Template talk:Ambox/Archive 4

message: Great to see such support for this. I tried changing over  and it's quite a direct changeover except for the class, which can be ignored and removed but would best be updated. I know also that it would take more than this to change to this new scheme as I'm sure that there will be those that revert it. Shall we start a discussion page specifically for this? violet/riga (t) 12:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. It'd be good to have a place to workshop the design a little to see what works best. (Way to show your agenda, Goose.)--Father Goose 17:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pushing forward

message: <S>And another idea: Wikipedia uses background color as a subtle cue to what part of the project you're in. Articles get a white background; everything else is blueish. Perhaps we should force the background color of these boxes to the blueish color? That would help set the box off from the overall page background, and also emphasize that the box is not really part of the article proper. Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background color 

message: The colour bar idea was originally that of User:Sparkit and the template design was implemented by User:Flamurai - credit goes to those two for their work on this. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article for details and history. --Quiddity 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit 

message: This is what I had in mind earlier: . Slightly thinner color bars on both left and right sides. Better visual balance, IMO.
Bars thinned slightly more to reduce the "bolding" effect: .--Father Goose 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single left bar; or two bars, one each side? 

message: I like the work that has been suggested here to standardize templates that are used in the article space. It is clean and professional looking. I also like that that the focus is staying on formatting the template size shape and coloring without addressing the text. The text would be a topic for discussion on the individual or family template level. I might also suggest that once this proposed policy becomes policy in fact (which should happen soon I think, based on the lack of opposing voices), we consider addressing template icons here or in a similar venue. Jeepday (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current text and icons 

message: *Seems like the most professional way forward, and will work best for our readers and our editors. I can't see any objections to this from any significant party.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like this - I like it a lot! 

message: Really like the idea, but I have two quick critiques. A) Are we sure that this will stand out enough? To some extent templates are meant to attract attention ... (although frankly at the same time I really like this style - so this is more of a nonissue) B)The speedy temp is way to large - can we do anything to shorten the smaller text?--danielfolsom 21:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they stand out pretty well. As for the speedy template, it was just a problem with the nowiki-ing, the contents of  had been accidentally substed in. I've fixed it. the wub "?!" 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will they stand out enough? 

message: Has anyone posted this proposal to the mailing list About the WikiEN-l mailing list? I don't watch the mailing list, but I know it can be an important part reaching Consensus. Everything I have seen on this talk page and else where about this proposed policy has been supportive. I think that if this well received on the mailing list and after a few more days it appears that consensus still exists this should move from proposed policy to official policy. Jeepday (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of policy, it's a question of just doing it -- though establishing that there's a consensus for the change beforehand is a Good Idea.--Father Goose 00:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Quiddity 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  link to thread archive (Mon Aug 27 17:28:24 UTC 2007). Currently appears well received. Jeepday (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mailing list 

message: This has irritated me since day one. If there is anything I can do to help the project I'll do it. I don't have an opinion on the design as long as everything is just standard. ALTON .ıl 05:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbridled enthusiasm 

message: About time, and very well done. Trying to get the wording more compact will of course have to be done template by template. Is it intended to standardize the use of icons also? DGG (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think standardizing icons might be a next step after this. Lets keep it simple, one step at a time and all that. Jeepday (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah. That. Small steps are much easier. Get the general layout (width, borders, etc.) and colors figured out. Just getting that much alone switched over is going to be a major task. Keep existing icons and wording for now. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saw it on the mailing list 

message: I like where this is going, but I would like to bring up something about "current" templates. While some people often tag any article that can be "current", many people feel that something should only be tagged when being current is an issue in some way (high traffic, etc). Just calling them informational will likely encourage tagging articles that don't have an issue with being current. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that's just an informal name being used here to lump together "all templates that will get a blue bar".--Father Goose 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see what you're saying but as Father Goose says it's more of an informal name that wouldn't be seen other than in the class name. violet/riga (t) 23:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Defenetely, it's in a lower class than the others. Maybe just another name for that class? -- Ned Scott 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really think of a good single word or short phrase to cover it that wouldn't raise the same concern. Perhaps we could just name them something non-descriptive, like Levels 1-4, with a brief description of each one on whatever guideline page comes out of this. -Chunky Rice 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Other".--Father Goose 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ! -- Ned Scott 01:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like "informational" better then "other" but can live with either. Jeepday (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Notice"? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, the problem with that (and with "informational", for that matter) is that we can say the same thing about all of the templates. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notice" can mean that, but it has . In particular, it is one of the four ANSI standard "Signal Words", which define an escalating chain: Notice (Blue) -> Caution (Yellow) -> Warning (Orange) -> Danger (Red). Note the parallel with the color scheme already chosen. :) OSHA and similar orgs all use these words in this way, so it's pretty standard stuff. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informational as an issue 

message: *Go for it! Judgesurreal777 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, that freakin' rocks! And yet, strangely, it only makes the problem worse... — Jack · talk · 04:32, Saturday, 1 September 2007
* Is this the place to register one's stamp of approval? I appreciate the good design of the standardised template boxes. Sandstein 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * On second thought, shouldn't the title of this project page be changed to "article notices template standardization" or similar? The project does not really cover all of the Template: namespace. Sandstein 15:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At present, the focus is on article message boxes, but it does not have to stop there. At the very least, I hope this movement can eventually standardize all the various message box templates. Of course, it just occurred to me that there's a fair bit of overlap with WikiProject Templates in this movement. I'll post a note on the talk page there, so people watching that project know about this effort. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great idea! 

message: First of all, I really, really like this, and hope it gets implemented. I do have two questions:
1. "Note: The wording of these templates is not under discussion and will likely be older versions of the current text."
What does this line mean? Why can't we just use the current text for the new, standardized templates? Or are you just talking about the design mockups below the note? Clarify, please.
2. Do you have a list of all of the templates that will fall into each category? Which templates are serious enough to be a "serious problem"?--Danaman5 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new templates are going to use the current wording. It's confusingly worded (I'll fix that), but what was meant was that the text is not going to change, only the appearance of the template. As to which templates go where, I don't know, but I think the only "serious problems" are the deletion templates; even the NPOV and Factual Accuracy tags (the worst of the content tags) are slated to be orange. Horologium t-c 13:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great idea!...and a couple of questions 

message: Okay, so it was established at #Deployment planning that we don't exactly need a fully-fledged PR campaign, but I still think this proposal should be promoted as much as possible (in case anyone objects to this, as it will affect the whole site). It seems that notices have been placed on the WikiEN-l and at the Community Portal, but it seems more is needed. Perhaps the Signpost should be convinced to run an article? Maybe even a Request for Comment? — Jack · talk · 22:57, Saturday, 1 September 2007
:Signpost is good, or maybe we can get a watchlist message put up for a few hours -- that'd attract dozens of commentators.--Father Goose 01:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It started at VPR, and is more of a style issue than policy. However I did leave a note at the Signpost tipline. --Quiddity 23:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR campaign 

message: Can I just say, I'm in complete support of this whole proposal; particularly the colour coding (including purple for "merge"). It's a great idea - well done to those who've crafted it!--Rambutan (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded,; they look way more professional. Good stuff! Neil ム 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support