Wikipedia talk:Talk page templates/Archive 2

Stacking
How would templates be stacked? Right now, they are one on top of another; if they remain that way, they'll take up the same amount of space. — Mets 501 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that they will be stacked up down the right hand side of the page like userboxes which will allow the main content to come up the top (in a similar way to my userpage). Lcarsdata (Talk) 19:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me pertaining they become floating element instead of taking the same number of screens it now does. Lincher 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was the intention. When I have a spare hour instead of snatches on the computer I will create more smaller ones and make a babel box to demonstrate further. Dev920 (Tory?) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What we need is a Meta-data tab
What we really need is a meta-data tab for each article. All of these templates don't really even belong on the Talk page. Reducing the size of the templates is a good idea, but really only a band-aid, as it seems the number of templates assigned to each article is increasing at a rather persistant rate. Several articles I've seen recently have nearly two pages worth of talk page templates and I don't see the trend abating any time soon. Kaldari 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably a decent long-term solution, but its major drawback is that a separate tab would likely be significantly lower-traffic than the existing talk page. In many cases (e.g. WikiProject banners), the templates lose much of their usefulness if the average editor doesn't actually see them. Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done!
This looks like an excellent idea for a real problem. Of course, there are some important details to consider, but you have my support. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. Any criticism would be welcome. Dev920 (Tory?) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mine as well. An absolutely great idea. I was just thinking about how many boxes there were on talk pages, and considering that the debate to remove / limit them would be fierce given all the vested interests in them. This is a much better idea. Augustz 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a wonderful proposal and I hope it is adopted as a solution to a real problem. Dekimasu 14:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thnakyou very much. Do you know how long a policy needs to be proposed before consensus can be fully and properly established? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I addressed this question in a new section below. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a good proposal. BhaiSaab talk 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Highly needed, I redid the maths-rating tag so it took less space, but this is better. There was some discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, where I've mentioned this page. --Salix alba (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They look like userboxes!
Not saying that's a good or bad thing, but they do. Anyway, this is without doubt a good idea, as I am fed up with seeing talk pages with so many header templates the page itself gets pushed off the bottom of the screen – Gurch 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did intend them to be userbox sized actually, but the amount of text on a Failed GA template meant I couldn't do that. Others I would imagine could be userbox sized. I will try. Dev920 (Tory?) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this. Any reason we shouldn't just reduce the amount of text in the Failed GA template? 192.75.48.150 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, stacked up, it would still take up an excessive amount of space. Also, it's not possible for some of the other templates, for example the FA template would look very strange if it simply read "Featured Article" without the width being reduced as well. Dev920 (Tory?) 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Change, don't duplicate
I would support changing (reducing) the talk page templates, but not creating smaller duplicates, since using two different tls for the same thing tends to confuse people.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would rather just downsize them all, but what I thought other people might like to do is only change the templates of pages who have obscene numbers of templates, like Islam. Dev920 (Tory?) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dev920's suggestion makes total sense. On a page with only one or two talk templates, a smaller template might be ignored, while on pages like Talk:Islam, it's clear that the templates interfere with the page. If code can be added that detects the number of templates on the page, and shrink the templates if there are too many, that would probably be the best solution. I believe that something similar has been done for subject boxes like some I reviewed here, where they put themselves automatically into "Hide" mode if there are enough on the page. Nihiltres 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it
OK, I've got it. To change all talk messageboxes to side boxes with no extra work just change the Common.css messagebox.standard-talk code to .messagebox.standard-talk { border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color: #f8eaba; float: right; border:1px solid #000; margin:1px; width:238px; font-size: 8pt; line-height: 10pt; clear: both; } You can try that in your personal css. It works perfectly. — Mets 501 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A few templates will have to be adjusted though. I think we want talkheader at the top of the page and large, and todo at the top.  bot should remain big at the top because it is used on bot user pages.  And move should be big at the top too, since it is only temporary for 5 days.  We also need to adjust FAOL as the picture is too wide and it juts out the side of the template. — Mets 501  (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand that at all. Can you repeat in something simpler? Dev920 (Tory?) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. All you have to do to make all the talk boxes smaller is add the code above to MediaWiki:Monobook.css and remove the old .messagebox.standard-talk code.  This will automatically make all of the boxes smaller without adjusting each one individually.  If you want to see this in action, you can go to your personal css (for you located at User:Dev920/monobook.css) and add that code to it.  Only the few templates that should remain big at at the top (including todo, bot, move, and talkheader) need to be changed so that they are "immune" to this css change.  Hopefully that's easier to understand. — Mets 501  (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I got it to work (thanks for that) but it really does look horribly messy now (not to mention it takes up a fair bit of space). I think if we're to reduce the template size, we need to reduce the amount of text as well. Dev920 (Tory?)
 * Yes, we need to reduce the amount of text. I think that we should first make them smaller, and then reduce the text, instead of having two copies of each template. — Mets 501  (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've created some more templates and stuck them in a box (which took ages for technologically retarded me to work out). Your thoughts? Dev920 (Tory?) 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need to stick them in a box. They are perfect without the box. — Mets 501  (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to make them stack up on the side without the box then?
 * If you have that code above in your css then they should automatically stick up on the side if they have class="messagebox standard-text attached to them. — Mets 501 (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't. I removed it because it looked really untidy. It takes up an excessive amount of space and on pages without a lot of discussion, will take up a fair amount of space in its own right. Dev920 (Tory?) 11:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, my suggestion's not going to work. — Mets 501 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Side-by-side
Perhaps it would be advantageous to not stack the mini-templates, but to put them side-by-side. Perhaps that would actually take up less space:

{| style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border: none;"
 * style="height:20px"|FailedGA/Small
 * style="height:20px"|FailedGA/Small

That former GA template, however, seems a bit oversized. I'm sure the point is conveyed, however. --  tariq abjotu  03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, but if you look, they now seem extremely untidy because of their differing heights. This would probably annoy some users. Dev920 (Tory?) 07:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about we standardise the heights? Have them all the same height as the GA one is (five lines of small text). That's not much higher than most of the existing talk templates, and actually less high than some of them. Having them the same height as before is OK because of course you now have three to a line, so you can fit three times as much info on one line, so overall the block of templates will only be one-third height – Gurch 20:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose that could work, yeah. So which is better? Dev920 (Tory?) 20:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that a lot of these templates (particularly the ones used by the larger WikiProjects) have a show/hide block at the bottom. Any attempt to standardize heights should really take that into account. Kirill Lokshin 23:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are show/hide sections on template messages really necessary? They strike me as something of a gimmick. Perhaps the extra information they convey in the hidden section should be centralized somewhere and not included in the message at all? – Gurch 11:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The alternative would be bunches of additional templates (which were rolled into the show/hide section to reduce clutter) present on the page; see, for example, WPMILHIST on something like Talk:Stephen Trigg. Kirill Lokshin 11:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An additional complication (besides the different heights of the boxes) is that the browser windows have different width. The number of boxes that fit side-by-side (three, four, five) depends on the configuration. I'm assume this can be overcome with some technical wizardry. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, I have my bookmarks open right now and one of the boxes is falling off the edge of my screen so I can't read it. I don't think this idea is going to work. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 09:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Establishing consensus

