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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
This section contains refactored discussion from archived discussions on this page.
Long ago we went through a process of standardising the templates for talk pages. This went very well and we have a theme that means we have standard colours, widths and styles on talk pages. But it was never translated to the article pages. This is a shame because we should be trying to ensure that we have a professional and aesthetically sound scheme in place. Just after the talk page standardisation I started to work on this but ran out of steam.
Take a look at User:Flamurai/TS/blanca, a scheme designed by User:Flamurai (we may wish to discount the spoiler notice). I think this would be a brilliant thing to implement for the following reasons:
I suggest that we look at changing over to a scheme like that. Thoughts? violet/riga (t) 10:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There's something to the idea, but I don't find it aesthetically pleasing at all. That thick colored bar on one side is totally visually imbalanced. I'd be happier with a bar on the bottom, or a thinner colored border all the way around, or slightly thinner bars on both the left and right side.-- Father Goose 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Great to see such support for this. I tried changing over {{ cleanup}} and it's quite a direct changeover except for the class, which can be ignored and removed but would best be updated. I know also that it would take more than this to change to this new scheme as I'm sure that there will be those that revert it. Shall we start a discussion page specifically for this? violet/riga (t) 12:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And another idea: Wikipedia uses background color as a subtle cue to what part of the project you're in. Articles get a white background; everything else is blueish. Perhaps we should force the background color of these boxes to the blueish color? That would help set the box off from the overall page background, and also emphasize that the box is not really part of the article proper. Thoughts? —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist) 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. It looks like they already do this. I knew it was a good idea! :-) — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the main problems I have with the current system is the lack of a standard width. Having two templates on an article with totally different widths is really ugly and we should fix this. But what is the ideal width? 100% is probably too much, so perhaps 85% (the standard for talk page templates) would be best. violet/riga (t) 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto;"
"width: 80%; margin: 0 0 0 10%;"
The colour bar idea was originally that of User:Sparkit and the template design was implemented by User:Flamurai - credit goes to those two for their work on this. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think they look good. My only quibble that I see is with two templates of the same type (e.g. Afd and db) is that it's a bit hard to see where one ends. Perhaps having the bar at left extend only the middle 90%? -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
They look great! I don't have much else to say, but since this is the "comments" section, I just want to voice my support for this proposal :) Would there be any other "serious problem" templates other than deletion related? I assume templates like {{ Notability}} would be orange, right? and that's the most serious non-deletion template I can think of. Also, should merge really be orange? It seems more like blue. Generally the reader shouldn't be too concerned about a merge. -- Ybbor Talk 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is what I had in mind earlier: [1]. Slightly thinner color bars on both left and right sides. Better visual balance, IMO.
Bars thinned slightly more to reduce the "bolding" effect: [2].-- Father Goose 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, good work with what's been done so far. The new design looks a bit odd, because it's new, but people would get used to it eventually. I also support the idea of standarisation. One point I'd like to throw in, however (and can't seem to find it proposed already, otherwise it's worth stressing again) is that we use as much CSS power as possible. The templates should IMO have minimal defined styles, mostly classes, and actual definitions be moved to Mediawiki:Common.css. In most cases I could imagine a class="articlenotice" that defines the 80% width, centering, background, borders, etc. while the only "native" definition would be the color of the bar (but that could also probably be solved using common classes like class="articlenotice bar-serious" for the table and a definition along the lines of .bar-serious tr td:first-child { background: #CC0000; } to make the bar red). Миша 13 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know what the status of the above is? Do we need to modify Mediawiki:Common.css as part of the roll-out? Should we? Any CSS experts here who also have experience with getting Mediawiki:Common.css modified? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the work that has been suggested here to standardize templates that are used in the article space. It is clean and professional looking. I also like that that the focus is staying on formatting the template size shape and coloring without addressing the text. The text would be a topic for discussion on the individual or family template level. I might also suggest that once this proposed policy becomes policy in fact (which should happen soon I think, based on the lack of opposing voices), we consider addressing template icons here or in a similar venue. Jeepday ( talk) 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Really like the idea, but I have two quick critiques. A) Are we sure that this will stand out enough? To some extent templates are meant to attract attention ... (although frankly at the same time I really like this style - so this is more of a nonissue) B)The speedy temp is way to large - can we do anything to shorten the smaller text?-- daniel folsom 21:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone posted this proposal to the mailing list About the WikiEN-l mailing list? I don't watch the mailing list, but I know it can be an important part reaching Consensus. Everything I have seen on this talk page and else where about this proposed policy has been supportive. I think that if this well received on the mailing list and after a few more days it appears that consensus still exists this should move from proposed policy to official policy. Jeepday ( talk) 23:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This has irritated me since day one. If there is anything I can do to help the project I'll do it. I don't have an opinion on the design as long as everything is just standard. ALTON .ıl 05:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
About time, and very well done. Trying to get the wording more compact will of course have to be done template by template. Is it intended to standardize the use of icons also? DGG ( talk) 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I like where this is going, but I would like to bring up something about "current" templates. While some people often tag any article that can be "current", many people feel that something should only be tagged when being current is an issue in some way (high traffic, etc). Just calling them informational will likely encourage tagging articles that don't have an issue with being current. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I just found this discussion. I really like the ideas and new designs. Great job, everyone! • I do have the following contribution, with regard to putting them it effect: Many people are resistant to change. There is a risk that we might end up in a big storm of "What did they do to Wikipedia?! OMG WTF BBQ!!". So I think it's important to give people some warning, to ease them into the change. To that end, I suggest the following: Rig up a mock-up, with the current templates transcluded directly, and the new ones showing somehow. Put each template pair in an H2 section. Put some big text at the top explaining what's going on. Include directions on how to comment, but also include a polite reminder that "this is a discussion, not a vote". Finally, gradually post notices (staggered over many days) of the planned change at WP:VPR, the various existing template pages, and a few other key pages like WP:TMC. • I'm willing to help with the mock-up and PR campaign if you like. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so no PR campaign. :) Then let's talk technical. First: Note my comment up at #My $0.02 on CSS. Second: How do we want to do this? I'm thinking we should use meta-templates or master templates. Have one for each flavor/color. Namely: {{ seriousissue}}, {{ contentissue}}, {{ styleissue}}, {{ articlenotice}}. Then {{ db-meta}} can just start out with “{{seriousissue|'''This page may meet ...”. I suppose we could take it a step further and use one master for everything, but that might be a bit much, given WP:TCB. Thoughts? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 00:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It's possible to simplify it down to this (and possible more simple), if we used tables:
{|class="issue style-issue" |- | |class="issue-image"|[[Image:Broom icon.svg|40px]] |'''To meet Wikipedia's [[:Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|quality standards]], ... |}
That's not too complicated, in my opinion (and relies on some CSS2 features, such as the first-child selector). But a CSS solution involving <div>s could be even simpler. Gracenotes T § 01:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
{|class="issue style-issue" |- | |class="issue-image"|[[Image:Broom icon.svg|40px]] |class="issue-text"|'''To meet Wikipedia's [[:Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|quality standards]], ... |}
color-bar
class on the first one to avoid issues with IE6 not supporting :first-child
? It only needs
minor CSS changes. As for meta-templates, I don't really see the point if the table wikitext is as simple as Gracenotes suggests; the point of a meta-template would be to make it easy to adjust the wikitext at once across all templates, but there's just about nothing to adjust there.
Anomie 13:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
:first-child
... basic CSS2? Eh, I should have known, but I'm not surprised. For consistency, the class color-bar
could be changed to issue-bar
. I've tested this on my wiki-on-a-stick, and it does work. Hopefully it'll have consensus at
MediaWiki talk:Common.css if proposed.
