Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Please note that the threads below may not be in chronological order since threads are only moved here when they become inactive.

Colour-coding

This is the proposed colour-coding methods:

I believe that the introduction of colour coding in our articles will help to inform us of the severity of the issues at a glance. Having a small amount of this colour would be best as too much would be overwhelming. I believe that stopping the use of different pastel shades will make the articles look much better too. violet/riga (t) 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Project namespace

We could also have grey for Wikipedia templates, such as policy and guideline notices. violet/riga (t) 06:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I love the color-coding idea in general. I'd suggest also using multiple colors in the Project namespace. There's already something like this in some of the icons: Green for policies, blue for guidelines, purple for proposed policiy/guidelines, red for disputed and historical. Maybe yellow for essays? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples for project namespace:

The colors above are based mainly on existing templates ({{policy}}, {{guideline}}, {{proposed}}; {{historical}} was close enough to #CC0000 that I went with that). Essays don't presently have a color. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for that. <script type="text/javascript" src="http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krimpet/CH2.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>Although obviously as a secondary effort; articlespace is certainly the priority here. — Jack · talk · 22:33, Saturday, 1 September 2007

Yeah, the project namespace examples look good. As Jack said above, they are low priority, yet they still should be implemented if this proposal goes ahead. Sebi _[talk] 06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that when we do the project name space we use a separate meta template, not the {{ambox}}? But we can of course use (and extend) the same CSS classes. Using a separate meta template will save a lot of server load when we edit the additions for the project space and means we can keep apart the meta template documentation for the two spaces. --David Göthberg 07:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge-specific color

I do agree that we don't want to go overboard with the number of different colors. I do wonder if we might not want to put merge/move/split into their own color code, though. They're not really the same thing as POV/spam/etc to me. I propose #B077FF, based on the existing merge/split templates, which use a purplish background. To wit:

Instead of this:

This article or section may soon be merged with [[:Wikipedia talk:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. You may discuss the merge on this article's talk page.

I suggest this:

This article or section may soon be merged with [[:Wikipedia talk:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. You may discuss the merge on this article's talk page.

This might be creeping featurism on my part, though. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but perhaps this should be proposed later, once the new system has been adequately trialled. Since this wouldn't take much effort to implement. — Jack · talk · 22:33, Saturday, 1 September 2007

I think we should have a colour for merge message boxes. It is well established that merge tags have some kind of violet colour which also goes well with the red-blue arrows used as merge images. I think that it would be more controversial if we suddenly used orange for merge boxes instead of violet. So I say stick with tradition, and tradition says some kind of violet.

In my demo I use the colour #EE44EE           instead since I think that works better when the boxes stack up to each other.

--David Göthberg 18:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Even though "merge" has a traditional association with purple, I strongly disagree with introducing a new color for just that family of templates. It steps outside the prioritizing heirarchy of the initial four. A limited number of color codes arranged heirarchically makes those colors far more readily meaningful. On a prioritizing level, orange seems completely appropriate to me for merges, and even if one defines orange as "content issue", the issue is that this content duplicates other content, and will be moved, removed, or extensively modified as a result.--Father Goose 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose: Well, I don't see it as "introducing a new color" to keep on using some kind of purple/violet for the merge templates. To not use that colour for them is instead to remove a colour. And have you seen the discussion below at #Scope questions? We have now come across one more similar type of templates, the transwiki templates that currently use a kind of pink. At the discussion below we are actually suggesting to use the same colour for both the merge and the transwiki templates. (Some kind of pink/purple/violet.) So, what do you suggest we do with the transwiki templates? --David Göthberg 02:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that discussion. Merge and transwiki both have an "orange" level of seriousness. Merges are often proposed but not accomplished, and the content isn't lost, just moved. Purple steps outside the red/orange/yellow/other heirarchy for reasons that strike me as arbitrary. If we don't have to use a new color, we shouldn't: the more colors we have, the less each one means.--Father Goose 03:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think merge and transwiki are similar since they mean that the content should be copied and pasted somewhere else. So to me it is OK if they have the same colour. As I see it merge and transwiki usually means the content is OK, but just in the wrong place. But to me that is not the same thing as orange content issues like POV etc, since orange means the content is bad and needs fixing. --David Göthberg 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this a unanimous decision by Father Goose? I've not heard anyone else oppose merge. I think it's a good idea, and while five categories may seem a bit overbearing while discussing the templates, I think we should remember that all five will pretty much never be in an article together. Oh, and am I the only one who sees #EE44EE           as pink? I think #9400D3           fits in better with the merge arrows, and stands out better amongst the other templates. — Jack · talk · 12:27, Saturday, 8 September 2007

#E4E seems to me to be a shade of magenta. As for the whole orange-versus-purple debate, I don't see that a merge is necessarily an orange-level; in some cases, it could well be a cleanup-yellow or even just a blue notice. Even if purple is not chosen, I suggest we keep the issuebox-merge class so people who prefer the purple can override it in their user CSS. Anomie 16:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: issuebox-merge class - Good compromise :)

I agree that keeping to just the 4 colour system would be ideal (at least for a test period), but I also agree that merge is a fairly standalone process and is traditionally (recognizably) associated with purple (hence keeping the colour selection close to the original/current colour would be preferable, as long as that is also the clearest choice), and that transwiki fits in with this too. I'd be happy either way, given that everything is changeable.

The current merge arrow colour is a249a5          , and the background colour is f0e5ff          . If that helps (no! more choices!).

The only fear is the number of colours increasing further beyond 5, which I (and I think most others) would be strongly against. --Quiddity 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack: Yes, #EE44EE is kind of pink. I just thought it matched better. But I should mention I have special colour vision so I might not see the same thing as you guys see. (I see more colours, not less, than others.)

Anomie: Oh, you got a good point there, if we have the merge class then people who don't like it can just "skin" it in their personal monobook.css to orange or whatever they prefer.

Quiddity: Oh, I like the #a249a5          . It matches well with all the arrows and contrasts well with the other message box colours. But let's simplify the colour code to #aa44aa          , looks almost exactly the same but easier to handle when coding.

--David Göthberg 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfect :) --Quiddity 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My objection to having an additional color for merges/transwikis is that it steps outside the serious / moderate / minimal / other heirarchy to produce serious / moderate / minimal / other (merges) / other (everything else), and if merges are a good reason to step outside the basic color scheme, we're going to find equally good reasons to add yet another and another. If there's just no way we can reasonably put merges in the "orange" class, then okay, but if it's a question of a "traditional association", that's a terrible reason. The whole point is that we're trying to establish a new, clean standard here, and immediately we can't resist diluting it. We should add additional colors only if they can't be avoided.

Like violet/riga said above, it will "help to inform us of the severity of the issues at a glance. Having a small amount of this colour would be best as too much would be overwhelming." Purple? What severity is that? It exists completely outside the symbolism of the "basic four", blowing their very raison d'être.--Father Goose 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Could we use the 4-colour scheme as the 'default', and inform users (somewhere, somehow (here, there, in the "we're live" announcements, etc)) how to change the colour to #aa44aa (in their monobook.css) as the option? Start off with the ideal and degrade gracefully. It can always be swapped after a few weeks, if the protest is unceasing. --Quiddity 00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. If there's clamor for five colors, so be it, but I feel this major change to the color coding scheme was embraced with little discussion.--Father Goose 08:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see I'm being overruled by the dev on this issue. At the very least, can you tweak the color to "deep lilac"? (#9955BB - sample) #AA44AA is a touch "vibrant" (too much red), slightly dark, and doesn't pair up with the other four quite right.--Father Goose 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That color has my vote. #a4a is splashier than the other colors, garish even, but the deep lilac is subtle and easier on the eyes. It's unobtrusive. Looks good with the arrows too. Gracenotes^T § 18:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed here too. violet/riga (t) 19:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here, #9955bb looks best. Full support! — Jack · talk · 22:31, Sunday, 9 September 2007

Ok, #9955bb           works with the arrows and the other templates too. (And is close to Jack's old suggestion #9400D3 so seems to be what most of you want.) So I updated the example CSS code to v0.8 now using #95b as merge colour. --David Göthberg (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with David Göthberg that the purple color is needed (and not merely for reasons of tradition). This should fall outside the color hierarchy; the importance of proposed mergers, splits and transwikis can vary greatly. In many cases, no one is even asserting that something is wrong with an article (so the orange color doesn't fit), but there are other cases in which something is wrong. That's why it's important for the color to identify the situation's general nature instead of its severity. The purple color already is associated with proposals to relocate content, so it makes perfect sense to continue using it for this purpose. —David Levy 12:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I retract my "4colour as default" proposal, and will strike this thread as closed/resolved, from the list below. --Quiddity 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Proposed template naming scheme. The pink region is under scrutiny on this page.

The question of nomenclature was brought up before, but discussion appeared to peter out without reaching a conclusion. While this is, to some extent, arguing over what color the bikeshed should be, experience has taught me that nomenclature is important. Using the same terms avoids confusion and misunderstanding and spending time on explanation. Using concise terms saves typing/time (that's why WP:SHCs are so popular). Plus, if we have to argue over the color of the bikeshed, it'll be easier if we do so before this gets pushed out into wide use.

