![]() | 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 |
This is an archive of Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation, created on 24 May, 2005 from resolved discussions.
There used to be a "logo" for the featured articles, but this was recently (and, I believe, temporarily) removed from the template to reduce the load on the image servers. It would be good if new designs for Template:Featured could incorporate these images (see the top of Template talk:Featured), even if it might not get put on the live version for a little while (I'm not sure what the current state of the server is for these things). — Matt Crypto 19:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've made a request to User:Avsa for some reduced size icons. Noisy | Talk 09:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Here is user avsa. What do you mean by reduced size icons? you want me to re-upload a scaledown image? I thought that the server only scaled down an image once it was requested, then kept the smaller image on memory, so that it wouldn´t need to resize a]the image for EVERy visitor. That poses a problem, because whenever I contributte with an image I try to upload the bigger size possible (you never know the day wikipedia will need images with a printable resolution - 300dpi). Anyway, if that´s what you want, to reduce the image and reuploaded it you need no other program than wikipedia itself: Just download that image you see on the page and reupload it. Or am I simply misuderstanding everything? thanks-- Alexandre Van de Sande 15:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It would be interesting to create a page which showed all the versions of a particular template for comparison. Which would be the most appropriate one to choose, or would it make sense to compare all of them? -- Phil | Talk 15:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Just a comment - I like most of the nominations - there are so many nice ones. →Raul654 13:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see the competition going. Sorry if it was painful getting here. There are some very nice entries by my lights, including Violet's "Classico".
Have you considered separating voting on the text from voting on physical properties? I know I've been meaning to craft my ideal FA TALK text (and I would also lobby to put this text near the "Save" button on any FA editing page because the people who most need to slow down are exactly those most likely to ignore Talk pages). I'm pretty sure user Blackcats and a few others will be weighing in on the exact wording too. As long as all proposed messages are within about a dozen words of the current message word counts, it shouldn't affect the aesthetic side of the competition.
Another thing-- in the template example pages scattered around in people's user spaces I think it would be best if people throw in at least five blank lines to separate each template. In the recent controversy I think a number of people had a problem not so much with colors, borders, etc.,., but with the way the template actually sat on the Talk page. How was it aligned, did it push all other material off the first screenfull and so on. These things would be easier to judge on the candidate pages if blank lines are used to float each template in some isolation that stands for the Talk page itself.
Lastly, I would encourage people to come up with tiny graphical elements for the templates. I like the star and star points that were being used, but they probably don't scale down too well to real mini-iconic size (the star is a very nice graphic with a faceted multicolored-light-reflections look, unfortunately that sort of detail collapses into a junky look in a severe downsample). It seems good to have the template messages strongly marked off from page text and nothing short of garish table cell colors would achieve this as well as standardized mini-icons (they'll need to be mini due to the server load issue). Since strong cell colors will get almost no votes we'll have to look to graphics to make this at-a-glance distinction. JDG 17:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am going to be away for the vote and may not have time to visit next week, so please would someone register a postal vote on my behalf for
and against
-- ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) [updated a couple of times]
I also am going to be away next week, so I'll cast my absentee ballot for violet/riga's "Simple" (first choice) and "Obvious" (second choice) and "classico" (third choice). I'd like to cast an explicit "no" vote on Noisy's "Tick ToC" and both of Allen3's "Cadet Grey" designs. -- Neutrality talk 22:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there appears to be no difference between Netoholic's " Death to colorful boxes" and ALoan's " Simplistic". Am I correct in saying this? Talrias ( t | e | c) 23:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of what voting method we are going to use. I don't know much about voting theory so I don't have any suggestions, and I don't have any serious objections to the kind of voting being done above. Does anyone else? Zach 23:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There are two options which I favour:
Being a design contest I don't really like the critical side of the second option, but maybe it is better to point out ones you don't think work very well. violet/riga (t) 08:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
which sounds great but does involve a fair deal of faffHere's how it works. Anyone is allowed to create a new CIVS election, and only authorized voters will know about it. Voters and the election supervisor must have e-mail and web access. When an election is created, voters are sent e-mail informing them that the election is open and giving them a URL where they can rank their choices. Open, public polls may also be created for which voters do not need e-mail access; however, the results of such polls are less trustworthy.
