Template:Stuck/doc

Purpose
The purpose of the "stuck" tag is to give a visual hint to readers of talk page items, making it easier to ignore issues that need to be moved to another forum, after the involved parties have been advised. It is hoped that the existence of such a tag will make it easier to find active non-stuck items on a page still needing attention.

The "stuck" tag is not final and does not close a conversation. If the parties decide to communicate more reasonably with each other so we can continue helping here, please remove the tag. Thus, the tag also helps clarify situations that might otherwise be ignored because some users thought the issue required escalation, when new activity may show that the parties have decided to find a way to get along.

Usage
Place the following under the topic heading on a talk page:  

To make an additional comment explaining why the issue requires further dispute resolution, and/or to sign so that others know who marked the thread as stuck:

This parameter must be given as 1 or reason if any of its content contains the  character.

Do include your signature  when stating obvious facts without expressing an opinion, such as that both parties to a dispute were blocked, or when it is obvious from the content or context who placed the template. That would lead to pointless clutter, and defeat the purpose of the template as a simple and easy-to-scan label. include your sig at the end of a 1 comment if the label could be controversial (in which case anyone is free to remove it entirely) or attribution is otherwise actually needed, e.g. because of subjective content in the comment. Any editor may add attribution from page history if they think it is important (or remove it where it seems like a useless distraction).

Example
==Chelonia== Chelonia currently redirects to Turtle, but Chelonia is the monotypic genus containing the Green Sea Turtle. Shouldn't it be Chelonian-->Turtle, and Chelonia-->Green Sea Turtle? --OneUser123 2 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)


 * No. I reverted you again. See Johnson and Garcia 2002, pp. 25–27!

--BlowHard999, 2 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)


 * These parties are still edit-warring (see increasingly heated edit summaries). I've

pointed them both at WP:MEDIATION, and brought the matter up at WP:ANI. Let's move on. --AnotherUser789 00:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)