![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
... for getting this to this stage. It works and it addresses all the concerns raised. Well done! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I love it, except that it takes 100% of the column width on what I thought was a fairly wide window. Is anyone opposed to the (supposed) site-wide standard of 85%? The scroll bar is clear no matter how thin it's rendered. ← BenB4 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It looked much better when it was wider. Is there any reason it can't just be the same width as the all the other cleanup templates (whatever that may be)? Bradford44 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought 85% was the standard, there is a huge, site-wide vote at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/Archive 2005-05-24. ← BenB4 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added closing div tags so tha the html produced is balanced. — Duae Quartunciae ( talk · cont) 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to be bold, and changed the height of the scroll box from 65px to 10ex. This way, the actually displayed height adapts to the current font size. My eyesight isn't the best, so I have have the browser font size turned up a couple of notches. With the old fixed-pixel height, the scroll box was almost unreadable, but with the font-relative height, I can about three lines. (Could stand to be increased, I think, but that's not important.)
Hope I didn't break anything. -- Wasell (D) 05:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried including the "article" parameter, but it didn't seem to work. I did it like so:
{{Articleissues|article|<other parms> ... }}
.but the result still read "This article or section ...". Did I use it wrong, or is there a problem with the template? + ILike2BeAnonymous 17:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
article
parameter if you use the template for the entire article, and section
if it is used only for a particular section", without any niceties like what the exact syntax is. That might be good to put in there. +
ILike2BeAnonymous
04:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)article=y
(same for section
); "y
" can actually be any (non-space) character.) +
ILike2BeAnonymous
03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Does this box have to both scroll and hide?
Let's please get rid of the scroll bar on the tiny frame—I can't even read the first two items without giving it a tickle. If an article has three issues they should all be visible without screwing around with browser interface elements. If it has eight, then hopefully someone gets around to improving it right away. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 01:00 Z
I like the scroll bar, but I agree it makes the [hide] feature redundant. ← BenB4 04:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone ever want to [hide] it, the way it is now? ← BenB4 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I know one of the arguments against {{ scrollref}} was that it was incompatible with screenreaders--they would only read the portion of the scroll box which was visible and not the rest. Has the functionality of this template been tested with that? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten rid of the ugly scrollbar. There are clearly a lot of people against it. Another solution might be possible but I'm not sure that it's required. violet/riga (t) 15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess this is the recent change? OK, I probably won't use this template then, which provided a nice way to summarize the issues without completely losing our readers; we can't be taking up half a page to list issues. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Can {{ introrewrite}} be added to the possibilities? I need it at Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please fix my attempt at adding Nofootnote which isn't working at Omar Torrijos. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-20 t11:48z
This went from being a managable box to an embarrassment at Asperger syndrome; where did the nice small box go ? If I have to take up half a page listing all the article issues, I'll just forego the articleissues template, pick the worst issue and leave one tag only. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm tired of watching the edit warring, let's simplify the issues, and settle this by attempting to establish a consensus. I believe that that scrollbar should be removed, for the following reasons (virtually all of which I am paraphrasing from previous comments):
The scrollbar should be eliminated, and the box uncollapsed by default, but collapsable. Bradford44 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Seriously - we don't need to hide this template - and it's ridiculous that people think we need to. No other clean up template has a "hide" function - because clean up templates are meant to always be displayed - otherwise, we would put them on talk pages. So rather than figure out a way for people to ignore the issues on this template - why don't we all go around and actually try to fix an article.-- daniel folsom 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to bring back Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article and get that going properly in an effort to make this place look much better and more organised. It would involve too much time though and would take more work than I'm wanting to put in right now. It's a shame that we have to live with horribly boxy, non-standard width templates all over our articles. violet/riga (t) 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
