![]() | 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 |
How would templates be stacked? Right now, they are one on top of another; if they remain that way, they'll take up the same amount of space. — Mets501 ( talk) 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
What we really need is a meta-data tab for each article. All of these templates don't really even belong on the Talk page. Reducing the size of the templates is a good idea, but really only a band-aid, as it seems the number of templates assigned to each article is increasing at a rather persistant rate. Several articles I've seen recently have nearly two pages worth of talk page templates and I don't see the trend abating any time soon. Kaldari 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This looks like an excellent idea for a real problem. Of course, there are some important details to consider, but you have my support. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Mine as well. An absolutely great idea. I was just thinking about how many boxes there were on talk pages, and considering that the debate to remove / limit them would be fierce given all the vested interests in them. This is a much better idea. Augustz 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a good proposal. BhaiSaab talk 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Not saying that's a good or bad thing, but they do. Anyway, this is without doubt a good idea, as I am fed up with seeing talk pages with so many header templates the page itself gets pushed off the bottom of the screen – Gurch 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I would support changing (reducing) the talk page templates, but not creating smaller duplicates, since using two different tls for the same thing tends to confuse people. >Radiant< 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've got it. To change all talk messageboxes to side boxes with no extra work just change the Common.css messagebox.standard-talk code to
.messagebox.standard-talk { border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color: #f8eaba; float: right; border:1px solid #000; margin:1px; width:238px; font-size: 8pt; line-height: 10pt; clear: both; }
You can try that in your personal css. It works perfectly. — Mets501 ( talk) 14:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be advantageous to not stack the mini-templates, but to put them side-by-side. Perhaps that would actually take up less space:
{{ FailedGA/Small}} |
|
That former GA template, however, seems a bit oversized. I'm sure the point is conveyed, however. -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you know how long a policy needs to be proposed before consensus can be fully and properly established? Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, finally, a solution to the talk page template mess! I think this will easily get consensus. Afterwards I was thinking we should probably should merge this and WP:TS, to a page titled Wikipedia:Talk page templates. Both are short enough to share a page, and it would make sense from an organizational standpoint. Thoughts? Again, awesome job on this. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
...may now be found at Talk:Islam. See what it looked like before. There is also a half-example at George W.Bush, but I can't convert the Biography template because the code is obscenely complicated. Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 13:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at Template:Skiptotoctalk for an alternative way to avoid template clutter. This allows the full templates (often quite useful) to remain, but making it easy to skip past them if you don't want to read them. It's already in use at over 50 talk pages. See Talk:Bill Clinton and Talk:The Lord of the Rings for examples of it in use. I would strongly support use of this template over any attempt to make the talk page templates smaller. Carcharoth 23:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
|
---|
I hijacked a bit of code that already exists, and I think with a little work, it can do an ideal job. I don't understand CSS at all (guessed everything I did), so pardon my sloppy job, but check the code out: User:Nihiltres/Sandbox2. I have no idea how someone made the code for a nice little "hide" button in the first place, but it's very convenient as an alternative to either cramped userbox-sized messages or Template:Skiptotoctalk, at least in my opinion. It's all that we really need, and it'll display unless someone hits the hide button, meaning that people see nice, wide, templates until they either choose to either scroll past or hide the whole thing. As I say, I don't know CSS, so the solution I think is ideal may need a rewrite - not that I can! :) Any comments? Nihiltres 01:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I was notified of this by Dev920. Great proposal! -- Striver 15:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
A small suggestion. I looked at Talk:Islam. It uses a new set of templates that are under a sub-page named "small". Instead, you could pass a "size" parameter to all templates and resize the template if it is set to "small". For example, {{V0.5|size="small"}}. This way we can use the smaller box at cluttered talk pages and the larger one in most pages that have little content. And still maintain a single version of template. -- Ganeshk ( talk) 16:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I created a sample in my sandbox to show how this will work. -- Ganeshk ( talk) 17:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
{{User:Ganeshk/sandbox/peerreview}}
will produce:
{{User:Ganeshk/sandbox/peerreview|small=yes}}
will produce:
![]() | A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed. |
What annoys me most about talk pages with lots of templates, is that you can't see at a glance what the templates are. In that sense, I would support a resizing and repositioning (but not a rewriting) of the templates, or maybe a list (like the table of contents) of the templates with a "hide" button to hide that bit of the page and bring up the talk page bit of the talk page. Carcharoth 16:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I support this, on the condition that certain templates remain large, in particular {{ talkheader}}, {{ FAC}}, {{ GAN}}, and any other templates that are temporary. Things like {{ FA}} and {{ GA}} should definitely be small, though. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to say that I agree with the above points, some of these are perectly fine being big, as such we should rush to reduce the size of all of them. Also I think this proposal in general is a great idea -- T- rex 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
These mini-templates look fantastic. However, the {{ talkheader}} page in particular appears to be quite pointless - the information included, should be on ALL talk pages as part of the mediawiki software. -- Chuq 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it has now been generally agreed that the size and text of templates should be reduced to the size of a standard userbox, with the exception of a "template that's about a current event with the article, such as a review in-progress (such as FAC) or some other time-sensitive relation", though this may need further discussion.
