Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes/Archive 5

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.

Should we use images at all?

Why should we use images at all? I think the boxes look great with just the bars. Icon images evoke the feeling of someone talking to a crowd of idiots, which neither our readers nor our editors are. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so sure :) But images help with the quick recognition of a tag, even for smart people.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:00, 09/17/2007

Bold text does the same, and better. Or should I draw you a picture? :) — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Recognition doesn't just mean noticing that the template is there. Bold text does nothing for aiding in distinguishing one template from another.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:11, 09/17/2007

I agree with Equazcion - ease of recognition and differentiation are two things that come with images. I don't get an evoked image of a crowd of people being lectured like AldeBaer mentioned. JoeSmack ^Talk 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The colors of the bar provide sufficient visual aid, the rest is accomplished by the template text. But I guess it's no use trying to convince a majority of this fact. — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be an opinion.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:29, 09/17/2007

What do you mean, I can't understand what you mean unless you draw me a picture. :) — [ aldebaer⁠] 05:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The icons we've traditionally used have more ease of recognition and do a fine job. The brightly colored bars, on the other hand, less readily impart such information and conflict with our traditional design and use of color. Badagnani 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I can often tell at a glance of the icon what the template says without having to read the text. I'd just as soon keep the images. Resolute 04:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok then, maybe my brain just works differently. I think the color bars are elegant and that images, if not very carefully chosen, can introduce a twist into the template meaning and distract from the text. Just wanted to provide my opinion so that no one can claim unanimousness on the question. But if consensus is to prefer images over text on an encyclopedia project, fine by me. Maybe we should start rewriting articles by using icon images as well. Who wants to read anyway? — [ aldebaer⁠] 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• I would definitely agree that some of the large icons could be reduced in size. Reducing individual instances (e.g. template:update) helps, and reducing the defaults would be a good idea, in my opinion. --Quiddity 06:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Padding

Could we have an option for less (or more) padding in the ambox template? I'm currently using the ambox CSS styles without actually using the ambox template, because I'm trying to keep a one-line template ({{integrate}}) relatively slim, and ambox adds unnecessary top/bottom padding. I was wondering if it would be possible to have an option to keep the box tight around the text. Thanks.

^[off-topic?]Could you please use a conforming time signature. _→AzaToth 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should use {{ambox}} for conformity; it would also fix the width issue you're currently having. --MZMcBride 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'd like to. My point is to request a padding parameter (perhaps just a "padding=tight" setting?) for {{ambox}}, so that I can use it without having to add all the extra padding. The width issue is the same for the trivia template, which the integrate template is supposed to be an alternative to. So if the result of the discussion at {{trivia}} it to change the width, I'll do the same for {{integrate}}.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:58, 09/17/2007

You know, for those of us that use 800x600 as screen resolution the {{integrate}} anyway is two lines. And you should definitely have the width 80% so it stacks well with the other message boxes. But yes, if you need extra functionality you should use the .ambox CSS classes directly in a wikitable. We just created the {{ambox}} meta template to make deployment easy for the majority of (simple) cases. So far we have received requests for 15 different new parameters for {{ambox}}. It is actually easier to use a wikitable when you need extra functionality. The code almost looks the same and you get full freedom and control.

--David Göthberg 09:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image for "growth" type

First of, good job. I am all for this new change. But I have a small concern:

This image is used for "growth" category (stuff like {{expand}}).

This image is used by good articles and indicates their quality.

Aren't these two too similar? I believe that a new image should be found for "growth"... Renata 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I flagged this issue up further up this page but got a firm reply telling me they weren't the same shade. There's a handful of users who are scrutinising every little suggestion people make here and rubbishing it whilst tarring everyone with the same brush. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Here are some ideas: ←Ben^B4 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I don't know which image to replace it with, but it should be replaced with something.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:39, 09/17/2007

Not to change the topic but it would be nice if we could agree on a unified icon set for all of the icons. However, I also agree that {{expand}}, etc. should be changed. --MZMcBride 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, let's wait a little to change any high-use templates; the job queue is ridiculously high right now. --MZMcBride 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I added the current icon as an interim measure (pending the availability of something better). —David Levy 00:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if we simply changed the color of the current icon to something other than green; like orange, maybe? I think that would adequately distinguish it from the "good article" icon, and also not be so "disruptive".

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:50, 09/17/2007

How about one of these (I just changed the color of the current icon):

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:07, 09/17/2007

Well, the whole point of a green plus sign was to match the green bar on the left. Some green images that were used/suggested:

How about something like or (with less serious background) (with green pin and text "Expand") (add a pencil?) (in green cover) Renata 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I sorta like the plus sign with the flat sheet of paper (third from right).

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:47, 09/17/2007

How about —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. Rather artsy as opposed to the other more cartoony icons in use, but who says thats a bad thing.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:34, 09/17/2007

I think the cartoonish style is more "modern", than the artistic. I am. 09:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Remember the dot's image. Looks good. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. ←Ben^B4 08:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So. Lets compare how it looks in a box:

Some text.

Yeah, the goose pen is nice. But perhaps needs a bit stronger colours since it looks a bit bleak next to the green bar. --David Göthberg 09:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Could the pen be black? Dunno, I don't really like green + blue combination. Renata 13:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this. Plus, here's a version with a black quill. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some text.

Nice, black quill goes a little better. The outline of the quill is a bit thin though, could it be thickened somehow to make it easier to see?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:26, 09/17/2007

Here, this is with a bolder quill:

Some text.

I think it's a bit easier on the eyes, a bit more "Web 2.0".

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:33, 09/17/2007

Looks great. ←Ben^B4 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the lighter lines on the quill, but they both look quite nice. And I prefer them both to the + symbol that I keep thinking is a four-leaf clover. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad you like it and surprised that the image I proposed has been so popular. I've put in a request to change Template:Ambox at Template talk:Ambox#Image for "growth" type. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Icon images are idiotic

That's my basic contention. I really like the standardised layout with just the bars. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can disable the image from showing up using "|image=none".