 * copied from 

Do you know how long a policy needs to be proposed before consensus can be fully and properly established? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this proposal has been sufficiently worked out yet. At least, some instructions should be added. The integration with the archive box should be addressed. The design could perhaps used some more input, looking at the amount of work that went into Template standardisation. For instance, I'm not sure that using Template:Userboxtop &c is a good idea. I don't quite like the faint blue box added around all the other boxes.
 * There is no fixed process for establishing consensus. It looks good at the moment, all comments are positive, but I think the community will only notice this proposal and react on it when you start using it. Therefore, I implemented it on Talk:Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace (before, after). By the way, it took me quite some time to make the small templates.
 * If the proposal is accepted, it will become a guideline and not policy, just like Template standardisation. See Policies and guidelines for the difference; it's not terribly important but if we start pushing for it we'd better do it right. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I absolutely agree with you about the userboxtop, but I'm not very good with code and tend to steal most of what I need from other pages (like tables, making two reference columns etc.), and I couldn't find anything that I could use besides the userbox. Is there anything?
 * I figured it would up being a guideline, but the whole "policy proposal" thing confused me. :) I know it takes a while to make the templates but on the bright side, you only need to do it once!
 * What integration with teh archive box did you mean? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 07:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For consensus, advertise this proposal at several pages (e.g. WP:VP and WP:RFC), see what people's objections are, and adjust the proposal to address those objections. Also, you could try modifying/reducing one of the existing talk page templates (please do not create forks as that will only muddle the issue) and see how people respond to that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I've done that. I followed the steps to creating a new proposal, you know. :)

Merging and stuff
Ah, finally, a solution to the talk page template mess! I think this will easily get consensus. Afterwards I was thinking we should probably should merge this and WP:TS, to a page titled Talk page templates. Both are short enough to share a page, and it would make sense from an organizational standpoint. Thoughts? Again, awesome job on this. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this idea. Only after the mini templates have been created though, and the guys at Template Standards don't object. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 09:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The perfect example of what I had in mind...
...may now be found at Talk:Islam. See what it looked like before. There is also a half-example at George W.Bush, but I can't convert the Biography template because the code is obscenely complicated. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 13:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very concerned that this proposal seems to be going beyond changing the layout of the boxes—which would probably be uncontroversial, in most cases—to actually removing substantial portions of the template text in an attempt to get it to fit within the "userbox size". In my opinion, this is a frankly unacceptable way to proceed.  The text in these templates is not there just to make them look bigger, but because it's actually useful and important; cutting out large chunks of it is not something to be done for such a petty reason as making all the boxes the same (extremely small!) size. Kirill Lokshin 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also object to non-project members coming along and changing project banners to make them look like userboxes, especially on a proposal that has not yet been accepted by the wikicommunity. Like Kirill said, there is valuable information in many project banners, and as you see yourself with WPBIO, some project banners are quite complex.  Someone outside a specific wikiproject might not be familiar with all of the discussion and consensus that was reached to develop the project banners as they are now and is more likely to remove parameters and text that has been found as vital by the wikiproject.  Yes, many talk pages have an overabundance of banners, and some of them could easily be reduced in size, but I think project banner size and wording should be left to individual wikiprojects. Slambo (Speak)  15:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, Wikiprojects should certainly be able to develop their own banners. But as at the moment, we're only producing templates as examples rather than definitive copies, I don't think we need to worry about that until the guideline achieves consensus, when we can leave messages on all the projects, don't you think? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 16:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I think quite a few of these boxes could do with a good copy edit. Take Template:WPBiography. In the first line we have
 * This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
 * Both links point to the same page. I'd say the second sentance could easily be removed with no impact. Indeed having two identical links slightly decreases usability as the reader needs to hover over both links to see where they point. In the second line we see the same
 * This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. FAQ
 * Again two links to the same page and a third to a different page with basically the same info.
 * On I've taken a minimalistic aproach
 * This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics. Mathematics grading: GA-Class, High-Importance
 * Basically everything the reader needs to know with minimal text. --Salix alba (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's suitable, perhaps, for somebody who is already familiar with the grading system; but quite cryptic, in my opinion, for people seeing the template the first time. It's true that we don't need two links to the same page, for example; but the second one (which goes to a particular section) is pretty useful for people trying to look things up, particularly on a long page.  Kirill Lokshin 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But the large templates don't list the quality scale, either. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But they give a direct link to where it's located, rather than leaving the reader to find it themselves. Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I linked "quality" to the rating scale on my userboxes; I assume it just didn't occur to salix to do it with his. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I mean, I haven't been removing vital text for the sake of size, which is why FailedGA is much larger than the others. But it's always seemed to me that a project that prides itself on its summary style tends to become rather verbiose outside of articles. I mean, to take Islam for example, have I removed anything that was extremely useful to an editor? Because of the amount of vital writing on the todo box, I left it full size. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 16:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, the facfailed template has lost the (very important, and quite difficult to find otherwise) link to the archives where nominations were kept before the subpage system was put into place. Kirill Lokshin 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ...which only applies to failed articles before October 2004. Which is not many. Do you not think that most articles by then will have changed so much that the page in useless to improve an article? Look at Papal tiara, for example, it's gone to FAC, and straight out the other side. When the template was first made, I should imagine it would have extremely helpful. How helpful is it now? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Most archived things are quite useless for future improvements, actually, but we tend to keep them around because they're useful as records of what has been done with the article in their own right. I don't think it's a good idea to remove links to even very old archives, for the same reason that we don't remove links to three-year-old deletion nominations, and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree that a link to the archive needs to be kept around, but does it need to be on every single failed FAC box? Isn't there a betetr page we could put it on, like WP:FAC or something? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the shrunken templates are a better idea, and the ones that don't seem to fit in the smaller scale/are complaining of having text cut should be bold and re-edit the new versions. Down the right side seems MUCH better than across the top, by the way. Didn't someone suggest this already about six months ago? Search engine is down right now, but Google says maybe the talk page of Template_standardisation would be a good place to post about this idea (and probably Wikipedia talk:Template messages, too). -- nae'blis 19:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An alternative
Have a look at Template:Skiptotoctalk for an alternative way to avoid template clutter. This allows the full templates (often quite useful) to remain, but making it easy to skip past them if you don't want to read them. It's already in use at over 50 talk pages. See Talk:Bill Clinton and Talk:The Lord of the Rings for examples of it in use. I would strongly support use of this template over any attempt to make the talk page templates smaller. Carcharoth 23:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, there was one on Islam. But frankly, if the vast size of reams of talkpage templates is long enough to warrant a tag to skip them wwithout even reading them, does this not prove that something needs to change? If the templates are smaller, at least more people will read them, rather than skipping straight past. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they are both good, but I still hope this project is successful. The templates may be useful, but they should be just as useful if they are smaller. I am going to add Skiptotoctalk to a few pages right now and wait to see new developments here. Dekimasu 12:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding "I know" - it seems strange that it hasn't been mentioned here before. Because it hasn't been discussed here, it looks like both methods are operating without being aware of the other (a fairly common situation on Wikipedia). Regarding "does this not prove that something needs to change", what this proves is that the talk pages are being overloaded. If people are not reading them, that requires a change of culture. Talk about them, point out to people why they are useful. Eventually, more people will take notice of them. At the end of the day though, some people want to read and add discussion about how to write the article, while others want to look up the tags (or do both). The 'skip to toc' tag is for the former. The latter have the template tags there at the top to look through anyway. Trying to satisfy both types of users of the talk pages is laudable, but misguided. Either create a separate page for the "template tags" (even a subpage), or use the 'skip to toc' tag. Having said that, I had a look at Islam, and the smaller template tags do look nice. I just think that sometimes the larger tags are needed, and are useful, and I would oppose the "removal of text to make them smaller for the sake of making them smaller" approach that seems to have been happening above. Carcharoth 13:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A real alternative
Metadata for :