The question we face now then is, how to implement it? Do we use my original idea, of creating smaller templates and uploading them to the original template space with /small attached, or the idea above, which seems quite clever but I don't understand in the slightest? Discuss. :) Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 10:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|class="messagebox small-talk"|class="messagebox standard-talk"}}
.
Kirill Lokshin
22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30px|50px}}
. --
Ganeshk (
talk)
23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|class="messagebox small-talk"|class="messagebox standard-talk"}}
. Some of the unnecessary text in the template was removed as well, it wasn't just the box size that was changed! —
Mets501 (
talk)
00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I must be missing something, or the proposed solution doesn't work on all browsing environments (right now I'm using Firefox 1.5, KDE 4, Ubuntu 6.06) because the only real change I see on both talk pages mentioned is that the boxes now have a white background instead of an orange background. I do not see a significant change in size. Slambo (Speak) 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As this policy has begun to be implemented, it is clearly no longer a proposed policy. What do I do now, remove the tag, or what? Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the main page to look like a guideline. I think the text does need to be reduced - so much of it just seems so unneccessary. Dev920 ( Please vote here) 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Every WP infobox has a rating and quality scale. With this "small" option, the rating texts should be reduced. Is this a good place for a metatemplate? e.g.
{{quality text |class=A |project=WikiProject Trains}}
{{quality text |class=A |project=WikiProject Trains |small=yes}}
This would move a switch statement from the main template to this subtemplate, such that you could just pass along {{{class}}}
and {{{small}}}
unaltered. e.g.
{{quality text |class={{{class}}} |project=WikiProject Trains |small={{{small}}} }}
The downside is this would affect a lot of complicated templates, but it cleans up a lot of ugly code and helps standardize things across WikiProject templates. – flamurai ( t) 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Stevertigo proposed an interesting idea whereby users can have a choice between a standard message box (explanatory for newbies) or a compact message box (small as reason permits). This is in answer to the problem that templates are disruptive when they are too large, stacked on top of one another or are otherwise made to be permanent and ugly features of an article. I of course, am for it. Xiong, Netholic and others have expressed similar sentiments about the disruptiveness factor. Iwill offer a spectrum of alternatives at /Sizes - of course the naming should be standardized as well. Regards. - SV| t 19:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Many pages in Wikipedia namespace have been tagged with 'policy', 'guideline', 'proposed' etc. Would it be a good idea to also make these templates conform to the CoffeeRoll standard? R adiant _* 07:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I think this should come under a separate template standardisation project which I intend to set up in a couple of weeks (when I have the time). violet/riga (t) 19:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Just an idea I came up with that I thought I'd mention here... most templates are colored boxen to draw attention to something (a timeline, 'cleanup' tag, whatever). There is some controversial usage of templates, for instance using them as article text, signatures, votes etc. These obviously do not employ boxen. So I pose this question... would it help stopping 'misuse' of templates if the software was changed so that every non-subst'ed template comes with a box? Not a proposal, just food for thought. And comment. R adiant _* 14:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The function of the template standardization is much better served if someone writes this up as a CSS class, and adds it to our stylesheets ( MediaWiki:Monobook.css). This would mean we could do away with Template:Standard template style. Please review Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates (which is a proposed guideline) for reasons why "templates within templates" are a server performance hit. Specifically, the "Alternatives" section describes that templates used to generate style should be replaced with the CSS classes. In this case, once the style is added centrally, a simple "class=" call can be added as needed, much like "class=toccolours" is presently.
