Template talk:Calm talk

See also: Template:Talk page.

Proposed changes

Considering that this template is rather minimal in content, what do you all think of the possibility of making it take up less vertical space and require less scrolling and space-consumption? One possibility, though I'm not crazy about this version, is: -Silence 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The topic of this article is a frequent source of heated debate. So please keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.

I like it that way even better. --James S. 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean horizontally extended, or with your wording changes (which look fine to me, incidentally)? -Silence 02:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Both; how about this:

Sit; sip?

The topic of this article is a frequent source of heated debate. So please keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.

The link to the nice cup of tea page may be too much, but it's relevant. --James S.

Looks good, but I'm not sure the "So" is necessary now that they're two distinct sentences (though without the "so" the tone might not be quite right; maybe we should consider a few other possible wordings, that are neither pretentious-sounding nor commanding-sounding). I also don't really like the "Sit; sip?" text, as it's not really relevant and distractingly overstates the point of the image. A link to "A nice cup of tea and a sit down" somewhere would certainly be appropriate, though; if we could find a subtle and clean way to incorporate it into the main text of the template, that'd be better (though I can't really see a way to do that in a way that makes sense).

Also, I really think we should restore the cup-of-coffee image. Green tea might taste good, but it looks like a cup of asparagus-laden urine or a stagnant swamp. The original image was much more amusing and quaint, conveying the correctly ironic, detached tone. The colors also worked a lot better, and the image was much, much clearer-looking (being significantly larger), aesthetically pleasing, and balanced. The new image will likely confuse or annoy people who don't understand why that specific; the older image was more archetypal (and was also better for not being a photo), and thus fit the tone a lot better. -Silence 04:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect

With all due respect, I find this template condescending. Ardenn 20:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Truthfully, I have to agree. The first time I saw this template I almost thought it was a joke, someone's snarky attempt to make the situation worse with an innocent-sounding comment. I'm willing to assume good faith here, but it's still worded, in all honesty, as though intended for calming six-year-olds... I cannot imagine any situation in which a canned template telling readers to drink a cup of tea and count to 100 would make anyone any calmer. Dispute resolution is, alas, quite a complicated subject, and the calming effects of photographs of tea are overrated. I won't bother to nominate myself if there isn't any other support, but I do know that if this came up on TfD I'd be for a strong delete. It is not at all helpful. --Aquillion 13:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To that end, I removed the "Count to 100" suggestion, which seemed overwhelmingly condescending. I know that doesn't address all of the problems above, but it felt like taking a step too far. The shorter version suggested above would remove the tea reference, which I would support — but I'd like to see what others say before being bold and pulling something that's been there for a while.Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I got impatient, sorry. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 00:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That looks a lot better and sounds better too. Ardenn 03:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tea is excessive and condescending?

Thats the best thing about this template. Have some tea and relax... Dominick ^(TALK) 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the cup of tea thing. It sounds to me like we're talking to a child, saying, "Now, have some candy and go away; the adults are talking." - Pureblade | ^T 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't interpret it as Pureblade did, but I, personally, don't much care for the line because it links to a page on Wikipedia that's completely unrelated the template itself; I'd similarly object if we linked to Wikipedia:Good articles just because the word "good" occurred in a template. More relevant pages to link to would be Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, etc. -Silence 20:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I want the tea Computerjoe's talk 20:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want it. It is condescending. Ardenn 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only version that was clearly unacceptably offensive, condscending, and just plain stupid. The other tea versions, which far predate the idiotic "count to 100 variant", are just fine, but aren't really relevant or necessary, as long as we can find a better image than the counterproductive, glaring "WARNING!" icon. -Silence 21:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a lot better, but I still wonder whether this template is worth devoting an inch of space and a glowing green box on so many articles to. What does it offer that the more straightforward talk page guidelines on {{talkheader}} and {{controversial}} (one of the other of which is used in conjunction with this template almost everywhere it appears) doesn't? If an exhortation to remain calm really is necessary, shouldn't it just be worked into {{controversial}} anyway? --Aquillion 03:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the tea myself. A warning icon isn't very calming. Ian13/talk 12:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I also like the tea. I also find it amusing though, that the page discussing the Calm talk template seems to need the template on itself. If it's good enough for Time Lords surely tea should help other people as well?--NHSavage 20:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Blue or green?

Any ideas... Ian¹³/t 19:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice green! Computerjoe's talk 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, just make two templates. One blue, one green. There's no reason to fight over something as silly as background color, and there's no reason we can't have a little diversity on different articles' talk pages. -Silence 22:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, forking the template seems abit silly to me, then people will fight over which template to use on all the talk pages. Since there won't be any seperate purpose, I am against splitting it. Ian¹³/t 16:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice doesn't even exist now - it redirects to a blue looking Concordia ;) Ian¹³/t 16:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Alright. I've resolved the problem. People can now choose whatever background color they want for the template. Can we get back to editing the encyclopedia, now? -Silence 21:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  Right, sounds good. Ian¹³/t 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)