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:01, 09/17/2007

?? I'm arguing not using images in the article templates at all. — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that. But until you succeed in getting the images removed from all article templates, which there's a chance might not happen, I'm offering you this method of leaving out the images when you post a tag.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:09, 09/17/2007

I take it you are opposed to removing the images, to keep this on-topic? — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See above, where I believe we're already having this same discussion.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:30, 09/17/2007

One of the good things about these is they are skinnable. Add the following to your user.css:

.ambox-image {display: none;}

See Help:User style. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Small variant?

There seems to be some demand for small floating notice boxes: see for example Template:Trivia small (still using the old style) and the "mini" version of Template:Current sport-related (converted using a local hack). I think it might be a good idea to come up with a standard layout for such boxes before everyone goes and rolls their own. Perhaps we could add something like the following to MediaWiki:Common.css (based on the aforementioned templates, but modified so that it will stack), with appropriate changes to {{ambox}} to enable it as needed:

table.ambox.ambox-mini {
    float: right;
    clear: right;
    margin: 0 0 0 1em;
    width: 25%;
}

This is what a box would look like with these styles.

What do you think? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that a lot.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:55, 09/17/2007

Me like. And inheritance pretty much ensures we won't have clashes. — Coren ^(talk) 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, though I don't know enough to judge the specific code. It was in the original proposal draft too (User:Flamurai/TS/blanca#Catchall right-side maintenance template), and I'd meant to reraise it earlier! Good job. :) --Quiddity 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the initial reception has been positive, I've gone ahead and added the CSS code above to MediaWiki:Common.css. It won't have any effect there until we actually change {{ambox}} to enable it, but having it there already gives it time to propagate into people's browser caches while we discuss the matter further. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what a box would look like with width: 20em.

One issue to discuss might be whether it's better to define the box width as a percentage of the page width, as I've done above, or as some constant number of ems. I could see arguments for either. I've added a 20em example box here for comparison: change your window size and/or your font size to see the difference in behavior. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no opposition to a smaller variant. However, I wanted to mention that a couple of years ago, there was a rash of "miniature" versions of message boxes, with the letter "s" at the end for "small". Examples included "cleanups" and "npovs". The deletion discussions for many of the templates can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/May 2005. The general consensus was that (a) one template per function is enough and (b) they were created as a WP:POINT exercise. (I don't want to imply that anyone involved in the small trivia box is engaging in POINT.) szyslak 06:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See also this semi-related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Talk page templates#Small option as default?. Thanks. --Quiddity 07:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(this is Lar, blame IE for why I'm not logged in as me) I don't think having separate templates with "s" on the end is a good approach, but I do think setting things up so that small=yes works for these templates seems a good idea. Although nobody asked my opinion, for the record, these look very nice, but I think maybe a quick check with the devs about how not to hit the job queues might have been a good idea? Too late now :) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Aww, come on. A job queue length of 2×10⁶ is perfectly harmless, and I'm almost certain that this project had absolutely nothing to do with the master database server corrupting its filesystem today... ;-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

2.3×10⁶ per Special:statistics, but who's counting? I'm almost certain you're almost right about the corrupting impact of Wikipedia on various things. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 21:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some brief thoughts

I've read through some of the above, and my two main thoughts are:

• Icons are really not needed. Use words to communicate what you want to say, and don't get all hung up on being "design gurus" searching for "just the right icon" that's needed. If you must have icons, use the old ones and change them slowly. The point about icons is that people get used to them, and changing them disrupts people's mental lists of what the icons mean.
• The current version of the templates that I am reading has only a very low grade colour background. I have to peer very closely to see this background and withouth looking closely it looks like the warning templates are part of the articles! This is very very bad. I am having real problems finding the start of the article. This is directly disrupting the readers of the encyclopedia. If we lose readers, then we are finished. Please consider that before making changes like this.

I absolutely agree standardisation is good, but please go slowly. Do the size standardisation first, and then the colour designs, and then the icon designs. Bundling the changes together makes it a much bigger change and will generate more complaints. Carcharoth 10:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. I refreshed my cache... and things look a lot better now. The coloured side-bar is good. The "take things slowly" bit still applies though. Carcharoth 10:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Article issues colour challenge

{{Article issues}} combines several issues into one box (example usage Music of Alabama), much like a template stack. Problem is it is always orange... Should it take the "most serious" colour? Or a weighted average? Or stripes like a medal ribbon? Rich Farmbrough, 11:34 17 September 2007 (GMT).

That is the most absurd template I have ever seen, and encourages a total lack of judgement on the part of the user. Please don't suggest any more colour/icon/stripe/moonphase combinations or I shall start laughing at the lack of standardisation this project is producing. The top of articles is not a kindergarten for would-be web designers. Splash - tk 13:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't absurd in the era of the old templates, as it was more compact than simply stacking a bunch of those on top of each other. --Agamemnon2 14:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Splash, I usually agree with you, but you are way off base here. That template was created in April, much before the standardization project was an idea in anyone's mind. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 15:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was originally going to happen over two years ago but I ran out of steam after the talkpage template standardisation. You are right that the articleissues template served a useful purpose before this process, and we now need to consider if it is still useful. violet/riga (t) 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but this is a pretty clear failure to use judgement in favour of using the first template that comes to hand. There is no way that can be tolerated at the top of an article. I don't see that the removal of the coloured side bar and the image would be an improvement. Perhaps I wasn't clear: I was complaining about the template itself, not the effect of 'standardisation' thus far upon its appearance. However, the suggestion that it should have computational colours, its own colour or stripes would most certainly be a plunge off the edge. Splash - tk 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely it would look even worse if it was split up into 8 different boxes? I personally think that a modified version of this template could replace all of the seperate templates - transcluding all templates into one which would allow sorting for issues by "severity" and allow better stacking. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You should never put 8 messages atop an article. Period. Chances are, if you need more than 2 tags, the article should be edited rather than tagged or in serious cases, deleted. Splash - tk 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, that was a tongue firmly in cheek comment. Rich Farmbrough, 09:53 18 September 2007 (GMT).

