This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This is the proposed colour-coding methods:
Serious problem, such as deletion (#CC0000) |
Content issues, such as POV and Merge (#FF6633) |
Style issues, such as Cleanup and Wikify (#FFCC33) |
Information notices, such as Current (#3399FF) |
I believe that the introduction of colour coding in our articles will help to inform us of the severity of the issues at a glance. Having a small amount of this colour would be best as too much would be overwhelming. I believe that stopping the use of different pastel shades will make the articles look much better too. violet/riga (t) 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
We could also have grey for Wikipedia templates, such as policy and guideline notices. violet/riga (t) 06:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
policies (#148C14) |
guidelines (#14678C) |
historical; disputed (#CC0000) |
proposed (#9900CC) |
essays (#FFCC33) |
I do agree that we don't want to go overboard with the number of different colors. I do wonder if we might not want to put merge/move/split into their own color code, though. They're not really the same thing as POV/spam/etc to me. I propose #B077FF, based on the existing merge/split templates, which use a purplish background. To wit:
Instead of this:
This article or section may soon be
merged with [[:Template talk:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. You may discuss the merge on this article's talk page. |
I suggest this:
This article or section may soon be
merged with [[:Template talk:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. You may discuss the merge on this article's talk page. |
This might be creeping featurism on my part, though. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think merge and transwiki are similar since they mean that the content should be copied and pasted somewhere else. So to me it is OK if they have the same colour. As I see it merge and transwiki usually means the content is OK, but just in the wrong place. But to me that is not the same thing as orange content issues like POV etc, since orange means the content is bad and needs fixing. -- David Göthberg 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
My objection to having an additional color for merges/transwikis is that it steps outside the serious / moderate / minimal / other heirarchy to produce serious / moderate / minimal / other (merges) / other (everything else), and if merges are a good reason to step outside the basic color scheme, we're going to find equally good reasons to add yet another and another. If there's just no way we can reasonably put merges in the "orange" class, then okay, but if it's a question of a "traditional association", that's a terrible reason. The whole point is that we're trying to establish a new, clean standard here, and immediately we can't resist diluting it. We should add additional colors only if they can't be avoided.
Like violet/riga said above, it will "help to inform us of the severity of the issues at a glance. Having a small amount of this colour would be best as too much would be overwhelming." Purple? What severity is that? It exists completely outside the symbolism of the "basic four", blowing their very raison d'être.-- Father Goose 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, #9955bb works with the arrows and the other templates too. (And is close to Jack's old suggestion #9400D3 so seems to be what most of you want.) So I updated the
example CSS code to v0.8 now using #95b
as merge colour. --
David Göthberg (
talk) 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The question of nomenclature was brought up before, but discussion appeared to peter out without reaching a conclusion. While this is, to some extent, arguing over what color the bikeshed should be, experience has taught me that nomenclature is important. Using the same terms avoids confusion and misunderstanding and spending time on explanation. Using concise terms saves typing/time (that's why WP:SHCs are so popular). Plus, if we have to argue over the color of the bikeshed, it'll be easier if we do so before this gets pushed out into wide use.
So anyway, I propose the following terms:
Comments? Suggestions? Criticism? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably stupid of me - but I assume the brown, lurid green and pink are just for the purposes of the diagram, rather than to actually be used as umbrella category colours? -- Rambutan ( talk) 07:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I spent a fair bit of time archiving idle discussions and refactoring them, in accordance with WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR. Diff. I did this because the discussions had apparently concluded — nothing new was being said — and this talk page is getting long (66 KB as of this writing). I refactored all the idle discussion into a summary section. Permalink. Then Ned Scott reverted all that, with only the remark "erm, de-archive. there is no need to archive yet" as explaination. Diff. Ned, can you explain your rationale for reverting the archive? There is no need to archive, ever, but we do it because concluded discussion just gets in the way of active discussion. Does anyone else have any problem with the summarization I posted? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We presently have some templates which differ only in the sense that they address different scopes, i.e., article vs section vs list, etc. For example, {{
unreferenced}} vs {{
unreferencedsection}}. It occurs to me that a well-designed template can work for all of these. Without qualification (e.g., {{unreferenced}}
), just state "This article does not cite...". Then use {{unsourced|foo}} to tweak to "This foo does note cite...", as desired. {{unsourced|section}} would become "This section does not cite...", for example. Works for section, list, paragraph, and most other things. This is already done to some extent (indeed, {{
unreferenced}} works this way); I just think we should formalize it and spread the
meme to all templates while we're in the process of converting them to the new look-and-feel. —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist) 12:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We can do it automagically with CSS. Your discussion here made me think. For those article message boxes who do not categorise differently for "article" or "section" then it would be nice to use one single template and automate the wording. As DragonHawk suggested a parameter is nice, but doing it automatically is even nicer. So I asked around and we solved it! We can make the wording change only using CSS code depending on if the text is in section 0 (page head) or in any other section. But it is an ugly hack so I don't know if we should use it. If you want to take a look see the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Detect section in CSS? and my test page. For new browsers that support this users will only see "This article needs ..." or "This section needs ..." while the older browsers will still see "This article or section needs ..." -- David Göthberg 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Should transwiki templates (the Copy to XXX variety) be standardized? These are along the lines of AFD or PROD templates (and it seems like those are going to be standardized). So are transwiki templates included in the new system? Gracenotes T § 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
{remove indent} I see some of the speedy got red lines all ready but it does not look like anyone is doing the PRODs yet. It would seem to me they should be red. Jeepday ( talk) 06:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
A shortlist of the ongoing threads so that I (we) don't have to scan down the whole page each time. Please add any links or requests for assistance below.
