Template talk:Ambox/Archive 6

message: No, really, you don't. Comments like the following examples need to be mercilessly squashed:
#"with our colour-coding?" violet/riga (t) 18:43, 14 September 2007
#"I see some user complaints on some talk pages. But the enthusiasm to get this done is probably unstoppable" -David Göthberg 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such revert wars would be a bad idea when the whole idea is standardisation and the aesthetic improvement of the project.  You, along with everyone else, were given a lengthy period in which to comment and object to the proposed design.  You still can, and if you have alternative ideas in mind you are welcome to bring them to the table.  Merely quoting comments that you don't like is hardly going to help.  violet/riga (t) 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is there is no table. If someone wants to edit a template, they should do so, even if you and one or two others do not like the fact. Quoting comments I don't like is a very effective way of highlighting how wrong they are. Trying to wall in the templates garden is not something I will give a free pass to. Splash - tk 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Standardisation requires all templates to follow a certain scheme.  They can be edited within that standard but should remain basically consistent.  violet/riga (t) 19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really interested in philosophies of standardisation, and I did not bring them up. My point is quite simple: this project does not own templates or their layouts. You are not guardians of Template: space, and the exhortation to edit boldly (which you have yourselves quite legitimately done) continues to apply to all editors. They do not need any permission, nor reversions, from this project. Splash - tk 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were so many objections to the standardization project, I'd imagine either (a) there'd already be a mass revert war or (b) the editors who have pitched in with  conversion would all just get reverted and give up. There are far more editors pitching in on this project than there are editors objecting and/or reverting. szyslak 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I remember encountering such comments last time with the standardisation of talk page templates.  Thankfully people realised that standardisation and consistency trumps pointless individuality.  violet/riga (t) 19:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that you dislike individuals, however, they still don't need any permission from you. Please bear that in mind, or you will in due course find yourselves very unpopular and will eventually go the way of other over-bearing projects recently. It's just a matter of conducting yourselves better than you have done in the past day or so, and better than you have done in the last few comments. Splash - tk 19:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template individuality, not individuals.  Alternatively, of course, we could look at all the positive comments and think that we've done a good job here.  violet/riga (t) 20:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So, what about criticizing the colored bars? Is that "unhelpful blanket opposition to change", and not a specific suggestion? Reinistalk 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not start a section about "coloured bars" and clamly explain how you think they could be made better. That way the issue can be discussed and if there's a consensus for a better format, the master template can be changed... WjBscribe 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a section, and the question was discussed there (not sure if you read it), but sure, I can make an another one. I was just protesting against your unfair characterization of the objections. Reinistalk 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have to admit that your opening post describing the changes as "amateurish" and "a trainwreck" weren't very condusive to positive discussion. I think you were responded to in a similar manner to how you expressed your concerns- voicing your criticisms in a more friendly manner would probably have received a more helpful response. WjBscribe 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a response to the tone of my message, and not the substance. Anyway, I wonder how this digression supports that what I said was "unhelpful blanket opposition to change" (a description conductive to positive discussion, I guess)? Reinistalk 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL - There really is an essay for everything.  ←BenB4 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You do not own templates 

message: Just a reminder that the largest change in Wikipedia recent memory has just occurred with overwhelming support, but careful about feeding the trolls.  Jeepday (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No feeding the trolls 

message: "This is just a temporary caching problem that should be gone by tomorrow."
Well, the software sets s-maxage, max-age, and Expires. They all point to a month from the request's time. So, the temporary caching problem should be gone by the middle of next month. --cesarb 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone by tomorrow? 

message: Let me clarify some technical things, things that I was supposed to document on the project page today. But all this message traffic meant I didn't get the time.
 is just a thin wrapper that uses CSS code. The design you see of the boxes is almost entirely controlled by the .ambox CSS classes in MediaWiki:Common.css. Ambox were just created to simplify the usage of those classes for the majority of cases. The classes can just as well be used directly in a wikitable. There is one short example of how to use the classes in a wikitable at the bottom of the documentation at .
When/if you need some more advanced things then you should use a table with the classes. It would be way more complicated and much less robust to add all those extra features to ambox. There's nothing to gain from that.
Anyone that want to know more can go and read the archives of this talk page. And study the CSS code and test examples at Wikipedia:Template standardisation/issuebox demo.
--David Göthberg 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech stuff 

message: Would an admin object to setting image =  for ? That seems to be the image we were planning on using, and if no one disagrees, I think it would be appropriate. Please say so if you disagree. (Some other templates, such as , could use this image, perhaps.) GracenotesT § 23:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify 