Oddball opposition and refusal to use the template, but not the style

Can somebody get over at template:Integrate and make it clear that insisting on using all of the ambox style but not the width or {{ambox}} itself defeats the point of having a standardized format to begin with? Circeus 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And whoever does that, please do the same for {{trivia}} too. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:45, 09/17/2007

See above by the way. Using the styles without the template isn't a bad thing. The ambox documentation even includes instructions for doing it. The width, different story.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:53, 09/17/2007

Y Done ←Ben^B4 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you'd consulted Template talk:Trivia instead of blindly reverting a change that you didn't understand (thereby triggering an edit war). I even referenced the talk page in my edit summary when implementing it.

The automatic width addresses the tag's large size (which has proven unpopular) and discourages its non-consensus placement at the tops of article (because it won't stack well with other templates). In a relatively rare case in which it's to be stacked with another tag within the relevant section, adding the parameter "width=full" switches to the standard width. —David Levy 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Is the protection of the project page warranted?--Father Goose 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It was done because of the dispute template edit war. Since the people disputing the guideline are in active discussions I think it is acceptable for it to remain and for the protection to be lifted if we agree to leave it there. violet/riga (t) 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree to leave it there. The protection is far more disruptive than the dispute.--Father Goose 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it on the understanding that, for the moment, the disputed notice remains. There will come a time to remove it but let us not rush. violet/riga (t) 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -Chunky Rice 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please revert yourself. You are an involved party in the dispute and it is not appropriate for you to use admin tools in this way. It is just as well to have a pause while discussion is ongoing. Tyrenius 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is edit-warring over the dispute tag (the reason for the protection), so what's the problem? Complaints like the above make it appear as though you're just trying to be difficult. —David Levy 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the page was protected because of edit warring over a dispute template, and the last time she edited the page before that was Aug. 23rd, is she really an "involved party"? ←Ben^B4 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kudos...

...for a job well done to all these editors that got this implemented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who desperately hate the color bars

Add something like this to your monobook.css:

/* Remove the color bars from the article message box template styles */
table.ambox {
  background: #f8fcff; 
}
table.ambox-notice {
  background: #d2e8ff;
}
table.ambox-serious {
  background: #efd2d2;
}
table.ambox-content {
  background: #fce6cc;
}
table.ambox-style {
  background: #fcf3d5;
}
table.ambox-merge {
  background: #ead6f4;
}
table.ambox-growth {
  background: #d2e7d2;
}
table.ambox {
  border: 1px solid #aaa; 
}

Now can we get to some constructive discussion instead of continual whining by approximately three people about how much they hate the color bars? Anomie 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you kindly not use ad hominem language, because people don't agree with you. Add User:Y as well.[1] How many people exactly do you need to disagree, before you accept there is a legitimate disagreement? Tyrenius 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be mischaracterizing Y's statement; was the complaint about the whole thing, or just the lack of a pink background on the speedy template? I suspect the latter, personally. Anyway, Y and others who disagree aren't continually whining. There still seems to be only three who are doing that. Anomie 19:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The lack of background tint on the new designs is one of the prime objections, and that has been changed on one template. How about the rest? I object to your characterisation of critics of this development as "whining". Kindly address the issues raised, and don't belittle other editors. Tyrenius 01:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Y raised it in the context of speedy deletion templates, where it was effectively argued that they are on a level of severity above critical. As for the "whining" comment, "if it quacks like a duck...". I'm talking about the people who put their opinion as fact, and then insist that their opinion is the only possible correct one when challenged. And then post the same things over and over and over in multiple sections. Again, I invite these people to actually put together a proposal of what they would like to see, instead of just continuing to complain here how much they hate the new design and that they would rather go back to the old mess of non-matching templates (and how they don't have time to make a proposal because they're too busy arguing here). Anomie 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Is this what we call a troll? Because it looks like it. Telling those who are attempting through their good-faith comments to preserve our traditional sense of muted-color design aesthetic to go to he**, or whiners, or whatever, is not helpful, or Wikipedian, and neither is trying to rush through such a project (complete with very-unnatural use of bright colors) without broad community consensus. Badagnani 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because they hate the new design (which has a demonstrated wide support) doesn't mean they have to forget they an use their css to change whatever they don't like. I started contributing to wiktionary recently and they take great pain to make template that provide a large number of CSS hooks just for that purpose. A big argument like that would be unthinkable there. Circeus 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed width of all cleanup templates is a problem

Cleanup templates used to be a lot narrower. Now they all have the same, fixed width, which is very very wide for some reason, almost as wide as the whole page.

This causes problems. Take for example Water cooler. {{unreferenced}} used to fit perfectly well in there, now it's all out of alignment because there's a box in the right margin. The box in the right margin shouldn't be a problem in the first place, because the templates should be nowhere near as wide as they are – 81.153.158.137 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it by moving the {{unreferenced}} to the top. It is clear that these new versions of the templates must be at the top of the article. As well, when used in sections early in articles with infoboxes, the new templates overrun the infoboxes. A temporary fix is to use {{clear}} before the article message box template. But someone who codes should probably look at this. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if you get them the right way round, they look ugly when used on pages with infoboxes, too (the bottom of the template interferes with the top of the infobox). And don't even get me started on what they do to pages with coordinates in the top-right corner... – 81.153.158.137 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please get started - we'd like to look at such pages and see how a fix can be developed should one be needed. violet/riga (t) 15:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the old templates interacted poorly with infoboxes as well. It's a CSS issue, and one that won't be taken care of any time soon, as it would require rewriting every browser's execution of CSS. But for making sure a box doesn't interfere with one at the top, yeah, all you need to do is toss {{-}} at the end of the template and voila, it clears the float. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested a separate width standard for templates that are meant to live inside sections? I think the 80% width is fine for the tops of a pages, but it's too much for inside a section. Sections tags especially carry the interaction problem, due to article templates running down the side of an article or whatnot, that would interfere with a wide section tag.

example of overlap, and example after fix

We really need to make the ambox clear to the right. Here's a screenshot [2] (scaled 50%) of the problem on Mass_Effect:_Revelation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the fixed result [3] of the CSS table.ambox { clear: both; } — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily fixed it by adding {{clear}} after the first section. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

During the testing period we tried with and without clear, and both alternatives are bad. So hard to say which should be used. Note that this is a bug specific to Firefox and Safari. Right now those pages look good in Explorer and Opera. Explorer and Opera moves the message box to the left if there is room enough and moves it below like a clear if there is not room enough. If/when clear is added to the code those pages will instead look worse in Explorer and Opera. So the question is which to use and which browsers to throw into the tar pit? The ones with the bug (Firefox and Safari) or the ones who actually in this case work correctly (Explorer and Opera)?

