Wikipedia talk:Talk page templates/Archive 2

message: How would templates be stacked?  Right now, they are one on top of another; if they remain that way, they'll take up the same amount of space. —Mets501 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is that they will be stacked up down the right hand side of the page like userboxes which will allow the main content to come up the top (in a similar way to my userpage). Lcarsdata (Talk) 19:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me pertaining they become floating element instead of taking the same number of screens it now does. Lincher 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that was the intention. When I have a spare hour instead of snatches on the computer I will create more smaller ones and make a babel box to demonstrate further. Dev920 (Tory?) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stacking

message: What we really need is a meta-data tab for each article. All of these templates don't really even belong on the Talk page. Reducing the size of the templates is a good idea, but really only a band-aid, as it seems the number of templates assigned to each article is increasing at a rather persistant rate. Several articles I've seen recently have nearly two pages worth of talk page templates and I don't see the trend abating any time soon. Kaldari 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a decent long-term solution, but its major drawback is that a separate tab would likely be significantly lower-traffic than the existing talk page.  In many cases (e.g. WikiProject banners), the templates lose much of their usefulness if the average editor doesn't actually see them. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What we need is a Meta-data tab 

message: This looks like an excellent idea for a real problem. Of course, there are some important details to consider, but you have my support. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou. Any criticism would be welcome. Dev920 (Tory?) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a wonderful proposal and I hope it is adopted as a solution to a real problem. Dekimasu 14:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thnakyou very much. Do you know how long a policy needs to be proposed before consensus can be fully and properly established? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I addressed this question in a new section below. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. Highly needed, I redid the maths-rating tag so it took less space, but this is better. There was some discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, where I've mentioned this page. --Salix alba (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done! 

message: Not saying that's a good or bad thing, but they do. Anyway, this is without doubt a good idea, as I am fed up with seeing talk pages with so many header templates the page itself gets pushed off the bottom of the screen – Gurch 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did intend them to be userbox sized actually, but the amount of text on a Failed GA template meant I couldn't do that. Others I would imagine could be userbox sized. I will try. Dev920 (Tory?) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this. Any reason we shouldn't just reduce the amount of text in the Failed GA template? 192.75.48.150 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, stacked up, it would still take up an excessive amount of space. Also, it's not possible for some of the other templates, for example the FA template would look very strange if it simply read "Featured Article" without the width being reduced as well. Dev920 (Tory?) 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  They look like userboxes! 

message: I would support changing (reducing) the talk page templates, but not creating smaller duplicates, since using two different tls for the same thing tends to confuse people. >Radiant< 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather just downsize them all, but what I thought other people might like to do is only change the templates of pages who have obscene numbers of templates, like Islam. Dev920 (Tory?) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dev920's suggestion makes total sense. On a page with only one or two talk templates, a smaller template might be ignored, while on pages like Talk:Islam, it's clear that the templates interfere with the page. If code can be added that detects the number of templates on the page, and shrink the templates if there are too many, that would probably be the best solution. I believe that something similar has been done for subject boxes like some I reviewed here, where they put themselves automatically into "Hide" mode if there are enough on the page. Nihiltres 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change, don't duplicate 

message: Ah, finally, a solution to the talk page template mess! I think this will easily get consensus. Afterwards I was thinking we should probably should merge this and WP:TS, to a page titled Wikipedia:Talk page templates. Both are short enough to share a page, and it would make sense from an organizational standpoint. Thoughts? Again, awesome job on this. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with this idea. Only after the mini templates have been created though, and the guys at Template Standards don't object. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 09:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging and stuff 

