Template talk:Languageicon/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →

Contents

Placement

Okay, I like the ability to signify that e.g. a certain link points to a German website, but should I put it before or after the link? I personally prefer to put the lang icon after the link, because otherwise the link gets indented, which is ugly. But on some articles I've seen it used before the link. Is there a standard? Shinobu 13:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you read the documentation, the template should usually be placed after the link. Although, it's widely used before. It would be a hard task to correct them all, but if you're ready, I'll try to help you. CG 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Without a bot that would be nearly impossible - but I'll correct errors when I see them. Shinobu 23:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've actually started going through all the {{xx icon}}s and correcting them to the end. A couple people have "un-corrected" me, however, such as [1] --Evan Seeds (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Icons too large?

The icons look to big and intrusive to me, especially the outer parentheses. Does anyone else think the same? I think we could make them smaller without losing anything... ~MDD4696 01:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the format is way over the top, and the "labels" are 10× more prominent on the page than the list items that they purportedly support. I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit, and now I browse around and see what appear to be lists of languages' names which draw attention to themselves with bold emphasis, a different font size, a different font face (the default "sans-serif" overrides the font chosen in the style sheet), different colour, and psychedelic double parentheses incorporating two font sizes and colours. The language names seem to have some incidental external links after them, but they don't look significant at all.
But then, you get what you ask for. Below is my summary of the multiple votes above (which doesn't account for the many qualified and conditional votes, of course).
Does the current state of language labels really have consensus support? I don't think it looks good at all, and I would support revisiting this with a vote on several clear alternatives. —Michael Z. 2006-05-06 20:02 Z

[Votes are listed as support/oppose]

Appearance

  1. Langlink template: 3/0
  2. Image: 0/0
  3. Plain text: 2/0
  4. Formatted text: 6/1
  5. Boxed format: 0/1

Behaviour

  1. Click-through to language article: 2/3
  2. Display full description on hover: 1/0
  3. No behaviour, simple description: 4/0

Language code (eo) vs. full description (Esperanto)

  1. Language code: 1
  2. Label: 5

Template vs. no template

  1. Template: 2
  2. No template: 2


>Yeah, it looks like after the onslaught people don't really care anymore.
Of course. This is a typical example of bycicle shed effect. I would say... let anyone do the modifications he likes, in perfect wiki spirit (then, what would be different from now? someone likes the caret-shaped cursor and decide that cursor: default is "unnecessary"; if you don't like the blue just replace the unnecessay color: navy and be done with it ;)). Sorry for being a little polemic, but it seems that consensus-by-discussion does not work on Wikipedia (not to speak of the fact that "discussion pages" are really unsuitable for discussions; we should use a, possibly nntp-bridged, mailing list). And, well, this stuff should be done at the CSS level. --Gennaro Prota (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I made an honest mistake with the template--I didn't notice that subtlety. Reverted. ~MDD4696 20:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
>I agree it's over the top, as per my vote. I have recently reverted to double-parentheses in respect of the vote, but maybe it's time to start afresh with another vote about the appearence. Also, why do we have on-hover behaviour if the clear winner was "no behaviour"? PizzaMargherita 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's do something about these things. HenryFlower 08:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

More specifically? PizzaMargherita 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If 'kill with fire' is not an option, at least remove the screaming brackets. HenryFlower 20:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

This template as it stands is absolute overkill: two sets of parentheses, bold, specific font and bicolour. What else do we want it to do to attract attention, play the national anthem?

A lot of people in this talk page have simply had enough. I used to revert changes that simplified the template out of respect of the straw poll, but now it's increasingly clear that a consensus has indeed formed against overformatting.

If you oppose a simplification of the current pattern, please state here what is the rationale behind this circus tent. So far the best we had is "Makes the user better aware of the langauge of the link". With all due respect, "Duh! It also makes them less aware of everything else in that page."

Also please keep in mind the history behind the straw poll above. It was originally intended to get rid of an ultra-ugly monospaced bold formatting (with a cryptic two-letter code by the way). For that reason I also voted in favour of this ueber-formatting initially, but then when better alternatives emerged I changed my mind.

Now since it's so controversial and since the template would do with some stability, please let's have another vote on each attribute. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 06:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think we should discute *designs* rather than single attributes; most formatting choices may look hideous in the context of a specific design and nice in others. Of course if, as it appears, the consensus will be to use plain text then the template will be pretty much useless (except for the non-negligible aspect of providing a single point of maintenance for future changes). --Gennaro Prota (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Two sets of brackets

Oppose

  1. Not needed, not standard, not intuitive, attract too much attention. They make it look like Wikinews, except they have nothing to do with it. PizzaMargherita 06:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. HenryFlower 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. ~MDD4696 04:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Gennaro Prota (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. — Overkill, and without any inherent meaning or real typographic precedent.—Michael Z. 2006-05-18 17:41 Z
  6. -- Petri Krohn 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. it's overkill, and anyway I don't think two sets of brackets are any more a generally accepted way of indicating "this is a language" than a single pair. Clutter without clarity. Shinobu 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. as overkill. --Muchness 07:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t13:13z
  10. Two sets of parentheses are just weird. Sorry to whoever added them. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. overkill, nonstandard, confusing, etc. BlankVerse 06:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. --Francisco Valverde 09:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Cat out 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. why not. //Halibutt 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. per Ezhiki abakharev 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Bob 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Nightstallion (?) 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bold