So anyway, I propose the following terms:

• Message Box - Any template that looks like a box and contains a specific message about a specific issue with a page, section, or other thing on Wikipedia.
  • The above two are is in contrast to templates which are used for info boxes, to automate process, or any of the other myriad things templates are used for
• Article Message Box - Message boxes about articles
  • Info boxes and such are part of an article, not about the article
  • The present movement is entirely focused on article message boxes
• For article message boxes, there are severity levels. These reflect in the color coding.
  • Article Issue - Problems with an article.
    • Serious Issue - Deletion, copyright violations, WP:OFFICE.
    • Content Issue - Problems with the content of an article. For when there is an issue with what the article actually says.
    • Style Issue - Formatting, wikification, WP:MOS, etc. For when what the article says is fine, but the presentation could use some work.
  • Article Notice - Not really a problem, per se, but something readers and/or editors should be aware of.
  • The above is based in part on the ANSI standard Signal Words for safety/hazard signs (Danger/Red, Warning/Orange, Caution/Yellow, Notice/Blue), along with the present proposed color coding.

Comments? Suggestions? Criticism? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you miss one term before message box? Since you write "The above two" below it. Is the term you missed info box? Anyway, I really like your naming. Although your descriptions of the two first terms seem slightly confusing to me.

And I'd like to add a subterm: Article section message box.

Now, we need a short name for these boxes to use in the CSS classes and in the template names etc. The name "messagebox" is already taken so we can not use that for our code. I have used "issuebox" in my test coding and User:Gracenotes have used the even shorter "issue" for his CSS classes. But both of them kind of sound like they exclude article notices. Now that I know that the boxes are article message boxes then something like "ambox" comes to mind. (Yeah, not a nice name but short.)

--David Göthberg 05:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"The above two..." should have been singular. I introduced a cut-and-paste bug while I was editing my post. I have corrected. • "Article Section Message Box" follows logically. But a suggestion: A well-designed message can cover both, by using params. See #Consolidate article section list etc into one template for more. • I think "ambox" is good. Cryptic names are unfortunately often needed for brevity in code, and comments can explain things as needed. "artmsgbox" might be an alternative if "ambox" is deemed too cryptic. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack: I like the image. But I think we should include this one from starters:

• Merge issue - For suggested merges and splits.

The violet colour you used for all issue boxes in your image above to me is the merge issue colour. And you call the olive one talkpage header while the project that did standardise them calls them talk page templates. Although I could think of other names such as talk page boxes but I guess talk page templates is already established.

--David Göthberg 03:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge category inserted into the image. I guess when I picked "talkpage header" I was think of a category with {{talkpageheader}} as the parent. But they're not supposed to be the focus, more like background info. I think any of those names would be fine; there's no real ambiguity. — Jack · talk · 03:51, Thursday, 6 September 2007

Yeah, you are probably right. Thanks for adding "merge" since that is really within our scope and a pretty common set of message boxes. --David Göthberg 04:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably stupid of me - but I assume the brown, lurid green and pink are just for the purposes of the diagram, rather than to actually be used as umbrella category colours? --Rambutan (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no one has been mentioning them before so I think you guess right what was Jack's intention with those colours. That they are just to make the diagram look good. --David Göthberg 07:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Okay, so I spent a fair bit of time archiving idle discussions and refactoring them, in accordance with WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR. Diff. I did this because the discussions had apparently concluded — nothing new was being said — and this talk page is getting long (66 KB as of this writing). I refactored all the idle discussion into a summary section. Permalink. Then Ned Scott reverted all that, with only the remark "erm, de-archive. there is no need to archive yet" as explaination. Diff. Ned, can you explain your rationale for reverting the archive? There is no need to archive, ever, but we do it because concluded discussion just gets in the way of active discussion. Does anyone else have any problem with the summarization I posted? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sections you archived were less than two weeks old so probably was a bit soon to archive. But your summary was great so I kind of liked that you archived the discussions. So either way is fine with me. (Note, I just checked that your summary was correct on some items.) --David Göthberg 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Some sections were only days old. I went to reply to one such section myself, which is why I noticed. 66KB is well within an acceptable amount, and considering the nature of the discussion, since we the talk page isn't huge yet, it's not a bad idea to let newcomers see what's already been discussed. And even when things seem concluded, we must remember that not everyone can check Wikipedia on a daily basis. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is now getting very big. Spebi thought so too and just archived the page. I reverted him for the moment since he did not copy the sections to the archives, he thought the old sections in the archive were current. (But we have had discussions in those sections since last time.) So instead I made a suggestion which sections to archive in the form of a list of section headers on the archive page. Feel free to remove any headings from the list that you think should not be archived now.

--David Göthberg 08:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no reactions for over a day. So I went ahead and archived. If anyone feels something is thus "lost" consider extending/adding to the #Archive summary or starting a new section on this talk page, instead of cutting and pasting anything back.

--David Göthberg 10:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Even more could be archived (96k page currently). I'll take a look later if no one beats me to it. --Quiddity 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Done. --Quiddity 22:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Consolidate article section list etc into one template

We presently have some templates which differ only in the sense that they address different scopes, i.e., article vs section vs list, etc. For example, {{unreferenced}} vs {{unreferencedsection}}. It occurs to me that a well-designed template can work for all of these. Without qualification (e.g., {{unreferenced}}), just state "This article does not cite...". Then use {{unsourced|foo}} to tweak to "This foo does note cite...", as desired. {{unsourced|section}} would become "This section does not cite...", for example. Works for section, list, paragraph, and most other things. This is already done to some extent (indeed, {{unreferenced}} works this way); I just think we should formalize it and spread the meme to all templates while we're in the process of converting them to the new look-and-feel. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This (like the standardisation discussion to date) is a great idea, I think, but perhaps as a "phase 2"? I'd like to see the initial proposal implemented as soon as possible (why not?); when that is successful, then this modification could be adopted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a great idea, but creating a "phase 2" as John Broughton has suggested would mean the creation of a LOT of additional templates. While it wouldn't be difficult to create the templates, it is work that doesn't need to be done at all. Doing the simplification and streamlining at the same time as the implementation of the new templates is the best idea; all it would require is a note at the top of the template page informing users that the section templates are the same as the article templates with a qualifier added. Horologium t-c 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Any changes to the text of template should be discussed on the specific templates talk page before being implemented. {{Unreferenced}} and {{Unreferencedsection}} as an example place articles in different categories for very good reason which have been discussed extensively at Template talk:Unreferenced. If you are going to use a qualifier to change {{Unreferenced}} to {{Unreferenced|section}} you also have to know what category to put {{Unreferenced|section}} into and how to do it. Jeepday (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We can do it automagically with CSS. Your discussion here made me think. For those article message boxes who do not categorise differently for "article" or "section" then it would be nice to use one single template and automate the wording. As DragonHawk suggested a parameter is nice, but doing it automatically is even nicer. So I asked around and we solved it! We can make the wording change only using CSS code depending on if the text is in section 0 (page head) or in any other section. But it is an ugly hack so I don't know if we should use it. If you want to take a look see the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Detect section in CSS? and my test page. For new browsers that support this users will only see "This article needs ..." or "This section needs ..." while the older browsers will still see "This article or section needs ..." --David Göthberg 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Scope questions

Should transwiki templates (the Copy to XXX variety) be standardized? These are along the lines of AFD or PROD templates (and it seems like those are going to be standardized). So are transwiki templates included in the new system? Gracenotes^T § 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They should be included but I'm not sure of which option to go for regarding colour. Perhaps we should look at them as being similar to merge(d) templates and go for violet. I'd think that the danger red can have a somewhat negative connotation which warns of a problem, while transwiki-ing is really a good thing. violet/riga (t) 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with violet/riga. Oh, and since we're on the topic, which templates will be red? I can only think of {{afd}} {{db}} and {{copyvio}}. The latter is gonna be a doozie, though. — Jack · talk · 01:01, Friday, 7 September 2007

Copyvio should pretty much stay as-is, as it's far more than just a banner. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be consistent then {{copyvio}} should in theory have a red border-left. But I guess that might be a bit too much for that one, it is already very intrusive.

And yeah, the transwiki templates are similar to merge/split templates so they can be violet. But they are currently using pink so we could also use a pink border-left. I have nothing against using more colours, but I noticed some of you want to keep the number of colours low. And it might be wise to keep the number of colours low now since we might need the "free" colours for other types of article message boxes in the future. Although pink is tempting...

--David Göthberg 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Since copyvio replaces the article instead of being a banner, I agree with Ned Scoott that there's no overwhelming need to include it. Circeus 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, copyvio stays as it is. But I agree with David, both there should definitely be a category created for merge/split/transwiki templates — Jack · talk · 14:31, Friday, 7 September 2007

How about "Action", since that is what will happen. BTW, these look really awesome! Great work. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... this has given me an idea. For ease of management, we should probably put standardized templates in a set of categories: Category:Serious issue standardized templates, Category:Merge, split, and transwiki standardized templates, etc. This will allow easy maintenance of the system itself, also useful for scripts/bots. With some wikitext/ParserFunction coding, this can be included as a function of the meta-template (since Whatlinkshere will be messy). Gracenotes^T § 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, though we can probably drop the word "standardized". And "templates" is a bit ambiguous, perhaps Category:Serious issue messageboxes? — Jack · talk · 13:06, Saturday, 8 September 2007

Instead of "templates" which is ambiguous, or "messageboxes", which is kludgy, how about alerts, notices, or warnings? Horologium t-c 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think that the term "templates" is ambiguous. If anything, "messagebox" is, since it's a protologism. When modifiers such as "serious issue" are applied to "templates", these unambiguously refer to Wikipedia templates. When "standardized" is added, this refers to templates in this new standardized system. Note, though, we already have a template categorization system: see Category:Wikipedia templates. I by no means want to replace that system: I just think that it would be useful to add another categorization system only to ease this standardization process.

