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)