Oppose

  1. Not needed, not standard, attracts too much attention. PizzaMargherita 06:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. HenryFlower 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. ~MDD4696 04:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. (mildly —see my comment above) --Gennaro Prota (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. — makes the label more prominent than what it's labelling. —Michael Z. 2006-05-18 17:41 Z
  6. -- Petri Krohn 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. if full language name is used like it is now. But if abbreviations are used I would support. Shinobu 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. as unnecessary emphasis. --Muchness 07:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. extreme oppose. Ugly, distracting, unnecessary, non-standard, etc. BlankVerse 06:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. --Francisco Valverde 09:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Cat out 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. //Halibutt 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. per Ezhiki abakharev 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Bob 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Nightstallion (?) 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. -- tasc talkdeeds 10:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t13:13z

Specific font (sans-serif)

Oppose

  1. Not needed, inconsiderate of user's preferences/skin. PizzaMargherita 06:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. (font-family would probably be ok, though) --Gennaro Prota (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. inconsiderate of user preferences. Since this will show up only if the user's css is set to serif, annoying users who don't like sans seems to be the only purpose of sans-ing the language icon. Shinobu 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Muchness 07:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose, the web is not tv. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t13:13z
  6. Oppose, per Pizza. Kukini 03:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Unneeded. Looks fine currently. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. unnessary and non-standard. BlankVerse 06:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. --Cat out 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak support, we might go either way here //Halibutt 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Nightstallion (?) 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Depends

  1. — Could be good or bad. "Sans-serif" itself makes no sense, since the default Wikipedia appearance already uses that, but for users who have chosen a specific font in their user style sheet it would override it. Let's vote on specific proposals. —Michael Z. 2006-05-18 17:41 Z
  2. I'll second Michael Z. on this. Let's decide on other formatting elements first.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. per Ezhiki abakharev 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Specific colour(s)

Oppose

  1. Not needed, not standard, inconsiderate of user's preferences/skin, attracts too much attention. Blue is a particularly poor choice, because it makes it look like a link and makes people want to click on it. I could possibly accept grey (holding my nose). PizzaMargherita 06:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose mildly --Gennaro Prota (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Muchness 07:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. web accessibility -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t13:13z

Support

  1. I do not want to sound too conservative, but I think the language icos as they are, are ok. I wouldn't change them...--Francisco Valverde 09:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. why not make it link to the repsective language (ex: japanese language)--Cat out 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    This has already been discussed and the consensus was not to pollute the language article's "What links here" list. PizzaMargherita 05:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. makes no sense without colours and blue is kind of neutral. //Halibutt 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Blue is the most non-neutral text colour on Wikipedia, and on the Web: it indicates a link. —Michael Z. 2006-05-23 12:37 Z
    Then let's make it orange or pink or green, as I suggested below. We're voting for colour vs. black here, we'd have to decide on the colour later. //Halibutt
    I agree those would probably be better than blue. But the specifics are important. This is the second time we're voting broadly on general ideas and not specific proposals—the horse committee is going to build another camel. —Michael Z. 2006-05-23 15:06 Z
  4. specific colors, but not necessarily blue. Grey sounds good enough.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. per Ezhiki abakharev 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Bob 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Nightstallion (?) 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. recognizability. I don't think there's an international standard for the colour of language icons, so I'd say pick one. Just keep it modest, so no neon pink. Shinobu 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. -- tasc talkdeeds 10:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. -- Kukini 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Wouldn't stand out enough without colors. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Depends

  1. — blue is definitely a bad idea. Gray might be good. I'd vote for or against a specific proposal. —Michael Z. 2006-05-18 17:41 Z
  2. proposal should be for a specific color. Blue, as many people have mentioned, is a BAD idea, and red should be avoided as well. BlankVerse 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Prepend "in", as in "(in Esperanto)"

Oppose

  1. (mildly). Adds no information. HenryFlower 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. No extra 'in' is necesarry--Cat out 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. unusable with most instances of where the templates were used so far. And completely incompatible with "cite" type templates ("(in Polish) Jan Kowalski (1920) A czemu by nie, Warsaw, ISBN 83XXXXXX" looks much, much worse). //Halibutt 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose — I don't think it is really necessary, so keep it simple. —Michael Z. 2006-05-18 17:41 Z
  5. Serves no purpose.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. per Ezhiki abakharev 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Bob 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. —Nightstallion (?) 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. because it doesn't add value, but does add clutter. Shinobu 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. per Ezhiki. -- tasc talkdeeds 10:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Serves no clear purpose. Kukini 03:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Clutters. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. David Kernow 18:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. unnecessary BlankVerse 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. More readable, more natural. Also as per MDD4696 below. PizzaMargherita 06:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. It distinguishes between a German site and one in German. ~MDD4696 04:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. (I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should be "in" or "In") --Gennaro Prota (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. as per MDD. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t13:13z

Position

After

  1. —Should we also vote on the position of the language label? If so, I strongly oppose the common practice of putting it before the link—it belongs after the link or at the end of its description. —Michael Z. 2006-05-18 17:41 Z
  2. Why not, let's vote. After the link.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. as the important part (the link itself, and the description, if necessary) should come first. -Evan Seeds (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Bob 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Muchness 07:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. --This seems to follow common practice. Kukini 03:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Since icons have diferent sizes, putting them before disrupts the aligment. Specially if you have several languages. for one link. Mariano(t/c) 06:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. BlankVerse 06:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Before

