Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article

message: Please discuss below whether or not standardisation is required for this type of template.  Feel free to add any other sections. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
===Deletion===
Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
*I see no reason why these shouldn't be reviewed as part of a general plan.   and  could certainly be brought into line with others, to give a consistent look and feel.  smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
* I think  is fine as it stands. I copied its style (except the background color, which should probably remain different so readers can tell them apart more easily) to  and  – is this "standardized" enough? — Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
* the tfd template is completely different. It is supposed be break as little as possible. Thus this category is probably only about article deletion. Isn't that just maintenance? --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)
* The phrasing could use some synchronisation, but the rest looks fine. --Joy [shallot] 14:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories of template

message: Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
*I see no reason why these shouldn't be reviewed as part of a general plan.   and  could certainly be brought into line with others, to give a consistent look and feel.  smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
* I think  is fine as it stands. I copied its style (except the background color, which should probably remain different so readers can tell them apart more easily) to  and  – is this "standardized" enough? — Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
* the tfd template is completely different. It is supposed be break as little as possible. Thus this category is probably only about article deletion. Isn't that just maintenance? --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)
* The phrasing could use some synchronisation, but the rest looks fine. --Joy [shallot] 14:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: Only one template exists in this category but it exists here for completeness. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
*I think this is nicely understated already.  Doesn't need standardisation. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
*A category for one template is ridiculous. If it is unlike any other templates then it cannot be standardized with other templates. --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
*Er, maybe I'm out of the loop, but what "categories" are you talking about here? There's one disambiguation template, but eight semi-disambiguation templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/General. Having said that, they look fine as they are. --Joy [shallot] 14:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
*Should certainly be part of any large-scale standardisation project.  smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
*AFAICT, we switched to the orange background for the Talk page templates, and the rest are fairly in sync. The notable exceptions seem to be , which could have both a "cleanup" or "dispute" undertone (background, border, text alignment), and "advertising". --Joy [shallot] 14:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes and warnings

message: A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
*Should certainly be part of any large-scale standardisation project.  smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
*Everything seems fine except for the ambiguity in the application of  vs. , as well as the two ISSN templates, but those are rarely used. The categorization issues section looks rather divergent, but I don't see much room for synchronisation because they all deal with different things. --Joy [shallot] 14:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maintenance

message: Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
*I'm not quite sure what you mean by source details.  How are they related to template standardisation?  smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
**See Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. violet/riga (t) 30 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
***As per links, they're fine already.  smoddy 30 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)
* There is one inconsistency with these that has bothered me in the past - when you want to move ,  and  to a bulleted list under the References heading, they're still too indented. This indentation could be dropped because the majority of other templates like that don't use it. Same goes for the three templates with little pictures - they need to be adjusted to fit into a list or dropped. --Joy [shallot] 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source details

message: Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
*This may be best left for the Stub-sorting WikiProject to decide, since they are most familar with the issue. I know that they seem to be going to no image, and indented. Verse ∅ 28 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)
*Don't need our help really.  Let the wikiproject take care of them. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
*Agreed, leave it to the WikiProject, but ... what type of "formalising" was contemplated?  There are guidelines for creation, a process for creation through consensus approval of templates and categories, boilerplate for creation, an admin-action zone for deletions ... what other formalising is needed than that? Courtland 18:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
**Where does it say that it is necessary?  That information would just be assimilated onto this page as well.  violet/riga (t) 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubs

message: I disagree with the decision to categorize these under "disputes and warnings."  Merging is a type of cleanup, and therefore belongs in the "maintenance" category.  I patterned the current "merge" templates after the existing "cleanup" templates (deliberately selecting a color scheme that's similar, but not identical).  I'm planning to add a submission soon, and I intend to follow this formula.  —Lifeisunfair 22:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree, having used that one as an example a) because it had been in discussion and b) because, at the time, it was listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes.  violet/riga (t) 08:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I moved the merge stuff to from /Disputes to subsections of /Maintenance and /Cleanup on July 12th. They were misplaced on the former. We don't really need a standardisation drive to apply good sense... :) --Joy [shallot] 14:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Merge" templates 

message: ...and subpages could use some cleaning up, since several templates are in the wrong category, or listed twice, or simply stand out for having a different layout than anything else around them. If someone has a free hour or two... Radiant_>|< 23:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
: Some are listed twice intentionally, and many are transcluded in more than one page, so in those cases it's better to discuss each issue individually. Also, formatting can also be a matter of mixed application. --Joy [shallot] 20:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Template messages]] 

message: Look at this thing! It's in violation. Violation, I tells ya! ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Stargateproject]]

message: I just recommended this page on a recent village pump discussion --Random832 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone?