Template talk:Active Discussion

Intended Purpose
The intended purpose of this template is for use on the articles themselves. It allows you to give a reason, and gives it better visibility. Stop warring Staw. 11:28, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not warring, you are warring. I explained on chat multiple times that I changed the template and the categories and I left a message on Levi's talk to add a section about this category in the community corner. You are edit warring. So stop. The template is ruining the articles, that's why I modified it. STOP. 11:32, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The template's original version is what it stays as until the situation is resolved, so yes, you are warring (we both are, both you are warring the wrong way.) The template's intended purpose is to give visibility on the actual pages. 11:33, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

That's why I changed it. it ruins the articles. Please stop edit warring. If you want to discuss it, do it here. For no, I will add the template in the Talk pages because it says "this is an active talk page". 11:36, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

No, you won't. This discussion is still ongoing, and therefore it has to stay on the original intentional use. 11:37, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Τhe template is changed, so i will. And I changed is not only because it ruins the article, but also in order to use it on categorie, template, file and project talks too. If this page decides that we will use it on the articles, I'll change it back. 11:40, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

You have to keep it as it originally was, or you're breaking the rules. Change it back on all the pages you messed it up on. 11:49, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The template was changed, so no. Not yet. You haven't given reasons why you want to use it on the articles but I have. 11:50, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The template wasn't just changed Staw-Hat Luffy, it was you who changed it... I think we need more input from people to resolve this and it must be discussed here and not somewhere else. MasterDeva (talk) 11:52, June 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's obvious that I changed it. I said, if the talk page decides to use it on articles, I don't have a problem. But neither you not Galaxy have given reasons yet. you haven't even stated what you prefer yet, but I have. 11:58, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Deva, he's changing stuff without any discussion.

Anyways, I made it look more appealing, but feel free to change the color and shape. 11:54, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, i accidentally pressed publish without giving a reason. It looks awful with that pic. Either change the pic or revert your edits. 11:56, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

What other pictures would we use? Anyways, stop reverting. I added the new simpler code, so just change the color and size if you don't like it. 11:58, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The color is good, the picture isn't. 11:59, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Then change the picture? What would you like it to be. 12:00, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The size is bad. I'll try to fix the size of the template. Also, we don't have to give a reason so I removed it for now. I'll try to find the code that makes it optional, later. Don't revert. 12:03, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the use of Article Message Box here isn't very appealing. I prefer the appearance used before that. Unless of course it is possible to move the image and text used to the middle instead of the top and shrink the template somewhat. I have no issues with the image currently in use. P.S. Multiple edit conflicts in a row are annoying! MasterDeva (talk) 12:02, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

That's what's bugging me too Deva. I'll try to fix it. 12:04, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a way to add that in, but Deva, can you lock it on the original version? Staw continues to make changes when this talk page isn't resolved. 12:04, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

What? What did I change now? 12:06, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about changing it from its original purpose (to be used on actual articles). It needs to stay as it was before you started changing the actual text. We can implement the other template later. 12:08, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I've locked the template to the original version before the edit war. If anyone wants to do any changes use a sandbox to do them and link to it here. MasterDeva (talk) 12:09, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I stop changing it on the pages. Also, as I said a while ago, the reason isn't needed. I'll try to (and will) find the code that makes it optional. Till then, can you remove it? 12:11, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

