Wikipedia talk:Talk page templates/Archive 3

My view and feelings
The WP:TS page clearly stated:
 * To try and ensure some level of design consistency throughout Wikipedia the template standardisation page explains how talk page templates should appear.

To me that is not ambiguous. It clearly stated, at the time of the vote, that talk templates should be standardised to the same style. There were three main options in the vote:
 * 1) One colour for all templates
 * 2) Different colours for different types of template
 * 3) No standardisation

The latter was supported by 5 people, the winning design "ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll" received 42 support votes. This clearly shows the preferred option and the vote and discussions were heavily publicised and open for quite a long time before the decision was made. I'm sorry if people feel that there needs to be different colours for different types (option 2) but that was voted down.

I am a complete aesthete and hate to see the situation that we used to have with four templates of varying design on one page - that's why this was done. To ignore these guidelines there should be a very good reason, in my opinion - with most templates in line with each other it looks silly to have one that isn't. Yes, a compromise can be reached by sticking to the standards but varying the colour, but that was an option in the vote and it was not chosen (mainly because people didn't want "lots of different shades of pastel boxes".  Please note that CoffeeRoll wasn't in fact my preferred option and I too wanted differentiation between types of notice.

Being the person that initiated all of this and spent a very long time sorting it all out I am obviously going to be pretty defensive of it. It's rather distressing to work on something for such a long time, making many compromises along the way, just to have people having a go at me. Not everyone will be happy with the decision, that's a given, but all I'm trying to do is make this place look better - some people are acting as if this is entirely my decision, but I only went along with the consensually chosen option. It wasn't just me that implemented it, either.

I'm sorry if I've come across as trying to enforce my ideals. I believe that discussions regarding the layout of templates should be done as a whole instead of per template - that is the only way to ensure a properly continual look and feel. One of the reasons for WP:TS is to avoid confrontations and arguments over the design - such debates and edit wars have been a regular feature of many templates over an extended period of time. Netoholic has done some very good work on the CSS to work towards customisation and I'd like that to be tied in with this even more as I see that as the way forward - I think it would be great to be able to highlight the templates you are interested in, such as the cleanup tags. violet/riga (t) 11:13, 19 July 2005

Response
I appreciate that a number of people have done substantial work on this with good intentions. However:
 * 1) Whatever publicity was done, it appears that a number of people were surprised after the fact.
 * 2) The voting page specifically lists "Templates included". The indication is at least implicit that only those templates would be included in any such standard.
 * 3) WP distinguishes between its guidelines and policies. According to its template, WP:TS is a guideline. According to Policies and guidelines, guidelines are "less rigid rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases." This contrasts with the template language for policies -- that any policy has "wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow". Maurreen 14:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The publicity could not really have been any bigger. A few of us publicised it on WikiEn-L, IRC, WP:VP, WP:CS, WP:SIGN and various other places.  As for the implication regarding "templates included" that was referring to those included as examples in the design and not an explicit list of what was to be affected.  I see where there is a slight confusion with that, but I believe it is more of an excuse made by people looking back on it rather than what people actually thought during the vote.  violet/riga (t) 14:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Response 2
It is the nature of consensus that it is sometimes difficult to achieve and frustrating to pursue, neither of which undermine its value. Patience with concerned parties for expressing their opinions outside the previously prescribed frame is much appreciated. Courtland 10:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Response 3
I will be honest&mdash;I hadn't really followed the Template standardization vote closely, although I did look in on it when it first started and then checked backed a few times after that to see how it was developing. What I saw seemed pretty reasonable. There were some example templates to be standardized that all had similar purposes and I thought that they probably should have a similar look. The project was also just a guideline and seemed to have a limited scope ("templates used on talk pages for the development, status and Wikiproject information about an article"), which I thought was a good way to to handle such major changes to templates that appeared on numerous pages.

I also figured that if there were any disagreements over specific templates, they would be handled the Wiki-way&mdash;through consensus (the same way that although the MOS says to use the most common English spelling, that when most city and country names are put to a survey the consensus is usually to use the "official" spelling or transliteration). Since I am a firm believer of "Don't vote on everything on the Wikipedia", I saw no reason to vote at WP:TS. On the other hand, if I had noticed anything about treating the Template standardization as Wikipedia Policy instead of a Guideline, or that the Template standardization was meant for absolutely every Talk page template, or that there would be enforcement of the Tempate stadard and revert wars over templates, I would have jumped in and voted "No bloody way!".

So what has happened after the vote? Violetriga has started enforcing the Talk page template standard as if it was Policy and not just a Guideline, and doing it for ALL Talk page templates and not just those mentioned in the vote. She even reverted back a non-standard version (using Admin Rollback powers to do it) and then suggested that it was "vandalism" instead of admitting that there was an honest disagreement between two Wikipedia editors (see Rollback). [Both sides of that template argument did a very poor job of assuming good faith in my opinion!]

