This is discussion prior to any vote or suggested solution. It was inspired both by the success of the original WP:TS, by ongoing ugliness/randomness of article templates and arguments at {{ merge}} and {{ disambig}}. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:30 (UTC)
Please discuss below whether or not standardisation is required for this type of template. Feel free to add any other sections. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Only one template exists in this category but it exists here for completeness. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
I think most people would agree that the article templates should be less eye-catching than the ones on talk pages - the main focus should of course be the article and accompanying pictures rather than notices about various stuff.
I really like the style of the {{ disambig}} template. It's non-intrusive, but still visible. I would personally like to see this kind of style being used across the board for the templates included on article pages. Thoughts? Talrias ( t | e | c) 28 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)
It is impractical to bring all these various templates onto this page for discussion. That is much better done on the respective talk pages. I suggest, rather than this format, that the article template standarisation be done much like a "Collaboration of the Week", with interested parties moving from one template "genre" to the next, with discussion happening on those talk pages. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 17:58 (UTC)
There might be a bit of misunderstanding here. I don't think the intention is to consider each individual template on this page. My understanding is that this is one layer of the standardisation process, an attempt to identify what standards, if any, can be shared across all templates or, more narrowly, whether certain standards can be identified for broad classes of templates ... the latter as evidenced by the categorisation. Indeed, specific revisions to specific templates would appropriately be placed (read as must be placed) on that particular template's talk page, otherwise you run the certain risk of meeting fierce resistance from heavy users of template X when they see that that template has changed (apparently) without discussion. This is just another way of saying that both of you are right and there's no need to derail the current discussion. Keep in mind that standaridisation means identification and application of standards not make everything look and work the same. Courtland July 3, 2005 04:14 (UTC)
I don't know if it were possible, but would it be a good idea for these template categories to be automatically hidden when printing? violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)
I really wish there was a standard adopted for ALL templates, because the ones I visit get changed every single day. There needs to be an agreement on box/no box and image/no image. Personally I'd go with box and image to show that it is indeed a notice and not just random text in an article. Elfguy 30 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)
Just like the competition for talk page templates, I've set User:Violetriga/inprogress as an example of how this may be organised. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we need to nail down the basic types of article template, based on:
For example:
I think that all article templates can be classified in this way, but I'm open to correction. I would like to be able to allow users of all types to specify whether they can see the various classes of article template at all, and how prominently they are displayed if so. I think it is very likely that taking the CSS route as we have with talk templates is likely a good way to go. HTH HAND -- Phil | Talk July 4, 2005 14:06 (UTC)
I dunno if this is appropriate here, but...
Suggestion: Templates reference "Discussion" page, rather than "Talk" unless they are in the User namespace. The page is named "Discussion," not "Talk." "Talk" is inaccurate, wikipedia jargon and confusing. (I found it confusing when I first started exploring wikipedia.) -- >>sparkit| TALK<< 17:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to categorize these under "disputes and warnings." Merging is a type of cleanup, and therefore belongs in the "maintenance" category. I patterned the current "merge" templates after the existing "cleanup" templates (deliberately selecting a color scheme that's similar, but not identical). I'm planning to add a submission soon, and I intend to follow this formula. — Lifeisunfair 22:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
...and subpages could use some cleaning up, since several templates are in the wrong category, or listed twice, or simply stand out for having a different layout than anything else around them. If someone has a free hour or two... R adiant _>|< 23:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Look at this thing! It's in violation. Violation, I tells ya! ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Television: Stargate Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
If anyone still watches this page, I'd love to revive this discussion. We could especially use standards for top-of-article templates. – flamurai ( t) 06:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I just recommended this page on a recent village pump discussion -- Random832 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (-- PBS 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)):
(The following message, but not the replies posted below it, was copied from Wikipedia talk:Maintenance by The Transhumanist 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC))...
I have a couple of friends who work in the visual electronic entertainment industry. I now avoid watching anything with them because instead of enjoying the film or television program, they sit there commenting on technical features in the film, lighting, cuts etc. I think that with people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles instead of viewing articles for the information they contain (as most readers do) they view the article for how well put together it is and if it can be improved.
One manifestation of this I have noticed, which in my opinion is the growing tendency, is to add what are editorial comments to the article page instead of on to the talk page. If a person edits an article page and write in plain text. "This page is not good enough it needs more information" the comment will either be moved to the talk page or it will be deleted as vandalism. However if a person puts a template at the top of a page then they feel that is justified (eg {{ cleanup-bio}}, but in essence it is contributing nothing more to the article than the plain text does.
