This template was considered for deletion on 3 April 2021. The result of the discussion was "Snowball keep".

Add "This page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article." ? —Centrx→talk • 07:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in line with other templates, this one should be moved to Template:Notaforum. —Centrx→talk • 07:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkheader has this statement in the first line, so in combination it works out, but I am not certain it is always necessary/appropriate to use in combination, or whether the statement should be present in the same warning message. —Centrx→talk • 07:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certain article like Super Smash Bros. Brawl needed a stronger notice than the standard talk header. This template is only for talk pages that keep getting large amounts of irrelevant chat. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ((Notice)) does a fine job of that already. Hbdragon88 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, until someone posted the original the page was getting out of hand with speculation and theories, not facts or article discussion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please use ((blp)) for biographies of living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.153.125 (talk • contribs) 04:45, August 2, 2006

IT IS TO GET THE ATTENTION OF PEOPLE? 1ne 08:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, because we are yelling at people. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? THAT VIOLATES WP:CIVIL! 1ne 10:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WE ARE NOT EXACTLY YELLING AT THEM, WE'RE JUST GETTING THEIR ATTENTION! Just like that. Big letters are very effective; as that one YTMND goes, "HEY I THINK I'LL CATCH EVERYONE'S ATTENTION WITH LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!" —this is messedrocker (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STILL, TRYING TO GET THEIR ATTENTION IS YELLING! 1ne 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO WE REALLY NEED TO GET THEIR ATTENTION LIKE THIS? WHILE IT IS ADMITTEDLY GOOD CSS IT REALLY ANNOYS ACTUAL CONTRIBUTORS. Superm401 - Talk 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKFULLY, THIS TEMPLATE DOESN'T USE ALL CAPS ANYMORE!!! One 06:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the wikipedia policy that says talk pages can't be used as a forum? --Rebroad 20:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says right at the top of the page, "This is not a forum for discussing how this is not a forum for discussing stuff like this. Any such messages will be deleted." So your message should be deleted... along with my message replying to it! *Dan T.* 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page is a place for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article; it is not a general discussion forum or a forum for discussing the topic separately from that goal. —Centrx→talk • 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Gazpacho 10:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "subject to removal." But this leaves silent *who* removes it. I have actually seen no example of removal of discussion that is about the topic of the article, but I've certainly seen editors who don't like where the discussion is going use this template to try to suppress it. Removing any discussion that is connected with the topic, even if only remotely, would be a violation of the process by which editors find consensus, sometimes it involves some understanding of where editors are coming from, background, so to speak. What is properly removed is material that is totally irrelevant -- and certainly vandalism or incivil comments. Which are removed anway, with or without this template. The template as it is is misleading. By having the lost performative of the passive "will be removed," it sounds like a threat. "may be removed" would be accurate, but still leaves out "by whom." In fact, any editor may remove truly irrelevant material, but if this became common practice, I'd predict edit warring over it, argument about Talk, and even more time wasted. This template should become friendlier, such as something like "Please keep talk here focused on finding improvements to the article," or the like. With no threats. The guideline quoted above is enough. If any "threat" is to be involved, it would simply quote that guideline, which says it better than what the template currently has. --Abd (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the best you can do? Discussion of the article is relevant and discussion of the topic is not? This means you propose to delete, from talk pages, stuff like "DNA evidence cleared sixty people on Illinois' death row," but not, "The article should say that DNA evidence cleared sixty people on Illinois' death row." Absurd. Furthermore, capitals are slightly harder to read and thus serve to distract, instead of emphasize as intended. I am going to propose deletion. James S. 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the statement about DNA evidence is still relevant to the article. Are you saying that an article talk page is supposed to be a general discussion forum? —Centrx→talk • 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, what is the actual difference between discussion of a topic and discussion of an article about a topic? I admit there are exclusive fringes, but mostly it is overlap. Therefore I have changed "will be deleted" to "may be deleted". James S. 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, talk pages of certain topics tend to become discussion forums for all and sundry to discuss their favorite video game, movie, football player, etc. with no interest in the article at all. This template is for those situations. —Centrx→talk • 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not to be placed on every talk page, it is for these specific situations. If someone asks "how do I get past this monster in level 9", that cannot even be oriented toward making an encyclopedia article because Wikipedia is not a game guide; if a group of people start having a discussion about how "awesome" a football player is "and did you see that game last week!?", that's not about the article. You can get an idea by looking at the messages that are used for this template. How does it make sense to say "This is not a forum for discussing where you can find the Ocean dub. Such messages may be deleted."; "This is not a forum for discussing things at random. Such messages may be deleted." You may have found this template on a derelict talk page where there is no such discussion, but the solution to that is to remove the template, not to break it for all the other pages where it is useful. —Centrx→talk • 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Talk page templates#Chosen scheme indicates the scheme "to be used for all talk page templates."

Furthermore, WP:BITE suggests that we should be polite, using "please," "thank you," and "may be deleted" instead of "will be deleted."