.nameofclassTBD { border:1px solid #C0C090; background-color:#F8EABA; width: 90%; margin: 0 5% 3px;" }
Here's a version of the style I've been using. Seems to work well. Let me add one more reason for moving towards this... once a class is in use, it gives the reader the option to change their personal CSS to change its appearance from the default, if they so choose. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
.stdtmpl { width: 85%; border-spacing: 3px; border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
{| class="stdtmpl" |- | [[Image:Nuvola apps xmag.png|Peer review]] |align="center"|A [[Wikipedia:Peer review/{{PAGENAME}}|request]] has been made... |}
![]() |
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed in order to get a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
![]() |
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed in order to get a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
style
as specified above. --
MarkSweep
22:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)I totally agree with this proposal. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
This is indeed a very good proposal. Wim van Dorst 07:28, 2005 May 15 (UTC).
Agreed entirely. Why use templates when stylesheets are so much cleaner? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Glad to hear this idea be well-received. Our baby needs a name though. The CSS class name should reflect its purpose, but not any specific format (so calling it "coffeeroll" is out). It should not be too generic ("standard") or long ("standardtemplate"), but it should be memorable for when these are in use. Suggestions? -- Netoholic @ 05:06, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
Not to bothered about the name, but can we get on and do this soon, pretty please. I want to change the colour to something I like rather than what the community at large likes! :) Pcb21| Pete 07:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
class="stdtmplt"
or whatever to {{
standard template style}}, this can be picked up by personal CSS files? Negotiation as to adding it to monobook.css
can run in parallel. --
Phil |
Talk 16:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
align="center"
into the <table>
line. Anyone who can work out why IE does this with
the styles and can work out how to fix it, go ahead... The current form works fine, I think.
Smoddy
(Rabbit and pork)
22:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)class="Talk-Notice"
instead of the {{
Standard template style}} argument.
Smoddy
(Rabbit and pork)
16:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)I dislike the class="Talk-Notice" name very much. Is this the best we can come up with? -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Erm, the new format seems to be broken for me - there is no box around the template when it is displayed, and the background colour is incorrect. IE6 and Windows2000 (gosh, doesn't time fly!). I seem to remember that there is a style / class problem with IE? Is this it?
This all seemed to work yesterday - I've added the live versions to Wikipedia:Template standardisation, and the ones with the new style are all broken in the same way, and the ones using the old format ({{ FLC}}, {{ FL}}, {{ oldpeerreview}}, {{ chemistry}}, {{ Talk Spoken Wikipedia}}, {{ comment}}) are fine. Also, {{ press}} must be called something else... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Should we standardise the {{ fpc}} and {{ FeaturedPicture}} templates? What about {{ cotw}} and {{ COTWnow}}? The new {{ FLC}} and {{ FL}} templates are in "standard" form. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
And can someone standardize {{ Transwikied to Wiktionary}}, {{ Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished}}, and {{ Transwikied and Deleted}}? Not sure I'd do it right, too much HTML stuff. -- Dmcdevit 23:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Well okay, I just took a stab at those ones, and I'd appreciate if someone could check them, thanks. -- Dmcdevit 08:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Now that the "class" seems to be working, is there anything else that should be standardised using the same scheme? Wikipedia:Template messages provides a useful list of the "standard" templates in use: most of the templates in Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace are "CoffeeRoll"ed, but what about Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace or Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
This might be a dumb question, but it needs to be confirmed. The new CSS class "Talk-Notice" has been added to MediaWiki:monobook.css: has it been added to the corresponding files for the other skins? Judging by the rather skinny MediaWiki:Standard.css, MediaWiki:Cologneblue.css and MediaWiki:Nostalgia.css, it would appear not, which would explain why users of other skins are reporting problems. -- Phil | Talk 07:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is now available in all skins via Common.css. Please use class="messagebox standard-talk"
when setting up the templates. "Talk-Notice" should be deprecated. --
Netoholic
@
05:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Mainly because standardization has engendered some bad feelings, I ask people working on this to at least cease any further changes to see if an amicable solution can be found through more or wider discussion. Further, it would be a positive gesture if any disputed templates are returned to their prior status during such discussion. Thanks. Maurreen 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of the discussion on the scope of this guideline, I'm curious as to how enforcement will be accomplished. Courtland 21:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The current WP:TS covers talk page templates only. The new one, currently under discussion at /article, looks at templates by category. This groups, for example, maintenance templates together under one uniform style. It will include a vote that allows people to decide the positioning (article/talk, top/bottom, etc.) and the design.