message: should be converted. User:Krator (t c) 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are already standardizing project namespace templates? I thought we were only doing the article space. 0_0 FunPika 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:notice 

message: Maybe for the articles that have something like:
Some text Here (Normal Size)
Some smaller text here (Small Size)
This article has been tagged since: XXXXX (Small Size)
Maybe have the "this article has been tagged....." line in italic style, an example of this tag would be the copedit one.  Peachey88 (Forgot to login by accident)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.70.164 (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight Idea 

message: #Everything in the Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-related namespace section has been converted, except .
#Thanks again to everyone that helped plan and implement all this. Sorry again if I was a bit hasty in implementing it yesterday, though I'd imagine that more than a few days would've been necessary for the world's browser cache's to empty!
#A few people have been commenting about or actually converting talkpage templates. However those are covered by the "coffeeroll" standard explained at Wikipedia:Talk page templates. (just fyi)
#I've uploaded a (large, 1.7mb) Before & After image: :Image:Wikipedia - comparison of template standardisation.png just for curiosity.
--Quiddity 22:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now then...how about we standardize the project namespace templates? :P FunPika 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The only one I still see around with an old color scheme is ... but then, it uses coffeeroll, so I don't know whether to change it or not. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final thoughts 

message: === Where's green? ===
This colour code is missing green.  To me, a colour code isn't complete without green.  What are we going to use that colour for?--  Denelson83  22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that would mean no templates on it, much less a green ambox.  Seriously, what are we going to use green for? --  Denelson83  22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA/FA candidates? Not really appropriate for the article page I suppose --⁪frotht 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We could use green for some form of stable version implementation. Since green is associated with "good" and templates are not added about something positive it would be hard to see it used for much else. violet/riga (t) 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  templates were previously on a green background.  Maybe use green for that? --  Denelson83  22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not joking.  To me, in Wikipedia, "everything's okay" is associated with the colour white. --  Denelson83  23:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Denelson,  should be green so it looks less like  and the related ones. Also,  should be green (I'm think green for growth, but this should at least be yellow, just not blue). - Rocket000 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since  and  can both be associated with the conceit of "progress", maybe associate the colour green with "progress" template messages, including content requests.  How does everyone feel with that? --  Denelson83  23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Green = Growth. - Rocket000 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: He you can do whatever you like of course, but i don't see the point in creating something just for the point of creating it. "we need green" is simply a bad argument. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, let's see R-O-Y-G-B-I-V.... wait, where's indigo? ←BenB4 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indigo is just a variation of blue.  None of the colours in this code are variations of green. --  Denelson83  23:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ben, the point is not simply "we like green." No, the point is there are valid reasons for have a green ambox, as stated above. Our reasoning falls in the same boat as why create different colors in the first place. You know why not just use one color?  Because each color means something, and we need a color for progress related templates. - Rocket000 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Denelson, I was thinking of doing the same, but it's fully protected and I'm not an admin. I completely support you in this. - Rocket000 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've implemented the "ambox-growth" class for template messages relating to adding content, such as , ,  and .  Do any other messages exist that relate to article growth? --  Denelson83  00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about ?? - Rocket000 00:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that falls under content addition as well. --  Denelson83  00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, it seems someone already changed it. Nice. - Rocket000 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, what about these: , ,  ?? - Rocket000 00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say  should be green, but really it should of been left alone in the first place since it goes on talk pages.  shouldn't be applied to talk page templates, right? - Rocket000 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It should be reverted, as it's not used in the article namespace. --  Denelson83  01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Reasons? Or are you making a joke? I can see uses for more colors, like gray, for other namespace templates. With green, I think we covered all the article namespace template types that deserve a color. - Rocket000 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joke or not, we'll be getting them.--Father Goose 04:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the eye image is jarring. But in the long term let's try to stick to SVG images to reduce server strain, though another type might work for now. By the way, Denelson, the green parameter was an excellent idea. szyslak 01:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  BTW, when I said "sprouting plant", I meant like a Nuvola SVG style icon of one. --  Denelson83  01:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about :Image:Wiki letter w.svg? It's not a plant, but it looks very nice. You could also try to adapt :Image:Gxermo2.png. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The colors are so bright they look like the crayons we used when we were young. As stated earlier, the pastel-based color scheme fits much better with our project and its traditional usage of color. Badagnani 01:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh good it's not just me, I sat paralised with fear for a few seconds upon seeing that in an article! What does an eye have to do with expanding an article anyway? Seaserpent85Talk 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. If we can't find another image, could we use image=blank for now? *shudder* GracenotesT § 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking for a better image as we speak.  What we need is an SVG representation of a sprouting plant. --  Denelson83  02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I began searching for one before I even saw these discussions.  So far, no luck.  —David Levy 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Meanwhile, can we please remove the green eye from the expand template? It's a nice image, but a little jarring. GracenotesT § 03:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it slightly darker?  The cross is barely visible. --  Denelson83  04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, too little contrast.  --Iamunknown 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the plus sign David Levy added. Much more professional and acceptable. --Quiddity 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now THAT's much better. --  Denelson83  06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a gaudy image which does not accord with the existing graphics of wikipedia. Tyrenius 08:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "Gaudy" as long as the content icon is not, and this is based exactly on that design. As far asI'm concerned, the "notice" icon is "gaudy"-er. Circeus 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The major problem I have with this is that it's similar to the GA icon, I think you either need something unique or nothing at all. Seaserpent85Talk 11:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's completely different from the GA icon! The only common point they have is that they're green (and not even remotely the same shade) and have a "plus" symbol. Besides, since the GA icon is not used in articlespace, the point is pretty moot. The GA icon is actually used for completely different aspects of the site (It's a checkuser symbol) and nobody complains about that... Circeus 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the completely patronising reply, Circeus. The icon I was referring to is the one above, with the dark green circle - I'm not getting into an argument over something so petty, my point was merely that there are probably hundreds of relevant icons that could fit the bill, why use something already used for GA? Seaserpent85Talk 22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm just happy that we now have a full colour wheel. --  Denelson83  05:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color 