From what I can gather, we're basically feature-complete and ready to go with David Göthberg's implementation ( Wikipedia:Template standardisation/issuebox demo)? Once the code has been added to the common.css, let us gnomes know (and show us an example transition diff) so that we can get busy updating the templates themselves. :) -- Quiddity 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In order to avoid caching and refreshing troubles it might be an idea to update the CSS file a short while before changing the templates. Should we go with a CSS update of 9pm tonight with template updates commencing 24 hours later (on the 10th)? Such a rollout would help us to get together and update the templates in one big operation after having identified any problem templates (ie. those that we are unsure of their category).
That is unless anyone thinks there is more to discuss. violet/riga (t) 08:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Please add/strike anything:
I'm in the process of creating a list of templates that we can standardize. (Will add update when done.) There are a lot, but with enough work, it's more than doable :) I also plan on creating a page for coordination, drafting, color coding for specific templates, etc. The means of implementation is coming along well, so it's time we got to implementing it! Gracenotes T § 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I love the templates, but I have 2 problems with the templates. 1) I think they'd look better and less disjointed if the colour code was on both sides of the template, instead of just on the left side. 2) I'm red/green colour blind and the top two template colours (Asumingly red and orange?) are too similar and too hard to tell apart from each other. Why not have the top one black and the second one red? Or maybe move the colours up one respectively and have the bottom template for mergers etc white? A similar problem would arise if you had yellow/green, but you don;'t, so the red/orange is the only problem. Despite this, I fully support the proposal; I think it's a great idea. You have my support whether you decide to fix these problems or not. Cheers, Spawn Man 23:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Spawn Man: Your own monobook.css is a page that holds a CSS style sheet specially for you. (If/when you are logged in.) That is a page that overrides the colour and design settings of Wikipedia. Normally that page is empty but users can add their own CSS code there to get the looks and colours they prefer. To do such overriding is called "skinning", as in "putting on a new skin". You don't really need to understand how all that works, guys like me can help you code it up and make it very easy to use, as long as guys like you help out with testing and explanations what you see and not see. This sounds like a worthwhile little project. Perhaps we can make a page about it where we do something like this:
If you are red/green colour blind then cut and paste the code below to your monobook.css page and many things on Wikipedia will change to colours that are better for you:
Lots and lots of CSS code
If you are blue/yellow colour blind then cut and paste this code instead:
Lots and lots of CSS code
What do you think? Don't expect too much from it, since most things on Wikipedia is not built to be skinnable. But at least our new article message boxes were built from bottom up to be very skinnable.
I don't have the time for the next three weeks or so to do this but I would like to do it. The reason actually is that I am busy with making the navigation boxes here on Wikipedia fully skinnable...
Of course, there might be others around that might be interested in taking on this project? And you probably should ask/search around and see if other colour blind people haven't already created and maintains such CSS code for Wikipedia.
Of course, our article message boxes will also have little images and a lot of text, so the colours on them really isn't that important. And a funny side note: I have special colour seeing to, I have a kind of colour filtering ability which sort of means I see more things than other people. Which means I often suck at judging which colour combinations other people will like.
-- David Göthberg 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(←)Sorry my earlier comment was so terse, but I had to run. This is actually a pretty serious concern that
User:Spawn Man raises. This isn't probably the best place to deal with it, but it is worthwhile having a set of skins for
colour-blind individuals. Obviously using the ANSI standards is great for normal-sighted people, but colour-blindness (especially red-green colorblindness: >5% 8-10% of males) is quite common. As
User:Davidgothberg mentioned, these new templates will allow people to easily override the colours.
Usability WikiProject may be useful for coordinating this. See also
Wikipedia:Accessibility. --
Flyguy649
talk
contribs 03:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
white - gray - black - blue - light blue - red - light red (pink)
I had to change the CSS code due to the {{ shortcut}} boxes interfering with our article message boxes. (They are evil I say!) This really is just a problem when our message boxes are used on project pages that use the shortcut box. But unfortunately that does occur a lot. Like our own Wikipedia:Template standardisation. On top it has a shortcut box and a message box that I think will become an "article notice box".
1. I removed the "clear: both;
". We don't really need that one anyway.
2. I changed the "margin: 0 0 0 10%;
" to "margin: 0 auto;
". That means we loose backwards compatibility. In older browsers the message boxes now will align to the far left, slightly ugly but works. But in all new web browsers the shortcut boxes now will not cover part of the first message box in lower screen resolutions (Firefox) or push the first message box down below the shortcut box (Opera). Instead the first message box will move a bit to the left to leave room for the shortcut box. It's an ugly compromise, I know. If any one has a better suggestion, please tell.
I made a test example at Wikipedia:Template_standardisation/issuebox_demo#Testing.
The CSS code now is version 0.9.
-- David Göthberg 05:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
margin: 0 0 0 10%;
" or keep using "margin: 0 auto;
"? Any comments, anyone?margin: 0 0 0 10%;
" since the shortcut box problem is solved. And documented it at {{
ambox}}. If we change our mind that does not affect deployment and Wikipedia caching, since it is only in the CSS code.margin: 0 auto;
". Why do we even try to be backwards compatible with old browsers?table.ambox
class in
MediaWiki:Common.css to have the margin code "margin: 0 auto;
", and remove the comment next to that line since then the comment is no longer true. This does not entirely solve that problem but it mitigates it a bit since it allows the boxes to move to the left if needed.margin:0 auto
it still overlaps on small screens like mine, while clear:both
would give lots of whitespace on larger screens.