  1. Against what currently seems to be the prevailing opinion, I prefer the icons before links as this produces a neater, more tabular result. (Cf, for example, what's supposedly "bad" in the #Position thread above.)  Regards, David Kernow 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC) via WP:CS.
  2. If you know one language but not the other then language is more important then the description of the link abakharev 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Before the link. It only make sense for the thing to catch attention if it is the first thing peple read. When enbeded in text it goes missing with other stuff... The most relevant thing of a link is its language and content and these two should come first. Other details can come after if they must --Cat out 16:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Nightstallion (?) 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. because if you put the language icons after the links they don't line up and it looks very ugly. Shinobu 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. -- tasc talkdeeds 10:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. What the language is is much more important than what the name is, or anything else. I want to be able to stop reading as soon as I know something's worthless to me. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. My second choice if what I wrote below is not acceptable to most. //Halibutt 10:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Either

  1. I'd say let's keep this thing as flexible as possible and leave the position up to the author. If he wants it after the link - fine. If he wants it before it - fine as well. I'm using the template before the links so that the reader knew that the link is unreadable to him/her before he/she clicks it, but I also understand the people to place it afterwards. Let's leave it up to the authors. //Halibutt 19:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is my second choice. No reason to force it either way. --Cat out 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. My second choice too, for sake of creating consensus. David Kernow 13:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Embedded

  1. The below is still my favourite design, by courtesy of Michael Z. The only thing I dislike/oppose is the tooltip. Note that the language still stands out, but it's not intrusive.

    De rien Français (French), a non-existent web site in French

    I don't buy the "tabular" argument in favour of putting it before the link. See how untabular it looks when combined with the "cite" template, which puts the template before. Also as already noted it's not a list of languages but a list of links, and the most important thing is the reference, not the language, and so the latter should be less prominent than the former. PizzaMargherita 21:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, can't agree with you. In the case of Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp what we have is a list of almost 100 books and links, in a variety of languages (Polish, English, Czech, Italian, Spanish, German...). With the template in front the most easily notable information is whether the link is useful to the reader or not. With it at the end the most easily-notable thing would be... the authors' names, which in 99% of cases tell the reader nothing. Then go the titles (often in more than one language) and only then some comments and... all of a sudden a mention of the language. As I said, let's leave it to the author to decide. //Halibutt
    I am second to the each word of Halibutt abakharev 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    I understand your arguments, but surely leaving it up to the author would hurt the point of templates: namely, consistency. --Evan Seeds (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    And what's more important in templates: their consistency or their usability and flexibility? //Halibutt
    If that's so important, how about splitting the references in sections according to language? It would be much quicker for the reader to find the ones they can read. For the few multilanguage ones you can have a separate section. PizzaMargherita 05:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    If use the reference style citation mechanism them the author has no control over the order of the references - they are just generated automatically according to the order in the text. Even if the links are inserted manually, you still would want to impose some logical order: e.g. in an article about an author - Biography links, Links to his works (originals and translations), Critique of his works, etc. We cannot reorder links/references according to the language along. Maybe I am to conservative, but IMHO changing the order from Before to After is a big job, changing them back is another big job, and the value added to the readers is very doutful abakharev 06:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    So you agree, the references themselves are more important than the language. PizzaMargherita 07:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cursor (aka mouse pointer) shape on hover

Leave standard shape for text (Polish)

  1. This to me clearly indicates that it's text, and therefore that I can select it, copy it, search for it etc., as opposed to text embedded in an image, which would display the "default" cursor shape (hover on the examples above and below to see what I mean). So I think the "default" shape is misleading and I can't see any reason for keeping it. PizzaMargherita 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Use "default" shape (Polish)

Multiple Templates for one language?

Why do languages, such as chinese and czech, have more than one language icon template({{ch icon}}/{{zh icon}} and {{cs icon}}/{{cz icon}}, respectively) and what should be done to fix it? --Evan Seeds (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

Hi guys,

just to start from the basics: what is/would be wrong with just indicating the language as normal text? (Please, do not object to the specific HTML code I've used; it's hideous, I agree. We are just discussing about the appearance, for now. Oh, and I have only visualized the whole message with the default skin)

While we are at it, we have never considered having the indication before the double-arrow image:

If we really had to do something different I would just stick to some "little" variant, with the aim to *lower* the prominence of the indication. Examples:

slightly smaller font

or maybe

as above, plus (dark) gray text
using different colors seems to draw attention anyway, though, no matter whether you use blue or gray

Why we object to these? --Gennaro Prota (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gennaro, I don't know why, they all seem way more sensible than what we have now.
My favourite is number 2. And it has indeed already been proposed, I even voted for it. Search in this page for "I like this one". I'm not a big fan of dark grey and smaller font, but I guess I could live with it if the alternative is the current eyesore.
The only thing is I would use lowercase "I". That is, "in English", not "In English".
Don't forget to vote, else people will object that we don't have a consensus when we change to a civil appearance. PizzaMargherita 07:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. I'm a bit lost in this talk page, so I appreciate your guidance :) If "number 2" is the one with the link image after the language indication, I like it too, but it becomes ugly when underlined.
Just to explore all possibilities, is there a clean way to limit underlining (on hover ) to the anchor text, as in
without requiring MediaWiki changes? --Gennaro Prota (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I whelmingly oppose the removal of colors and the extra paranthesis. --Cat out 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? PizzaMargherita 14:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no point to the template if it isnt going to do anthting. its faster to type (English) then {{en icon}}. Furthermore I do not see why we have to change a working template used in god knows how many articles? --Cat out 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"There is no point to the template if it isnt going to do anthting."—Are you suggesting we get rid of it entirely? I disagree, in the future we may think of attributes that actually make sense (for instance prepending "in"). Templates are not just there to save keystrokes.
"Furthermore I do not see why we have to change a working template used in god knows how many articles?"—It's not "working" in that it attracts too much attention and it looks like a link. Anyway, nobody has answered the question yet: Why bold? Why two brackets? Why blue? Why? PizzaMargherita 15:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No I am suggesting it should be kept the way it was or else it should be deleted. Templates exist to take care of repetive texts to save time. If typing the template requires more work that what the template does it has no usage.
Bold, two bractes, blue, because I like it. The only reason you dont want it is because perhaps you dont like it.
Bold because the ()'s and text merge closer to eachother giving it an 'icon' look.
Double brackets because it is how wikisyntax works such as double [[ ]]'s
Blue because this template is placed next to links that are blue in color so it looks synced.
Overal because it looks much much nicer than grey text that catches no ones attention.
--Cat out 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This should remain as a template unless we can find a firm majority consensus on what it should look like, even if it is to be a plain-text solution. Because opinion has been so split and this has changed so often, it's a good thing that its been easy to change them all at once using the template. —Michael Z. 2006-05-18 17:46 Z