The whole point of template standardisation is to make them all look like they're part of a properly organised system. The original WP:TS came about because of the unprofessional appearance of many talk pages when more than one template was used. This is not so much of an issue for article templates, but they should still be standardised. It aims to eliminate the arguments about styles that have been ongoing for a very long time, and allows CSS customisation to override the defaults. Eventually I would love to see a page containing various style submissions that any user can choose and, following the guide, add to their personal CSS script. violet/riga (t) 14:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Violetriga reverted my edit on this page here. My change was to make clear the scope of the current "CoffeeRoll" template standard, as it was described during the vote, before she also removed it from there. Specifically, the phrase "This is a proposal for template standardisation. Firstly it will look at templates used on talk pages for the development, status and Wikiproject information about an article."
I believe it important that we do not jump to the automatic conclusion that people were supporting this standard for every single talk page template. The scope during the vote, based on that phrase and the examples, was that it only applied to templates which state the "development, status and Wikiproject information" of an article. To contrast with that, cleanup templates have their own de facto standard, and are used quite often on talk pages. Cleanup templates, while could slightly be said to state the status of an article, are more a "request for action", whereas "development, status and Wikiproject information" is more passive information. We need to clarify this on the main Wikipedia:Template standardisation page. -- Netoholic @ 21:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
As per the Template voting, it was as much about the usage of the template as it was about the type of page the template was on. There needs to be easily recognized differences between different types of templates, so I definately do not support having All talk page templates match the coffee roll format. BlankVerse ∅ 00:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a section on Wikipedia:Template_standardisation/vote at the very bottom entitled "Templates included" that would seem to explicitly define the scope of the votes. Was this present during the voting? Should this listing be used as a de facto scope for the voting? Courtland 11:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
In looking through the child pages of Wikipedia:Template messages it's clear that efforts have been made in some cases to suggest whether a template belongs on a talk page or not, but there are many cases where this has not been formally stated in the descriptive table.
If either these two questions have "yes" as the answer, then the activity scope of ths proposal is far beyond the scope that has been debated here as it reaches into the article editing space. I'm hoping that these questions make it a little more clear why it is not desirable to address all templates in such a large and ill-defined class as "talk-page templates" in a single editing sweep, as it is clear that will be done regardless of misgivings or dissent on the part of editors who use the templates. Courtland 11:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think that there are some big disagreements over the scope of the current Template standardizations. As some people have discussed on this page, and has also been shown with some of the edit/revert wars over some templates, several people feel that the "standardization" of the Talk page templates was limited to the example templates in the voting and very similar templates, and was NOT supposed to be for absolutely every template that goes on a Talk page. Another question is whether these "standards" are Wikipedia Policy or just guidelines. As some of the discussion is showing for the Article page templates, there are quite a few people who feel that there needs to be some differentiation in the style of the templates based upon the function or type of template. Unfortunately the vote for Talk page templates never allowed or even considered that there should be any differences in the Talk page templates. My own opinion is that I think that the basic format for the Talk page templates is okay, but there should be some allowances for some variation. I see no problem with This week's improvement drive, for example, standardizing on a nice pastel green for all of their templates, while still using the rest of the talk page "standard". The featured picture notice ({{ PromotedFPC}}) also uses the same color, or very similar color, and I see no problem with that either. BlankVerse ∅ 09:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
A couple possibilities:
Yes, I know it sounds funny, but I have confirmed that it is possible to over-ride particular settings (for example, use a different background colour) whilst retaining the basic look-and-feel. Maybe if we made this more public, this would mollify those people who are worried about simply being rolled over? — Phil | Talk 16:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The WP:IDRIVE templates were not listed in the "Included templates", their status as talk page templates is uncertain. Therefore they were not included in the vote, and any changes are not justified by this project. Templates are not really high on my priority list. But I had hoped a discussion could be good, but someone decided not to discuss and just do. Maurreen 03:16, 20 July 2005 (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 |
How would templates be stacked? Right now, they are one on top of another; if they remain that way, they'll take up the same amount of space. — Mets501 ( talk) 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