Oh, and note that the same phenomenon occurs in the buggy browsers when using PRE-tags below an infobox or image. And so far it has not been decided that PRE-tags should clear.

--David Göthberg 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The big thumbs-up subject

I know things like this always attract the big nay-sayers after implementation, I just wanna chime in that I fully support the current versions of the messageboxes. I followed what you guys did from the start, even though I didn't really contribute. I was doubting it would ever come to fruition, since it had been tried so many times before and failed. However, success at last. A definite improvement over a couple of days ago. Yes there are probably some issues. And the colors, the icons, will likely be discussed for days and days. But never forget that it is a REAL improvement, because the older stuff was much worse then this can ever become. Also I ask everyone who is clammering to undo what you guys did, to hold on for a while. Let's just take the time, think about what the real issues are etc, before we start making changes.

Anyone else who wants to congratulate this wonderful team of BOLD people are welcome to join in this subject to give a thumbs up. People with other comments, I'm not interested ;), leave them in the other sections, I will read them there (yes i will). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that what's being disputed is the design, not the standardization as such. Almost anything would have been an improvement in terms of standardization over what we had before. Reinis^talk 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, I think that this was a great way to standardise the "cleanup" templates. Especially a standard in coding and size (width). I just think that the "notice"-type templates should look different, else it begins to look like wallpaper. - jc37 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very proud of the users who have worked hard to implement a much cleaner and better-looking design. --MZMcBride 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I also like the new design. — [ aldebaer⁠] 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. The first time I saw the new template in place, I really did go "oh cool!". Well done all around; I'm probably going to steal the style for one of my own wikis I'm working on. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Like many, I didn't hear of the project untill I came across a tag in an article. First impressions were I really liked the cleaner, uncluttered look. I'm sure that just like any template change, there are a few css and icon etc issues to iron out over the coming days and weeks, and I'm sure caching issues didn't help with the initial rollout. Still, I never want to go back to the "old days" of templates again. Well done. --Breno ^talk 12:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Project notices?

Is it the intention of this standardization to cover WikiProject notices for articles? I've started a discussion on a project I'm involved with but so far I haven't seen any evidence of projects switching formats. Also, it appears the main template -- {{ambox}} -- doesn't support "collapsable" presentation. Is the use of collapsed boxes being discouraged? Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 13:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I got the impression that a separate initiative, similar in approach, would be (possibly?) undertaken for talk page notices... there are, I think, many many more of them with a much wider variety of features, etc (many provide semiautomatic article classification and the like. plus there's small, collapsability, multiple category inclusions, etc.) so the ambox template would not be used directly (one would not WANT ambox collapsible, notices in articles need to always be expanded...) but ideas learned from this project might be used. I am but an observer though. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. I just realized that this only involves article templates and not talk page template. --StuffOfInterest 13:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Whut? Talk page template have been standardized for along time. Circeus 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I could be misrecalling but I thought I saw talk of doing this, somewhere. I think the appearance of these is very standard ("coffeeroll" color etc) but that maybe there was functionality standardisation to be had? I am not sure. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 15:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TPT is the place to go for discussion related to talk page template standardisation. Also see, WP:TS Nil Einne

Other aspects than visual design.

As some of you may know, I have been workling with these templates for some time... A little bit of standardisation has occurred, thanks to a number of users, but the good ideas are spread across a load of templates, and we could do with standards on redirects.

Examples (some go wider than article msessage boxes):

• Per User:Splash remove any date message from the tag - it's visible in the Category....
  

But

• Per User:Rick Block we may not be using these categories much longer.

• To avoid Wikipedia: pages showing up some tags use the "category=" arg (which is then messed up on the Wikipedia page anyway) other use NAMESPACE.

• We have a plethora of redirects, I'd like to see this cut to
  • The main tag
  • Alternative valid spellings
  • One abbreviation
  • The full word(s) if the main tag is an abbreviation

I'd like to see all tags working the same about how words are seperated. My preference is for a space, but consistancy would be great.

I'd like all templates to work follow the same casing (and other style) rules we use for headers.

I'd like to see all arguments following the casing rules for normal text (i.e. generally lower case - most are).

Comments? Rich Farmbrough, 20:24 18 September 2007 (GMT).

The argument for using alternative names (redirects) for tags is to help people remember them. The other day I was trying to remember what the vandalism warning template was called but couldn't think of it at the time - I ended up having to write a simple message myself (not necessarily a bad thing) and I could see that happening without decent tag redirects.

