Template talk:Haveyoursay

Can't we get rid the icon that makes it look like you are giving your opinion to an external site? It has been done elsewhere, so I think we should put it here to. --Nzgabriel | Talk 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah this can be done when we finnaly get round to using our spangly new comments namespace. --Mark Talk to me 11:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ :-) Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 04:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized
This template is not categorized. Please add. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; I also included a PAGENAME in there so that it alphabetizes. Gopher65talk 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as well you spotted that. Thank you. --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

+ ar interwiki
would you please add ar:قالب:أضف تعليقك in the interwiki section. thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciphers (talk • contribs) 04:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ In the future, please use the editprotected template when requesting to edit a protected page, so as to bring it to the attention of administrators. This request sat around for half a year uncompleted before i noticed it. Tempodivalse [talk]  20:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be an easier way to read comments
editprotected At least as viewed with Vista/Firefox, the Comments: page topped by the "Opinions" tab is not accessible from the tabs at the top of an article page. That seems like a bug, but it has persisted for at least several months. In the meanwhile, I think we need a way to view existing comments without typing "Comments:" manually and without going through the edit page to add a new comment. I suspect that most casual users won't do either of those things. Things are even a little more confusing because the "Comment:" namespace conflicts with the "Add comment" tab at the top of the page which leads to the "Talk:" namespace.

I suggest that this template should contain a direct link to view the opinion page:   [ ] or [ Read previous comments]

It would be best to fix the system of tabs used at the top of the page, but changing this template is a useful work-around that would still be somewhat useful even after tab navigation is working. Mike Serfas (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not done. Checked with other PC in house using Vista/Firefox. Works both logged in and not. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently this problem was caused by the use of NoScript, with scripts from wikinews.org forbidden. Oddly, this only affects the tabs on Wikinews and not Wikisource or Wikipedia, and only the Opinions tab is lost. Mike Serfas (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be because the opinion tab is inserted with js, and the other tabs are done properly with html. (Basically html/php has to go through devs, which takes more effort to get approval (c.f. 11586). JS is done locally, and we can do whatever we want, as soon as the idea comes into our mind). I suggest that if you want to use scripts, you use scripts, otherwise don't complain that the scripts stop working when you  block them. (Ignoring that, it might be a good idea to put a view comments button on the template, just for ease of use). Bawolff ☺☻ 03:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

it:interwiki to be added
Please, would you add the Italian interwiki it:Template:Dìlatua, because the page is protected? editprotected Thanks.--93.144.121.207 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing "Post it!"
editprotected To pipe the link, how about "click here!"? --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so sure. Doesn't quite as clearly get across that you can actually share opinions (wikis being known for trying hard to be neutral). Never thought about it before but I don't like "Post it!" either now I do. "Share it!", perhaps? BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I too hadn't really thought about it, but "Post it!" does feel a bit off. At least as a first reaction, I quite like "Share it!".
 * --Pi zero (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ seems uncontroversial. Scaled back protection, too. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ seems uncontroversial. Scaled back protection, too. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)