Ok, we'll do it as Aloan suggests, with the caveat that voting lasts the standard one week. If a run-off is needed, we'll just run the top 2 for simplicity's sake (again, for one week). →Raul654 23:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) PS - After looking them all over, I think I like Clockwork's Coffee Roll the best. →Raul654 23:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is just an example of the vote layout.
Support
Conditional support
Also partially available in paler pink/red colours.
Support
Conditional support
Support
Conditional support
Support
Perhaps we should have 3 different votes for the 3 different primary elements: format, color, and text? – Clockwork Soul 13:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, so I've just started the vote, though I was a little caught out by BST/UTC. I doubt I'll be awake in an hour though, so it should be fine (any submissions within that time can be added no problem). I'll go through the proxy votes listed above and add them in now.
violet/riga
(t) 23:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about if one of the "old status" templates included is a "Previous COTW" one, that sems to fit in with the general idea. I realize (or at least think) there is not a current template like this, but it's just an idea... -- Dmcdevit 03:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now that we're nearing a decision on design, I think we should make a considered effort to improve the text of at least the main FA template. I feel strongly that the wording should serve to give users, particularly newish users, pause before they jump in with edits, without outright discouraging them. I feel so strongly because there are now quite a few articles that are truly gems and that represent scads of personhours in achieving just the right wording, balance, detail and thematic progression. A great disservice would be done to the project if the topnotch writers of these articles are alienated by a steady scrambling of their work. They will be "disincentivized" big time and will contribute less or even leave altogether. We certainly don't want that.
I don't know if there should be voting for this. Maybe we can take a swing at an informal consensus on this Talk page and go to voting only if we seem stuck.
Here's my attempt at FA:
"This is a Featured Article. We believe it is one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Changes should not be made lightly, as you will be altering text and/or a thematic progression that by consensus is already of very high quality. Even so, improvement is always possible, particularly by addition of new or interesting text.
Archived discussion that led to this becoming a featured article should be at the nomination page (may not exist for older articles)."
JDG 16:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i wish there were a way to vote against the ugly ones. :-) - Omegatron 23:58, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, first we were told Clockwork's template was the winner. Now appears a calculation that apparently will result in a runoff. This is not good. I diasgree with the method of calculation. Had I known this was the way it would be tallied, I would have deleted all my votes other than the one for Clockwork.. At this point we should ask all multiple voters to pick just one template and see if anyone has 75% after that. JDG 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not exactly happy that Noisy has come along and messed around with things just because he didn't win. I too would've thought it obvious which the winner was. If he wants to be picky about the wording then the "top candidates" in the run-off consist of whoever I choose, me being the person that's organised this whole thing. I therefore choose a run-off between Coffee Roll and nothing else.
Second way of looking at it: My calculations show there to be 55 voters for standardisation and 5 against. That shows a clear majority for doing this and then votes can be counted, giving Coffee Roll 76% and its nearest rival at just under 31%.
Third way of looking at it: It's just blatantly obvious that Coffee Roll has won.
Noisy: I'm sorry you didn't win, and thanks for your submission, but to change things around after I'd organised it all (and without any discussion) is quite rude. violet/riga (t) 07:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the overwhelming consensus is that Coffee Roll won, and the second vote should be dropped simply because nobody wants to hold it. However, Noisy shouldn't be blamed for the messy outcome - that's the fault of the people who decided on the voting procedure. He especially shouldn't be blamed for thinking his template was still in the running, because according to the procedure, it was. He even went to the effort of tallying the votes (though with a bit of a misinterpretation of approval voting, when he made a column for percentage of votes instead of percentage of voters), and for that contribution you call him "rude".
Violet's "first way" is surprisingly arrogant, and the "second way" is another misinterpretation of approval voting. None of the arguments put you in any position to yell at Noisy. By the comments above, it seems that editors clearly decided there would be a runoff between the top two, assumed to mean the two that got the most votes, if one didn't achieve support from 75% of voters. None of them did. The voters have only now reversed that decision by an overwhelming consensus.