One ore thing, do you want to have a link to the category somewhere on the community messages and the recent changes or not? 12:13, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say remove it? Having a link to the category in the community corner and recent changes would be a good idea. I'm a little concerned about something though. Since this is a newly made template it would have been more prudent to have used the talk page first to resolve any issues concerning its proper use before using it from the get go. MasterDeva (talk) 12:17, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, till we decide something, I will remove the template from all the pages to prevent confusion. Also, the template says " Please participate if you want to make changes to the subject at hand, which is: ". The "which is" part is not needed and that's why I'm asking you to remove it. But, it won't be permanent. I'll find the code that makes it optional soon. Till then, do you want to remove it? 12:22, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The template will be unlocked when all the issues brought to this discussion have been properly discussed and resolved. Until then the template will remain as is. Both of you are free to use a sandbox to make any change you think is necessary and present them to this talk page for further review. MasterDeva (talk) 12:31, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's focus on whether we will use it on articles or talk pages. It's obvious that I want to use them on the talk pages because 1.The articles look bad with this template. 2. Levi will add links or tables in the community messages and the recent changes so people will be constantly informed. 3. If we don't use it on the talk pages,we can't use it on templates, files, project and category pages and that is bad because if we want to inform the people about the active discussions on this wiki, we have to do it correctly. Also there might be a discussion about an article that is locked so we will not be able to add the template. For all these reasons, I firmly believe that we should use the template on the talk pages. Also, Deva you have yet to state your opinion. Please do say what you prefer. 12:42, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I want to hear both sides before expressing my opinion on the matter. MasterDeva (talk) 13:16, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

And we also need some rules about how to use it, to prevent abuse. I think that this template should be added to every page/talk page with three or more actual posts (bumps not included) and it should be added everywhere, not only on articles. Also it must be removed only when the discussion is over and not if people stop commenting. Does everyone agree with these rules? 14:08, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

You should wait first for Galaxy9000 to post his side of the argument. Only after both sides have made themselves clear we'll move on to discuss the specifics of each case and whatever proposal anyone might want to propose. MasterDeva (talk) 15:42, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I believe that we must set all the other rules first because we will reach an agreement faster and then talk about where to use the template based on the rules. Anyway, we need more people to state their opinion. 16:26, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what's the issue here is about, and sorry if I'm lazy I don't want to read this wall of text. If we are talking where to add this template, I believe the talk page is the best page because: That said, I have some doubts on when we should use this template... do you want to add this everytime someone edit a talk page?
 * This template is basically for us editors. A reader doesn't care if there is a discussion going on an article/page.
 * Using it on the page will add yet another message (stub/featured, ...).
 * I'd like to see in the category the talk pages themselves because when I click on them I want to goes directly on the talk page.

As I said above, I think that we must add the template only when there are at least three actual posts (not bumps) on this matter. Also, we must remove the template only when the discussion is officially over, and not when nobody comments anymore. 16:55, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Current appearance looks ok. Though i do agree with Deva's sugguestions for it's appearance from earlier on. Everytime a new talk is started. It would be helpfull to track the talk using this. 18:20, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

So Besty, do you think we should add it in the articles or in the talk pages? 18:22, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The point of the template is for it to be used on actual articles. People who don't check the community messages, but edit pages, are more bound to see it if it's somewhere big. It would only go if a big discussion is taking place. You can edit the way the template looks, in order to make it more appealing. Nobody is going to see this if it's just on the talk pages, which would be the most useless placement of it, and would be no different from just adding a category to the talk page. 07:57, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Levi has already made tables about it both in the community messages and the recent changes. "The point of the template is to be used on actual articles". We can always modify the template. If we use it on articles, it will just make the pages look worse. And every person that actually cares about the wiki's discussions and issues checks the community messages. 08:03, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Not everybody Staw. Please don't speak for everybody. Plenty of people that edit don't check those messages.

Anyways, like I said, it doesn't make it look ugly if you use the right size and a good image. 08:09, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Community messages=messages that the community reads in order to get informed about all the issues/discussions/changes on this wiki. So, yeah. If people actually care about the wiki, they do check the community messages. Example:Before levi added the open polls table in the community messages, less than 5 people used to vote on polls, unless the poll had a huge discussion that couldn't get unnoticed. Since he added that table, even more than 15-20 people vote on polls. The difference is obvious. 08:16, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't even discussed anywhere to create this template in the first place. SeaTerror (talk)

No need to discuss everything. 08:36, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

It will just be the unreleased content crap all over again. So yes we do need to discuss everything. SeaTerror (talk) 08:47, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

It will be beneficial for the wiki, no doubt. So, no. We don't need to discuss everything. 10:26, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be used on the articles themselves. I don't think this template looks any worse than any other template we have here. And while it may not look good to have a template on the top of a page, it looks even worse to have an edit war on your hands, especially one propelled by anons who are unaware that talk pages even exist, and use "visual mode" and can't even see any notes.

