Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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)

Contents

[edit] Categories of template

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)

[edit] Deletion

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

  • I see no reason why these shouldn't be reviewed as part of a general plan. {{delete}} and {{vfd}} could certainly be brought into line with others, to give a consistent look and feel. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • I think {{vfd}} is fine as it stands. I copied its style (except the background color, which should probably remain different so readers can tell them apart more easily) to {{delete}} and {{deletebecause}} – is this "standardized" enough? — Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
  • the tfd template is completely different. It is supposed be break as little as possible. Thus this category is probably only about article deletion. Isn't that just maintenance? --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)
  • The phrasing could use some synchronisation, but the rest looks fine. --Joy [shallot] 14:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Only one template exists in this category but it exists here for completeness. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

  • I think this is nicely understated already. Doesn't need standardisation. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • A category for one template is ridiculous. If it is unlike any other templates then it cannot be standardized with other templates. --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
  • Er, maybe I'm out of the loop, but what "categories" are you talking about here? There's one disambiguation template, but eight semi-disambiguation templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/General. Having said that, they look fine as they are. --Joy [shallot] 14:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There is at least one other template ({{TLAdisambig}}) if not others, and probably a dozen related templates that address different aspects of disambiguation (such as inter-article referencing and sister-project referencing). Please do not proceed on "standardising" these without consultation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) ... all of which have interested parties in attendance. I'll take this opportunity to point out that you really have very little idea of the scale of what you are trying to address and I (no suprise based on my earlier input) do not support your approach to the (perceived) problem of template inconsistency. Courtland 18:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's funny - I could swear that {{TLAdisambig}} looks exactly like {{disambig}}. Strange, perhaps it's already standardised? And yes, I am fully aware of "the scale" - it's hardly a complicated thing. violet/riga (t) 18:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes and warnings

A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

  • Should certainly be part of any large-scale standardisation project. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • AFAICT, we switched to the orange background for the Talk page templates, and the rest are fairly in sync. The notable exceptions seem to be {{contradict}}, which could have both a "cleanup" or "dispute" undertone (background, border, text alignment), and "advertising". --Joy [shallot] 14:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance

A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

  • Should certainly be part of any large-scale standardisation project. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • Everything seems fine except for the ambiguity in the application of {{attention}} vs. {{attention_see_talk}}, as well as the two ISSN templates, but those are rarely used. The categorization issues section looks rather divergent, but I don't see much room for synchronisation because they all deal with different things. --Joy [shallot] 14:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sister project link

Standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I really want to go there... Let the sleeping dog lie. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)

[edit] Source details

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

  • I'm not quite sure what you mean by source details. How are they related to template standardisation? smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • There is one inconsistency with these that has bothered me in the past - when you want to move {{eastons}}, {{FOLDOC}} and {{NASA}} to a bulleted list under the References heading, they're still too indented. This indentation could be dropped because the majority of other templates like that don't use it. Same goes for the three templates with little pictures - they need to be adjusted to fit into a list or dropped. --Joy [shallot] 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

  • Already nicely understated. No change needed. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • How many templates are in here? I know of 3 spoiler templates, which are already synced because they are really variations of one template. --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)
    • I know of {{magic-spoiler}}. --cesarb 3 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
      • Which has an image, and {{spoiler}} doesn't. There is a general layout but it just needs formalising (and the presence, or not, of an image being decided). violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

  • This may be best left for the Stub-sorting WikiProject to decide, since they are most familar with the issue. I know that they seem to be going to no image, and indented. BlankVerse ∅ 28 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)
  • Don't need our help really. Let the wikiproject take care of them. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • Agreed, leave it to the WikiProject, but ... what type of "formalising" was contemplated? There are guidelines for creation, a process for creation through consensus approval of templates and categories, boilerplate for creation, an admin-action zone for deletions ... what other formalising is needed than that? Courtland 18:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that it is necessary? That information would just be assimilated onto this page as well. violet/riga (t) 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts and the disambig template style

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)

I like the disambiguation template too. Not sure how well it looks at the top of an article, but it's something to consider. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)
One of the features that makes {{disambig}} so attractive is its uniqueness. When you see that particular comment format, you can immediately identify the page as a disambiguation page without having to read the text. By making everything look like that, one would sap the strength of the disambiguation template without conferring that strength onto the rest of the templates.
A lesson to take from the disambiguation template is that distinctiveness has advantages. The question is what degree of distinctiveness is most helpful; another way of looking at this is what are the main template type divisions that would benefit from being immediately distinguishable from one another. This is a different consideration from what categories of templates exist.
Courtland July 3, 2005 04:24 (UTC)

[edit] impractical

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)

Why is it impractical? Why is it better done on those talk pages? Centralising it will make it easier to see the discussion as whole in my opinion, as everything will be on one 'page'. Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)
Simply because one standard will not work for all article-space templates. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 18:11 (UTC)
Hence the categorisation system. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:15 (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)

[edit] Printing

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)

Ahh - I believe it might be possible by using class="noprint". violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:46 (UTC)


[edit] Standardisation of templates

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)

[edit] Example organisation

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)

that is just a couple of ugly versions of existing templates. I am beginning to lose faith in this standardization attempt. There is too much emphasis on individual templates. --MarSch 4 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what's going off here. That is an example framework and others will be able to suggest their own versions of templates. I don't see how you can justify your last point when there are clear categories (ie. large groupings of templates). And instead of losing faith, why not suggest things? violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
I have voiced my objections to two not-so-big categories, but very little is happening. --MarSch 5 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
What would you like to happen? violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

[edit] Basic types of article template

I'm wondering if we need to nail down the basic types of article template, based on:

  • whether the template is permanent, semi-permanent or transitory;
  • whether the template is aimed at the casual reader or the serious editor;
  • whether or not the information is relevant before seeing the rest of the article.

For example:

  • {{vfd}} is semi-permanent, aimed at the serious editor, and relevant before you get to the article itself;
  • {{otheruses}} is permanent, aimed at everybody, and again relevant before you get to the article itself;
  • {{inuse}} is transitory, aimed at the serious editor, and relevant before clicking on the edit link.
  • stub templates are semi-permanent tending towards transitory, more aimed at editors than otherwise, and are not necessarily relevant until you have read the article.

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)

think the distinction between permanent templates and other templates is useful.--MarSch 5 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Maurreen 9 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion page reference

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)

[edit] "Merge" templates

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)

I would tend to agree, having used that one as an example a) because it had been in discussion and b) because, at the time, it was listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes. violet/riga (t) 08:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I moved the merge stuff to from /Disputes to subsections of /Maintenance and /Cleanup on July 12th. They were misplaced on the former. We don't really need a standardisation drive to apply good sense... :) --Joy [shallot] 14:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Template messages

...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... Radiant_>|< 23:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Some are listed twice intentionally, and many are transcluded in more than one page, so in those cases it's better to discuss each issue individually. Also, formatting can also be a matter of mixed application. --Joy [shallot] 20:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Stargateproject

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)

This page is part of WikiProject Stargate, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Stargate on Wikipedia.
stargate-sg-1-atlantis - edit talk + - project - talk + - join 


[edit] Anyone here?

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)

Wow, blanca is wonderful. Very clean, intuitive, and professional. Great work :)
A couple of small suggestions: The bar of color could perhaps be a fixed width and a little thinner (say, 10px instead of 1em)? And the {{maintenance}} template name is already in use for something else, so you'll need to change that ;) -Quiddity 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ETemplate_standardisation_article_b288.html"