Why does Wikipedia inspire people to make up voting procedures with bizarre conditions? This seems a lot like what happened to the big huge Wikipedia amendment that 100 people with gazillions of edits were supposed to vote on, too. This vote should have used just approval voting. No 75% minimum, no runoff, no problem.
Or better yet, just skip the vote and look for consensus. That would be way better than holding a flawed vote and then falling back on consensus.
RSpeer 03:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
The vote is complete as of 23:59 UTC 01MAY05. There were 183 votes cast by 60 voters. Seven designs achieved over 5% of the votes cast (15% voter approval), but no single design achieved the 75% mandated. The results are shown below.
Submission | Votes for | % of votes cast |
% of voters |
---|---|---|---|
" Violet" | 7 | 3.82 | 11.67 |
" Earthy colours" | 6 | 3.28 | 10.00 |
" Earthy colours (paler pink/red colours)" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Strong monochrome" | 10 | 5.46 | 16.67 |
" Classico" | 10 | 5.46 | 16.67 |
" Border free" | 5 | 2.73 | 6.33 |
" Death to colorful boxes" | 4 | 2.19 | 6.67 |
" Monochromat" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Serif" | 4 | 2.19 | 6.67 |
" ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll" | 42 | 22.95 | 70.00 |
" Cadet Grey" | 6 | 3.28 | 10.00 |
" Cadet Grey II" | 3 | 1.64 | 5.00 |
" Cadet Grey II (blue)" | 8 | 4.37 | 13.33 |
" Cadet Grey II (gold)" | 2 | 1.09 | 3.33 |
" Obvious" | 16 | 8.74 | 26.67 |
" Simple" | 13 | 7.10 | 21.67 |
" Titlebar" | 7 | 3.83 | 11.67 |
" Developed solution" | 12 | 6.56 | 20.00 |
" Simplistic" | 3 | 1.64 | 5.00 |
" Tick ToC" | 20 | 10.93 | 33.33 |
" Grey Georgia" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Grey Times" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Simplistic Georgia" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Simplistic Times" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
None of the above | 5 | 2.73 | 8.33 |
I've gone ahead and switched over all the major templates. I think the result is damn good looking. See talk:Charles Ives for an example. →Raul654 07:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
So, what did I win? ;) – Clockwork Soul 17:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, here's the results. It's clear from this that ClockworkSoul's design has a large margin between it and the next - 70% compared to 30%. Talrias ( t | e | c) 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Voters:
Design | No. of voters | % of voters |
---|---|---|
"Violet" | 7 | 12 |
"Earthy colours" | 6 | 10 |
"Strong monochrome" | 9 [1] | 15 |
"Classico" | 10 | 17 |
"Border free" | 5 [2] | 8 |
"Death to colourful boxes" | 4 | 7 |
"Serif" | 3 | 5 |
"Coffee Roll" | 42 | 70 |
"Cadet Grey" | 6 | 10 |
"Cadet Grey II" | 3 | 5 |
"Cadet Grey II (blue)" | 7 [3] | 12 |
"Cadet Grey II (gold)" | 2 | 3 |
"Obvious" | 16 | 27 |
"Simple" | 13 | 22 |
"Titlebar" | 7 | 12 |
"Developed solution" | 12 | 20 |
"Simplistic" | 3 | 5 |
"Tic Toc" | 18 [4] | 30 |
Status quo | 5 | 8 |
Two comments:
Good job! Talrias ( t | e | c) 23:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Congrats, Clockwork. Only change I would make would be a very slight paling of the cell bgcolor. It's a totally subjective thing of course, but I think it goes a way toward staying in harmony with the monobook stylings while still demarcing the template from random Talk page stuff. So, I'd change the current
#F8EABA | to | #FFFFBF |
Of course, I think we're going to have to really thresh out the wording of the main FA template. If I understood Talrias correctly, this will be done after the new design is live? JDG 23:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments on its nomination sub-page. |
![]() |
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments on its nomination sub-page. |
Eh. The yellow is only very slightly different, but I think it goes a little better with the monobook grays and blues. - Omegatron 03:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
The colors above seem a bit strong. How about toning it down to something like ece8c9, like with Template:Oldpeerreview. - SV| t 14:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I just don't think "coffee with cream" goes with the blues and grays we have everywhere else. Then again, maybe it's just because I don't like coffee... - Omegatron 19:41, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
{{ TrollWarning}}, {{ Cleanup taskforce notice}}, {{ Cleanup taskforce closed}} and {{ Cleanup taskforce 1911}} have since ben redone to follow this. Would we want to eventually have ALL the talk page templates to follow these standards? Circeus 17:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between what it says here on cell spacing (5px) and what is actually implemented in template:standard template style (3px). Wim van Dorst 08:57, 2005 May 13 (UTC).
