User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments 2 Thoughts on new layout 2.1 Width 3 My go at templates 4 Vote on general idea

[edit] Comments

I like the idea, but with constant changes to the messages included, it would be hard to make it into a template. You'd need a template for each possible state of a certain section. For example, how would you deal with articles that've had 4 or 5 FACs? Do you have any ideas on how to solve that? Mgm|^(talk) 17:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

There are two possible ways:

1. Use header and footer templates for the box, then multiple FAC section templates (with parameters) could be inserted
2. Use an infobox system and separate each nomination with a <BR/>

But that's why I'm looking for more comments - would these two both be too complicated over existing solutions? And if so, how could we make it simple? Cheers for raising the question. violet/riga (t) 18:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively we could just make sure that all the tags are right aligned and of the same style - perhaps they'd match up neatly then. violet/riga (t) 18:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template idea implemented. violet/riga (t) 14:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With the way I've tried to do it I'm hoping that it would be both backwards compatible and not require any changes to the existing systems: to highlight something as a FAC you would still just add {{fac}}, for example.

Talk:Automatic number plate recognition is:

{{oldpeerreview}}

{{featured}}

{{iwc1-nom}}

To change to the new system would just require the templates updated and the first two to be swapped around (though even that is a minor aesthetic point). violet/riga (t) 16:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the date of a peer review request or a FAC nomination be included in the template too to show better how an article progressed over time? Mgm|^(talk) 21:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that's a very good idea. Perhaps {{pr|~~~~~}} would be the best way of implementing this. violet/riga (t) 23:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to get clarification on what is being proposed. As I understand it, Violet is proposing to change several of the heavily used talk-page templates (featured, FAC, et al) to give them a consistent look and feel. This would not require re-tagging large numbers of articles, nor would it require people to start doing things differently. If this is true, then yes, this sounds like a good idea. →Raul654 13:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly it, and thanks. violet/riga (t) 13:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS - just make sure that the page looks good no matter what order the templates are used in. In other words, the page should look fine if it has either

{{featured}}

{{oldpeerreview}}

{{farc}}

OR

{{oldpeerreview}}

{{featured}}

{{farc}}

Otherwise, you're gonna have a nightmare trying to make sure all the templates are used in the right order. →Raul654 13:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, while I am thinking about it, there are some COTWs that use them as well (the crypo project comes to mind) - you might want to talk to them too. →Raul654 13:31, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I really like the idea (assuming everything works). I didn't liked the idea to put templates for everything (like "this was once on peer review") on the talk-pages, but with a consistent look like this it looks really good IMO. --Conti|✉ 22:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on new layout

I like the idea of consistency, but I'm not very keen on this particular new layout, I'm afraid. My thoughts are 1) It currently takes up too much vertical space. We want tags like this to take up as little vertical space as possible, because of pages that use multiple tags (see, for example, Talk:Caesar cipher). 2) Less serious, I guess, but I dislike the colours — the light blue, really. At least, could there be a way these colours could be customised using user style sheets? — Matt Crypto 12:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyone who commented on this likes the idea, but not everyone likes the layout, so it was proposed to start a contest on the best design for this proposal. I think that's a good idea, we just need some wikipedians to create a few desings we can vote on. :-) --Conti|✉ 13:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I also like the idea, but very much disagree with the sea foam green and lavender motif. Perhaps a move away from conflicting pastels into something earthier? – ClockworkSoul 14:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Much like Matt Crypto, I very much like the idea, but don't like amount of space the templates take on the page. How about shrinking the font size for starters? —msh210 15:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Nevermind: I just realized this discussion is only about templates that go on talk pages. I don't mind the amount of room templates take up on talk pages. —msh210 15:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One problem is that it's helpful to be able to see the Table of Contents, and not have it pushed off page by the tags (particularly on low resolutions like 800x600 pixel displays). — Matt Crypto 15:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I don't like the light blue either. Didn't you have another color before? Anyway, see the template on DYK. It doesn't interfere with the TOC. Mgm|^(talk) 20:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm with the others above who dislike this design. Consumes unnecessary space (table too wide and high, no need for large bolded "Featured Article" followed by blank line). I personally don't like little specialized table flourishes like the thickened left/right borders-- they make the eye jump and you wonder "what's going on, is there something else to click here?" only to find out it's just something somebody thought was visually cool. Obviously, all these judgments are subjective which is why we need a little contest. But even though everyone seems to agree on the contest, violetr keeps making this design live. Why? JDG 06:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Width

I've updated the templates regarding the widths - I think that should help with the TOC and size issues. Thanks for the comments. I think the colours look good, though obviously I'm biased. I welcome people playing around and working towards a new system (including the competition suggestion) - what I really don't like is people just reverting it without discussion or collaboration, as template:featured has seen. violet/riga (t) 15:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My go at templates

Hello, someone said they preferred 'earthy' colours for the templates, so I've had a go at making my own version of the templates Violetriga has done a new version of. I've also changed some of the wording slightly. It's at User:Talrias/Templates. Please give feedback! Talrias (t | e | c) 16:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on general idea

What about we start a vote whether the general idea is a good one? I'm quite sure that it will pass, but it will hopefully guide more attention to this page. After that, we could start a design contest, Talrias already created a design for this idea. What do you all think? --Conti|✉ 22:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's a very good idea - I was going to reorganise this one as a vote until the revert war annoyed me too much (best to step away). violet/riga (t) 22:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, definitely! I was going to do some soliciting for feedback on both Violetriga's and my designs, but I wasn't sure where abouts to put it. Since you're both admins you probably have a better sense of where to visit. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, and in response to the comments elsewhere that there is no support for this proposal, I think bringing some consistency to these templates is a fine idea, and I have no objections to either the proposals of violet/riga or Talrias. (People are much more likely to post when they object to something than when they approve; just because there are more "ugh" than "great" posts does not mean that there is universal opprobrium. Keep up the good work.) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could we, while waiting for the vote to be put in place and end, revert all affected templates to those people had worked to achieve before. The constant edit wars demonstrate these are not currently wanted (and if they are, the vote will show this). --Oldak Quill 15:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)