What we really need is a meta-data tab for each article. All of these templates don't really even belong on the Talk page. Reducing the size of the templates is a good idea, but really only a band-aid, as it seems the number of templates assigned to each article is increasing at a rather persistant rate. Several articles I've seen recently have nearly two pages worth of talk page templates and I don't see the trend abating any time soon. Kaldari 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This looks like an excellent idea for a real problem. Of course, there are some important details to consider, but you have my support. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Mine as well. An absolutely great idea. I was just thinking about how many boxes there were on talk pages, and considering that the debate to remove / limit them would be fierce given all the vested interests in them. This is a much better idea. Augustz 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a good proposal. BhaiSaab talk 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Not saying that's a good or bad thing, but they do. Anyway, this is without doubt a good idea, as I am fed up with seeing talk pages with so many header templates the page itself gets pushed off the bottom of the screen – Gurch 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I would support changing (reducing) the talk page templates, but not creating smaller duplicates, since using two different tls for the same thing tends to confuse people. >Radiant< 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've got it. To change all talk messageboxes to side boxes with no extra work just change the Common.css messagebox.standard-talk code to
.messagebox.standard-talk { border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color: #f8eaba; float: right; border:1px solid #000; margin:1px; width:238px; font-size: 8pt; line-height: 10pt; clear: both; }
You can try that in your personal css. It works perfectly. — Mets501 ( talk) 14:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be advantageous to not stack the mini-templates, but to put them side-by-side. Perhaps that would actually take up less space:
{{ FailedGA/Small}} |
|
That former GA template, however, seems a bit oversized. I'm sure the point is conveyed, however. -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you know how long a policy needs to be proposed before consensus can be fully and properly established? Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, finally, a solution to the talk page template mess! I think this will easily get consensus. Afterwards I was thinking we should probably should merge this and WP:TS, to a page titled Wikipedia:Talk page templates. Both are short enough to share a page, and it would make sense from an organizational standpoint. Thoughts? Again, awesome job on this. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
...may now be found at Talk:Islam. See what it looked like before. There is also a half-example at George W.Bush, but I can't convert the Biography template because the code is obscenely complicated. Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 13:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at Template:Skiptotoctalk for an alternative way to avoid template clutter. This allows the full templates (often quite useful) to remain, but making it easy to skip past them if you don't want to read them. It's already in use at over 50 talk pages. See Talk:Bill Clinton and Talk:The Lord of the Rings for examples of it in use. I would strongly support use of this template over any attempt to make the talk page templates smaller. Carcharoth 23:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
|
---|
I hijacked a bit of code that already exists, and I think with a little work, it can do an ideal job. I don't understand CSS at all (guessed everything I did), so pardon my sloppy job, but check the code out: User:Nihiltres/Sandbox2. I have no idea how someone made the code for a nice little "hide" button in the first place, but it's very convenient as an alternative to either cramped userbox-sized messages or Template:Skiptotoctalk, at least in my opinion. It's all that we really need, and it'll display unless someone hits the hide button, meaning that people see nice, wide, templates until they either choose to either scroll past or hide the whole thing. As I say, I don't know CSS, so the solution I think is ideal may need a rewrite - not that I can! :) Any comments? Nihiltres 01:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I was notified of this by Dev920. Great proposal! -- Striver 15:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
A small suggestion. I looked at Talk:Islam. It uses a new set of templates that are under a sub-page named "small". Instead, you could pass a "size" parameter to all templates and resize the template if it is set to "small". For example, {{V0.5|size="small"}}. This way we can use the smaller box at cluttered talk pages and the larger one in most pages that have little content. And still maintain a single version of template. -- Ganeshk ( talk) 16:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I created a sample in my sandbox to show how this will work. -- Ganeshk ( talk) 17:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
{{User:Ganeshk/sandbox/peerreview}}
will produce:
{{User:Ganeshk/sandbox/peerreview|small=yes}}
will produce:
![]() | A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed. |
What annoys me most about talk pages with lots of templates, is that you can't see at a glance what the templates are. In that sense, I would support a resizing and repositioning (but not a rewriting) of the templates, or maybe a list (like the table of contents) of the templates with a "hide" button to hide that bit of the page and bring up the talk page bit of the talk page. Carcharoth 16:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I support this, on the condition that certain templates remain large, in particular {{ talkheader}}, {{ FAC}}, {{ GAN}}, and any other templates that are temporary. Things like {{ FA}} and {{ GA}} should definitely be small, though. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to say that I agree with the above points, some of these are perectly fine being big, as such we should rush to reduce the size of all of them. Also I think this proposal in general is a great idea -- T- rex 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
These mini-templates look fantastic. However, the {{ talkheader}} page in particular appears to be quite pointless - the information included, should be on ALL talk pages as part of the mediawiki software. -- Chuq 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it has now been generally agreed that the size and text of templates should be reduced to the size of a standard userbox, with the exception of a "template that's about a current event with the article, such as a review in-progress (such as FAC) or some other time-sensitive relation", though this may need further discussion.
