Template talk:Ambox

If these two boxes don't look the same then you need to refresh your web browser cache:

Hardcoded box.

This is just a temporary caching problem that should be gone in a few days (the maximum cache age is one month).

Archive summary

This section contains refactored discussion from archived discussions. Do not archive this section, instead update it when you archive other sections.

• History and credit;
  • Started at the village pump.
  • Based on work by Flamurai at User:Flamurai/TS/blanca.
  • Color bar was idea of Sparkit.
  • Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article - initial design ideas.
• Scope of this project in this run;
  • Only the design of the article message box templates; other templates can come later.
  • Content/text of the boxes is not to be changed now, only the design.
• Discussions about the specifics of the color bar, both sides vs just one side? One color bar on the left side was chosen. Can easily be changed in CSS later.
• Background color is set to match project namespace, to contrast with article namespace background.
• Width decided at 80%, can easily be changed in CSS later.
• It was pointed out that future site-wide changes to appearance will be easier with common CSS and/or meta-templates.
• Some questions about which existing templates fall into which "color code category".
• Lots of WP:ILIKEIT along with the occasional WP:IDONTLIKEIT
• Seeking community approval;
  • It was deemed a "PR campaign" would be overkill.
  • Mentioned this project on wikien-l mailing list.
  • Suggestion of mention at WP:VPP, WP:CBB, and/or WT:TEM.
  • Suggestion of {{RFCpolicy}}.
  • Suggestion of watchlist message.
  • Mentioned in The Signpost.
• Perennial proposal to: Eliminate style templates! from article pages.
• Suggestion to eliminate right-side images, and to replace non-free with free images.

{{Db-meta}}

I understand that you guys are doing, and for the most part, think you're doing a fantastic job, but the Template:Db-meta colour just won't work. It needs to be a really bright colour to stand out. That's why it used to be pink, so when reading the article, you know that it is basically waiting to be deleted. Is there any way you can change the background colout back to pink? If not, we're going to have to go back to the old style. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't really say "we're going to have to go back to the old style", but you are of course welcome to discuss things like this. Personally I think the red bar and the size of the template brings sufficient attention to the notice. Red is only used for such serious problems, but we may need to look at a way of conveying the immediacy of db templates compared to xfd templates. violet/riga (t) 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well we can, as changing the db-meta template hasn't been discussed anywhere! Basically, all I'm saying is that it should have a background colour - one small red bar is not enough to make it stand out from the rest, especially when it is going to be going on pages that are ridiculous personal attacks against real life people. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template standardisation doesn't need the discussion of each and every individual template. We could look at a pink body for speedy templates because they are ones that will not remain for long on an article, while AfD templates do. violet/riga (t) 18:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you look into finding a pink body then please Violetriga? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The red bar does not suffice to make it stand out compared to the old pink background, and it doesn't communicate that this template has more gravity compared to others because they all have bright colors. Reinis^talk 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I definately agree! Why not just change the "serious" color to bright #f00 instead of the maroonish color? Red is certainly more attention grabbing. I'd be fine with just a brighter color like #f00. --froth^t 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan: Note that it is you, not violetriga that want a pink box, so I suggest you code one up and show it for discussion instead of asking that violetriga do it for you.

Reinis and froth: The same goes for you, stop talking about colours and start showing some actual designs that people can see.

--David Göthberg 19:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I wouldn't have a clue how do code it up, that's why I asked Violet! I would suggst that in the future, you don't get so defensive. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

4 minutes before you said that I posted one below..... --froth^t 02:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy templates

Should speedy templates have a pink body to highlight their severity and, more importantly, immediacy? Or is there another way we could highlight this? I think it is a fair comment that speedy templates should stand out a little bit more than others, and their short-term use would not cause problems with consistency. violet/riga (t) 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's important that people reading the encyclopedia know that the page is going to be deleted soon and of substandard quality, a bright colour draws attention to it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Look who's concerned over consistency now. Albeit, sadly, in this case it's not about consistency with the overall design, but with an inflexible standard. Reinis^talk 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the standardisation generally, but I agree speedy deletion templates need to be more noticeable. Given then should be removed or the article deleted, there seems little harm in making them stand out where as the benefit is obvious. I suggest making it look like: User:WJBscribe/Drafts/2 Is that what people had in mind? WjBscribe 18:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think the CSD template certainly does need to have its own unique level of customisation (background, specifically), simply to stand out from the rest of the "serious" templates. I think the above is a good example of how maybe it could look under the new system, and the contrast between the side bar and background indeed suit well. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, yes that's great. This is what I originally had in mind (for all "serious" templates not just speedy) but I don't like it as much as yours:

In any case I don't like the dark red color coding, it should be #f00 --froth^t 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Think of the epileptics? Use #f06 and white text instead. ^^ Reinis^talk 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearer definition for speedy templates is needed. How about the previous background colour?

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). Please consider placing {{subst:empty-warn|Template talk:Ambox}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author.

A bit lighter than WJBs option but still stands out. I think it works quite well with the red bar. mattbr 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this one. Also, there needs to be some thought into how to change the background color for speedy templates; there are several options. --MZMcBride 19:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. This one looks even worse with a #f00 color bar.. I'm finally convinced that the dark red is best. Either that or a black background with neon green text ^_^ --froth^t

My current screen isn't great at showing colour (poor laptop LCD) but I'd go for the first option by WjBscribe. violet/riga (t) 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WJPscribes looks good to me, think it stands out better. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary unindent

FWIW, I think the WJBscribe versions is the most attention-grabbing one. That's probably what's wanted. — Coren ^(talk) 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put together a version with a pink background at User:Anomie/Sandbox2, if it's liked by all it should be directly copyable to {{db-meta}}. Anomie 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And here's a version with WJBscribe's darker color. Anomie 19:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is how to implement the change. Should {{db-meta}} use {{ambox}} or not? If so, some changes will have to be made. --MZMcBride 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy to add an option to ambox, but I wouldn't want it to be abused and used in other places too. But then introducing a second meta template seems a little odd when it is so easy to add to ambox. violet/riga (t) 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any particular need for it to, the design of this system is such that the CSS classes can be applied directly to tables for the more unusual cases like this. Anomie 20:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I say give a parameter to {{ambox}}. This way, possible future changes will percolate down to {{db-meta}} without having to remember it (or run the risk of it getting desynced). — Coren ^(talk) 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Increasing flexibility in the template is always better than no option at all, since it's protected. Come on lets get comments already before this is buried in an archive and no admin ever sees it. --froth^t 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently the points brought up above were discarded along the way? See the discussion at Template talk:Db-meta. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, this discussion was started after the change was made. In other words, this is us talking about fixing the issue raised on Template talk:Db-meta. On that note, I support WJBscribe's version as well. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that there's one main consensus here - the background colour of speedy deletion templates must be changed. First of all, we are now standardizing the templates, which is generally a good idea, but isn't necessarily the most important thing on the planet.

It seems to me that we need to give ambox an extra parameter. The worst-case scenario is that this gets misused - but we should realize that this is a wiki, in case you've forgotten. If people are in support of a particular system, no one user's reverts can kill it. I'm not quite happy with the ambox setup as is, but as this is a wiki, I am perfectly happy to be able to change that setup, or suggest changes, so that it works better.

I do a lot of deletion work with speedy deletion, so I'm in favour of making the setup the classic pink to complement the red sidebar and not have to retrain my eyes for some new colour. That being said, I do see some support for WJBscribe's version. It might therefore be helpful to leave in some support for user CSS customization here. This is, after all, a wiki. Nihiltres^(t.l) 05:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nihiltres when it comes to using the classic "Speedy" pink. I'm using the colour in my own Monobook.css, as well as using other colours for other "severity" levels. Harryboyles 09:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(Shameless notice) - This discussion appears to be along the same vein of some comments I just made below. Please voice your thoughts (regardless of whether you agree of not : )- jc37 10:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey -- I realize that while we're discussing this, the speedy templates should go back to being pink, but the juxtaposition of the hangon tag and the speedy tag currently looks incredibly ugly. Could someone change the hangon tag back as well while this is being discussed? Gscshoyru 17:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Float issue

e.g. NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters. Template goes over infobox, shouldn't do that. Can this be fixed, or is this just inevitable? User:Krator (t c) 22:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge tags should be at the very top. I've moved it there. --Quiddity 22:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any message templates should be at the top (they are not part of the article proper, should only be temporary), followed by any dablink templates (again not part of the article proper, but long term), then the infobox and the intro (start of the article proper). Hope that makes sense, and I have ordered the page accordingly. mattbr 23:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to stop these templates 'sticking' to infoboxes? Examples: House music, Euro-Mir. I've noticed a lot of 'current event' articles linked to from the main page have been using line breaks, but that's not acceptable to have to alter every article. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a break (<br>) after the template in House music and it fixed it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 00:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's not my point - these templates have been suddenly rolled out across the whole of Wikipedia. It would be a million times easier to modify the templates rather than every single article in which they are included surely? Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We could just put {{clear}} at the bottom of the ambox template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that break the stacking? --Quiddity 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I've found the problem too. Crossroads (Battlestar Galactica). That does intend pose a problem. Any code wranglers watching this thread? --Quiddity 06:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{clear}} tag above that section. It isn't a pretty fix, but it works for now. Perhaps some coding for "small left" alignment? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is disputed

This change has not just been about standardisation, which would have been a good thing and could quite easily have been. It is about a wholesale redesign, which has been undertaken far too quickly and with a lot of potentially interested editors completely unaware of it. Although the enterprise is commendable, the result is not an improvement. As suggested above on this page, I am specifying the particular issues for discussion. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and I brought up the same points yesterday.[1] Reinis^talk 08:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And it would appear that you two are the only ones complaining so much. By all means say what you don't like but I'm not sure you'll gain consensus to change what has been so successful and has so significantly improved things around here. Of course we are willing to discuss and tweak things, so I will address the points below when I get the opportunity. violet/riga (t) 08:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to wait and see if there are any further complaints, when more people actually realise what has been done. I only found out yesterday. I don't think it's successful and I don't think it's an improvement. If the rest of wikipedia loves it, then obviously I will accept that, but that remains to be seen. You forgot to add Splash to the complainants. Tyrenius 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Splash argued more than anything about the WP:OWN perception of the project, not really about the design. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is another problematic issue, I agree. Tyrenius 09:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for something that had the unanimous support of 30+ editors for three weeks after being advertised on WP:VPP and WP:VPR and elsewhere, I am tempted to say that if you don't care enough to read the Village Pump then why should we take your objections seriously, but it's clear we're going to need a !vote sooner or later. ←Ben^B4 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That comment is fairly petty... if an editor is now interested, and feels they have a stake in this process, why should they be ignored? --Starwed 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusion with article text

These new designs end up with a result which looks far too much as if it is part of the article. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you've updated your cache? They look totally separate. violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I have done. Tyrenius 09:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What in the design makes it look like any part of the article? I am not aware of us using a design similar to this anywhere else on the site.Circeus 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. None of the article text in any articles I've seen is set off with a box having a colored bar and icon. For those of us who have a hard time with low-contrast text, the lack of a shaded background is a huge blessing. ←Ben^B4 16:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tint

The old templates had a background tint that set them apart from the article. The new tint is too close to the colour of the page and is ineffective to distinguish the box. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But is enclosed in a border and the side colour highlights them. violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the tint doesn't contribute anything in its present form. I suggest either making it clearer or not bothering with it. Tyrenius 10:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the issue of lack of tint. It might be in a border, but it still isn't as nearly defined. Would be nice if it had a very light gray (think of it like a 90% opacity of black) to counter the brightness of the side colors. -- Guroadrunner 11:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see a little more contrast with background tint. But I don't beleive this guideline would qualify as disputed based on a couple of minor formatting disagreements by a vocal minority. Jeepday (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder why Windows and Mac OSX come with "high contrast" accessibility options? It is because of the great many people who use low contrast text without regard to the needs of the poorly-sighted. ←Ben^B4 17:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Stacking

When these new designs are stacked, they run into each other in a way which the old templates did not. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Which works so much better, linking them together. violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that was intended to be a feature, not a bug. I appreciate it as such. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that each communicates a different message. They need to be differentiated and, when they are, can be understood more easily. The stacking mandates an unecessary decoding of the form, before the content is even reached. Tyrenius 09:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be an improvement if there was a gap between templates, when they are used together. Tyrenius 09:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I think the stacking is effective. See Marlboro (cigarette). -- Guroadrunner 11:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's funny.I've been vigorously opposed to the new navbox footer design for that very reason, but my opposition have been dismissed. In this case, I believe that the formatting is appropriate, however. Circeus 15:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? What good does the waste of space do? The boxes are unified in that they convey information about the article and so it makes sense that they are spatially unified. ←Ben^B4 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I like the stacking feature, it's less space-intensive on multiple-templated articles. --Agamemnon2 14:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Side bar

The templates are essentially horizontal. The sidebar is inimicable to this and if anywhere would be better as a horizontal bar. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned above, my idea was to make the border the same color as the side bar. This may solve a few issues (or at least be somewhat of a comprise):

• The template would stand out more, without having to change the background color.
• It would help make the side bar not stick out so much, while keeping the bright colors.
• When stacked with others (of different colors), there would be more of a separation, without added whitespace.
• It would make for a continuous border (unlike the current gray one).