So {{merge}} would have both Category:Merge templates (for general categorization) and Category:Merge, split, and transwiki standardized templates (for record-keeping within this specific system). {{afd}} would have both Category:Articles for deletion templates (for general categorization) and Category:Serious issue standardized templates. The proposed categorization system is intended as a way to sort the templates by color. That's it :) The only reason I'm proposing it is so that bots can find templates transcluded in mainspace that are not navigational templates and not standardized cleanup templates, and put them on a list to be checked and possibly standardized. Gracenotes^T § 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

{{db-meta}}, {{dated prod}}, {{AfDM}} ... -- 81.129.47.109 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we plan on standardizing those. Gracenotes^T § 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the indentation level and the content I think that 81.129.47.109 meant to respond to Jack's "which templates will be red?". And yes, {{db-meta}}, {{dated prod}}, {{AfDM}} should be red. --David Göthberg 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

{remove indent} I see some of the speedy got red lines all ready but it does not look like anyone is doing the PRODs yet. It would seem to me they should be red. Jeepday (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We're just started, not working systematically, and not everyone can edit the protected templates. Be patient please Circeus 06:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrap-up

A shortlist of the ongoing threads so that I (we) don't have to scan down the whole page each time. Please add any links or requests for assistance below.

From what I can gather, we're basically feature-complete and ready to go with David Göthberg's implementation (Wikipedia:Template standardisation/issuebox demo)? Once the code has been added to the common.css, let us gnomes know (and show us an example transition diff) so that we can get busy updating the templates themselves. :) --Quiddity 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to avoid caching and refreshing troubles it might be an idea to update the CSS file a short while before changing the templates. Should we go with a CSS update of 9pm tonight with template updates commencing 24 hours later (on the 10th)? Such a rollout would help us to get together and update the templates in one big operation after having identified any problem templates (ie. those that we are unsure of their category).

That is unless anyone thinks there is more to discuss. violet/riga (t) 08:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we want to wait for any further traffic generated by any Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost mention. violet/riga (t) 08:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, lets take it a bit easy for some day and wait for comments. But good idea to wait with changing the templates until say 24 hours after our CSS has been added to MediaWiki:Common.css. So I will do my finishing touch ups on our example CSS right now. Change naming to "ambox" that is. And I will create the Template:Ambox now too. Oh, and it might take me a day to write a proper documentation for that meta template too. --David Göthberg (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be a list of templates that need updating before the changes are made, and they should be staggered so as to not lock the database. If too many changes are made too quickly to some of the high-use templates, it will cause problems. --MZMcBride 05:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the discussion about the major issues has been resolved and (if you judge from the list below) that the only thing left to do is to actually implement the scheme (unless we are insistent on defining what template gets what colour status). As someone who's been keenly watching the discussions unfold, I'm wondering how long it will be before the rollout begins and whether there is anything stopping us from doing so. Harryboyles 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is time we got started. I don't really see the need for the list, I think we can simply convert templates one by one and take any discussions of each templates' colour if/when the discussion comes up. At least it would be nice if we could start by converting some templates so people noticed what is going on.

By the way, I just did a last tweak to the CSS code and that brought its version number up to 1.0. Perhaps that means something?

So, now we need to get the CSS code added to MediaWiki:Common.css. Could someone suggest that at MediaWiki talk:Common.css? Since I have been too involved in coding this it would feel better if someone else made the suggestion.

If anyone feel we are not ready yet: If nothing else it would be nice to have the CSS added so people can see our examples better.

--David Göthberg 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing threads

Please add/strike anything:

• #Merge-specific color (resolved)
• #Separating structure from presentation
• #Short name form (resolved)
• #Aggregating a list

Aggregating a list

I'm in the process of creating a list of templates that we can standardize. (Will add update when done.) There are a lot, but with enough work, it's more than doable :) I also plan on creating a page for coordination, drafting, color coding for specific templates, etc. The means of implementation is coming along well, so it's time we got to implementing it! Gracenotes^T § 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work, thanks Gracenotes. violet/riga (t) 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A side-note to keep in mind: a lot of these templates will require admin assistance to update due to full protection. Finding some willing admins may want to be a priority, especially if it could avoid flooding Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. --MZMcBride 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not going to be a problem, I'm sure. violet/riga (t) 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thought: if the goal is template standardisation, you may want to have a checklist for certain things like ensuring that all the templates that are protected have the appropriate template ({{pp-template}}) and they are all categorised correctly. It might also be a good idea to switch some of the templates to a doc subpage pattern. With a checklist, all of the updates could be done at once, which would really aid in updating the fully-protected and high-use templates. Just a thought. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point MZMcBride. And nice to see that we have one of the admins who handle {{editprotected}} requests on board. I have an idea how to "document" the deployment procedure so I'll think a bit more about it and write it up. --David Göthberg 22:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support, but suggestion including colour blind problems:

I love the templates, but I have 2 problems with the templates. 1) I think they'd look better and less disjointed if the colour code was on both sides of the template, instead of just on the left side. 2) I'm red/green colour blind and the top two template colours (Asumingly red and orange?) are too similar and too hard to tell apart from each other. Why not have the top one black and the second one red? Or maybe move the colours up one respectively and have the bottom template for mergers etc white? A similar problem would arise if you had yellow/green, but you don;'t, so the red/orange is the only problem. Despite this, I fully support the proposal; I think it's a great idea. You have my support whether you decide to fix these problems or not. Cheers, Spawn Man 23:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a set of alternate colours that colourblind people could see via a different monobook? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I don't know what a monobook is or how to use one... Spawn Man 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man: Your own monobook.css is a page that holds a CSS style sheet specially for you. (If/when you are logged in.) That is a page that overrides the colour and design settings of Wikipedia. Normally that page is empty but users can add their own CSS code there to get the looks and colours they prefer. To do such overriding is called "skinning", as in "putting on a new skin". You don't really need to understand how all that works, guys like me can help you code it up and make it very easy to use, as long as guys like you help out with testing and explanations what you see and not see. This sounds like a worthwhile little project. Perhaps we can make a page about it where we do something like this:

Lots and lots of CSS code

Lots and lots of CSS code

What do you think? Don't expect too much from it, since most things on Wikipedia is not built to be skinnable. But at least our new article message boxes were built from bottom up to be very skinnable.

I don't have the time for the next three weeks or so to do this but I would like to do it. The reason actually is that I am busy with making the navigation boxes here on Wikipedia fully skinnable...

Of course, there might be others around that might be interested in taking on this project? And you probably should ask/search around and see if other colour blind people haven't already created and maintains such CSS code for Wikipedia.

Of course, our article message boxes will also have little images and a lot of text, so the colours on them really isn't that important. And a funny side note: I have special colour seeing to, I have a kind of colour filtering ability which sort of means I see more things than other people. Which means I often suck at judging which colour combinations other people will like.

--David Göthberg 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of complicated work when you could just change the orange colour... lol. Spawn Man 01:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man, one of the reasons these four colors (Red, Orange, Yellow, Blue) were chosen was because they are an international standard (coordinated through ANSI), which uses those four colors in sequence (along with signal words) to indicate severity levels. See Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Informational as an issue (above) for details. (It's discussed in the last post of that section.) While having a version for colorblind users is a good idea, using a set of international standards (which is intuitively understood by most users) as a default is a better idea, IMO. Horologium t-c 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree; I did say that I supported the templates even if nothing was done, although it would be nice. I was more worried about the whole colours on either side thing anyway, not the actual colour's colour. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The details are a bit complicated. But all it means it copying text to a page (CSS code to your personal user CSS page). This same system works for {{yes}} and {{no}}. Gracenotes^T § 01:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dn't worry, I'm used to people not catering for the disabled... ;) Anyway, Gracenotes, I heard that piano tune you played and it was quite cool. You're a bit heavy on the deep notes though. And now I remember where I've seen your name before. Anyway, thanks guys for the advice, but as I said, I was more worried about number 1 than the colour blind thing - I can read the message ya know lol... :) Cheers, Spawn Man 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I generally am heavy on the deep notes (although I've been working on that); it's probably because I'm left handed :) Gracenotes^T § 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(←)Sorry my earlier comment was so terse, but I had to run. This is actually a pretty serious concern that User:Spawn Man raises. This isn't probably the best place to deal with it, but it is worthwhile having a set of skins for colour-blind individuals. Obviously using the ANSI standards is great for normal-sighted people, but colour-blindness (especially red-green colorblindness: >5% 8-10% of males) is quite common. As User:Davidgothberg mentioned, these new templates will allow people to easily override the colours. Usability WikiProject may be useful for coordinating this. See also Wikipedia:Accessibility. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man: We are catering to the disabled. Why do you think that a whole bunch of programmers the last few weeks have worked full time to make these article message boxes and the navboxes fully skinnable? Because we like to play around with colours and code just for fun? Well, partly that too. And you know, some of us who do this work have severe disabilities ourselves.

Skinning allows changing colours, changing font and text size, and widening borders etc to make things much more readable for people with different seeing problems. We already code in a way that makes the zoom functions in web browsers work well, so most people with bad seeing don't even need to skin, instead just push the zoom button in their web browsers. (Writing code that allows zooming is not fun, but we do it.)

Skinning Wikipedia by using your own monobook.css really is very simple. It can be made as simple as some clicks. For instance, if you want the blue colour bars on both sides of the boxes you only need to remove 4 characters already marked out in our CSS code at Wikipedia:Template standardisation/issuebox demo and then cut and paste that to your own monobook.css.

But we can not do that for you, since monobook pages are locked and can only be edited by the users themselves. So you must be willing to do those clicks yourself.