Gracenotes
T § 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Well, using a meta template is even easier. Then making an "issue template" could be as easy as this:
{{Issuebox | type = cleanup | image = [[Image:Broom icon.svg|40px]] | text = '''To meet Wikipedia's [[:Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|quality standards]], ... }}
-- David Göthberg 00:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
table.style-issue { border-left:10px solid #fc3; }
Instead of what you use now:
table.style-issue td.issue-bar { background-color: #FFCC33; }
Oh, and why do you use the code below in your code? I didn't need it for any of my browsers.
table.issue tr { margin: 0; padding: 0; }
-- David Göthberg 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. A couple of items:
Gracenotes T § 05:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
A rough draft of {{ cleanup-vomit}}. Do you like it? ;) Gracenotes T § 04:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I really, really like this, and hope it gets implemented. I do have two questions:
1. "Note: The wording of these templates is not under discussion and will likely be older versions of the current text."
What does this line mean? Why can't we just use the current text for the new, standardized templates? Or are you just talking about the design mockups below the note? Clarify, please.
2. Do you have a list of all of the templates that will fall into each category? Which templates are serious enough to be a "serious problem"?-- Danaman5 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Be bold. Edit. User:Krator ( t c) 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
When the new messages are in place, it will be a lot easier to get consensus on changing the way they are implemented. User:Krator ( t c) 15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
So since we seem to be close to deployment I have to ask again: What short name form should we use for the CSS classes and meta template? We need to decide on a short name so we can start to code and document the CSS code and meta template in the right place, before we can deploy this. The long name seems to be article message box. Short forms used/suggested so far is:
Feel free to add any other suggestions to this numbered list.
I prefer ambox since not all article message boxes are issues, some are just notices. I find artmsgbox hard to spell when coding it but still a good second choice. -- David Göthberg 00:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ambox|parameters...}}
The last few days I have coded and tested a meta template that uses CSS classes for pretty much all its looks and that uses default images and has some other nifty features. Features that you guys have suggested here and in your demos. I have put together a demo page at Wikipedia:Template standardisation/issuebox demo. -- David Göthberg 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it time to begin placing all of the templates from Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-related namespace into one of these 4 groups? Jeepday ( talk) 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is important to separate the structure of the template from the presentation. Currently, both the CSS and the meta-template proposals fail to do this to some extent. The CSS version requires a strange empty cell just for presentation purposes, while the meta-template solution without CSS can't be customized (which is important for people who don't like the standardization but not the current design or for customized styles for use with other skins.) I propose to use a meta-template to strictly separate the content from the layout and primarly use CSS to presnt the template so the look can be customized. —
Ruud 13:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
While we are on the subject: the style templates are essentially meaningless to 99.9% of readers: they are aimed at experienced wikipedians who understand the manual of style etc. They do not indicate any problem with the page that a reader needs to be aware of. Their major impact on the project is to convince many visitors that wikipedia is rubbish; most would not have noticed any problem without the template. Hence style templates should be on the talk page not the article page. Furthermore, they should be deleted on sight unless the person placing them has (i) explained on the talk page what they think the problem is ("needs to be wikified" is far too unspecific) and (ii) given a good reason why they didn't fix it themselves instead of leaving an ugly note telling others to do the job. PaddyLeahy 20:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object this motion. Wikipedia is not written by "experienced wikipedians who understand the manual of style etc." - it is written by passing-by anonymous editors (IIRC, about 75% of all edits are done by IPs). Issue templates were designed with the following idea in mind: Not everyone may be aware of issues with the article at first glance. On the other hand, a template that stands out encourages readers to think: "Hey, maybe I could improve it?" Then they click the [edit] button which we conveniently provide to everyone for this very reason. This is how Wikipedia works. Миша 13 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. These tags are far too visible. Stub tags get a sentence at the bottom of the page with no box around it. These need no more. Put them