I think that although Violetriga has done plenty of good work with this project, I think that she has now got too much invested in it. She has taken ownership over the Template standardization project, and that is not good for the project or the Wikipedia. Furthermore, if the Talk page template standard is going to be applied to absolutely every Talk page template no matter what, and there is going to be enforcement of the standard as if it was Policy and not just a Guideline, then I think that the issue needs to be revisited with another survey because none of that was mentioned in the original survey (and every WikiProject and other Wikipedia group that has templates that would be affected (e.g. WP:FPC) should be notified of the new survey). Blank Verse  &empty;  13:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You may wish to note that a number of people implemented the standard on various templates. I've explained about the consensus-building for individual templates but it looks like you've chosen to ignore that.  Same can be said for "none of that was mentioned in the original survey", which I also clearly answered.  violet/riga (t) 15:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * re:original survey: No, you have not clearly answered that. It is very clear that you think that the original survey said one thing, but from the numerous comments that have been made here on the talk page, it is very clear that others think that the original vote only covered a limited set of Talk page templates. They then think that you have expanded the scope and mandate of the Template standardization after the vote to include ALL Talk page templates. My own opinion is that since this debate shows that it was not OBVIOUS that the vote was meant to cover all Talk page templates, then the standardization should only apply to the example templates, very similar templates, and the three classes of Talk page templates mentioned in the original description. If you want the "Coffee Roll" standard to apply to absolutely every template used on Talk pages, you will need to conduct a new survey.


 * re: "consensus-building for individual templates": Perhaps I am blind, so you will have to point out where you explained that. All I can find is your "my way or the highway" attitude (as exemplified by your revert war and comments to User:Fenice over AIDcur). Blank Verse   &empty;  05:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry but "how talk page templates should appear" does not say "how some specific talk page templates should appear" and that was the intro the the WP:TS page during the vote. Your call for a second survey is clearly biased.  violet/riga (t) 12:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I took a look at Rollback which User:BlankVerse had provided a link to above. I am disturbed to see User:Violetriga having enforced guideline as policy using administrative powers.  This is sufficiently serious that removal of administrative authority, perhaps for a limited time, should be considered.  I am very sensitive to the blurring of lines between guideline and policy. In my opinion, anything that crosses that line or blurs it further should be dealt with using a sledgehammer.  Courtland 14:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * To be fair to her, she did reply that she made a mistake. However, if you think this way, please see Possible misuses of sysop rights - that is the correct place to raise a complaint. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's hardly an abuse of powers - it's more an act of laziness. Abuse of powers would've been protecting it on my version, and for you to suggest such action is more than a little offensive.  It's like saying that I once trod on a spider and should therefore but treated as an animal abuser. violet/riga (t) 15:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for minimizing my concern to a matter of trivia. In response to "this is not the place to complain" (the post from Talrias), I am of the belief that admins should seek sanction of admins and that we non-admins should provide input on the matter but neither initiate nor close such activities.  That's not policy, it's just my (perhaps twisted) operating procedure. Courtland 14:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are concerned about someone's use of admin powers, who else will report it but you? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If mine is the only voice in such a large community as this, then my concern is too minor to rise to the level of such action. Actions that bring calls of concern such as this are not private goings on. In the matter of the Admin community policing itself, which is another way of phrasing my personal desire, I trust that the members of that community are not deaf to the concerns of non-admin folk. Courtland 18:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * As it says at WP:RFA "Admins have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to high standards, as they are perceived by some users as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Admins should be courteous, and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others." Unfortunately, instead of Admins being held to a higher standard, in most cases Admins are allowed much more leeway than other editors for their behavior and misbehavior. Still, using your Admin revert powers in the service of edits wars has been used as a reason for Abitration Committee sanctions (e.g. User:Everyking).  Blank Verse   &empty;  05:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that this is an appropriate place to complain. For one thing, it enables a more-friendly discussion which might avoid the need for stronger enforcement. Maurreen 18:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't see how that requires more of a response than the previous one. violet/riga (t) 12:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It might be more productive to focus on the future than the past. I am interested in hearing from the members of the standardization project on how they intend to proceed, especially concerning any possible "enforcement." Maurreen 16:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Response 4, next step?
I see two amicable ways we could proceed here:

1. The standardization project decides not to try to enforce template standards, but just to encourage them in a friendly way, or
 * this is the "guideline" route User:Ceyockey

2. the standardization project clarify its intention and planned procedures and invite community input before deciding it has enforcement authority. Maurreen 15:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and this is the "policy" route. User:Ceyockey