The question we face now then is, how to implement it? Do we use my original idea, of creating smaller templates and uploading them to the original template space with /small attached, or the idea above, which seems quite clever but I don't understand in the slightest? Discuss. :) Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 10:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|class="messagebox small-talk"|class="messagebox standard-talk"}}
.
Kirill Lokshin
22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30px|50px}}
. --
Ganeshk (
talk)
23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|class="messagebox small-talk"|class="messagebox standard-talk"}}
. Some of the unnecessary text in the template was removed as well, it wasn't just the box size that was changed! —
Mets501 (
talk)
00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I must be missing something, or the proposed solution doesn't work on all browsing environments (right now I'm using Firefox 1.5, KDE 4, Ubuntu 6.06) because the only real change I see on both talk pages mentioned is that the boxes now have a white background instead of an orange background. I do not see a significant change in size. Slambo (Speak) 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As this policy has begun to be implemented, it is clearly no longer a proposed policy. What do I do now, remove the tag, or what? Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the main page to look like a guideline. I think the text does need to be reduced - so much of it just seems so unneccessary. Dev920 ( Please vote here) 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Every WP infobox has a rating and quality scale. With this "small" option, the rating texts should be reduced. Is this a good place for a metatemplate? e.g.
{{quality text |class=A |project=WikiProject Trains}}
{{quality text |class=A |project=WikiProject Trains |small=yes}}
This would move a switch statement from the main template to this subtemplate, such that you could just pass along {{{class}}}
and {{{small}}}
unaltered. e.g.
{{quality text |class={{{class}}} |project=WikiProject Trains |small={{{small}}} }}
The downside is this would affect a lot of complicated templates, but it cleans up a lot of ugly code and helps standardize things across WikiProject templates. – flamurai ( t) 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Stevertigo proposed an interesting idea whereby users can have a choice between a standard message box (explanatory for newbies) or a compact message box (small as reason permits). This is in answer to the problem that templates are disruptive when they are too large, stacked on top of one another or are otherwise made to be permanent and ugly features of an article. I of course, am for it. Xiong, Netholic and others have expressed similar sentiments about the disruptiveness factor. Iwill offer a spectrum of alternatives at /Sizes - of course the naming should be standardized as well. Regards. - SV| t 19:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Many pages in Wikipedia namespace have been tagged with 'policy', 'guideline', 'proposed' etc. Would it be a good idea to also make these templates conform to the CoffeeRoll standard? R adiant _* 07:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I think this should come under a separate template standardisation project which I intend to set up in a couple of weeks (when I have the time). violet/riga (t) 19:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Just an idea I came up with that I thought I'd mention here... most templates are colored boxen to draw attention to something (a timeline, 'cleanup' tag, whatever). There is some controversial usage of templates, for instance using them as article text, signatures, votes etc. These obviously do not employ boxen. So I pose this question... would it help stopping 'misuse' of templates if the software was changed so that every non-subst'ed template comes with a box? Not a proposal, just food for thought. And comment. R adiant _* 14:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The function of the template standardization is much better served if someone writes this up as a CSS class, and adds it to our stylesheets ( MediaWiki:Monobook.css). This would mean we could do away with Template:Standard template style. Please review Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates (which is a proposed guideline) for reasons why "templates within templates" are a server performance hit. Specifically, the "Alternatives" section describes that templates used to generate style should be replaced with the CSS classes. In this case, once the style is added centrally, a simple "class=" call can be added as needed, much like "class=toccolours" is presently.