Anomie 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)As far as I can see, there are no objections or any other opposition to this proposal here or in the archive, and there is plenty of very strong enthusiasm. The only whiff of dissent I could find was Father Goose's concern about whether merges should have their own color. I thought I would never see the day that anything, let alone a change as major as this, would achieve actual consensus. Good work, people. ← BenB4 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, I've now copied the relevant CSS code to MediaWiki:Common.css. This means that {{ ambox}} will now work properly for all users (at least once they bypass their cache). -- ais523 17:43, 14 September 2007 ( U T C)
Great work so far everyone. I'm very sorry but I don't think I'll be able to help implement this and change the templates in the coming days; good luck to those that will be. Explanation on my user page for those that need to know my off-wiki reason. violet/riga (t) 17:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought it might be an idea for Admins who can help change protected templates to be listed here. Remove if you feel this is useless. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ Articleissues}} combines lots of different templates - does it cause a problem with our colour-coding? violet/riga (t) 18:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Ambox should probably be semi/fully/cascading protected now. Lots of potential mischief otherwise ;) I'll presume there are admins watching here who can answer and act, rather than my taking the request to the formal process page.. -- Quiddity 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Current sport now converted. Look good? (Is that the first??) I'll be back in an hour to start working wholesale on everything else... :) -- Quiddity 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone please check Template:Unreferencedsection for colour. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Cross them off as they're done:
I'm not sure about some of the decisions I've made regarding serious vs content issues, e.g. is {{ totally-disputed}} serious or just content? (so feel free to check and correct anything).
I haven't been converting all the docs to {{ /doc}} or {{ template doc}} yet either. I need to re-read all the instructions and current-best-practices before I add that to the workload... (wow, we have a lot of templates ;) -- Quiddity 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, my hands hurt now! I'm done for the night. Someone else take over.
We need an admin for {{ Unreferenced}} and {{ nofootnotes}} and {{ POV}}. -- Quiddity 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ambox | type = content | text = <span class="plainlinks">'''This {{{1|article}}} does not cite any [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|references or sources]].'''<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] by adding citations to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]. ([[Help:Contents|help]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|get involved!]])<br />[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Unverifiable]] material may be challenged and removed.<br /> {{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.}}</small></span> <includeonly>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles lacking sources from {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles lacking sources]]}}[[Category:All articles lacking sources]]</includeonly> }}
Should we be going live with this if the default monobook stuff isn't changed yet? -- Ned Scott 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I made a draft at User:Funpika/Drafts/db-meta for a converted version of Template:Db-meta. If db-meta is converted then all of the speedy templates should be automatically converted. Fun Pika 01:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the proposal for the project namespace tags to be converted going to go ahead? There is already a thread above, but I thought this might get a little more attention if it's placed down here. Sebi [talk] 03:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess some of you might have noticed that some of the default images right now from time to time disappear? That's not a bug in our code, that's an old bug in MediaWiki. I have seen it for years. Usually the image comes back by itself after some time. (The yellow broom icon just came back.) I guess the reason it suddenly happened to several of our images now is that we cause so high load on them right now. So, there's no reason to panic. -- David Göthberg 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no agreement about adding icons to templates with the upgrade to ambox, but I find that at least two templates at least one of which has a long history of rejecting icon usage has received a bonus icon in the deal {{ Unreferenced}} and {{ Unreferencedsection}}. Does any one have comment about this bonus deal? Jeepday ( talk) 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that many templates used the plainlinks class to hide the external link icon. Now with this, that icon is coming back again. Can someone perhaps introduce a plainlinks parameter? Harryboyles 04:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Templates should be of a standard width as well, depending on what type of template. Nothing like seeing a bunch of varying-width templates stacked on top of each other to boil my blood. MessedRocker ( talk) 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk to User:CapitalR who has been merging the several different Navbox templates we have. The problem with info boxes, is people pack them tight, and if your font size is different, the infobox width very often gets overridden. ← BenB4 21:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Good work you guys! The new templates look great. However, what stands out to me the most is the inconsistent styling of the icons. Maybe that could the next issue this project takes on, at least for the default icons. Or maybe just a style guide for future icon creation, like size, colors, shadows, whatever. Another thing I noticed is, unlike the examples shown on Wikipedia:Template standardisation, the templates are missing a boder around the color part. This could be intentional, but I think it looks better with the complete border. Another idea would be to make the border match the color of side bar. Either way it should have a complete border. These are just minor issues compared to the huge improvement you've already made. Sorry if these things were already discussed, first time here. - Rocket000 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The old templates had a tinted background, which made them stand out from the article. These ones don't seem to and look like part of the article text, at least where I've just spotted one. I prefer the old version. I think this needs wider discussion before it's implemented as it affects a huge number of articles and users. Tyrenius 05:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
<div style="background-color: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||#f8fcff|#white}};">
I just love the new templates that have been upgraded! They are so much more visually appealing. Good job on this! Excellently done, wish I could help! Ariel ♥ Gold 05:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No no, don't let one tiny puny incident scare you off. We programmers experience such things every day, it is part of the learning process. And we need more skilled coders here at Wikipedia, so please keep on learning! Of course, it seems we are in even greater need of good graphics artists. -- David Göthberg 09:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Will somebody who can decipher it convert {{ Cleanup-reason}}? The HTML commentsare giving me a headache... Circeus 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What about colorblind users? Miranda 06:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking, that while colour-codes might be useful, those will be only useful for people who know about the codes. And those who don't know the meaning about the codes won't have an idea, what is the purpose of the code.
Maybe we should make it possible to click on the colour-codes, probably by using the {{
click}}
template. When clicked, you would be taken onto the page, what would the colour code mean.
Not only that it would extinquish the thirst of curiousity, it would also help colour-blind people, as told above. And even faster, when the mouse is pointed over the colour-code, you would get a title header, something like "Red colour-code is tagged over serious notices", without a need to click the colour-code box.
And how is the clicking made possible, a simple box of a single color, best stored in an SVG image format, would be replaced in place of the colour code, then scaled down to fit best in the box.