I hijacked a bit of code that already exists, and I think with a little work, it can do an ideal job. I don't understand CSS at all (guessed everything I did), so pardon my sloppy job, but check the code out: User:Nihiltres/Sandbox2. I have no idea how someone made the code for a nice little "hide" button in the first place, but it's very convenient as an alternative to either cramped userbox-sized messages or Template:Skiptotoctalk, at least in my opinion. It's all that we really need, and it'll display unless someone hits the hide button, meaning that people see nice, wide, templates until they either choose to either scroll past or hide the whole thing. As I say, I don't know CSS, so the solution I think is ideal may need a rewrite - not that I can! :) Any comments? Nihiltres 01:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing I have suddenly realized after thinking about other things for a while is that if there is another one of this style of box on the same page (even if the other box is at the bottom of said page), the box will autohide. Since it would be desirable for the metadata box to initially show regardless of the presence of other boxes of the same style, the code for the box would have to be changed slightly to work that way. Nihiltres 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see this as a quick fix, but I would prefer smaller boxes. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue I have with this, as with the previous hiding idea, is that people scrolling down will never even look at the templates. If they are small and neat but tucked away to the side, people can look whilst scrolling down but with the minimum of inconvenience. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Since this hasn't seen much use, I'm now subst'ing the transcluded page here for posterity and db-userreq'ing that page. Nihiltres 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea
I was notified of this by Dev920. Great proposal! --Striver 15:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
A small suggestion. I looked at Talk:Islam. It uses a new set of templates that are under a sub-page named "small". Instead, you could pass a "size" parameter to all templates and resize the template if it is set to "small". For example,. This way we can use the smaller box at cluttered talk pages and the larger one in most pages that have little content. And still maintain a single version of template. -- Ganeshk (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If they're actually on a subpage, that's two versions of the template to maintain. It might be possible to have an actual parameter that would fiddle with the styling of the template, though; the best way to do this would be to create a CSS class that could be standard for small templates. Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kirill, I agree. A CSS class for small templates is needed. I was working on the converting India template. It was pain to do the same with a table. What is the procedure to request one? Please advise. -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask on MediaWiki talk:Common.css. The class should basically copy over the formatting of the normal messagebox.standard-talk, but force the width down and add a float. Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I created a sample in my sandbox to show how this will work. -- Ganeshk (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

will produce:

will produce:


 * That's an excellent idea. Thank you. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand any of what you just wrote, but if it results in reduced size templates with reduced text, I'm for it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also a non-coder (for CSS, at least), but I have a suggestion: make the templates automatically resize themselves if they detect more than X (3-4) templates of their type on the page. I know that something similar has been done for a different element; the key would just be implementing it again and resolving the placement of all of the newly small templates. Nihiltres 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, something like that couldn't be done without advanced javascript, and there is no global js. — Mets501 (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Table of contents for talk page templates...
What annoys me most about talk pages with lots of templates, is that you can't see at a glance what the templates are. In that sense, I would support a resizing and repositioning (but not a rewriting) of the templates, or maybe a list (like the table of contents) of the templates with a "hide" button to hide that bit of the page and bring up the talk page bit of the talk page. Carcharoth 16:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're going to have a list of templates, what, really, is the need for the templates themselves at all? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts
I support this, on the condition that certain templates remain large, in particular talkheader, FAC, GAN, and any other templates that are temporary. Things like FA and GA should definitely be small, though. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, I agree. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Keep some large, and make some small. Now it's just a case of surveying the different talk page templates in use and deciding which should be which. Is there a category somewhere? A subcategory of Category:Wikipedia templates surely? Yes. See Category:Talk header templates and the relevant subcategory of Category:Article talk header templates. Carcharoth 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd think the priority here would be a template that's about a current event with the article, such as a review in-progress (such as FAC) or some other time-sensitive relation. -- Ned Scott 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I agree with the above points, some of these are perectly fine being big, as such we should rush to reduce the size of all of them. Also I think this proposal in general is a great idea --T-rex 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

These mini-templates look fantastic. However, the talkheader page in particular appears to be quite pointless - the information included, should be on ALL talk pages as part of the mediawiki software. -- Chuq 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think talk header could use a trim of some kind, and also be only used on talk pages where there is an issue of some kind. For example, a sudden burst of really new editors coming to the talk page, etc. Not that I feel strongly about it. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Implementation
I think it has now been generally agreed that the size and text of templates should be reduced to the size of a standard userbox, with the exception of a "template that's about a current event with the article, such as a review in-progress (such as FAC) or some other time-sensitive relation", though this may need further discussion.