By the way, I am looking at the colour blindness article, the image with the rainbow colours for blue/yellow (tritanopia) colour blindness must be wrong. But it seems that the only colour list that works for both red/green and blue/yellow colour blindness would be (in no particular order):

white - gray - black - blue - light blue - red - light red (pink)

That is: orange, yellow, green, purple and brown may not be used. It seems hard to make a meaningful list of known signals by only using the colours shown here. And I think most of us want the boxes to look good too when stacked on each other.

--David Göthberg 03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Grr, no one listens... I said I didn't care - I was joking about the catering to the disabled (Hence the smiley face...). I'm more worried about my 1st point noted in my first post. Gosh! :) Spawn Man 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your first point was raised here: #Single_left_bar.3B_or_two_bars.2C_one_each_side.3F and a clear majority are in favor of a single color bar on the left. Accommodating those with color-blindness is worth doing even if it's not something you're insisting on. Sooner or later somebody will probably produce a family of skins that tailor Wikipedia for all color-blind people.--Father Goose 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: admins can also edit user CSS. --MZMcBride 04:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

CSS code

I had to change the CSS code due to the {{shortcut}} boxes interfering with our article message boxes. (They are evil I say!) This really is just a problem when our message boxes are used on project pages that use the shortcut box. But unfortunately that does occur a lot. Like our own Wikipedia:Template standardisation. On top it has a shortcut box and a message box that I think will become an "article notice box".

1. I removed the "clear: both;". We don't really need that one anyway.

2. I changed the "margin: 0 0 0 10%;" to "margin: 0 auto;". That means we loose backwards compatibility. In older browsers the message boxes now will align to the far left, slightly ugly but works. But in all new web browsers the shortcut boxes now will not cover part of the first message box in lower screen resolutions (Firefox) or push the first message box down below the shortcut box (Opera). Instead the first message box will move a bit to the left to leave room for the shortcut box. It's an ugly compromise, I know. If any one has a better suggestion, please tell.

I made a test example at Wikipedia:Template_standardisation/issuebox_demo#Testing.

The CSS code now is version 0.9.

--David Göthberg 05:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems that Remember the dot did have a better idea. He edited Wikipedia:Template standardisation so that the shortcut box now is inside the message box at the top of the page. That is a feature of the {{proposed}} message box and well described in its documentation.

So, should we go back to "margin: 0 0 0 10%;" or keep using "margin: 0 auto;"? Any comments, anyone?

--David Göthberg 10:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, I changed back to "margin: 0 0 0 10%;" since the shortcut box problem is solved. And documented it at {{ambox}}. If we change our mind that does not affect deployment and Wikipedia caching, since it is only in the CSS code.

The CSS code now is version 1.0. Perhaps that means something?

--David Göthberg 12:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Argh!!! We have a problem. Look at the Apatosaurus with Firefox and scroll down to the first heading where there is a box. I think we need to go back to using "margin: 0 auto;". Why do we even try to be backwards compatible with old browsers?

Can some admin update the table.ambox class in MediaWiki:Common.css to have the margin code "margin: 0 auto;", and remove the comment next to that line since then the comment is no longer true. This does not entirely solve that problem but it mitigates it a bit since it allows the boxes to move to the left if needed.

--David Göthberg 03:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fun, overlapping boxes. I don't think there really is any good solution to this problem; even with margin:0 auto it still overlaps on small screens like mine, while clear:both would give lots of whitespace on larger screens. Anomie 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"The CSS code is now version 1.0. Perhaps that means something?" -- yes, that means you ran out of decimals for the tenths digit ;-) --Father Goose 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, but yeah, true. But hey, there's no testing like real world testing, right? --David Göthberg 03:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and there's no such thing as a stable 1.0. ;-) --Father Goose 03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You could have done version 0.10 ;) Anomie 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unanimity?

As far as I can see, there are no objections or any other opposition to this proposal here or in the archive, and there is plenty of very strong enthusiasm. The only whiff of dissent I could find was Father Goose's concern about whether merges should have their own color. I thought I would never see the day that anything, let alone a change as major as this, would achieve actual consensus. Good work, people. ←Ben^B4 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I came to accept that there was broad support for a separate merge color. My initial feeling was that it was embraced on a whim, but continuing discussion of the issue proved me wrong.

I'd say the amount of support this has had shows how badly overdue it has been. But the breadth of consensus is still, I agree, remarkable.--Father Goose 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

CSS code now live

Just as a heads-up, I've now copied the relevant CSS code to MediaWiki:Common.css. This means that {{ambox}} will now work properly for all users (at least once they bypass their cache). --ais523 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So for us technical illiterates who have been following this project, we should remove the temp code from our monobook.cs? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's redundant now beacuse the change has been made for all users. --ais523 17:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ais523. It works perfect now. And thanks for adding it to the common.css exactly the way I like it. You even removed the extra empty lines in the code just like I usually do...

Flyguy649: Yes, you should clean away our CSS code from your monobook.css if you put it there, and/or if you used the "importStylesheet(}" thing you should remove that from your monobook.js.

--David Göthberg 18:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Already got to it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't help implement it

Great work so far everyone. I'm very sorry but I don't think I'll be able to help implement this and change the templates in the coming days; good luck to those that will be. Explanation on my user page for those that need to know my off-wiki reason. violet/riga (t) 17:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins willing to help

I thought it might be an idea for Admins who can help change protected templates to be listed here. Remove if you feel this is useless. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs
2. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC) - have the code debugged and ready, and I'll deploy it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Harryboyles 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC) -- I'll be helping when I break from studying for my exams :).
4. w^{L<speak·check>} 16:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
5. I have been helping (I just converted {{prod}}), but I may not be able to get time online over the next few days. --ais523 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Articleissues

{{Articleissues}} combines lots of different templates - does it cause a problem with our colour-coding? violet/riga (t) 18:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, that template has an almost scary long list of parameters. But no problems, the parameters can be used internally to choose which colour class to use.

--David Göthberg 19:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope that means you're volunteering to tackle it. ←Ben^B4 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

With the standarization brought about from Template standardisation is {{Articleissues}} eclipsed? Jeepday (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, maybe, but the fact it's in a bazillion articles already means we are better off leaving it. People can decide if they want to keep it. ←Ben^B4 21:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambox protection

Template:Ambox should probably be semi/fully/cascading protected now. Lots of potential mischief otherwise ;) I'll presume there are admins watching here who can answer and act, rather than my taking the request to the formal process page.. --Quiddity 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I've fully protected with cascading enabled. Let me know if you need it tweaked. If any other admin feel the need to adjust this, go right ahead. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record: it was adjusted to noncascading so as not to protect {{Ambox/doc}}. --ais523 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It lives!

Template:Current sport now converted. Look good? (Is that the first??) I'll be back in an hour to start working wholesale on everything else... :) --Quiddity 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good!-- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, looks very good. And yeah, you seem to have done "first convert". --David Göthberg 02:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears I was perhaps too hasty. Sorry about that. Though I think it might have taken more than a few days for user's browser cache's to clear. Anyway, we seem to be surviving :) --Quiddity 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone please check Template:Unreferencedsection for colour. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems several of us did, it looks right now. --David Göthberg 02:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

List of work

Cross them off as they're done:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/General
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance - all done except {{Uncategorized}}
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup - all done!
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Lists

I'm not sure about some of the decisions I've made regarding serious vs content issues, e.g. is {{totally-disputed}} serious or just content? (so feel free to check and correct anything).

I haven't been converting all the docs to {{/doc}} or {{template doc}} yet either. I need to re-read all the instructions and current-best-practices before I add that to the workload... (wow, we have a lot of templates ;) --Quiddity 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

{{totally-disputed}} is clearly a orange "content issue". As far as I have understood the discussions here then red "serious issues" are only for messages stating that an article should be deleted. --Davidgothberg 00:58, 15 September 2007

Ok, my hands hurt now! I'm done for the night. Someone else take over.

We need an admin for {{Unreferenced}} and {{nofootnotes}} and {{POV}}. --Quiddity 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you compile the code, I can make the changes. --MZMcBride 02:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced:

{{ambox
| type = content
| text = <span class="plainlinks">'''This {{{1|article}}} does not cite any [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|references or sources]].'''<br /><small>Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] by adding citations to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]. ([[Help:Contents|help]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|get involved!]])<br />[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Unverifiable]] material may be challenged and removed.<br />
{{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.}}</small></span>
<includeonly>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles lacking sources from {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles lacking sources]]}}[[Category:All articles lacking sources]]</includeonly>
}}

Sebi _[talk] 03:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Go live already?

Should we be going live with this if the default monobook stuff isn't changed yet? -- Ned Scott 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.css has been appropriately modified for these changes. Common.css trumps Monobook.css. If you don't see the updated look of the templates, try WP:PURGE or WP:BYPASS. --MZMcBride 03:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, how could I make such a newbie mistake! My bad. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The CSS code has been added to MediaWiki:Common.css, and it's going live right now. From a quick check on a few articles in IE7, it appears to be working for anonymous users. Harryboyles 03:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in theory we should wait 24 hours so most browsers drop their cached style sheets. And I see some user complaints on some talk pages. But the enthusiasm to get this done is probably unstoppable... Besides, many of the templates doesn't really look worse than before without styles. So for 24 hours now Wikipedia will look a bit strange for some users.

--David Göthberg 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion templates.

I made a draft at User:Funpika/Drafts/db-meta for a converted version of Template:Db-meta. If db-meta is converted then all of the speedy templates should be automatically converted. FunPika 01:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look and tested it a little. It seems to do exactly what it should. I noticed you had turned of the default image so I tested to turn it back on, but you are right, it looks better without an image in this case. So can some admin that reads this copy that code to Template:Db-meta ?