Personally I've never really thought that dated tags are important but I'm sure that some people use such information. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Background color, NOT color bar discussion

Since I didn't even get a chance to respond before my previous thread careened into discussion on the color bars, I'm restarting it here. I don't think anyone is seriously interested in the pastel backgrounds, so let's limit discussion to either grey or blue. The only response I saw to the grey suggestion was from violet/riga, who said that "The grey background makes it more difficult to read and doesn't look as good." I would like to respond to both of those statements. The grey color used in the example is only three-tenth of one percent less bright than the blue color. That should have absolutely no effect on readability. Secondly, the blue color may look better when paired with some of the colors, but it looks discordant with others. The difference is fairly negligible on most monitors, but if you look at it on a laptop, the difference is striking. The grey color, however, looks fine when paired with any color, since it is completely neutral. Kaldari 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The shade of grey used in the example changed after I posted my comment, so please disregard it until I can comment on the lighter shade. violet/riga (t) 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two options... The currently used light blue (#f8fcff):

A neutral grey background (#fbfbfb):

The difference is barely noticable on most monitors, but on some laptops the blue looks garish. Kaldari 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the gray version, if only because it's not the same color as the background on non-article pages (since some of these templates will inevitably get used outside mainspace). Besides, it just looks nicer to me... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a darn difference... And I am on a laptop. Renata 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Using CRT, grey looks better. Santtus 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also on a laptop; can't see a difference. Even with different brightness levels and screen angles. Still, if an actual noticable shade was proposed, I'd lean towards grey than blue shading, in keeping with the WP monobook style. --Breno ^talk 12:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Any opinion on the new shades violet/riga? Here's a side-by-side for better comparison:

Kaldari 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still looking at this on a poor quality LCD screen so my judgement is a little impeded, but it would seem to me that the grey works better on this page. I assume it fits in nicely with main namespace pages too. violet/riga (t) 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the grey.--Father Goose 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to grey (#fcfcfc) per the discussion above. Kaldari 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Small idea

I have an idea to make the template automatically distinguish itself (Actually I saw it in {{notice}}). The pale blue on articles look good, but not on talk and project pages, so why not make it switch colors automatically (when not overridden):

style="background: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{MAINSPACE}}|#f8fcff|#fcfcfc}};"

Resulting in:

What do you think? — Edokter • Talk • 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we can do that in CSS instead. (As I believe was pointed out somewhere far above.) That allows it to be skinned and makes it work also when the classes are used directly in a wikitable instead. Remember, the ambox template is and should just be a thin wrapper for the CSS classes. (No blaim here, I guess you Edokter simply didn't know that, so the important part is your suggestion what to happen, not how we implement it.) Another solution is to use say grey in both cases, which is being discussed further up. (But I don't have a point of view on that yet.)

But really, the ambox styles are not supposed to be used on talk and project pages. Talk page templates were already standardised last year. And project pages are going to be standardised in the next Wikipedia:Template standardisation project. But I think most of us agree on that the next standardisation project can wait a little until this project has settled.

--David Göthberg 20:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unconverted template not listed in Wikipedia:Template messages/...

Template:Uncategorizedstub possibly among others are not listed in the usual place and so is not yet converted. An admin want to do it? KTC 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I just posted to code on its talk page to convert it; now we just need an admin to carry out the editprotected operation. --CapitalR 20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Should AFD templates have a tinted background?

{{db-meta}} has a pale red background under {{ambox}}. {{AfDM}} did too before it was switched to use {{ambox}}; should it get the same treatment? Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so, since they're a bit more "urgent" than your average template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no because the red sidebar is the primary indicator of deletion and the pink background reflects the urgency of speedies. violet/riga (t) 08:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As things stand right now, there are a few other red boxes, like {{notability}}, which do not indicate deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that {{notability}} should be orange as it's a content issue. Red should really be reserved for deletion. violet/riga (t) 09:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{notability}} should be orange. Seems we named the red "serious" type badly since some people think it means other things than pending deletion. We should perhaps rename the red type to "delete" ?

--David Göthberg 09:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps not include the deletion templates as a part of this. They get the standardisation, without the "red bars", which frees the red bars for "serious" clean up issues; which still provides the XfD templates with the better coding and sizing (width), but reserves them for what they are: discussion notices. This whole process is obviously about cleanup tags, and shouldn't just include a box just because it happens to be placed at the top of an article. (Protection is another example, which has been exempted.) - jc37 10:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole process is about the tags that are added to articles, deletion tags included. While I accept that you see them as different and am open to discussing ways that they can be differentiated they are still part of this project. violet/riga (t) 10:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole fun of creating a project is that one can claim to include anything they wish. And that's perfectly fine. Personally, I think we all gained by the coding standards.

That aside, I made a couple suggestions, which have possibly been blurred.

One is that perhaps you might have a bit less controversy if you limited the colour coding (the visual "design", if you will) to article cleanup templates. Trying to group "everything" just because you decided so, doesn't make consensus easier. I would think that if one wanted to actually determine consensus, they would find out what we agree on, and then add from there. If "everything" doesn't get added, oh well, but at least we can say it truly was a consensus. Else, you're really feeding into your detractors, and honestly, making this look not unlike what unfortunately ended up being a fiasco with WP:ATT. Same problem, different guise.

The other has to do with external discussion notices. Yes I consider them of a "different grouping". Consider the AfD notices should be standardised with CfD, and MfD, two templates which aren't placed on articles, and by your own project statement are beyond the scope of this project. And honestly, "little coloured bars" just aren't a fair notice. We have editors upset that they aren't being told on their talk page. What do you think we'll run into when the deletion notices are in the middle of a left sidebarred wall of motley colour? I'm sorry, but such notices just scream bad faith, with the appearance that we're hiding the discussion somehow. Very bad idea. Transparency is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. And blowing off such editors concerns as "unfounded" means nothing. WP:BITE and a slew of other essays and such come to mind here. Standardisation should make things easier, not harder! And yes, I think that this issue is rather way more important than whether a cleanup request of some kind is tinged orange or yellow.

Right now I'm solidly leaning towards all XfD templates (except TfD, for obvious reasons) to match Template:Ifd. I'm happy to discuss alternatives, but I'm quickly starting to feel that this page is no longer a place for "open discussion of ideas". - jc37 10:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation of templates means that they have a consistent design and don't look out of place next to each other. I disagree with your assertion that XfD templates are outside of the scope of this project, yet you seem to want to claim that I'm saying that we shouldn't have discussion about them at all. I've never said that and welcome discussion rather than moans. violet/riga (t) 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Standardisation of templates means that they have a consistent design and don't look out of place next to each other" - um, wow. I wrote all that, and you're telling me that this about the hairstyle. You're concerned about look, and I'm concerned about usage. k.