The question we face now then is, how to implement it? Do we use my original idea, of creating smaller templates and uploading them to the original template space with /small attached, or the idea above, which seems quite clever but I don't understand in the slightest? Discuss. :) Dev920 (check out this proposal) 10:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the idea above is much more reasonable, since it (a) won't require maintaining two copies of each template and (b) will allow anyone who wants to see the templates full-size to do so by overriding the CSS class in question. Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kirill, I have asked for a new CSS class at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css per your suggestion. That would make life lot easier. -- Ganeshk (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Any idea how long taht will take? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dev, I have no idea. This is my first CSS proposal. -- Ganeshk (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't fork the templates, that will only confuse people. Editing the existing templates, or using CSS to make them smaller, is a better way to do it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be pretty easy to work with the existing templates so they both have a "full" and "small" mode. Even if some templates should be almost always small, it would help at least transition to have the two options in one template. I'll gladly help out where I can. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind. I created the proposal to resolve a problem, I don't care how it is implemented. :D Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The new CSS class has been added to Common.css. See for how to add the optional small parameter. -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But that template is no smaller at all! Dev920 (check out this proposal) 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * K, I see it on Islam. Can't say I'm happy with how it looks now, but at least it's smaller. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How did you want it too look? Isn't that basically identical to your original example? — Mets501 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, Ganeshk had changed it. Maybe you were having the same ugly rendering problem that I was having, I've reverted it now. — Mets501 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved the Archives to the bottom. That was the change. I wanted you to check if the current version renders okay. -- Ganeshk (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the tan colour was nice, and I envisaged the templates being smaller in width. I guess I can live with this though. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mets, How do we get the TOC move up and remove the space? I see a lot of blank space between the To do and TOC. Does anyone else see this? I use IE (1024x768). -- Ganeshk (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed it now. Please check Talk:Islam. Is it rendering okay for everyone? -- Ganeshk (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I see normal-sized templates, with the TOC squashed into a column a few centimetres wide to the left of the templates. Looks awful! Hope someone can fix it. Carcharoth 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you clear your cache? The CSS won't update until you do. Kirill Lokshin 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh! Looks fine now. :-) Carcharoth 00:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, for those people adding this to templates: it's not necessary to create two copies of the entire text; if the text is the same between the large and small versions, it's sufficient to replace the normal class definition with . Kirill Lokshin 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the templates I created per your suggestion. Additionally, the image needs to be changed too. Image size should be replaced with . -- Ganeshk (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or just set it to 45px, which works well for both. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I'm happy. So, just to clarify, what code do I need to use? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can copy the code from Template:Peerreview. -- Ganeshk (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait! Don't just use  .  Some of the unnecessary text in the template was removed as well, it wasn't just the box size that was changed! — Mets501 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary text should be removed in both box sizes, large or small. I feel it should do no harm leaving the text as it is. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This way it is lot easier to implement. I just finished it on India template and used it on Talk:Bangalore. The other way will be a total rewrite of template. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The results are fantastic. Take a look at Talk:Leonardo da Vinci. It had 10 boxes. -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome :D -- Ned Scott 08:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is beautiful. I think this has highlighted the amount of superfluous text on templates though. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something, or the proposed solution doesn't work on all browsing environments (right now I'm using Firefox 1.5, KDE 4, Ubuntu 6.06) because the only real change I see on both talk pages mentioned is that the boxes now have a white background instead of an orange background. I do not see a significant change in size. Slambo (Speak) 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you cleared your cache? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I hadn't looked at that page before, I don't think that's the problem. However, it looks correct on my SuSE 10.0 box (also running Firefox 1.5, but on KDE 3.4.2).  I'll try it again when I get back to the Ubuntu box.  Now to work on modifying TrainsWikiProject to include the new parameter too... Slambo (Speak)  13:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the page caching that's the issue, but the sitewide CSS being cached. You need to force it to be reloaded for the new class to render properly. Kirill Lokshin 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now it looks right on both boxen. I'm going through and shortening the text on TWP as well for the small format, but with Trainfest this weekend (the largest annual model train show in the Midwest; I'm exhibiting my own models there again this year), I won't have as much time to work on it until Monday.  There's an example of using the small format showing the text that I did reduce on Talk:TGV.  Now that we've got this formally integrated into the main talk page templates page, should we also include a short list there of live examples using the small format (Talk:Islam, Talk:Leonardo da Vinci and Talk:TGV)? Slambo (Speak)  13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * TrainsWikiProject now has the small parameter implemented as well. Slambo (Speak) 19:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy
As this policy has begun to be implemented, it is clearly no longer a proposed policy. What do I do now, remove the tag, or what? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The page needs to be updated (add the implementation with the small parameter, so that people know how to use it; mention that temporary boxes like FAC and talkheader should not be shrunk; probably more). Since there is a consensus, we can then replace Template:Proposed by Template:Guideline (not Template:Policy). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Guideline
I've edited the main page to look like a guideline. I think the text does need to be reduced - so much of it just seems so unneccessary. Dev920 (Please vote here) 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Using *gulp* metatemplates for standard WikiProject infobox text
Every WP infobox has a rating and quality scale. With this "small" option, the rating texts should be reduced. Is this a good place for a metatemplate? e.g. This would move a switch statement from the main template to this subtemplate, such that you could just pass along  and   unaltered. e.g.
 * : This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale
 * : Quality: A-Class

The downside is this would affect a lot of complicated templates, but it cleans up a lot of ugly code and helps standardize things across WikiProject templates. – flamurai (t) 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's something that might be useful for basic cases, but, in some more complicated templates, there's non-standard options in the code that a combined metatemplate wouldn't be able to deal with. Having this would also make customization more difficult, since it would require unwrapping the nesting first (which is probably beyond many editors' comfort level as far as parserFunctions are concerned. Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Choices
User:Stevertigo proposed an interesting idea whereby users can have a choice between a standard message box (explanatory for newbies) or a compact message box (small as reason permits). This is in answer to the problem that templates are disruptive when they are too large, stacked on top of one another or are otherwise made to be permanent and ugly features of an article. I of course, am for it. Xiong, Netholic and others have expressed similar sentiments about the disruptiveness factor. Iwill offer a spectrum of alternatives at /Sizes - of course the naming should be standardized as well. Regards. -SV|t 19:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation for discussion.

