Template talk:Ambox/Archive 5

message: We presently have some templates which differ only in the sense that they address different scopes, i.e., article vs section vs list, etc. For example,  vs . It occurs to me that a well-designed template can work for all of these. Without qualification (e.g., ), just state "This article does not cite...". Then use  to tweak to "This foo does note cite...", as desired.  would become "This section does not cite...", for example. Works for section, list, paragraph, and most other things. This is already done to some extent (indeed,  works this way); I just think we should formalize it and spread the meme to all templates while we're in the process of converting them to the new look-and-feel. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This (like the standardisation discussion to date) is a great idea, I think, but perhaps as a "phase 2"? I'd like to see the initial proposal implemented as soon as possible (why not?); when that is successful, then this modification could be adopted. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a great idea, but creating a "phase 2" as John Broughton has suggested would mean the creation of a LOT of additional templates. While it wouldn't be difficult to create the templates, it is work that doesn't need to be done at all. Doing the simplification and streamlining at the same time as the implementation of the new templates is the best idea; all it would require is a note at the top of the template page informing users that the section templates are the same as the article templates with a qualifier added. Horologium t-c 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any changes to the text of template should be discussed on the specific templates talk page before being implemented.  and  as an example place articles in different categories for very good reason which have been discussed extensively at Template talk:Unreferenced. If you are going to use a qualifier to change  to  you also have to know what category to put  into and how to do it. Jeepday (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidate article section list etc into one template 

message: I'm in the process of creating a list of templates that we can standardize. (Will add update when done.) There are a lot, but with enough work, it's more than doable :) I also plan on creating a page for coordination, drafting, color coding for specific templates, etc. The means of implementation is coming along well, so it's time we got to implementing it! GracenotesT § 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work, thanks Gracenotes. violet/riga (t) 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A side-note to keep in mind: a lot of these templates will require admin assistance to update due to full protection. Finding some willing admins may want to be a priority, especially if it could avoid flooding :Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. --MZMcBride 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not going to be a problem, I'm sure. violet/riga (t) 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thought: if the goal is template standardisation, you may want to have a checklist for certain things like ensuring that all the templates that are protected have the appropriate template () and they are all categorised correctly. It might also be a good idea to switch some of the templates to a doc subpage pattern. With a checklist, all of the updates could be done at once, which would really aid in updating the fully-protected and high-use templates. Just a thought. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point MZMcBride. And nice to see that we have one of the admins who handle  requests on board. I have an idea how to "document" the deployment procedure so I'll think a bit more about it and write it up. --David Göthberg 22:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggregating a list 

message: Great work so far everyone. I'm very sorry but I don't think I'll be able to help implement this and change the templates in the coming days; good luck to those that will be. Explanation on my user page for those that need to know my off-wiki reason. violet/riga (t) 17:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't help implement it 

message: I thought it might be an idea for Admins who can help change protected templates to be listed here. Remove if you feel this is useless. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins willing to help 

message: Template:Ambox should probably be semi/fully/cascading protected now. Lots of potential mischief otherwise ;) I'll presume there are admins watching here who can answer and act, rather than my taking the request to the formal process page.. --Quiddity 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fully protected with cascading enabled. Let me know if you need it tweaked. If any other admin feel the need to adjust this, go right ahead. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record: it was adjusted to noncascading so as not to protect . --ais523 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambox protection 

message: Template:Current sport now converted. Look good? (Is that the first??) I'll be back in an hour to start working wholesale on everything else... :) --Quiddity 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good!-- Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, looks very good. And yeah, you seem to have done "first convert". --David Göthberg 02:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears I was perhaps too hasty. Sorry about that. Though I think it might have taken more than a few days for user's browser cache's to clear. Anyway, we seem to be surviving :) --Quiddity 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems several of us did, it looks right now. --David Göthberg 02:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It lives! 

message: Is the proposal for the project namespace tags to be converted going to go ahead? There is already a thread above, but I thought this might get a little more attention if it's placed down here. Sebi [talk] 03:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Template standardisation/Ambox-project. Sebi [talk] 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess that cold be a next step. But perhaps we should give the current deployment some days first? See how people react and all that. --David Göthberg 06:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project namespace messages 

message: I guess some of you might have noticed that some of the default images right now from time to time disappear? That's not a bug in our code, that's an old bug in MediaWiki. I have seen it for years. Usually the image comes back by itself after some time. (The yellow broom icon just came back.) I guess the reason it suddenly happened to several of our images now is that we cause so high load on them right now. So, there's no reason to panic. --David Göthberg 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was really wondering about that over at ... Circeus 04:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Purge the commons page. I've done that to the ones I've noticed, works very well. GDonato (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing (default) images 

message: There is no agreement about adding icons to templates with the upgrade to ambox, but I find that at least two templates at least one of which has a long history of rejecting icon usage has received a bonus icon in the deal  and . Does any one have comment about this bonus deal? Jeepday (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the image. Whoever made the conversion just wasn't aware of the (single, AFAICT) previous disagreement over that. Circeus 04:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Icons?