Spelling?
I'm pretty sure it's standardization, not standardisation. At least according to my spellcheck. Is this a regional variance? That's why I moved it in the first place and fixed all the redirects. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 13:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In American English, the z is often used in place of the s used in British English, hence, I'm guessing, your confusion. According to the Manual of Style:
 * If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)
 * Since the article/page was originally in British English, we are advised to continue to use British English. Wikipedia has not, and probably will never, adopt a specific type of English. Note also that a redirect exists, so that the page can be found using either spelling. -- Ec5618 14:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Did something change?
I went over the converstion, but I can't find out why suddenly a bunch of templates are broken. Did someone change something during that last week that would cause this monstrosity to appear all over the place:

It's highly ironic that the featured pictures are marred with such an unsightly error message. Isn't there a better way to identify and fix the CSS issue without making a whole bunch of templates look like crap for all of the people that aren't interested in fixing CSS code? Cacophony 19:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Somebody forgot to change it over to the new style. I've fixed it now ;-) &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that one, but it appears that many other templates have the same ugly error message. This is something that has changed recently and I'd like to notify whomever made the modification that the new error message has an error.  The links to Template standardisation appear like Template standardisation .  Even if they can find the page, there is no discussion about how to fix the CSS error.  Cacophony 05:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Which templates use this? To fix them, yhe templates should use, rather than  . Talrias (t | e | c) 09:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Last night I went through and changed about 125 templatesfrom class=talk notice to class=messagebox standard, but I am still confused as to what changed in the last week that caused 100+ templates to be broken. Is there a way that could have prevented many thousands of pages to display broken templates for a week+?  Could there have been a better way to fix them problem than waiting for some random person (me) to discover the problem and fix it?  I am dissapointed in the piss poor planning that caused this to happen.  Cacophony 21:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed a few of those myself, and I'm still running into CSS errors on templates. I guess it gave me an excuse to read up on templates a little, but it took me a bit of puzzling to figure exactly what broke.  I am curious about where the discussions were about the change over from "talk-notice" to "messagebox standard-talk".  Somewhere on meta?  Or maybe the local planning department on Alpha Centauri? ;) –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 09:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one other thing, I think it may be browser-specific whether the CSS error is visible. Looking at a template with the old class in Safari, I see the notice, but in Firefox I don't.  –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 09:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Request: manditory links
It is my opinion that all templates should contain manditory view/edit/talk links. -b 01:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright tag standardization
Please see Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags for discussion on a related proposal. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this
This should be changed, no? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. violet/riga (t) 11:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"While this is not a firm policy, it is advised that any new talk page templates should be based on the standard design."

WikiProject Stargate is a well organized WikiProject that does a very good job of using tasteful and useful design choses in templates and articles. They feel that using a different color works better for their project, and have discussed the issue of the color choice before. The group has a large consensus and valid rational for being excluded from the color requirement, while meeting other requirements. For a guideline, this is about as far as it can go. If you want them to change it then you'll have to upgrade this page to policy or try to convince them in discussion. -- Ned Scott 12:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea (apart from the fact that the rest of Wikipedia takes precedence over a little WikiProject) Why don't you make the main part of the template the real colour, and leave the lower bar as it is. You get the best of both worlds, then ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus within a WikiProject does not trump consensus of Wikipedia as a whole. Quite the contrary. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have no strong consensus, and the guideline specifically says "...this is not a firm policy, it is advised that any new talk page templates should be based on the standard design." Guidelines are guidelines because they can have exceptions that are not addressed on a large scale.  From WP:PAG: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ". So, actually, consensus in a WikiProject (in this situation) does trump the "consensus" of this guideline. I can't tell you how often I've had to explain to people that guidelines are NOT the same thing as policy. -- Ned Scott 21:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also advised that you don't fart at the dinner table, but.... ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