Shouldn't it be entirely possible to link the talk pages instead of the articles too, with some fancy code like Talk:PAGENAME or something like that? Or we could just compromise and make a version of it like that goes on the article, while the main template goes on the talk? 14:44, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons why it should be used on the talk pages and not on the actual pages
 * 1) Levi has already made tables in the community messages and the recent changes so people will be constantly informed about the new discussions.
 * 2) They will make the pages look bad. Especially when a page already has a template at the top.
 * 3) Please keep in mind that not every user on this wiki is as experienced as you. If we use it on the actual pages, we will face many difficulties since very very few people can properly use the code which is required if there is a discussion on a template talk and they never check template or category or project pages anyway, so they won't notice the template either way.
 * 4) If there is an edit war and the people involved want to actually discuss it, they will visit the talk page. And since "many anons don't even know the existence of the talk page"(which is true), what makes you believe that they will visit the talk page if they see the template? What makes you think that they even read the templates?
 * 5) The wiki has a lot of readers only, that don't bother editing the wiki and as a result, if they see the template on an article they will just believe that it makes the page worse.
 * If, as you said, there are people that don't check the talk pages and only read the articles, they will definitely at least click the link of the talk page if they see many posts while reading an article.

Hope those reasons are enough. 16:04, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think putting on the talk page would be best. 18:24, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

This talk page already has more than 50 posts and hasn't reached an agreement. I think we should have a poll. 21:07, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't really read this discussion, but personally, I don't think it should be in the article. It's big, distracting, and many users aren't going to read it anyways. The template itself it best to exist in the talk pages as those aren't meant to be presented, and it will automatically put the talk page in the category, which belongs to the category more than the article. 06:56, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Also, as for when to use it, I think it should be used when there's a big debate going on about how we should edit it. Something like ''"how is this true?" "because" "but wouldn't that" "no because" "okay i see now"'' isn't worth adding this template on, if that makes any sense. A big discussion with multiple users is when we should add the template. 06:59, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Putting it on the talk page is really no different from putting them in a category. The reason it was implemented to be used on talk pages is because it would give more of a "notice" to people checking the pages, and people who don't check the category would see the page, and know that a discussion is happening, and maybe they'll join in. 07:19, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Do people check every article? Do people check the categories? Do people check template pages? No. 10:05, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, how about we make a separate version for articles that we use only in the event of controversial content that is edit warred over, but for the majority of the time we leave it off the article? 11:52, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Although Staw-Hat Luffy went into detail with his arguments, trying to properly explain his reasons I have yet to see that from Galaxy9000. As it stands now, I'm more in agreement with Staw-Hat Luffy's suggestions. MasterDeva (talk) 16:28, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

I already basically disproved his points, but here.


 * 1) The tables are hardly relevant. This is so any people who don't check the community messages will notice it, especially if it's a newly made article or a highly edited article.
 * 2) They won't make the pages look bad if we design it properly, or put it on the bottom.
 * 3) Don't know what he's talking about.
 * 4) They just might. You really can't say they won't. It's to make them easier to notice.
 * No, they'll know that we actually discuss things around here, and maybe some of them will chime in with their opinion.
 * 1) They're more likely to notice that the talk page is active if there's a template, not just by seeing the number next to the talk button at the top.

16:39, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Image
Can we get something a little less... confrontational? I don't want to go into every discussion seeing an image filled with angry people. We should be able to find something a bit more civil. 11:52, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

This one! Jokes aside, I don't think that this image is bad, but do you have any suggestions? 12:26, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

What about this one of a nice roundtable discussion? 03:30, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Seems good. 08:39, July 2, 2013 (UTC)