Template talk:Under discussion

WP:SELF and this tag

I just noticed that this tag was being used on two main namespace articles. Per WP:SELF, I removed it from one and requested its removal from the other (as the latter article is protected). Two out of maybe fifty transclusions isn't bad, but perhaps a noincluded notice should be placed on this template's main page, indicating it is intended for project namespace only?   justen   10:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• This tag is intended for project pages, not articles. Such a notice should be useful, yes. >Radiant< 12:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• I added a Big Scary Warning™ to it. ViperSnake151 15:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page linking

Is it worth adding a parameter to this template to allow the talk page link to go directly to the relevant section, in line with other dispute-related templates? I could be bold, but thought I'd look for opinions first. SamBC(talk) 11:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

what the fuck are you talking about ..i dont understand all this ,..tell me why i keep seeing you and jseph trying to set me up wtf is your problem and what you want ...in english not this shit code ..im tired of your shit ,,what 2001:5B0:4BC3:4418:90D6:A7AE:A73A:9454 (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

well guess what i dont give 2 fcks about all this comuter shit all i know is i have enough to send you all to porison for very long time so ..pardon your fucking feelings ..,i dont care .,assholes give me my property and leave mne the fuck alone .,jseph you better stop saying bad shit about me because i will comne beat your ass ...and stop calling me namnes what thge fuck yoiu steal money and then you better than me ...you want to kill me ..im here do it yourself ..,stop being his boy toy and get off his nuts its disgusting ..im tired of both you ..,you took everything from me ..i live in acolkd basement and have nothing ...when i gave you both all ihad ...i cry everyday when i see all this trash you say about me your mother ,,,why ..i love you my son ...im sorry ...why are you doing all this ..selling my nude pics onlie why...you have broken all of me ..i dont even eat sonedays ,,i have nothing ..why then take my cars ..i dont understand why ..i guess only you do ..just give me my stuuf and enough to livce i go away..why are u trying to send me to jail i didnt do anything to him ..im sick .and being in jail very hard ,..but you guys did all this to me ,,why ...money ...

just

i have nothin more to say 2001:5B0:4BC3:4418:90D6:A7AE:A73A:9454 (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

i dont care im here i cant go know where ,u have somthing to say tell me in my face ...i didnt raiseu to be a coward .,.,and you have somthing to say im here tell me in my face ..these games are stuoid grow up ..man up .. i want all my stuff ..i have nothing ..thanks ...bye 2001:5B0:4BC3:4418:90D6:A7AE:A73A:9454 (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Under discussion to encourage consensus building, discourage bold edits

I propose that this template explicitly encourage consensus building, discourage bold edits until discussion has ended and link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes. Jojalozzo 04:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - The tone of this template differs significantly from Template:Policy and Template:MoS-guideline. I would expect a page or section under discussion would benefit even more than usual from consensus building over bold editing but, while the Policy and MOS guideline templates emphasize consensus building without mentioning bold edits, this template never mentions consensus per se, casually suggests editors check the talk page, and suggests bold edits.Jojalozzo 05:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  This template says, "This page is the subject of a current discussion on the talk page."  I agree that bold edits in a section being discussed are a problem, and I agree with encouraging the use of WP:Consensus, but this template is so vague as to be a truism for all discussion on the talk page, and not all discussions on a talk page apply to the entire project page.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: The template is fine as it is. In many cases it is ignored anyway, but to use it discourage any editing is wrong, whether the point is under discussion or not. I can't see a significant difference between regular editing and "bold". Vandals can be dealt with accordingly already.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Most articles are under discussion at some point. And templates added often are not removed when should be. Most do not merit the level of restriction that you propose. There ARE some that do and I have edited those and there should be a template like that for such controversial articles. If there is, do tell. This template can link to it as a "see also." CarolMooreDC 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I’ve done some work on the template and documentation. Please review. —Frungi (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about this template at Village Pump Technical

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 131#Template titled "under discussion" Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Section"/"status" parameters

It doesn't seem like the "section" and "status" parameters can be used at the same time, as it seems that if one parameter is used as the first one, the other is interpreted as a shortcut link. This should be fixed. --V2Blast (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)