There are exceptions to this, for example I think that the {{ unreferenced}} placed in a "Reference" section at the bottom of an article, serves a dual purpose. It is a maintenance template but it also adds information that a passing reader of the page (who is not familiar with Wikipeda) needs to know. But a passing reader does not need to know {{ wikify}} "This article (or section) may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." Comments like this should in my opinion be placed on talk page. -- PBS 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what is needed is a little icon that can be placed in the top right corner of articles needing work. The presence of the icon would indicate that there are tags which need to be addressed on the article's talk page. The advantages would be that at 3/8" x 3/8" it would be fairly unobtrusive, and would also take the place of multiple tags. One icon fits all. The Transhumanist 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The templates serve to both inform & remind the casual reader that the article/site is in continuous development, and also act as a lure for curious-readers to become new-editors. Some of the templates could use an aesthetic update (See Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article. I really like flamurai's fairly recent ' blanca' additions), but moving them all to the talkpage would be dishonest and disadvantageous. -- Quiddity 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
{{DATE
with {{subst:DATE
. " when applied like this: {{
clean|{{subst:DATE}}}}
, for example. That date= after the pipe is precisely the input parameter most of the the IN-YOUR-FACE tags are designed to take. The tagging overloading a page can and should be handled by using a version of '|small=1' switching which is common to an increasing number of tags should they be kept on main pages. Another alternative there would be the hide/show tagging modes many navigation templates are sporting these days.
The date tagging of such templates has been a good impulse in the right direction, but created need for patrolling parties and BOTs to check on that. But I agree strongly with Phillip, most Banner templates are deleterious to our reputations with the occasional reader and even the regular users. They aid the press perception that we are unreliable. So I like Transhumanist's idea of a iconic tag, but would not make it a right margin tag, but a left margin simple message: Editor attention needed which would be a link to the article talk page Section where the cleanup and such tag resides... See for example: {{
Commons}} and the smaller but Brassier {{
Gallery-link}} (style meant for category page tagging--not shown, see
Category:Saxony for that). Wikimedia Commons has media related to
United States Navy ships. |
See Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article. This sort of input would probably be welcome over there. Also, what does everyone think of this? -- Random832 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As this section is getting close to its sell by date, I will cut and past to there, so that there is a record of this exchange. Please post any additional comments on that page -- PBS 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
See also User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. -- PBS 08:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The tags are useful in that they remind the reader that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is constantly changing, never a complete work and hence never perfect and perfectly reliable (sometimes vandalized, too). On some other language wikipedias, the wiki editors are hiding the problems and the controversies in the markup or on the discussion pages - the result looks deceptively "nice and clean", like an "authoritative" text, to the naive reader coming from outside; and its content is nevertheless (or maybe for this same reason?) frequently less accurate and more biased than on the English Wikipedia. I say transparency is good. -- Anonymous44 13:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is discussion prior to any vote or suggested solution. It was inspired both by the success of the original WP:TS, by ongoing ugliness/randomness of article templates and arguments at {{ merge}} and {{ disambig}}. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:30 (UTC)
Please discuss below whether or not standardisation is required for this type of template. Feel free to add any other sections. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Only one template exists in this category but it exists here for completeness. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
I think most people would agree that the article templates should be less eye-catching than the ones on talk pages - the main focus should of course be the article and accompanying pictures rather than notices about various stuff.
I really like the style of the {{ disambig}} template. It's non-intrusive, but still visible. I would personally like to see this kind of style being used across the board for the templates included on article pages. Thoughts? Talrias ( t | e | c) 28 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)
It is impractical to bring all these various templates onto this page for discussion. That is much better done on the respective talk pages. I suggest, rather than this format, that the article template standarisation be done much like a "Collaboration of the Week", with interested parties moving from one template "genre" to the next, with discussion happening on those talk pages. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 17:58 (UTC)
There might be a bit of misunderstanding here. I don't think the intention is to consider each individual template on this page. My understanding is that this is one layer of the standardisation process, an attempt to identify what standards, if any, can be shared across all templates or, more narrowly, whether certain standards can be identified for broad classes of templates ... the latter as evidenced by the categorisation. Indeed, specific revisions to specific templates would appropriately be placed (read as must be placed) on that particular template's talk page, otherwise you run the certain risk of meeting fierce resistance from heavy users of template X when they see that that template has changed (apparently) without discussion. This is just another way of saying that both of you are right and there's no need to derail the current discussion. Keep in mind that standaridisation means identification and application of standards not make everything look and work the same. Courtland July 3, 2005 04:14 (UTC)
I don't know if it were possible, but would it be a good idea for these template categories to be automatically hidden when printing? violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)
I really wish there was a standard adopted for ALL templates, because the ones I visit get changed every single day. There needs to be an agreement on box/no box and image/no image. Personally I'd go with box and image to show that it is indeed a notice and not just random text in an article. Elfguy 30 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)
Just like the competition for talk page templates, I've set User:Violetriga/inprogress as an example of how this may be organised. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we need to nail down the basic types of article template, based on:
For example:
I think that all article templates can be classified in this way, but I'm open to correction. I would like to be able to allow users of all types to specify whether they can see the various classes of article template at all, and how prominently they are displayed if so. I think it is very likely that taking the CSS route as we have with talk templates is likely a good way to go. HTH HAND -- Phil | Talk July 4, 2005 14:06 (UTC)
I dunno if this is appropriate here, but...