- Rocket000 08:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A continuous border would read much more easily than a single side bar. A background tint with no border would be better still and less vehement than a strong border. Tyrenius 08:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thin lines of colour don't work very well, especially when alongside each other. The border being consistent between templates helps them work together much better. violet/riga (t) 09:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. It would need a space between templates for different colour borders to be effective. Tyrenius 09:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Even with a space it would look ugly. violet/riga (t) 09:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's not a good solution. Tyrenius 10:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Side bar colours

These bright colours do not harmonise with the existing colour scheme of wikipedia, which is subtle and subdued. They also upstage any images within the article. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They stand out enough to highlight a problem while not being overbearing. The images of the old templates could be said to be similar. violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While I would not object to the re-discussion of more subdued colours, I have no objections to the current colours used. Further, I don't understand how the little blob of colour upstages images. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Because colour is relative. The existing design of wikipedia is deliberately understated. An image on a page stands out in contrast, because it is the most dyamic visual feature. Now the colour bars are the most dynamic visual feature, but they shouldn't be, as they are functional messages. Their strong colour dominates any other colour on the page. Tyrenius 09:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In many ways it's supposed to stand out. Yellow doesn't stand out much, but orange and red (the real problem areas) are highlighted because they are important. violet/riga (t) 09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarity is fine. Dominating the page (which the colour of these designs do) is not. Tyrenius 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that these templates, particularly the red and orange ones should dominate the page. Even the yellow ones should dominate; the goal after all is to fix the article so that these templates aren't present. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Θ

They directly address your #Confusion with article text concern this way. ←Ben^B4 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Side bars and stacking

The stacking example reads visually as a jumble. Strong visual features read together, so the side bars do not differentiate the different templates: they form a vertical unity which has the opposite effect to differentiation. Tyrenius 09:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for the horizontal rule running the full width, which universally indicates separation. ←Ben^B4 17:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Icons

The small icons shown on the project page are unecessary, unattractive and intrusive. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They are intuitive and help people to quickly spot the type of problem. violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No they don't. They just provide needless clutter. The previous pastel tinted backgrounds were far more intuitive. You have to stop and think what they symbols mean. Tyrenius 09:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The side colour echoes what the pastel background did and the image adds to the visual cues. There is simply no argument to say that the previous scheme was more intuitive when this clearly highlights the severity of the problem. violet/riga (t) 09:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is to discuss the icons. Tyrenius 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are going to strike your own comment that started discussing the background colours? violet/riga (t) 09:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed all the off-topic stuff, including mine, but you've reinstated it, so that's your choice. My remark was intended to make a comparison about intuitiveness, not to open up in this section a debate about the tints, just FYI. Tyrenius 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Old templates

These have worked successfully for a long time. In terms of design, harmonisation, communication and user friendliness, they are superior to the new designs. They should be reinstated and tweaked where appropriate for standardisation. Tyrenius 08:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is crazy to say "harmonisation" when talking about the old scheme. They were also poorly designed, communicated less effectively, and were mismatched. violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide a more analytical argument of each point. Tyrenius 09:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do? And here was me thinking that you were trying to change things back with very little support. The old templates were not standardised and were mismatched - that is the overriding reason for template standardisation. violet/riga (t) 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't like the previous templates. They were non-standardized to the nth degree: colours, widths, styles, images v. no images, some spaced between themselves while others didn't, and so on; I found them quite unharmonious for these reasons. As for communication and user-friendliness, I don't see how these are any more or less better at communicating or being friendly to the user than their predecessors were. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an argument for standardisation of the existing design, not a complete redesign. I have pointed out why the redesign is not as good. Tyrenius 09:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The old templates were of various widths, and those that were the same widths had different margins for the text. The background pastel made them hard to read for many people and was not intuitive as they were selected ad hoc when the template was created. ←Ben^B4 17:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

New templates

I love them. They're a bit Googly, but at least we're stealing from the best. Ichormosquito 08:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. Look at a google page. It has colour for the google name, but not on the rest of the page. It is a very understated design and all the more effective and user-friendly for it. Tyrenius 08:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious issue templates

In looking over the schema, most of the templates are "fine". I dunno if it's a good idea to use for the default background the same blue as is used on Wikipedia-space pages, but someone else can start that discussion.

However, I have severe concerns about the "serious issue" templates. I don't think they should be a part of this at all. They are not about anything "within" the article, they are about the article itself, and its place on Wikipedia. That makes them, essentially "meta-templates". When you add the fact that many or most are also used in namespaces other than the main namespace, you run into further trouble. (This is besides the fact that the new schema makes these rather important notifications seem to blend into this new "template wall".)

I'd like to suggest that all the "serious issue" templates be reverted to their previous form (if they haven't already, I've seen some reverts already).

And then a new discussion started just concerning them (if wanted), since they are beyond the scope of "article templates". - jc37 09:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the page again, I see that "Merger and transwiki proposal" templates would fall under this as well. - jc37 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All templates that appear in an article should conform to a set design scheme, and AfD templates are no exception. I don't see it as an issue if the MfD tag is updated as we will be looking at Wikipedia-space templates soon too and they will likely follow this scheme too. violet/riga (t) 09:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you see how the current changes pan out with more people, before going any further. Tyrenius 09:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All templates should conform to a design scheme to themselves. There are a lot more templates that are used on articles than the ones listed here. And the serious issue and merger/transwiki templates often have a time-based deadline, as well. Consider that such templates also are likely to be removed once the deadline has passed means that these templates should stand out more. They simply are not and should not be part of this plan. I don't think they should have the "same colour", as the individual notices "stand out" in some ways specifically because of their colour differences. Same goes for size, and so on. It's a whole other creature, and should be treated as such. - jc37 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They are article templates and should be treated the same. Deletion templates are differentiated by the red (serious) sidebar and there is discussion about getting speedy templates to have a pink background. violet/riga (t) 10:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That's like saying that templates that create tables are article templates. Or how about templates that create infoboxes? Or succession boxes? these are all article templates. Things used for varying purposes. And notices about the articles themselves, should be entirely different than internal article notices.

Also, in my opinion, the "red (serious) sidebar" is just this side of useless (have you considered people who don't have large monitors to view pages, for example?). The discussion to have the speedy templates to have a pink background is an direct example of what I mean. All these templates should be noticeable. - jc37 10:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not like saying that at all - they are all obviously tags that go at the top an article to warn users of a problem. Sorry but the red sidebar stands out very easily even on small resolutions. violet/riga (t) 10:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, they're not. They are not "to warn users of a problem". They are to notify users of a discussion. As I said, an entirely different thing. - jc37 10:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"This article might be deleted" is obviously a problem with that article. violet/riga (t) 11:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's "obvious", then you haven't hung around XfD discussions, or RfC, or DRV, or RM, or or or or... See they're because someone has a problem with the article as an article (it's name or its very existence). Not that there necessarily is a problem with the article. That's quite different than the obvious self-evidence of lack of references, or need for cleanup, or being a stub, or whatever. Look, I understand you like the results. And I like the idea of standardisation. But I think you're grouping apples and oranges, and telling me: "They're both fruit." Aside from the colour bar screaming I read from complainers below, I think putting these two things back "on the table" for discussion, would mean that the rest of the standardisation should go through uncontroversially. - jc37 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a relevant distinction. violet/riga (t) 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention something: why do you disagree. Reinis^talk 23:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just allow the user to disagree. I personally think "time-sensitive" and "notices about discussions about the article" are strong enough reasons, but that doesn't mean User:violetriga may agree. In any case, I've restated this (hopefully) more clearly in a new section below. - jc37 09:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Background color

Light blue does not go with red, orange, yellow, green, purple, and blue. OK it probably does go with all of those colors except orange, which it looks hideous with. Why aren't we using a neutral light grey for the background instead of blue? The blue was fine before we had this new color code system, but it really needs to go now. Kaldari 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the color bars that need to go. Reinis^talk 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The colour bars are fine, in my opinion. I'm not married to them, but they instantly communicate information about the level of the warning.

As for the background colour, what about trying a 20% opacity fill of the bar colour? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the same could be communicated better. Reinis^talk 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try some examples. Here is the current setup:

A version with a neutral grey background:

And a version with pastels:

Thoughts? (Besides "The color bars must go!!!") Anomie 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly prefer the current high-contrast version. ←Ben^B4 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here. The grey background makes it more difficult to read and doesn't look as good. The pastel backgrounds go back to the horrible days of rainbows on articles and don't work alongside each other. So, high-contrast (current) for all but speedy templates. violet/riga (t) 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the grey to be closer to the current extremely-pale-blue. Anomie 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, pretty good job with this whole standardisation project, I must say. I think what we have now is much better than what we had before. That said, I see where some of the anti-comments of the past 24 hourse are coming from, mainly the current look of the templates involves completely unwiki crayon colors. Aside from what User:Anomie has suggested above, I also thought of this coloring version:

Serious issues, such as {{afd}} and {{prod}} (#b22222)

Content issues, such as {{POV}} and {{globalize}} (#fce6cc)

Style issues, such as {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} (#ffffcc)

Contribution requests and notices, such as {{expand}} and {{inuse}} (#bfffbf)

Merger, split and transwiki proposals, such as {{split}} and {{copy to wiktionary}} (#bfbfff)

All other article notices, such as {{current}} (#bfdfff)

This also makes the red deletion templates stand out more. You can see like they apporximately look with images in an article (and a few other possibilities) in my sandbox. But I am also fine with leaving the colors like they are. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer either the current version or the one with the #fbfbfb grey. Anomie 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like the idea of this muted set. It looks closer to what we've been using at Wikipedia talk:Colors (for themainpage and contents pages and community portal, etc). Something between this and the current version would be my preference. --Quiddity 18:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think these ones look a little washed out. Where the colour meets the border there is a jarring mismatch. violet/riga (t) 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Muted color bar suggestion

An experiment to adapt Sgeureka's example above, to something closer to the current version, taking Wikipedia talk:Colors into account too.