I was thinking something like this:
This page may meet Wikipedia’s
criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is a very short article providing little or no context ( CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever ( CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). Please consider placing {{subst:empty-warn|Template talk:Ambox/Archive 5}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author. |
Please feel free to change the code, as I created this for example purposes only. ~Iceshark7 07:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Great work on all the templates. The color codes make checking up on issues within the article really easy and they look quite nice. -- Hdt83 Chat 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The bright color bars on the new versions of the templates are very distracting. Please restore the old versions. Badagnani 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Prior to converting to ambox, Template:AfDM used class="boilerplate ..." and id="afd". Would it be feasible to include optional class and/or id parameters in Template:ambox to allow templates to continue to use their old CSS classes/ids in the ambox-generated table? Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes needs updated if we toss all these old classes out. --- RockMFR 08:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Colour? Red? violet/riga (t) 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You guys need to slow down your template conversion. The job queue length is currently pinned at what seems to be max what Wikipedia can take: 1,235,721. -- David Göthberg 10:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
the wub and ArielGold: From irc.freenode.net, #wikimedia-tech: "Topic is 'db/image problems for some wikis, being looked at | Up | 35k! | Site operation issues" In other words, just as we noticed here. -- David Göthberg 12:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
User:SMcCandlish just made {{ Hoax}} red and added it as a red example in the {{ ambox}} documentation. I find that a tough one, my first instinct said it should be orange. Now I don't know for sure. What do others think? -- David Göthberg 11:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Articleissues and stacked cleanup templates now take up roughly the same amount of space. Should articleissues be considered obsolete at this point, and phased out in favor of the more clear and color-coded stacked cleanup templates? MrZaius talk 11:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm impressed to see all the work that's gone on here and was wondering if you could recommend someone who might want to come on Wikipedia Weekly podcast to discuss the changes. Cheers, Witty Lama 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
These were/are fine, have been used for a long time with no problem, and should not be chucked out so quickly. They have colours that integrate with the rest of the wiki colour scheme - unlike the new versions - and are easily recognisable. They are actually a much better visual communication than the new versions. Tyrenius 12:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the Globalize template and its sub-templates have been amended to type "style", when the article of this talk page, plus pure common sense would suggest it would fall under "content". Could a bot adjust the sub-templates? Bungle ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
With the recent changes (which I think improve the appearance, BTW), the protection templates no longer match the others. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, where I noticed it first. Has this been discussed already? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think protection templates are an easy case. They don't say anything is wrong with the article and needs fixing so they should not be yellow or orange, and they don't say that the article should (perhaps) be deleted, so not red either, and not be merged, split or transwikied, so not purple either. Protection templates just give notice about that the article is locked. So they are a typical case of "article notice" boxes = blue. At least according to how we intended with this project. -- David Göthberg 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The color should be red - protection is a serious matter, not a minor notice. The templates really should be standardized - see the current version of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware of the following:
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:13 15 September 2007 (GMT)..
It might be worth mentioning a stacking order somewhere, suggesting that red templates go at the top etc.. Obviously not mandating it, but just suggesting it. violet/riga (t) 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm going to be buried in WP:ILIKEITs for disagreeing with the new templates, but I think this is a trainwreck. First, I'm sure the people who made the MonoBook skin weren't involved, because the inconsistency is glaring. It looks exactly like something that amateurs would make,
Don't get me wrong, the old look wasn't perfect, and I understand the templates were not always consistent, but I regret this change very much. If this was to be done properly, it should have been with distinctive and consistent icons and unintrusive backgrounds, not ad hoc color bars and dissimilar icons. Reinis talk 16:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a problem seeing the correct template design, and I think it's very important to let folks know about clearing the cache – it's right at the start of the project page, so I don't know how we can make it more obvious. (Maybe a template at the top of this talk page?) Speaking of which, why is the template at the top of the project page not standardized like the others?
I generally like the new design, and while I agree that they don't exactly mesh with the rest of the MonoBook style, I think that's okay – they're designed to call attention to the fact that the article doesn't mesh with the standards of Wikipedia. So maybe it's good that the templates are a bit jarring.
I'll also add that while I think the color scheme makes sense (especially when a user reads the explanation on the project page), I don't think that they are (as violet/riga said) "obvious". I can see a user being somewhat confused by two orange and a blue at the top of a page. Still, the colors serve a purpose and do a good job of tying similar kinds of templates together. I think in the long run this is a positive step. Thanks to everyone who's worked so hard on them. – Scartol · Talk 18:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Monobook is minimalist? Tell that to modem users. The old templates had different widths, different backgrounds, some of which were relatively low contrast. The opinions are running about 40-3, so if you want it changed, in all practicality you better design an alternative which can gain the consensus of the community. I'm not ignoring you because you aren't willing to come up with an alternative, but I'm just pointing out the facts of consensus. ← BenB4 21:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey there.
I've just converted my bot's templates, and I was wondering if there were any SVG artists around (or a place to beg and grovel to such) that could draw up a "copyright problem" icon? I thinking a button/disk like that's a copyright sign with a floating red exclamation point hovering over the upper-right quadrant? I'm a fairly good pixel jockey, but I neither have the tools nor the experience to mess with SVG. — Coren (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
While the blue background looks great on article pages, internal templates such as Template:Template doc page viewed directly don't look quite right. Could we add some sort of switch into Template:Ambox so that it uses a nice gray color like #f9f9f9 for pages outside the main namespace? Here's a screenshot of how that would look:
— Remember the dot ( talk) 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just went ahead and converted all non-protected, non-tfd templates I could find. — Coren (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a few protected templates left, I think. Admin help requested for: {{ afd}}, {{ rfd}}, {{ Uncategorized}}. -- Quiddity 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys. What a wet blanket this is. Soon Wikipedia will be as "pretty" as Wikia… Reinis talk 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thumbs up! Very good job people, I hate centered text, and the color bars are a brilliant idea. But I was initially confused and angry about such a big change not being announced in the watchlist alerts.. I never had any idea that all this was going on and I would have liked to make suggestions and things. Oh well, it turned out good -- froth t 18:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not move the icon to the RHS to provide balance to the colour bar? Rich Farmbrough, 19:18 15 September 2007 (GMT).
