Wikipedia:Talk page templates/vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This vote is now over but is retained here for reference

The vote for template standardisation ended Sunday 1 May 2005 at 23:59 (UTC). When voting the primary consideration was the design and layout of the template – the exact text was to be debated upon individually after a winner was chosen.

You could vote for as many or as few candidates as you wished and the winner was chosen by approval voting – if only one submission gets over 75% it will be chosen, otherwise there would have been a run-off for the top candidates. You may have supported a candidate with a specific condition if, with a minor alteration, you would have found it acceptable.

A simple comparison page was also made to show all of the submissions.

Contents 1 Submissions 1.1 "Violet" 1.2 "Earthy colours" 1.3 "Earthy colours (paler pink/red colours)" 1.4 "Strong monochrome" 1.5 "Classico" 1.6 "Border free" 1.7 "Death to colorful boxes" 1.8 "Monochromat" 1.9 "Serif" 1.10 "ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll" 1.11 "Cadet Grey" 1.12 "Cadet Grey II" 1.13 "Cadet Grey II (blue)" 1.14 "Cadet Grey II (gold)" 1.15 "Obvious" 1.16 "Simple" 1.17 "Titlebar" 1.18 "Developed solution" 1.19 "Simplistic" 1.20 "Tick ToC" 1.21 "Grey Georgia" 1.22 "Grey Times" 1.23 "Simplistic Georgia" 1.24 "Simplistic Times" 1.25 None of the above 2 Templates included

[edit] Submissions

[edit] "Violet"

Support

1. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Allen3 ^talk 23:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
4. Joyous 00:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
5. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Bratsche^{talk random} 02:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
7. Alphax ^τεχ 17:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

[edit] "Earthy colours"

Support

1. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Carnildo 01:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Radiant_* 14:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
5. Noisy | Talk 17:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. Phil | Talk 16:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

[edit] "Earthy colours (paler pink/red colours)"

Based on the above design and not entirely implemented

Support

Conditional support

[edit] "Strong monochrome"

Support

1. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Allen3 ^talk 23:14, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
3. Conti|✉ 23:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
4. Joyous 00:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
5. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Radiant_* 14:05, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
7. R. S. Shaw 22:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Circeus 16:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
9. Alphax ^τεχ 17:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. The Press source template should also have a link to other sources to the left like FACs and the like. I prefer another warmer color for this one. Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Classico"

Support

1. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 22:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
3. Joyous 00:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
4. Burgundavia 00:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
5. Carnildo 01:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. r3m0t ^talk 09:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
7. ClockworkSoul 15:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Alphax ^τεχ 17:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:59, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
10. John Fader (talk | contribs) 13:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

[edit] "Border free"

Support

1. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. r3m0t ^talk 09:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
4. Alphax ^τεχ 17:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. If FA pic and others like it are downsized. Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Death to colorful boxes"

Support

1. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Joyous 00:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
3. Korath (Talk) 13:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
4. JRM · Talk 13:03, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC) It's not going to make the cut, but I feel a statement is necessary.

Conditional support

[edit] "Monochromat"

Support

Conditional support

[edit] "Serif"

Support

1. Conti|✉ 23:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
2. Dmleach 16:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. R. S. Shaw 21:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. see "strong monochrome" reasoning. Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll"