Serious issues, such as {{afd}} and {{prod}} (#b22222)

Content issues, such as {{POV}} and {{globalize}} (#FFCC66)

Style issues, such as {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} (#FFFF66)

Contribution requests and notices, such as {{expand}} and {{inuse}} (#BBFF99)

Merger, split and transwiki proposals, such as {{split}} and {{copy to wiktionary}} (#BB99FF)

All other article notices, such as {{current}} (#99DDFF)

Just a draft, for the sake of discussion. --Quiddity 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll support it, to quell the complaints about bright colors. I muted your colors a little further. ←Ben^B4 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find those all that muted. They actually hurt my eyes. Look at your yellow and your cyan -- light doesn't mean muted. I might support muted colors, if I saw samples of some genuinely muted ones.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:55, 09/17/2007

I'd suggest mixing your own example, if the set above, and the set above that, can be improved upon (which I'm sure they can. It was just another draft :) --Quiddity 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They're a lot better now. Looks like BenB4 had just messed them up.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 06:18, 09/17/2007

BenB4: Never change another user's talkpage comments (unless they specifically announce that anyone may change certain aspects). See WP:TALK#Editing comments. It makes it very confusing for everyone else as to what the original writer was actually supporting/saying. I have now changed the colours back to those I had originally used. --Quiddity 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I kind of like those, although I think the green and possibly the purple are a little too faint.--Father Goose 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The green looks faint because it's very similar to the box's background color. It should be darkened for some contrast.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:23, 09/17/2007

To something like these? That's 50% saturation instead of 40%. (In the examples above, the yellow/orange are at 60%, the blue/green/purple at 40%.) --Quiddity 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Contribution requests and notices, such as {{expand}} and {{inuse}} (#80FF80)

Merger, split and transwiki proposals, such as {{split}} and {{copy to wiktionary}} (#AA80FF)

Higher saturation takes away from the mutedness. Better to play with the brightness, to darken them. Here's my green (and yours for comparison):

My green (#9EE27C)

Your old green (#BBFF99)

Your new green (#80FF80)

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:29, 09/17/2007

For those of you who desperately hate the color bars

Add something like this to your monobook.css:

/* Remove the color bars from the article message box template styles */
table.ambox {
  background: #f8fcff; 
}
table.ambox-notice {
  background: #d2e8ff;
}
table.ambox-serious {
  background: #efd2d2;
}
table.ambox-content {
  background: #fce6cc;
}
table.ambox-style {
  background: #fcf3d5;
}
table.ambox-merge {
  background: #ead6f4;
}
table.ambox-growth {
  background: #d2e7d2;
}
table.ambox {
  border: 1px solid #aaa; 
}

Now can we get to some constructive discussion instead of continual whining by approximately three people about how much they hate the color bars? Anomie 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you kindly not use ad hominem language, because people don't agree with you. Add User:Y as well.[2] How many people exactly do you need to disagree, before you accept there is a legitimate disagreement? Tyrenius 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be mischaracterizing Y's statement; was the complaint about the whole thing, or just the lack of a pink background on the speedy template? I suspect the latter, personally. Anyway, Y and others who disagree aren't continually whining. There still seems to be only three who are doing that. Anomie 19:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because they hate the new design (which has a demonstrated wide support) doesn't mean they have to forget they an use their css to change whatever they don't like. I started contributing to wiktionary recently and they take great pain to make template that provide a large number of CSS hooks just for that purpose. A big argument like that would be unthinkable there. Circeus 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag

From watching this entire process evolve over the past several weeks, there has been broad support for it. There are a couple of vocal critics, but no page is truly disputed if some people don't agree with it. There are undoubtedly policies and guidelines that some people do not personally agree with or like, however, I've seen no evidence of a broad dispute on this page. --MZMcBride 17:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. The editing public at large did not know about this until it started showing up on templates. The bright color bars should be abandoned in favor of different pastel background shades for the templates, as recommended above. The recommendation is a good one, because it harmonizes with our design. The new designs' bright color bars dominate an article and appear like the crayons we used in kindergarten. Badagnani 17:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus and the editing public at large was informed in the most reasonable way possible. There wasn't really a need to insert a 200% bold font message into the MediaWiki:Sitenotice, especially because this proposal received such a wide swath of approval on this page and on the Village Pump. If you want to discuss using different colors, that's what this talk page is for. But that discussion isn't a true dispute, it's a suggestion that would need consensus. It's aesthetic, it's not "political" (i.e., relating to the actual "policy"). --MZMcBride 17:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw no such message on my watchlist. Further, any editor expressing concerns about the use of these bright colors has been ignored or summarily dismissed at this talk page; you've seen this as clearly as I have. Badagnani 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the measures taken to notify people were quite modest, and it's being flaunted on this same talk page what a huge change this was. The actual policy also deals with aesthetics, namely, the design, so people criticizing the design and people suggesting new versions confirm that there's a basis for dispute. Drawing arbitrary lines that, say, only 4 people disagreeing against 20 is still a consensus, and that there's no need to look at the substance of the disagreement, makes this a vote, and is against the principle of consensus as defined by WP:CON. Reinis^talk 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's more like 5 vs. 40. But why do think "good design" (for which you have cited no sources agreeing with you) is more important than people who have a hard time with low contrast? ←Ben^B4 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, if Wikipedia was a democracy, you would win the wote. Reinis^talk 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia puzzle logo should be replaced with a picture of a kitten. If I get a couple of other people should we seriously consider it? This whole "not a democracy" thing is taken out of context by vocal minorities that will never agree with the rest - there is no consensus that could ever be attained here, so we simply have to have majority rule. violet/riga (t) 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You want to get it your way, I want to get it my way, the difference is that I'm making rational arguments about it, but you're trying to make this into a majority vote and dismissing the opposition with one liners like "you can't please everyone". Reinis^talk 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the current scheme has been fully justified and I don't need to continue talking about any of it. You have your own opinion which many people disagree with, and I see no need to keep discussing it when we will never agree or be able to compromise. violet/riga (t) 20:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While you're right that I'm probably not going to suddenly start liking the color bars, I will do what it takes to fix the current design, including proposing my own. If you want to cling to the majority or a past consensus, you can do that. The current design is not becoming justified because of your say-sos, however. Reinis^talk 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And of course you know better than everyone that likes this design. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems so, yes. Reinis^talk 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - With all due respect, that is a silly argument. It's clear that the community at large did not know about this before the template was actually implemented (I never saw anything about this huge change on my watchlist), and thus consensus did not even *begin* to be built, except among the enthusiasts of the bright-color scheme--which goes against our long-standing design aesthetic. If you want to begin to build consensus, please do it in the proper way. Badagnani 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust you've checked the archives and seen the amount of support this generated? You know, those people that heard about this through the normal communication channels and backed it without being otherwise involved? violet/riga (t) 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a past consensus, and you're overstating it. Compared to the global scale of it all, the people who agreed to this were relatively few and self selecting, and the changes were rushed through in a few weeks. The most vocal supporters are also those who were involved in it. Reinis^talk 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is the agreed-upon place for proposals of this sort. Is it on your watchlist? ←Ben^B4 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it needed to be on everyone's watchlists, but a story (not just a one-line mention here) in the Wikipedia Signpost would have attracted some attention to the conversion before it happened. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, it might have been best to add a watchlist message to limit the number of people who felt "blindsided" by the change. However, the near-unanimity of support following its prior rounds of publicity made it seem unlikely that the change would be controversial.--Father Goose 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there are always people that will disagree with every change, especially one about style and visual design. The hassles of the talk page standardisation were much worse than this. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change, can't it. Reinis^talk 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can, sure, but I haven't seen any evidence that it has. I don't say that as an advocate of the project; in its early days, I was one of the few people voicing any kind of criticism.

You have a very large number of people you need to convince of your views, and the way you've been conducting yourself here has, I believe, just been alienating people.--Father Goose 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is one of the most presumptuous statements so far. I think you are the one that needs to convince the WP community that jarring, bright colors that conflict with our design are a good thing to rush through without wide consensus, and I believe your own statement is alienating people. You are laying out a statement that any comments that criticize the imposition of these crayon-like colors will not be tolerated. That is wrong. Badagnani 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You ought to make it clearer who it is you're responding to with these comments, either by indenting in the usual fashion, or including users' names in your replies. I presume the above comment was directed at me, but I can't be sure.--Father Goose 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

'Alienate'... oh right, then it is me. I'm not sure whose 'silly statement' you are referring to in your earlier comment, however.

You've jumped to quite an extreme position. I'm fine with criticism; as I said above, I was one of the project's earliest critics, at least regarding selected points. I'd say that the standardization project was neither rushed nor delayed, although, again, in retrospect, a watchlist message would probably have been a good idea.

I don't need to convince the community that this project is a good idea. Their responses have consistently suggested that they think this is a good idea -- though there are a couple of highly vocal dissenters. You've repeatedly explained to us that you think it's a bad idea. If your goal is to convince us of this view, you should focus on being persuasive instead of combative. The only way to truly win an argument is to get people to change their minds. Are you accomplishing that?--Father Goose 05:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag (section break)

Right now it seems like this tag is a little silly. I mean, looking at this talk page, I'd say that there's roughly 85-90% support. A few vocal critics don't really merit the disputed tag. -Chunky Rice 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The supporters of this change want to brush any dissent under the carpet with belittling comments like "a couple of highly vocal dissenters". Dissent has been expressed by Reinis, Tyrenius, Badagni ("the brightly colored bars ... conflict with our traditional design and use of color"), Resolute ("hates the left colour bar, and prefers a solid background coulour in its place"), Y ("can't deal with indistinguishable template, this helps nobody")[3] Splash ("The top of articles is not a kindergarten for would-be web designers"), and Ian Manka ("I don't agree with the (lack of) tinting"). Clearly this change is disputed. Tyrenius 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not - we're merely stating that there are many more supporters than those objecting. Y has not commented here and his concern has been dealt with (what?! we actually listen and work to resolve things?!) and Ian Manka's comment there is hardly a massive rejection of this whole scheme. I agree that it is disputed but don't really see how any compromise can be reached, so I think that you might have to focus on your own Monobook CSS. violet/riga (t) 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

His concern seems to have been adressed by reinstating the pink tinted background, which is one of the main points of contention, so the template is now the old one with a bar added down the side. Are tints going to be restored to other templates also then? Tyrenius 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you're merely harping on the majority. Reinis^talk 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Three major issues are in dispute:

• Use of sidebars
• Absence of tinting
• Use of icons

There is agreement that rationalisation (e.g. width of templates) is desirable. Tyrenius 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite that I like the new look on the whole, Tyrenius et al., do have points. This project has made a lot of changes. Some will not be liked because they're new, others for aesthetic/design reasons. Other problems will come up as the templates are tested. This is the time to get it right. If ultimately a significant proportion of users (e.g. 75%) like the new templates, then that should be the default version. It may be worth having alternate skins easily available (i.e. linked from the project page) for those who prefer something different.-- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody objects to discussion and changes. However, I'd say that we're well over 75% support right now. Which is why the tag is a little misleading. -Chunky Rice 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Great for you. If this was a vote, you'd win. Reinis^talk 19:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You act like the number of editors who support something is irrelevant in determining consensus. I assure, that is not the case. Wihtout any real policy issues, this is, essentially a vote as to personal preference. -Chunky Rice 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the numbers? There are thousands of editors and millions of readers that are impacted by this change, and the way the consensus was sought was inadequate. The project was basically rushed through. The "unanimity" was flaunted even when there was just a handful of people commenting in the very first days. The whole project was started to implement Flamurai's design that's remained completely unchanged since then.[4] On 22 August, a post was made on the Village pump about his design by violet/riga.[5] On 23 August, this project was started with the support of about 12 people.[6] After that, no notifications to the wider public were given just until before implementing it, and even then it looked almost like going through a formality, not seriously seeking input. Until deployment on 14 September, only 92 people had commented on something that affected the entire Wikipedia, a number that is often surpassed in mere XfDs. On 27 August, a small message was posted to WikiEN-l that garnered no responses on-list or on-wiki.[7] A small notice appeared in a subpage of the Signpost in 10 September,[8] saying nothing about the scale and drastic nature of the changes. In the following 3 days after the notice, only 8 people commented that hadn't commented before. On 14 September, just before deployment, a (rather pointless in retrospect) posting was made to Village pump,[9] saying nothing about the scale of the project again, and receiving no responses there. Then, after the project was deployed, vehement criticisms came almost immediately. The most vocal defenders of Flamurai's design were incidentally mostly the same people who had been involved in pushing this through since the beginning.

To summarize, there was never a point in time in this project when something else than Flamurai's design had been considered, different proposals for the design were never sought, and wider consensus was sought only right before deployment, attracting the attention of only a few new editors, and in this the issues of a redesign and standardization were conflated. Therefore, what enjoys consensus is standardization as such, not this design. Reinis^talk 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the effort was a little bolder than was necessary. However, all of those people who edit Wikipedia will surely notice the change, as you did. If they come here and voice their dissent, perhaps consensus will change. For now, however, the best way to gauge it is with the people who have already voiced their opinions. And they are overwhelmingly in favor of the change. -Chunky Rice 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, anything would have gained support that standardized the sizes of the boxes. It's a different issue whether the people would have preferred Flamurai's design over others, if any alternatives would have been provided before implementing. Most of the supporters also seem to be under the impression that it's either Flamurai's design or back to how it was, including the nonstandard sizes. In the end, there's no evidence that there's a consensus against using the standard pastel colors from almost all Wikimedia projects. People like violet/riga have also been very dismissive of the possibility of change. What will hopefully happen now is that alternatives will be proposed and proper consensus sought, and if it goes well we won't get to RfC or similar places. The point is that this should have been done before implementation and any designs proposed now will be in a bad disadvantage. Reinis^talk 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been dismissive of people being rude to those that have spent a lot of time working on this. You also might want to look at the history of WP:TS - the competition that was held for talk page templates was a long and arduous process that should not have been repeated, and Flamurai's design was the best of those that had been submitted in the short time that I pursued article standardisation two years ago. What we have now is better than what we had. violet/riga (t) 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That Flamurai's design was the least bad does not mean that you could not have standardized the templates without changing their visual style. The issues of redesign and standardization should not have been conflated so. I do not think that Flamurai's design would have gained consensus if it was proposed after the template sizes would have been standardized. Unless it's conflated with standardization, it's clear that Flamurai's design is not harmonized with not just Wikipedia, but all of the Wikimedia projects. Reinis^talk 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We know you hold that opinion. You know that far more people disagree. Now are you going to go and create your own proposal? You said you were and it would be so much more productive than these lengthy chats we're having. violet/riga (t) 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we do not know that, and please see my response to Chunky Rice below. Reinis^talk 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if you agree that there is and was broad consensus for the change, then why do we need the disputed tag? -Chunky Rice 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, only a part of the project has a consensus, because the design is disputed and will hopefully change. Reinis^talk 21:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was to change to the current design. You acknowledge that there was consensus to change to this design and then say that the design doesn't have consensus. Regardless, you're welcome to propose an alternate design and gather significant support for that. Until that happens, however, the tag is inappropriately placed. -Chunky Rice 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a guideline, and guidelines are supposed to reflect the current communal consensus, not a past one, and I've pointed out the problems with the past consensus anyway. I need time to propose something, and this whole lengthy discussion has been taxing on my nerves. I've also got real life matters to attend to, and I'd actually prefer that someone seen as more neutral by the community would propose the changes, since I feel I've somewhat antagonized myself by opposing the current design. Reinis^talk 22:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You forgot WP:CENT. Communication on Wikipedia is always a problem and BOLD is often best. I notice that you're still going on about things that are irrelevant - how is this going to change what's happened? Come on, you'll have to take a different approach if you want to try and get your way. Oh, and wouldn't it be good if you also thanked people for working towards standardisation which you yourself agree with? Look for positives even in "trainwrecks". violet/riga (t) 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The two unfortunate epithets I used might have justified you not being keen to listen to my objection initially, but it's getting ridiculous if you're still going on about my "rudeness" days after. The positive in the changes that were implemented is only in having a standardized template, but what we have now is worse than what we had before in non-technical aspects, namely, design. I thank you for the template, but I won't thank you for making it very hard to implement a design that would actually fit Wikipedia. Reinis^talk 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. violet/riga (t) 21:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My concern is with the impression created for the general user. There is not a proper franchise for evaluating a response, and a much wider consensus needs to be achieved, as dissent has occurred with some users, such as myself, who have only just seen these changes. I have Village Pump watchlisted, but nothing came up which alerted me to the extent of the changes: "Template standardisation" as a heading somewhat understates matters.[10] Even so, the request to "have your say before it is too late" was posted on 14 September, allowing a very small window before mass changes were enacted. Tyrenius 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what: you guys make suggestions we can actually act upon, instead of grousing about how we're ignoring you, and we'll actually stop ignoring you. We may continue to disagree with you, however, but assume good faith that we're willing to listen to your suggestions. Don't turn this into a self-fulfilling conspiracy against you. Try to get some actual work done here, not just characterize yourselves as martyrs.--Father Goose 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a less than courteous comment to have been made. That the situation is being discussed, including the difficulties of proposing the old visual style again, does not mean that anyone is characterizing themselves as a "martyr" or turning this into "a self-fulfilling conspiracy" against themselves. You should perhaps try some of your own medicine and assume good faith. Reinis^talk 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume good faith habitually; it is among the most virtuous of behaviors. However, there is a point at which you have to confront people who are acting in a manner that serves neither their cause nor others'. I'd really like to suggest that you switch to making patient and compelling suggestions on how to change the templates instead of spending all your time complaining and fighting.--Father Goose 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then confront me without making unfounded speculations about my motives and in a less condescending tone. Reinis^talk 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think you would be well served by taking your own advice. Second, this still isn't advancing the discussion at all. We all know that you hate the design. But until you propose an alternative design, there's really nowhere to go. -Chunky Rice 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't pile on me. I have not touched anyone's motives, and I have been very patient in discussing this. I already explained why I haven't proposed a concrete design yet above. Reinis^talk 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I've found many of your remarks in this discussion to be extremely condescending. -Chunky Rice 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't pile on me. Reinis^talk 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have a better idea, don't disparage the existing idea. Suggest specific changes if they occur to you. I'm not sure I drifted into ascribing motives to you, but if I did, I apologize. I did make some sharp comments on your behavior, and how it has not been constructive; these, I stand by.--Father Goose 23:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, we're not here to "pile on you"; if a large number of people disagree with your statements or actions, all it means is that they disagree with your statements or actions.--Father Goose 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am putting forward a proposal at the bottom of this page under the heading "A way forward". Tyrenius 04:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What the pastel background looks like with low vision

It's not this bad for me, but when I make it like this, I have to get close up to the screen or I can't read it all. ←Ben^B4 18:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people with severely low vision will have difficulty reading any part of Wikipedia. Badagnani 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

:( Those of us with moderately low vision have difficulty with the shaded backgrounds and no problem with white backgrounds. ←Ben^B4 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This argument would make sense if the templates would include more text, but it's mostly short and static. If you had such bad vision that you couldn't read it, you'd have to use some sort of other accessibility aids anyway. Also, not all templates use this particular blue shade, the others are lighter. Reinis^talk 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What does the amount of text have to so with it? Hard to read is hard to read. Are you saying that I should just grin and bear it to satisfy your unsourced sense of aesthetics? ←Ben^B4 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My what?… Anyway, it's not that hard to read, there's very little of it, not all templates use that color, and if it's really so bad, it can always be made lighter. Reinis^talk 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Above you say that you are making "rational arguments," but you have raised objections based on your own personal preferences alone, and not on any respected graphic design source (you haven't cited anything but a google search.) I am very much in favor of making the background as light as it is in the {{ambox}} now, and I have an objective reason for it. Do you have any source which agrees with your repeated preferences? ←Ben^B4 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this source as a starting point. Tyrenius 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It says, "Successful design incorporates the use of the principles and elements to serve the designer's purpose and visual goals. There is no hard and fast rule for their use - it is directed by intent. The designer's purpose drives the decisions made to achieve appropriate scale and good proportion, as well as the degree of harmony between all the elements achieved through the sensitive balance of variety and unity."[11] ←Ben^B4 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Location/scope of this

This page is clearly about tags designed to be placed at the top of an article (or section). However, that is a fraction of the templates used in article space; there are all the stub ones for a start. I think that this page should be moved to a more appropriate location, unless a broader discussion of all article templates is to be brought into this page.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - it's too ambiguous as it stands. violet/riga (t) 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We will need an admin to do it since someone went ahead and pressed the full protect button. :| FunPika 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That won't be a problem. We need to come up with a name first though. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article message boxes? ←Ben^B4 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMB That sounds good. FunPika 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. -- Visviva 12:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Article message boxes is a very good name. --David Göthberg 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In the days before standardization

I just found a screenshot of a page that was tagged with multiple dispute/cleanup tags back in March of this year. Whatever one might think of the current design of {{ambox}}, the colors, the background, etc., I think most of us can agree that what we have now is a tremendous improvement over what we had back then.

For reference, here's how the same tags would look now, with the unstandardized semiprotection template placed on top per common practice. I'm substing the templates to remove categories and to account for possible changes after this comment is written. (n.b.: {{noncompliant}} is now deprecated.)

Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Template:Howtoeditsemi

So ... which looks better? (Obviously, neither look "good", for the simple reason that such a large number of tags always looks bad.) szyslak 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The ambox one...but the semi template stands out. FunPika 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The protection templates are out of scope for this project, as it's only for article templates, and protection templates are above that level. _→AzaToth 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

...which might not necessarily be that bad as protection templates are of a different nature — they do not communicate problems with the article itself but rather with some lame or stupid people. :-P And yeah, the screenshot is priceless - but on the other hand, it's the kind of past we would prefer to forget. ;-) —Миша13 22:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If consensus emerges to standardize the protection templates, I wonder which type we should use. "Notice" has been suggested, but I wonder if "serious" should be considered. After all, if one is unable to edit an article, that's a pretty serious restriction. szyslak 22:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, protection templates are not article templates. _→AzaToth 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

*2 edit conflicts*This is a project for article templates, and yet we messed with all of the speedy templates, even the ones specifically meant for non article namespaces such as Template:Db-norat. :P FunPika 22:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a transclusion of {{db-meta}}, so that's the one that was "messed with". It would be good to include protection templates in the standardization, but they should probably have their own style, and have top/bottom margins so they stay a bit separated from the other templates, and stand out more. They're a more important technical issue, not a mere issue of article contents.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 23:04, 09/16/2007

If we really need a whole new style specifically for protection templates, then maybe we should use brown. FunPika 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That or grey, to be metallic and match the padlock graphic.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 23:15, 09/16/2007

I think protection templates should be standardised, either with red or metallic. GDonato (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic: I just came across Wikipedia:Huge message boxes, a humor page created in May 2005. My fellow editors who were around back then, remember New Cleanup? That was an attempt to replace the {{cleanup}} tag and listings with individual tags, leading to a large number of tags still used today. It caused Wikipedia's first outbreak of "tag madness", where troubled articles would be tagged with three or four pastel boxes in an assortment of shades. Coincidentally, the article whose large collection of tags was used for this page, Kryon, is up for deletion again! And it still has a large assortment of tags! Some things never change ... but the tags on the Kryon article look much better now! szyslak 06:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs-refs graphic

Is there no 'needs-refs' graphic? Can one be designed? JoeSmack ^Talk 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a question mark icon, like these? szyslak 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be a bookshelf with a row of books, something like that. I don't know if a pic exists like that.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 23:46, 09/16/2007

I kind of like these three:

Anyone else? I too would prefer something else, but perhaps something like this until it can be made? JoeSmack ^Talk 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Those seem kind of generic. How about these: File:Paperback book black gal .svg

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:00, 09/17/2007

Can we somehow combine a couple of these? I was thinking:

and

making the book color orange to match the color of the tag sidebar color? JoeSmack ^Talk 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How bout this (followed your suggestion):

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:24, 09/17/2007

Here's an example of how it looks within a template:

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 04:12, 09/17/2007

I like it! I used Inkscape to make an SVG out of the image for us to use:

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you make the pages white (instead of transparent)? —David Levy 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I also like it a lot! If you're doing David's suggestion above, I might also suggest making the orange a wee bit darker so the icon stands out a little from the sidebar as well. Other than that this is exactly what I was picturing - good work! JoeSmack ^Talk 10:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:18, 09/17/2007

Oooh, and i just found this icon, i'm about fifty fifty split between this and the above. JoeSmack ^Talk 10:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That image looks much more easier to understand at a glance, over the other one. I think the book looks fairly ambiguous in understanding, in this context. If you want more aesthetics, maybe try combining the two..? Place a pencil and magnifying glass on the book, with a question mark on top/the side. Maybe that would be too wide/complex..? - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, I've made some changes to the colors on the book: _→AzaToth 11:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Beautiful. JoeSmack ^Talk 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. The problem with my version was that the colors matched too completely, when really most of the boxes here have contrasting colors in their images. This looks great, I hope we can go with it.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:15, 09/17/2007

<unindent> Ok, I gave combining it a shot. How do people feel? Can anyone do better (I hope so :/ ). JoeSmack ^Talk 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this version best. However, the previous one is also nice. Good work! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the previous one better. This one seems too busy.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:51, 09/18/2007

How bout this, combining the the magnifying glass and the question mark:

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:20, 09/18/2007

Caution Please!!! there is a long history of rejection of icons on the reference related tags. A conversation has been started at Template talk:Unreferenced#Is it time to add an icon? to consider adding an icon to the {{unreferenced}} family of templates. Icons are an Option not a requirement of this Manual of Style. If you would like discuss adding an icon to the {{unreferenced}} family of templates please do so on the templates talk page. Jeepday (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So... if we think there should be an icon for the unreferenced family, and we think we have some good ideas for one, wouldn't this be the place to discuss that?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:51, 09/18/2007

Would you discuss changing the text of the template here or at the template? Jeepday (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the text of the template, and you're using that to make a point, then I'd say you're probably right, because I thought there was a separate style for unreferenced, but now I see it uses the content style with no image. So we should probably take this discussion over there.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:25, 09/18/2007

I've pasted some of these icons over at Template_talk:Unreferenced#From Ambox talk page, so whoever's been in on this here, feel free to continue the discussion there.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:38, 09/18/2007

Should we use images at all?

Why should we use images at all? I think the boxes look great with just the bars. Icon images evoke the feeling of someone talking to a crowd of idiots, which neither our readers nor our editors are. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so sure :) But images help with the quick recognition of a tag, even for smart people.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:00, 09/17/2007

Bold text does the same, and better. Or should I draw you a picture? :) — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Recognition doesn't just mean noticing that the template is there. Bold text does nothing for aiding in distinguishing one template from another.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:11, 09/17/2007

I agree with Equazcion - ease of recognition and differentiation are two things that come with images. I don't get an evoked image of a crowd of people being lectured like AldeBaer mentioned. JoeSmack ^Talk 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The colors of the bar provide sufficient visual aid, the rest is accomplished by the template text. But I guess it's no use trying to convince a majority of this fact. — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be an opinion.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:29, 09/17/2007

What do you mean, I can't understand what you mean unless you draw me a picture. :) — [ aldebaer⁠] 05:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The icons we've traditionally used have more ease of recognition and do a fine job. The brightly colored bars, on the other hand, less readily impart such information and conflict with our traditional design and use of color. Badagnani 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I can often tell at a glance of the icon what the template says without having to read the text. I'd just as soon keep the images. Resolute 04:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok then, maybe my brain just works differently. I think the color bars are elegant and that images, if not very carefully chosen, can introduce a twist into the template meaning and distract from the text. Just wanted to provide my opinion so that no one can claim unanimousness on the question. But if consensus is to prefer images over text on an encyclopedia project, fine by me. Maybe we should start rewriting articles by using icon images as well. Who wants to read anyway? — [ aldebaer⁠] 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• I would definitely agree that some of the large icons could be reduced in size. Reducing individual instances (e.g. template:update) helps, and reducing the defaults would be a good idea, in my opinion. --Quiddity 06:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Padding

Could we have an option for less (or more) padding in the ambox template? I'm currently using the ambox CSS styles without actually using the ambox template, because I'm trying to keep a one-line template ({{integrate}}) relatively slim, and ambox adds unnecessary top/bottom padding. I was wondering if it would be possible to have an option to keep the box tight around the text. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:39, 09/16/2007

Could you please use a conforming time signature. _→AzaToth 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should use {{ambox}} for conformity; it would also fix the width issue you're currently having. --MZMcBride 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'd like to. My point is to request a padding parameter (perhaps just a "padding=tight" setting?) for {{ambox}}, so that I can use it without having to add all the extra padding. The width issue is the same for the trivia template, which the integrate template is supposed to be an alternative to. So if the result of the discussion at {{trivia}} it to change the width, I'll do the same for {{integrate}}.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:58, 09/17/2007

You know, for those of us that use 800x600 as screen resolution the {{integrate}} anyway is two lines. And you should definitely have the width 80% so it stacks well with the other message boxes. But yes, if you need extra functionality you should use the .ambox CSS classes directly in a wikitable. We just created the {{ambox}} meta template to make deployment easy for the majority of (simple) cases. So far we have received requests for 15 different new parameters for {{ambox}}. It is actually easier to use a wikitable when you need extra functionality. The code almost looks the same and you get full freedom and control.

--David Göthberg 09:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image for "growth" type

First of, good job. I am all for this new change. But I have a small concern:

This image is used for "growth" category (stuff like {{expand}}).

This image is used by good articles and indicates their quality.

Aren't these two too similar? I believe that a new image should be found for "growth"... Renata 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I flagged this issue up further up this page but got a firm reply telling me they weren't the same shade. There's a handful of users who are scrutinising every little suggestion people make here and rubbishing it whilst tarring everyone with the same brush. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Here are some ideas: ←Ben^B4 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I don't know which image to replace it with, but it should be replaced with something.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:39, 09/17/2007

Not to change the topic but it would be nice if we could agree on a unified icon set for all of the icons. However, I also agree that {{expand}}, etc. should be changed. --MZMcBride 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, let's wait a little to change any high-use templates; the job queue is ridiculously high right now. --MZMcBride 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I added the current icon as an interim measure (pending the availability of something better). —David Levy 00:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if we simply changed the color of the current icon to something other than green; like orange, maybe? I think that would adequately distinguish it from the "good article" icon, and also not be so "disruptive".

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:50, 09/17/2007

How about one of these (I just changed the color of the current icon):

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:07, 09/17/2007

Well, the whole point of a green plus sign was to match the green bar on the left. Some green images that were used/suggested:

How about something like or (with less serious background) (with green pin and text "Expand") (add a pencil?) (in green cover) Renata 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I sorta like the plus sign with the flat sheet of paper (third from right).

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:47, 09/17/2007

How about —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. Rather artsy as opposed to the other more cartoony icons in use, but who says thats a bad thing.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:34, 09/17/2007

I think the cartoonish style is more "modern", than the artistic. I am. 09:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Remember the dot's image. Looks good. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. ←Ben^B4 08:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So. Lets compare how it looks in a box:

Yeah, the goose pen is nice. But perhaps needs a bit stronger colours since it looks a bit bleak next to the green bar. --David Göthberg 09:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Could the pen be black? Dunno, I don't really like green + blue combination. Renata 13:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this. Plus, here's a version with a black quill. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice, black quill goes a little better. The outline of the quill is a bit thin though, could it be thickened somehow to make it easier to see?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:26, 09/17/2007

Here, this is with a bolder quill:

I think it's a bit easier on the eyes, a bit more "Web 2.0".

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:33, 09/17/2007

Looks great. ←Ben^B4 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the lighter lines on the quill, but they both look quite nice. And I prefer them both to the + symbol that I keep thinking is a four-leaf clover. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad you like it and surprised that the image I proposed has been so popular. I've put in a request to change Template:Ambox at Template talk:Ambox#Image for "growth" type. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Icon images are idiotic

That's my basic contention. I really like the standardised layout with just the bars. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can disable the image from showing up using "|image=none".

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:01, 09/17/2007

?? I'm arguing not using images in the article templates at all. — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that. But until you succeed in getting the images removed from all article templates, which there's a chance might not happen, I'm offering you this method of leaving out the images when you post a tag.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:09, 09/17/2007

I take it you are opposed to removing the images, to keep this on-topic? — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See above, where I believe we're already having this same discussion.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:30, 09/17/2007

One of the good things about these is they are skinnable. Add the following to your user.css:

.ambox-image {display: none;}

See Help:User style. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Small variant?

There seems to be some demand for small floating notice boxes: see for example Template:Trivia small (still using the old style) and the "mini" version of Template:Current sport-related (converted using a local hack). I think it might be a good idea to come up with a standard layout for such boxes before everyone goes and rolls their own. Perhaps we could add something like the following to MediaWiki:Common.css (based on the aforementioned templates, but modified so that it will stack), with appropriate changes to {{ambox}} to enable it as needed:

table.ambox.ambox-mini {
    float: right;
    clear: right;
    margin: 0 0 0 1em;
    width: 25%;
}

What do you think? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that a lot.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:55, 09/17/2007

Me like. And inheritance pretty much ensures we won't have clashes. — Coren ^(talk) 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, though I don't know enough to judge the specific code. It was in the original proposal draft too (User:Flamurai/TS/blanca#Catchall right-side maintenance template), and I'd meant to reraise it earlier! Good job. :) --Quiddity 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the initial reception has been positive, I've gone ahead and added the CSS code above to MediaWiki:Common.css. It won't have any effect there until we actually change {{ambox}} to enable it, but having it there already gives it time to propagate into people's browser caches while we discuss the matter further. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One issue to discuss might be whether it's better to define the box width as a percentage of the page width, as I've done above, or as some constant number of ems. I could see arguments for either. I've added a 20em example box here for comparison: change your window size and/or your font size to see the difference in behavior. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no opposition to a smaller variant. However, I wanted to mention that a couple of years ago, there was a rash of "miniature" versions of message boxes, with the letter "s" at the end for "small". Examples included "cleanups" and "npovs". The deletion discussions for many of the templates can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/May 2005. The general consensus was that (a) one template per function is enough and (b) they were created as a WP:POINT exercise. (I don't want to imply that anyone involved in the small trivia box is engaging in POINT.) szyslak 06:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See also this semi-related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Talk page templates#Small option as default?. Thanks. --Quiddity 07:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(this is Lar, blame IE for why I'm not logged in as me) I don't think having separate templates with "s" on the end is a good approach, but I do think setting things up so that small=yes works for these templates seems a good idea. Although nobody asked my opinion, for the record, these look very nice, but I think maybe a quick check with the devs about how not to hit the job queues might have been a good idea? Too late now :) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Aww, come on. A job queue length of 2×10⁶ is perfectly harmless, and I'm almost certain that this project had absolutely nothing to do with the master database server corrupting its filesystem today... ;-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

2.3×10⁶ per Special:statistics, but who's counting? I'm almost certain you're almost right about the corrupting impact of Wikipedia on various things. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 21:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some brief thoughts

I've read through some of the above, and my two main thoughts are:

• Icons are really not needed. Use words to communicate what you want to say, and don't get all hung up on being "design gurus" searching for "just the right icon" that's needed. If you must have icons, use the old ones and change them slowly. The point about icons is that people get used to them, and changing them disrupts people's mental lists of what the icons mean.
• The current version of the templates that I am reading has only a very low grade colour background. I have to peer very closely to see this background and withouth looking closely it looks like the warning templates are part of the articles! This is very very bad. I am having real problems finding the start of the article. This is directly disrupting the readers of the encyclopedia. If we lose readers, then we are finished. Please consider that before making changes like this.