.nameofclassTBD { border:1px solid #C0C090; background-color:#F8EABA; width: 90%; margin: 0 5% 3px;" }
Here's a version of the style I've been using. Seems to work well. Let me add one more reason for moving towards this... once a class is in use, it gives the reader the option to change their personal CSS to change its appearance from the default, if they so choose. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
.stdtmpl { width: 85%; border-spacing: 3px; border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
{| class="stdtmpl" |- | [[Image:Nuvola apps xmag.png|Peer review]] |align="center"|A [[Wikipedia:Peer review/{{PAGENAME}}|request]] has been made... |}
![]() |
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed in order to get a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
![]() |
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed in order to get a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
style
as specified above. --
MarkSweep
22:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)I totally agree with this proposal. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
This is indeed a very good proposal. Wim van Dorst 07:28, 2005 May 15 (UTC).
Agreed entirely. Why use templates when stylesheets are so much cleaner? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Glad to hear this idea be well-received. Our baby needs a name though. The CSS class name should reflect its purpose, but not any specific format (so calling it "coffeeroll" is out). It should not be too generic ("standard") or long ("standardtemplate"), but it should be memorable for when these are in use. Suggestions? -- Netoholic @ 05:06, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
Not to bothered about the name, but can we get on and do this soon, pretty please. I want to change the colour to something I like rather than what the community at large likes! :) Pcb21| Pete 07:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
class="stdtmplt"
or whatever to {{
standard template style}}, this can be picked up by personal CSS files? Negotiation as to adding it to monobook.css
can run in parallel. --
Phil |
Talk 16:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
align="center"
into the <table>
line. Anyone who can work out why IE does this with
the styles and can work out how to fix it, go ahead... The current form works fine, I think.
Smoddy
(Rabbit and pork)
22:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)class="Talk-Notice"
instead of the {{
Standard template style}} argument.
Smoddy
(Rabbit and pork)
16:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)I dislike the class="Talk-Notice" name very much. Is this the best we can come up with? -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Erm, the new format seems to be broken for me - there is no box around the template when it is displayed, and the background colour is incorrect. IE6 and Windows2000 (gosh, doesn't time fly!). I seem to remember that there is a style / class problem with IE? Is this it?
This all seemed to work yesterday - I've added the live versions to Wikipedia:Template standardisation, and the ones with the new style are all broken in the same way, and the ones using the old format ({{ FLC}}, {{ FL}}, {{ oldpeerreview}}, {{ chemistry}}, {{ Talk Spoken Wikipedia}}, {{ comment}}) are fine. Also, {{ press}} must be called something else... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Should we standardise the {{ fpc}} and {{ FeaturedPicture}} templates? What about {{ cotw}} and {{ COTWnow}}? The new {{ FLC}} and {{ FL}} templates are in "standard" form. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
And can someone standardize {{ Transwikied to Wiktionary}}, {{ Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished}}, and {{ Transwikied and Deleted}}? Not sure I'd do it right, too much HTML stuff. -- Dmcdevit 23:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Well okay, I just took a stab at those ones, and I'd appreciate if someone could check them, thanks. -- Dmcdevit 08:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Now that the "class" seems to be working, is there anything else that should be standardised using the same scheme? Wikipedia:Template messages provides a useful list of the "standard" templates in use: most of the templates in Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace are "CoffeeRoll"ed, but what about Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace or Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
This might be a dumb question, but it needs to be confirmed. The new CSS class "Talk-Notice" has been added to MediaWiki:monobook.css: has it been added to the corresponding files for the other skins? Judging by the rather skinny MediaWiki:Standard.css, MediaWiki:Cologneblue.css and MediaWiki:Nostalgia.css, it would appear not, which would explain why users of other skins are reporting problems. -- Phil | Talk 07:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is now available in all skins via Common.css. Please use class="messagebox standard-talk"
when setting up the templates. "Talk-Notice" should be deprecated. --
Netoholic
@
05:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Mainly because standardization has engendered some bad feelings, I ask people working on this to at least cease any further changes to see if an amicable solution can be found through more or wider discussion. Further, it would be a positive gesture if any disputed templates are returned to their prior status during such discussion. Thanks. Maurreen 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of the discussion on the scope of this guideline, I'm curious as to how enforcement will be accomplished. Courtland 21:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The current WP:TS covers talk page templates only. The new one, currently under discussion at /article, looks at templates by category. This groups, for example, maintenance templates together under one uniform style. It will include a vote that allows people to decide the positioning (article/talk, top/bottom, etc.) and the design.