message: Have a look at Template:Skiptotoctalk for an alternative way to avoid template clutter. This allows the full templates (often quite useful) to remain, but making it easy to skip past them if you don't want to read them. It's already in use at over 50 talk pages. See Talk:Bill Clinton and Talk:The Lord of the Rings for examples of it in use. I would strongly support use of this template over any attempt to make the talk page templates smaller. Carcharoth 23:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, there was one on Islam. But frankly, if the vast size of reams of talkpage templates is long enough to warrant a tag to skip them wwithout even reading them, does this not prove that something needs to change? If the templates are smaller, at least more people will read them, rather than skipping straight past. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are both good, but I still hope this project is successful. The templates may be useful, but they should be just as useful if they are smaller. I am going to add Skiptotoctalk to a few pages right now and wait to see new developments here. Dekimasu 12:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding "I know" - it seems strange that it hasn't been mentioned here before. Because it hasn't been discussed here, it looks like both methods are operating without being aware of the other (a fairly common situation on Wikipedia). Regarding "does this not prove that something needs to change", what this proves is that the talk pages are being overloaded. If people are not reading them, that requires a change of culture. Talk about them, point out to people why they are useful. Eventually, more people will take notice of them. At the end of the day though, some people want to read and add discussion about how to write the article, while others want to look up the tags (or do both). The 'skip to toc' tag is for the former. The latter have the template tags there at the top to look through anyway. Trying to satisfy both types of users of the talk pages is laudable, but misguided. Either create a separate page for the "template tags" (even a subpage), or use the 'skip to toc' tag. Having said that, I had a look at Islam, and the smaller template tags do look nice. I just think that sometimes the larger tags are needed, and are useful, and I would oppose the "removal of text to make them smaller for the sake of making them smaller" approach that seems to have been happening above. Carcharoth 13:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternative 

message: Metadata for :
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"	
	is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: 
I hijacked a bit of code that already exists, and I think with a little work, it can do an ideal job. I don't understand CSS at all (guessed everything I did), so pardon my sloppy job, but check the code out: User:Nihiltres/Sandbox2. I have no idea how someone made the code for a nice little "hide" button in the first place, but it's very convenient as an alternative to either cramped userbox-sized messages or Template:Skiptotoctalk, at least in my opinion.
It's all that we really need, and it'll display unless someone hits the hide button, meaning that people see nice, wide, templates until they either choose to either scroll past or hide the whole thing. As I say, I don't know CSS, so the solution I think is ideal may need a rewrite - not that I can! :) Any comments? Nihiltres 01:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I have suddenly realized after thinking about other things for a while is that if there is another one of this style of box on the same page (even if the other box is at the bottom of said page), the box will autohide. Since it would be desirable for the metadata box to initially show regardless of the presence of other boxes of the same style, the code for the box would have to be changed slightly to work that way. Nihiltres 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see this as a quick fix, but I would prefer smaller boxes. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue I have with this, as with the previous hiding idea, is that people scrolling down will never even look at the templates. If they are small and neat but tucked away to the side, people can look whilst scrolling down but with the minimum of inconvenience. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Since this hasn't seen much use, I'm now subst'ing the transcluded page here for posterity and 'ing that page. Nihiltres 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A real alternative 

message: I was notified of this by Dev920. Great proposal! --Striver 15:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good idea

message: A small suggestion. I looked at Talk:Islam. It uses a new set of templates that are under a sub-page named "small". Instead, you could pass a "size" parameter to all templates and resize the template if it is set to "small". For example, . This way we can use the smaller box at cluttered talk pages and the larger one in most pages that have little content. And still maintain a single version of template. -- Ganeshk (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're actually on a subpage, that's two versions of the template to maintain.  It might be possible to have an actual parameter that would fiddle with the styling of the template, though; the best way to do this would be to create a CSS class that could be standard for small templates. Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirill, I agree. A CSS class for small templates is needed. I was working on the converting India template. It was pain to do the same with a table. What is the procedure to request one? Please advise. -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask on MediaWiki talk:Common.css.  The class should basically copy over the formatting of the normal messagebox.standard-talk, but force the width down and add a float. Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's an excellent idea. Thank you. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand any of what you just wrote, but if it results in reduced size templates with reduced text, I'm for it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also a non-coder (for CSS, at least), but I have a suggestion: make the templates automatically resize themselves if they detect more than X (3-4) templates of their type on the page. I know that something similar has been done for a different element; the key would just be implementing it again and resolving the placement of all of the newly small templates. Nihiltres 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, something like that couldn't be done without advanced javascript, and there is no global js. —Mets501 (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: What annoys me most about talk pages with lots of templates, is that you can't see at a glance what the templates are. In that sense, I would support a resizing and repositioning (but not a rewriting) of the templates, or maybe a list (like the table of contents) of the templates with a "hide" button to hide that bit of the page and bring up the talk page bit of the talk page. Carcharoth 16:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to have a list of templates, what, really, is the need for the templates themselves at all? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents for talk page templates... 

message: I support this, on the condition that certain templates remain large, in particular , , , and any other templates that are temporary. Things like  and  should definitely be small, though. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I agree. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. Keep some large, and make some small. Now it's just a case of surveying the different talk page templates in use and deciding which should be which. Is there a category somewhere? A subcategory of :Category:Wikipedia templates surely? Yes. See :Category:Talk header templates and the relevant subcategory of :Category:Article talk header templates. Carcharoth 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think the priority here would be a template that's about a current event with the article, such as a review in-progress (such as FAC) or some other time-sensitive relation. -- Ned Scott 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think talk header could use a trim of some kind, and also be only used on talk pages where there is an issue of some kind. For example, a sudden burst of really new editors coming to the talk page, etc. Not that I feel strongly about it. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts 

message: I think it has now been generally agreed that the size and text of templates should be reduced to the size of a standard userbox, with the exception of a "template that's about a current event with the article, such as a review in-progress (such as FAC) or some other time-sensitive relation", though this may need further discussion. 
The question we face now then is, how to implement it? Do we use my original idea, of creating smaller templates and uploading them to the original template space with /small attached, or the idea above, which seems quite clever but I don't understand in the slightest? Discuss. :) Dev920 (check out this proposal) 10:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the idea above is much more reasonable, since it (a) won't require maintaining two copies of each template and (b) will allow anyone who wants to see the templates full-size to do so by overriding the CSS class in question. Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirill, I have asked for a new CSS class at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css per your suggestion. That would make life lot easier. -- Ganeshk (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Any idea how long taht will take? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dev, I have no idea. This is my first CSS proposal. -- Ganeshk (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Please don't fork the templates, that will only confuse people. Editing the existing templates, or using CSS to make them smaller, is a better way to do it. >Radiant< 23:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be pretty easy to work with the existing templates so they both have a "full" and "small" mode. Even if some templates should be almost always small, it would help at least transition to have the two options in one template.  I'll gladly help out where I can. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really mind. I created the proposal to resolve a problem, I don't care how it is implemented. :D Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The new CSS class has been added to Common.css. See  for how to add the optional small parameter. -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that template is no smaller at all! Dev920 (check out this proposal) 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: K, I see it on Islam. Can't say I'm happy with how it looks now, but at least it's smaller. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you want it too look? Isn't that basically identical to your original example? —Mets501 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see, Ganeshk had changed it.  Maybe you were having the same ugly rendering problem that I was having, I've reverted it now. —Mets501 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the Archives to the bottom. That was the change. I wanted you to check if the current version renders okay. -- Ganeshk (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the tan colour was nice, and I envisaged the templates being smaller in width. I guess I can live with this though. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Mets, How do we get the TOC move up and remove the space? I see a lot of blank space between the To do and TOC. Does anyone else see this? I use IE (1024x768). -- Ganeshk (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it now. Please check Talk:Islam. Is it rendering okay for everyone? -- Ganeshk (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I see normal-sized templates, with the TOC squashed into a column a few centimetres wide to the left of the templates. Looks awful! Hope someone can fix it. Carcharoth 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you clear your cache?  The CSS won't update until you do. Kirill Lokshin 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh! Looks fine now. :-) Carcharoth 00:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, for those people adding this to templates: it's not necessary to create two copies of the entire text; if the text is the same between the large and small versions, it's sufficient to replace the normal class definition with . Kirill Lokshin 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the templates I created per your suggestion. Additionally, the image needs to be changed too. Image size should be replaced with . -- Ganeshk (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just set it to 45px, which works well for both. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, I'm happy. So, just to clarify, what code do I need to use? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can copy the code from Template:Peerreview. -- Ganeshk (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait!  Don't just use .  Some of the unnecessary text in the template was removed as well, it wasn't just the box size that was changed! —Mets501 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary text should be removed in both box sizes, large or small. I feel it should do no harm leaving the text as it is. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This way it is lot easier to implement. I just finished it on India template and used it on Talk:Bangalore. The other way will be a total rewrite of template. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The results are fantastic. Take a look at Talk:Leonardo da Vinci. It had 10 boxes. -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome :D -- Ned Scott 08:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is beautiful. I think this has highlighted the amount of superfluous text on templates though. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you cleared your cache? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I hadn't looked at that page before, I don't think that's the problem.  However, it looks correct on my SuSE 10.0 box (also running Firefox 1.5, but on KDE 3.4.2).  I'll try it again when I get back to the Ubuntu box.  Now to work on modifying  to include the new parameter too... Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the page caching that's the issue, but the sitewide CSS being cached.  You need to force it to be reloaded for the new class to render properly. Kirill Lokshin 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, now it looks right on both boxen.  I'm going through and shortening the text on TWP as well for the small format, but with Trainfest this weekend (the largest annual model train show in the Midwest; I'm exhibiting my own models there again this year), I won't have as much time to work on it until Monday.  There's an example of using the small format showing the text that I did reduce on Talk:TGV.  Now that we've got this formally integrated into the main talk page templates page, should we also include a short list there of live examples using the small format (Talk:Islam, Talk:Leonardo da Vinci and Talk:TGV)? Slambo (Speak) 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  now has the small parameter implemented as well. Slambo (Speak) 19:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation 