I absolutely agree standardisation is good, but please go slowly. Do the size standardisation first, and then the colour designs, and then the icon designs. Bundling the changes together makes it a much bigger change and will generate more complaints. Carcharoth 10:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. I refreshed my cache... and things look a lot better now. The coloured side-bar is good. The "take things slowly" bit still applies though. Carcharoth 10:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Article issues colour challenge

{{Article issues}} combines several issues into one box (example usage Music of Alabama), much like a template stack. Problem is it is always orange... Should it take the "most serious" colour? Or a weighted average? Or stripes like a medal ribbon? Rich Farmbrough, 11:34 17 September 2007 (GMT).

That is the most absurd template I have ever seen, and encourages a total lack of judgement on the part of the user. Please don't suggest any more colour/icon/stripe/moonphase combinations or I shall start laughing at the lack of standardisation this project is producing. The top of articles is not a kindergarten for would-be web designers. Splash - tk 13:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't absurd in the era of the old templates, as it was more compact than simply stacking a bunch of those on top of each other. --Agamemnon2 14:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Splash, I usually agree with you, but you are way off base here. That template was created in April, much before the standardization project was an idea in anyone's mind. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 15:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was originally going to happen over two years ago but I ran out of steam after the talkpage template standardisation. You are right that the articleissues template served a useful purpose before this process, and we now need to consider if it is still useful. violet/riga (t) 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but this is a pretty clear failure to use judgement in favour of using the first template that comes to hand. There is no way that can be tolerated at the top of an article. I don't see that the removal of the coloured side bar and the image would be an improvement. Perhaps I wasn't clear: I was complaining about the template itself, not the effect of 'standardisation' thus far upon its appearance. However, the suggestion that it should have computational colours, its own colour or stripes would most certainly be a plunge off the edge. Splash - tk 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely it would look even worse if it was split up into 8 different boxes? I personally think that a modified version of this template could replace all of the seperate templates - transcluding all templates into one which would allow sorting for issues by "severity" and allow better stacking. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You should never put 8 messages atop an article. Period. Chances are, if you need more than 2 tags, the article should be edited rather than tagged or in serious cases, deleted. Splash - tk 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, that was a tongue firmly in cheek comment. Rich Farmbrough, 09:53 18 September 2007 (GMT).

Fixed width of all cleanup templates is a problem

Cleanup templates used to be a lot narrower. Now they all have the same, fixed width, which is very very wide for some reason, almost as wide as the whole page.

This causes problems. Take for example Water cooler. {{unreferenced}} used to fit perfectly well in there, now it's all out of alignment because there's a box in the right margin. The box in the right margin shouldn't be a problem in the first place, because the templates should be nowhere near as wide as they are – 81.153.158.137 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it by moving the {{unreferenced}} to the top. It is clear that these new versions of the templates must be at the top of the article. As well, when used in sections early in articles with infoboxes, the new templates overrun the infoboxes. A temporary fix is to use {{clear}} before the article message box template. But someone who codes should probably look at this. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if you get them the right way round, they look ugly when used on pages with infoboxes, too (the bottom of the template interferes with the top of the infobox). And don't even get me started on what they do to pages with coordinates in the top-right corner... – 81.153.158.137 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please get started - we'd like to look at such pages and see how a fix can be developed should one be needed. violet/riga (t) 15:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the old templates interacted poorly with infoboxes as well. It's a CSS issue, and one that won't be taken care of any time soon, as it would require rewriting every browser's execution of CSS. But for making sure a box doesn't interfere with one at the top, yeah, all you need to do is toss {{-}} at the end of the template and voila, it clears the float. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested a separate width standard for templates that are meant to live inside sections? I think the 80% width is fine for the tops of a pages, but it's too much for inside a section. Sections tags especially carry the interaction problem, due to article templates running down the side of an article or whatnot, that would interfere with a wide section tag.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 18:01, 09/17/2007

example of overlap, and example after fix

We really need to make the ambox clear to the right. Here's a screenshot [12] (scaled 50%) of the problem on Mass_Effect:_Revelation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the fixed result [13] of the CSS table.ambox { clear: both; } — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily fixed it by adding {{clear}} after the first section. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

During the testing period we tried with and without clear, and both alternatives are bad. So hard to say which should be used. Note that this is a bug specific to Firefox and Safari. Right now those pages look good in Explorer and Opera. Explorer and Opera moves the message box to the left if there is room enough and moves it below like a clear if there is not room enough. If/when clear is added to the code those pages will instead look worse in Explorer and Opera. So the question is which to use and which browsers to throw into the tar pit? The ones with the bug (Firefox and Safari) or the ones who actually in this case work correctly (Explorer and Opera)?

Oh, and note that the same phenomenon occurs in the buggy browsers when using PRE-tags below an infobox or image. And so far it has not been decided that PRE-tags should clear.

--David Göthberg 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Background color, NOT color bar discussion

Since I didn't even get a chance to respond before my previous thread careened into discussion on the color bars, I'm restarting it here. I don't think anyone is seriously interested in the pastel backgrounds, so let's limit discussion to either grey or blue. The only response I saw to the grey suggestion was from violet/riga, who said that "The grey background makes it more difficult to read and doesn't look as good." I would like to respond to both of those statements. The grey color used in the example is only three-tenth of one percent less bright than the blue color. That should have absolutely no effect on readability. Secondly, the blue color may look better when paired with some of the colors, but it looks discordant with others. The difference is fairly negligible on most monitors, but if you look at it on a laptop, the difference is striking. The grey color, however, looks fine when paired with any color, since it is completely neutral. Kaldari 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The shade of grey used in the example changed after I posted my comment, so please disregard it until I can comment on the lighter shade. violet/riga (t) 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two options... The currently used light blue (#f8fcff):

A neutral grey background (#fbfbfb):

The difference is barely noticable on most monitors, but on some laptops the blue looks garish. Kaldari 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the gray version, if only because it's not the same color as the background on non-article pages (since some of these templates will inevitably get used outside mainspace). Besides, it just looks nicer to me... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a darn difference... And I am on a laptop. Renata 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Using CRT, grey looks better. Santtus 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also on a laptop; can't see a difference. Even with different brightness levels and screen angles. Still, if an actual noticable shade was proposed, I'd lean towards grey than blue shading, in keeping with the WP monobook style. --Breno ^talk 12:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oddball opposition and refusal to use the template, but not the style

Can somebody get over at template:Integrate and make it clear that insisting on using all of the ambox style but not the width or {{ambox}} itself defeats the point of having a standardized format to begin with? Circeus 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And whoever does that, please do the same for {{trivia}} too. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:45, 09/17/2007

See above by the way. Using the styles without the template isn't a bad thing. The ambox documentation even includes instructions for doing it. The width, different story.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:53, 09/17/2007

 Done ←Ben^B4 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you'd consulted Template talk:Trivia instead of blindly reverting a change that you didn't understand (thereby triggering an edit war). I even referenced the talk page in my edit summary when implementing it.

The automatic width addresses the tag's large size (which has proven unpopular) and discourages its non-consensus placement at the tops of article (because it won't stack well with other templates). In a relatively rare case in which it's to be stacked with another tag within the relevant section, adding the parameter "width=full" switches to the standard width. —David Levy 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unconverted template not listed in Wikipedia:Template messages/...

Template:Uncategorizedstub possibly among others are not listed in the usual place and so is not yet converted. An admin want to do it? KTC 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The big thumbs-up subject

I know things like this always attract the big nay-sayers after implementation, I just wanna chime in that I fully support the current versions of the messageboxes. I followed what you guys did from the start, even though I didn't really contribute. I was doubting it would ever come to fruition, since it had been tried so many times before and failed. However, success at last. A definite improvement over a couple of days ago. Yes there are probably some issues. And the colors, the icons, will likely be discussed for days and days. But never forget that it is a REAL improvement, because the older stuff was much worse then this can ever become. Also I ask everyone who is clammering to undo what you guys did, to hold on for a while. Let's just take the time, think about what the real issues are etc, before we start making changes.

Anyone else who wants to congratulate this wonderful team of BOLD people are welcome to join in this subject to give a thumbs up. People with other comments, I'm not interested ;), leave them in the other sections, I will read them there (yes i will). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that what's being disputed is the design, not the standardization as such. Almost anything would have been an improvement in terms of standardization over what we had before. Reinis^talk 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, I think that this was a great way to standardise the "cleanup" templates. Especially a standard in coding and size (width). I just think that the "notice"-type templates should look different, else it begins to look like wallpaper. - jc37 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very proud of the users who have worked hard to implement a much cleaner and better-looking design. --MZMcBride 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I also like the new design. — [ aldebaer⁠] 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. The first time I saw the new template in place, I really did go "oh cool!". Well done all around; I'm probably going to steal the style for one of my own wikis I'm working on. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Like many, I didn't hear of the project untill I came across a tag in an article. First impressions were I really liked the cleaner, uncluttered look. I'm sure that just like any template change, there are a few css and icon etc issues to iron out over the coming days and weeks, and I'm sure caching issues didn't help with the initial rollout. Still, I never want to go back to the "old days" of templates again. Well done. --Breno ^talk 12:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Is the protection of the project page warranted?--Father Goose 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It was done because of the dispute template edit war. Since the people disputing the guideline are in active discussions I think it is acceptable for it to remain and for the protection to be lifted if we agree to leave it there. violet/riga (t) 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree to leave it there. The protection is far more disruptive than the dispute.--Father Goose 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it on the understanding that, for the moment, the disputed notice remains. There will come a time to remove it but let us not rush. violet/riga (t) 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -Chunky Rice 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please revert yourself. You are an involved party in the dispute and it is not appropriate for you to use admin tools in this way. It is just as well to have a pause while discussion is ongoing. Tyrenius 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is edit-warring over the dispute tag (the reason for the protection), so what's the problem? Complaints like the above make it appear as though you're just trying to be difficult. —David Levy 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the page was protected because of edit warring over a dispute template, and the last time she edited the page before that was Aug. 23rd, is she really an "involved party"? ←Ben^B4 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is a separate "Growth" color necessary?

Hey, I chimed in in support of this project way back at the beginning, and I still think it's great. However, exactly why is "growth" coded with a slightly different shade different shade of blue (#3399FF) than the standard "notice" color (#1E90FF)? unless you're looking very closely, you're not going to see a difference. Going to five colors seemed unlikely at several points in this plan's adoption, but what's the point of sacrificing standardization for this minuscule difference in shade? --Ybbor^Talk 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Growth should be green (#228b22). You may need to WP:BYPASS. --MZMcBride 23:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that works.

Green? Why? Is it that unique that it can't be blue? We were so close to using only four colors. The discussion for adding a green growth was so short that I'd like to recheck consensus. Especially because a lot of stuff have little to do with growth, like {{inuse}} which signals volatility more than growth. Can anyone point me to a specific instance where blue wouldn't be appropriate? Even things like {{expand}} seem perfectly fine in a blue notice color, signalling a non-serious problem with the article that needs to be corrected, but is not necessarily urgent. --Ybbor^Talk 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that adding green "just to add green" was a very bad idea and should have taken a longer time to discuss and analyze. The whole change was big enough already, before people start adding colors and stuff they would be wise to take a few days before they start adding stuff to the CSS. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My one problem with the green colour is that green is usually used to indicate that something is fine, whereas {{expand}} is put onto articles because there is a problem: the article is too short. I'm not saying that we should axe the colour, but let's just discuss a bit. Obviously many people like it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the green parameter is genuinely useful because (a) contribution requests are a useful grouping and (b) many of the templates, such as {{inuse}}, don't clearly fit into the existing parameters. It's not like I like them just because I like green. szyslak 01:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Useful grouping? That's what categories are for, we don't need a separate color. And {{inuse}} is pretty easily inside the scope of a blue border: an issue related to the article which doesn't necessarily bespeak an urgent problem. --Ybbor^Talk 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

They're a useful grouping in the sense that article content messages and style messages are. szyslak 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But what makes them so different from article notice templates that they need their own separate group? They would be perfectly fine in the blue group. --Ybbor^Talk 02:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the green addition myself, seeing it as overcomplicating the scheme (they should just be orange because they are content issues) and I agree that green generally means "good". violet/riga (t) 08:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the green is unnecessary. And as Flyguy649 said, green signals "all ok" so really is used for the wrong meaning now. For most cases the blue covers that and as violet/riga pointed out for some cases perhaps yellow or orange should be used. --David Göthberg 09:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It does seem as though this addition was made hastily and stemmed more from a desire to find a place for green than from an actual need. I would prefer that we return to five colors (and reserve green for possible future use, perhaps in a different namespace). —David Levy 10:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection Templates

Are there any plans of standardizing the protection templates for the articles, like maybe under "Serious Issue" or "Content Issue"? Only problem with that idea is that some of the templates are on project pages as well. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm just throwing ideas out into the open. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we intended to standardise those too. But that came under heavy discussion so right now hangs in the air. --David Göthberg 09:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My logic is this: Semi-protection is not a serious matter and should therefore not be red. We should try and keep the semi-protection and protection templates the same colour. I reckon that the notice (blue) style would be best, but am open to an additional grey being added for protection templates. violet/riga (t) 10:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kudos...