Template:Policy and the like
Many pages in Wikipedia namespace have been tagged with 'policy', 'guideline', 'proposed' etc. Would it be a good idea to also make these templates conform to the CoffeeRoll standard? Radiant_* 07:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would oppose this. Simple clean text should be used whenever possible. There's no need to draw so much attention on the main pages.  The CoffeeRoll standard is fine for talk pages, it can be a little garish if we overuse it elsewhere. -- Netoholic @ 19:22, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I think this should come under a separate template standardisation project which I intend to set up in a couple of weeks (when I have the time). violet/riga (t) 19:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good to me. Please keep us posted. Radiant_* 08:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I also support this idea. I did try to apply the new standard to some of these but was (predictably if I'd thought about it) reverted by Netoholic. I look forward to a discussion wherein we can agree upon a standard which will enable us to be bold without fear of endless reversion. --Phil | Talk 11:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * for Phil: If you feel that you were inappropriately reverted by Netoholic, you should contact his mentors at User:Netoholic/Mentoring. Blank Verse   &empty;  14:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, not quite. Netoholic's word isn't law. I'm not going into a revert war against him, but if he's the sole supporter of his opinion and there is consensus for ours, we should go right ahead and make the changes. Can we get a couple more opinions please? Radiant_* 12:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Coffee Roll is a touch bulky (height-wise) for an article page... possibly a cut down version with a half-sized image? [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px]] plattopustalk 13:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. We don't even have an image for most WP-namespace stuff. Radiant_* 14:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * The tagging of the Wikipedia Namespace articles should have a different look than those used for Talk pages. Those templates should at least be a different color, if nothing else. Also, there is no reason for any of them to have any graphics in them. Blank Verse   &empty;  14:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Coffee Roll simply wasn't meant to be used on article pages because it was meant (in part) to gently get your attention. An article space template needs to be much less bold: I have the "proposed policy" colors in mind. – ClockworkSoul 16:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about we use the same color scheme and width, only make it less tall (two or three lines should suffice)? And no images required, I'd say (how does one make an icon for 'policy' anyway :) ) Radiant_* 07:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Colored box controversy
Just an idea I came up with that I thought I'd mention here... most templates are colored boxen to draw attention to something (a timeline, 'cleanup' tag, whatever). There is some controversial usage of templates, for instance using them as article text, signatures, votes etc. These obviously do not employ boxen. So I pose this question... would it help stopping 'misuse' of templates if the software was changed so that every non-subst'ed template comes with a box? Not a proposal, just food for thought. And comment. Radiant_* 14:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable with the thought of changing the software to force adherance to any standardization scheme. First, because such an implementation would represent a technological solution to what is essentially a social problem; second, because it sacrifices a great deal of the flexibility of the current template system with very little return, besides standardization. – ClockworkSoul 16:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Such is the beauty of the English language, the plural of ox may be oxen but the plural of box isn't boxen. Pcb21| Pete 18:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Except for those cases where the plural is boxen. --Carnildo 19:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia that /. built. Pcb21| Pete 19:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (sings) We built this Wiki.... we built this Wiki on Coooffeeeee Roll... :) Radiant_* 07:58, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

move the standard to CSS
The function of the template standardization is much better served if someone writes this up as a CSS class, and adds it to our stylesheets (MediaWiki:Monobook.css). This would mean we could do away with Template:Standard template style. Please review Avoid using meta-templates (which is a proposed guideline) for reasons why "templates within templates" are a server performance hit. Specifically, the "Alternatives" section describes that templates used to generate style should be replaced with the CSS classes. In this case, once the style is added centrally, a simple "class=" call can be added as needed, much like "class=toccolours" is presently.

.nameofclassTBD { border:1px solid #C0C090; background-color:#F8EABA; width: 90%; margin: 0 5% 3px;" } Here's a version of the style I've been using. Seems to work well. Let me add one more reason for moving towards this... once a class is in use, it gives the reader the option to change their personal CSS to change its appearance from the default, if they so choose. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2005 May 14 (UTC)


 * That's a very good idea. The only thing is, your style doesn't match the standard style. Here's what should be used in Monobook.css:

.stdtmpl { width: 85%; border-spacing: 3px; border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }


 * Standard templates can then be created as follows:


 * Compare:


 * The first box was created with

, the second using a table construct with a local  as specified above. --MarkSweep 22:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the "border-spacing" entry isn't needed (I realize it was in the original), and it's very unsafe because it's inconsistent. I also think 90% width is better than 85% width for very small screens.  Otherwise, it's all fine. -- Netoholic @ 23:25, 2005 May 14 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on this. I was merely trying to imitate ClockworkSoul's design using CSS. Let's check with him? --MarkSweep 00:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with this proposal. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed a very good proposal. Wim van Dorst 07:28, 2005 May 15 (UTC).

Agreed entirely. Why use templates when stylesheets are so much cleaner? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons that I used a "style" argument in the table is so that the format could eventually be ported over to a style sheet. CSS are far cleaner and more flexible (and easier on resources) than are templates, so I'm not opposed to such a move. Regarding Netoholic's comments: experimentation shows that border spacing does indeed appear to be unnecessary; I'm torn on the width: I prefer the 85% width over the 90% though, for aesthetic reasons, and when I tested against an 800x600 resolution it was adequate in appearance (most of the screen was taken up by the browser and Wiki nav bars: the template was trivial in comparison). – ClockworkSoul 15:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Picking a name
Glad to hear this idea be well-received. Our baby needs a name though. The CSS class name should reflect its purpose, but not any specific format (so calling it "coffeeroll" is out). It should not be too generic ("standard") or long ("standardtemplate"), but it should be memorable for when these are in use. Suggestions? -- Netoholic @ 05:06, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
 * I'd go for "talktemplate" as this currently only applies to those on talk pages. violet/riga (t) 05:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible to me, but then again, I also created the name "ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll." – ClockworkSoul 05:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure if using "template" as part of the name is the best option. This may become used on non-templates, like for one-time notices, it may even be used on main pages.  One note the name "notice" is taken. -- Netoholic @ 05:16, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
 * When such a one-time notice is required then I'd suggest &#123;&#123;comment&#125;&#125;. violet/riga (t) 05:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to bothered about the name, but can we get on and do this soon, pretty please. I want to change the colour to something I like rather than what the community at large likes! :) Pcb21| Pete 07:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in thinking that whatever name is chosen, it doesn't have to go into the generic CSS to be usable: ie if we simply add  or whatever to &#123;&#123;standard template style&#125;&#125;, this can be picked up by personal CSS files? Negotiation as to adding it to   can run in parallel. --Phil | Talk 16:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * That will only work if a) the style= argument is taken out of the style (local styles override global ones) and b) every user then puts the correct coding in their stylesheet. Not going to happen. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that if you mark a stylesheet specification as "!important" it can override a local style. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 11:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is to phase out the standard style template: it does unnecessarily load the servers. We really should plant this into the main CSS as soon as is reasonable. – ClockworkSoul 12:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How about class="talknotice"? If no-one has objections, I'll write it into the CSS today myself. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Or maybe even talk_page_notice? Either way, I don't mind too much. Do it today! Pcb21| Pete 18:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Style done. For an example, see Template:Peerreview, which currently looks like this:


 * I cannot work out why, but IE refuses to centralise the table (Firefox does it fine). I have thus, temporarily, inserted   into the   line.  Anyone who can  work out why IE does this with the styles and can work out how to fix it, go ahead... The current form works fine, I think. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Underscores are not valid characters in CSS element names - the templates are now no longer appearing correctly. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The "text-align" attribute won't center the table. You have to use "margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" as shown above. --MarkSweep 07:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have sorted the style sheet out now. Could everyone check that it now works on their browser (I have tested IE6 and Firefox 1.0.2).  If it is okay, it can now be implemented using   instead of the &#123;&#123;Standard template style&#125;&#125; argument.  Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I dislike the class="Talk-Notice" name very much. Is this the best we can come up with? -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 2005 May 19 (UTC)


 * Seeing as it's been implemented in the stylesheet, I think this is an academic difference and changing it seems like a waste of time, time which could be spent far more constructively somewhere else. Who is going to use this on a day-to-day basis, or even infrequently after the templates have been changed? Talrias (t | e | c) 18:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, Netoholic, be my guest. Propose something better. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I started this thread because it's a fairly important thing and because I couldn't really think of one. We need to decide this early on and get some general agreement because we're faced with living with it for quite some time.
 * Here are some random words from brain-storming, in no particular order: standardised, announcement, announce, attention, notice (replace existing one with this), noticebox, messagebox, message, status, articlestatus, pagestatus, workingstatus. -- Netoholic @ 19:31, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * I chose Talk-Notice so as to provide room to allow other possible default styles to go in if there were other, future TS contests. I believe Violetriga has already mentioned something along those lines in passing. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Erm, the new format seems to be broken for me - there is no box around the template when it is displayed, and the background colour is incorrect. IE6 and Windows2000 (gosh, doesn't time fly!). I seem to remember that there is a style / class problem with IE? Is this it?

This all seemed to work yesterday - I've added the live versions to Template standardisation, and the ones with the new style are all broken in the same way, and the ones using the old format (FLC, FL, oldpeerreview, chemistry, Talk Spoken Wikipedia, comment) are fine. Also, press must be called something else... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, what is your problem? I cannot replicate this issue using IE on XP.  Could you upload a screenshot?  Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)




 * As described - there is no border around the template when it is displayed. The image has the correct background colour, but the text is displayed on the same colour as the take page/article is sits in.  Here is am image.  Apologies for it being quite so ugly... but I've not tried the "PrintScrn/paste into image file" thing before. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry - a bit of misdirection above - I think it is a classic skin thing rather than an IE thing. The templates all looks fine and dandy when I log out and use monobook.


 * I have now remembered that the last time this came up was getting tables to float, when class="floatright" style="float:right" did the trick (see John Vanbrugh). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned that I reverted the templates listed on Template standardisation so they all use the standard template style template until these issues are resolved (Raul did fac and facfailed, and I thought it made sense to make them all consistent). -- ALoan (Talk) 08:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

More templates to standardise
Should we standardise the &#123;&#123;fpc&#125;&#125; and &#123;&#123;FeaturedPicture&#125;&#125; templates? What about &#123;&#123;cotw&#125;&#125; and &#123;&#123;COTWnow&#125;&#125;? The new &#123;&#123;FLC&#125;&#125; and &#123;&#123;FL&#125;&#125; templates are in "standard" form. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And &#123;&#123;protected&#125;&#125;. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 11:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with all of the above. And also, Template:Guideline, Template:Policy, Template:Proposed, Template:Rejected and Template:Historical - but these five should be vertically smaller and not include an image. Radiant_* 11:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm - doesn't protected go on the article page, not the talk page? Does our standardisation remit extend so far? (Admittedly, fpc and FeaturedPicture go on images pages rather than talk pages, but they are analogous to fac and featured to my mind). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, let me put it this way - is there any good reason for not having Template:protected look like a coffee roll? Radiant_* 11:38, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

And can someone standardize Transwikied to Wiktionary, Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished, and Transwikied and Deleted? Not sure I'd do it right, too much HTML stuff. --Dmcdevit 23:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say: yes to &#123;&#123;fac&#125;&#125;, &#123;&#123;featured&#125;&#125;, &#123;&#123;fpc&#125;&#125;, &#123;&#123;FeaturedPicture&#125;&#125;, &#123;&#123;COTW&#125;&#125;, and &#123;&#123;COTWnow&#125;&#125;, as these are all templates that show something about the article from a description point of view.  I think the coffee roll design is too prominent to have it on article pages, which need something more subtle.  One that could be put under coffee roll is &#123;&#123;Mprotected&#125;&#125;, but I reckon that other protected templates will be standardised differently, and thus Mprotected should follow them.  The reason &#123;&#123;Protected&#125;&#125; shouldn't, as Radiant says, be standardised is quite how prominent Protected is.  There will come a time when it can be standardised, but I don't think now is the time. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And actually Attention, Move word list, Cleanup-copyedit, Limitedgeographicscope, Mergewith, reqimage, ConvertIPA, ActiveDiscuss, and controversial3 are all talk page templates, btw. --Dmcdevit 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well okay, I just took a stab at those ones, and I'd appreciate if someone could check them, thanks. --Dmcdevit 08:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason that &#123;&#123;Cleanup-copyedit&#125;&#125; and &#123;&#123;Mergewith&#125;&#125; are not standardised? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just that I forgot :) Done now. Thanks for proofreading. Also, Mergewith confused me because Template_messages/Disputes says to put it on talk pages, but it says to discuss it on talk, implying it isn't found on talk pages. Hmm... went ahead and standardized it. I guess according to that page we should do the cleanup tag too, but I've never seen that on talk pages. --Dmcdevit 09:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

More standardisation?
Now that the "class" seems to be working, is there anything else that should be standardised using the same scheme? Template messages provides a useful list of the "standard" templates in use: most of the templates in Template messages/Talk namespace are "CoffeeRoll"ed, but what about Template_messages/Image_namespace or Template_messages/Disputes? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that all talk page templates should use this style. violet/riga (t) 14:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've blasted through the Template messages subpages and been bold, converted templates to the CoffeeRoll style where I thought fit. Only one (Template:Cleanup) reverted so far... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason Wrongtitle and Unencyclopedic were not done? Also, I think that all the Image: namespace templates should be done, since its effectively a talk page, not visible to the article, and they serve the same sort of purpose. --Dmcdevit 18:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you should be blasting through templates like that unless there are few users of a template. One can come up with standards, but unilaterally imposing them on a template that is widely used borders on vandalism in the eyes of those people who have discussed it's format and used it extensively. Courtland July 4, 2005 13:53 (UTC)


