Template talk:Talk

Is this really needed? 3D, man, this is ironic.

I guess... if people want to answer talk pages and easily find talk pages to answer. And yes.. it is ironic.Knife (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Heh. 3D, YO! GENUIS! YOU GOT MAIL!

Guess that answers that.Knife (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Split template?

Lately, I've been seeing this template being used on talk page proposals. I feel we should split this template or simply create a new template for talk page proposals. We need to distinguish between talk pages with unresolved questions and talk page proposals since both are very different.--Knife (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Agreed. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

I've whipped up a prototype template:

It is pretty similar to {{Talk}}, but I replaced the question mark with a X mark and changed the background.--Knife (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (EST)

The X and red backround doesn't really fit with what the template is about. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

The X and the red background was supposed to signify that the proposal has not passed yet. I'll just tweak it like so...

We don't need to be real picky about this as long as the template is created and used before any more talk page proposals are created. We can always make it look better later.--Knife (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2010 (EST)

All right. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Revamp the usage of this template

I believe that Template:Talk is currently not living up to the potential it is capable of. It may have been put to good use years back, but nowadays Category:Talk pages with unresolved issues seems to get overlooked. This results in greatly delayed responses, and it is even reaching the point where talk page questions are so old and outdated that it just doesn't seem right to respond to them, which has caused the category to build up over time. Our Help:Communication page has a How do I get the attention of other users?|section that describes {{Talk}}, where it states "If you have asked a question about a specific article or content and require an answer, you can place {{talk}} above your question. The talk page itself will then appear in Category:Talk pages with unresolved issues, and other users will be able to reach it from there." This outdated section is no longer of any help to users, as even fairly new and recent questions get thrown in amongst the ridiculously old ones and is not noticed by other users. So, I ask what can be done with this template and category? Shall it just remain as it is, with the category slowly growing and the near-useless template still being encouraged as reliable by the help page, or should we consider an alternative? Ideas anyone?

The forum discussion for the above issue can be found here.

Shokora (talk · edits) 02:09, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Figure Out what to do with this

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

canceled by proposer
So I've been confused on when I'm supposed to put this template. For example, I'm going to ask why is Bill Gates in the Category: Historical Figures, which is a subcategory of Category: Deceased People. Unfortunately, I don't know when to put it, when I first ask it, or when someone has answered and still don't know why. (Ehich is why thus is a proposal, and not an open discussion.)

Proposer: DarkNight (talk)
Deadline: September 2, 2020, 23:59 GMT
Date Withdrawn: August 18, 8:42 GMT

Put it when you add a topic

1. DarkNight (talk) Per my proposal, although we can limit it, for questions with obvious answers.

Comments

This... really didn't need to be a proposal. You're not really proposing any changes, to me this seems like you're just asking for clarification on what the template is for. By the way, the template page already does explain how to use it - "This template is to be used to bring attention to any questions that need resolving on an article's talk page" - using your example, it should be placed once you ask the question and not removed until the question is answered, or in other cases, once a consensus has been reached. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:33, August 18, 2020 (EDT)

Clean-up

The usage of this template has always somewhat bothered me, and now that its usage is included front-and-centre on the front page just reminds me every day of why it bothers me. I think this template is often misused, and it causes an ugly "THIS PAGE HAS A QUESTION" header to appear at the top of a lot of pages. 386 pages in fact, which is quite a lot. The problem is that the intention of this template is to be used when there is an important question that needs to be answered as soon as possible because it's a vital problem that's integral to how the page is maintained. However, it seems a lot of people use this template simply to say "I have a question." or sometimes in situations that would instead warrant a TPP. The thing is that Talk Pages are mostly filled with questions anyway; if this template is just used for basic questions then it would be on every talk page. I suggest that we need to go through and remove this template from any pages where it's used for a simple question that is not important. I was going to do it myself, but I was concerned someone would shout at me. I think an issue is that it is unclear to users if and when the template can be removed, and some users might be nervous or hesitant to remove it. It's not as cut-and-dry as a proposal with a set end date is. Does it have to be the question-asker who removes it, or can anyone?

Also, there's a few instances of this template being left on a question that was asked years and years ago, and it's still there now causing the ugly header on the page to have been there for countless years. There should probably be an expiration period for this template. IE, if it's been seven years since the question was asked, then we're probably not going to find an answer.

A few examples of problematic usage:

1. Talk:Animal_Friends: Question was asked nearly two years ago.
2. Talk:Apprentice_(Torte): This is formatted as a merge proposal, and should probably be a TPP instead.
3. Talk:Black_Bogmire: Another merge proposal, made nearly a whole year ago.
4. Talk:Haipō: Question was asked in 2022 and hasn't been discussed since 2022. Not exactly VITAL to the page.
5. Talk:Mama_Luigi: Earliest one I could find, this question was asked in 2019. I'm not exactly sure what it's referring to, but it seems like this issue isn't even relevant to the page anymore. Also note how just below, another user asked a simple question and didn't use this template. To me, at least, the questions are of equal importance.
6. Talk:Mario_Party_9: Another abandoned one. Question asked in 2021. Every year, a single person chimes in, but the question remains "unresolved"
7. Talk:Pin_enemy: Question asked in 2020, Doc replied with "go for it". No effort was made to actually move the page, make a proposal to move the page, or do anything else, leaving the template sitting at the header of this page ever since.
8. Talk:Kuff_'n'_Klout: An example of a question that is not vitally important to the health of the article. It would be merely trivia as to which one is named which, and it's not detrimental or problematic that we don't know.

Shadow2 (talk) 17:33, December 28, 2024 (EST)