Sounds like a good idea. Especially the extreme minimalist one :). I do think we should decide on one standard template and stick with that. R adiant _* 19:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
This entire discussion should be move to Template talk:Tfd. That is what talk pages are for. -- Netoholic @ 20:37, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
On the article page (see
Wikipedia:Template standardisation#Choices),
User:Stevertigo has said that I proposed having a choice of sizes for templates (at
Template talk:Tfd#either/or?). That is a misinterpretation of what I said there. Here is the start of what I said:
I was only commenting on Template:tfd, which I thought was verbose and awkwardly worded, but also thought that Stevertigo's revision was too short and uninformative. I do think, however, that there are quite a few other templates that need a good copy editing for length and clarity, but I do not endorse any of the current "minimalist" examples that Stevertigo has put forth, nor do I, at the moment, see a reason for having a choice of templates for doing the same task. BlankVerse ∅ 10:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
BV: "nor do I, at the moment, see a reason for having a choice of templates for doing the same task." Yes, of course:
* Template:Delete * Template:Deletebecause * Template:Deleteagain *Template:Nonsense* Wikipedia:Speedy deletions * Wikipedia:Template messages/All * Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion * Category:Redundant images * Category:Image pages with missing or corrupt images
- SV| t 17:50, 17 May 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 |
This is an archive of Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation, created on 24 May, 2005 from resolved discussions.
There used to be a "logo" for the featured articles, but this was recently (and, I believe, temporarily) removed from the template to reduce the load on the image servers. It would be good if new designs for Template:Featured could incorporate these images (see the top of Template talk:Featured), even if it might not get put on the live version for a little while (I'm not sure what the current state of the server is for these things). — Matt Crypto 19:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've made a request to User:Avsa for some reduced size icons. Noisy | Talk 09:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Here is user avsa. What do you mean by reduced size icons? you want me to re-upload a scaledown image? I thought that the server only scaled down an image once it was requested, then kept the smaller image on memory, so that it wouldn´t need to resize a]the image for EVERy visitor. That poses a problem, because whenever I contributte with an image I try to upload the bigger size possible (you never know the day wikipedia will need images with a printable resolution - 300dpi). Anyway, if that´s what you want, to reduce the image and reuploaded it you need no other program than wikipedia itself: Just download that image you see on the page and reupload it. Or am I simply misuderstanding everything? thanks-- Alexandre Van de Sande 15:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It would be interesting to create a page which showed all the versions of a particular template for comparison. Which would be the most appropriate one to choose, or would it make sense to compare all of them? -- Phil | Talk 15:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Just a comment - I like most of the nominations - there are so many nice ones. →Raul654 13:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see the competition going. Sorry if it was painful getting here. There are some very nice entries by my lights, including Violet's "Classico".
Have you considered separating voting on the text from voting on physical properties? I know I've been meaning to craft my ideal FA TALK text (and I would also lobby to put this text near the "Save" button on any FA editing page because the people who most need to slow down are exactly those most likely to ignore Talk pages). I'm pretty sure user Blackcats and a few others will be weighing in on the exact wording too. As long as all proposed messages are within about a dozen words of the current message word counts, it shouldn't affect the aesthetic side of the competition.