A)There is no longer such thing as a "standard width". Almost every template is different. B) Boxy? You want circles?-- daniel folsom 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the coding - an extra break tag I expect. I'm looking for it now but any help would obviously be appreciated - for example see Third World.-- daniel folsom 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This template merely makes it easier for those who, while doing no constructive work, derive great satisfaction of telling others they are wrong to feel good. All too often, we already see busybodies going tagging articles with these ugly templates and making no effort to explain their precise complaints on the talk page, leaving those who would like to help having to completely digest the entire article and then GUESS as to what the tagger was complaining about. It can take 10 seconds to tag and article and hours to fix the problem, but the tagger has a self-delusional perception that he is some kind of hero when, in reality, he did NOTHING to improve the article. This is just a way for some smug taggers to mark a lot of articles and feel proud of themselves for really have shown those who created the article who wrong they are. Some juvenile editors get a lot of satisfaction in doing that. This kind of feedback belongs on the TALK page, not in the article. Just go look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Articleissues and tell me how often you see a detailed entry on the corresponding TALK page about the details of the complaints. Many of the articles so-tagged are long (40K of more). Yet this big, dumb ugly template shoves itself right upfront and declares "this article stinks". This is not constructive. How many of the taggers have actually ever done the WORK of fixing the problem and then REMOVING such a tag? Probably very few. This is a race to the bottom: it encourages the scenario of all chiefs and no indians, because the moment these taggers control what is at the top of an article who quality you actually care about, then they are in control and you have to struggle GUESSING as to what they were complaining about. It is a "classroom" mentality: everybody wants to be the "teacher", trying to shove everyone else into the subordinate role of student. This is terrible idea.-- Francis45 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind - apparently you're a sock.-- daniel folsom 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok - let's take a look at some temps we have and their purpose:
Template | Purpose |
---|---|
Template:Citations missing | Missing citations AND/OR footnotes (i.e. inline citations) |
Template:Nofootnote | Missing in text citations |
Template:Refimprove | Missing citations/Needs more references (same thing) |
Template:Not verified | Redirects to Template:Refimprove |
Template:Citation style | Given the OR clause in Citations missing this really isn't needed - since articles should use the footnote system anyway |
This is ridiculous - these templates essentially do the same thing. I propose that we keep Template:Citations missing & refimprove. Not verified i'm removing now since it doesn't even exist any more. So the ones to debate is Nofootnote.-- daniel folsom 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Nofootnote just isn't worth it - it's essentially a more specific citations missing - and that's a bad thing because that means there are some articles citations missing can be applied to that nofootnote can't.-- daniel folsom 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I think the ones that need to be removed are {{ citations missing}} and {{ not verified}}. I disagree with your summary of what each of the other templates are used for:
These are clearly very different and specific problems. It is possible to have all of these problems simultaneously, or any combination of them, or only one of them and not the others. Bradford44 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
To compromise I'm going to find a way to combine the templates - where it'll still be ok if people use one name instead of the other - just give me a few days.-- daniel folsom 21:38, 22 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
... for getting this to this stage. It works and it addresses all the concerns raised. Well done! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I love it, except that it takes 100% of the column width on what I thought was a fairly wide window. Is anyone opposed to the (supposed) site-wide standard of 85%? The scroll bar is clear no matter how thin it's rendered. ← BenB4 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It looked much better when it was wider. Is there any reason it can't just be the same width as the all the other cleanup templates (whatever that may be)? Bradford44 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought 85% was the standard, there is a huge, site-wide vote at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/Archive 2005-05-24. ← BenB4 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added closing div tags so tha the html produced is balanced. — Duae Quartunciae ( talk · cont) 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to be bold, and changed the height of the scroll box from 65px to 10ex. This way, the actually displayed height adapts to the current font size. My eyesight isn't the best, so I have have the browser font size turned up a couple of notches. With the old fixed-pixel height, the scroll box was almost unreadable, but with the font-relative height, I can about three lines. (Could stand to be increased, I think, but that's not important.)
Hope I didn't break anything. -- Wasell (D) 05:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried including the "article" parameter, but it didn't seem to work. I did it like so:
{{Articleissues|article|<other parms> ... }}
.but the result still read "This article or section ...". Did I use it wrong, or is there a problem with the template? + ILike2BeAnonymous 17:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
article
parameter if you use the template for the entire article, and section
if it is used only for a particular section", without any niceties like what the exact syntax is. That might be good to put in there. +
ILike2BeAnonymous
04:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)article=y
(same for section
); "y
" can actually be any (non-space) character.) +
ILike2BeAnonymous
03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Does this box have to both scroll and hide?