...for a job well done to all these editors that got this implemented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A way forward

In the section "Disputed tag", a request was made for positive suggestions. I suggest the issue is broken down into constituent parts and tackled more slowly, one part at a time, with each stage given wide notification through e.g. in "Signpost", top of watchlists, AN, VP, User talk:Jimbo Wales (it would be a courtesy to inform him) etc. Also each stage to be given proper testing in use before moving to the next. This kind of widespread change needs months of development to get right.

The sensible method is to start with the area of least contention and work from there.

1) Work with the old templates to start with.

2) Standardisation of sizes. This doesn't mean all templates will be the same size (width), but relative proportions can be agreed. This will be the foundation for subsequent developments.

3) Organisation into categories. This is the same idea as the side bar colours, but done with the old templates first, so again it can be tested and problems resolved.

4) Design. Different alternatives need to be proposed, compared, and worked through before anything is delivered wholesale. Test pages need to be constructed so that comparisons can be made as to how the alternatives look when used with articles. At the very least we already have two designs (old templates and new side bar ones), along with possible permutations (e.g. side bar with/without tints).

Tyrenius 05:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, instead of abandoning all of our progress and starting over for no apparent reason, we could simply keep the setup that most users are very happy with (and tweak it as needed). —David Levy 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It was very well done and there is little to be sceptic about, frankly. —Nightstallion 06:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Tyrenius, why don't you and Reinis get together (since you seem to think exactly the same way) and actually put together some proposals along the lines of #3 and #4? I doubt you're going to convince enough people to roll back all the changes and start over, but if you can design something better you have a good chance of getting that implemented. Anomie 11:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Should AFD templates have a tinted background?

{{db-meta}} has a pale red background under {{ambox}}. {{AfDM}} did too before it was switched to use {{ambox}}; should it get the same treatment? Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so, since they're a bit more "urgent" than your average template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no because the red sidebar is the primary indicator of deletion and the pink background reflects the urgency of speedies. violet/riga (t) 08:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As things stand right now, there are a few other red boxes, like {{notability}}, which do not indicate deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that {{notability}} should be orange as it's a content issue. Red should really be reserved for deletion. violet/riga (t) 09:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{notability}} should be orange. Seems we named the red "serious" type badly since some people think it means other things than pending deletion. We should perhaps rename the red type to "delete" ?

--David Göthberg 09:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps not include the deletion templates as a part of this. They get the standardisation, without the "red bars", which frees the red bars for "serious" clean up issues; which still provides the XfD templates with the better coding and sizing (width), but reserves them for what they are: discussion notices. This whole process is obviously about cleanup tags, and shouldn't just include a box just because it happens to be placed at the top of an article. (Protection is another example, which has been exempted.) - jc37 10:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole process is about the tags that are added to articles, deletion tags included. While I accept that you see them as different and am open to discussing ways that they can be differentiated they are still part of this project. violet/riga (t) 10:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole fun of creating a project is that one can claim to include anything they wish. And that's perfectly fine. Personally, I think we all gained by the coding standards.

That aside, I made a couple suggestions, which have possibly been blurred.

One is that perhaps you might have a bit less controversy if you limited the colour coding (the visual "design", if you will) to article cleanup templates. Trying to group "everything" just because you decided so, doesn't make consensus easier. I would think that if one wanted to actually determine consensus, they would find out what we agree on, and then add from there. If "everything" doesn't get added, oh well, but at least we can say it truly was a consensus. Else, you're really feeding into your detractors, and honestly, making this look not unlike what unfortunately ended up being a fiasco with WP:ATT. Same problem, different guise.

The other has to do with external discussion notices. Yes I consider them of a "different grouping". Consider the AfD notices should be standardised with CfD, and MfD, two templates which aren't placed on articles, and by your own project statement are beyond the scope of this project. And honestly, "little coloured bars" just aren't a fair notice. We have editors upset that they aren't being told on their talk page. What do you think we'll run into when the deletion notices are in the middle of a left sidebarred wall of motley colour? I'm sorry, but such notices just scream bad faith, with the appearance that we're hiding the discussion somehow. Very bad idea. Transparency is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. And blowing off such editors concerns as "unfounded" means nothing. WP:BITE and a slew of other essays and such come to mind here. Standardisation should make things easier, not harder! And yes, I think that this issue is rather way more important than whether a cleanup request of some kind is tinged orange or yellow.

Right now I'm solidly leaning towards all XfD templates (except TfD, for obvious reasons) to match Template:Ifd. I'm happy to discuss alternatives, but I'm quickly starting to feel that this page is no longer a place for "open discussion of ideas". - jc37 10:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation of templates means that they have a consistent design and don't look out of place next to each other. I disagree with your assertion that XfD templates are outside of the scope of this project, yet you seem to want to claim that I'm saying that we shouldn't have discussion about them at all. I've never said that and welcome discussion rather than moans. violet/riga (t) 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Standardisation of templates means that they have a consistent design and don't look out of place next to each other" - um, wow. I wrote all that, and you're telling me that this about the hairstyle. You're concerned about look, and I'm concerned about usage. k.

And I've attempted to start several discussions. Of the two of us, the only one I see "moaning" is you: with your claim of you're right and I'm wrong, and how you no longer have to explain anything to anyone who asks, because you've already decided. (So much for WP:CCC...) Yes, there are two or three flooding this page with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I'd like to think that I'm not one of those. I might add that my post immediately above this one rather appeared to me to be a couple suggestions, and discussions starters. In any case, you glossed over the whole of my comments (in apparent disregard), and for now, I think I'll wait to see if possibly someone else has any thoughts. - jc37 11:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let us look at {{Cfd}}. The current version has a very light background that doesn't in any way indicate the importance of the tag (I can hardly even see it!). I'm not sure how changing it to the style detailed here in any way lessens this. On the contrary it really does emphasise it, and users will get quickly used to red meaning deletion. As for the background I am still open to discussing a change in the colours but personally only think that the speedy templates should be so highlighted. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't say that CfD has the awesomely best template layout possible. In fact, in a thread above, I list it's shading as one of several options, in an attempt to get some feedback of what others may like. Personally, I'm guessing the colour has something to do with contrast to the blue of the category pages. And while I'm trying hard to WP:AGF, it's hard not to think that your acquiescence of the speedy shading was because in that case you faced a deluge of editor complaints. But for now, let's see if we can leave the past posts on this page aside.

I don't think that the external discussion templates should be a part of the template "wall". That means that their "surface look" should be entirely different than the rest of the cleanup templates. A notice should be clear. Standardisation shich makes such templates not-so-clear really creates a classic example of when someone should WP:IAR.These notices should stand out, with no mistake of what they are, and that they are there.

I heard someone say something about some shade of grey that was an alternate shading possibility. perhaps that's an option as well?. - jc37 11:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're blowing things out of proportion here. I disagree with you. I'm still discussing the options with you though, so you really ought to tone down your accusations. violet/riga (t) 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, we can leave past posts aside for now. That said, I offered even more thoughts, though perhaps I missed your thoughts in your latest post? But perhaps the smarter plan would be to close this thread and "start over". I have one above which lists my thoughts hopefully more clearly, I'll move it down here for easier reading for you. - jc37

My thought is this: Deletion templates have a red side bar, speedy (prod included) has a pinkish background to show urgency while XfD have the standard background. violet/riga (t) 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but {{AfDM}} did not have a pink background. The background in the latest pre-ambox version was actually a light grey, although not as light as the grey proposed above. The red sidebar gives more indication than that version, and IMO is sufficient indication of seriousness for all these possible-deletion warnings except possibly the speedy deletion. Anomie 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. While there is no problem discussing a specific background colour for deletion templates I think that this process has actually made them stand out more. violet/riga (t) 12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the tint go away, or at least get lighter. ←Ben^B4 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alerts to external discussions

In the spirit of Ned Scott's comment above (which I liked : ) - I'd like to start a discussion about the internal shading of templates that fall under the following two groupings on the main page:

• "Serious issue" templates
• "Merger and transwiki proposal" templates

These are different than:

• "Content issue" templates
• "Style issue" templates
• "Article notice" templates
• "Contribution" templates

In that they are notices to go somewhere else for a discussion, rather than a request to do something directly within the article.

Time is often a factor, and as such these notices need to stand out more.

This has already begun for the speedy templates, and I think that these two groups are different enough from the internal notices within an article, to justify at least a colour shading difference.

For the sake of clarity in discussion, the above bottom 4 are either internal notice or request templates. The top two types are external notice or request templates.

I think the first step is to break the external templates into types:

• Speedy deletion notice - Typically to be deleted in 2 days or less
• Deletion debates notices - Typically to be determined at the result of an XfD discussion (5-7 days).
• Move notice - Typically to be determined at the result of an WP:RM discussion (5 days).
• PROD notice - Proposal to delete. If not removed in 5 days, the page may be speedily deleted.
• Transwiki move notices - Apparently similar to PROD, in that if disputed/fixed, the template can be removed.
• merging and splitting notices - Pointing to a discussion/talk page, with the intention for the action to "take place" once consensus is determined (Typically around a week or less.)

Previous background colour shading:

• #EDF1F1 - Afd and PROD
• #D0ECDD - Mfd
• #FFFCE6 - Cfd
• #F3F9FF - Rfd
• #FEE - Speedy
• Ifd - #FFFFFF with a border of #EE0000
• Transwiki to various other projects - Each varied. Typically either none, or #FFFBFB with a border of #FFBBBB
• #f0e5ff - Merge (per Help:User style)

Discussion

Some thoughts and questions as a discussion starter:

• Speedy seems to have come to a consensus about the "pink". Should the others all be pink as well?
• Should all the others except speedy be all of a certain other colour?
• Do you have any thoughts on the reasons for or the usefullness of the previous colours?
• Should there be all-around coloured borders, such as te IfD and transwiki notices?
• Do you have some other idea besides colour that would more clearly alert users to the discussions?

These and any other thoughts you may have are welcome. - jc37 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave {{Move}} alone as it is already standardized. FunPika 00:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Standardised with/to what? - jc37 05:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean you were not suggesting standardizing that, then I must have misunderstood you. However, if you were suggesting we standardize the move template, any attempts would be reverted as move is a talk page template and standardized into the talk page template style. FunPika 09:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's a talk page template! I noted in my head that the colour was the same as talk page templates, but never made the connection : ) - You know, if "move" is a talk page template, I wonder if any of the others of the above should be as well (especially the transwiki ones). - jc37 10:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd like shading in the "critical issues" boxes (see above). As for the color of the box, I really don't mind, but I do have some suggestions:

1. Speedy deletion should be a pink/red shading, i.e. most urgent. These boxes did an excellent job standing out from the pages before, and would have no problem standing out with the redesign.
2. PROD'ed deletions should be the next-most urgent. I would like some sort of color to make these stand out, preferably a "fire color" because of the fact that it will be deleted (not moved or what have you). Perhaps a pale orange or yellow.
3. AfDs should be an equally-urgent color. See above.
4. Moves, merges, splits, transwikis. These should be shaded a non-urgent, non-fire color. A pastel blue, green, or purple would do nicely in my opinion. No shading at all is also a very viable option, considering the fact that these aren't immediately gone from a user's sight (unlike deletion, which can be restored and/or seen by administrators, but not by the general public), and won't be missed by casual users. I personally do not think these needed to be shaded. Those who need to see the messages will find their way to the appropriate page.

