Wikipedia talk:Talk page templates/Archive 1

message: It would be interesting to create a page which showed all the versions of a particular template for comparison.
Which would be the most appropriate one to choose, or would it make sense to compare all of them?
--Phil | Talk 15:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
* Perhaps this would be something to create once the voting actually begins. – ClockworkSoul 20:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison 

message: Glad to see the competition going. Sorry if it was painful getting here. There are some very nice entries by my lights, including Violet's "Classico". 
Have you considered separating voting on the text from voting on physical properties? I know I've been meaning to craft my ideal FA TALK text (and I would also lobby to put this text near the "Save" button on any FA editing page because the people who most need to slow down are exactly those most likely to ignore Talk pages). I'm pretty sure user Blackcats and a few others will be weighing in on the exact wording too. As long as all proposed messages are within about a dozen words of the current message word counts, it shouldn't affect the aesthetic side of the competition.
Another thing-- in the template example pages scattered around in people's user spaces I think it would be best if people throw in at least five blank lines to separate each template. In the recent controversy I think a number of people had a problem not so much with colors, borders, etc.,., but with the way the template actually sat on the Talk page. How was it aligned, did it push all other material off the first screenfull and so on. These things would be easier to judge on the candidate pages if blank lines are used to float each template in some isolation that stands for the Talk page itself.
Lastly, I would encourage people to come up with tiny graphical elements for the templates. I like the star and star points that were being used, but they probably don't scale down too well to real mini-iconic size (the star is a very nice graphic with a faceted multicolored-light-reflections look, unfortunately that sort of detail collapses into a junky look in a severe downsample). It seems good to have the template messages strongly marked off from page text and nothing short of garish table cell colors would achieve this as well as standardized mini-icons (they'll need to be mini due to the server load issue). Since strong cell colors will get almost no votes we'll have to look to graphics to make this at-a-glance distinction. JDG 17:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a few suggestions 

message: I am going to be away for the vote and may not have time to visit next week, so please would someone register a postal vote on my behalf for
*"Violet" by violet/riga
*"Earthy colours" by Talrias (but not the paler version)
*"Classico" by violet/riga
*"Death to colorful boxes" by Netoholic (but see comment on the talk page)
*"ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll" by ClockworkSoul
*"Cadet Grey II" by Allen3 (in blue and in gold)
*"Simple" by violet/riga 
*"Obvious" by violet/riga 
*"Simplistic" by ALoan
*"Tick ToC" by Noisy
and against
*existing templates
*"Strong monochrome" by violet/riga
*"Border free" by Talrias
*"Monochromat" by Carnildo (ugh - can't see half the text)
*"Serif" by Zach (just don't like the font)
*"Cadet Grey" by Allen3
*"Cadet Grey II" by Allen3 (in grey)
*"Titlebar" by Allen3 
*"Developed solution" by violet/riga (neither one thing nor another)
*"Grey Georgia", "Grey Times", "Simplistic Georgia" and "Simplistic Times" by Zach (why prescribe the font?)
-- ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: This is just an example of the vote layout.
==="Violet" by violet/riga===
Support
#FooUser 09:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we were chosing the general style now, and that the details (such as the precise text) would be sorted out later? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's more of how I saw it – the wording of one submission might not work on another, so it'd be best to decide if any need a rewrite after the competition. violet/riga (t) 13:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: A 3-way vote would just be too complex. Let's keep it simple. — Matt Crypto 14:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you're right: it may be too much, and the final victors may not integrate well in the end anyway. – ClockworkSoul 16:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Example vote

message: Support
#FooUser 09:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "[[User:Violetriga/Templates|Violet]]" by [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]]

message: Also partially available in paler pink/red colours.
Support
#Foo3User 09:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "[[User:Talrias/Templates|Earthy colours]]" by [[User:Talrias|Talrias]]

message: Support
#Foo5User 09:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "[[User:Violetriga/Templates4|Obvious]]" by [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]]

message: Support
# Good poll format r3m0t talk 11:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
----
Perhaps we should have 3 different votes for the 3 different primary elements: format, color, and text? – ClockworkSoul 13:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we were chosing the general style now, and that the details (such as the precise text) would be sorted out later? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's more of how I saw it – the wording of one submission might not work on another, so it'd be best to decide if any need a rewrite after the competition. violet/riga (t) 13:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: A 3-way vote would just be too complex. Let's keep it simple. — Matt Crypto 14:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you're right: it may be too much, and the final victors may not integrate well in the end anyway. – ClockworkSoul 16:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The example vote

message: OK, so I've just started the vote, though I was a little caught out by BST/UTC.  I doubt I'll be awake in an hour though, so it should be fine (any submissions within that time can be added no problem).  I'll go through the proxy votes listed above and add them in now. violet/riga (t) 23:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting begins 

message: How about if one of the "old status" templates included is a "Previous COTW" one, that sems to fit in with the general idea. I realize (or at least think) there is not a current template like this, but it's just an idea... --Dmcdevit 03:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a very good idea. violet/riga (t) 12:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Status 

message: Now that we're nearing a decision on design, I think we should make a considered effort to improve the text of at least the main FA template. I feel strongly that the wording should serve to give users, particularly newish users, pause before they jump in with edits, without outright discouraging them. I feel so strongly because there are now quite a few articles that are truly gems and that represent scads of personhours in achieving just the right wording, balance, detail and thematic progression. A great disservice would be done to the project if the topnotch writers of these articles are alienated by a steady scrambling of their work. They will be "disincentivized" big time and will contribute less or even leave altogether. We certainly don't want that.
I don't know if there should be voting for this. Maybe we can take a swing at an informal consensus on this Talk page and go to voting only if we seem stuck.
Here's my attempt at FA:
"This is a Featured Article. We believe it is one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Changes should not be made lightly, as you will be altering text and/or a thematic progression that by consensus is already of very high quality. Even so, improvement is always possible, particularly by addition of new or interesting text.
Archived discussion that led to this becoming a featured article should be at the nomination page (may not exist for older articles)."
JDG 16:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New text proposals 

message: I agree that the overwhelming consensus is that Coffee Roll won, and the second vote should be dropped simply because nobody wants to hold it. However, Noisy shouldn't be blamed for the messy outcome - that's the fault of the people who decided on the voting procedure. He especially shouldn't be blamed for thinking his template was still in the running, because according to the procedure, it was. He even went to the effort of tallying the votes (though with a bit of a misinterpretation of approval voting, when he made a column for percentage of votes instead of percentage of voters), and for that contribution you call him "rude".
Violet's "first way" is surprisingly arrogant, and the "second way" is another misinterpretation of approval voting. None of the arguments put you in any position to yell at Noisy. By the comments above, it seems that editors clearly decided there would be a runoff between the top two, assumed to mean the two that got the most votes, if one didn't achieve support from 75% of voters. None of them did. The voters have only now reversed that decision by an overwhelming consensus.
Why does Wikipedia inspire people to make up voting procedures with bizarre conditions? This seems a lot like what happened to the big huge Wikipedia amendment that 100 people with gazillions of edits were supposed to vote on, too. This vote should have used just approval voting. No 75% minimum, no runoff, no problem.
Or better yet, just skip the vote and look for consensus. That would be way better than holding a flawed vote and then falling back on consensus.
RSpeer 03:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
:It seems to me that the voting procedure was pretty straightforward: approval voting to select the most popular option.  If there was more than one option with high support, or if there was only moderate support for a number of options, there would have been a runoff. --Carnildo 03:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rspeer is very right in my book. Noisy would have been perfectly within rights to insist on the runoff, given the stated voting rules. He was a good guy to let it drop and still has to endure a tongue lashing, apparently because he had the temerity to actually tally the vote and assign percentages when the organizer of the contest didn't do so... However, I don't think informal consensus would have done the trick. There have been too many instances of come-from-behind wins in normal voting (for instance, the big logo contest of last year). An informal chat fest would always leave the feeling that the tide may have been about to turn, so you need the cutoff and tally of a vote. It seems a more detailed version of approval voting could really be satisfactory, but I'm not up to it at the moment. Just to have something to refer back to I'll write what I think the core of it should be: Contestant with over 65% of all votes is immediate winner; Contestant with over 50% of all votes with nearest contestant under 38% is immediate winner; All other situations, all contestants with >25% of all votes go to a runoff (note "all votes", not "all voters"-- this would need some work to really be explicable under multiple-votes-per voter...a better scheme might involve allowing a max. of 3 votes per voter, his/her "prim" vote giving 3 points, "sec" giving 2, "tert" giving 1, then simple addition gives winner). JDG 04:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rspeer was right.  "Why does Wikipedia inspire people to make up voting procedures with bizarre conditions?".  Your proposed system bears little resemblance to approval voting, and manages to eliminate all the advantages of using approval voting. --Carnildo 05:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to think the approval voting held here was straight up and effective. So why did we have all this confusion and recrimination at the end? If approval voting really is simple and effective, then it wasn't implemented correctly here. How would you have implemented it (that is, how would you have described the rules and tally methods beforehand and how would you have published the results and declarations of winner or runoff afterward)? Be specific.  JDG 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I think my comments to Noisy sufficiently deal with all of this.  And I didn't really give him a "tongue-lashing", just expressed the reasons why I think that what he did was wrong. violet/riga (t) 11:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In what was he wrong? I've received a private communication from Noisy about all this and he's extremely upset with how he was treated. Were you mad because he edited the results page? But that page is freely editable. Are you mad because he tallied the winners? Why didn't you do the tally? JDG 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through and announced the results, going so far as to inform ClockworkSoul of his victory and Noisy of being the runner-up.  He then came and edited the announcement without any attempts at discussion either here or at my talk page.  Coffee Roll is the blatant winner and to change things around like that isn't really on.  I didn't tally the results publicly because there wasn't really a need – the votes page itself showed the results and then some.  If Noisy is upset about any of this then by all means he can come and discuss it with me, but as far as I'm concerned that stage of WP:TS has concluded. violet/riga (t) 14:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blame the voting procedure

message: The vote is complete as of 23:59 UTC 01MAY05.  There were 183 votes cast by 60 voters.  Seven designs achieved over 5% of the votes cast (15% voter approval), but no single design achieved the 75% mandated.  The results are shown below.
Submission                               	Votes for	% of votes cast	% of voters
"Violet"                                 	7        	3.82           	11.67
"Earthy colours"                         	6        	3.28           	10.00
"Earthy colours (paler pink/red colours)"	0        	0.00           	0.00
"Strong monochrome"                      	10       	5.46           	16.67
"Classico"                               	10       	5.46           	16.67
"Border free"                            	5        	2.73           	6.33
"Death to colorful boxes"                	4        	2.19           	6.67
"Monochromat"                            	0        	0.00           	0.00
"Serif"                                  	4        	2.19           	6.67
"ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll"            	42       	22.95          	70.00
"Cadet Grey"                             	6        	3.28           	10.00
"Cadet Grey II"                          	3        	1.64           	5.00
"Cadet Grey II (blue)"                   	8        	4.37           	13.33
"Cadet Grey II (gold)"                   	2        	1.09           	3.33
"Obvious"                                	16       	8.74           	26.67
"Simple"                                 	13       	7.10           	21.67
"Titlebar"                               	7        	3.83           	11.67
"Developed solution"                     	12       	6.56           	20.00
"Simplistic"                             	3        	1.64           	5.00
"Tick ToC"                               	20       	10.93          	33.33
"Grey Georgia"                           	0        	0.00           	0.00
"Grey Times"                             	0        	0.00           	0.00
"Simplistic Georgia"                     	0        	0.00           	0.00
"Simplistic Times"                       	0        	0.00           	0.00
None of the above                        	5        	2.73           	8.33
:Whoa, I disagree with this method of calculation. If I'd known it would be counted like this I would've voted only for Clockwork... Seems like these numbers can be munged in several ways. Give us a break and find a way that gives it to CoffeRoll, the clear winner. JDG 01:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's here, but there's also a link at the top of the page ("A vote"). I'll add a plainer link to help us in the upcoming resolution. – ClockworkSoul 01:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I notice that you decided to count "conditional votes" whose condition was not met. – ClockworkSoul 01:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Taken from main page

message: I've gone ahead and switched over all the major templates. I think the result is damn good looking. See talk:Charles Ives for an example. →Raul654 07:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
: You missed out all the categories. I'm adding them in now. I think I've done them all (I went through your past contributions) - I've only readded categories, if none existed I've done nothing. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn good looking I agree. Thanks to Violet who got the standardization movement going and to Clockwork for bringing together a lot of good ideas into one template. JDG 16:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Gee, I finally went and did something right for a change! Imagine that! – ClockworkSoul 16:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Switchover

message: For the sake of completeness, here's the results. It's clear from this that ClockworkSoul's design has a large margin between it and the next - 70% compared to 30%. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results 

message: There is a discrepancy between what it says here on cell spacing (5px) and what is actually implemented in template:standard template style (3px). Wim van Dorst 08:57, 2005 May 13 (UTC).
* It's 3: that's what I had in all of my example templates. – ClockworkSoul 14:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell spacing: 5 pixels or 3 pixels? 

message: ;Regarding Wikipedia:Template standardisation/Sizes - giving both excessivists and minimalists represenation, while still keeping standardization.
Sounds like a good idea. Especially the extreme minimalist one :). I do think we should decide on one standard template and stick with that.Radiant_* 19:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
:By "one standard template do you mean 'one size, and make it a large'? :) Thats just not going to work - the process bias tendency for bloat is too strong. Better to offer a simple choice - the larger might be appropriate for the first hour or so, and after that nobody wants to see it - use the smaller one. Whats wrong with choice? -05:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should not - It should be at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation. We really have a problem with consolidated talk issues. -SV|t 05:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: "Must this be an either one or the other situation? Is there a chance that this group of editors could come up with a golden mean between the too short and too colorful version by Stevertigo, and the too large and wordy version that it had replaced?" 
I was only commenting on Template:tfd, which I thought was verbose and awkwardly worded, but also thought that Stevertigo's revision was too short and uninformative. I do think, however, that there are quite a few other templates that need a good copy editing for length and clarity, but I do not endorse any of the current "minimalist" examples that Stevertigo has put forth, nor do I, at the moment, see a reason for having a choice of templates for doing the same task. BlankVerse ∅  10:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A choice of sizes