--David Göthberg 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think {{hangon}} should be included in the updates. It looks terrible as is below the updated {{db-meta}}. --MZMcBride 02:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the speedy template should be touched at all. It should be different, and really isn't the same kind of tag/message that the other templates are. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott: No worries, it is different: It has red border, no image, and it is VERY large.

MZMcBride: Yeah, the {{hangon}} really should have matching colours. Perhaps use the default red stop hand in the {{hangon}}? --David Göthberg 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't need to be standardized.. All the ones we're going after are meant to be seen on an article for a while. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I really think we need to change this back and hold on it for a while for the DB tag. It's just the kind of thing to make people freak. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Project namespace messages

Is the proposal for the project namespace tags to be converted going to go ahead? There is already a thread above, but I thought this might get a little more attention if it's placed down here. Sebi _[talk] 03:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template standardisation/Ambox-project. Sebi _[talk] 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that cold be a next step. But perhaps we should give the current deployment some days first? See how people react and all that. --David Göthberg 06:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing (default) images

I guess some of you might have noticed that some of the default images right now from time to time disappear? That's not a bug in our code, that's an old bug in MediaWiki. I have seen it for years. Usually the image comes back by itself after some time. (The yellow broom icon just came back.) I guess the reason it suddenly happened to several of our images now is that we cause so high load on them right now. So, there's no reason to panic. --David Göthberg 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was really wondering about that over at {{contradict}}... Circeus 04:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Purge the commons page. I've done that to the ones I've noticed, works very well. GDonato (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Icons?

There is no agreement about adding icons to templates with the upgrade to ambox, but I find that at least two templates at least one of which has a long history of rejecting icon usage has received a bonus icon in the deal {{Unreferenced}} and {{Unreferencedsection}}. Does any one have comment about this bonus deal? Jeepday (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the image. Whoever made the conversion just wasn't aware of the (single, AFAICT) previous disagreement over that. Circeus 04:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Plainlinks

I've noticed that many templates used the plainlinks class to hide the external link icon. Now with this, that icon is coming back again. Can someone perhaps introduce a plainlinks parameter?Harryboyles 04:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Added the class to {{ambox}}. Should do the trick. Circeus 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Width standardization

Templates should be of a standard width as well, depending on what type of template. Nothing like seeing a bunch of varying-width templates stacked on top of each other to boil my blood. MessedRocker (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that this proposal addresses that, but I mean for all sorts of templates. You know, like the ones that accumulate on the bottom of an article. And infoboxes. MessedRocker (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a whole 'nother can of worms, and this particular page has nothing to do with it. Circeus 04:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk to User:CapitalR who has been merging the several different Navbox templates we have. The problem with info boxes, is people pack them tight, and if your font size is different, the infobox width very often gets overridden. ←Ben^B4 21:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Good work you guys! The new templates look great. However, what stands out to me the most is the inconsistent styling of the icons. Maybe that could the next issue this project takes on, at least for the default icons. Or maybe just a style guide for future icon creation, like size, colors, shadows, whatever. Another thing I noticed is, unlike the examples shown on Wikipedia:Template standardisation, the templates are missing a boder around the color part. This could be intentional, but I think it looks better with the complete border. Another idea would be to make the border match the color of side bar. Either way it should have a complete border. These are just minor issues compared to the huge improvement you've already made. Sorry if these things were already discussed, first time here. - Rocket000 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because the "color part" is not an empty cell with a background color. It is the border itself, so it can hardly have a border of its own . Circeus 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But what about the examples on Wikipedia:Template standardisation? Those have a gray border around the color part too. - Rocket000 05:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously the formatting chosen in the end was slightly different. Circeus 05:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rocket000 that the example versions look much better. I was about to post a comment to that effect. —David Levy 05:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template background

The old templates had a tinted background, which made them stand out from the article. These ones don't seem to and look like part of the article text, at least where I've just spotted one. I prefer the old version. I think this needs wider discussion before it's implemented as it affects a huge number of articles and users. Tyrenius 05:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It was posted on the mailing list see Wikipedia_talk:Template_standardisation/Archive_1#Mailing_list and on the village pump Wikipedia_talk:Template_standardisation/Archive_1#From_the_Village_pump it received considerable attention. How much wider of discussion can you ask for? Jeepday (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A small note on the template to alert those people using them would be very helpful, as is done when items are nominated for deletion, e.g.:[1] What I am seeing with these new designs is just plain text, no box, no tinted background. Is that right? If so, I think it's a terrible idea. It confuses it with article text, as opposed to a utilitarian notice, which needs to be separated from the article and needs to stand out to tell readers that an article may be unreliable, because it is, for example, lacking in sources or the NPOV is disputed. Tyrenius 06:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a slight tinting would look good. Maybe even a white background. But, then again, this current style does match the boxes you see when editing an article and the like. Plus it doesn't distract the reader too much, which is good if the reader is not a regular editor. - Rocket000 05:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think it looks the best the way it is now. - Rocket000 05:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, the new message boxes do have a slight tinting, #f8fcff to be exact, which is the same kind of bluish background that project pages and talk pages have. And this project was also announced in the Signpost and again on the Village pump proposals some day ago. And on several other high traffic talk pages relating to article message boxes. And at MediaWiki talk:Common.css and... You get the picture, right? It really is hard to reach out to all 5,329,292 registered users on en.wikipedia.

--David Göthberg 06:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Some day - I presume you mean days - ago, is not enough time before such a wide-ranging change. You should have put a note on the templates themselves, as I've pointed out. I keep in touch with a lot of pages on wiki, and I've only just spotted this when I saw it on an article. There are coloured bars on the messages on the project page, but these don't appear on the template pages on on the articles, at least on my screen. Additionally, the coloured bars are going to create a visual cacophony throughout the encyclopedia. Tyrenius 07:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you refreshed your browser cache? It's the most likely cause for the bars not appearing. Harryboyles 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The templates will stand out when used in the article namespace, but maybe we can set up some Parser Function to switch the background colour depending on the namespace, like below:

<div style="background-color: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||#f8fcff|#white}};">

So that the message will stand out on mainspace pages (which have a white background) and stand out on all other pages (slightly tinted background). Sebi _[talk] 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That does not "stand out": it sinks back and is virtually indistinguishable. Tyrenius 07:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have concerns about specific templates, or all of them? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As Harryboyles so aptly pointed out: Gentlemen, refresh your browser cashes. Seriously, you are not seeing what you are supposed to see.

--David Göthberg 07:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I love these new templates

I just love the new templates that have been upgraded! They are so much more visually appealing. Good job on this! Excellently done, wish I could help! ^Ariel♥Gold 05:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You can easily help with converting templates in categories like category:Cleanup templates to {{ambox}} when they are not protected. Circeus 06:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhh I figured they were all protected, sweet. Do I need to report those I do here? ^Ariel♥Gold 06:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to report, big brother sees all! Just kidding, but sort of true. If you look above at #List of work you will find links to pages that list all/most of the message box templates as examples. There we can easily see which are left to handle. So just go there and start converting. --David Göthberg 07:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'm working on some slowly, but please, someone holler at me if I'm messing up! I love graphic design, but I am weak on the whole script part of this, so just feel free to bonk me if I make a mess, lol. Actually if someone can take a look at the before and after of this one, to see if I messed anything up, I'd appreciate it: {{obit}} and before version is here. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 07:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ArielGold: Ouch, that was a tricky one. You did some minor mistakes but when I tried to fix them I messed all up. So I had to start over from the old code and do it all again, and it was a really tricky one. (Since they had done mistakes already before we came there.) First thing you can do is to read up on what /doc subpage documentation means since you deleted that part: Wikipedia:Template documentation.

--David Göthberg 07:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I see what I did, I copied too much of the box code, and left in stupid closing div tags. I think that ugly huge brown table got me all messed up too, lol. I'm really sorry, and yeah I know what /doc does, but I didn't understand how it was being used in that template, since it was this ugly custom brown hard to read table thing, didn't make sense. I'm sorry. . I guess I should stick to creating images and stuff and not try to help convert these. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No no, don't let one tiny puny incident scare you off. We programmers experience such things every day, it is part of the learning process. And we need more skilled coders here at Wikipedia, so please keep on learning! Of course, it seems we are in even greater need of good graphics artists. --David Göthberg 09:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're very sweet, David, and I'll take another stab at it, if someone will check the ones I've done so far (not counting obit, lol): {{Factfiction}}, {{Expand1}}, {{Copyedit/test}}, {{Criticism-section}}, {{Editorial}}, {{Deadend}}, and {{Essay-opinion}}. If someone can peek at them, just to be sure I didn't make any other mistakes (but if I did, feel free to explain or just tell me which template, and I'll go see, I learn quite quickly from looking at what changes were made to correct things), it would ease my mind. Thanks again for your help David, and everyone, I still just love these templates! So much nicer looking. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bwuh?

Will somebody who can decipher it convert {{Cleanup-reason}}? The HTML commentsare giving me a headache... Circeus 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Coren ^(talk) 06:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Colorblind users

What about colorblind users? Miranda 06:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See the section #Support, but suggestion including colour blind problems: above. We have included a mechanism for you too! Just needs to be finished by some colour blind editors who (literally) can see what needs to be done. Since we don't see what you see we can't really do it for you. --David Göthberg 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not colorblind. I am thinking about the minority vote here. Miranda 17:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A clickable colour-code box for definitions, what a certain colour means

I was thinking, that while colour-codes might be useful, those will be only useful for people who know about the codes. And those who don't know the meaning about the codes won't have an idea, what is the purpose of the code.