Suggestion: Templates reference "Discussion" page, rather than "Talk" unless they are in the User namespace. The page is named "Discussion," not "Talk." "Talk" is inaccurate, wikipedia jargon and confusing. (I found it confusing when I first started exploring wikipedia.) -- >>sparkit| TALK<< 17:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to categorize these under "disputes and warnings." Merging is a type of cleanup, and therefore belongs in the "maintenance" category. I patterned the current "merge" templates after the existing "cleanup" templates (deliberately selecting a color scheme that's similar, but not identical). I'm planning to add a submission soon, and I intend to follow this formula. — Lifeisunfair 22:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
...and subpages could use some cleaning up, since several templates are in the wrong category, or listed twice, or simply stand out for having a different layout than anything else around them. If someone has a free hour or two... R adiant _>|< 23:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Look at this thing! It's in violation. Violation, I tells ya! ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Television: Stargate Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
If anyone still watches this page, I'd love to revive this discussion. We could especially use standards for top-of-article templates. – flamurai ( t) 06:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I just recommended this page on a recent village pump discussion -- Random832 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (-- PBS 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)):
(The following message, but not the replies posted below it, was copied from Wikipedia talk:Maintenance by The Transhumanist 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC))...
I have a couple of friends who work in the visual electronic entertainment industry. I now avoid watching anything with them because instead of enjoying the film or television program, they sit there commenting on technical features in the film, lighting, cuts etc. I think that with people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles instead of viewing articles for the information they contain (as most readers do) they view the article for how well put together it is and if it can be improved.
One manifestation of this I have noticed, which in my opinion is the growing tendency, is to add what are editorial comments to the article page instead of on to the talk page. If a person edits an article page and write in plain text. "This page is not good enough it needs more information" the comment will either be moved to the talk page or it will be deleted as vandalism. However if a person puts a template at the top of a page then they feel that is justified (eg {{ cleanup-bio}}, but in essence it is contributing nothing more to the article than the plain text does.
There are exceptions to this, for example I think that the {{ unreferenced}} placed in a "Reference" section at the bottom of an article, serves a dual purpose. It is a maintenance template but it also adds information that a passing reader of the page (who is not familiar with Wikipeda) needs to know. But a passing reader does not need to know {{ wikify}} "This article (or section) may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." Comments like this should in my opinion be placed on talk page. -- PBS 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what is needed is a little icon that can be placed in the top right corner of articles needing work. The presence of the icon would indicate that there are tags which need to be addressed on the article's talk page. The advantages would be that at 3/8" x 3/8" it would be fairly unobtrusive, and would also take the place of multiple tags. One icon fits all. The Transhumanist 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The templates serve to both inform & remind the casual reader that the article/site is in continuous development, and also act as a lure for curious-readers to become new-editors. Some of the templates could use an aesthetic update (See Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article. I really like flamurai's fairly recent ' blanca' additions), but moving them all to the talkpage would be dishonest and disadvantageous. -- Quiddity 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
{{DATE
with {{subst:DATE
. " when applied like this: {{
clean|{{subst:DATE}}}}
, for example. That date= after the pipe is precisely the input parameter most of the the IN-YOUR-FACE tags are designed to take. The tagging overloading a page can and should be handled by using a version of '|small=1' switching which is common to an increasing number of tags should they be kept on main pages. Another alternative there would be the hide/show tagging modes many navigation templates are sporting these days.
The date tagging of such templates has been a good impulse in the right direction, but created need for patrolling parties and BOTs to check on that. But I agree strongly with Phillip, most Banner templates are deleterious to our reputations with the occasional reader and even the regular users. They aid the press perception that we are unreliable. So I like Transhumanist's idea of a iconic tag, but would not make it a right margin tag, but a left margin simple message: Editor attention needed which would be a link to the article talk page Section where the cleanup and such tag resides... See for example: {{
Commons}} and the smaller but Brassier {{
Gallery-link}} (style meant for category page tagging--not shown, see
Category:Saxony for that). Wikimedia Commons has media related to
United States Navy ships. |
See Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article. This sort of input would probably be welcome over there. Also, what does everyone think of this? -- Random832 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As this section is getting close to its sell by date, I will cut and past to there, so that there is a record of this exchange. Please post any additional comments on that page -- PBS 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
See also User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. -- PBS 08:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The tags are useful in that they remind the reader that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is constantly changing, never a complete work and hence never perfect and perfectly reliable (sometimes vandalized, too). On some other language wikipedias, the wiki editors are hiding the problems and the controversies in the markup or on the discussion pages - the result looks deceptively "nice and clean", like an "authoritative" text, to the naive reader coming from outside; and its content is nevertheless (or maybe for this same reason?) frequently less accurate and more biased than on the English Wikipedia. I say transparency is good. -- Anonymous44 13:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)