message: I've noticed that many templates used the plainlinks class to hide the external link icon. Now with this, that icon is coming back again. Can someone perhaps introduce a plainlinks parameter?Harryboyles 04:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the class to . Should do the trick. Circeus 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plainlinks 

message: Templates should be of a standard width as well, depending on what type of template. Nothing like seeing a bunch of varying-width templates stacked on top of each other to boil my blood. MessedRocker (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this proposal addresses that, but I mean for all sorts of templates. You know, like the ones that accumulate on the bottom of an article. And infoboxes. MessedRocker (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a whole 'nother can of worms, and this particular page has nothing to do with it. Circeus 04:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width standardization 

message: Good work you guys! The new templates look great. However, what stands out to me the most is the inconsistent styling of the icons. Maybe that could the next issue this project takes on, at least for the default icons. Or maybe just a style guide for future icon creation, like size, colors, shadows, whatever.
Another thing I noticed is, unlike the examples shown on Wikipedia:Template standardisation, the templates are missing a boder around the color part. This could be intentional, but I think it looks better with the complete border. Another idea would be to make the border match the color of side bar. Either way it should have a complete border. 
These are just minor issues compared to the huge improvement you've already made. Sorry if these things were already discussed, first time here. - Rocket000 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the "color part" is not an empty cell with a background color. It is the border itself, so it can hardly have a border of its own . Circeus 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about the examples on Wikipedia:Template standardisation? Those have a gray border around the color part too. - Rocket000 05:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously the formatting chosen in the end was slightly different. Circeus 05:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rocket000 that the example versions look much better. I was about to post a comment to that effect. —David Levy 05:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Will somebody who can decipher it convert ? The HTML commentsare giving me a headache... Circeus 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — Coren (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bwuh? 

message: What about colorblind users? Miranda 06:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section #Support, but suggestion including colour blind problems: above. We have included a mechanism for you too! Just needs to be finished by some colour blind editors who (literally) can see what needs to be done. Since we don't see what you see we can't really do it for you. --David Göthberg 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not colorblind. I am thinking about the minority vote here. Miranda 17:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorblind users 

message: Great work on all the templates. The color codes make checking up on issues within the article really easy and they look quite nice. --Hdt83 Chat 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example of stacked templates in a real article: Visible Path. I think it look really good. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 08:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great work 

message: The bright color bars on the new versions of the templates are very distracting. Please restore the old versions. Badagnani 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to disagree. —Nightstallion 09:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is the thin strip more distracting than the full background pastel? ←BenB4 10:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is not part of an integrated graphics design. It does not work with the existing colour scheme of wiki, which is fairly subdued on the whole. These new "kindergaten" colours are crude and stick out like a sore thumb. They will clash also with any images on the page. The previous pastel colours were far more appropriate. Tyrenius 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The colors were not just pulled out of nowhere, though. GracenotesT § 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: They actually fit in with most template images and finally mean that we have consistency between templates. violet/riga (t) 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't forget that you can override them with your own preferred versions. It's more likely that they stand out to you because they are not what you're used to. But hell, they are supposed to be highlighted really. violet/riga (t) 15:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bright colors very distracting 

message: User:SMcCandlish just made  red and added it as a red example in the  documentation. I find that a tough one, my first instinct said it should be orange. Now I don't know for sure. What do others think? --David Göthberg 11:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an orange I would say, we should keep red for imminent deletion. the wub "?!" 11:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No big deal to me; the point was that a non-deletion example should be in the red section or readers of the documentation will think that red=deletion. PS: I didn't make  red. I don't know enough about this template's code to do that; I've never even looked at the code yet! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm, I thought it was red=deletion (and the "keep" templates or whatever they are called). --David Göthberg 11:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the icon to a stop hand since a hoax is a pretty serious issue even if the article may not be deleted. Hopefully thats ok. --Hdt83 Chat 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Hoax 

message: Articleissues and stacked cleanup templates now take up roughly the same amount of space. Should articleissues be considered obsolete at this point, and phased out in favor of the more clear and color-coded stacked cleanup templates? MrZaiustalk 11:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Articleissues]]

message: Hi all, 
I'm impressed to see all the work that's gone on here and was wondering if you could recommend someone who might want to come on Wikipedia Weekly podcast to discuss the changes. Cheers, Witty Lama 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia weekly interview 

message: I just noticed the Globalize template and its sub-templates have been amended to type "style", when the article of this talk page, plus pure common sense would suggest it would fall under "content". Could a bot adjust the sub-templates? Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as I originally changed those templates, I'll run AWB to change it. Harryboyles 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done Harryboyles 15:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize template

message: Hey there.
I've just converted my bot's templates, and I was wondering if there were any SVG artists around (or a place to beg and grovel to such) that could draw up a "copyright problem" icon? I thinking a button/disk like  that's a copyright sign with a floating red exclamation point hovering over the upper-right quadrant? I'm a fairly good pixel jockey, but I neither have the tools nor the experience to mess with SVG. — Coren (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some svg copyright icons at Commons:Category:Copyright-Copyleft. Perhaps :image:Copyrightstatusquestion.svg. —Moondyne 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but nevermind. I figured out I could do SVG with Illustrator, and managed to hack  together. Not great, but better and will serve the purpose. :-) — Coren (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icons 