on talk pages. If they have to be on the article page then just make them categories - a separate group of editing categories. If we want to put them in a box on the page then it should be in order to separate them from the article but lets put them at the bottom of the article and lets condense them down to one line by default and lets put the stub templates in there as well. Filceolaire 07:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so it was established at #Deployment planning that we don't exactly need a fully-fledged PR campaign, but I still think this proposal should be promoted as much as possible (in case anyone objects to this, as it will affect the whole site). It seems that notices have been placed on the WikiEN-l and at the Community Portal, but it seems more is needed. Perhaps the Signpost should be convinced to run an article? Maybe even a Request for Comment? — Jack · talk · 22:57, Saturday, 1 September 2007
I fully support this effort. How about a {{ RFCpolicy}} and a post to WP:VPP to judge consensus? ← BenB4 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Realistically, how long do you think it'll be till WP:TS is ready to implement? I'm all for starting now, but you guys seem to be debating on code. Having a look over Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-related namespace, there are literally thousands of article-space templates out there. For coding novices like myself who love this idea (and it seems I am far from alone), would it be possible to draw up an easy-to-use instruction manual for converting templates? (Say, at Wikipedia:Template standardisation/Instructions for implementation) As it would very much be in the spirit of the movement if everyone was standardising through the same method. — Jack · talk · 04:54, Monday, 3 September 2007
I just discovered that many article message boxes use two images, one on each side. For instance look at Wikipedia:Current and future event templates. I think that usage seems OK in some cases. So I am adding the option of an "imageright" to the CSS code and meta template at my article message box demo. -- David Göthberg 12:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer if we could remove the secondary images. The goal of standardization is not to change content, merely presentation For the most part, images are part of the latter category. The best part of this new system is that everything is streamlined; it flows nicely; it looks awesome! With other images, text can get out of (right) alignment. It seems somewhat frivolous to argue for their outright removal, but when standardizing, it might be reasonable. Gracenotes T § 01:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you guys brought it up I went looking for a good freely licensed globe to make a new free version of . But others beat me to it, I found this one and this one So now I use the last one in the examples at {{ ambox}}. What do you people think? I think a clock with red border might be more "urgent" just like in the old image so I probably will tinker with that. -- David Göthberg 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say, I'm in complete support of this whole proposal; particularly the colour coding (including purple for "merge"). It's a great idea - well done to those who've crafted it!-- Rambutan ( talk) 06:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now moved the meta template to {{ ambox}} and added documentation there. If someone dislikes the name "ambox" please do join in the discussion above at #Short name form. It is not to late for another name change.
I think the documentation at {{ ambox}} perhaps should stay "technical" and then we can have other documentation at Wikipedia:Template standardisation.
Could some of you guys give the documentation at {{ ambox}} a work over? I feel it needs improvement and I bet my English is funny as usual.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 22:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I changed the default image for merge/split/transwiki used by the meta template:
Previous default image. |
Newer default image. (Based on the transwiki image.) |
The old merge arrows only works for some merge cases, while I think the transwiki image works fairly well for all the cases merge/split/transwiki if people are sloppy and don't set a specific image. What do you people think?
-- David Göthberg 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
An alternative default for merge/split/transwiki. |
I changed my "paper" image to a sharper, less pastelly version since Jack asked for it. But oh, I like your version Father Goose. It looks like it means "move around" in some way, without specifying which way, which is perfect. So I went ahead and made a SVG version of your idea. But I used slightly thinner arrows more like the usual merge arrows:
SVG version based on Father Goose's image. (Now the default merge/split/transwiki image.) |
Is that one OK or are the arrows now to thin?
-- David Göthberg 05:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have rearragend the demo page as follows:
importStylesheet('Wikipedia:Template standardisation/CSS');
This significantly improves the maintenance (it's detached to a separate file) and updating by users ( WP:CACHE instead of copying the code again). Миша 13 13:35, 12 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
This section contains refactored discussion from archived discussions on this page.