And I've attempted to start several discussions. Of the two of us, the only one I see "moaning" is you: with your claim of you're right and I'm wrong, and how you no longer have to explain anything to anyone who asks, because you've already decided. (So much for WP:CCC...) Yes, there are two or three flooding this page with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I'd like to think that I'm not one of those. I might add that my post immediately above this one rather appeared to me to be a couple suggestions, and discussions starters. In any case, you glossed over the whole of my comments (in apparent disregard), and for now, I think I'll wait to see if possibly someone else has any thoughts. - jc37 11:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let us look at {{Cfd}}. The current version has a very light background that doesn't in any way indicate the importance of the tag (I can hardly even see it!). I'm not sure how changing it to the style detailed here in any way lessens this. On the contrary it really does emphasise it, and users will get quickly used to red meaning deletion. As for the background I am still open to discussing a change in the colours but personally only think that the speedy templates should be so highlighted. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't say that CfD has the awesomely best template layout possible. In fact, in a thread above, I list it's shading as one of several options, in an attempt to get some feedback of what others may like. Personally, I'm guessing the colour has something to do with contrast to the blue of the category pages. And while I'm trying hard to WP:AGF, it's hard not to think that your acquiescence of the speedy shading was because in that case you faced a deluge of editor complaints. But for now, let's see if we can leave the past posts on this page aside.

I don't think that the external discussion templates should be a part of the template "wall". That means that their "surface look" should be entirely different than the rest of the cleanup templates. A notice should be clear. Standardisation shich makes such templates not-so-clear really creates a classic example of when someone should WP:IAR.These notices should stand out, with no mistake of what they are, and that they are there.

I heard someone say something about some shade of grey that was an alternate shading possibility. perhaps that's an option as well?. - jc37 11:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're blowing things out of proportion here. I disagree with you. I'm still discussing the options with you though, so you really ought to tone down your accusations. violet/riga (t) 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, we can leave past posts aside for now. That said, I offered even more thoughts, though perhaps I missed your thoughts in your latest post? But perhaps the smarter plan would be to close this thread and "start over". I have one above which lists my thoughts hopefully more clearly, I'll move it down here for easier reading for you. - jc37

My thought is this: Deletion templates have a red side bar, speedy (prod included) has a pinkish background to show urgency while XfD have the standard background. violet/riga (t) 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but {{AfDM}} did not have a pink background. The background in the latest pre-ambox version was actually a light grey, although not as light as the grey proposed above. The red sidebar gives more indication than that version, and IMO is sufficient indication of seriousness for all these possible-deletion warnings except possibly the speedy deletion. Anomie 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. While there is no problem discussing a specific background colour for deletion templates I think that this process has actually made them stand out more. violet/riga (t) 12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Augh, egg on my face! I stand corrected. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the tint go away, or at least get lighter. ←Ben^B4 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You have pointed out that the tint can cause a problem for those with sight difficulties. The obvious solution is an option that can turn off the tint for such readers. Tyrenius 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

indeed. If we're talking about accessibility, then for most people, the boxes with tinted backgrounds are better, as they stand out from the article background. Given that the argument about the tinting has been an accessibility one, it should surely be that it provides the most accessibility to the widest portion of the userbase by default, with options for those who are visually impaired to be able to increase the contrast as an option. As has been argued for those who dislike the left-hand stripe that they can change their monobook.css, so too can those who have difficulty reading tinted background boxes change their monobook.css to improve readability for them. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

people with impaired vision should and will use customized stylesheets. It is pointless to bring them into this discussion either way. We are discussing the optimal look for the non-impaired casual visitor. "go customize your monobook.css" isn't a useful argument in this either. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

AGree with User:Dbachmann (et al). In response to some comments above, I don't recall anyone saying the AfD template was pink. Suggesting it be pink was one of several suggestions. My concern is that the external discussion (such as XfD) templates stand out from the wall-o-cleanup templates. Tint seems to be one clear way to do that. Any other ideas are, of course, welcome. - jc37 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alerts to external discussions

In the spirit of Ned Scott's comment above (which I liked : ) - I'd like to start a discussion about the internal shading of templates that fall under the following two groupings on the main page:

• "Serious issue" templates
• "Merger and transwiki proposal" templates

These are different than:

• "Content issue" templates
• "Style issue" templates
• "Article notice" templates
• "Contribution" templates

In that they are notices to go somewhere else for a discussion, rather than a request to do something directly within the article.

Time is often a factor, and as such these notices need to stand out more.

This has already begun for the speedy templates, and I think that these two groups are different enough from the internal notices within an article, to justify at least a colour shading difference.

For the sake of clarity in discussion, the above bottom 4 are either internal notice or request templates. The top two types are external notice or request templates.

I think the first step is to break the external templates into types:

• Speedy deletion notice - Typically to be deleted in 2 days or less
• Deletion debates notices - Typically to be determined at the result of an XfD discussion (5-7 days).
• Move notice - Typically to be determined at the result of an WP:RM discussion (5 days).
• PROD notice - Proposal to delete. If not removed in 5 days, the page may be speedily deleted.
• Transwiki move notices - Apparently similar to PROD, in that if disputed/fixed, the template can be removed.
• merging and splitting notices - Pointing to a discussion/talk page, with the intention for the action to "take place" once consensus is determined (Typically around a week or less.)

Previous background colour shading:

• #EDF1F1 - Afd and PROD
• #D0ECDD - Mfd
• #FFFCE6 - Cfd
• #F3F9FF - Rfd
• #FEE - Speedy
• Ifd - #FFFFFF with a border of #EE0000
• Transwiki to various other projects - Each varied. Typically either none, or #FFFBFB with a border of #FFBBBB
• #f0e5ff - Merge (per Help:User style)

Discussion

Some thoughts and questions as a discussion starter:

• Speedy seems to have come to a consensus about the "pink". Should the others all be pink as well?
• Should all the others except speedy be all of a certain other colour?
• Do you have any thoughts on the reasons for or the usefullness of the previous colours?
• Should there be all-around coloured borders, such as te IfD and transwiki notices?
• Do you have some other idea besides colour that would more clearly alert users to the discussions?