Let's please get rid of the scroll bar on the tiny frame—I can't even read the first two items without giving it a tickle. If an article has three issues they should all be visible without screwing around with browser interface elements. If it has eight, then hopefully someone gets around to improving it right away. — Michael Z. 2007-08-18 01:00 Z
I like the scroll bar, but I agree it makes the [hide] feature redundant. ← BenB4 04:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone ever want to [hide] it, the way it is now? ← BenB4 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I know one of the arguments against {{ scrollref}} was that it was incompatible with screenreaders--they would only read the portion of the scroll box which was visible and not the rest. Has the functionality of this template been tested with that? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten rid of the ugly scrollbar. There are clearly a lot of people against it. Another solution might be possible but I'm not sure that it's required. violet/riga (t) 15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess this is the recent change? OK, I probably won't use this template then, which provided a nice way to summarize the issues without completely losing our readers; we can't be taking up half a page to list issues. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Can {{ introrewrite}} be added to the possibilities? I need it at Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please fix my attempt at adding Nofootnote which isn't working at Omar Torrijos. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-20 t11:48z
This went from being a managable box to an embarrassment at Asperger syndrome; where did the nice small box go ? If I have to take up half a page listing all the article issues, I'll just forego the articleissues template, pick the worst issue and leave one tag only. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm tired of watching the edit warring, let's simplify the issues, and settle this by attempting to establish a consensus. I believe that that scrollbar should be removed, for the following reasons (virtually all of which I am paraphrasing from previous comments):
The scrollbar should be eliminated, and the box uncollapsed by default, but collapsable. Bradford44 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Seriously - we don't need to hide this template - and it's ridiculous that people think we need to. No other clean up template has a "hide" function - because clean up templates are meant to always be displayed - otherwise, we would put them on talk pages. So rather than figure out a way for people to ignore the issues on this template - why don't we all go around and actually try to fix an article.-- daniel folsom 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to bring back Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article and get that going properly in an effort to make this place look much better and more organised. It would involve too much time though and would take more work than I'm wanting to put in right now. It's a shame that we have to live with horribly boxy, non-standard width templates all over our articles. violet/riga (t) 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
A)There is no longer such thing as a "standard width". Almost every template is different. B) Boxy? You want circles?-- daniel folsom 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the coding - an extra break tag I expect. I'm looking for it now but any help would obviously be appreciated - for example see Third World.-- daniel folsom 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This template merely makes it easier for those who, while doing no constructive work, derive great satisfaction of telling others they are wrong to feel good. All too often, we already see busybodies going tagging articles with these ugly templates and making no effort to explain their precise complaints on the talk page, leaving those who would like to help having to completely digest the entire article and then GUESS as to what the tagger was complaining about. It can take 10 seconds to tag and article and hours to fix the problem, but the tagger has a self-delusional perception that he is some kind of hero when, in reality, he did NOTHING to improve the article. This is just a way for some smug taggers to mark a lot of articles and feel proud of themselves for really have shown those who created the article who wrong they are. Some juvenile editors get a lot of satisfaction in doing that. This kind of feedback belongs on the TALK page, not in the article. Just go look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Articleissues and tell me how often you see a detailed entry on the corresponding TALK page about the details of the complaints. Many of the articles so-tagged are long (40K of more). Yet this big, dumb ugly template shoves itself right upfront and declares "this article stinks". This is not constructive. How many of the taggers have actually ever done the WORK of fixing the problem and then REMOVING such a tag? Probably very few. This is a race to the bottom: it encourages the scenario of all chiefs and no indians, because the moment these taggers control what is at the top of an article who quality you actually care about, then they are in control and you have to struggle GUESSING as to what they were complaining about. It is a "classroom" mentality: everybody wants to be the "teacher", trying to shove everyone else into the subordinate role of student. This is terrible idea.-- Francis45 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind - apparently you're a sock.-- daniel folsom 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok - let's take a look at some temps we have and their purpose:
Template | Purpose |
---|---|
Template:Citations missing | Missing citations AND/OR footnotes (i.e. inline citations) |
Template:Nofootnote | Missing in text citations |
Template:Refimprove | Missing citations/Needs more references (same thing) |
Template:Not verified | Redirects to Template:Refimprove |
Template:Citation style | Given the OR clause in Citations missing this really isn't needed - since articles should use the footnote system anyway |
This is ridiculous - these templates essentially do the same thing. I propose that we keep Template:Citations missing & refimprove. Not verified i'm removing now since it doesn't even exist any more. So the ones to debate is Nofootnote.-- daniel folsom 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Nofootnote just isn't worth it - it's essentially a more specific citations missing - and that's a bad thing because that means there are some articles citations missing can be applied to that nofootnote can't.-- daniel folsom 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I think the ones that need to be removed are {{ citations missing}} and {{ not verified}}. I disagree with your summary of what each of the other templates are used for:
These are clearly very different and specific problems. It is possible to have all of these problems simultaneously, or any combination of them, or only one of them and not the others. Bradford44 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
To compromise I'm going to find a way to combine the templates - where it'll still be ok if people use one name instead of the other - just give me a few days.-- daniel folsom 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)