New Guideline proposed about "mini templates"
A new policy had been preposed to reduce the size of templates here: your help with integrating the designs into the current design standards would be appreciated. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The correct link is Mini Talkpage Template. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate?
In the example section, the templates should be substituted and the categories removed, because now this page is sorted into categories it doesn't belong in!!! Unless anyone objects or beats me to it I will do this myself later.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template clutter being reduced
In case the people watching this page aren't aware of it, there is a new way to reduce template clutter. See Template:ArticleHistory for a template combining FA/GA/FAC/AfD notices, and see Template talk:Multiproject for discussions on how to combine WikiProject templates. This may affect whether people decide to use the small=yes option on a talk page. Carcharoth 10:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WikiProjectBanners
Template:WikiProjectBanners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Small Option
Could anyone (not you Ned) tell me why they call it a small "option"? Can individual users disable it so it still appears normal to them? Otherwise I don't see the point of calling it an "option". 10:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadzilla99 (talk • contribs).
 * Well, that's a bit rude. It's called the small option because it's large by default. I'm not too familiar with editing, but it should be possible to make banners show large all the time if you edit your monobook.css file. m:Help:User style might be a good place to start. -- Ned Scott 15:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The user has no option, the option is for the template. Quadzilla99 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is alleged by some here that "small=yes" is a failure, and that there is already consensus about that. Does anyone have any views about whether that is so or not? Personally I think small is nifty and a much better solution to the readability problem than a template container. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page templates considered harmful
I would prefer no banners on talkpages, because talkpages are solely for talk. All banners are basically advertising; they serve the needs of the people placing them and not the people reading them. Thoughts? --Ideogram 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:PROJGUIDE. :-\ Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (And that aside, even, from the fact that "Talk" is actually doubling as "Article metadata".) Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the problem, all kinds of junk is being put on the talk page because it has nowhere else to go, and it's interfering with the primary function of the talk pages, which is talk. Wikipedia veterans have no need to see the same article history templates and "this was cited in the National Enquirer" and "this appeared in Do You Care" announcements.  If you want an article metadata page, create it.  I don't watch TV commercials and I don't want to see Wikipedia commercials.  --Ideogram 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, there are the novice users who are seeing the page for the first time, and the veterans who already know it all.  Don't force the veterans to cater to the needs of the novices.  --Ideogram 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The stuff has to go somewhere; we're well past the point where the project can function smoothly without tracking a variety of metadata for articles. If you want to lobby the devs to provide a separate namespace for it, be my guest; but, for the time being, the talk pages are simply the only place where it can be kept.
 * It's worth pointing out, of course, that only a small fraction of article talk pages ever contain actual discussion; the vast majority are deserted, and will contain either metadata or nothing at all.
 * (Novices outnumber veterans by several orders of magnitude, incidentally; so that's not really a convincing argument.) Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What's funny about this is that I was just thinking about how great it would be to have some sort of "2nd" talk page, but where people could put WikiProject banners, but more than that, could list relevant guidelines to help new users see what they should read for their particular article (make it quick and easily to filter the stuff to see and not see, that kind of idea). There would be no "talk" on this page, and it would be more about notices and useful editor links.


 * I don't buy the idea that WikiProject promotion is bad and that it doesn't help editors. The only reason I defend them is because banners have lead me to some of the most helpful resources I could find when I was a newbie. I understand that now that is the minority, but wasn't always like it is now. There is nothing wrong with promoting editing collaboration, and in the past it really did work (and still does, but tends to get lost in the sea of less-useful ones). -- Ned Scott 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The veterans spend orders of magnitude more time on Wikipedia than the novices, the veterans do orders of magnitude more work, and each individual user is a novice only once.

Metadata is only placed on pages by people who go there. I guarantee you the vast majority of pages with no talk also have no metadata.

Let me ask you a question: why don't we put project banners on article pages? I'll answer it too: because most people are only interested in reading an article and not joining a project. By the same token, the vast majority of views of a project banner on a talk page are by people who have already decided whether to join the project or not. You want to show project banners to users who are already (or likely to be) interested in joining a wikiproject.

Let me also note that this recruiting motivation rewards wikiprojects for plastering their banners over as many articles as possible, in a land grab. This is a tragedy of the commons where the reader's attention is the commons. --Ideogram 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I am interested in joining a Linguistics WikiProject. I have read some articles but haven't seen a banner. What do I do now? Assume it doesn't exist? The banners are not serving my needs, and they should, because I, as a veteran, will likely contribute more to a WikiProject than the average novice. --Ideogram 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we have some agreement here that it would be desirable to have a separate metadata page for each article. Can we work towards that goal instead of adding epicycles to talk page banners?  --Ideogram 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. A great deal of newbies join WikiProjects, start accounts just to join WikiProjects, and even start WikiProjects as newbies. A lot of projects are started to help avoid confusion for new editors by placing guidelines and centralized discussion where they can easily find it. This isn't just an idea, this actually happens every day on Wikipedia.


 * I would love to have some other data fork for this info, such as another page, but that would require a lot of software development and is not likely to happen soon. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And since Wikipedia is changing all the time, you can easily become a newbie more than once in regards to some things. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not listening to me. Joining a wikiproject, creating an account, and even starting a wikiproject are not substantial contribution.  Editing pages and participatiing in discussions is.  As for the newbie argument, I can be a newbie when it comes to looking for a new wikiproject, but I can only be a newbie to viewing a talk page once.  After that I don't need to see the same banners over and over again.  --Ideogram 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Add  to your CSS, and you need never see them again. Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Always and never are both wrong choices. --Ideogram 03:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't you just say that you wanted "no banners on talkpages"? Kirill Lokshin 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I said I wanted a metadata page. --Ideogram 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) So you're arguing that we have 600,000 talk pages with actual discussion on them? Not to put too fine a point on it, but somehow I think your numbers may be just a little bit off. ;-)