Another thing-- in the template example pages scattered around in people's user spaces I think it would be best if people throw in at least five blank lines to separate each template. In the recent controversy I think a number of people had a problem not so much with colors, borders, etc.,., but with the way the template actually sat on the Talk page. How was it aligned, did it push all other material off the first screenfull and so on. These things would be easier to judge on the candidate pages if blank lines are used to float each template in some isolation that stands for the Talk page itself.
Lastly, I would encourage people to come up with tiny graphical elements for the templates. I like the star and star points that were being used, but they probably don't scale down too well to real mini-iconic size (the star is a very nice graphic with a faceted multicolored-light-reflections look, unfortunately that sort of detail collapses into a junky look in a severe downsample). It seems good to have the template messages strongly marked off from page text and nothing short of garish table cell colors would achieve this as well as standardized mini-icons (they'll need to be mini due to the server load issue). Since strong cell colors will get almost no votes we'll have to look to graphics to make this at-a-glance distinction. JDG 17:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am going to be away for the vote and may not have time to visit next week, so please would someone register a postal vote on my behalf for
and against
-- ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) [updated a couple of times]
I also am going to be away next week, so I'll cast my absentee ballot for violet/riga's "Simple" (first choice) and "Obvious" (second choice) and "classico" (third choice). I'd like to cast an explicit "no" vote on Noisy's "Tick ToC" and both of Allen3's "Cadet Grey" designs. -- Neutrality talk 22:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there appears to be no difference between Netoholic's " Death to colorful boxes" and ALoan's " Simplistic". Am I correct in saying this? Talrias ( t | e | c) 23:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of what voting method we are going to use. I don't know much about voting theory so I don't have any suggestions, and I don't have any serious objections to the kind of voting being done above. Does anyone else? Zach 23:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There are two options which I favour:
Being a design contest I don't really like the critical side of the second option, but maybe it is better to point out ones you don't think work very well. violet/riga (t) 08:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
which sounds great but does involve a fair deal of faffHere's how it works. Anyone is allowed to create a new CIVS election, and only authorized voters will know about it. Voters and the election supervisor must have e-mail and web access. When an election is created, voters are sent e-mail informing them that the election is open and giving them a URL where they can rank their choices. Open, public polls may also be created for which voters do not need e-mail access; however, the results of such polls are less trustworthy.
Ok, we'll do it as Aloan suggests, with the caveat that voting lasts the standard one week. If a run-off is needed, we'll just run the top 2 for simplicity's sake (again, for one week). →Raul654 23:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) PS - After looking them all over, I think I like Clockwork's Coffee Roll the best. →Raul654 23:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is just an example of the vote layout.
Support
Conditional support
Also partially available in paler pink/red colours.
Support
Conditional support
Support
Conditional support
Support
Perhaps we should have 3 different votes for the 3 different primary elements: format, color, and text? – Clockwork Soul 13:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, so I've just started the vote, though I was a little caught out by BST/UTC. I doubt I'll be awake in an hour though, so it should be fine (any submissions within that time can be added no problem). I'll go through the proxy votes listed above and add them in now.
violet/riga
(t) 23:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about if one of the "old status" templates included is a "Previous COTW" one, that sems to fit in with the general idea. I realize (or at least think) there is not a current template like this, but it's just an idea... -- Dmcdevit 03:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now that we're nearing a decision on design, I think we should make a considered effort to improve the text of at least the main FA template. I feel strongly that the wording should serve to give users, particularly newish users, pause before they jump in with edits, without outright discouraging them. I feel so strongly because there are now quite a few articles that are truly gems and that represent scads of personhours in achieving just the right wording, balance, detail and thematic progression. A great disservice would be done to the project if the topnotch writers of these articles are alienated by a steady scrambling of their work. They will be "disincentivized" big time and will contribute less or even leave altogether. We certainly don't want that.
I don't know if there should be voting for this. Maybe we can take a swing at an informal consensus on this Talk page and go to voting only if we seem stuck.
Here's my attempt at FA:
"This is a Featured Article. We believe it is one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Changes should not be made lightly, as you will be altering text and/or a thematic progression that by consensus is already of very high quality. Even so, improvement is always possible, particularly by addition of new or interesting text.