Exactly, design for change. Say tomorrow we are going to have a perfect babelfish-like free online service for translating web pages, it would make sense to link the template to a translation of the article in the user's favourite language. It sounds crazy now, but the whole point is that we don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. PizzaMargherita 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Language icons

I think that as they stand language icons like (English) and (Spanish) are fine. I wouldn't change them. Per example in the article FC Barcelona, the icons are put behind the link. We might need to wait a little until more support one way or the other is reached. --Francisco Valverde 09:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"I wouldn't change them."—Why?
If you oppose a simplification of the current pattern, please state here what is the rationale behind it.
Also, looking at the comments in this talk page (not just the current vote), I would argue that the consensus is clear, and the opposers to the stautus quo have clearly stated the rationale behind the proposed change. Let's start with the double parentheses. Why are they needed exactly? PizzaMargherita 11:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It makes no sense to make them text-only. I use them specifically because they are different from the standard text to the right and allow the reader to check the language in one glimpse. Otherwise why not use the "language=" field in all the "cite" templates... //Halibutt 14:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "text-only"? You mean unformatted? The reader can check in one glimpse anyway, do they need the double parentheses? If you want to attract even more attention you may consider flashing, an animated gif and playing a MIDI file. Also please note the three reverts rule. PizzaMargherita 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you put it that way then perhap you could take a note that there is no consensus to change the blue bracketed template to anything else in the first place. At least that's what the straw poll above shows. //Halibutt 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Everyone, if you actually read this talk page, and have a look at the recent and not-so-recent history of changes, you will see that not only the people who have voted in the latest straw poll oppose the previous design. Also, you will see the reasons behind the simplification, which I do not intend to repeat. You will also learn why blue is a bad choice, why we should keep the template in any case, why it's a bad idea to link the language article etc.
It was indeed a consensus, and I think it's only healthy that it stays like this for some time, so we can have a better understanding of how many people oppose a simplification and why it's important to have it like it was, other than weak arguments as "it attracts more attention" (which is one of the reasons why people oppose it), "it looks cool", "it looks like wiki code" (but it isn't), "it looks like a link" (but it isn't), "it looks like wikinews" (but has nothing to do with it), and "I like it".
Finally, in WP there is no such thing as "my articles" and "my bracets". None of us own anything here. For the same reasons there cannot be "my template" and "your template" for the same function. We need to work towards a consensus. For this, we need supporters of the status quo to reason why certain features are needed, which some have already started doing, so thank you. PizzaMargherita 20:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Bottom line is you can use a seperate and more simple template that would satisfy your taste. I like the one I used to have. In wikipedia when one uses the phrase "my articles" they refer to articles they are involved with. I do not see a valid explanation why two paranthesis and blue color cannot be used. Wikipedia is NOT B&W --Cat out 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"you can use a seperate and more simple template that would satisfy your taste"—I repeat. There cannot be "my template" and "your template" for the same function. We need to work towards a consensus.
"Wikipedia is NOT B&W"—It's not, you are right. Hell, you can even have a skin with a blue background and white text, except that wait a second, you won't be able to see blue text. Blue is a particularly poor choice, because it makes it look like a link and makes people want to click on it. As for the double brackets, once again, they attract too much attention, as does bold and colour. PizzaMargherita 05:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for some notable colour, but indeed, once the double brackets are gone, the templates look exactly like links to somewhere. How about some colour not used commonly by wiki software, say green? Grey is not a good choice for me, but some greyish green could be a decent compromise. What do you say? //Halibutt 01:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Colors

this is a high use template, do not make large scale modifications (such as removing all colors) w/o discussing it and gathering a concensus. --Cat out 14:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion had, consensus reached. PizzaMargherita 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats no discussion. I wasnt aware of it. Vote Stacking is not the way of gathering concensus. --Cat out 14:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Besides, if you don't want the colours you can always write " (English) " or " (in English) ". This is not an option for those who believe that the colours are needed (like yours truly). //Halibutt 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Coolcat, your ignorance of a discussion does not mean it doesn't exist. I've never agreed with Pizza before in my life, so your accusation of vote-stacking is way off. Halibutt, yes, we could just use text, but we use a template for consistency. As ever, if you want to continue the discussion please do so, but don't revert against established consensus. HenryFlower 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I observe a no concensus on that vote. I never acused anyone of vote stacking. I just pointed out that just because a vote exists that doesnt mean it is recognised as concensus. --Cat out 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys,