I miss the old grey AfD boxes... 68.39.174.238 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Someone just walked behind me and reverted every transition to ambox I had done to templates listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup that were meant for talk page. Does he/she know something I don't (that is, are talk space templates excluded for the transition), or was I correct in editing them? — Coren (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This is the proposed colour-coding methods:
Serious problem, such as deletion (#CC0000) |
Content issues, such as POV and Merge (#FF6633) |
Style issues, such as Cleanup and Wikify (#FFCC33) |
Information notices, such as Current (#3399FF) |
I believe that the introduction of colour coding in our articles will help to inform us of the severity of the issues at a glance. Having a small amount of this colour would be best as too much would be overwhelming. I believe that stopping the use of different pastel shades will make the articles look much better too. violet/riga (t) 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
We could also have grey for Wikipedia templates, such as policy and guideline notices. violet/riga (t) 06:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
policies (#148C14) |
guidelines (#14678C) |
historical; disputed (#CC0000) |
proposed (#9900CC) |
essays (#FFCC33) |
I do agree that we don't want to go overboard with the number of different colors. I do wonder if we might not want to put merge/move/split into their own color code, though. They're not really the same thing as POV/spam/etc to me. I propose #B077FF, based on the existing merge/split templates, which use a purplish background. To wit:
Instead of this:
This article or section may soon be
merged with [[:Template talk:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. You may discuss the merge on this article's talk page. |
I suggest this:
This article or section may soon be
merged with [[:Template talk:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. You may discuss the merge on this article's talk page. |
This might be creeping featurism on my part, though. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think merge and transwiki are similar since they mean that the content should be copied and pasted somewhere else. So to me it is OK if they have the same colour. As I see it merge and transwiki usually means the content is OK, but just in the wrong place. But to me that is not the same thing as orange content issues like POV etc, since orange means the content is bad and needs fixing. -- David Göthberg 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
My objection to having an additional color for merges/transwikis is that it steps outside the serious / moderate / minimal / other heirarchy to produce serious / moderate / minimal / other (merges) / other (everything else), and if merges are a good reason to step outside the basic color scheme, we're going to find equally good reasons to add yet another and another. If there's just no way we can reasonably put merges in the "orange" class, then okay, but if it's a question of a "traditional association", that's a terrible reason. The whole point is that we're trying to establish a new, clean standard here, and immediately we can't resist diluting it. We should add additional colors only if they can't be avoided.
Like violet/riga said above, it will "help to inform us of the severity of the issues at a glance. Having a small amount of this colour would be best as too much would be overwhelming." Purple? What severity is that? It exists completely outside the symbolism of the "basic four", blowing their very raison d'être.-- Father Goose 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, #9955bb works with the arrows and the other templates too. (And is close to Jack's old suggestion #9400D3 so seems to be what most of you want.) So I updated the
example CSS code to v0.8 now using #95b
as merge colour. --
David Göthberg (
talk) 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The question of nomenclature was brought up before, but discussion appeared to peter out without reaching a conclusion. While this is, to some extent, arguing over what color the bikeshed should be, experience has taught me that nomenclature is important. Using the same terms avoids confusion and misunderstanding and spending time on explanation. Using concise terms saves typing/time (that's why WP:SHCs are so popular). Plus, if we have to argue over the color of the bikeshed, it'll be easier if we do so before this gets pushed out into wide use.
So anyway, I propose the following terms:
Comments? Suggestions? Criticism? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably stupid of me - but I assume the brown, lurid green and pink are just for the purposes of the diagram, rather than to actually be used as umbrella category colours? -- Rambutan ( talk) 07:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I spent a fair bit of time archiving idle discussions and refactoring them, in accordance with WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR. Diff. I did this because the discussions had apparently concluded — nothing new was being said — and this talk page is getting long (66 KB as of this writing). I refactored all the idle discussion into a summary section. Permalink. Then Ned Scott reverted all that, with only the remark "erm, de-archive. there is no need to archive yet" as explaination. Diff. Ned, can you explain your rationale for reverting the archive? There is no need to archive, ever, but we do it because concluded discussion just gets in the way of active discussion. Does anyone else have any problem with the summarization I posted? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We presently have some templates which differ only in the sense that they address different scopes, i.e., article vs section vs list, etc. For example, {{
unreferenced}} vs {{
unreferencedsection}}. It occurs to me that a well-designed template can work for all of these. Without qualification (e.g., {{unreferenced}}
), just state "This article does not cite...". Then use {{unsourced|foo}} to tweak to "This foo does note cite...", as desired. {{unsourced|section}} would become "This section does not cite...", for example. Works for section, list, paragraph, and most other things. This is already done to some extent (indeed, {{
unreferenced}} works this way); I just think we should formalize it and spread the
meme to all templates while we're in the process of converting them to the new look-and-feel. —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist) 12:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We can do it automagically with CSS. Your discussion here made me think. For those article message boxes who do not categorise differently for "article" or "section" then it would be nice to use one single template and automate the wording. As DragonHawk suggested a parameter is nice, but doing it automatically is even nicer. So I asked around and we solved it! We can make the wording change only using CSS code depending on if the text is in section 0 (page head) or in any other section. But it is an ugly hack so I don't know if we should use it. If you want to take a look see the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Detect section in CSS? and my test page. For new browsers that support this users will only see "This article needs ..." or "This section needs ..." while the older browsers will still see "This article or section needs ..." -- David Göthberg 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Should transwiki templates (the Copy to XXX variety) be standardized? These are along the lines of AFD or PROD templates (and it seems like those are going to be standardized). So are transwiki templates included in the new system? Gracenotes T § 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
{remove indent} I see some of the speedy got red lines all ready but it does not look like anyone is doing the PRODs yet. It would seem to me they should be red. Jeepday ( talk) 06:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
A shortlist of the ongoing threads so that I (we) don't have to scan down the whole page each time. Please add any links or requests for assistance below.