 * There is no way we tagged 600,000 articles by hand. Your figures only serve to illustrate the problem:  if every wikiproject tagged the same number of articles talk pages would be overwhelmed.  --Ideogram 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But, beyond that, keep in mind that I'm not making a theoretical point here. I'm speaking entirely from practical experience.  WikiProjects that actively tag talk pages have a much easier time keeping up with attrition than projects that don't; indeed, there are very few truly active projects that don't use banners.  You're extrapolating from yourself when you're quite far from the average case: you already know what a WikiProject is!  Most newer editors don't, and almost certainly won't unless they happen to spot a banner announcing one.
 * The reason we don't put project banners on articles is more WP:ASR than anything else, incidentally. (Trust me, people have tried.  Repeatedly.) Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your point does not address my objection, namely, the tragedy of the commons. If every wikiproject takes the same approach of tagging as many articles as possible, Wikipedia as a whole will lose.  You think it's great that WP:MILHIST has succeeded because it has banners all over the place; what do you think will happen when every talk page has dozens of banners?  This is not a theoretical point either, it is happening right now.  --Ideogram 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll have lots of projects like MILHIST?
 * (Basically, you're making an assumption that more tags will somehow lead to... what? Less recruits for each project? That doesn't at all match up with what we're seeing in practice. The only practical drawback of more banners is the actual visual real estate they occupy, and that's a technical concern that can be dealt with by technical means.) Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I AM talking about visual real estate. You do realize that these new articlehistory and wikiprojectbanner templates are really metadata pages implemented by other means?  --Ideogram 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I already have to scroll down because new discussion is towards the bottom of talk pages, not at the top. Having said that, I do agree that we need to clean up clutter, but not all talk pages are cluttered and not all banners should be considered the bad part of that clutter. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to have to scroll to see the table of contents. --Ideogram 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. It's being done that way because (a) making the devs do anything is hard, (b) moving things to a whole new namespace is hard, and, most importanly, (c) the scope of the problem is very limited.  As I said above, the majority of talk pages contain banners and nothing else; it's only when there's actual discussion present that we need to remove the big block o'banners from the top, and these new templates do so fairly adequately, and without requiring the massive technical changes of a full-blown metadata namespace. Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point I think we are vehemently agreeing. I would be a fool to advocate a specific technical solution to the general problem of conserving visual real estate.  Having a single button you can click on to expand a collection of banners does not differ in usability from creating a metadata namespace.  As long as we can limit it to one button for article history, one button for wikiprojects, and one button for everything else that doesn't belong on a talk page, I am satisfied.  --Ideogram 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What we need is a way to inform every interested user of what WikiProjects are, and then give them a way to find one that interests them. --Ideogram 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of a banner that I've had a big hand in, WikiProject DIGI. Yes, it's a WikiProject for... Digimon.. But put your fears to rest, the goals of this project is to actually reduce things like fancruft and the hundreds of articles about these mostly non-notable little guys. The banner does a few things, one is that it has a second banner explaining the current mass-merging effort going on in hundreds of articles. Editors are seeing a lot of changes happen and who knows what they'll think of it, jumping to conclusions and getting into revert wars. Adding a notice helps people to understand what's going on and how they can be involved in the discussion. That alone has been a world of help in our merging efforts. Also take note that it's pretty small compared to most banners, using the show button for all those little extras that most banners have at the main level. Clicking show revolves direct links to important guidelines that many of these fly-by-night fan editors won't normally take the time to find themselves. I'd like to know what you think about this template and it's uses. The talk pages this is seen on are pretty clean and free of banner clutter. At most a page will have two banners total (not including that sub-banner), even when sharing an article with another project. These are the kinds of situations I want to defend, and are the kinds of situations I'm not sure everyone is considering. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I had not considered the benefits of using WikiProject templates to announce wikiproject-wide news. I think that is very useful.  Unfortunately I don't see how it will work when nested inside another expanding banner.  The show button, as I noted above, is fine.


 * I can see that this is an effective solution for your situation. My situation involves WPCHINA, and obviously a lot of our articles are part of, or going to be part of, a lot of other wikiprojects.  I was horrified by Talk:Go (board game).  If that can be fixed to have exactly the three buttons I mentioned eariler, preferably in a horizontal line, I will be fine.  --Ideogram 04:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Solution to a more general problem
I hate navigation templates. They take up a huge amount of room and display tons of links in the hope that they will interest the reader.

It appears this is the same kind of problem as the multiplying banners. Whoever solves this problem, I would also like some kind of solution that allows navigational templates to be hidden behind a button. Right now some of them have a show button, but this (a) doesn't combine multiple nav templates and (b) still forces it to take up a whole horizontal line. --Ideogram 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy smokes, I know what you mean. Some nav templates are just insane. I figure they should only be used for a series of articles, but many people are just using them to tie similar articles together, which is what internal linking and the see also section is for. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For my current solution to this problem, see User:Ideogram/navigation templates. --Ideogram 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno.. Again, this is a situation where I'd much rather just remove needless nav templates and come up with some aggressive guidelines. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried removing them and got into an argument. This was a compromise.  --Ideogram 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page
Copied from Village pump (policy) to Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article --Philip Baird Shearer 13:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Village pump conversation regarding templates
See here this concerns several aspects of the WikiProject templates and their implementation. Quadzilla99 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Village pump (policy)/Archive AZ

eh...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt the fact that boxes are occasionally used on talk pages could reasonably be construed to mean they have anything to do with the formatting guidelines on this page. — freak([ talk]) 10:02, Apr. 16, 2007 (UTC)


