Template talk:Proposal/2005

message: ===Policy adoption===
So, how does a policy go from being "proposed" to becoming official Wikipedia policy? Or do they just languish under the "proposed" template forever? No doubt it's true 20:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps after a poll is taken to see how many people agree with it? ··gracefool |☺ 01:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most 'proposed' stuff does indeed seem to languish in limbo forever. It's a sad fact that many editors need a poll to accept something. However perhaps we should clarify how to hold such polls... Dan100 22:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
=== Visual layout ===
I quite liked the previous layout:
This page is a proposed Wikipedia  policy, guideline, or process.  The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.  References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
(How) does it hurt the eyes? ··gracefool |☺ 05:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see how. I only changed it to bring it in line with most of the other templates. rved. - SoM 23:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should change the other templates to bring them in line with this (pretty) one? :p ··gracefool |☺ 00:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced this should use the "Talk-Notice" format. I think we should have a separate format for "Project-Notice" templates like this one and . --Phil | Talk 09:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ugh this thing is ugly. Does it go well with anything? I know it's supposed to grab attention, and is used throughout Wikipedia in other templates, but does it really need to be this horrendous? I propose we make it a more pleasing color, or something along the lines of  or , but perhaps a little more attention-grabbing. As-is, it just looks terrible, and detracts from the text (especially concise pages). Do we really need another boilerplate message? Can't this just be in bold or something, with a line break? Or maybe just a blank background? Thoughts? -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 21:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions 2005

message: I quite liked the previous layout:
This page is a proposed Wikipedia  policy, guideline, or process.  The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.  References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
(How) does it hurt the eyes? ··gracefool |☺ 05:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how. I only changed it to bring it in line with most of the other templates. rved. - SoM 23:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should change the other templates to bring them in line with this (pretty) one? :p ··gracefool |☺ 00:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced this should use the "Talk-Notice" format. I think we should have a separate format for "Project-Notice" templates like this one and . --Phil | Talk 09:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ugh this thing is ugly. Does it go well with anything? I know it's supposed to grab attention, and is used throughout Wikipedia in other templates, but does it really need to be this horrendous? I propose we make it a more pleasing color, or something along the lines of  or , but perhaps a little more attention-grabbing. As-is, it just looks terrible, and detracts from the text (especially concise pages). Do we really need another boilerplate message? Can't this just be in bold or something, with a line break? Or maybe just a blank background? Thoughts? -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 21:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual layout 

message: How about using :Image:Proposal Editor 1.jpg or something similar? I don't mind the current image, but it isn't very symbolic. I'd be willing to GIMP/Photoshop this with a W instead of the Chinese character, or create a new one. Thoughts? -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image