this is just to inform you that I'll definitively remove this template/talk page from my watch list. I don't like being involved in a sort of electronic wild wide west, with people who revert edits without even looking at them. In particular I consider Halibutt's revert borderline vandalism (yes, careless editing is vandalism to me): regardless of the rest, there were doc changes which should have been kept, IMHO. Cheers to everybody and thanks for the civil discussion and participation. --Gennaro Prota (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry everyone. I took the liberty to react before I took a look at the talk page. My fault.
Which does not change the main problem. I've been using the language templates for quite some time now, specifically because they were nice and coloured. Now that they are being changed to something easily deletable (obsolete: why have a text-only thingie in a template, when you can as well type it yourself without creating that much server usage?) is there any chance those of us who wanted to use the template as it was get what they liked and wanted? The current version is by no means compatible with the older one and in fact looks awful at pages where the older template was used. Just check the references in my recent Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp article to get the idea.
Would you oppose if I moved your new template to some other place and restore the current one to the previous version so that all who want it that way continue the usage, while all the rest get their own template? Or perhaps there is some better way to do that? //Halibutt 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Since consistency is the whole point of the template, that wouldn't be good. Could we perhaps agree on a compromise? I could accept anything without the brackets. HenryFlower 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I could live without the brackets, though they seem fine to me. However, the "in" thing and the lack of colours make these templates completely unusable to me and I would definitely have to withdraw them from all of my articles - and I've been using them in most of them recently. //Halibutt 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
How about not using the template if you dont like it. Seriously it is very easy to type (in English) and it does not require a template. If you MUST use a template, please use something seperate. I want my bracets. --Cat out 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Cool Cat. What's the purpose of using a template that only says "(in English)"? It's ridiculous. —SHININGEYES 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's try to be constructive. There are people here to propose several modifications to the original version ("in", no colours, no brackets and so on). Some of these changes could be easily applied without having to create two separate templates. In fact if we applied all the changes proposed, there wouldn't be a need for a template at all. Anyway, how about some compromise? As I said, I could easily live with the original (({{{1}}})). At the same time I don't think changing it to, say, ({{{1}}}) or ({{{1}}}) would do much harm, would it.
(in {{{1}}}) is a completely different matter as it makes this template unusable, at least for me (and, judging by the number of people who automatically assumed that the changes applied were simple vandalism, not only for me). However, we can meet somewhere in between. What do others think? //Halibutt 16:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe a change is necesary. I like it exactly how it looks. It looks much more like the wiki news icon the way it was. --Cat out 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As previously said two or three times, the point is consistency, so that wide-scale changes can be made without going through every single page with a non-english link, and, also, without the template, we'd have no easy category full of pages with other language links. Whether or not there's a nice design, or it's simple, there should be a template. Evan Seeds (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Would it hurt for it to have a nice design? --Cat out 22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt raises a valid point about the "in" prefix. However, the documentation of the template does say

When used for hyperlinks, it's preferable that the language indication appears *after* the link itself.

and therefore I would argue that it's the cite template that it's abusing it. Even so, looking at the article you mention, I don't think the simple design is "completely unusable". Agreed, the lowercase "in" is not great at the beginning, but it would look worse uppercase at the end, where it's supposed to be. Also, as somebody else pointed out, the "in" it does a great job at making clear that it's about language (a link in German), not origin (a German link). I don't think it would be more intuitive to people not already familiar with the template that a formatted icon of any design reading "(German)" means "this link is in German". Do you think that moving it at the end of the cite templates would be acceptable? PizzaMargherita 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the argument about "language as opposed to nationality" is particularly important here. Note that people would not expect the mention of the nationality of the author anywhere anyway. What they would expect is... err... the language the link/book/journal/whatever is in - and they get exactly that. It was already clear to me back in the times when we were using language ISO codes.
Secondly, the whole "in", while useful to some, would limit the scope of this set of templates to but a small number of situations, while the original version was quite versatile. For instance, one could (as I actually did) put two such links side by side for pages that are actually in more than one language. Now we'd have this bizarre (in Polish)(in English)(in Spanish) chain. Of course you're right that the documentation suggests the usage after the links, but take note that barely ever people do use this template as such. I bet most people arrived to this discussion after they noticed their favourite {{pl icon}}, {{en icon}} or {{la icon}} got "vandalized" by someone. At least that's how I got here.
Finally, a simple proposal: I noticed that currently in the tally above there is no consensus to introduce the changes in the first place. How about reverting to the earlier version and see where we get from there? //Halibutt 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha, we didn't think about the chaining scenario. In that case sure, let's get rid of the "in" for now, unless somebody can think of a way to achieve chained rendering like "(in English, Russian, Estonian)".
As for the formatting, as I said I would leave it as it is at least for a while to gauge how many people oppose the simple design and have a rationale about why the screaming looks is needed. On the contrary, I would change the cite template to comply with the documentation and gauge reactions on that front as well. PizzaMargherita 09:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I got here because I thought the template was vandalised. So from your comment you are ignoring an earlier concensus that came up with the format I want (the colorfull one). I think the screaming is necesary to point out the user that the link they are going to is in a language they dont know. Which really saves time for people who don't have for example japanese characters and visit a japanese site only to be greated by several hundred '?'s. I am not reverting this page back as more and more people will come here as a result of the change. --Cat out 10:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Pizza, I'm not sure changing the citation templates is possible, as they are even more widespread now and changing them to comply with this one would require running some bot to change zillions of links. And, last but not least, the usage of citation templates is currently the suggested way of dealing with all sorts of references and notes, which makes those templates even less likely to be modified.
Anyway, as sort of a temporary solution I will change the template to ({{{1}}}), which seems like a decent temporary compromise between various proposed versions and the original one: blue, but not bolded, brackets, but only single and so on. Hopefully that's fine with all of us here. //Halibutt 11:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me, thanks. PizzaMargherita 12:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PizzaMargherita, please stop disrupting the template which affects thousands of pages. The majority opinion is that template quite alright now, please stop pushing your version at the expense of other editors' opinions. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, please stop disrupting the template which affects thousands of pages. Please justify to the many users that complained about the loud appearance why that is needed. Failing that, it will be reverted to the compromise. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently I was wrong... //Halibutt
No, I think you were civil and rational. PizzaMargherita 15:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. What I meant is that apparently I was wrong when I assumed that we could all agree to some sort of a compromise. Anyway, let's see what the poll will show. How about listing it somewhere so that we get more attention? //Halibutt 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please. I've been trying to follow this discussion at the bottom of the page for a few days, but didn't notice the new poll above. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-05-18 17:31 Z
Ok, I added the survey to WP:CS. //Halibutt 21:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats to the guy who changed the design, the current ({{{1}}}) is perfect! =) —SHININGEYES 20:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I can live with it. --Cat out 22:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Taking into account the discussions and survey above, I propose the following compromise. It does stand out for scanning purposes, without blinding the readers or tricking them into clicking on it. If you oppose this, please be specific about the reason why. The placement would remain an open/free issue.