message: While the blue background looks great on article pages, internal templates such as Template:Template doc page viewed directly don't look quite right. Could we add some sort of switch into Template:Ambox so that it uses a nice gray color like #f9f9f9 for pages outside the main namespace? Here's a screenshot of how that would look:
—Remember the dot (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  should do it. I'll implement the change if there's consesus for it. Also, I've modified  to add a little padding above itself, so there should be no need for adding extra spaces in templates like . Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I totally support this being implemented. Blue background on white pages and white background on blue pages. Makes sense to me. - Rocket000 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background color on internal project pages 

message: I've just went ahead and converted all non-protected, non-tfd templates I could find. — Coren (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't please everyone. As I mentioned above though you've come here and been needlessly rude so it's difficult to be concerned about you feeling hard done by. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't slander me, I brought objective criticism of the new templates with just two mild offhand words that you jumped on. Your dismissals of some of them missed the point entirely too, as I pointed out above, after which you reverted to WP:ILIKEIT. I understand that you don't feel obliged to answer because the changes will stay just out of inertia, but it really is a concern for me, because I see it as getting on the slippery slope to a worse design. Reinistalk 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with your reasons for calling it bad design and you've not really given any particularly constructive comments. I haven't "slander[ed]" you, just pointed out that you catch more flies with honey. violet/riga (t) 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can be smug, of course, and point out that I'm not winning any opinion polls like this, and that the majority doesn't mind the new look, but the fact that you tried and failed answering my objections, and then reverted to WP:ILIKEIT, remains. I also don't think that the majority, especially those who understand design principles, have even seen my arguments, so you can't really say that they disagree with me. Reinistalk 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually more of a case of having other things to do than talk to someone that is being rude and isn't showing any signs of contributing anything worthwhile to these discussions. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very convenient, poisoning the well. Well, I'm sure you could eviscerate my arguments — if only you wanted to. But you don't need to, because inertia is on your side. :) Reinistalk 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More work done 

message: Thumbs up! Very good job people, I hate centered text, and the color bars are a brilliant idea. But I was initially confused and angry about such a big change not being announced in the watchlist alerts.. I never had any idea that all this was going on and I would have liked to make suggestions and things. Oh well, it turned out good --⁪frotht 18:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a move was considered but the way it has been implemented lends itself to still being discussed after implementation - if you have any suggestions then it would be nice to hear them. violet/riga (t) 18:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes yes of course :) I'm working my way through this talk page. Again, good job wikipedians! --⁪frotht 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So are the templates still being updated? here's one that's not changed --⁪frotht 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think only the templates that are used on articles have been standardised - not those used on project pages... WjBscribe 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well is that planned? It doesn't make any sense to partially standardize :) --⁪frotht 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually, but not all at once. ←BenB4 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is already a standard design used by Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace, and another standard used by Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace. Different designs make things easier to discern from one-another at a glance. --Quiddity 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Why not move the icon to the RHS to provide balance to the colour bar? Rich Farmbrough, 19:18 15 September 2007 (GMT).
:I tried that design and found it to be unbalanced because of the differing heights and widths - it looks rather odd, and I find that left-side weighted content (including the bar and image) works better. It would of course be a simple change should most people agree with you. violet/riga (t) 19:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about getting rid of the bar and bringing back colored backgrounds instead? You are bringing them back for the DB template anyway. It seems, that would fix this imbalance (and a number of other things). Reinistalk 19:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bar works well and background colours didn't. Having several templates with a range of pastel colours is very ugly. violet/riga (t) 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was certainly less ugly, based on objective arguments, than this. Reinistalk 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, if it works well, that means you think there's no imbalance in the comp, its function doesn't overlap with icons, and there's no inconsistency between this unique element with its unique bright colors and the rest of the design? Reinistalk 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinis, you are starting to become annoyingly vocal on this page. We all know now that you don't like this. Come back when you have some new designs, and then we can talk about it. Now we are just throwing mud around. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual balance

message: I miss the old grey AfD boxes... 68.39.174.238 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, they were blue – 81.153.158.137 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool, but... 

message: Hm. Someone just walked behind me and reverted every transition to ambox I had done to templates listed on :Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup that were meant for talk page. Does he/she know something I don't (that is, are talk space templates excluded for the transition), or was I correct in editing them? — Coren (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk page templates use the "ClockworkSoul's CoffeeRoll" scheme and were standardised previously. This time we've focussed on article-space (and Wiki-space) templates. We could discuss the talk page templates again but personally I like having a distinct scheme for discussion pages. violet/riga (t) 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair 'nuf. I was just so hard at work on the templates I didn't actually wittingly convert talk page templates so much as just everything I could see. :-) Overenthusiastic, I suppose. Personally, I would have left them converted and waited to see how long it took for the other talk page templates to follow suit! — Coren (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page templates?