message: This colour code is missing green.  To me, a colour code isn't complete without green.  What are we going to use that colour for?--  Denelson83  22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that would mean no templates on it, much less a green ambox.  Seriously, what are we going to use green for? --  Denelson83  22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA/FA candidates? Not really appropriate for the article page I suppose --⁪frotht 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We could use green for some form of stable version implementation. Since green is associated with "good" and templates are not added about something positive it would be hard to see it used for much else. violet/riga (t) 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  templates were previously on a green background.  Maybe use green for that? --  Denelson83  22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not joking.  To me, in Wikipedia, "everything's okay" is associated with the colour white. --  Denelson83  23:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Denelson,  should be green so it looks less like  and the related ones. Also,  should be green (I'm think green for growth, but this should at least be yellow, just not blue). - Rocket000 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since  and  can both be associated with the conceit of "progress", maybe associate the colour green with "progress" template messages, including content requests.  How does everyone feel with that? --  Denelson83  23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Green = Growth. - Rocket000 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: He you can do whatever you like of course, but i don't see the point in creating something just for the point of creating it. "we need green" is simply a bad argument. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, let's see R-O-Y-G-B-I-V.... wait, where's indigo? ←BenB4 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indigo is just a variation of blue.  None of the colours in this code are variations of green. --  Denelson83  23:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ben, the point is not simply "we like green." No, the point is there are valid reasons for have a green ambox, as stated above. Our reasoning falls in the same boat as why create different colors in the first place. You know why not just use one color?  Because each color means something, and we need a color for progress related templates. - Rocket000 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Denelson, I was thinking of doing the same, but it's fully protected and I'm not an admin. I completely support you in this. - Rocket000 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've implemented the "ambox-growth" class for template messages relating to adding content, such as , ,  and .  Do any other messages exist that relate to article growth? --  Denelson83  00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about ?? - Rocket000 00:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that falls under content addition as well. --  Denelson83  00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, it seems someone already changed it. Nice. - Rocket000 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, what about these: , ,  ?? - Rocket000 00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say  should be green, but really it should of been left alone in the first place since it goes on talk pages.  shouldn't be applied to talk page templates, right? - Rocket000 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It should be reverted, as it's not used in the article namespace. --  Denelson83  01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Reasons? Or are you making a joke? I can see uses for more colors, like gray, for other namespace templates. With green, I think we covered all the article namespace template types that deserve a color. - Rocket000 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joke or not, we'll be getting them.--Father Goose 04:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the eye image is jarring. But in the long term let's try to stick to SVG images to reduce server strain, though another type might work for now. By the way, Denelson, the green parameter was an excellent idea. szyslak 01:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  BTW, when I said "sprouting plant", I meant like a Nuvola SVG style icon of one. --  Denelson83  01:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about :Image:Wiki letter w.svg? It's not a plant, but it looks very nice. You could also try to adapt :Image:Gxermo2.png. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's green? 