Winning design

Support

1. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. — Matt Crypto 23:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. BrokenSegue 23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Conti|✉ 23:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
6. →Raul654 23:34, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
7. Burgundavia 23:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
8. ABCD 23:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Lochaber 00:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Spangineer ∞ 01:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
11. Carnildo 01:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Paul August ☎ 02:05, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
13. Thryduulf 10:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Zeerus (ETCWFD) 12:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
15. Radiant_* 14:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
16. Zscout370 15:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
17. ClockworkSoul 15:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
18. Noisy | Talk 17:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
19. Bevo 23:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
20. Bratsche^{talk random} 02:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
21. JDG 13:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
22. --JuntungWu 14:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
23. Alphax ^τεχ 17:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
24. —thames 17:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
25. Merovingian (t) (c) 02:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
26. Full support! By far the best. Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
27. plattopus^talk 13:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
28. Deathphoenix 04:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
29. Full support, (IMHO, a border: 1px #000000; would be a nice enhancement) Guy M/LV ^(praise) 06:20, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • The templates aleady have a border: 1px solid #C0C090;. I'm not sure that a black border would really look much better... – ClockworkSoul 12:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
30. Phil | Talk 16:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
31. — Dan | Talk 02:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
32. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:00, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
33. Thue | talk 09:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
34. JRM · Talk 13:06, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
35. John Fader (talk | contribs) 13:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
36. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
37. Greg Robson 16:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Much more professional.
38. Oleg Alexandrov 22:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
39. Andre (talk) 18:41, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
40. SimonP 22:40, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
41. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
42. r3m0t ^talk 21:07, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. Only if the images are modified to have a background matching that of the background of the text - I know they are transparent PNGs, but this doesn't work in IE and therefore looks bad. Issue addressed - full support now! Talrias (t | e | c) 09:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • Issue was addressed on 26 Apr. – ClockworkSoul 23:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Same as Talrias. Copy the images if necessary. :( r3m0t ^talk 09:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) to full support
   • I switched over to IE, and yes, you're correct. I uploaded some scaled-down images with colored backgrounds to addess this issue, and it seems good to me now. – ClockworkSoul 05:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • Issue was addressed on 26 Apr. – ClockworkSoul 23:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • Moving vote. r3m0t ^talk 21:07, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
3. (change to full support) JDG 12:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Full support if these images can be downsampled nicely to about 35px square. Otherwise I fear developers will come along and remove images due to server load.
   • I uploaded some pre-transformed 50px images that should do, and fixed the background issue in the process. 50px is the size that they were being transformed to before the change, and is alot smaller than many of the original images. – ClockworkSoul 05:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, a while ago a developer blew away images that were being resized in markup to 50px. But let's go with this now and see if anyone can eventually really miniaturize these. JDG 13:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Xmag.png, Image:Knewsticker.png, and Image:Important.png are available as 16x16. Is that small enough? Otherwise, they could be 48x48, 32x32, or 22x22. I'm quite happy to talk about it, as well as some other images that could be used. Alphax ^τεχ 17:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I already downsized the images from 64px to 50px. I really would prefer not to go any smaller than that for fear of losing image quality. The images currently in use are modifications of the originals (to compensate for the IE PNG transparency issue), so any downsizing would require modification of the images in place. If the developers do decide to remove the images, we'll deal with it then. Worst case scanario is that we put temporary lower-quality images in the templates until the image server load is resolved. – ClockworkSoul 13:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alphax, your comment led me to check out the icon situation. It's interesting that we have access to such high-quality sets like Nuvolo, at so many dimensions (although I see we still need to upload anything at the really tiny sizes, or maybe I missed them). I'm tempted to push for something like these (made from scratch to look good at these micro dimensions), but in the case of these templates people here have managed to scale down some larger images and retain a surprising quality. If the developers complain about these (roughly) 50px square images, we'll know we have some good alternatives ready at 32px square. But for now let's see how these fly. JDG 11:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, very few icons have been uploaded - ATM, WYSIWYG. I'm slowly uploading more, but there are so many... Alphax ^τεχ 13:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• If I win, should I give Jimbo's user page a makeover in the same style as my user page? – ClockworkSoul 13:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, because your user page is too wide, and people have to scroll to the right to see the whole thing. Make you columns liquid, or get rid of one column. It does look nice though --tex^t_tonic 13:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I run at a high resolution, so it looked fine to me. I jumped down to a lower res and yes, you're right, there is some scrolling. I shrunk the "stress bar", which was throwing things off a bit, so it should look better now. What do you think? – ClockworkSoul 18:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • your page looks better, but as Deathphoenix said, Jimbo doesn't want his page messed with. I would ask him anyway. I think it's a good idea. --tex^t_tonic 18:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, because Jimbo's made it pretty clear that he wants his page to look more like Angela's. --Deathphoenix 04:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • on another note, I personally think Angela's page looks horrible. The colors are too bright for me. --Zeerus (ETCWFD) 15:19, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • He says that he wants it to "look as perfect as Angela's", not necessarily 'look like Angela's". – ClockworkSoul 21:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • In that case, I say edit it. Besides, you've already won this. Unless, by some unimaginable coincidence everybody decides to change their vote in favor of another template. I would change it now if I were you. --Zeerus (ETCWFD) 21:23, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • There's probably still going to be a run-off, so I don't want to just assume that I've won just yet. – ClockworkSoul 22:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So, what do you guys think? Do you think that he would like it? – ClockworkSoul 03:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Simple. Clear. No endless variety of pastel shades to revile me. JRM · Talk 13:06, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