Archived discussion that led to this becoming a featured article should be at the nomination page (may not exist for older articles)."
JDG 16:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i wish there were a way to vote against the ugly ones. :-) - Omegatron 23:58, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, first we were told Clockwork's template was the winner. Now appears a calculation that apparently will result in a runoff. This is not good. I diasgree with the method of calculation. Had I known this was the way it would be tallied, I would have deleted all my votes other than the one for Clockwork.. At this point we should ask all multiple voters to pick just one template and see if anyone has 75% after that. JDG 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not exactly happy that Noisy has come along and messed around with things just because he didn't win. I too would've thought it obvious which the winner was. If he wants to be picky about the wording then the "top candidates" in the run-off consist of whoever I choose, me being the person that's organised this whole thing. I therefore choose a run-off between Coffee Roll and nothing else.
Second way of looking at it: My calculations show there to be 55 voters for standardisation and 5 against. That shows a clear majority for doing this and then votes can be counted, giving Coffee Roll 76% and its nearest rival at just under 31%.
Third way of looking at it: It's just blatantly obvious that Coffee Roll has won.
Noisy: I'm sorry you didn't win, and thanks for your submission, but to change things around after I'd organised it all (and without any discussion) is quite rude. violet/riga (t) 07:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the overwhelming consensus is that Coffee Roll won, and the second vote should be dropped simply because nobody wants to hold it. However, Noisy shouldn't be blamed for the messy outcome - that's the fault of the people who decided on the voting procedure. He especially shouldn't be blamed for thinking his template was still in the running, because according to the procedure, it was. He even went to the effort of tallying the votes (though with a bit of a misinterpretation of approval voting, when he made a column for percentage of votes instead of percentage of voters), and for that contribution you call him "rude".
Violet's "first way" is surprisingly arrogant, and the "second way" is another misinterpretation of approval voting. None of the arguments put you in any position to yell at Noisy. By the comments above, it seems that editors clearly decided there would be a runoff between the top two, assumed to mean the two that got the most votes, if one didn't achieve support from 75% of voters. None of them did. The voters have only now reversed that decision by an overwhelming consensus.
Why does Wikipedia inspire people to make up voting procedures with bizarre conditions? This seems a lot like what happened to the big huge Wikipedia amendment that 100 people with gazillions of edits were supposed to vote on, too. This vote should have used just approval voting. No 75% minimum, no runoff, no problem.
Or better yet, just skip the vote and look for consensus. That would be way better than holding a flawed vote and then falling back on consensus.
RSpeer 03:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
The vote is complete as of 23:59 UTC 01MAY05. There were 183 votes cast by 60 voters. Seven designs achieved over 5% of the votes cast (15% voter approval), but no single design achieved the 75% mandated. The results are shown below.
Submission | Votes for | % of votes cast |
% of voters |
---|---|---|---|
" Violet" | 7 | 3.82 | 11.67 |
" Earthy colours" | 6 | 3.28 | 10.00 |
" Earthy colours (paler pink/red colours)" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Strong monochrome" | 10 | 5.46 | 16.67 |
" Classico" | 10 | 5.46 | 16.67 |
" Border free" | 5 | 2.73 | 6.33 |
" Death to colorful boxes" | 4 | 2.19 | 6.67 |
" Monochromat" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Serif" | 4 | 2.19 | 6.67 |
" ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll" | 42 | 22.95 | 70.00 |
" Cadet Grey" | 6 | 3.28 | 10.00 |
" Cadet Grey II" | 3 | 1.64 | 5.00 |
" Cadet Grey II (blue)" | 8 | 4.37 | 13.33 |
" Cadet Grey II (gold)" | 2 | 1.09 | 3.33 |
" Obvious" | 16 | 8.74 | 26.67 |
" Simple" | 13 | 7.10 | 21.67 |
" Titlebar" | 7 | 3.83 | 11.67 |
" Developed solution" | 12 | 6.56 | 20.00 |
" Simplistic" | 3 | 1.64 | 5.00 |
" Tick ToC" | 20 | 10.93 | 33.33 |
" Grey Georgia" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Grey Times" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Simplistic Georgia" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
