DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Template talk:Talk header

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
    ↑ To top of page


    Button

    [edit]

    This new button is intolerable. It is completely out of proportion with the rest of the template and redundant. The above RfC should have been listed on CENT, for I doubt that many people would have supported this appalling piece of design being deployed all across the encyclopaedia. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Bit long

    [edit]

    It's always bothered me a bit how long this template is; based on how a lot of talk page convos go, I feel like few ever read it. I've had cases where well-meaning people don't know about dispute resolution despite this template being up top.

    As a first step, can we get rid of this sentence? Put new text under old text The world's most common social networks all work like this, like Facebook and YouTube and Reddit. I'm not sure why this is needed to specify. Would it possibly help a handful of people? Perhaps, but the longer this template is the fewer people will read it. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I still encounter newer editors doing this and assuming new posts go on the top. Maybe I dislike out-of-place posts more than most people but I'd oppose removing mention of post placement from this template. Graham87 (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been on Wikipedia for a while now and I only rarely run into that. Imo it can just easily be fixed as needed; it's a low priority compared to the other stuff that needs to be communicated to people.
    People try to put in too much into these templates. In 2026, the longer you make text, the probability of people reading it greatly drops. We need to prioritize. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense to me. It's an easily fixed and rare issue that doesn't need to be mentioned in this prominent of a spot. Trialpears (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm of two minds about that. Can't tell you how many times I see new editors placing a comment at the top of a page, sometimes even above header templates. (And often without section heading or sig, to boot.) I would be okay with changing it to something that clarifies that new discussions go at the bottom of the page, and new comments go after older comments. It's more complicated than that, of course; do we want to mention threading rules or the discussion tools reply link? But then, that would be even longer than what we have now. But I don't know if simply removing it would improve things. We don't know how many new editors who might have also written their comment at page-top were prevented from doing so because of that instruction. It's possible removing it might make things worse. It's hard to evaluate questions like that. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this as significant a problem as suggested (imo it's not, it's a 3 second cut+paste fix when it does happen), Wikipedians seriously overestimate how many people will actually read the stuff they write out.
    Wikipedians are incredibly long-winded and newcomers frequently ignore the stuff Wikipedians write. While we probably could have gotten away with being longwinded more 10 years ago, reading comprehension metrics in especially the US have significantly dropped.
    I'm a reader and a long-time Wikipedian, and even I skip over many things that Wikipedians write because it simply does not matter. I literally never read that bullet point until this talk post.
    Moreover, is this something that needs spelling out? All you need to do is look at two talk posts and compare the dates, and you can connect the dots. Sure, people will mess that up, but again is it that big of a deal? grapesurgeon (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't even have to invoke reduced reading comprehension to explain it, nor is it restricted to Talk page banners. Studies show that the majority of viewers never read past the lead of main space articles, but that doesn't mean we ought to chop off everything but the lead. But I just find it hard to generalize from anecdotal responses or even studies about banner blindness, valid as they are, as that would argue for removing them all for the same reason. Even banner blindness affects new visitors differently from experienced ones, and eye-tracking studies show newbies spend way more time on them. So I think we need to consider who the intended audience is; if is is mostly to target new users, there are ways to alleviate the problem for more experienced ones.
    It is already possible for users to hide portions of the Talk header template, or even the whole thing so they never need see it at all on any Talk page. (But maybe doc-page blindness means even experienced users don't know that!) And with respect to new editors, the Talk header has a three-column table (as correctly pointed out by Utfor below) which gets squeezed into near-oblivion on the mobile app which most new editors use. We shouldn't be using tables for layout in the first place, and if designed properly the header would probably be more legible to mobile users. We could go further, and display abbreviated (or different) Talk header content to mobile app users, and although that wouldn't distinguish new from experienced users, it might benefit both. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in favor of much of those other changes you propose. But I'd still like to get rid of that bullet point per my above arguments grapesurgeon (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Narrow screens

    [edit]

    On narrow screens, in article space, this template gets three columns. The columns are built with tables. Each line in a column has one or two words. I believe this needs improvement, but I have not devised an ideal solution. Maybe another editor has an idea? Utfor (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, it totally should not use tables for layout. When some other issues on this page quiesce, we should take a look at that and redesign it, either using flexbox, or css grid; probably the latter if we want to display different stuff (or the same stuff in a different way) to mobile users, which might be a good idea. See the section above. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it uses tables, but not tables only. It uses a mix of table and flex, but appears much like a table would on a narrow screen. In such cases, sometimes a min_width= is useful, but, as I can imagine, not in this case. This because the third cell / flex item will wrap to the next line and span the width of both the first two cells. Utfor (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant village pump proposal

    [edit]

    See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Add the Talk header template to the top of all mainspace article talk pages automatically. Graham87 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]