[edit] "Cadet Grey"

Support

1. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. — Matt Crypto 23:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Allen3 ^talk 23:16, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
4. Conti|✉ 23:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
5. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Alphax ^τεχ 17:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

[edit] "Cadet Grey II"

Support

1. Allen3 ^talk 23:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
2. Spangineer ∞ 01:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
3. Bratsche^{talk random}

Conditional support

[edit] "Cadet Grey II (blue)"

Support

1. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Allen3 ^talk 23:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
3. Conti|✉ 23:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
4. Spangineer ∞ 01:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
5. R. S. Shaw 22:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Bratsche^{talk random} 02:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) The Featured text needs grammar editing.

1. We are choosing the style not the text. BrokenSegue 02:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Carnildo 01:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) The sidebars need to distinguis between FA, FAC, and FARC.

[edit] "Cadet Grey II (gold)"

Support

1. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Phil | Talk 16:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

[edit] "Obvious"

Support

1. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutrality^talk 22:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
4. Lochaber 00:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. r3m0t ^talk 09:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
7. ClockworkSoul 15:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Alphax ^τεχ 17:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Deathphoenix 04:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Phil | Talk 16:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
11. Thue | talk 09:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. John Fader (talk | contribs) 13:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Oleg Alexandrov 22:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Tomhab 03:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
15. Dmcdevit 03:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. JDG 00:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Full support if these images can be downsampled nicely to about 35px square. Otherwise I fear developers will come along and remove images due to server load.

   See Commons:Nuvola. Alphax ^τεχ 17:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Simple"

Support

1. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutrality^talk 22:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
4. BrokenSegue 23:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Conti|✉ 23:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
6. — Matt Crypto 23:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Korath (Talk) 13:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
8. Dmleach 16:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) (As a suggestion, I'd really like to see this template with the Georgia font used in some of the other candidates)
9. Dystopos 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. --JuntungWu 14:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Alphax ^τεχ 17:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Localhost 10:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:00, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

[edit] "Titlebar"

Support

1. Conti|✉ 23:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
2. Joyous 00:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
3. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Noisy | Talk 17:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
5. R. S. Shaw 22:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. shoecream 04:17, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
7. Phil | Talk 16:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

[edit] "Developed solution"

Support

1. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. — Matt Crypto 23:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Allen3 ^talk 23:20, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
4. Conti|✉ 23:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
5. ABCD 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Bishonen | talk 00:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Spangineer ∞ 01:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
8. Korath (Talk) 13:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
9. R. S. Shaw 22:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. JRM · Talk 13:06, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
11. Dmcdevit 03:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
12. Sean κ. ⇔ 15:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

Comments

1. I've only voted for this one, and I'd like to comment why I strongly support it. I feel this one is clearest to people who are not used to Wikipedia because it keeps the title of the template seperate from the text. Also, I feel the fact that it stacks perfectly (i.e., there are no gaps when two are put on top of each other) is aesthetically pleasing. —Sean κ. ⇔ 15:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Simplistic"

Support

1. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. BrokenSegue 23:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Korath (Talk) 13:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

[edit] "Tick ToC"

Support

1. ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Allen3 ^talk 23:21, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
3. Conti|✉ 23:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
4. ABCD 23:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Spangineer ∞ 01:01, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. ClockworkSoul 15:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Even though the author stole my work ;) )
7. Noisy | Talk 17:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
8. R. S. Shaw 22:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Bratsche^{talk random} 02:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
10. JDG 00:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Paul August ☎ 07:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
12. — Matt Crypto 17:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Carnildo 19:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. r3m0t ^talk 22:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
15. John Fader (talk | contribs) 13:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
16. Oleg Alexandrov 22:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
17. Dmcdevit 03:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. Now unconditional support...support vote copied above. If...the blue areas surrounding the icons were made all the same horizontal width. — Matt Crypto 23:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Issue addressed. Noisy | Talk 17:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

   I'm still seeing a difference for the blue area around the "todo-list clipboard". — Matt Crypto 17:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Is that better? I'm not up to editing images, so I'm afraid I can't handle the transparency problem on IE.  :-( Noisy | Talk 18:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

