Template talk:DYK-Refresh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] uglyness
After removing the red uglyness from the template, I saw in the revision history that it might be intended so I reverted back. Could someone elaborate? --Dandin1 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The template is designed as a timer to notify admins when the Did you know section on the main page needs to be updated. It is a six hour timer, the period when DYK needs to be updated with a new list of articles. When the timer goes off and an update is overdue, the template becomes red. Most of those who maintain the DYK section prefer this shade of red because is better signals a sense of urgency that DYK needs to be updated immediately. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Zzyx11 is right, bright red is the color that we watch for. The uglyness is intentional. Royalbroil 04:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have been told to move my comments here, after commenting on it on the main page talk for today. I also think it should be made unred because I'm sure many more users than admins browse the page and it is just horrifically jaring. Black on red is also rather hard to read. So what if it spurs admins into action? They are admins they shouldn't need colours to tell them when to edit. TheGreatZorko (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The point as I understand it (not saying I agree with it) for the template in particular and for that matter the errors space in general is to alert admins to problems to fix. Therefore it doesn't matter so much whether users find it ugly. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd bet that the admin:editor ratio on WP:ERRORS is one of the highest on the site. Furthermore, WP:ERRORS isn't really meant to attract editors. It's specifically *for* admins. 62.231.146.140 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, also I was going to add that it's worth remembering that the talk page isn't really a place for ordinary readers. It's a place for editors to discuss or be made aware of problems and issues in making the article (or in this case the portal that is the main page) a better place. Therefore unlike with an article (or a portal) where the reader should always come first, with a talk page this isn't really necessary. Also it's worth bearing in mind that the colour alerts normal editors too even if they can't do anything directly. In my case, despite being a fairly frequent visitor to the main page and main page talk page and being actively involved in ITN discussions I wasn't even aware of the 6 hourly schedule for DYK until fairly recently (before the template went red though). And to be honest I probably still wouldn't notice or care were it not for the template which means I do usually notice. Although I don't actually usually bother to alert admins when I see it red I would suspect there are some editors who are bothered enough that they alert admins on IRC (or whatever). So to some extent the template also tells normal editors 'there's a problem here, get an admin to fix it' Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd bet that the admin:editor ratio on WP:ERRORS is one of the highest on the site. Furthermore, WP:ERRORS isn't really meant to attract editors. It's specifically *for* admins. 62.231.146.140 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The point as I understand it (not saying I agree with it) for the template in particular and for that matter the errors space in general is to alert admins to problems to fix. Therefore it doesn't matter so much whether users find it ugly. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I tried implementing a green/yellow/red scheme both to delay the appearance of the 'ugly' red and insert a 'may update' period between the 0-5 hour 'do not update' period and the eventual red 'update immediately' line. I used a muted green so that it shouldn't jump out until you hit the 6+ hour point. Thoughts? --CBD 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite sure I understand, because there really shouldn't be updates before the 6-hour mark, so that the hooks get exposure. I'd say maybe yellow from 6-7 hours, and red thereafter, or something like that. Personally, I just like what it was before, no colors or the regular formatting, and then red after 6 hours. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
- It just seemed odd to go directly from 'do not update yet' to that screaming red which always sends people running to WP:AN/I to report that DYK was critically overdue. I put the yellow in for hours 6-8, but it can easily be adjusted to any timeframe if people think it makes sense to retain as an indicator that 'the template now CAN be updated but it is not yet critical to do so'. Since the change it seems like the update has been made during the 'yellow' period each time. The color for hours 0-5 could also be changed back to the tan color rather than green if people prefer that... was just going with a green/yellow/red progression for symbolism. --CBD 18:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite sure I understand, because there really shouldn't be updates before the 6-hour mark, so that the hooks get exposure. I'd say maybe yellow from 6-7 hours, and red thereafter, or something like that. Personally, I just like what it was before, no colors or the regular formatting, and then red after 6 hours. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
- If nothing else, could the red at least be toned down a notch or twelve? It is rather blinding and hard to read. A darker shade of red would work nicely. - Koweja (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
How about making the links colored white (or yellow) when the background is red? --Howard the Duck 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