These and any other thoughts you may have are welcome. - jc37 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave {{Move}} alone as it is already standardized. FunPika 00:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Standardised with/to what? - jc37 05:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean you were not suggesting standardizing that, then I must have misunderstood you. However, if you were suggesting we standardize the move template, any attempts would be reverted as move is a talk page template and standardized into the talk page template style. FunPika 09:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's a talk page template! I noted in my head that the colour was the same as talk page templates, but never made the connection : ) - You know, if "move" is a talk page template, I wonder if any of the others of the above should be as well (especially the transwiki ones). - jc37 10:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd like shading in the "critical issues" boxes (see above). As for the color of the box, I really don't mind, but I do have some suggestions:

1. Speedy deletion should be a pink/red shading, i.e. most urgent. These boxes did an excellent job standing out from the pages before, and would have no problem standing out with the redesign.
2. PROD'ed deletions should be the next-most urgent. I would like some sort of color to make these stand out, preferably a "fire color" because of the fact that it will be deleted (not moved or what have you). Perhaps a pale orange or yellow.
3. AfDs should be an equally-urgent color. See above.
4. Moves, merges, splits, transwikis. These should be shaded a non-urgent, non-fire color. A pastel blue, green, or purple would do nicely in my opinion. No shading at all is also a very viable option, considering the fact that these aren't immediately gone from a user's sight (unlike deletion, which can be restored and/or seen by administrators, but not by the general public), and won't be missed by casual users. I personally do not think these needed to be shaded. Those who need to see the messages will find their way to the appropriate page.

That's my two cents. See also my proposal above for those who don't like the sidebar. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The shading colours sound fine to me. As for the last group, they have a deadline, just as the AfDs do. (See WP:RM, for example.) And a transwiki notice that isn't removed, results in the article being deleted, something that I think the casual editor may not realise. Merges and splits are the least time-pressed external discussion notice, relying only on whenever someone closes the discussion. I'm still not understanding how notices such as article protection are exempt from this change, but these are not. In looking over this page though, I don't think I'm alone in this perception? - jc37 05:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are proposing combinations of 6 sidebar colours with at least 4 different backgrounds. A total of at least 24 possibilities. In this encyclopedia, we use words to communicate as a preference, resorting to a language based on colour shades and combinations only in pre-school colouring-in classes. Please be restrained about how little standardisation you achieve - a proliferation of everyone's smart ideas for their very own standardised approach is just going to be silly. Splash - tk 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was asking for discussion of what colours (if any) people preferred. Apparently CfD uses the same pink as the speedy templates, for example. However, it would seem that this discussion, being focused on article templates, hasn't taken into account standardising the deletion templates amongst themselves (sine it would be, as has been said, beyond the scope of this discussion). And so, I think the above templates "shading" at least should be either left alone or standardised amongst themselves.

As for my opinion, I personally think that all the deletion discussion "box" templates should look essentially the same (though of a different shade than the speedy). And I wouldn't mind following the example of Template:Ifd. I think the merge/split templates should have a standard of their own, and the move/transwiki have a standard of their own. That's 4 shades (speedy; deletion; move/tw; m/s;). There won't be multiple colour bars (or borders) per shade, just one. So, to clarify, it's not 24 possibilities, it's 4. - jc37 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate: I don't care what colors they become. If said templates (deletions and others discussed in this topic) become shaded, I would be more pleased with that than if no changes were made to the current redesign. I was merely injecting ideas for colors, not specifying a definite set of what they should end up being. I also feel that you (Splash) were a bit harsh in your response to my comment. Looking back, I probably went too color-happy with all of these messes of colors. To simplify discussion, I agree with jc37 with the shading possibilities. Hopefully that clarifies things. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's at least two of us. It looks like we need to build consensus one editor at a time. : )

It also occurs to me that since this is a subset of what is being done, and we're only talking about some cosmetic changes (colour shading), and since what we're talking about includes a grouping of templates beyond those which appear on articles (such as MfD or CfD templates), this discussion might be beyond the concern of this page. (Which, in my opinion is more about cleanup templates than anything.) - jc37 10:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) You are probably correct. Now that more people have joined the discussion (e.g. Tony Sideaway), we now have more ideas (perhaps making these collapsible or at least smaller), so maybe eventually this thread will come into the spotlight when the time comes... in a few months. ;)

By the end of this process (which will be needlessly long and drawn out), a lot of ideas will be lost in the confusion, I fear. But so goes it with these types of discussion. I wish those sentences made any sense. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they made sense (at least to me). This is a part of why I think we should probably start a new discussion about this elsewhere. - jc37 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why boxes?

I think this was a decision made early in Wikipedia history, so please indulge me while I make a point that has probably been considered and rejected.

It has long been my opinion that templates of all kinds occupy far too much screen space on articles. All that is needed, really, is a small, unobtrusive message in italics at the top of the article, thus:

This article may need cleanup to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.

Where appropriate, combination templates should be used in preference to placing several template, hence:

This article may need wikification and cleanup to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.

No matter what they contain, they probably shouldn't occupy more than a line or two on a browser set to normal (maximized) size. Even perhaps:

This article has been listed for deletion. The discussion is here.