Before
After

PizzaMargherita 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support abakharev 06:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose — The format is not bad, but putting it at the front of the line seems pretty bad for scanning purposes. Leaving out the list bullets makes it still harder to find the start of an item; your eye has to stumble around forever. Please, let's try it with a standard unordered list format, with the language label after the link or at the end of the line. —Michael Z. 2006-05-25 04:48 Z
    The presence of the bullet point depends on the context where it's used, so it's not part of the proposal. The example above was taken from a "cite" style references, so it would have a caret and potentially other superscript letters ahead of those lines. The lines would also appear in a smaller font. But none of this is part of the proposal, nor it should be. Those are features of the contexts within which the template is used. If you have problems with those templates (I do) you may want to raise them in the appropriate forum. In any case, I've added bullet points now just to see how it would look in one particular context.
    I don't think we can reach a consensus on the position just yet, unless you have enough stamina left to argue your way through in favour of your favourite style. So why not have a compromise solution that addresses most of the points? We can always come back to placement later. In any case I've now shown the list the way it would look if the template is used (as it is) before and after the link. Basically that's roughly what we would get if we change the template to 
    <span style="cursor: default; color: #6f6f6f;">(English)</span>
    PizzaMargherita 05:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And how about my proposal to make it green? //Halibutt 06:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Does grey not stand out enough? According to the discussion a few people seem to be ok with grey, whereas nobody else mentioned green. Anyway feel free to make your own proposal and let us see how it looks. PizzaMargherita 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Shinobu said (and I agree) "Just keep it modest". PizzaMargherita 07:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I proposed green at least three times here... It would be something like
  1. (Hindu)Alamakota National daily newspaper
  2. (Hindu)Alamakota National daily newspaper
  3. (Hindu)Alamakota National daily newspaper
  4. (Hindu)Alamakota National daily newspaper
  5. (Hindu)Alamakota National daily newspaper
//Halibutt 08:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
(By "nobody else" I meant "nobody else apart from you".)
Does grey not stand out enough? What are the issues that green addresses that the modest grey does not? PizzaMargherita 10:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Green is evil. %) -- tasc talkdeeds 10:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The grey seems out of the place for me as it makes it less visible. I'm perfectly satisfied with blue (as are apparently most of us here) and I thought that green might be a nice compromise between no colour at all (black/grey) and the blue you don't like. Judging from your comment I was wrong. //Halibutt 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that grey is less visible than blue, bold, and with two sets of brackets. But my question is, does it not stand out enough? Do you think that if we go for grey readers won't be able to scan through the list and identify the links that they can read? Here we are not merely talking about liking or disliking a colour. A lot of people have voiced concern over blue, and I'm not going to repeat why. A lot of people have mentioned grey, and the rationale is clear: still stands out on the default skin, it's neutral, it's modest. I am trying to reach a compromise here. Also note that grey and black in this context are indeed specific colours if you code them in the template, as opposed to leaving the standard colour for text (which in the default skin happens to be black). PizzaMargherita 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I like blue. I have no issues with the existing template. Grey doesn't look well with white bg. How about using light yellow instaed? --Cat out 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Grey is used extensively in the web (e.g. Google News) and in WP (for example in the watchlist) and I'm not aware of anybody complaining about its not looking good or being unreadable on white. If you don't like it, you can always change it in your skin. Here we are discussing what is best for everyone. PizzaMargherita 05:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah... right. So whats the problem with blue? Blue is used MORE on the web. just click the edit button and you will be greeted with an abondance of blue. With that anology, most windows computers have the default blue theme and blue would blend in better. --Cat out 19:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You are not listening. Blue on the web (and on WP in particular) has the common meaning of "link" or anyway "action". Clicking on this template does nothing, so it's confusing for the reader. Colours on the web don't just have aesthetic value, but also (and more importantly) functional. The web is not an anime. PizzaMargherita 06:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to propose designs

Hi guys,

after 7 days I left this page I thought to have a look and see if some dust had settled. Well, it has not. Could I suggest that you propose complete designs and vote on them, rather than on single formatting choices?