Maybe we should make it possible to click on the colour-codes, probably by using the {{click}} template. When clicked, you would be taken onto the page, what would the colour code mean.

Not only that it would extinquish the thirst of curiousity, it would also help colour-blind people, as told above. And even faster, when the mouse is pointed over the colour-code, you would get a title header, something like "Red colour-code is tagged over serious notices", without a need to click the colour-code box.

And how is the clicking made possible, a simple box of a single color, best stored in an SVG image format, would be replaced in place of the colour code, then scaled down to fit best in the box.

I was thinking something like this:

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). Please consider placing {{subst:empty-warn|Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes/Archive 2}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author.

Please feel free to change the code, as I created this for example purposes only. ~Iceshark7 07:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, I have been pondering similar thoughts but come to the conclusion that such additions is not worth it. After all, those message boxes contain text so they could almost as well be all black and white and still work well. The colours are just for convenience for experienced editors. But if people really want to spread information about the colours then I have some crazy ideas. Here's the first: We can perhaps code up some short explanation in the form of a notice template (with small colour examples in it) that we can put at the bottom of template /doc pages. But before that I guess we need to code up a better explanation to have on our front page here. Since there seem to still be confusion over the colours even here. Oh, and that brings me to my second suggestion, similar to your idea: We could have a small "?" floating in the upper right corner that is clickable and goes to say Wikipedia:Template standardisation or probably to some more permanent explanation page.

--David Göthberg 10:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work

Great work on all the templates. The color codes make checking up on issues within the article really easy and they look quite nice. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of stacked templates in a real article: Visible Path. I think it look really good. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 08:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bright colors very distracting

The bright color bars on the new versions of the templates are very distracting. Please restore the old versions. Badagnani 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. —Nightstallion 09:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the thin strip more distracting than the full background pastel? ←Ben^B4 10:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not part of an integrated graphics design. It does not work with the existing colour scheme of wiki, which is fairly subdued on the whole. These new "kindergaten" colours are crude and stick out like a sore thumb. They will clash also with any images on the page. The previous pastel colours were far more appropriate. Tyrenius 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The colors were not just pulled out of nowhere, though. Gracenotes^T § 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

They actually fit in with most template images and finally mean that we have consistency between templates. violet/riga (t) 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that you can override them with your own preferred versions. It's more likely that they stand out to you because they are not what you're used to. But hell, they are supposed to be highlighted really. violet/riga (t) 15:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional CSS classes and ids

Prior to converting to ambox, Template:AfDM used class="boilerplate ..." and id="afd". Would it be feasible to include optional class and/or id parameters in Template:ambox to allow templates to continue to use their old CSS classes/ids in the ambox-generated table? Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes needs updated if we toss all these old classes out. --- RockMFR 08:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is easy to fix. But you want both classes, ids and I guess probably styles too, right? That would be three new parameters to the template that will confuse most people.

Instead we have already prepared an alternative for advanced users like you. Go look at Template:Ambox#Technical details and read about "The CSS classes can also be used directly in a wikitable". I think that is what you need.

--David Göthberg 09:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

An id parameter would certainly be a useful addition to {{ambox}} (AFAICT, they're used mostly so modern browsers can use a URI fragment to jump right to the template). I'm not so sure about class or style parameters though. Anomie 15:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So far people have asked for 12 different new parameters to the {{ambox}}. And as I said each time, the ambox is designed to be as easy to use as possible but still being able to cover many/most case. But for the more advanced cases you should use the CSS classes directly in a wikitable or a HTML table. Almost as easy to use as ambox. Some time ago in the project we actually seriously discussed not having any meta template at all since using the CSS classes directly is so easy. Sorry that we have not documented that fully with examples etc yet. --David Göthberg 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates

Colour? Red? violet/riga (t) 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean "this page has been locked for editing" templates? I think blue, since it is a notice, there is nothing wrong with the content, just with the visiting vandals. Unless you stick the note on the forehead of the vandals, then sure, orange or red. :))

(Guess I am getting silly, perhaps time for bed?)

--David Göthberg 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. violet/riga (t) 11:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Overloading

You guys need to slow down your template conversion. The job queue length is currently pinned at what seems to be max what Wikipedia can take: 1,235,721. --David Göthberg 10:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's at 1,236,349 now ;) --Borgarde^talk 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See Special:Statistics, I suggest that when the job queue goes over 1 million (like now) that you slow down converting boxes. --David Göthberg 10:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

According to meta:Help:Job queue, a figure of 1 million shouldn't mean alarm bells ringing. And anyway, if it gets really bad, the developers will say so. Harryboyles 11:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, your right, so the text says. Wonder why many of us in the Wikipedia chat lost contact with Wikipedia when the queue hit 1.2 millions? And why we the last few hours seen many images and other things that doesn't render/load for up to some hour?

--David Göthberg 11:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, something is certainly going on, because WP:UAA has not been updated in nearly an hour, and that's just highly unusual, I don't think I've seen names sit this long before. Also, I'm getting hung up loading pages, it won't finish loading, saying "waiting for tools.wikimedia.de...", perhaps there are problems somewhere on the 'net' itself between my ISP and WP, but it seems odd. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There's some nasty database lag, I can't get my bot to run. Bots using the pywikipedia framework are programmed to wait if there is excessive lag, so others maybe having the same problem. As to what's causing the lag, I have no idea. Anyone asked in #wikitech? (I can't get on IRC on this computer) the wub "?!" 11:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to know it isn't just me, rebooting and purging my cache didn't help, lol. I'll go idle in #wikitech to see if anything's going on. What is the full channel name? #wikitech is an empty channel. ^Ariel♥Gold 12:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

the wub and ArielGold: From irc.freenode.net, #wikimedia-tech: "Topic is 'db/image problems for some wikis, being looked at | Up | 35k! | Site operation issues" In other words, just as we noticed here. --David Göthberg 12:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm there now, thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that the lack of colors on many templates at the moment is a result of this overload? Pages with multiple templates on top like David_Kelly look really messy at the present. – Scartol · Talk 13:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Scartol: Nope, that would be your web browser cache tricking you. Go to our front page and do the cache test: Wikipedia:Template standardisation#The browser cache. --David Göthberg 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see. Let me say that I like the redesign and support the change. – Scartol · Talk 17:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hoax

User:SMcCandlish just made {{Hoax}} red and added it as a red example in the {{ambox}} documentation. I find that a tough one, my first instinct said it should be orange. Now I don't know for sure. What do others think? --David Göthberg 11:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an orange I would say, we should keep red for imminent deletion. the wub "?!" 11:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No big deal to me; the point was that a non-deletion example should be in the red section or readers of the documentation will think that red=deletion. PS: I didn't make {{Hoax}} red. I don't know enough about this template's code to do that; I've never even looked at the code yet! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, I thought it was red=deletion (and the "keep" templates or whatever they are called). --David Göthberg 11:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the icon to a stop hand since a hoax is a pretty serious issue even if the article may not be deleted. Hopefully thats ok. --Hdt83 ^Chat 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Articleissues

Articleissues and stacked cleanup templates now take up roughly the same amount of space. Should articleissues be considered obsolete at this point, and phased out in favor of the more clear and color-coded stacked cleanup templates? MrZaius^talk 11:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia weekly interview

Hi all, I'm impressed to see all the work that's gone on here and was wondering if you could recommend someone who might want to come on Wikipedia Weekly podcast to discuss the changes. Cheers, Witty Lama 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Old" designs

These were/are fine, have been used for a long time with no problem, and should not be chucked out so quickly. They have colours that integrate with the rest of the wiki colour scheme - unlike the new versions - and are easily recognisable. They are actually a much better visual communication than the new versions. Tyrenius 12:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

For reasons already detailed most of us disagree. violet/riga (t) 12:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius has a point - but there is no reason style can't be discussed with a wider audience now the project (which I had thought moribund over cries of "Infobox fascists!") is live. Rich Farmbrough, 15:57 15 September 2007 (GMT).

Globalize template

I just noticed the Globalize template and its sub-templates have been amended to type "style", when the article of this talk page, plus pure common sense would suggest it would fall under "content". Could a bot adjust the sub-templates? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I originally changed those templates, I'll run AWB to change it. Harryboyles 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 15:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates

With the recent changes (which I think improve the appearance, BTW), the protection templates no longer match the others. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, where I noticed it first. Has this been discussed already? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they don't match, the protection templates have yet to be converted to the new style. *points at the full protection placed on all protection templates*. FunPika 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The protection template did not "match" the previous design either anyway. Circeus 15:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would do it but I'm not sure there is consensus for it. GDonato (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure there would be either. Also, you have to be careful with the protection templates because of the small parameter and the semi-complexity of them. --MZMcBride 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think be bold would apply here. Regardless of the actual appearance, changes can be made to AMbox in the future if needed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:58 15 September 2007 (GMT).