Long ago we went through a process of standardising the templates for talk pages. This went very well and we have a theme that means we have standard colours, widths and styles on talk pages. But it was never translated to the article pages. This is a shame because we should be trying to ensure that we have a professional and aesthetically sound scheme in place. Just after the talk page standardisation I started to work on this but ran out of steam.
Take a look at User:Flamurai/TS/blanca, a scheme designed by User:Flamurai (we may wish to discount the spoiler notice). I think this would be a brilliant thing to implement for the following reasons:
I suggest that we look at changing over to a scheme like that. Thoughts? violet/riga (t) 10:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There's something to the idea, but I don't find it aesthetically pleasing at all. That thick colored bar on one side is totally visually imbalanced. I'd be happier with a bar on the bottom, or a thinner colored border all the way around, or slightly thinner bars on both the left and right side.-- Father Goose 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Great to see such support for this. I tried changing over {{ cleanup}} and it's quite a direct changeover except for the class, which can be ignored and removed but would best be updated. I know also that it would take more than this to change to this new scheme as I'm sure that there will be those that revert it. Shall we start a discussion page specifically for this? violet/riga (t) 12:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And another idea: Wikipedia uses background color as a subtle cue to what part of the project you're in. Articles get a white background; everything else is blueish. Perhaps we should force the background color of these boxes to the blueish color? That would help set the box off from the overall page background, and also emphasize that the box is not really part of the article proper. Thoughts? —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist) 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. It looks like they already do this. I knew it was a good idea! :-) — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the main problems I have with the current system is the lack of a standard width. Having two templates on an article with totally different widths is really ugly and we should fix this. But what is the ideal width? 100% is probably too much, so perhaps 85% (the standard for talk page templates) would be best. violet/riga (t) 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto;"
"width: 80%; margin: 0 0 0 10%;"
The colour bar idea was originally that of User:Sparkit and the template design was implemented by User:Flamurai - credit goes to those two for their work on this. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think they look good. My only quibble that I see is with two templates of the same type (e.g. Afd and db) is that it's a bit hard to see where one ends. Perhaps having the bar at left extend only the middle 90%? -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
They look great! I don't have much else to say, but since this is the "comments" section, I just want to voice my support for this proposal :) Would there be any other "serious problem" templates other than deletion related? I assume templates like {{ Notability}} would be orange, right? and that's the most serious non-deletion template I can think of. Also, should merge really be orange? It seems more like blue. Generally the reader shouldn't be too concerned about a merge. -- Ybbor Talk 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is what I had in mind earlier: [1]. Slightly thinner color bars on both left and right sides. Better visual balance, IMO.
Bars thinned slightly more to reduce the "bolding" effect: [2].-- Father Goose 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, good work with what's been done so far. The new design looks a bit odd, because it's new, but people would get used to it eventually. I also support the idea of standarisation. One point I'd like to throw in, however (and can't seem to find it proposed already, otherwise it's worth stressing again) is that we use as much CSS power as possible. The templates should IMO have minimal defined styles, mostly classes, and actual definitions be moved to Mediawiki:Common.css. In most cases I could imagine a class="articlenotice" that defines the 80% width, centering, background, borders, etc. while the only "native" definition would be the color of the bar (but that could also probably be solved using common classes like class="articlenotice bar-serious" for the table and a definition along the lines of .bar-serious tr td:first-child { background: #CC0000; } to make the bar red). Миша 13 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know what the status of the above is? Do we need to modify Mediawiki:Common.css as part of the roll-out? Should we? Any CSS experts here who also have experience with getting Mediawiki:Common.css modified? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the work that has been suggested here to standardize templates that are used in the article space. It is clean and professional looking. I also like that that the focus is staying on formatting the template size shape and coloring without addressing the text. The text would be a topic for discussion on the individual or family template level. I might also suggest that once this proposed policy becomes policy in fact (which should happen soon I think, based on the lack of opposing voices), we consider addressing template icons here or in a similar venue. Jeepday ( talk) 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Really like the idea, but I have two quick critiques. A) Are we sure that this will stand out enough? To some extent templates are meant to attract attention ... (although frankly at the same time I really like this style - so this is more of a nonissue) B)The speedy temp is way to large - can we do anything to shorten the smaller text?-- daniel folsom 21:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone posted this proposal to the mailing list About the WikiEN-l mailing list? I don't watch the mailing list, but I know it can be an important part reaching Consensus. Everything I have seen on this talk page and else where about this proposed policy has been supportive. I think that if this well received on the mailing list and after a few more days it appears that consensus still exists this should move from proposed policy to official policy. Jeepday ( talk) 23:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This has irritated me since day one. If there is anything I can do to help the project I'll do it. I don't have an opinion on the design as long as everything is just standard. ALTON .ıl 05:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
About time, and very well done. Trying to get the wording more compact will of course have to be done template by template. Is it intended to standardize the use of icons also? DGG ( talk) 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I like where this is going, but I would like to bring up something about "current" templates. While some people often tag any article that can be "current", many people feel that something should only be tagged when being current is an issue in some way (high traffic, etc). Just calling them informational will likely encourage tagging articles that don't have an issue with being current. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I just found this discussion. I really like the ideas and new designs. Great job, everyone! • I do have the following contribution, with regard to putting them it effect: Many people are resistant to change. There is a risk that we might end up in a big storm of "What did they do to Wikipedia?! OMG WTF BBQ!!". So I think it's important to give people some warning, to ease them into the change. To that end, I suggest the following: Rig up a mock-up, with the current templates transcluded directly, and the new ones showing somehow. Put each template pair in an H2 section. Put some big text at the top explaining what's going on. Include directions on how to comment, but also include a polite reminder that "this is a discussion, not a vote". Finally, gradually post notices (staggered over many days) of the planned change at WP:VPR, the various existing template pages, and a few other key pages like WP:TMC. • I'm willing to help with the mock-up and PR campaign if you like. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so no PR campaign. :) Then let's talk technical. First: Note my comment up at #My $0.02 on CSS. Second: How do we want to do this? I'm thinking we should use meta-templates or master templates. Have one for each flavor/color. Namely: {{ seriousissue}}, {{ contentissue}}, {{ styleissue}}, {{ articlenotice}}. Then {{ db-meta}} can just start out with “{{seriousissue|'''This page may meet ...”. I suppose we could take it a step further and use one master for everything, but that might be a bit much, given WP:TCB. Thoughts? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 00:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It's possible to simplify it down to this (and possible more simple), if we used tables:
{|class="issue style-issue" |- | |class="issue-image"|[[Image:Broom icon.svg|40px]] |'''To meet Wikipedia's [[:Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|quality standards]], ... |}
That's not too complicated, in my opinion (and relies on some CSS2 features, such as the first-child selector). But a CSS solution involving <div>s could be even simpler. Gracenotes T § 01:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
{|class="issue style-issue" |- | |class="issue-image"|[[Image:Broom icon.svg|40px]] |class="issue-text"|'''To meet Wikipedia's [[:Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|quality standards]], ... |}
color-bar
class on the first one to avoid issues with IE6 not supporting :first-child
? It only needs
minor CSS changes. As for meta-templates, I don't really see the point if the table wikitext is as simple as Gracenotes suggests; the point of a meta-template would be to make it easy to adjust the wikitext at once across all templates, but there's just about nothing to adjust there.
Anomie 13:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
:first-child
... basic CSS2? Eh, I should have known, but I'm not surprised. For consistency, the class color-bar
could be changed to issue-bar
. I've tested this on my wiki-on-a-stick, and it does work. Hopefully it'll have consensus at
MediaWiki talk:Common.css if proposed.