 * I'm telling you templates without boxes are hella confusing. I asked normal people (those non geeks unlike us) to read pages wirh stub notices and NONE of them could figure out what the stub notice was, they ALL thought it was part of the article. On pages with a NPOV notice, which is displayed centered, with a box and icon, all of them recognized it as a notice. So take that as you will. Elfguy 3 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
 * I think you would find a lot of counter-discussion on this point if you brought up this particular concern at the stub sorting WikiProject. There has been much resistance over time with separating the stub template from the article text (i.e. providing space between the end of the article and the template text).  This has been aggressively opposed by many people (not just the stub sorting project participants) as being "ugly".  You can't even get people to accept that the stub notice should appear at the end of the article .. there's many folks who insist on it being smack in the middle of the article or at the top.  In other words, your notion that you've identified some kind of consensus experience is an illusion, unfortunately. It's been very difficult getting any sort of consensus on how a stub template message should appear on an article, if in fact you are talking to a person who doesn't oppose the entire idea of stubs in the first place. Courtland July 4, 2005 13:50 (UTC) (I'm a member of the stub sorting WikiProject, myself)

Style sheets for skins other than Monobook
This might be a dumb question, but it needs to be confirmed. The new CSS class "Talk-Notice" has been added to MediaWiki:monobook.css: has it been added to the corresponding files for the other skins? Judging by the rather skinny MediaWiki:Standard.css, MediaWiki:Cologneblue.css and MediaWiki:Nostalgia.css, it would appear not, which would explain why users of other skins are reporting problems. --Phil | Talk 07:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops. Mea maxima culpa.  Now done. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry - still doesn't work under the classic skin (the one that I am using) - I just reverted peerreview to test it and it doesn't display properly. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not wanting to state the obvious, but have you tried clearing your cache? I tested it in every skin, and it worked for me... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 10:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do state the obvious! I thought I had checked it properly (the templates were all working properly when they used standard template style, and peerreview was the only one that was broken when I reverted it to the "class" version) but it now works again!  Presumably they should all be changed back to the class="Talk-Notice" versions? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure, but I think you are asking me how to clear a cache? Bypass your cache. Otherwise, are you now saying that it works? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't clear my cache explicitly, but since the template went from working to not working when I edited it, I thought that was sufficient.  However, it now works with the class="Talk-Notice", so all's well that ends well. I've started reverting the templates over to use the class. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This is now available in all skins via Common.css. Please use   when setting up the templates. "Talk-Notice" should be deprecated. -- Netoholic @ 05:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please back up or at least pause
Mainly because standardization has engendered some bad feelings, I ask people working on this to at least cease any further changes to see if an amicable solution can be found through more or wider discussion. Further, it would be a positive gesture if any disputed templates are returned to their prior status during such discussion. Thanks. Maurreen 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement
Regardless of the outcome of the discussion on the scope of this guideline, I'm curious as to how enforcement will be accomplished. Courtland 21:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already seen it. Enforcement is exactly what this is becoming, and it is a bad direction. This is still a guideline, and there are goo d reasons for setting it aside, especially for classes of templates that have a special purpose.  I dislike being told "it's on the talk page, so it must be formatted according to WP:TS". -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Netoholic. Standardization can be carried too far. Maurreen 00:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is a guideline, and I am open to people suggesting why a template should be exempt from the standard. There are reasons, yes, but this should be properly discussed and the default should be the chosen (CoffeeRoll) standard.  Perhaps talk templates for AID, COTW and the like could be made to stand out, but a) they should at least maintain the general style (perhaps the colour being the only tweak), and b) be decided upon as a whole.  In other words, lets discuss them as a separate issue and decide on a style for them.  violet/riga (t) 12:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, this should not be an opt out process in light of the way in which templates are initiated and revised over time by multiple people for particular purposes. Courtland 12:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, else what is the point of standardisation? There are very few new notice templates that will be made, anyway, as they are all covered by existing ones.  violet/riga (t) 13:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being redundant, I'll restate something that I wrote elsewhere in these pages: standaridisation means identification and application of standards not make everything look and work the same. If this is accepted, then an opt-in approach would be acceptable. Courtland 23:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * The standards are listed on the main page, and they include size, layout and colour. I can't see how you can have a standard if there are lots of templates that don't conform to it.  violet/riga (t) 07:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Current situation clarification
The current WP:TS covers talk page templates only. The new one, currently under discussion at /article, looks at templates by category. This groups, for example, maintenance templates together under one uniform style. It will include a vote that allows people to decide the positioning (article/talk, top/bottom, etc.) and the design.

The whole point of template standardisation is to make them all look like they're part of a properly organised system. The original WP:TS came about because of the unprofessional appearance of many talk pages when more than one template was used. This is not so much of an issue for article templates, but they should still be standardised. It aims to eliminate the arguments about styles that have been ongoing for a very long time, and allows CSS customisation to override the defaults. Eventually I would love to see a page containing various style submissions that any user can choose and, following the guide, add to their personal CSS script. violet/riga (t) 14:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The unprofessional appearance aspect should be handled on a template-by-template basis; as it stands, the assumption seems to be that anything that isn't formatted according to the voted for scheme is de facto unprofessional. This should be addressed separately from achieving the "organised system" approach.  Mixing these has led to some of the discomfort churn seen here. Identification of elements that contribute to a professional look or detract from it should feed into the standards identification process; the top-down standards setting approach taken here does not lend itself well to the Wikipedia environment, unfortunately.  Courtland 23:57, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. You are talking about the templates themselves looking unprofessional, whereas I'm talking about templates stacked together looking unprofessional.  When different templates are next to each other it looks (looked) pretty awful, with a bright, wide template with large writing and a black border sitting next to a small pastel box with a grey border.  That was the whole point of WP:TS and that's what was chosen - there was a "no standardisation" option but it was massively voted down.  violet/riga (t) 07:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

scope of the present scheme
User:Violetriga reverted my edit on this page here. My change was to make clear the scope of the current "CoffeeRoll" template standard, as it was described during the vote, before she also removed it from there. Specifically, the phrase "This is a proposal for template standardisation. Firstly it will look at templates used on talk pages for the development, status and Wikiproject information about an article."