message: I have a couple of issues with the use of colour coding for these templates. With the templates at present, some articles with only minor issues are completely dominated by colourful explanations of fairly unimportant information. Worse still, some articles with major issues don't immediately stand out from other articles - Maybe keep colour only for the important issues such as CSD etc. Seaserpent85Talk 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The colors are so bright they look like the crayons we used when we were young. As stated earlier, the pastel-based color scheme fits much better with our project and its traditional usage of color. Badagnani 01:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure about the use of colour coding 

message: I've been following along silently for a while now, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for the way the template standardization efforts have been going ... however, I specifically logged in just to make this single comment.
    THE EYEBALL HAS GOT TO GO ... pretty please.   
All of the images (so far) have been appropriately balanced to the purpose of the templates and the aesthetics and design necessary to convey the point. This eyeball is a stark and pronounced deviation from that standard. It calls too much attention to itself and looks "glaringly" inconsistent with the rest of the content.
My guess is, the eyeball was probably a lot of fun to make, because it shows the mark of a lot of effort. Unfortunately that's the very thing that shouldn't be showing in this context.
Something more subdued (and hopefully, less horrifying and more aesthetically pleasing) seems appropriate. If no one chimes in and nothing changes I may just look for an OpenSource substitute or just make something myself. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good it's not just me, I sat paralised with fear for a few seconds upon seeing that in an article! What does an eye have to do with expanding an article anyway? Seaserpent85Talk 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. If we can't find another image, could we use image=blank for now? *shudder* GracenotesT § 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking for a better image as we speak.  What we need is an SVG representation of a sprouting plant. --  Denelson83  02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I began searching for one before I even saw these discussions.  So far, no luck.  —David Levy 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Meanwhile, can we please remove the green eye from the expand template? It's a nice image, but a little jarring. GracenotesT § 03:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it slightly darker?  The cross is barely visible. --  Denelson83  04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, too little contrast.  --Iamunknown 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the plus sign David Levy added. Much more professional and acceptable. --Quiddity 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now THAT's much better. --  Denelson83  06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a gaudy image which does not accord with the existing graphics of wikipedia. Tyrenius 08:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "Gaudy" as long as the content icon is not, and this is based exactly on that design. As far asI'm concerned, the "notice" icon is "gaudy"-er. Circeus 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The major problem I have with this is that it's similar to the GA icon, I think you either need something unique or nothing at all. Seaserpent85Talk 11:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's completely different from the GA icon! The only common point they have is that they're green (and not even remotely the same shade) and have a "plus" symbol. Besides, since the GA icon is not used in articlespace, the point is pretty moot. The GA icon is actually used for completely different aspects of the site (It's a checkuser symbol) and nobody complains about that... Circeus 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the completely patronising reply, Circeus. The icon I was referring to is the one above, with the dark green circle - I'm not getting into an argument over something so petty, my point was merely that there are probably hundreds of relevant icons that could fit the bill, why use something already used for GA? Seaserpent85Talk 22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The EYEBALL flag todo (image needs rehabilitation) 

message: Please read Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/Archive 2#Merge-specific color for the recent discussion. 
And please wait until there is a strong consensus before implementing any major changes. There's no rush, and we've already taken things a bit too fast for some editors' liking. Plus it's the weekend. Thanks :) --Quiddity 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm just happy that we now have a full colour wheel. --  Denelson83  05:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: The old template designs are perfectly in accord with the overall look of wikipedia. They have an appropriateness to the tone of the project and should be retained. Standardisation of width is desirable, and different tints for different functions. The tints previously in use are clear, but not overstated, and do not create visual discord. I am in favour of retaining the previous designs. Whoever made them had a good eye.  Tyrenius 08:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were horrible pastel messes that looked horrible next to each other because they were designed by different people and implemented in different ways, destroying consistency.  violet/riga (t) 08:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree. They were fine designs and it would be easy enough to tweak them to eliminate inconsistencies. The new designs are overbearing and inappropriate individually and a cacophony when used together. Tyrenius 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were not "fine."  Would you please try the "Experience it yourself" at http://www.webaim.org/articles/visual/lowvision.php so you can see for yourself the problem with the tinted backgrounds? ←BenB4 17:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you please stop flooding the page, Tyrenius?  You're entitled to express your opinions, but it isn't helpful to continually create new sections for the purpose of posting essentially the same comments.  —David Levy 09:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not flooding the page. I created two sections only - the previous section to point out what was wrong with the new design, and this section to advocate keeping the old one. I fail to see the problem. As violet/riga pointed out to Splash above: "if you have alternative ideas in mind you are welcome to bring them to the table." Do you agree with that? Tyrenius 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You created this section to post virtually the same comments that you posted in your "#This guideline is disputed" section.  You also posted similar comments in various other sections, and you even revisited one to inexplicably lodge essentially the same complaint that you'd already made there.  Okay, Tyrenius, you don't like the changes.  We get it.  —David Levy 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so I created a level 2 heading, which overlapped a level 3 in the preceding section. That was because I thought this topic merited its own discussion. My apologies if you thought it was not appropriate. As far as I know, I am commenting on specific proposals in other sections, or answering existing threads. It's not a question of like. It's a question of design appropriateness. It changes the presentation of wikipedia. Maybe it should be changed and brightened up all round, but if so, that needs thorough discussion. Design is a unity, which is exactly the rationale for changing the templates, but that unity also extend to the whole page, and not just the templates in isolation. Tyrenius 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it ain't broke 