message: As this policy has begun to be implemented, it is clearly no longer a proposed policy. What do I do now, remove the tag, or what? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page needs to be updated (add the implementation with the small parameter, so that people know how to use it; mention that temporary boxes like FAC and talkheader should not be shrunk; probably more). Since there is a consensus, we can then replace Template:Proposed by Template:Guideline (not Template:Policy). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy

message: I've edited the main page to look like a guideline. I think the text does need to be reduced - so much of it just seems so unneccessary. Dev920 (Please vote here) 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: Every WP infobox has a rating and quality scale. With this "small" option, the rating texts should be reduced. Is this a good place for a metatemplate? e.g.
;  : This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale
;  : Quality: A-Class
This would move a switch statement from the main template to this subtemplate, such that you could just pass along  and  unaltered. e.g.
: 
The downside is this would affect a lot of complicated templates, but it cleans up a lot of ugly code and helps standardize things across WikiProject templates. – flamurai (t) 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's something that might be useful for basic cases, but, in some more complicated templates, there's non-standard options in the code that a combined metatemplate wouldn't be able to deal with.  Having this would also make customization more difficult, since it would require unwrapping the nesting first (which is probably beyond many editors' comfort level as far as parserFunctions are concerned. Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using *gulp* metatemplates for standard WikiProject infobox text 

message: ;See Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#A choice of sizes for discussion. 
User:Stevertigo proposed an interesting idea whereby users can have a choice between a standard message box (explanatory for newbies) or a compact message box (small as reason permits). This is in answer to the problem that templates are disruptive  when they are too large, stacked on top of one another or are otherwise made to be permanent and ugly features of an article. I of course, am for it. Xiong, Netholic and others have expressed similar sentiments about the disruptiveness factor. Iwill offer a spectrum of alternatives at /Sizes - of course the naming should be standardized as well. Regards. -SV|t 19:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Choices

