Template talk:Round in circles

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 6 August 2023, see discussion.
no consensus, 22 June 2007, see discussion.
withdrawn, 14 July 2012, see discussion.
merge with {{Recurring themes}}, 28 July 2015, see discussion.

Great template[edit]

It is a great template, not as good as this, but great all the same.. :))) Baristarim 06:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one has the advantage that you can transclude it onto a talk page; if you try that with WP:LAME, you'll be in big trouble! (Or, at least, swiftly reverted.) :) Xtifr _tälk 15:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template neutrality[edit]

No matter how you word it, I just don't find the template neutral. Sometimes, an opinion on a subject, no matter how similar or how many times its argued, might be the thing that leads to consensus or even a change in policy . . . by saying that it is not valuable, there's a potential to "chase away" people who could otherwise contribute. Drumpler 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages and their templates are not articles, and do not have to be neutral. Anyone "chased away" by a template reminding them to lurk and learn before restarting a shitestorm of controversy will not survive here as an editor anyway. WP:BOLD suggests being bold in editing articles. WP:DE among other suggest not being an ass on talk pages. There's a balance. This template should not appear on most talk pages. WHere it and {{FAQ}} are used, they are needed, because the balance has been upset by people being asses. PS: Your complaint really doesn't quite make sense anyway, since there's nothing "non-neutral" about it - it is not taking one side or another in any issue at all. I think you are trying to say that it doesn't seem particularly "nice" or "welcoming" or something along those lines. This is true, and is intentional. Something this is needed. {{Controversial}}, {{Talkheader}}, etc., all do this, too. Like this one, they are generally used where needed, not all over the place. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ text[edit]

So amongst other changes that were made to the template (and unhelpfully reverted, rather than a compromise edit being made), I removed the following line of text from the template output:

A frequently asked questions (FAQ) list may be a better alternative to this template, see {{FAQ}} for more info.

The reason for this is that usage info is not typically plastered on templates themselves. That's the whole point in having template documentation. This line should be moved to the template doc (and the rest of the changes reverted back in, as they were constructive). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As said in the revert it is not usage information. It is a direct instruction to the readers of the talk page it is on. I have reverted to an earlier longer version that makes this clearer. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, nobody is going to read a novella-length message box if it's in 6pt text (I rather feel that users skip anything in text smaller than 80% of the default anyway, but they're certainly not going to strain their eyes for four lines' worth). Secondly, in what way is it not a usage instruction to tell users that another template may be more appropriate? The right person to be reading that is whoever is adding message boxes to the page, not to its readers. I feel that this template may have a useful purpose if it's legible and concise enough to attract the eye, but in its current form it's just a block of imminently skippable tiny text. If you haven't any suggestions for compromise, I would recommend that the most recent version be restored, as it both gets to the point and is in text large enough to read comfortably. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What most recent version? Until you changed it it had been stable for months. It is an instruction to the talk page readers and editors, who on seeing this template, may have no clue there is even a FAQ template, which would better resolve the issue the template highlights. This is not a mere technical instruction to editors. If you cannot see that, I don't know what else to tell you. If you have a problem with the text size, increase it. It is hardly the longest talk page tempplate that is ever used. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Most recent version" is normally taken to mean "last revision which wasn't a revert". That the template might not be the longest on Wikipedia is hardly singing its praises; it is still huge comparing to most of its contemporaries. Once again, I don't see why this template has to server two purposes - if you want to alert talk page editors that an FAQ is needed, why not split that off to {{reqfaq}} in the same way as {{reqphoto}}? Then this template could go back to serving one purpose and doing it well - advising readers to search before starting new threads. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 'request FAQ' template would still have to be added to pages with a shorter 'read the archives' template, because creating a FAQ is never going to be bad advice for pages that have ROC on them. One long template or two shorter templates on the same page - no gain. At best, we could employ two versions of ROC, one which suggests people create a FAQ if there is not one, and a second, which can direct users to the FAQ on the page if it is ever created. MickMacNee (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why would one need a talk header template to point a reader to an FAQ when there's already an FAQ talk header template? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm losing interest here. Do what you want, I'm invoking DGAF and unwatching. MickMacNee (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was probably wise, since CC is right - we don't have templates tell readers/editors that the template sucks and to use another template. Such a template should simply be redirected to the one we're advising be used. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've overhauled this entire thing, and added a bunch of features. It should be considerably more usable now, and is more distinct from {{FAQ}}, which can still replace it, or be used with it. In particular, if /FAQ exists, this template will auto-detect it, and can be an "interface" to it that is way less obtrusive than {{FAQ}} itself. I have not installed a "create FAQ" feature, per se, but if one uses |faqlink= to point to a /FAQ that doesn't exist, it will show up as a redlink which can be edited into existence as a bluelink. This wasn't even the idea, but I just mention it because it solves the issue kvetched about above, even if not in the most fancy possible way. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combine with FAQ[edit]

Has anyone explored combining this text/icon with the standard FAQ template? They have similar scope in that this template should be a precursor for actually spelling out the topics that are going in circles (as this template begins to do). czar 07:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]