Gracenotes
T § 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Well, using a meta template is even easier. Then making an "issue template" could be as easy as this:
{{Issuebox | type = cleanup | image = [[Image:Broom icon.svg|40px]] | text = '''To meet Wikipedia's [[:Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|quality standards]], ... }}
-- David Göthberg 00:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
table.style-issue { border-left:10px solid #fc3; }
Instead of what you use now:
table.style-issue td.issue-bar { background-color: #FFCC33; }
Oh, and why do you use the code below in your code? I didn't need it for any of my browsers.
table.issue tr { margin: 0; padding: 0; }
-- David Göthberg 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. A couple of items:
Gracenotes T § 05:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
A rough draft of {{ cleanup-vomit}}. Do you like it? ;) Gracenotes T § 04:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I really, really like this, and hope it gets implemented. I do have two questions:
1. "Note: The wording of these templates is not under discussion and will likely be older versions of the current text."
What does this line mean? Why can't we just use the current text for the new, standardized templates? Or are you just talking about the design mockups below the note? Clarify, please.
2. Do you have a list of all of the templates that will fall into each category? Which templates are serious enough to be a "serious problem"?-- Danaman5 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Be bold. Edit. User:Krator ( t c) 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
When the new messages are in place, it will be a lot easier to get consensus on changing the way they are implemented. User:Krator ( t c) 15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
So since we seem to be close to deployment I have to ask again: What short name form should we use for the CSS classes and meta template? We need to decide on a short name so we can start to code and document the CSS code and meta template in the right place, before we can deploy this. The long name seems to be article message box. Short forms used/suggested so far is:
Feel free to add any other suggestions to this numbered list.
I prefer ambox since not all article message boxes are issues, some are just notices. I find artmsgbox hard to spell when coding it but still a good second choice. -- David Göthberg 00:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ambox|parameters...}}
The last few days I have coded and tested a meta template that uses CSS classes for pretty much all its looks and that uses default images and has some other nifty features. Features that you guys have suggested here and in your demos. I have put together a demo page at Wikipedia:Template standardisation/issuebox demo. -- David Göthberg 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it time to begin placing all of the templates from Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-related namespace into one of these 4 groups? Jeepday ( talk) 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is important to separate the structure of the template from the presentation. Currently, both the CSS and the meta-template proposals fail to do this to some extent. The CSS version requires a strange empty cell just for presentation purposes, while the meta-template solution without CSS can't be customized (which is important for people who don't like the standardization but not the current design or for customized styles for use with other skins.) I propose to use a meta-template to strictly separate the content from the layout and primarly use CSS to presnt the template so the look can be customized. —
Ruud 13:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
While we are on the subject: the style templates are essentially meaningless to 99.9% of readers: they are aimed at experienced wikipedians who understand the manual of style etc. They do not indicate any problem with the page that a reader needs to be aware of. Their major impact on the project is to convince many visitors that wikipedia is rubbish; most would not have noticed any problem without the template. Hence style templates should be on the talk page not the article page. Furthermore, they should be deleted on sight unless the person placing them has (i) explained on the talk page what they think the problem is ("needs to be wikified" is far too unspecific) and (ii) given a good reason why they didn't fix it themselves instead of leaving an ugly note telling others to do the job. PaddyLeahy 20:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object this motion. Wikipedia is not written by "experienced wikipedians who understand the manual of style etc." - it is written by passing-by anonymous editors (IIRC, about 75% of all edits are done by IPs). Issue templates were designed with the following idea in mind: Not everyone may be aware of issues with the article at first glance. On the other hand, a template that stands out encourages readers to think: "Hey, maybe I could improve it?" Then they click the [edit] button which we conveniently provide to everyone for this very reason. This is how Wikipedia works. Миша 13 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. These tags are far too visible. Stub tags get a sentence at the bottom of the page with no