That's my two cents. See also my proposal above for those who don't like the sidebar. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The shading colours sound fine to me. As for the last group, they have a deadline, just as the AfDs do. (See WP:RM, for example.) And a transwiki notice that isn't removed, results in the article being deleted, something that I think the casual editor may not realise. Merges and splits are the least time-pressed external discussion notice, relying only on whenever someone closes the discussion. I'm still not understanding how notices such as article protection are exempt from this change, but these are not. In looking over this page though, I don't think I'm alone in this perception? - jc37 05:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are proposing combinations of 6 sidebar colours with at least 4 different backgrounds. A total of at least 24 possibilities. In this encyclopedia, we use words to communicate as a preference, resorting to a language based on colour shades and combinations only in pre-school colouring-in classes. Please be restrained about how little standardisation you achieve - a proliferation of everyone's smart ideas for their very own standardised approach is just going to be silly. Splash - tk 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was asking for discussion of what colours (if any) people preferred. Apparently CfD uses the same pink as the speedy templates, for example. However, it would seem that this discussion, being focused on article templates, hasn't taken into account standardising the deletion templates amongst themselves (sine it would be, as has been said, beyond the scope of this discussion). And so, I think the above templates "shading" at least should be either left alone or standardised amongst themselves.

As for my opinion, I personally think that all the deletion discussion "box" templates should look essentially the same (though of a different shade than the speedy). And I wouldn't mind following the example of Template:Ifd. I think the merge/split templates should have a standard of their own, and the move/transwiki have a standard of their own. That's 4 shades (speedy; deletion; move/tw; m/s;). There won't be multiple colour bars (or borders) per shade, just one. So, to clarify, it's not 24 possibilities, it's 4. - jc37 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate: I don't care what colors they become. If said templates (deletions and others discussed in this topic) become shaded, I would be more pleased with that than if no changes were made to the current redesign. I was merely injecting ideas for colors, not specifying a definite set of what they should end up being. I also feel that you (Splash) were a bit harsh in your response to my comment. Looking back, I probably went too color-happy with all of these messes of colors. To simplify discussion, I agree with jc37 with the shading possibilities. Hopefully that clarifies things. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's at least two of us. It looks like we need to build consensus one editor at a time. : )

It also occurs to me that since this is a subset of what is being done, and we're only talking about some cosmetic changes (colour shading), and since what we're talking about includes a grouping of templates beyond those which appear on articles (such as MfD or CfD templates), this discussion might be beyond the concern of this page. (Which, in my opinion is more about cleanup templates than anything.) - jc37 10:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why boxes?

I think this was a decision made early in Wikipedia history, so please indulge me while I make a point that has probably been considered and rejected.

It has long been my opinion that templates of all kinds occupy far too much screen space on articles. All that is needed, really, is a small, unobtrusive message in italics at the top of the article, thus:

This article may need cleanup to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.

Where appropriate, combination templates should be used in preference to placing several template, hence:

This article may need wikification and cleanup to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.

No matter what they contain, they probably shouldn't occupy more than a line or two on a browser set to normal (maximized) size. Even perhaps:

This article has been listed for deletion. The discussion is here.

Seriously, I think we may have reached the stage where the sheer amount of procedural ordnance we're dumping on our content pages is degrading article quality. --Tony Sidaway 11:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the thinking behind one of my ideas for the templates, having such notices subdued for most readers while editors could choose to override them to highlight them a little more if they wished. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, though it would take a bit of restructuring of the templates, most of the cleanup templates could be merged as flags in a master template, similar to how the talk page template now works... - jc37 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean like {{articleissues}}? But unless you're talking about {{ArticleHistory}}, I'm not sure which talk page template you're referring to. Anomie 12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And while I agree that smaller is better, I don't think simple lines of italics are enough, especially in the case of AfD or neutrality disputes (for example). Personally, I associate italic text up top with disambiguation, and I expect other readers do the same. – Scartol · Talk 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The gist of my idea is that we shouldn't have articles where you actually have to scroll down a page, or almost a full page, just to read the first paragraph of the lead section. So no, I'm not wedded to the minimalist concept of italics (though it would be nice for many minor annotations) but I'm just saying that the thumping great monster templates we have these days often detract from what there is of the article. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the idea to not have any templates, with the exception of the occasional current issue tags? If the templates are too subdued, I don't think the articles will ever be improved to the point of not needing them. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy649: You know, articles are constantly being improved without having any tags on them whatsoever. And many of us think that boxes scare off editors instead encouraging them to fix the article. Actually, most of the message boxes seem to be a tool for "editors" that prefer to complain rather than to actually fix articles. I bet if we took away their toys (the boxes) they would feel no other choice than to actually fix the problems instead.

Anyway, we could change the boxes so they have a header cell (one line of text) and a [show] button to show more, just like navigation boxes. We could even use the default functionality for such buttons: If there are two or more boxes on the page they collapse but if there are only one then the whole box shows.

--David Göthberg 14:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's quite irritating when someone slaps a {{wikify}} tag on an article that would take five minutes to improve. I can see that some articles require more care to reference properly, but many tags are procrastination aids. But I don't know that getting rid of them is the trick... Actually, I like the idea of inherent collapse of multiple templates. I would think that current event, red and perhaps orange tags should be excluded from that, but otherwise it might be a way to make tagged articles look less garish at the top. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with floated elements

This issue has been long standing. The AMBs run into right-floated elements which is really ugly. To see an example, please see this version of an article. Issues like these have traditionally been solved by adding {{-}} {{clear}} clears. I'm wondering why we don't just set "display:block" on the table. This should make sure the text of the AMB does not run into the right floated element. I don't see a downside, but it seems so obvious that it just cannot be so simple.... or is it? Please see my Sandbox for an example where the table has display:block set in several kinds of positioning situations within the text. I'd love to hear some comments. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, something has to be done. See Wikipedia_talk:Article_message_boxes#example_of_overlap.2C_and_example_after_fix above. The other option is to set "clear: both;" on the ambox. Is there an advantage to "display: block"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

the advantage is that if there is a pagehigh infobox, with clear, you have an as good as empty page until the bottom of the infobox is reached. Using display:block keeps the current position and flow of the text on the page, while still keeping all the text in the messagebox readable. Note that it doesn't move the borders of the actual messagebox. It's not ideal, but it's at least better then what we have now, and in my personal view it's better than setting clear on ALL messageboxes. If needed clear can still be applied on specific cases. Where a lot of images are involved etc, a clear might still be preferred. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there just isn't enough screen space to fit any nontrivial thing to the right of an ambox, when the width of an ambox is set to 80%. For example, I am using a 17" monitor right now with about 13" of usable width. If I used a 10pt font size, that means about 94ems of width. The portlets are 11.6 wide, leaving 82 ems for the content. The ambox uses 80%, which is 65.6 ems (ignoring the margins). That leaves 16.4 ems for an infobox, about 2.25in. So unless we have a lot of 2 in wide infoboxes, there's no reason to set things up to allow the ambox to have something to its right. We might as well just clear both sides and be done with it. There is also the option of making the ambox narrower, I suppose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, I tested and with "display:block" it instead looks worse in Opera. :((

It seems we got no good solution, just a bunch of bad to choose from. That is, as it is currently with no extra setting is bad, with "clear:both" is also bad and "display:block" is also bad. Just that it becomes bad in different web browsers.

--David Göthberg 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right that there is no good solution, because the CSS we can use doesn't support what we are trying to do. Of the three (do nothing, clear: both, and display: block), clear has the advantage that it never makes borders or text overlap, and is bad only in adding extra whitespace in a few situations.

Another option is to add a parameter (like narrow=yes) to all the templates that makes the ambox use "width: 50%;". That should leave plenty of room for an infobox on all common monitor and font sizes. See Mass_Effect:_Revelation for an example where I hacked this up (screenshot). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of the stub templates

May I ask why it was never considered that stub templates be included in the scope of this reform? Surely they fit perfectly into the 'growth' type? Also, I know it is a long since de facto rule, but why are stub templates placed at the bottom of the article, whereas no others are? (except {{uncat}}) — Jack · talk · 12:24, Tuesday, 18 September 2007

Interesting question. Stub templates weren't really considered because they have a style of their own and are seen as something different, but you correctly ask if they should remain so. It would be a major job to move all the templates up to the top when for most stubs they are visible on the first screen. I think stubs work quite well as they are now and highlighting them further with this scheme would not really be very productive. violet/riga (t) 12:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose they are already very well standardised, particularly in their titles (perhaps something we should consider further reform for ambox titles?), and they do fill their function well. I would like to see them brought in line with this reform, because they totally do belong here, but I doubt the end justifies the means, unless anyone can think of fitting reasons? — Jack · talk · 12:48, Tuesday, 18 September 2007

I would think that moving stub templates to the top (bad idea, in my view) and standardising their look and feel are two different things. One could certainly standardise them to this look and feel (Green seems like the right color vertical bar to use) while still leaving them at the bottom. Or they could be standardised to a different look and feel... since they mostly are standardised now (with some exceptions) maybe the thing to do is find and correct the exceptions and introduce use of a standard template similar to {{ambox}} which leaves things as is for now but which allows for easy change at some future date. Perhaps wait till the job queue is at a reasonable level, and only do a few at a time?? ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an idea. I agree that they should be standardised, but left at the bottom of the article, á la {{uncat}}. Here's how I think they should look:

Or perhaps a lot smaller, like so:

— Jack · talk · 13:46, Tuesday, 18 September 2007

I think doing stub templates is taking this a little far. They are already somewhat standardized and, while we should mark stubs, we should not make the stub templates so distracting that they take focus off of content. Imagine if a stub had a maintenance template or 2 on top and a stub tag or 2 on the bottom with no pictures. The actual content would appear almost secondary to the templates. Mr.Z-man 14:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to standardizing stub templates (though aren't they pretty standard already?), they should be innocuous, not a banner with a color bar. -Chunky Rice 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need to call that much attention to the stub tag. I love the new formatting, but applying it to stubs would be a Bad Thing. Their current format (just plain code with an icon, like {{MortalKombat-stub}}) is just fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it, and I don't necessarily think stub tags should be so "innocuous". I think they're easy to overlook presently and could use a bit of eye-catchery. The articles with these tags are ones that don't look too good anyway, and I always found the current stub tags to be kind of ugly and a downer. I'm aware of the obvious answer, that they're not supposed to look pretty, but I don't see why they shouldn't. If we're trying to make all the others look pretty then why not these?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 16:33, 09/18/2007

Project notices?

Is it the intention of this standardization to cover WikiProject notices for articles? I've started a discussion on a project I'm involved with but so far I haven't seen any evidence of projects switching formats. Also, it appears the main template -- {{ambox}} -- doesn't support "collapsable" presentation. Is the use of collapsed boxes being discouraged? Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 13:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I got the impression that a separate initiative, similar in approach, would be (possibly?) undertaken for talk page notices... there are, I think, many many more of them with a much wider variety of features, etc (many provide semiautomatic article classification and the like. plus there's small, collapsability, multiple category inclusions, etc.) so the ambox template would not be used directly (one would not WANT ambox collapsible, notices in articles need to always be expanded...) but ideas learned from this project might be used. I am but an observer though. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. I just realized that this only involves article templates and not talk page template. --StuffOfInterest 13:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Whut? Talk page template have been standardized for along time. Circeus 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I could be misrecalling but I thought I saw talk of doing this, somewhere. I think the appearance of these is very standard ("coffeeroll" color etc) but that maybe there was functionality standardisation to be had? I am not sure. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 15:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)