From what I can gather, we're basically feature-complete and ready to go with David Göthberg's implementation ( Wikipedia:Template standardisation/issuebox demo)? Once the code has been added to the common.css, let us gnomes know (and show us an example transition diff) so that we can get busy updating the templates themselves. :) -- Quiddity 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In order to avoid caching and refreshing troubles it might be an idea to update the CSS file a short while before changing the templates. Should we go with a CSS update of 9pm tonight with template updates commencing 24 hours later (on the 10th)? Such a rollout would help us to get together and update the templates in one big operation after having identified any problem templates (ie. those that we are unsure of their category).
That is unless anyone thinks there is more to discuss. violet/riga (t) 08:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Please add/strike anything:
I'm in the process of creating a list of templates that we can standardize. (Will add update when done.) There are a lot, but with enough work, it's more than doable :) I also plan on creating a page for coordination, drafting, color coding for specific templates, etc. The means of implementation is coming along well, so it's time we got to implementing it! Gracenotes T § 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I love the templates, but I have 2 problems with the templates. 1) I think they'd look better and less disjointed if the colour code was on both sides of the template, instead of just on the left side. 2) I'm red/green colour blind and the top two template colours (Asumingly red and orange?) are too similar and too hard to tell apart from each other. Why not have the top one black and the second one red? Or maybe move the colours up one respectively and have the bottom template for mergers etc white? A similar problem would arise if you had yellow/green, but you don;'t, so the red/orange is the only problem. Despite this, I fully support the proposal; I think it's a great idea. You have my support whether you decide to fix these problems or not. Cheers, Spawn Man 23:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Spawn Man: Your own monobook.css is a page that holds a CSS style sheet specially for you. (If/when you are logged in.) That is a page that overrides the colour and design settings of Wikipedia. Normally that page is empty but users can add their own CSS code there to get the looks and colours they prefer. To do such overriding is called "skinning", as in "putting on a new skin". You don't really need to understand how all that works, guys like me can help you code it up and make it very easy to use, as long as guys like you help out with testing and explanations what you see and not see. This sounds like a worthwhile little project. Perhaps we can make a page about it where we do something like this:
If you are red/green colour blind then cut and paste the code below to your monobook.css page and many things on Wikipedia will change to colours that are better for you:
Lots and lots of CSS code
If you are blue/yellow colour blind then cut and paste this code instead:
Lots and lots of CSS code
What do you think? Don't expect too much from it, since most things on Wikipedia is not built to be skinnable. But at least our new article message boxes were built from bottom up to be very skinnable.
I don't have the time for the next three weeks or so to do this but I would like to do it. The reason actually is that I am busy with making the navigation boxes here on Wikipedia fully skinnable...
Of course, there might be others around that might be interested in taking on this project? And you probably should ask/search around and see if other colour blind people haven't already created and maintains such CSS code for Wikipedia.
Of course, our article message boxes will also have little images and a lot of text, so the colours on them really isn't that important. And a funny side note: I have special colour seeing to, I have a kind of colour filtering ability which sort of means I see more things than other people. Which means I often suck at judging which colour combinations other people will like.
-- David Göthberg 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(←)Sorry my earlier comment was so terse, but I had to run. This is actually a pretty serious concern that
User:Spawn Man raises. This isn't probably the best place to deal with it, but it is worthwhile having a set of skins for
colour-blind individuals. Obviously using the ANSI standards is great for normal-sighted people, but colour-blindness (especially red-green colorblindness: >5% 8-10% of males) is quite common. As
User:Davidgothberg mentioned, these new templates will allow people to easily override the colours.
Usability WikiProject may be useful for coordinating this. See also
Wikipedia:Accessibility. --
Flyguy649
talk
contribs 03:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
white - gray - black - blue - light blue - red - light red (pink)
I had to change the CSS code due to the {{ shortcut}} boxes interfering with our article message boxes. (They are evil I say!) This really is just a problem when our message boxes are used on project pages that use the shortcut box. But unfortunately that does occur a lot. Like our own Wikipedia:Template standardisation. On top it has a shortcut box and a message box that I think will become an "article notice box".
1. I removed the "clear: both;
". We don't really need that one anyway.
2. I changed the "margin: 0 0 0 10%;
" to "margin: 0 auto;
". That means we loose backwards compatibility. In older browsers the message boxes now will align to the far left, slightly ugly but works. But in all new web browsers the shortcut boxes now will not cover part of the first message box in lower screen resolutions (Firefox) or push the first message box down below the shortcut box (Opera). Instead the first message box will move a bit to the left to leave room for the shortcut box. It's an ugly compromise, I know. If any one has a better suggestion, please tell.
I made a test example at Wikipedia:Template_standardisation/issuebox_demo#Testing.
The CSS code now is version 0.9.
-- David Göthberg 05:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
margin: 0 0 0 10%;
" or keep using "margin: 0 auto;
"? Any comments, anyone?margin: 0 0 0 10%;
" since the shortcut box problem is solved. And documented it at {{
ambox}}. If we change our mind that does not affect deployment and Wikipedia caching, since it is only in the CSS code.margin: 0 auto;
". Why do we even try to be backwards compatible with old browsers?table.ambox
class in
MediaWiki:Common.css to have the margin code "margin: 0 auto;
", and remove the comment next to that line since then the comment is no longer true. This does not entirely solve that problem but it mitigates it a bit since it allows the boxes to move to the left if needed.margin:0 auto
it still overlaps on small screens like mine, while clear:both
would give lots of whitespace on larger screens.