The whole point of template standardisation is to make them all look like they're part of a properly organised system. The original WP:TS came about because of the unprofessional appearance of many talk pages when more than one template was used. This is not so much of an issue for article templates, but they should still be standardised. It aims to eliminate the arguments about styles that have been ongoing for a very long time, and allows CSS customisation to override the defaults. Eventually I would love to see a page containing various style submissions that any user can choose and, following the guide, add to their personal CSS script. violet/riga (t) 14:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Violetriga reverted my edit on this page here. My change was to make clear the scope of the current "CoffeeRoll" template standard, as it was described during the vote, before she also removed it from there. Specifically, the phrase "This is a proposal for template standardisation. Firstly it will look at templates used on talk pages for the development, status and Wikiproject information about an article."
I believe it important that we do not jump to the automatic conclusion that people were supporting this standard for every single talk page template. The scope during the vote, based on that phrase and the examples, was that it only applied to templates which state the "development, status and Wikiproject information" of an article. To contrast with that, cleanup templates have their own de facto standard, and are used quite often on talk pages. Cleanup templates, while could slightly be said to state the status of an article, are more a "request for action", whereas "development, status and Wikiproject information" is more passive information. We need to clarify this on the main Wikipedia:Template standardisation page. -- Netoholic @ 21:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
As per the Template voting, it was as much about the usage of the template as it was about the type of page the template was on. There needs to be easily recognized differences between different types of templates, so I definately do not support having All talk page templates match the coffee roll format. BlankVerse ∅ 00:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a section on Wikipedia:Template_standardisation/vote at the very bottom entitled "Templates included" that would seem to explicitly define the scope of the votes. Was this present during the voting? Should this listing be used as a de facto scope for the voting? Courtland 11:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
In looking through the child pages of Wikipedia:Template messages it's clear that efforts have been made in some cases to suggest whether a template belongs on a talk page or not, but there are many cases where this has not been formally stated in the descriptive table.
If either these two questions have "yes" as the answer, then the activity scope of ths proposal is far beyond the scope that has been debated here as it reaches into the article editing space. I'm hoping that these questions make it a little more clear why it is not desirable to address all templates in such a large and ill-defined class as "talk-page templates" in a single editing sweep, as it is clear that will be done regardless of misgivings or dissent on the part of editors who use the templates. Courtland 11:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think that there are some big disagreements over the scope of the current Template standardizations. As some people have discussed on this page, and has also been shown with some of the edit/revert wars over some templates, several people feel that the "standardization" of the Talk page templates was limited to the example templates in the voting and very similar templates, and was NOT supposed to be for absolutely every template that goes on a Talk page. Another question is whether these "standards" are Wikipedia Policy or just guidelines. As some of the discussion is showing for the Article page templates, there are quite a few people who feel that there needs to be some differentiation in the style of the templates based upon the function or type of template. Unfortunately the vote for Talk page templates never allowed or even considered that there should be any differences in the Talk page templates. My own opinion is that I think that the basic format for the Talk page templates is okay, but there should be some allowances for some variation. I see no problem with This week's improvement drive, for example, standardizing on a nice pastel green for all of their templates, while still using the rest of the talk page "standard". The featured picture notice ({{ PromotedFPC}}) also uses the same color, or very similar color, and I see no problem with that either. BlankVerse ∅ 09:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
A couple possibilities:
Yes, I know it sounds funny, but I have confirmed that it is possible to over-ride particular settings (for example, use a different background colour) whilst retaining the basic look-and-feel. Maybe if we made this more public, this would mollify those people who are worried about simply being rolled over? — Phil | Talk 16:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The WP:IDRIVE templates were not listed in the "Included templates", their status as talk page templates is uncertain. Therefore they were not included in the vote, and any changes are not justified by this project. Templates are not really high on my priority list. But I had hoped a discussion could be good, but someone decided not to discuss and just do. Maurreen 03:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)