box around it. These need no more. Put them on talk pages. If they have to be on the article page then just make them categories - a separate group of editing categories. If we want to put them in a box on the page then it should be in order to separate them from the article but lets put them at the bottom of the article and lets condense them down to one line by default and lets put the stub templates in there as well. Filceolaire 07:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so it was established at #Deployment planning that we don't exactly need a fully-fledged PR campaign, but I still think this proposal should be promoted as much as possible (in case anyone objects to this, as it will affect the whole site). It seems that notices have been placed on the WikiEN-l and at the Community Portal, but it seems more is needed. Perhaps the Signpost should be convinced to run an article? Maybe even a Request for Comment? — Jack · talk · 22:57, Saturday, 1 September 2007
I fully support this effort. How about a {{ RFCpolicy}} and a post to WP:VPP to judge consensus? ← BenB4 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Realistically, how long do you think it'll be till WP:TS is ready to implement? I'm all for starting now, but you guys seem to be debating on code. Having a look over Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-related namespace, there are literally thousands of article-space templates out there. For coding novices like myself who love this idea (and it seems I am far from alone), would it be possible to draw up an easy-to-use instruction manual for converting templates? (Say, at Wikipedia:Template standardisation/Instructions for implementation) As it would very much be in the spirit of the movement if everyone was standardising through the same method. — Jack · talk · 04:54, Monday, 3 September 2007
I just discovered that many article message boxes use two images, one on each side. For instance look at Wikipedia:Current and future event templates. I think that usage seems OK in some cases. So I am adding the option of an "imageright" to the CSS code and meta template at my article message box demo. -- David Göthberg 12:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer if we could remove the secondary images. The goal of standardization is not to change content, merely presentation For the most part, images are part of the latter category. The best part of this new system is that everything is streamlined; it flows nicely; it looks awesome! With other images, text can get out of (right) alignment. It seems somewhat frivolous to argue for their outright removal, but when standardizing, it might be reasonable. Gracenotes T § 01:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you guys brought it up I went looking for a good freely licensed globe to make a new free version of . But others beat me to it, I found this one and this one So now I use the last one in the examples at {{ ambox}}. What do you people think? I think a clock with red border might be more "urgent" just like in the old image so I probably will tinker with that. -- David Göthberg 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say, I'm in complete support of this whole proposal; particularly the colour coding (including purple for "merge"). It's a great idea - well done to those who've crafted it!-- Rambutan ( talk) 06:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now moved the meta template to {{ ambox}} and added documentation there. If someone dislikes the name "ambox" please do join in the discussion above at #Short name form. It is not to late for another name change.
I think the documentation at {{ ambox}} perhaps should stay "technical" and then we can have other documentation at Wikipedia:Template standardisation.
Could some of you guys give the documentation at {{ ambox}} a work over? I feel it needs improvement and I bet my English is funny as usual.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 22:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I changed the default image for merge/split/transwiki used by the meta template:
Previous default image. |
Newer default image. (Based on the transwiki image.) |
The old merge arrows only works for some merge cases, while I think the transwiki image works fairly well for all the cases merge/split/transwiki if people are sloppy and don't set a specific image. What do you people think?
-- David Göthberg 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
An alternative default for merge/split/transwiki. |
I changed my "paper" image to a sharper, less pastelly version since Jack asked for it. But oh, I like your version Father Goose. It looks like it means "move around" in some way, without specifying which way, which is perfect. So I went ahead and made a SVG version of your idea. But I used slightly thinner arrows more like the usual merge arrows:
SVG version based on Father Goose's image. (Now the default merge/split/transwiki image.) |
Is that one OK or are the arrows now to thin?
-- David Göthberg 05:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have rearragend the demo page as follows:
importStylesheet('Wikipedia:Template standardisation/CSS');
This significantly improves the maintenance (it's detached to a separate file) and updating by users ( WP:CACHE instead of copying the code again). Миша 13 13:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)