 * "This scheme is to be used for all talk page templates." Some of the elements can be modified when needed (and note that smaller, right-aligned boxes are displayed on the page), but they should be followed unless there's a good reason not to. Your personal opinion that the coloring is "ugly" is not such a reason.
 * For the record, I happen to think that having the box not match the other talk page templates that it often sits next to makes it ugly. But that isn't why I changed shortcut to display with the standard talk page template coloring when used on talk pages.  I did so because this coloring indicates whether or not a template is appropriate for use on talk pages.  This standard is important, as it discourages users from accidentally placing talk page templates in articles (and vice versa).  That always was one of the main ideas behind this standardization.  (It was not, as you wrote, something intended to apply strictly to "banners that stack in the middle 85% of the page," which merely describes the default configuration.)
 * You wrote that a "template should not change color depending on where it's used," which appears to be another personal opinion (and not based on any policy, guideline, or community discussion). To me, this seems like an excellent method of conveying the fact that a template is appropriate for use on talk pages and non-talk pages.  More importantly, we don't have to worry about users seeing a non-"Coffee Roll" template widely used on talk pages and believing that it's appropriate to follow suit with others (which are intended for use on non-talk pages).  —David Levy 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, David, but you've already told me what you think. I was hoping I could get a reply from someone other than yourself. Otherwise, why would I have posted here? — freak([ talk]) 15:41, Apr. 16, 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not stopping other people from weighing in. I'm merely explaining the reasoning behind my opinion and addressing your statements (some of which I believe to be incorrect).  —David Levy 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Small option as default?
Considering the large amounts of illwill talkpage banners invoke in some users, could we make  the default for most/all of them? Has this been suggested/rejected before?

See particularly this thread at wikien-l, wherein they discuss creating a 3rd meta-page for each article, to move banners to. Partially to stop banners from clogging the top of talkpages, partially to leave the redlink for "discussion" intact if there hasn't actually been any there yet.

Thanks. --Quiddity 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really a good idea, in my opinion, as it would interfere with the use of things like WikiProjectBanners/WikiProjectBannerShell. Kirill 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProjectBanners already has small=yes coded in. WikiProjectBannerShell doesn't but it could be added. --Quiddity 05:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh man, I'd love a 3rd page. We could list guidelines and stuff that applied to the article there too, which would be a huge help. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems too much like process-creep. Plus people would inevitably campaign for categories to be moved there too (not a good idea). The harder things are to find, the less they get used/noticed, and the more they get complained about.
 * (heh, I see that one in the archives now too. Figures :)


 * As for small=yes as default:
 * Take an example like Talk:Vitamin C: Only the "To do" list deserves/needs to be fullsize, the other 4 templates could all fit better next to the initial-content/TOC
 * Or the example used on the projectpage, Talk:Islam: In the mini-talkarchive I see this given as an example of a bad diff, but that's just what the actual talkpage looks like currently! If small is always "optional", people don't tend to use it.


 * Refined suggestion: Make certain types of talk-template default to  (tobedetermined, obviously. e.g. wikiproject banners, previous collabs, etc). "Small" was/is a good solution, it just hasn't been perfectly implemented yet.
 * That's my current perspective anyway :) "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler", as the great man said. --Quiddity 05:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * small as default still would be a good idea--what is the status? As for a third page, I am reluctant to clutter up the interface, and obtrusive as the multiple banners & notices can be, I think they'd just get ignored there. The goal should be compactness, realizing that a tag cant explain everything fully. —DGG (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template width
On the front page of this project it says "Size is 85% width and the whole template is centered" but in MediaWiki:Common.css the class .messagebox clearly states "width: 80%;" and the class .messagebox.standard-talk does not override. And the templates I see on talk pages are indeed 80% wide. So should we update the front page to say 80% width? --David Göthberg 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I updated the project page to say 80% width now, since no one protested in a week. --David Göthberg 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates, new style
The protection templates are being redesigned.

The Article message boxes project has now changed and standardised the styles for most of the message boxes that goes on article pages. We are now planning to change the protection templates to have a matching look when on article pages.

While we are at it we intend to also change their look when they are on talk pages. To have the look designed by this project. Thus I thought you who watch this talk page might be interested to have a look and voice your opinion about it.