Finally, according to The Non-Designer's Web Book, Third Edition, "Never set large amounts of text in bold, italic, all caps, small caps, script, etc.... Don't set type in all caps, unless you really need the rectangular look of an all-caps word. All caps are much more difficult to read because every word has the same rectangular shape. Look at the different shapes of the words cat and dog. We recognize those shapes instantly when we read. But in all caps, CAT and DOG have the same shape." James S. 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is only for use on problematic talk pages where the standard talk header is not seen or heeded by commenters. The Manual of Style does not account for all possible situations where talk page headers might be used, and this is an exceptional case where the standard is not appropriate. This template was not hostile, and WP:BITE is not about sycophantic courtesies, though some changes to address such concerns could be appropriate. Talk pages are not for general discussion irrelevant to improving the Wikipedia article, and where the header has been added such comments will be deleted. The capitals might pose a readability problem, but that is not a reason to diminish the font size and remove all other formatting that served to make the template noticeable. This template is for situations where it needs to be noticeable above and beyond that standard formatting in ((talkheader)). —Centrx→talk • 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to those who worked on this template, it's proven quite useful on Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV where the level of speculation and offtopic discussion was getting ridiculous. Along with a couple of editors, this template has made it impossible for those who use the page to chat to continue to argue that they can do so, and consequently the quantity of chatter has declined. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the wiki-linking of the optional parameter? It can cause unneccessary and ugly redlinks, as seen at Talk:Paris Hilton or Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the code slightly so it now links to the page only if the parameter is left off. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the linking will still work by typing the parameter with square brackets like a normal link. It just doesn't do it as default now. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I have an idea, but I'm not sure it's a good one. Would it be good to explicitly state that personal opinion and speculation don't belong? When a talk page attracts general forum usage, those are typically the common cases. I set up a sandbox to try it out; you can compare to the existing design, too. My major concern is this makes the template rather more verbose; it might be too much. Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still fits in two lines, and it provides useful elaboration of the point, so it's fine by me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as the number of lines go, that of course depends on the font size, the width of the browser canvas, the browser, window trim, phase of the moon, etc.  :) FWIW, here's what I see (Firefox 3.x, Linux, FVWM, 14 pt sans serif font):

So I'm guessing this would add one or two lines for many common resolutions. Even more for a handheld/phone browser. So I think it's ultimately a question of whether the additional value is worth the additional space. I obviously do, but I'm biased.  :) Anyone else have thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the template code, when an explicit subject text is given, it should not be linked (i.e., should not be placed inside square brackets). That's the behavior this template has long had, and pages depend on it. It makes sense; a verbose description may not be a page name. The Talk:Kid Nation usage in the template doc is a prime example. A recent edit broke this. I think I've fixed it.

On a related note: One should test edits in the sandbox before changing the "real" template. It's possible to see how it will look in other namespaces:

1. Make your change in the sandbox. Save.
2. Go to a page in the desired namespace. Edit that page.
3. Insert a transclusion of the sandbox, i.e., ((notaforum/sandbox))
4. Preview that change. You'll see the sandbox as it will appear in that namespace.
5. Discard/cancel your changes to that page. Do not save; only preview.

Hope this helps. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the links to the Reference desk, Village pump, and help desk. I think that it gives those places some needed exposure, but more importantly a line like that gives the entire message a more neutral non-combative tone. The language in the sentence itself is a little rough, but it is succinct, at least... if anyone feel that they can improve on it though, please feel free.
— Ω (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those links are a good idea. This template has a very particular use: For when people are discussing the subject of an article, rather than the article. In other words, people using Wikipedia as a message board. Such discussion is hopelessly off-topic and has no place on Wikipedia. It's not simply off-topic for the page, it's off-topic for the site. Brining such idle chatter to the pump or the reference desk is very much the wrong thing to do. • The template is rather sternly worded, but that's by design. Sometimes one has to be direct — not uncivil, just direct — to communicate. • So I think this template is better off without those links. Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People wanting to discuss the subject of the article is why I added those links. People often want a message board like outlet, and those three areas of Wikipedia are intended to act as such (to varying, and differing, degrees). I think that pointing them to an appropriate outlet for their desire is much more constructive and community oriented then simply trying to stifle their speech. I understand what you're attempting to say, I just don't completely agree with your narrow reading of WP:FORUM. As a matter of fact, WP:FORUM mentions the reference desk itself: "If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference Desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages."
— Ω (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the ref desk or help desk are contrary to WP:FORUM or anything like that, nor that we shouldn't point people in that direction when appropriate. But ((notaforum)) is specifically intended to be used when people are just kibitzing. People may want a "message board like outlet" for such general chatter, but that's not what Wikipedia is trying to provide. And it's certainly not what the pump, ref desk, or help desk are for. They're for discussing Wikipedia, finding material within Wikipedia articles, and getting help using Wikipedia, respectively. Note the common thread of "Wikipedia" in all of that.  :) This template is directed at discussion that has no connection to Wikipedia what-so-ever. Specifically, for popular topics which attract many newbies who just want to chat about a subject. They don't "get" what talk pages are for; they think it's a place to discuss the subject. Sending them to the ref desk isn't going to help them. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if what you're bringing up here wouldn't actually be a more appropriate discussion for the Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not page... regardless, I'm not quite seeing how this is relevant to adding the sentence to the template. I'm not really understanding your concerns here, I guess. The current usage pattern for this mbox is to place it at the top of talk pages as a general disclaimer, it's not really directed at individuals.

