Template talk:Fork

Why does this template:

• Put a huge banner before the content the reader is actually interested in?
• Put two lines of irrelevant text before the content the reader is actually interested in?

-- Nx / talk 19:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

From the edit history, I'd say it's because Human says so. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always bothered me. But as it's rarely used, it's never been a high priority. It's definitely worth fixing up a little. The thing is, we don't have as many articles as WP so we don't have large disambiguation pages, they tend to have about two or three only. ^theist 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Which makes the overhead even more jarring. -- Nx / talk 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out the stale goat pilaf stuff & replaced it with a functional {{PAGENAME}} opener. The box part could probably do with improving too, but I think there should be something there to identify it as a fork & make the point about avoiding links to it. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How does it look now? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good from here. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really supposed to be on content pages, so the issue of it being above content is moot. Also, yeah, don't we only have like two of these? ħuman 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's not moot. The content in this case is the article I was looking for, which I can get to via one of the links. Which was preceded by the goat nonsense. Say I search for Mass. What do I see (with the old template)? "Perhaps you were looking for goat" No stupid wiki, if I was, I would've typed goat, not mass. -- Nx / talk 16:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, how about using messagebox, and digging up an image of a fork? ħuman 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO an image would be too distracting, but let's try it. -- Nx / talk 16:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a fork page which distinguishes between several uses of a title or phrase. Please avoid linking to this fork page, and reroute any links to the most relevant article

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

This is a fork page which distinguishes between several uses of a title or phrase. Please avoid linking to this fork page, and reroute any links to the most relevant article

This is a fork page which distinguishes between several uses of a title or phrase. Please avoid linking to this fork page, and reroute any links to the most relevant article

take your pick or find a better image. -- Nx / talk 18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If it were totally up to me, I'd randomise it. But the last looks best to me. ^theist 18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What about something like this (but a bit less shit)? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a fork page which distinguishes between several uses of a title or phrase. Please avoid linking to this fork page, and reroute any links to the most relevant article

This is a fork page which distinguishes between several uses of a title or phrase. Please avoid linking to this fork page, and reroute any links to the most relevant article

I prefer just a fork. It's cleaner and simpler. -- Nx / talk 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the first three and the fifth ones, yeah, let's randomize them? ħuman 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How about using something like this: ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 04:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Toast FTW! ħuman 04:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a fork page which distinguishes between several uses of a title or phrase. Please avoid linking to this fork page, and reroute any links to the most relevant article

^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 07:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Make it so, Number One. -- Nx / talk 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a number, I am a free man! I copied it over. ħuman 00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)