Template talk:No forum talk

Is there a way to make this template more noticeable? Maybe we can make it appear when somebody is editing the article talk page. Although this rule is often overlooked, which isn't really a major issue, I think we have to make this template more visible so other users don't have to tire people who constantly have to remind them. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

I was thinking of making the "NOT A FORUM" red text. But it's already bolded. I don't know why people aren't noticing it. Maybe they're simply ignoring it? Ray Trace^(T|C)

Whatever it is, this template isn't effective enough for discouraging "forum" talk, apparently. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:11, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

I think the problem is most people ignore it and most people will just continue to ignore it Raven Effect (talk)

I was thinking we enforce it. You know, delete comments that don't relate to the article. I don't think this reminder is hard enough. Ray Trace^(T|C)

That might work although that's something we frown on right now Raven Effect (talk)

New users tend to make this mistake as well. I think it's that they overlook it rather than ignore it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:14, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

@Raven Effect:It probably isn't. I think the forum comments are similar to spam. They don't do anything to improve the article. And if we do get a rule on this, I say we delete only the recent ones that have been made. Undo it. No past ones.

@LGM: No, it's RIGHT ON THE TOP OF THE TALK PAGE HOW COULD THEY MISS IT???? Ray Trace^(T|C)

There's still something wrong with it when people still frequently break that rule. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:20, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

Most people don't read it. It's kind of like the welcome template most people see it then ignore it Raven Effect (talk)

There's my suggestion to consider: actually enforce that rule. Giving them a simple reminder isn't doing the users any good and it's not discouraging them to not use the talk page as a place to talk. Ray Trace^(T|C)

I agree just remove there comment then tell them that this isn't a place for forum talk (then if they continue give them a reminder) Raven Effect (talk)

Maybe I should make a proposal on this???? :P Ray Trace^(T|C)

Probably since it's one thing to talk about something and another to actually do it (also should there be a set number of forum post like comments that a person has to make to get a reminder) Raven Effect (talk)

That's still pending. We could undo the revision, talk about it on the talk page and if he ignores you and does it several more times, slap him with a reminder. I'm not sure about the exact number of times, though. Ray Trace^(T|C)

somewhere between 3 and 5 (only after he's been told not to do it) Raven Effect (talk)

Okey then, I'll commence the proposal. Ray Trace^(T|C)

What actually determines when we use this template?

We don't mean to insinuate this template is useless by any metric; we mean, the fact that this is largely no longer an issue is probably evidence enough it's working just fine. But there's definitely some articles that use this that feel like relics of bygone eras where the games they're associated with were new, and it all feels rather arbitrary:

• Out of all the revealed Princess Peach: Showtime! forms for Peach, only Detective Peach has the template.
• The Pixl article and a few Pixls like Thoreau have the template, but Thudley doesn't.
• Pure Heart has it, but Crystal Star doesn't.
• AlphaDream has it, but seemingly no other studio has it.
• Quite hilariously, and the culmination that made us feel like we had to speak up: Luigi's Mansion 2 HD has it, but Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon doesn't.

So... What's the deal here? Do we simply just stick this on on a case-by-case basis, when people have already tried discussing the games outside of the context of a wiki, or do we pre-empt it? The Notice templates page implies the former, but in the case of Detective Peach it seems the latter is what happened. Are we meant to potentially remove these after the game's release period has passed? It doesn't seem like that's ever happened, not that that's the easiest thing to check. Isn't this already just a global rule of the Wiki, anyways--wouldn't we just blanket put these on all mainspace talk pages, or are there exceptions? If there are no exceptions, shouldn't we have a bot automatically add this to every talk page? Are we overthinking this?

...The answer to that last one is 100%, unequivocally, yes, but we don't really have any concrete answers for any of the others, and it's definitely raised an eyebrow for us. We don't want to put this to a proposal unless we can gauge what others think and see if there's either a sufficient split in opinion or if people all agree upon one specific action, though. We guess our questions are as follows:

• Should we be putting this on every applicable talk page, or is that redundant in the face of ordinary wiki rules?
• Should we remove this after a period of time has passed, or should it remain after the fact?
• Should we use this template specifically for characters and games only, or other articles too?
• Should we per-emptively add this template, or should we only use it if a problem arises?

We hope this makes sense, and if nothing else, we'd greatly appreciate clarification on exactly how this template is meant to be used; currently, there doesn't seem to be any method to the madness here, and if there is a method--or is meant to be one--we'd greatly appreciate knowing it. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:39, March 16, 2024 (EDT)

Shouldn’t we use the Wikipedia wording to simplify the template?

As you can see on their Mario page: “This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mario article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject”.

If we should link to Mario Boards or Discord: “Please use the Mario Boards or our Discord server if you want to talk about No forum talk”.

Remembered Old Buddy 20:40, April 11, 2024 (EDT)

Misuse

So on the talk page for Donkey Kong (coloring/activity books), which I was the only one who had a message, this template was used despite that it was about the improvement of the article and not any sort of opinion. The whole thing was about me reporting my discoveries to the series and wasn't anything that would follow the criteria that the template should be there. The only reason I even messaged on the talk page was because edit summaries were too short to include an entire paragraph with two eBay links for proof. And I was talking about improvement, not anything opinionated. And no, I don't want to join the Mario Boards or Discord server anytime soon. Rykitu (talk)

It appears to be an automatic addition during the page creation, to dissuade preemptive edits in the future, and it wasn't placed in a particular response to your edit. (at the time of my comment) There contains only two edits in the page:[1] yours, and Platform[2], neither which have added the template to the page. The template itself is not even in the content of the page. This was likely a recent change, according to this edit made in January 1 that has hid the content.[3] It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)

It appears to be on every talk page. I thought it only showed up on pages with the issue. Particularly popular talk pages like Talk:Mario. Rykitu (talk)

Indeed, it's a recent development. I'm not sure the exact edits that led to this change, but the one on January 1 2025 just hinted to me that it was a recent change, and the timing was just coinciding with your posts. You are correct that previously, editors would manually add this template on higher traffic talk pages. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:47, January 2, 2025 (EST)