message: You can't please everyone all the time.  Some people don't like the new designs, and that was to be expected.  Those people must remember, however, that there will never be a design that we all fully agree on and that the current scheme has wide acceptance.  While discussing improvements is fine do please realise that what you want to implement may be equally (or more) disliked by other people.  violet/riga (t) 09:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all we'll have to wait for people to realise there is a new design in existence. It has been rushed through. What I want to implement is a restoration of the old designs. I'm not aware of any ongoing previous outcry in the years that they have been in use. Tyrenius 09:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) This is basically WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have no opinion either way, but it would have helped if there had been greater discussion of this prior to it just up and happening out of nowhere; I didn't know there was a discussion about template standardization until I saw that  had changed. --Coredesat 09:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of IDONTLIKEIT. I have pointed to specific design flaws. Tyrenius 09:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Where else should advance notice have been provided?  —David Levy 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sitenotice would have helped; I notice it had been suggested above but it doesn't seem to actually have been done. There was also no mention on WP:AN until the standardization was well underway. --Coredesat 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were a change that could not easily be tweaked then you may have a point, but as ambox can easily be changed I don't think that WP:BOLD was a problem.  It was widely advertised on WP:POST, WP:VP, WP:CENT, and the mailing list.  violet/riga (t) 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  (Edit conflict) A sitenotice (or even an entry in MediaWiki:Watchdetails) is usually greeted with angry lynch mobs arguing that anons don't care, and that things like these are not important to put a Wikipedia-wide message, so I'm afraid that wouldn't have worked. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should have been a notice on the templates themselves, as there is when they are proposed for deletion. This would then have alerted the people most affected - those who regularly use them. Tyrenius 09:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would've created the ugliest mess since the Main Page was unprotected!  violet/riga (t) 09:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  That idea is unfeasible to the point of absurdity.  —David Levy 09:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're quite happy to change the whole design of the templates, so I don't see the problem with one line of small text above the template, as seen here for TfD, to let users know. Tyrenius 10:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On every template that was to be affected?!  —David Levy 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A poll to gauge consensus would be a good idea. Do people prefer the old or the new. Let's see if there is an overwhelming view one way or the other. Tyrenius 09:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, what is your point? We could, but we won't, and what you're saying is irrelevant to the current discussion. Reinistalk 10:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair comment - don't be so dismissive.  violet/riga (t) 11:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My point is that the issue of "design flaws" in the new templates is kind of silly, because by some people's standards there are design flaws everywhere on this website. szyslak 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those that don't like the design 

message: Well  just went ahead and reverted the fix to  without waiting for a tweak to come from here.  I'd have reverted with a polite note to wait for concensus but no can do:  no admin bit.  — Coren (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to get a tweak working.  violet/riga (t) 14:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have two non-ambox options here and here, or I see someone has added a style parameter to ambox so you could just go back to this and add style="background:#FEE" or style="background:#FFDAB9". Anomie 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried that and, on preview, it didn't seem to work.  violet/riga (t) 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh. Try this hopefully-correct code: | style = background:#FEE or | style = background:#FFDAB9. Anomie 16:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're waiting, could someone change the hangon template back too? Because the juxtaposition of the old speedy and the new hangon looks incredibly ugly. Thanks! Gscshoyru 17:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Still no joy.  violet/riga (t) 17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I found it. Whoever did the original conversion had a bug. This or this seem to work. Anomie 17:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the template with the former, which I feel is the closest to a compromise position.  violet/riga (t) 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that looks good.  Any opinion on creating a specific "ambox-speedy" class for these templates so that we could get rid of the hardcoded styles entirely?  (I've proposed this also on the db-meta talk page.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|db-meta}}