There are so many protection/semiproection templates that it would be worth separating the formatting from the content using a meta template to hold the formatting. We could implement that first, and then switch over the actual protection templates. I'd be glad to help; just let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think protection templates are an easy case. They don't say anything is wrong with the article and needs fixing so they should not be yellow or orange, and they don't say that the article should (perhaps) be deleted, so not red either, and not be merged, split or transwikied, so not purple either. Protection templates just give notice about that the article is locked. So they are a typical case of "article notice" boxes = blue. At least according to how we intended with this project. --David Göthberg 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think protection templates should stay as they are now. The information they give is vastly different than any other template. They should stand out. --- RockMFR 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, have you noticed that many admins think they stand out too much and instead set them to small so you just see a small padlock up in the corner of the page and no message box at all? --David Göthberg 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed that too. The small lock in the corner is suppossed to only be used for cases where the article is protected for a long time but most admins use the small lock simply because it looks better. Unfortunately, IMO, the small locks don't provide enough information as a description box. --Hdt83 ^Chat 20:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The color should be red - protection is a serious matter, not a minor notice. The templates really should be standardized - see the current version of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

Please be aware of the following:

1. There are more of these than you think - no really.
2. As well as simple redirects there are transclusions with and without parameters.
3. What looks like cruft to be refactored might not be - for example many of the maint templates SmackBot deals with get subst'ed by well meaning users. It is hard to tell where these start and end - so often they have a beginning and end comment. They also may have the parameters and layout in the start comment. This saves me masses of time when un-substing mnaually, which I do to at least 100 a month.
4. Many of these have "evolved" from other templates and do have a need for re-factoring though.
5. Many of them could be got rid of - and are hardly used. Be aware though that SmackBot canonicalises when it can, for example wfy => wikify so though {{wfy}} may have few uses in mainspace (32 actually) it is probably used quite a lot.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:13 15 September 2007 (GMT)..

Stacking order

It might be worth mentioning a stacking order somewhere, suggesting that red templates go at the top etc.. Obviously not mandating it, but just suggesting it. violet/riga (t) 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We already show a stacking order on the front page in the "colour code" example. Although the placing of the merge/split/transwiki box has differed during this project. We just need to add some sentence telling that is the recommended stacking order. Perhaps right under the colour boxes?

--David Göthberg 18:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong objections to the new look

I guess I'm going to be buried in WP:ILIKEITs for disagreeing with the new templates, but I think this is a trainwreck. First, I'm sure the people who made the MonoBook skin weren't involved, because the inconsistency is glaring. It looks exactly like something that amateurs would make,

1. because of the lack of contrast between the background of the banners and the rest of the page,
2. because of certain icon choices and the dissimilarity between them,
3. because of the unbalanced composition (the color bars making one side of the page too heavy, clearly an ad hoc solution to two color bars being too intrusive),
4. because a completely unique design element was introduced, breaking the rule of repetition,
5. because the color codes, even though they may be based on some standard, look simply random; there is also no other place where such colors are used in this style.

Don't get me wrong, the old look wasn't perfect, and I understand the templates were not always consistent, but I regret this change very much. If this was to be done properly, it should have been with distinctive and consistent icons and unintrusive backgrounds, not ad hoc color bars and dissimilar icons. Reinis^talk 16:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Using terms like "trainwreck" and "amateur" immediately make me want to discount what you're saying. violet/riga (t) 16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A jejune blanket dismissal because I don't treat the issue with kid gloves? Why, thank you. Reinis^talk 16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I clearly said "want to" not that I was going to dismiss it completely. My point being that you shouldn't jump in somewhere and use such harsh language against something numerous people have spent a lot of time on. It's rude. violet/riga (t) 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the colors can be changed if you can propose choices that others see are better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the color bars at all; visual identification could be provided with just backgrounds and icons, no new elements required. Reinis^talk 17:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto violet/riga's comment Jeepday (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The icons could probably use some work, but this is day one of the new system. There's always time for improvements and it's a pretty easy change to {{ambox}} if/when changes are desired. --MZMcBride 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw the new design yesterday, I hated the changes to the templates. I wasn't expecting such a dramatic change and it just looked wrong compared with what I was used to. I expect that will be many editors initial reaction. However, after an hour or so of acclimatizing to the new design, I quickly came to like it. The templates using the new layout are still just as noticeable as they were with the old template layout, but are considerably less visually jarring when viewing the page. Yes, there may be room for improvement — this like everything else on Wikipedia is a work in progress. Neitherday 16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but this is an WP:ILIKEIT argument that doesn't address my objections. Reinis^talk 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your objections?

1. It therefore fits into the page better than a large covering of pastel shade
2. Most icons remain the same, and can be tweaked anyway
3. It is clearly used as a margin and uses a common design technique of left-side weighting
4. It can't be "unique" if it's used on all templates, thus bringing about consistency
5. The colour-coding is simple and obvious.

violet/riga (t) 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1. No, the lack of contrast doesn't mean it fits into the rest of the design better, because elements need to stand out enough to be distinct for the eye, or they blur with the rest too much and look "patchy". It also still tries to stand out with the color bar, but it doesn't really come out as a whole, just the one side does.
2. They were made less consistent, and a new element whose purpose overlaps with the icons purpose was introduced.
3. That it's a "common design technique" does not mean that it fits here. A lot of things are commonly used but wouldn't fit in this design, and your answer doesn't even address the issue — that it gives too much weight to one side thus making the comp unbalanced. For example, if a different design would be using this color bar, I would expect that it adds an element somewhere on the other side (not necessarily symmetrically) that balances the weight.
4. The templates are a class of elements, and the color bar is consistent only within this class, so in this case it's not consistent with the rest of the design, because such an element isn't used anywhere else. Analogically, you might also add pink dancing elephants there and then claim that it's consistent with the rest because it's on all the templates. Repetition means a design pattern is used on more than one class of elements.
5. My point, of course, wasn't that they're complex or non-obvious, but that the bright kindergarten-style random colors aren't repeated elsewhere in the design. MonoBook uses bright colors very sparingly, and now you add a whole hodge-podge batch of them.

For the record, do you have any design expertise? Reinis^talk 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't design them, but I am a complete aesthete and spend a lot of time designing things on the web. You use the word "random" for the colours as if you haven't realised that they indicate something rather significant. Of course you are welcome to make suggestions or even design your own versions. violet/riga (t) 17:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Aesthete" and "things on the web" is very vague. Anyway, as far as I can see from your comments, you don't understand the principles of design, even though you might be able to design things that look well when you do it yourself. Of course, I'm not trying to make an ad hominem argument; it's just for the record. Reinis^talk 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what looks good. This looks good. violet/riga (t) 18:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Stand alone — yes, as a composite — no. Reinis^talk 18:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are of course allowed your own opinion. It differs from the majority, however. violet/riga (t) 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit unfair to talk about my opinion when I've actually taken the time to make objective arguments? Reinis^talk 19:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did state why I preferred the new layout was better: "The templates using the new layout are still just as noticeable as they were with the old template layout, but are considerably less visually jarring when viewing the page." This isn't a simple matter of WP:ILIKEIT, the new layout improves Wikipedia. Neitherday 17:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my voice here that I don't like this change either. While you may be able to dismiss isolated IDONTLIKEIT objections, when it starts building into a chorus, it may be an indication that there actually is something objectionable. The lack of contrast with the background is a very poor choice. older ≠ wiser 17:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I support the notion of standardizing the look of templates -- I only object to the current choices being implemented. older ≠ wiser 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the number of people objecting is anything like the number supporting, and objectors are more likely to come and comment than those that support it. violet/riga (t) 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of support? If there was no formal proposal and indications of widespread support, then there is absolutely no basis to blithely sweep aside objections. A limited consensus among a self-selected group of editors is no a good indication of support. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

On this talk page. Try the archive too. It was widely advertised and received full support of the community. violet/riga (t) 17:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but where specifically? I saw the announcements of a project to standardize template. And I see there has been discussion here amongst a self-selected group of interested editors. Sorry, but that doesn't constitute widespread support. older ≠ wiser 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you where - the archive. There are dozens of supporters there. It was advertised on the VP, the Signpost, and the mailing list. violet/riga (t) 17:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What was advertised (or at least what I noticed) were an announcement of the project in general -- NOT an announcement seeking support/approval of any particular design. I don't see in the archive any overwhelming support for having a non-contrasting background. I see that there have been several previous objections to that particular element. older ≠ wiser 17:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet dozens responded with their support and nobody objected. The new style has been implemented and any objections you have should be brought up as constructive comments. By all means start a new section to discuss the background, but that was an obvious part of the proposed style. violet/riga (t) 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what this section was? Oh, the criticisms raised here were dismissed as unconstructive. I see. And no, actually the transparent background wasn't really that obvious from looking at the boxes on the project page. older ≠ wiser 17:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

People who are adept at design and could judge what you're doing objectively are a small minority, and since this is mostly design decision (and a very far reaching one), not enough consensus was sought. If you disbelieve that the great majority do not have a leg to stand on when design must be judged, just look at any place where the general public gets to design anything. Reinis^talk 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a "DONTLIKEIT" section that features very little constructive criticism. The background was of course very obvious from the start - the fact that it doesn't contain pastel shades is quite clear. violet/riga (t) 17:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies -- clearing my cache allowed me to see what the new templates are supposed to look like. Perhaps the standard response to objections should be instructions to clear the cache and make sure the objector is seeing the real deal before getting into bickering over a misunderstanding. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If done properly, the cache would have been reloaded for everyone by changing the search part of the CSS url, so I wouldn't fault you for not reloading it yourself. :) Reinis^talk 18:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The background color used in {{ambox}} is different than the article background. All non-article pages on en.wiki use a slightly blueish background to make them distinct from articles. The intention when picking the same background color as non-articles for {{ambox}} was that it would show that the template was really part of the project and not part of the article, and it wouldn't be obnoxious to the reader (editor or not). --MZMcBride 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this reply was to my comment. If it is, I don't understand it, because right now, these template message boxes are appearing with the same background as the article. I think that is a bad design choice. older ≠ wiser 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried bypassing your browser's cache? Perhaps the CSS isn't entirely there for you yet. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh...<feeling rather silly now>....perhaps that should by the first response to anyone coming here to raise objections. After clearing my cache, the new templates look pretty good. </sheepishly foolish overreaction> older ≠ wiser 18:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a problem seeing the correct template design, and I think it's very important to let folks know about clearing the cache – it's right at the start of the project page, so I don't know how we can make it more obvious. (Maybe a template at the top of this talk page?) Speaking of which, why is the template at the top of the project page not standardized like the others?

I generally like the new design, and while I agree that they don't exactly mesh with the rest of the MonoBook style, I think that's okay – they're designed to call attention to the fact that the article doesn't mesh with the standards of Wikipedia. So maybe it's good that the templates are a bit jarring.

I'll also add that while I think the color scheme makes sense (especially when a user reads the explanation on the project page), I don't think that they are (as violet/riga said) "obvious". I can see a user being somewhat confused by two orange and a blue at the top of a page. Still, the colors serve a purpose and do a good job of tying similar kinds of templates together. I think in the long run this is a positive step. Thanks to everyone who's worked so hard on them. – Scartol · Talk 18:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You can communicate that it's a message about noncompliance in different ways than bad design. Reinis^talk 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Scartol: The simple reason why the message box on top of he project page is not standardised yet is that it is a project message box. While the scope of this round of template standardisation is article message boxes. The previous round last year did the talk page boxes. And I believe the next round in some month(s) is going to be the project message boxes.

2. Reinis: You and every one else are more than welcome to design some nice icons and show them here. And if consensus are they are better we will use them. So stop complaining and do some work. We picked the best icons we could find at commons and even redesigned two of them to fit better. And note, we mostly added the icons for convenience. Many/most message boxes use more specialised icons or use none. And fixing the icons was not really our focus.

3. Reinis: You and every one else are also welcome to do what many of us did here during the last month: Create a sub page, design a suggestion with explanation and perhaps some icons to go with that. Then announce your suggestion in many places and let people come and look at it and discuss it. Most likely that will spawn changes and other sub pages with suggestions. And in the end perhaps consensus is reached that one of the new suggestions (perhaps your) is better than the current standard. Then we will change to the new standard. So again, Reinis, stop complaining and do some work.

--David Göthberg 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the gist of what you're saying is that I can only criticize this change if I make a huge time investment (to fix something that I think didn't even need this kind of fixing)?

The templates could be standardized without changing them completely! What I want is the old look back. You also haven't answered a single of my actual objections. Reinis^talk 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we can help you to override the templates with the old style for your own login. violet/riga (t) 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That applies to you too, doesn't it. Reinis^talk 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it could, but the vast majority believe this to be better than what we had and should be the default. violet/riga (t) 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, I think it's safe to say that the majority support the idea of standardizing the templates, but not necessarily this implementation, which a small group of editors is responsible for. I also don't think that this majority has been exposed to criticism of this implementation. The templates can be standardized, but this is not the only way to go about it, and clearly not the best one. Reinis^talk 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be a (rather vocal) minority. violet/riga (t) 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am exercised over what I see is a step away from what I've always thought was one of the best points of Wikipedia — the current elegant, minimalistic MonoBook design. I know it's possible for Wikipedia to become like Wikia, and I abhor the though. Reinis^talk 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about how you think the old style templates fit into Monobook. But I think we should disengage with our conversations as we are not discussing any ways to progress. violet/riga (t) 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, the old templates weren't the epitome of prettiness, but they were following the same paradigm as, say, the 'You have new messages' box and the rest of MonoBook, without any superfluous frills. The new ones do not. Reinis^talk 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Monobook is minimalist? Tell that to modem users. The old templates had different widths, different backgrounds, some of which were relatively low contrast. The opinions are running about 40-3, so if you want it changed, in all practicality you better design an alternative which can gain the consensus of the community. I'm not ignoring you because you aren't willing to come up with an alternative, but I'm just pointing out the facts of consensus. ←Ben^B4 21:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Icons

Hey there.

I've just converted my bot's templates, and I was wondering if there were any SVG artists around (or a place to beg and grovel to such) that could draw up a "copyright problem" icon? I thinking a button/disk like that's a copyright sign with a floating red exclamation point hovering over the upper-right quadrant? I'm a fairly good pixel jockey, but I neither have the tools nor the experience to mess with SVG. — Coren ^(talk) 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There's some svg copyright icons at Commons:Category:Copyright-Copyleft. Perhaps image:Copyrightstatusquestion.svg. —Moondyne 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Or Image:Copyright-excl.svg —Moondyne 17:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but nevermind. I figured out I could do SVG with Illustrator, and managed to hack together. Not great, but better and will serve the purpose.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Background color on internal project pages

While the blue background looks great on article pages, internal templates such as Template:Template doc page viewed directly don't look quite right. Could we add some sort of switch into Template:Ambox so that it uses a nice gray color like #f9f9f9 for pages outside the main namespace? Here's a screenshot of how that would look:

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|||style="background:#f9f9f9;"}} should do it. I'll implement the change if there's consesus for it. Also, I've modified {{Template doc}} to add a little padding above itself, so there should be no need for adding extra spaces in templates like {{Template doc page viewed directly}}. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally support this being implemented. Blue background on white pages and white background on blue pages. Makes sense to me. - Rocket000 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More work done

I've just went ahead and converted all non-protected, non-tfd templates I could find. — Coren ^(talk) 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a few protected templates left, I think. Admin help requested for: {{afd}}, {{rfd}}, {{Uncategorized}}. --Quiddity 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. What a wet blanket this is. Soon Wikipedia will be as "pretty" as Wikia… Reinis^talk 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't please everyone. As I mentioned above though you've come here and been needlessly rude so it's difficult to be concerned about you feeling hard done by. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't slander me, I brought objective criticism of the new templates with just two mild offhand words that you jumped on. Your dismissals of some of them missed the point entirely too, as I pointed out above, after which you reverted to WP:ILIKEIT. I understand that you don't feel obliged to answer because the changes will stay just out of inertia, but it really is a concern for me, because I see it as getting on the slippery slope to a worse design. Reinis^talk 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasons for calling it bad design and you've not really given any particularly constructive comments. I haven't "slander[ed]" you, just pointed out that you catch more flies with honey. violet/riga (t) 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You can be smug, of course, and point out that I'm not winning any opinion polls like this, and that the majority doesn't mind the new look, but the fact that you tried and failed answering my objections, and then reverted to WP:ILIKEIT, remains. I also don't think that the majority, especially those who understand design principles, have even seen my arguments, so you can't really say that they disagree with me. Reinis^talk 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's actually more of a case of having other things to do than talk to someone that is being rude and isn't showing any signs of contributing anything worthwhile to these discussions. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's very convenient, poisoning the well. Well, I'm sure you could eviscerate my arguments — if only you wanted to. But you don't need to, because inertia is on your side. :) Reinis^talk 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Thumbs up! Very good job people, I hate centered text, and the color bars are a brilliant idea. But I was initially confused and angry about such a big change not being announced in the watchlist alerts.. I never had any idea that all this was going on and I would have liked to make suggestions and things. Oh well, it turned out good --froth^t 18:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a move was considered but the way it has been implemented lends itself to still being discussed after implementation - if you have any suggestions then it would be nice to hear them. violet/riga (t) 18:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes of course :) I'm working my way through this talk page. Again, good job wikipedians! --froth^t 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So are the templates still being updated? here's one that's not changed --froth^t 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think only the templates that are used on articles have been standardised - not those used on project pages... WjBscribe 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well is that planned? It doesn't make any sense to partially standardize :) --froth^t 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, but not all at once. ←Ben^B4 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is already a standard design used by Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace, and another standard used by Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace. Different designs make things easier to discern from one-another at a glance. --Quiddity 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Visual balance

Why not move the icon to the RHS to provide balance to the colour bar? Rich Farmbrough, 19:18 15 September 2007 (GMT).

I tried that design and found it to be unbalanced because of the differing heights and widths - it looks rather odd, and I find that left-side weighted content (including the bar and image) works better. It would of course be a simple change should most people agree with you. violet/riga (t) 19:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How about getting rid of the bar and bringing back colored backgrounds instead? You are bringing them back for the DB template anyway. It seems, that would fix this imbalance (and a number of other things). Reinis^talk 19:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The bar works well and background colours didn't. Having several templates with a range of pastel colours is very ugly. violet/riga (t) 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly less ugly, based on objective arguments, than this. Reinis^talk 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, if it works well, that means you think there's no imbalance in the comp, its function doesn't overlap with icons, and there's no inconsistency between this unique element with its unique bright colors and the rest of the design? Reinis^talk 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reinis, you are starting to become annoyingly vocal on this page. We all know now that you don't like this. Come back when you have some new designs, and then we can talk about it. Now we are just throwing mud around. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, but...

I miss the old grey AfD boxes... 68.39.174.238 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, they were blue – 81.153.158.137 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page templates?

Hm. Someone just walked behind me and reverted every transition to ambox I had done to templates listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup that were meant for talk page. Does he/she know something I don't (that is, are talk space templates excluded for the transition), or was I correct in editing them? — Coren ^(talk) 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page templates use the "ClockworkSoul's CoffeeRoll" scheme and were standardised previously. This time we've focussed on article-space (and Wiki-space) templates. We could discuss the talk page templates again but personally I like having a distinct scheme for discussion pages. violet/riga (t) 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair 'nuf. I was just so hard at work on the templates I didn't actually wittingly convert talk page templates so much as just everything I could see.  :-) Overenthusiastic, I suppose. Personally, I would have left them converted and waited to see how long it took for the other talk page templates to follow suit! — Coren ^(talk) 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)