I believe it important that we do not jump to the automatic conclusion that people were supporting this standard for every single talk page template. The scope during the vote, based on that phrase and the examples, was that it only applied to templates which state the "development, status and Wikiproject information" of an article. To contrast with that, cleanup templates have their own de facto standard, and are used quite often on talk pages. Cleanup templates, while could slightly be said to state the status of an article, are more a "request for action", whereas "development, status and Wikiproject information" is more passive information. We need to clarify this on the main Template standardisation page. -- Netoholic @ 21:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear. All talk page templates come under WP:TS.  All template notices will soon appear under WP:TS when Template standardisation/article goes through.  Having a standard that isn't applied to all the templates simply means that it isn't a standard!  The whole point of this is to make all the templates appear the same when next to each other, on talk pages for the moment and in articles soon.  violet/riga (t) 21:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not the scope as it was described during the vote, and your attitude is not helpful. -- Netoholic @ 00:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly what are you complaining about? Is there a particular instance you are cross about?  As far as I can see, &#123;{cleanup}} falls under no standardisation project. smoddy 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Violetriga has threatened to blanket Cleanup and other templates with this standard. I need to establish for her sake that this guideline should apply only to the passive "status" templates, not to any others.  I am concerned because Cleanup, and others, have their own 'de facto' standard and work well for their niche. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I will be changing all talk page templates to that standard. Cleanup is not a talk page template. violet/riga (t) 11:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

As per the Template voting, it was as much about the usage of the template as it was about the type of page the template was on. There needs to be easily recognized differences between different types of templates, so I definately do not support having All talk page templates match the coffee roll format. Blank Verse  &empty;  00:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole point of the talk page template standardisation was to standardise all talk page templates. There were votable options for different colourings of types of templates but the set colour of CoffeeRoll was chosen.  violet/riga (t) 11:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that templates used on talk pages for the development, status and Wikiproject information about an article. is not at all the same thing as all talk page templates. Also, the vote being pointed to seems to be devoted to choosing a style -- it was an approval vote. That is not IMO a good method for demonstrating a consensus that a single style should be employesd on all talk page templates. Where and when was this consensus determined? It seems that violet/riga is treating this as a policy, or soemthing close to one -- something that it is proper to seek out and change to conform, and improper to revert away from, and not as a guideline, i.e. strong advice to individual editors, but not an excuse in and of itself sor making and enforcing changes. A policy ought to have a wide or clear consensus behind it. When and where was this established?  I don't agree that ALL talk page tempaltes hould have a single color scheme -- it seems to me that different classes of templates, for different purposes, should quite possibly have different apperences. DES 15:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a section on Template_standardisation/vote at the very bottom entitled "Templates included" that would seem to explicitly define the scope of the votes. Was this present during the voting? Should this listing be used as a de facto scope for the voting? Courtland 11:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a list of templates included as examples, not a complete list of those that are covered. violet/riga (t) 11:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

In looking through the child pages of Template messages it's clear that efforts have been made in some cases to suggest whether a template belongs on a talk page or not, but there are many cases where this has not been formally stated in the descriptive table. If either these two questions have "yes" as the answer, then the activity scope of ths proposal is far beyond the scope that has been debated here as it reaches into the article editing space. I'm hoping that these questions make it a little more clear why it is not desirable to address all templates in such a large and ill-defined class as "talk-page templates" in a single editing sweep, as it is clear that will be done regardless of misgivings or dissent on the part of editors who use the templates. Courtland 11:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * will judgements be made about whether or not a template is a talk-page template when there is not a pre-existing statement of placement?
 * in cases where there are variations from the suggested placement, will the placement be "corrected" throughout Wikipedia?
 * The idea of categorisation and placement is discussed at both Template standardisation/article and Template locations. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The mentions on these pages are a proposal (the former) and a survey (the latter), neither of which definitively address the question with regard to specific templates. Until such a time as the proposed explicit segregation of "article" versus "discussion" template is completed, the impact of the present activities should be limited to specific and named templates, not the fuzzy class of "talk-page templates".  Could you please provide a list of templates that you (Violet/Riga) will be editing. Courtland 12:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is limited to talk page templates. The second phase of WP:TS will help to choose which templates go in the article and which go on the talk.  violet/riga (t) 13:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. It would seem to follow, then, that application of the standards should wait until the templates that are to be standardized have been identified, i.e. until the completion of Phase 2. Courtland 23:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think that there are some big disagreements over the scope of the current Template standardizations. As some people have discussed on this page, and has also been shown with some of the edit/revert wars over some templates, several people feel that the "standardization" of the Talk page templates was limited to the example templates in the voting and very similar templates, and was NOT supposed to be for absolutely every template that goes on a Talk page. Another question is whether these "standards" are Wikipedia Policy or just guidelines. As some of the discussion is showing for the Article page templates, there are quite a few people who feel that there needs to be some differentiation in the style of the templates based upon the function or type of template. Unfortunately the vote for Talk page templates never allowed or even considered that there should be any differences in the Talk page templates. My own opinion is that I think that the basic format for the Talk page templates is okay, but there should be some allowances for some variation. I see no problem with This week's improvement drive, for example, standardizing on a nice pastel green for all of their templates, while still using the rest of the talk page "standard". The featured picture notice (PromotedFPC) also uses the same color, or very similar color, and I see no problem with that either. Blank Verse  &empty;  09:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Other options
A couple possibilities:
 * 1) Handle templates or articles individually.
 * 2) Work to cut down the number of templates used on any article at any given time. Maurreen 15:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Customisation of the standards
Yes, I know it sounds funny, but I have confirmed that it is possible to over-ride particular settings (for example, use a different background colour) whilst retaining the basic look-and-feel. Maybe if we made this more public, this would mollify those people who are worried about simply being rolled over? —Phil | Talk 16:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it's working. I think it needs fully documenting with example customisations.  It might be best to wait until the templates are categorised properly before such documentation is written, though.  violet/riga (t) 17:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear, are you talking about customization on a user by user basis, or on a template by template basis. The former does nothing to address my concerns, at least. DES 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of a situation wherein a particular WikiProject has decided to use a particular colour to unify all associated templates: they can take advantage of the existing standards for layout, etc, and simply over-ride the colour. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed template(s)

 * Template:AIDcur Maurreen 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Template:Reqimage (Template talk:Reqimage) -- Netoholic @ 16:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The WP:IDRIVE templates were not listed in the "Included templates", their status as talk page templates is uncertain. Therefore they were not included in the vote, and any changes are not justified by this project. Templates are not really high on my priority list. But I had hoped a discussion could be good, but someone decided not to discuss and just do. Maurreen 03:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * todo: This is a template that serves a very different purpose from most templates and I feel strongly that it should be set apart from the "standard" Coffee Roll Talk page templates. A different color would be a start, but I suggest that it should probably be even more distinctive&mdash;perhaps using a dashed line for the outline box instead of a solid line, for example. On the other hand, the rest of the Coffee Roll standard as far as text, spacing, ect. should probably still be used. Blank Verse   &empty;  09:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)