That's what is going on in the section just above. We did need to discuss single formatting aspects first, to understand the rationale that is (or is not) behind each of them. PizzaMargherita 14:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And that's what I disagree about. Single formatting aspects have a relative meaning outside context. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 14:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. One "complete design" proposal is there, what do you think about it? PizzaMargherita 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot find it. Could you please copy the code here? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 16:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? It's in the section just above. PizzaMargherita 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding, sorry. I really did not see it at a glance. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 11:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


(back to the left margin)

  • Ok, let's start from the basics. We will never ever get rid of this discussion if we continue on this road. You sholdn't ask about single formatting aspects but about *design goals* (do you want it to stand out? do you want that it appears in print too? etc.). Then, formatting is just a mean to achieve the established goals. After that we can give a list of designs and use instant-runoff voting. Believe me, I have partecipated to a lot of collaborative projects and in my experience this is a viable approach. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 11:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that by discussing single features we have indeed gained a better understanding about what the goals are. This is the summary, the way I see it.
Some people want it to stand out, or anyway be recognisable because readers would then be able to scan a list and see which ones they can read. Other people think that it's important that the formatting of what is essentially an attribute of a link doesn't overshadow the link itself and in general doesn't attract too much attention. Also nobody has objected to the arguments that the template appearance should not override well-known visual cues (e.g. blue for links, double brackets for wikinews, bold for emphasis), and should respect user preferences unless there is a precise reason not to do so. I think in this respect the grey proposal above could make everybody happy, and indeed nobody has yet voiced any reasons why they wouldn't be. Would you? PizzaMargherita 11:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't. I guess I proposed basically the same a while ago but I can't remember. I would just like merging multiple language indications as indicated here and using by default a slightly darker gray:
==External links==
The style shouldn't be hardcoded, of course. It can go in common.css as class language-indication or in the single skin style sheets (consider that it will appear differently in different skins, depending on the background color; and it should have been voted here using the background of articles' not talks' pages). I have no strong opinion (yet?) about setting a different cursor shape. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 14:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I take it by "No I wouldn't" you mean "I'm generally happy with that proposal".
Merging multiple languages would be very nice, but I don't know enough about WP templates to suggest how to achieve that apart from having several templates, each with a fixed number of arguments. Do WP templates support variable number of arguments?
Anyway, this is a typical example of something that can be addressed independently at a later stage. Divide et impera. We're not going to come up with a perfect design anyway. Cursor shape is another example of something that can be addressed independently. At any rate I'll add it to the list of features to be discussed, together with my preference.
"Amen" to having a new css class, so it becomes skinnable, good idea. It overcomes the only real gripe I had about dictating a specific colour (even grey), because (as was observed) without a class it would have prevented people from choosing the same colour for the background. Thanks for your input. PizzaMargherita 20:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy with the proposal. And I quote in full what you say: some issues are minor and can be addressed independently. Thanks to you :) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I thought everyone agreed on this design. Why we are still holding on? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 14:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Everyone, last call for any issues, after which the proposal above will be implemented. Gennaro, I will need your help with the creation of the css class, as I've never done that. Cheers. PizzaMargherita 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Why the sudden rush? What is the problem with the template. I want to keep the current design as the default. I oppose any modification of any kind.
This is a template. Generaly you don't edit the style sheet (which affects every page on wikipedia). I find this to be very excessive.
--Cat out 17:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "affects every page on wikipedia"? (Let me say, in all honesty, that PizzaMargherita isn't pushing anything; he is conducting a survey for weeks (months?) and trying to accommodate every point of view. If a patience barnstar doesn't exist I think we have to invent one for him. As far as I can see, everyone agreed that the current appearance is too flashy and that something being both easily identifiable and sober was in order. And I thought the latest, gray-based, design met all the identified criteria) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I am accusing no one. Yes and based on his efforts there is no concensus. Half of the people agree the current appearance is fine (per poll). I for one, like it "flashy" (I'd hardly call it flashy, its not neon green for heavens sake). See how "flashy" this template is on List of Oh My Goddess episodes. Mind I note, it is a featured list. --Cat out 20:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PizzaMargherita, you appeared to be pushing this template to be exactly how you want it. I for one find that very disruptive. The vote alone should suggest that there is no concensus aside form a clear opposition to including the "in". --Cat out 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool cat, I have explained how in my opinion this proposal takes into account many concerns and suggestions. Please note that this proposal is not at all my favourite design. You say there is no consensus to change (and I disagree), but I would argue that there is significantly less consensus (and definitely less rationale) for leaving it as it is.
Anyway, since you accuse me of pushing my POV I am not going to implement the change, sure that somebody else will do it. PizzaMargherita 05:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not accusing you of anything, you are acusing yourself. There is a no concensus as in people divided (almost 50/50). In such cases issues are left as is.
I do not see any rationale aside from personal taste so far. You want to make the appearance of this template as insignificant as possible, I want to preserve its appearance. I actualy use this template on multiple articles and I want to make the articles appearance as decent as posible. See: List of Oh My Goddess episodes or List of Planetes episodes to see how I use the template (template is used at external links and resources section) on that particular article. These are featured lists and no one objected to the templates.
--Cat out 20:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"I do not see any rationale aside from personal taste so far."—Personal taste is too subjective to count as a rationale in this context. I don't think you have read the discussion very carefully. A number of specific usability and accessibility shortcomings have been identified in the current design. These take priority over any aesthetic considerations.
Also, since you seem to focus on counting votes, why have the double brackets been removed? According to your criterion, they should be reintroduced. The fact is, polls should be used to gain understanding, not to count votes. One vote with a rationale is worth one million without one. PizzaMargherita 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. They should be reintroduced, but I am willing to comprimise. Let me get this correctly, you are ignoring half of the votes is that it? Highly unlogical.
"A number of specific usability and accessibility shortcomings have been identified in the current design"... What exaclty is the problem? Correct me if I am wrong, but all you have been trying to change is the colors, font type, double bracets etc. It looks like "aesthetic considerations" to me...
--Cat out 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You are not listening. PizzaMargherita 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's proposal to "cease fire"