The new design can be viewed here: pp-meta

The new design is discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes

--David Göthberg 09:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Category message boxes
For those of you interested, a similar standardization project is starting up for category message boxes. Your input would be greatly appreciated at Category message boxes. Cheers, Rocket000 06:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed with a new talk page template?
Hello everyone. I'm currently working on a template for talk pages which would indicate which optional MoS element (em vs. en dashes for example) is being used in an article. Once we've got something stable, is there a formal approval process (as with bots), or do we just start using it and add it to (as with the userbox index)? Thanks in advance. – Scartol  ·  Talk  14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There doesn't exist an "approval process" but there are some traditions: If you think your template might need some discussion then just code it up but don't add links to it from "official" pages. Instead announce it on several or even many talk pages like this one. That is, on talk pages that are likely to be watched by people that are interested in your template. Ask them to come to the talk page of your template to discuss it. Then wait some day and see what happens. If no one objects then go on and link to it from all the official places.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Main talk other

 * From the (in)famous creator of the ambox, here comes a new meta-template:

I have coded up a solution for the message boxes that are used on several types of pages. Take a look at the main talk other template. It helps other templates detect what type of page they are on, so they can change appearance. And I think I have managed to make it really easy to use.

If you also need to detect category pages then there is a template for that too: main talk category other.

''Disclaimer: The first sentence above is a joke. The ambox was very much a teamwork and a lot of people worked hard in that project.''

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

hide/show
Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but... could a hide/show button be added to Template:FAQ ? Would be useful for long FAQs on busy talk pages. Thanks Tvoz | talk 18:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with Ohio Template
I added a portal nav box to Template:OH-Project, here's the problem: When I add the class syntax the portal box disappears. Thanks for the help. §tepshep  •   ¡Talk to me!  21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be fixed, so I tnull'ed the templates. For requests like this, please use Requested templates. Thank you. eDenE  04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Message box standardisation
To standardise the look of message boxes in image space and category space we have now coded up some suggestions. See the new meta-templates imbox and cmbox and discuss the design for them at their talk pages.

I will announce this standardisation effort in the appropriate places here at Wikipedia during the next few days.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now we have coded up the tmbox for talk pages and the ombox for all other types of pages such as "Wikipedia:" pages. This means all the namespaces are covered. Everyone is invited to take a look at the new boxes and have a say at their talk pages.


 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
May i talk with you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahkoaung (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm Gary King ( talk ) 07:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of nested=yes parameter for WP that do not use bannershell
I want to discuss this before making a change in the guideline. The new WikiProjectBannerShell is used to encapsulate three, four, or more projects into one banner, in order to compact their size. Previously one WP banner could take five or six lines. Within the Bannershell, they are nested, and take one line each, with an abbreviation of the classifaction for the ptroject, but can be optinally expanded by the viewer.

The bannershell is designed for many projects, as I said above. In the case where there is only one, two, or sometimes three projects, the "nested=yes" parameter can be used on a wikiproject without including the bannershell. The net effect is to make the one or two projects, that would have taken 5-12 lines, fit in two compact lines.

Example:

Rather than:

I implemented this in a number of arrticles, but apparently someone was bothered by that, and went through and removed my changes, as their opinion was apparently different than mine, as I view the two compact lines as elegant. That person quoted WP:TPT guideline that only 80% of the width should be used as justification for reverting. I can respect their right to differ, and as the guideline is ambiguous, the best solution is to change the guideline so that it is clearly acceptable to do that.

It is important to keep in mind that 1) This implementation is used on talk pages only, and not on article name space. 2) Following the WP:TPT guidelines is optional, and not forced. That is, editors should have discretion to decide how they prefer a banner on an article talk page. 3) The 80% guideline was discussed and decided long before the WikiProjectBannerShell and nested parameter was developed.

I propose changing the guidelines to specifically allow use of more than 80% of the width on talk pages generally, and specifically, to allow use of the nested=yes parameter within talk namespace at the option of the editors of an article, or Wikiproject working on a set of articles. That nested=yes to be allowed either within a WikiProjectBannerShell, or outside of a WikiProjectBannerShell as is desired.