Seriously, I think we may have reached the stage where the sheer amount of procedural ordnance we're dumping on our content pages is degrading article quality. --Tony Sidaway 11:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the thinking behind one of my ideas for the templates, having such notices subdued for most readers while editors could choose to override them to highlight them a little more if they wished. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And while I agree that smaller is better, I don't think simple lines of italics are enough, especially in the case of AfD or neutrality disputes (for example). Personally, I associate italic text up top with disambiguation, and I expect other readers do the same. – Scartol · Talk 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, though it would take a bit of restructuring of the templates, most of the cleanup templates could be merged as flags in a master template, similar to how the talk page template now works... - jc37 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean like {{articleissues}}? But unless you're talking about {{ArticleHistory}}, I'm not sure which talk page template you're referring to. Anomie 12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking about the WIkiProject templates. But I hadn't seen {{articleissues}} before. That sounds a lot like what I was talking about if I understand it correctly. Essentially most of the cleanup templates get merged into a single template? - jc37 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The gist of my idea is that we shouldn't have articles where you actually have to scroll down a page, or almost a full page, just to read the first paragraph of the lead section. So no, I'm not wedded to the minimalist concept of italics (though it would be nice for many minor annotations) but I'm just saying that the thumping great monster templates we have these days often detract from what there is of the article. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the idea to not have any templates, with the exception of the occasional current issue tags? If the templates are too subdued, I don't think the articles will ever be improved to the point of not needing them. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy649: You know, articles are constantly being improved without having any tags on them whatsoever. And many of us think that boxes scare off editors instead encouraging them to fix the article. Actually, most of the message boxes seem to be a tool for "editors" that prefer to complain rather than to actually fix articles. I bet if we took away their toys (the boxes) they would feel no other choice than to actually fix the problems instead.

Anyway, we could change the boxes so they have a header cell (one line of text) and a [show] button to show more, just like navigation boxes. We could even use the default functionality for such buttons: If there are two or more boxes on the page they collapse but if there are only one then the whole box shows.

--David Göthberg 14:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's quite irritating when someone slaps a {{wikify}} tag on an article that would take five minutes to improve. I can see that some articles require more care to reference properly, but many tags are procrastination aids. But I don't know that getting rid of them is the trick... Actually, I like the idea of inherent collapse of multiple templates. I would think that current event, red and perhaps orange tags should be excluded from that, but otherwise it might be a way to make tagged articles look less garish at the top. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, but maybe just for style issues and not so much for AfDs and such. Something along the lines of User:Violetriga/Templates8 seems very nice to me. -- Ned Scott 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I support boxes. Even if they're a little garish, whether in their old or new forms, I think article warnings have to be a little garish. The point here is to grab the reader's attention visually. Anyway ... I went through the history for {{cleanup}}, and here's the original! Ugly, huh? Later, something very close to the plain italic format suggested by Tony Sidaway was adopted. So, in the early days of article warning/notice templates, they typically looked like disambiguation and stub notices, sometimes with icons (like this old version of the POV tag). szyslak 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Please do not remove this tag. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violetriga_use_of_admin_tools_in_a_dispute. The guideline, which specifies box designs, is disputed. Tyrenius 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound disputed at all, but rather we simply have more community input. Disputed suggests we have a reason to keep things the way they are, rather than continuing the evolution of this style guideline. It does seem that everyone here is open to that continued evolution. -- Ned Scott 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason the tag was needed was that many editors, who had never heard that these new boxes with bright colors were "all but finalized," began to notice them, then give input here, and were basically told, in no uncertain terms, where to go. We can see several examples of this above. This lack of consideration and pluralistic discussion, combined with threats that this was already a "done deal," led, in my opinion, to the necessity of the step of adding the tag. Badagnani 19:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the initial reaction was, I don't see a dispute on this talk page now. What I see now is healthy discussion. Maybe we need an alternative to dispute that is less negative. I really want to emphasize that the collaboration we're doing now is positive. -- Ned Scott 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"This guideline is very aesthetically-based, and is therefore relatively prone to change. It should be considered a guideline, although one that's under continued (or even constant) development." Something like that.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:42, 09/18/2007

Really it should be no problem whether it's disputed or not. The design is not set in stone, but it is not going to change (much) without some kind of consensus. This is regardless of whether we have the tag or not. Most people seem to agree that the design can be improved, so it should be. Rich Farmbrough, 20:10 18 September 2007 (GMT).

I agree that the design can be improved and may be in the future; the real question: is there a dispute? I don't think so. Anyone else care to weight in? --MZMcBride 20:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too. It would be good to get the opinion of other opponents of WP:AMB. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "opponents of WP:AMB"? Isn't that like "opponents of WP:TALK"? Badagnani 20:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously there's some some dispute. But as I note elsewhere, it's nowhere near the level that would merit the use of the tag. -Chunky Rice 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is disputed, because the guideline mandates the use of redesigned boxes, and some users disagree. Dispute can take the form of "healthy discussion" and hopefully it does, but the guideline is still disputed. A breathing space at this stage would be helpful so more editors can get involved, and considerations reviewed that were perhaps not previously present. Tyrenius 20:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation is not disputed but the design is. It really doesn't matter that the tag is there at the moment. violet/riga (t) 20:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone pointed out at the admin noticeboard incidents whozeewhatsit, it probably would've been better to transition through the {{proposed}} state rather than just suddenly making this a guideline. Then people wouldn't feel quite so threatened now. But given the choice of dispute or no dispute, I would say there's no dispute -- at least not according to the template wording. There's dispute, but only over changes, not over whether or not this should be a guideline. Guideline changes get discussed all the time, doesn't mean they need to be tagged as disputed.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:56, 09/18/2007

I think we're a little past that since the templates have already been implemented. -Chunky Rice 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just a template style. Just because a template is in use doesn't mean a guideline must exist dictating its use. This one could still be sent back to the proposal state to allow for the proper discussion of it becoming a guideline, even while the ambox templates stay in use.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 21:28, 09/18/2007

It may have been implemented, but it's not set in stone. There needs to be much wider feedback before there's any certainty about it. Tyrenius 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am the one that coded up {{ambox}} and to some extent the CSS classes too. (But note, when I came here some weeks ago most work were already done. The design, part of the code and most of the CSS were already done by the others. So they did the hard part.) I think we probably should change the box on top of Wikipedia:Article message boxes to a "proposed guideline". This is all so new so it should be under discussion. Just because people were so enthusiastic about it that they went ahead and changed all message boxes (even before the style sheet caches in people's browsers were updated) doesn't mean this is a done deal.

By the way Tyrenius, if we change the box to "{{proposed}} guideline", is it then okay for you to remove the disputed tag?

--David Göthberg 07:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)