Template talk:Builds wipe

Can we have this link either initially to or also to something like my summary in the first talk section in GuildWiki talk:Builds wipe (you could cut and paste it to a better location, and clean it up if necessary)? I'm still seeing both "I still want to be able to have builds on the wiki" and "maybe we should try role guides", which means some kind of overall summary is needed for all the (most) people that had no clue this was coming. -- Peej 21:11, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Second clarification, point out that main + build namespaces do not include userspace. I'll be willing to bet most users don't have any clue what the different namespaces are or how they work. -- Peej 22:54, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


 * It links to the policy page. The notice should not attempt to hold all the information.  --Fyren 23:12, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

protect?
because this is included from the main page, injecting code here would be visible there. As the main page is protected for obvious reasons this one should too. -- Xeon 01:31, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Visibility
A number of my friends are readers of the GuildWiki, especially the build section, and they were unaware that the builds section was going to be deleted.

While the notice has been placed in very visible locations for contributors (even casual contributors) I don't think that there is enough visibility for those who browse builds without using Builds:Main Page.

I recommend that either this notice or a similar one is placed inside Template:Tested-build.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:44, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Notice
I think the warning template would be more visible. - B e X or   09:25, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Last time I touched anything with this template the wiki locked (=heavy slow down) for a few minutes, but I'll take my chances and do as you suggested. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 13:11, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


 * lol...  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:25, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Does MediaWiki:Sitenotice still post at the top of every page? That might've been the simpler way to do this if it still works. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:45, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Lol. Day late and dollar short doesn't begin to cover that remark Barek.  ;)  --Rainith 21:14, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Much better. It doesn't seem to be showing the update on some of the pages yet. - B e X or  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 00:28, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * It does, but it doesn't play well with the cache. Any changes made to it will lag by probably hours before most anonymous users see them.  --Fyren 00:35, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * @Rainith - yea, I thought about it a week ago, but couldn't recall the name for it. Now that the template has been manually inserted to so many pages, it's probably just easier to not use the site notice at this point.
 * @Fyren - for something that's a short term notices that are only up for a day or so, that's a good reason to not use Mediawiki:Sitenotice, but for notices that are to remain active for several weeks to a month like this one is intended, I think the few hours cache delay would be a small inconvenience vs the benefit of global site notification - just something we can consider using if/when another notice like this is needed. The main reason I can think of not to use it would be if there's also a significant performance hit when adding materal to the sitenotice page - I have no idea if forcing every page to add that content would noticeably impact performance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:09, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I suspect that it would not affect performance in the same way that modifying a template does, although I may be mistaken.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:05, 11 April 2007 (CDT)