Module:Delimited tag
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Lua this is generally unnecessary (with native functions already provided). For separated values we have Module:Separated entries. Izno (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Module:DartsBracketSets
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No longer needed now that |aggregate=sets has been added to Module:Team bracket Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Great to see that these were merged. DLManiac (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Snowball keep. While I still believe this would probably be the fastest way to get a significant impact on the banner blindness with minimal impact, it's clear my opinion is in a clear minority. It's not worth spending more editor time on this matter. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Close amended --Bsherr (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template is redundant to ((talk header)) which already in the second line of most active talkpages state "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Having duplicate messages and usually irrelevant information about the reference desk and village pump are great examples of things that contribute to banner blindness. The talk header message is probably far more likely to be read aswell since people start reading at the top and then stop before they reach lower down banners like this one. For the minority of pages where this is used without talk header it can either be replaced with ((talkheader)), it's likely that notice is appropriate anyway since the topics the template is used on usually are more likely to attract participation from people who usually don't edit Wikipedia. For cases where its clearly irrelevant (say pages with no posts in 3-6 months) it can simply be removed. --Trialpears (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Template is a waste of time. -- Maudslay II (talk)
- Keep: It's necessary to emphasize WP:NOTFORUM for some pages that face a lot of that kind of disruption. The note in the standard talk header is not prominent enough for those pages. We can remove the last sentence. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Tartan357. In my experience this is generally used appropriately on topics likely to experience forum-like behaviour and require a special message to remind readers / editors about this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for the reasons mentioned above. I would also like to add that this banner visually seems to draw more attention than the quoted sentence at the top of the Talk Header, due to its thick border around it and the exclamation mark on its left. It is better to keep it, for emphasis. LongLivePortugal (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While we regular editors don't react much to the talk header I would bet good money that is the most noticable part to a newcomer not knowing the purpose of talk pages. I would much rather have people pay attention to FAQs, arbitration remedies, BLP reminders, notices that the subject is controversial, explanations of previous consensus, links to other relevant pages, or basically anything else on the talk page. --Trialpears (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The template serves as 'additional' reminder/emphasis on a few talkpages (this additional emphasis is independent of the standard talk page header). There is no reason to delete the template; if it is unneeded on a particular talkpage, just argue about removing it there, otherwise it has a clear reason to exist. --Mvbaron (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the template is fit for purpose; and does indeed bring correct emphasis on a particular point where necessary. It's not as though this was being used on every talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, largely per Mvbaron two entries above. This template is very important on certain talk pages, and case-by-case issues (too many templates at the top of a talk page, an editor doesn't think the template should be there, etc) should be resolved on a case-by-case basis rather than through a deletion of the entire template. ezlevtlk
ctrbs 04:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, though to be honest, this is probably better as an editnotice. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - ((talk header)) is not a sufficient deterrent. All it says, in total, is:
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
That does not elaborate on what that means. A user has to click through to the policy page and read a dense discussion of why a Talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss the subject in general. Instead, ((Not a forum)) explains exactly what this means & why it's important directly on the page. This serves an important function for users who are not as familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding Talk page discussions. If anything, the text should be more prominent, as it's easily missed in all the other header text. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's easier than writing up yet another warning. When it's needed, it's needed. Best to have it in the toolbox. Don't use it if you don't like it. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).