   Sorted, cheers. — Matt Crypto 18:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Same as above. Carnildo 01:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Full support --Carnildo 19:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. If the images are modified to have the same colour background as the background specified (again for IE transparency reasons), and a gap is added between templates. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Thinking about these comments ... Noisy | Talk 17:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

   Don't have the technical skills to deal with the first request (read:too lazy to learn them). As to the second request to add a gap between the templates ... that is one of the few distinguishing features that my offering has from ClockworkSoul's (who looks as if he'll run away with the contest anyway). Obviously if there's a runoff, and I have to do anything to scrape a few more votes, then your request will be the first to be implemented! Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif Noisy | Talk 19:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

3. Same as Matt Crypto. Also increase the margin to the right of them slightly. r3m0t ^talk 09:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) Moved to support. r3m0t ^talk 22:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

   Will do. Noisy | Talk 19:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

4. Support only if images get transparent background. Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

   While IE (the most commonly used browser) doesn't support transparent sections of an image, we should use a coloured background. This displays equally well in both IE and in browser which do support transparent PNGs. Otherwise it just looks tacky in IE and part of this redesign is to make the templates look good. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Really? I've been using IE and have yet to get a problem with transparency. The other transparent images linked above show fine for me. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

   You're probably right, but a large part of me thinks that if transparent images don't work properly in your browser, then you should upgrade to a better browser. ;-) — Matt Crypto 07:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   I know this is a "ha ha only serious" comment, but while I don't see anything wrong with encouraging people to use a better browser (I do use Firefox myself), but since a majority of people aren't using a browser which supports transparent PNGs we should not make it look bad in their browser. Many people who use IE won't know anything about transparent PNG support and will likely think that Wikipedia looks tacky. To MGM; I was using IE and each image had a white background - maybe you're using a different version. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Sure — I do agree with you here (albeit reluctantly!) Of course, if the colours of these templates were controlled by style-sheets and were tweakable by users, then there'd be a strong argument to use transparent PNGs, and IE be damned (Muhahahaha!). — Matt Crypto 13:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5. If the icons are transparent or the theme was changed to CoffeeRoll's colours for the side (retaining the white for the text area background). violet/riga (t) 18:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   As stated above, I believe the icons are already transparent under certain circumstances, and what needs to be done is to actually change the icon background colour to match the chosen scheme. The background is not actually white, but the pale blue of the toccolours class, and the icon background is actually chosen to fit with that. Again, if it comes to a bunfight for backing in the next round, then the customer comes first, but the colour theme matching other template and footer schemes is what I was trying to achieve. Noisy | Talk 19:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Grey Georgia"

Support

Conditional support

[edit] "Grey Times"

Support

Conditional support

[edit] "Simplistic Georgia"

Support

Conditional support

[edit] "Simplistic Times"

Support

Conditional support

[edit] None of the above

Vote on this option for the existing system.

Support

1. I oppose the concept of this poll and therefore support the status quo. Each of the templates should be worked on individually to come up with a look and feel that is correct for that template - which is the process that is done right now - and I see no need to change it. -- Grunt   ҈  23:39, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
2. I like the current ones as well.--JuntungWu 14:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. I see no need to change the template, especially with the choices offered. -- Mattfast1 19:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Template designs should be settled on a case-by-case basis, rather than with a sledgehammer. jdb ❋ (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
5. There might be some benefit to standardizing templates, but a vote isn't the way to decide this. JYolkowski // talk 15:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

   Lots of suggested standards are presented and we're choosing the most favoured one - how can that not be the best way? violet/riga (t) 22:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Conditional support

1. I second Grunt's argument for templates that deal with information content. I think standardizing the proposed templates (except perhaps Template:Chemistry) is worthwhile.

   Comment made by Dystopos who has since been lectured about signing posts. Dystopos 00:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Templates included

Current process

• Featured article candidate: {{FAC}}
• Remove from featured: {{farc}}
• Current peer review: {{peerreview}}

Metadata flags

• Featured article: {{featured}}
• Cited in press: {{onlinesource2005}}, {{authoronlinesource2005}}

Old status

• Survived VfD
• Had peer review: {{oldpeerreview}}

Other

• WikiProject Chemistry {{chemistry}}
• Comment {{comment}}