I don't see any potential problems with making this kind of change, but want to work through it with others before changing the guideline, or certainly someone will come along a revert it at some point later, saying that there was no discussion or consens for the change. Atom (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Atom: I agree with you that it could be nice to use the banners collapsed even when not inside a banner shell. (Then we don't really need the banner shells.)
 * We are about to make it so that these banners automatically become 80% wide when shown directly on a page (not surrounded by a banner shell). No matter if collapsed or not. So that we can fix. See my longer response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. And see the tech discussion at Template talk:Tmbox.
 * And regarding this guideline Talk page templates:
 * The WikiProject banners and the banner shells are currently used in many different ways and the ways they are used are really messy. And how they should be used is under constant discussion. There are even two different banner shells and some banners only support one of them. Thus there really are no consensus for anything when it comes to these things. And the code for them is about to be changed, again. (See Template talk:Tmbox.)
 * So, since these things are messy and in a state of flux, then I suggest that for the time being we leave the banners and banner shells out of this guideline. If/when we get these things into a better shape then we should perhaps state something about the banners and banner shells in this guideline. Or perhaps better, make a separate page that explains their usage.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am okay with waiting for things to be more stable regarding bannershells. What about changing the guideline to say that the 80% width constraint does not apply in talk namespace, or banners (of any kind) in talk namespace?  Atom (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Atom: Sorry no, I strongly disagree with that. I know this is not your fault, but the WikiProject banner people have not been able to agree on a sane specification for the banners, and (partly due to their confused and contradicting specifications) they have not been able to code up decent working banners. We should not try to "fix" that by changing a long standing guideline which has (so far) had a robust consensus.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. What do you think the fix is?  I know I can just go ahead and use them in nested=yes format, as the guideline does not address that specifically (yet).  Where would be the appropriate place to discuss getting the banner to only use 80% of the space?  The WikiProjectBannerShell project?  Atom (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To fix the width we need to do some changes to the ".messagebox.nested-talk" class in MediaWiki:Common.css. I and Happy‑melon are discussing such things over at Template talk:Tmbox. So, I think your best option here is to sit back and wait for our fix to those classes. Well, and keep an eye on any discussions there and over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council and so on so you can chip in with your opinions, so I and Happy‑melon won't be alone in defending any fixes we try to apply. (I think there might be a lot of resistance to any changes.)
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Template, visible only to editors, for discussion orientation
I hesitate to perhaps reinvent the wheel by implementing this, so plz point me to any existing template: New editors often find it obvious that discussion on the Web takes place in what i think of as "listserv" format: On a talk pg for an article-pg or project-pg, they
 * start a new discussion at the top of the page, or
 * join an existing discussion at the top of the section.

And fixing it is rare enuf that i constantly run across messes dating back years, and occasionally to 2002; i fixed one the other day where i sorted & added clarifications to multiple comments attributed in the edit history to User:Conversion script! Occasionally i've created a box that uses the general approach of looking, in the edit pane, like
 * < !-- Text       -->
 * < !-- Text       -->

or
 * Text
 * Text

(or

might might conceivably be easier inside a subst'ed template), and (in place of "Text") says something like
 * Please don't put your comment up here.
 * To start a new discussion, go to the bottom of the page, and precede your comment with a line that starts with == (two equal signs) and follows it with an appropriate title and ends with another ==
 * To add a comment to an existing discussion,
 * indent your comment one step deeper -- by putting one more colon or asterisk (*) -- than the comment you are addressing, and
 * place your comment *after* any existing comments (and comments on them, etc.) that also address that same existing comment.

I suppose it could be worth thinking about putting the "existing discussion" instructions in a similar template (that perhaps formats the heading instead of explaining how to), to go at the top of each new section, but i'm trying to make myself keep the initial version simple. Thoughts? --Jerzy•t 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume you have seen talkheader. But I see you want the message to only be visible when actually editing the page. Then take a look at MediaWiki:Talkpagetext, that one is shown at the top of all talk pages when we edit them. Some users have mentioned that they want to expand MediaWiki:Talkpagetext with some of the stuff from talkheader. But I don't remember where I saw those suggestions. I think you should perhaps suggest that your text is added to MediaWiki:Talkpagetext.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

MoS naming style
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal from MoS
"contributions limited in the last 2 years"?? How is that any justification for removing this from the MoS? Why would that make this page obsolete? Did you consider that maybe there's been limited contributions because the page is more or less complete and doesn't need any more contributions?? -- &oelig; &trade; 06:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 agreement. Also, Template:Tmbox/doc links to here as "the guideline specifying the styles for talk page message boxes". -- Quiddity (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:BLP
I'm having some trouble finding a compromise to conform Template:BLP to the guidelines while satisfying the two users forming the interested audience on the talk page. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might be able to better design a satisfactory compromise? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a specific example page in mind, where the template is not prominent enough, I'd recommend mentioning it, in that thread. The 2 editors you're talking with, are both admins, and take BLP seriously, so they're as rational as any editors you're likely to find!
 * Colorwise: You've already tried the redesigns at Template:BLP/sandbox (as demonstrated in Template:BLP/testcases) and Template:BLP/sandbox1. Possibly you could try the original background, but with the orange border. I agree with NW and Garion that the non-standard background helps it to standout. (plus it should usually be the first or second template on any page in which it appears, so that helps it). -- Quiddity (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What's with the Latin?
Just wondering if this is supposed to be in Latin. Seems a bit odd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's intentional - "Lorem ipsum..." is standard placeholder text, used to demonstrate how a layout will appear - see Lorem ipsum for more information. DH85868993 (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Small option revisited
Is the small option still used anywhere, now that we have WikiBannerShell? The three talk pages lised as "Examples in action" don't seem to use them any more. DH85868993 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the small option is still used in for instance the edit request templates. See the example I added here.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)