least a week so that the users who participated in the discussion have time to see it. Otherwise, they might forget about it until the check the Active Talk Pages link. -- Scott Scarecroe 03:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been doing that too. I did a big clean-up on the talk pages over the last couple days, and there were quite a few that had been settled a couple weeks ago. It struck me that probably you, me and Andrew are the ones who think to clean out the talk pages, and sometimes we forget, or we're busy with other stuff. The sentence as it was written said that "the talk box will be removed", which people will probably read as: wait for an admin to do it. So I thought I'd write a sentence that empowered people to do it themselves. -- Danny Toughpigs 04:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Time Out

Is there any way to add pages that have been Timed Out to the Active Talk page without adding a separate talk box?--Pantalones 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Isn't that how it works now? -- Scott Scarecroe 01:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they're already there. Peter's probably not seeing them because categories are listed above articles on the page. -- Danny Toughpigs 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Never mind. I was apparently not smart enough to look for The Ed Sullivan Show under 'T' instead of 'E.'--Pantalones 16:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I kind of wanted to see if the circular logic of putting a talk box on the Active Talk page would make the wiki asplode.--Pantalones 16:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Did it? -- Danny Toughpigs 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No. The wiki, she is a hardy mistress.--Pantalones 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Peter's probably not seeing them because categories are listed above articles on the page. ... No, you're the only one who does that. -- Scott Scarecroe 16:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Peter apparently has other problems. -- Danny Toughpigs 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The wiki has a way of bringing out the best and the worst in all of us. -- Scott Scarecroe 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)