I propose keeping the template as it is currently and forgetting about it. Lets focus on articles. --Cat out 22:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. //Halibutt 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposal is negating the discussions and votes above. In particular, it doesn't address the shortcomings that have been identified in the current design. Therefore I oppose it. PizzaMargherita 13:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Then hence I charge phasers! :P --Cat out 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that after two weeks there is absolutely no consensus to introduce any changes proposed, even those that were somewhere in between our lines and could serve as a decent compromise... //Halibutt 00:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I already (unwillingly) comprimised from the double () among other things. As far as I care the older version was much better. But I wasnt to "settle" with what we have...--Cat out 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has been eliminating the use of this template

User:PoptartKing has recently substituted the calls for this template in individual ** icon templates writing metatemplates are bad for you! in the log: [2]. I don't think that's a good idea, given that the purpose of this template is to maintain consistency in formatting. Also, remember that "metatemplates" are known to cause only a tiny load increase on WP servers. (This fact has been stated somewhere in discussions of similar templates, like the lang-** templates.) Should be reverted?--Imz 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it took me a while but I now understand what is going on, (this is an actual example) and I don't like it at all. Where do we complain? PizzaMargherita 18:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The usual performance concerns of incompetent people. Frankly I think this is ignorance-based vandalism (I believe one shouldn't face topics he isn't knowledgeable about —sutor, non ultra crepidam). —Gennaro Prota•Talk 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, btw, I'd really like to get rid of the xx icon templates, as I don't see what their purpose is. The user has to remember a code to have then the full name shown. Why not writing {{language indication|Italian}} rather than {{language indication|it}}? (Yes, we should also rename this template; where is the icon?) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree on everything, especially on the fact that "xx icon" must go. In any case branching copies from this template is very wrong for very obvious reasons. PizzaMargherita 19:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless the templates pose a threat to wikipedias content or they are redundent, please do not "try to get rid of them". "Subst"ing templates are often good practice for templates such as {{attackuser-m}} etc. On this case the template is so simple such a thing is unnecesary. --Cat out 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point, your subst example does not apply. Forking is not just unnecessary in this case, it is plain wrong. Also, as Gennaro correctly points out, what's the use of "xx icon" templates at all (especially if there are any performance concerns) when one can use the LanguageIcon template directly? PizzaMargherita 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I know for a fact that Brion has made it clear about this. See his post on Metta templates policy page. Concerns are uncalled for. If the extra templates make it more easire to use, there isnt a single problem. I have dealt with meta templates for about a year now and I do not see a problem. --Cat out 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The point of the xx icons is for categorization. With them, we can find all the pages that have links that are in, say, German or Chinese. -- Evan Seeds (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Finally a good point. Thanks for the clarification, I had missed that entirely. PizzaMargherita 05:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There's still no need for the abbreviation: why "it icon" instead of "Italian icon"? Secondly, even conditional categorization may be done within the single master template (but, anyway, why would one want to lookup all articles that have a link to something in German or Chinese?) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 15:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(back to the left)

Well, i assume it's because "it" is easier and shorter to type than "Italian". For the categorization, perhaps a fluent speaker of the language would want to make sure that all the links are relevent and, if reference, properly assimilated into the article. --Evan Seeds (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's shorter. It's easier if it's easier to remember alpha-2 ISO 639 codes rather than language names (did you think one just used the first two letters of the full name?). That said, this discussion has exhausted me. This is really my last reply (not my last code change, of course). —Gennaro Prota•Talk 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Identical icon family

there is a whole series of practically identical icons apparently used for the Swadesh list articles:

and so on. What should be done with these? Circeus 16:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They should be deleted and "xx icon" templates should be used instead. PizzaMargherita 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Templates' purpose should be clear. "xx icon" format should be used. --Cat out 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And finally...

Hi guys,

can I go on and ask an administrator to put a language-indication class in common.css? I would even be happy if the default were the current appearance, as long as we have a class, so that I can customize it from my own css. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are content with having a nonintrusive appearence in your css then you are making the same mistake as people who are pushing for the current appearence just "because they like it". Anyway, I respect and understand your decision of giving up. It's a real shame that in WP reasonable people are regularly scared away by arrogant thugs who aren't capable of a civil and rational conversation and threaten an edit war if things are not done their way.
Anyway, I have a question. If we put this appearance in common.css, would it be any more difficult than it is now to change it? I'm asking because this is clearly far from being a stable template. PizzaMargherita 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I'm actually not "happy", as you might suppose, I'm just tired of fighting. No it wouldn't be more difficult: it could just happen that some changes will have to be done in common.css rather than here, so they might take longer than editing a normal page (anyway, having the style in the CSS is a good idea per se, even if we didn't have to customize this). I have already noticed that what goes under the name of "consensus" in WP is actually a form of compromise where someone is willing to accept things they don't like too much just to avoid endless wars. Given the results above the gray-based version should have gone in the CSS and the current version should have been adopted by users liking it in their own style sheet. But I foresaw what that could have roused, thus I offered to do the reverse :-/ —Gennaro Prota•Talk 23:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thinking again about it... you might add a comment to MediaWiki talk:Common.css, highlighting that the current consensus is for something along the lines of
.language-indication { color: #665; margin-left: 0.2em }
instead. I guess an administrator would then visit this page and see himself. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)