Template talk:Ambox/Archive 8

message: I've read through some of the above, and my two main thoughts are:
*Icons are really not needed. Use words to communicate what you want to say, and don't get all hung up on being "design gurus" searching for "just the right icon" that's needed. If you must have icons, use the old ones and change them slowly. The point about icons is that people get used to them, and changing them disrupts people's mental lists of what the icons mean.
*The current version of the templates that I am reading has only a very low grade colour background. I have to peer very closely to see this background and withouth looking closely it looks like the warning templates are part of the articles! This is very very bad. I am having real problems finding the start of the article. This is directly disrupting the readers of the encyclopedia. If we lose readers, then we are finished. Please consider that before making changes like this.
I absolutely agree standardisation is good, but please go slowly. Do the size standardisation first, and then the colour designs, and then the icon designs. Bundling the changes together makes it a much bigger change and will generate more complaints. Carcharoth 10:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. I refreshed my cache... and things look a lot better now. The coloured side-bar is good. The "take things slowly" bit still applies though. Carcharoth 10:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some brief thoughts 

message: Is the protection of the project page warranted?--Father Goose 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was done because of the dispute template edit war.  Since the people disputing the guideline are in active discussions I think it is acceptable for it to remain and for the protection to be lifted if we agree to leave it there.  violet/riga (t) 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to leave it there.  The protection is far more disruptive than the dispute.--Father Goose 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Please revert yourself. You are an involved party in the dispute and it is not appropriate for you to use admin tools in this way. It is just as well to have a pause while discussion is ongoing. Tyrenius 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is edit-warring over the dispute tag (the reason for the protection), so what's the problem?  Complaints like the above make it appear as though you're just trying to be difficult.  —David Levy 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that the page was protected because of edit warring over a dispute template, and the last time she edited the page before that was Aug. 23rd, is she really an "involved party"? ←BenB4 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

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

message: Add something like this to your monobook.css:
/* Remove the color bars from the article message box template styles */
table.ambox {
  background: #f8fcff; 
}
table.ambox-notice {
  background: #d2e8ff;
}
table.ambox-serious {
  background: #efd2d2;
}
table.ambox-content {
  background: #fce6cc;
}
table.ambox-style {
  background: #fcf3d5;
}
table.ambox-merge {
  background: #ead6f4;
}
table.ambox-growth {
  background: #d2e7d2;
}
table.ambox {
  border: 1px solid #aaa; 
}
Now can we get to some constructive discussion instead of continual whining by approximately three people about how much they hate the color bars? Anomie 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you kindly not use ad hominem language, because people don't agree with you. Add User:Y as well. How many people exactly do you need to disagree, before you accept there is a legitimate disagreement? Tyrenius 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be mischaracterizing Y's statement; was the complaint about the whole thing, or just the lack of a pink background on the speedy template? I suspect the latter, personally. Anyway, Y and others who disagree aren't continually whining. There still seems to be only three who are doing that. Anomie 19:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of background tint on the new designs is one of the prime objections, and that has been changed on one template. How about the rest? I object to your characterisation of critics of this development as "whining". Kindly address the issues raised, and don't belittle other editors. Tyrenius 01:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Y raised it in the context of speedy deletion templates, where it was effectively argued that they are on a level of severity above critical. As for the "whining" comment, "if it quacks like a duck...". I'm talking about the people who put their opinion as fact, and then insist that their opinion is the only possible correct one when challenged. And then post the same things over and over and over in multiple sections. Again, I invite these people to actually put together a proposal of what they would like to see, instead of just continuing to complain here how much they hate the new design and that they would rather go back to the old mess of non-matching templates (and how they don't have time to make a proposal because they're too busy arguing here). Anomie 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I know things like this always attract the big nay-sayers after implementation, I just wanna chime in that I fully support the current versions of the messageboxes. I followed what you guys did from the start, even though I didn't really contribute. I was doubting it would ever come to fruition, since it had been tried so many times before and failed. However, success at last. A definite improvement over a couple of days ago. Yes there are probably some issues. And the colors, the icons, will likely be discussed for days and days. But never forget that it is a REAL improvement, because the older stuff was much worse then this can ever become. Also I ask everyone who is clammering to undo what you guys did, to hold on for a while. Let's just take the time, think about what the real issues are etc, before we start making changes.
Anyone else who wants to congratulate this wonderful team of BOLD people are welcome to join in this subject to give a thumbs up. People with other comments, I'm not interested ;), leave them in the other sections, I will read them there (yes i will). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that what's being disputed is the design, not the standardization as such. Almost anything would have been an improvement in terms of standardization over what we had before. Reinistalk 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: As some of you may know, I have been workling with these templates for some time...  A little bit of standardisation has occurred, thanks to a number of users, but the good ideas are spread across a load of templates, and we could do with standards on redirects.  
Examples (some go wider than article msessage boxes):
* Per User:Splash remove any date message from the tag - it's visible in the Category....
But 
* Per User:Rick Block we may  not be using these categories much longer.
* To avoid Wikipedia: pages showing up some tags use the "category=" arg (which is then messed up on the Wikipedia page anyway) other use NAMESPACE.
* We have a plethora of redirects, I'd like to see this cut to
** The main tag
** Alternative valid spellings
** One abbreviation
** The full word(s) if the main tag is an abbreviation
I'd like to see all tags working the same about how words are seperated. My preference is for a space, but consistancy would be great.
I'd like all templates to work follow the same casing (and other style) rules we use for headers.
I'd like to see all arguments following the casing rules for normal text (i.e. generally lower case - most are).
:Comments? Rich Farmbrough, 20:24 18 September 2007 (GMT).
::The argument for using alternative names (redirects) for tags is to help people remember them.  The other day I was trying to remember what the vandalism warning template was called but couldn't think of it at the time - I ended up having to write a simple message myself (not necessarily a bad thing) and I could see that happening without decent tag redirects.
::Personally I've never really thought that dated tags are important but I'm sure that some people use such information.  violet/riga (t) 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other aspects than visual design. 

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