What I can say for sure is that the reason I added the line was simply to help users out. I'll readily admit that I wasn't even aware of the reference desk until recently. If you read through most of the materiel on the reference desk, the vast majority of it is "forum like" conversation, which is exactly what this message box is trying to dissuade from article talk pages. Sure, when people post inappropriate WP:FORUM posts on article talk pages their often not stated in a manner which would be acceptable on the reference desk, but that's largely environmental. If you move those people from the talk page to the ref desk (or help desk, or village pump), the vast majority of them will adjust their style to be appropriate for the forum.
— Ω (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that claim is borne out [1]. The Ref Desk already suffers from soapboxing at times. Having this template invite people to post their thoughts, as opposed to questions (the purpose of the Ref Desk), sends a mixed message and will not help. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted a rewording. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, now.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Any such comments [[WP:TPO|may be deleted]]
to
Any such comments [[WP:TPO|may be removed]]
Comments are generally removed, not deleted (which implies revdel or oversight). Best, — CharlieEchoTango — 06:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Second occurrence of

((PAGENAME))

to

(({1|[[:((SUBJECTPAGENAME))|((PAGENAME))]]))}

This should be uncontroversial. Goodraise 05:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, so Done. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add | class = tmbox-not-a-forum to the invocation of ((tmbox)), so that experienced editors may hide it with userstyles, for example. Keφr (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In BrEng, "not a forum for Foo" is not quite grammatical - we'd prefer "not a forum about Foo".

Is that the same for USEng? --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No dissent, so I'll make the change. --Dweller (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the code now reads:

(({2|))} You may wish to ask factual questions about (({1|[[:((SUBJECTPAGENAME))|((PAGENAME))]]))} at the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference desk]], discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]], or ask for help at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help desk]].

This has the surprising result that the additional comments come before the standard statement. I suggest moving the (({2|))} to the end. I could do it myself, but I don't know how many talk pages use this parameter. Does anyone have a way of finding that out? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make the parameter add the transcluding page into a category. Goodraise 04:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clever! I'm going to add a condition as a test case. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category Category:UsesSecondParam. After correcting templates where the use of the parameter was unintentional (e.g., someone copied the example in the docs and forgot to remove "(additional comments)"), and ignoring archives and test cases, there are just 24 talk pages. Of these, about 10 are clearly intended to work with the additional text following the initial statement. The rest are neutral or would be improved by the change. This looks like a case where I might as well be bold, because it's pretty clear that the original intent of the parameter was to add comments after the boilerplate. I'm going to change the template, and I'll reword the banners that are adversely affected. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes, and I think that all of the affected banners are improved by them. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone who knows how to do will remove the coding that still uses Category:UsesSecondParam? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Since RockMagnetist deleted the category recently, it is clear that the experiment is finished. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People who disagree with a post on a talk page oftentimes delete the post using "NOT A FORUM"Fletcherbrian (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace the link with an anchor (titled "may be removed") in the template, which doesn't go to the correct section on the destination page, with a link to WP:TPO as is already the case in the sandbox, which works.--greenrd (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cabayi (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Allow overriding the second instance of (({1))}. Currently, the code in use leads to confusing text in some places like Talk:Book of Mormon:

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

When instead it should be

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Book of Mormon at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

(bold = my emphasis) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would either be possible to:

1. Switch the wording to "you may ask questions about the subject". It appears that we may have too many instances of this awkward wording elsewhere, since this was only added to the template around 2010. This would be the best solution, I think.
2. Alternatively, here is a sandbox version using the third parameter. See outcome on the bottom of Template:Not_a_forum/testcases, the current template gives a silly "you may ask factual questions about Kid Nation nor any drinking games"

– Thjarkur (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thjarkur: I think switching the wording would make the most sense here, now that you mention it - too many of these to fix manually (and a complete waste of time to do so). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or now that I think of it - maybe have the default be the subject but allow it to be overridden with a third parameter? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my edit request, and I have template editor now, so there's no need to leave this on the queue. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template currently reads in part as follows:

You may wish to ask factual questions about PAGE at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

I believe this is overly verbose and that it just serves as unnecessary clutter with the message already being efficiently communicated in the rest of the template. Thoughts? --Trialpears (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the referrals to the village pump or to the help desk are not germane to one who would might otherwise mistakenly use a talk page as a forum. The link to the reference desk might be helpful, and I would be more inclined to keep that. --Bsherr (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's kind of on topic. No objection to keeping that from me although I would mildly prefer not having it. --Trialpears (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the removal of the village pump and help desk links, but not the reference desk link, without prejudice to doing to if consensus supports. --Bsherr (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that from time to time, some IPs reach out in talk pages to relay their concerns under the assumption that the subject themselves maintain the pages. (especially articles about government agencies).

Is there an existing template that would serve such purpose. If not if could be such notice added to this template?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]