message: Many pages in Wikipedia namespace have been tagged with 'policy', 'guideline', 'proposed' etc. Would it be a good idea to also make these templates conform to the CoffeeRoll standard? Radiant_* 07:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
* I would oppose this. Simple clean text should be used whenever possible.  There's no need to draw so much attention on the main pages.  The CoffeeRoll standard is fine for talk pages, it can be a little garish if we overuse it elsewhere. -- Netoholic @ 19:22, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
I think this should come under a separate template standardisation project which I intend to set up in a couple of weeks (when I have the time). violet/riga (t) 19:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Policy]] and the like 

message: Just an idea I came up with that I thought I'd mention here... most templates are colored boxen to draw attention to something (a timeline, 'cleanup' tag, whatever). There is some controversial usage of templates, for instance using them as article text, signatures, votes etc. These obviously do not employ boxen. So I pose this question... would it help stopping 'misuse' of templates if the software was changed so that every non-subst'ed template comes with a box? Not a proposal, just food for thought. And comment. Radiant_* 14:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* I'm uncomfortable with the thought of changing the software to force adherance to any standardization scheme. First, because such an implementation would represent a technological solution to what is essentially a social problem; second, because it sacrifices a great deal of the flexibility of the current template system with very little return, besides standardization. – ClockworkSoul 16:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Colored box controversy

message: Should we standardise the  and  templates?  What about  and ?  The new  and  templates are in "standard" form. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm - doesn't  go on the article page, not the talk page?  Does our standardisation remit extend so far? (Admittedly,  and  go on images pages rather than talk pages, but they are analogous to  and  to my mind). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And actually , , , , , , , , and  are all talk page templates, btw. --Dmcdevit 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason that  and   are not standardised? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just that I forgot :) Done now. Thanks for proofreading. Also, Mergewith confused me because Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes says to put it on talk pages, but it says to discuss it on talk, implying it isn't found on talk pages. Hmm... went ahead and standardized it. I guess according to that page we should do the  tag too, but I've never seen that on talk pages. --Dmcdevit 09:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More templates to standardise 

message: This might be a dumb question, but it needs to be confirmed.
The new CSS class "Talk-Notice" has been added to MediaWiki:monobook.css:
has it been added to the corresponding files for the other skins?
Judging by the rather skinny MediaWiki:Standard.css, MediaWiki:Cologneblue.css and MediaWiki:Nostalgia.css, it would appear not, which would explain why users of other skins are reporting problems.
--Phil | Talk 07:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Oops.  Mea maxima culpa.  Now done. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - still doesn't work under the classic skin (the one that I am using) - I just reverted  to test it and it doesn't display properly. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wanting to state the obvious, but have you tried clearing your cache?  I tested it in every skin, and it worked for me... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do state the obvious!  I thought I had checked it properly (the templates were all working properly when they used , and  was the only one that was broken when I reverted it to the "class" version) but it now works again!  Presumably they should all be changed back to the class="Talk-Notice" versions? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not quite sure, but I think you are asking me how to clear a cache? Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.  Otherwise, are you now saying that it works? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I didn't clear my cache explicitly, but since the template went from working to not working when I edited it, I thought that was sufficient.  However, it now works with the class="Talk-Notice", so all's well that ends well. I've started reverting the templates over to use the class. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style sheets for skins other than Monobook 

message: Mainly because standardization has engendered some bad feelings, I ask people working on this to at least cease any further changes to see if an amicable solution can be found through more or wider discussion. Further, it would be a positive gesture if any disputed templates are returned to their prior status during such discussion. Thanks. Maurreen 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please back up or at least pause

message: A couple possibilities:
#Handle templates or articles individually.
#Work to cut down the number of templates used on any article at any given time. Maurreen 15:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other options

message: *Template:AIDcur Maurreen 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed template(s)