Anomie 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)As far as I can see, there are no objections or any other opposition to this proposal here or in the archive, and there is plenty of very strong enthusiasm. The only whiff of dissent I could find was Father Goose's concern about whether merges should have their own color. I thought I would never see the day that anything, let alone a change as major as this, would achieve actual consensus. Good work, people. ← BenB4 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, I've now copied the relevant CSS code to MediaWiki:Common.css. This means that {{ ambox}} will now work properly for all users (at least once they bypass their cache). -- ais523 17:43, 14 September 2007 ( U T C)
Great work so far everyone. I'm very sorry but I don't think I'll be able to help implement this and change the templates in the coming days; good luck to those that will be. Explanation on my user page for those that need to know my off-wiki reason. violet/riga (t) 17:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought it might be an idea for Admins who can help change protected templates to be listed here. Remove if you feel this is useless. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ Articleissues}} combines lots of different templates - does it cause a problem with our colour-coding? violet/riga (t) 18:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Ambox should probably be semi/fully/cascading protected now. Lots of potential mischief otherwise ;) I'll presume there are admins watching here who can answer and act, rather than my taking the request to the formal process page.. -- Quiddity 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Current sport now converted. Look good? (Is that the first??) I'll be back in an hour to start working wholesale on everything else... :) -- Quiddity 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone please check Template:Unreferencedsection for colour. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Cross them off as they're done:
I'm not sure about some of the decisions I've made regarding serious vs content issues, e.g. is {{ totally-disputed}} serious or just content? (so feel free to check and correct anything).
I haven't been converting all the docs to {{ /doc}} or {{ template doc}} yet either. I need to re-read all the instructions and current-best-practices before I add that to the workload... (wow, we have a lot of templates ;) -- Quiddity 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, my hands hurt now! I'm done for the night. Someone else take over.
We need an admin for {{ Unreferenced}} and {{ nofootnotes}} and {{ POV}}. -- Quiddity 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ambox | type = content | text = <span class="plainlinks">'''This {{{1|article}}} does not cite any [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|references or sources]].'''<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] by adding citations to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]. ([[Help:Contents|help]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|get involved!]])<br />[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Unverifiable]] material may be challenged and removed.<br /> {{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.}}</small></span> <includeonly>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles lacking sources from {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles lacking sources]]}}[[Category:All articles lacking sources]]</includeonly> }}
Should we be going live with this if the default monobook stuff isn't changed yet? -- Ned Scott 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I made a draft at User:Funpika/Drafts/db-meta for a converted version of Template:Db-meta. If db-meta is converted then all of the speedy templates should be automatically converted. Fun Pika 01:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the proposal for the project namespace tags to be converted going to go ahead? There is already a thread above, but I thought this might get a little more attention if it's placed down here. Sebi [talk] 03:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess some of you might have noticed that some of the default images right now from time to time disappear? That's not a bug in our code, that's an old bug in MediaWiki. I have seen it for years. Usually the image comes back by itself after some time. (The yellow broom icon just came back.) I guess the reason it suddenly happened to several of our images now is that we cause so high load on them right now. So, there's no reason to panic. -- David Göthberg 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no agreement about adding icons to templates with the upgrade to ambox, but I find that at least two templates at least one of which has a long history of rejecting icon usage has received a bonus icon in the deal {{ Unreferenced}} and {{ Unreferencedsection}}. Does any one have comment about this bonus deal? Jeepday ( talk) 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that many templates used the plainlinks class to hide the external link icon. Now with this, that icon is coming back again. Can someone perhaps introduce a plainlinks parameter? Harryboyles 04:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Templates should be of a standard width as well, depending on what type of template. Nothing like seeing a bunch of varying-width templates stacked on top of each other to boil my blood. MessedRocker ( talk) 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk to User:CapitalR who has been merging the several different Navbox templates we have. The problem with info boxes, is people pack them tight, and if your font size is different, the infobox width very often gets overridden. ← BenB4 21:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Good work you guys! The new templates look great. However, what stands out to me the most is the inconsistent styling of the icons. Maybe that could the next issue this project takes on, at least for the default icons. Or maybe just a style guide for future icon creation, like size, colors, shadows, whatever. Another thing I noticed is, unlike the examples shown on Wikipedia:Template standardisation, the templates are missing a boder around the color part. This could be intentional, but I think it looks better with the complete border. Another idea would be to make the border match the color of side bar. Either way it should have a complete border. These are just minor issues compared to the huge improvement you've already made. Sorry if these things were already discussed, first time here. - Rocket000 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The old templates had a tinted background, which made them stand out from the article. These ones don't seem to and look like part of the article text, at least where I've just spotted one. I prefer the old version. I think this needs wider discussion before it's implemented as it affects a huge number of articles and users. Tyrenius 05:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
<div style="background-color: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||#f8fcff|#white}};">
I just love the new templates that have been upgraded! They are so much more visually appealing. Good job on this! Excellently done, wish I could help! Ariel ♥ Gold 05:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No no, don't let one tiny puny incident scare you off. We programmers experience such things every day, it is part of the learning process. And we need more skilled coders here at Wikipedia, so please keep on learning! Of course, it seems we are in even greater need of good graphics artists. -- David Göthberg 09:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Will somebody who can decipher it convert {{ Cleanup-reason}}? The HTML commentsare giving me a headache... Circeus 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What about colorblind users? Miranda 06:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking, that while colour-codes might be useful, those will be only useful for people who know about the codes. And those who don't know the meaning about the codes won't have an idea, what is the purpose of the code.
Maybe we should make it possible to click on the colour-codes, probably by using the {{
click}}
template. When clicked, you would be taken onto the page, what would the colour code mean.
Not only that it would extinquish the thirst of curiousity, it would also help colour-blind people, as told above. And even faster, when the mouse is pointed over the colour-code, you would get a title header, something like "Red colour-code is tagged over serious notices", without a need to click the colour-code box.
And how is the clicking made possible, a simple box of a single color, best stored in an SVG image format, would be replaced in place of the colour code, then scaled down to fit best in the box.