" Simplistic Times" | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
None of the above | 5 | 2.73 | 8.33 |
I've gone ahead and switched over all the major templates. I think the result is damn good looking. See talk:Charles Ives for an example. →Raul654 07:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
So, what did I win? ;) – Clockwork Soul 17:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, here's the results. It's clear from this that ClockworkSoul's design has a large margin between it and the next - 70% compared to 30%. Talrias ( t | e | c) 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Voters:
Design | No. of voters | % of voters |
---|---|---|
"Violet" | 7 | 12 |
"Earthy colours" | 6 | 10 |
"Strong monochrome" | 9 [1] | 15 |
"Classico" | 10 | 17 |
"Border free" | 5 [2] | 8 |
"Death to colourful boxes" | 4 | 7 |
"Serif" | 3 | 5 |
"Coffee Roll" | 42 | 70 |
"Cadet Grey" | 6 | 10 |
"Cadet Grey II" | 3 | 5 |
"Cadet Grey II (blue)" | 7 [3] | 12 |
"Cadet Grey II (gold)" | 2 | 3 |
"Obvious" | 16 | 27 |
"Simple" | 13 | 22 |
"Titlebar" | 7 | 12 |
"Developed solution" | 12 | 20 |
"Simplistic" | 3 | 5 |
"Tic Toc" | 18 [4] | 30 |
Status quo | 5 | 8 |
Two comments:
Good job! Talrias ( t | e | c) 23:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Congrats, Clockwork. Only change I would make would be a very slight paling of the cell bgcolor. It's a totally subjective thing of course, but I think it goes a way toward staying in harmony with the monobook stylings while still demarcing the template from random Talk page stuff. So, I'd change the current
#F8EABA | to | #FFFFBF |
Of course, I think we're going to have to really thresh out the wording of the main FA template. If I understood Talrias correctly, this will be done after the new design is live? JDG 23:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments on its nomination sub-page. |
![]() |
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments on its nomination sub-page. |
Eh. The yellow is only very slightly different, but I think it goes a little better with the monobook grays and blues. - Omegatron 03:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
The colors above seem a bit strong. How about toning it down to something like ece8c9, like with Template:Oldpeerreview. - SV| t 14:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I just don't think "coffee with cream" goes with the blues and grays we have everywhere else. Then again, maybe it's just because I don't like coffee... - Omegatron 19:41, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
{{ TrollWarning}}, {{ Cleanup taskforce notice}}, {{ Cleanup taskforce closed}} and {{ Cleanup taskforce 1911}} have since ben redone to follow this. Would we want to eventually have ALL the talk page templates to follow these standards? Circeus 17:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between what it says here on cell spacing (5px) and what is actually implemented in template:standard template style (3px). Wim van Dorst 08:57, 2005 May 13 (UTC).
Sounds like a good idea. Especially the extreme minimalist one :). I do think we should decide on one standard template and stick with that. R adiant _* 19:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
This entire discussion should be move to Template talk:Tfd. That is what talk pages are for. -- Netoholic @ 20:37, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
On the article page (see
Wikipedia:Template standardisation#Choices),
User:Stevertigo has said that I proposed having a choice of sizes for templates (at
Template talk:Tfd#either/or?). That is a misinterpretation of what I said there. Here is the start of what I said:
I was only commenting on Template:tfd, which I thought was verbose and awkwardly worded, but also thought that Stevertigo's revision was too short and uninformative. I do think, however, that there are quite a few other templates that need a good copy editing for length and clarity, but I do not endorse any of the current "minimalist" examples that Stevertigo has put forth, nor do I, at the moment, see a reason for having a choice of templates for doing the same task. BlankVerse ∅ 10:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
BV: "nor do I, at the moment, see a reason for having a choice of templates for doing the same task." Yes, of course:
* Template:Delete * Template:Deletebecause * Template:Deleteagain *Template:Nonsense* Wikipedia:Speedy deletions * Wikipedia:Template messages/All * Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion * Category:Redundant images * Category:Image pages with missing or corrupt images
- SV| t 17:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)