I was thinking something like this:
This page may meet Wikipedia’s
criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is a very short article providing little or no context ( CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever ( CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). Please consider placing {{subst:empty-warn|Template talk:Ambox/Archive 5}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author. |
Please feel free to change the code, as I created this for example purposes only. ~Iceshark7 07:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Great work on all the templates. The color codes make checking up on issues within the article really easy and they look quite nice. -- Hdt83 Chat 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The bright color bars on the new versions of the templates are very distracting. Please restore the old versions. Badagnani 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Prior to converting to ambox, Template:AfDM used class="boilerplate ..." and id="afd". Would it be feasible to include optional class and/or id parameters in Template:ambox to allow templates to continue to use their old CSS classes/ids in the ambox-generated table? Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes needs updated if we toss all these old classes out. --- RockMFR 08:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Colour? Red? violet/riga (t) 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You guys need to slow down your template conversion. The job queue length is currently pinned at what seems to be max what Wikipedia can take: 1,235,721. -- David Göthberg 10:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
the wub and ArielGold: From irc.freenode.net, #wikimedia-tech: "Topic is 'db/image problems for some wikis, being looked at | Up | 35k! | Site operation issues" In other words, just as we noticed here. -- David Göthberg 12:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
User:SMcCandlish just made {{ Hoax}} red and added it as a red example in the {{ ambox}} documentation. I find that a tough one, my first instinct said it should be orange. Now I don't know for sure. What do others think? -- David Göthberg 11:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Articleissues and stacked cleanup templates now take up roughly the same amount of space. Should articleissues be considered obsolete at this point, and phased out in favor of the more clear and color-coded stacked cleanup templates? MrZaius talk 11:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm impressed to see all the work that's gone on here and was wondering if you could recommend someone who might want to come on Wikipedia Weekly podcast to discuss the changes. Cheers, Witty Lama 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
These were/are fine, have been used for a long time with no problem, and should not be chucked out so quickly. They have colours that integrate with the rest of the wiki colour scheme - unlike the new versions - and are easily recognisable. They are actually a much better visual communication than the new versions. Tyrenius 12:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the Globalize template and its sub-templates have been amended to type "style", when the article of this talk page, plus pure common sense would suggest it would fall under "content". Could a bot adjust the sub-templates? Bungle ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
With the recent changes (which I think improve the appearance, BTW), the protection templates no longer match the others. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, where I noticed it first. Has this been discussed already? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think protection templates are an easy case. They don't say anything is wrong with the article and needs fixing so they should not be yellow or orange, and they don't say that the article should (perhaps) be deleted, so not red either, and not be merged, split or transwikied, so not purple either. Protection templates just give notice about that the article is locked. So they are a typical case of "article notice" boxes = blue. At least according to how we intended with this project. -- David Göthberg 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The color should be red - protection is a serious matter, not a minor notice. The templates really should be standardized - see the current version of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware of the following:
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:13 15 September 2007 (GMT)..
It might be worth mentioning a stacking order somewhere, suggesting that red templates go at the top etc.. Obviously not mandating it, but just suggesting it. violet/riga (t) 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm going to be buried in WP:ILIKEITs for disagreeing with the new templates, but I think this is a trainwreck. First, I'm sure the people who made the MonoBook skin weren't involved, because the inconsistency is glaring. It looks exactly like something that amateurs would make,
Don't get me wrong, the old look wasn't perfect, and I understand the templates were not always consistent, but I regret this change very much. If this was to be done properly, it should have been with distinctive and consistent icons and unintrusive backgrounds, not ad hoc color bars and dissimilar icons. Reinis talk 16:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a problem seeing the correct template design, and I think it's very important to let folks know about clearing the cache – it's right at the start of the project page, so I don't know how we can make it more obvious. (Maybe a template at the top of this talk page?) Speaking of which, why is the template at the top of the project page not standardized like the others?
I generally like the new design, and while I agree that they don't exactly mesh with the rest of the MonoBook style, I think that's okay – they're designed to call attention to the fact that the article doesn't mesh with the standards of Wikipedia. So maybe it's good that the templates are a bit jarring.
I'll also add that while I think the color scheme makes sense (especially when a user reads the explanation on the project page), I don't think that they are (as violet/riga said) "obvious". I can see a user being somewhat confused by two orange and a blue at the top of a page. Still, the colors serve a purpose and do a good job of tying similar kinds of templates together. I think in the long run this is a positive step. Thanks to everyone who's worked so hard on them. – Scartol · Talk 18:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Monobook is minimalist? Tell that to modem users. The old templates had different widths, different backgrounds, some of which were relatively low contrast. The opinions are running about 40-3, so if you want it changed, in all practicality you better design an alternative which can gain the consensus of the community. I'm not ignoring you because you aren't willing to come up with an alternative, but I'm just pointing out the facts of consensus. ← BenB4 21:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey there.
I've just converted my bot's templates, and I was wondering if there were any SVG artists around (or a place to beg and grovel to such) that could draw up a "copyright problem" icon? I thinking a button/disk like that's a copyright sign with a floating red exclamation point hovering over the upper-right quadrant? I'm a fairly good pixel jockey, but I neither have the tools nor the experience to mess with SVG. — Coren (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
While the blue background looks great on article pages, internal templates such as Template:Template doc page viewed directly don't look quite right. Could we add some sort of switch into Template:Ambox so that it uses a nice gray color like #f9f9f9 for pages outside the main namespace? Here's a screenshot of how that would look:
— Remember the dot ( talk) 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just went ahead and converted all non-protected, non-tfd templates I could find. — Coren (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a few protected templates left, I think. Admin help requested for: {{ afd}}, {{ rfd}}, {{ Uncategorized}}. -- Quiddity 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys. What a wet blanket this is. Soon Wikipedia will be as "pretty" as Wikia… Reinis talk 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thumbs up! Very good job people, I hate centered text, and the color bars are a brilliant idea. But I was initially confused and angry about such a big change not being announced in the watchlist alerts.. I never had any idea that all this was going on and I would have liked to make suggestions and things. Oh well, it turned out good -- froth t 18:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not move the icon to the RHS to provide balance to the colour bar? Rich Farmbrough, 19:18 15 September 2007 (GMT).
I miss the old grey AfD boxes... 68.39.174.238 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Someone just walked behind me and reverted every transition to ambox I had done to templates listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup that were meant for talk page. Does he/she know something I don't (that is, are talk space templates excluded for the transition), or was I correct in editing them? — Coren (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)