Template talk:Ambox/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Skinning instructions

Added at Wikipedia:Ambox CSS classes/Skins. I cannot get the "Eliminate icons completely" code to work properly, please help.

Feel free to cleanup, add more, move to a new title, etc. --Quiddity 17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my advice :) Good job. I fixed the "Eliminate icons completely" code. We should work on linking to this page from a lot of different places to make people aware that if they don't like the look of these boxes they can always change them.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:51, 09/19/2007

I added a link from the project page under "Alternate skins" [1]. Feel free to adjust wording as you see fit. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeay! ←Ben^B4 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck!

I like the new design, and I hope it doesn't get cut to pieces by various people all trying to force their little corner of the article message box "space" to be slightly different and other people just hating it for various reasons. I can't stand to participate here anymore, there is too much complaining and not enough actual doing and my wikistress level is getting out of control. If anyone needs technical help feel free to contact me on my talk page, although there are plenty of others who are as good or better than I am. Good luck! Anomie 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a general suggestion for people doing these sorts of major standardization projects - do it in stages and don't tell anyone. No, seriously. When I was converting all the Babel-1, Babel-2, Babel-3, et cetera templates into just Template:Babel I didn't tell anyone. I just did it a little bit at a time. Virtually no-one even noticed. Then when the old templates had sat un-used for a few weeks I put them up on TfD and they were all deleted without incident - despite two prior attempts to delete them based on plans to standardize having gone down in flames. Same thing when I converted all the 'inline' templates to use Template:Fix... I did a few at a time and saved the biggest one, Template:Fact, for last. Again, almost no-one noticed. When I finally converted 'Fact' to use the standardized form at 'Fix' I put a notice on the talk page asking for concerns or complaints there... no one ever responded.

When you spring a big change on people all at once and say, 'Look here! This is the new way we are going to do things!' you will get a bunch who complain that they don't like it and they weren't consulted and they weren't given time to consider it. If you make the changes gradually people will see them around and can object or suggest alterations if the wish. Thus, when the project is all done everyone sort of just shrugs and says, 'Haven't we been doing it that way for a while now?'. The recognition of a 'big announcement' may sound nice, but as demonstrated... it usually has a downside.

PS: I love the whole thing. Great job folks. --CBD 11:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried that with the talk page templates 2+ years ago and ran into one user that fought it constantly. Then we went through the competition process which eventually worked well but was a draining experience. This time it's worked quite well - the templates have changed and this page exists to explain the reasoning and support the change. I expected some people to be negative and at least discussion is starting to be constructive rather than IDONTLIKEIT and running off to ANI. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing the same with The ToC templates recently. Right now, a big batch is awaiting closing of the vote to be deleted. After that, the real trouble start. Circeus 03:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How-to guide

I have created a guide about how to use the ambox CSS classes directly in wikitables and HTML tables. Its not complete yet but has all the basics in it so should already be useful: Wikipedia:Ambox CSS classes

--David Göthberg 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work - we all really appreciate the work you've done on the ambox. violet/riga (t) 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I finally understand them. Nice work! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is a separate "Growth" color necessary?

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

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

Thanks, that works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I very strongly agree with David, David, Violet, etc. Green is unnecessary and was inappropriately rush-added. --Quiddity 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be considerable consensus (of those who participated) against the sperate color, but I don't feel like the volume of participants is large enough to merit it's violent removal, and the lack of recent activity means this section is slipping away from the bottom of the page, where the most discussion takes place. So where do we go from here? --Ybbor^Talk 02:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Green was added after about an hour's worth of discussion. We should remove it now and add it back only if a truly compelling reason for its addition emerges.--Father Goose 08:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the green color; fith color won't kill you. Most objections here are based on procedure (it was added so quickly) and not on content (green is bad because... dunno... no one said anything really compeling). Renata 04:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I still see green as a permissive colour, implying that there is no concern with the article. I'd call that a content concern. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think green is fine for growth tags and so forth. Because growth really isn't a "warning" or a "maintenance tag" per se, not like a "Hey something's wrong here" type thing. It's more like a friendly suggestion, like "This article could use some more stuff, so feel free! :)" or, "Add to me if you want, I'm lonesome." You know? It's a more "positive" tag than the others. Growth is something natural that most articles can be expected to go through (most articles don't start out long), so why make the tag suggesting that look the same as the ones that point out fault? It's an encouragement tag, not a punishment tag. Encouragement can be green.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:09, 09/20/2007

I guess it's a difference in opinion on the generic meaning of the colour green. I see green and think "everything is fine" (which it's not), and you see the green as "growth" (improve the article). Anyway, that's just my concern. It's not a huge issue. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, growth too, but mainly I meant that it can mean encouragement. I don't think growth tags should look the same as its "critical" sibling tags. Growth is a different kind of thing entirely. It's a natural part of a young article's life, and it shouldn't feel ashamed of that.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:26, 09/20/2007

Feels like an article is a living beast ;) But I see where "green=all ok" argument is coming. Because of that I asked for a new pic somewhere above because it was too similar to WP:GA logo and color. However, I also think that "growth" is not something "bad". See, other colors say "Beware! This article is crap!" (POV, style, grammar, etc.) While growth category says "Well, there is nothing really wrong with this article, it's just short." So it's an OK article. Renata 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The blue color isn't indicative of any problem, so it's perfect for that purpose. Other "growth" tags do pertain to problems, so they should be switched to yellow or orange. This is much more helpful to our readers than introducing a "category" created primarily as an excuse to include green. —David Levy 06:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the objections aren't procedural. If I (and most others) felt that the end result was good (despite the haste with which the green color was added), I (and most others) wouldn't argue for its removal. That's why we waited to see how things went instead of immediately yanking it out. —David Levy 06:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a procedural objection on my part: I only want to see new colors added if it's for something that can't logically be fit in the basic four (er, five) colors. I argued earlier that merge/transwiki was an 'orange' level of seriousness, and would put "growth" in yellow, personally. Silver/gray for the protection templates, I can see; they exist completely outside the heirarchy of "content" messages.--Father Goose 06:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If there was no consensus for the color green, then there is definitely no consensus now to remove it. We had a lot of discussion on this matter already but it seems like the same small group of people. What about a little poll to see where we're really at? I'll start...

Green. - Rocket000 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A way forward

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

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

1) Work with the old templates to start with.

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

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

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

Tyrenius 05:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Tyrenius, you might need to re-read Wikipedia:Consensus. "Consensus" is not the same as "Unanimity". A single vocal user without further support does not destroy consensus, as badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) found out when he made a massive ruckus over Wikipedia:Overcategorization. You just make yourself look incredibly obnoxious. The only steady arguments you have been able to provide in favor of the previous templates were entirely subjective, while there were numerous objective arguments in favor of the change.

Do your credibility a favor and accept that this tiresome arguing is just flying in the face of consensus; I'll point you to the dozens of users who've come here to say "we love the new templates! That change was sorely needed". Circeus 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Tyrenius' idea of returning to the old templates. If there's one solution that has no consensus whatsoever, that's it. In addition, anyone who wants to see the old designs can simply view each relevant template's history.

To Tyrenius: I suppose one could argue that this change was "rushed through". But right now, why does that even matter? Yes, this was a big change, but as far as I can see it's been a very popular change, aside from the loud, vocal objections by you and Reinis. Haven't you seen the tremendous discussion and productive collaboration of the past several days? There have been tons of new ideas, from the new sidebar-coordinated background color to the custom sidebar/background designs. How is that not good enough for you? This section is titled "A way forward". We are moving forward, in a big way, and without throwing away all the work that's gone into this project. szyslak 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC) To clear up any confusion, by "sidebar" I mean "the navigation sidebar of the Monobook Wikipedia page", not the colored bar on the side of the templates. szyslak 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of the stub templates

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

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

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

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

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

Or perhaps a lot smaller, like so:

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS. Stub tags don't traditionally need to the entire width of the article since they never even had boxes. I would make them auto width (for the long one):

I also like your small version a lot, Jack.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 16:42, 09/18/2007

In my opinion, this is less about "making things pretty" than it is about functionality. -Chunky Rice 16:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the added content about the size, if you're going to do it at all, auto width is a bad idea, since the entire point is standardization. When an article has multiple stub tags, we don't want 3 different sized boxes at the bottom of the page.-Chunky Rice 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, but if functionality were the only concern then all that would've been done was get rid of any margins and have a universal width. But instead there was a complete redesign. I don't see why stub tags should be left out of that. Why not take the opportunity to improve those too?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 16:45, 09/18/2007

In my opinion, adding a box and color bar detracts from the functionality of stub tags. -Chunky Rice 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, almost all of the maintenance templates (the ones that were standardized) all say "This article needs work to meet our basic standards and otherwise not suck" - they should be prominent. A stub tag just says "This article is short and expansion would be nice" - not as prominent. That difference is the reason we don't use a template like {{expand}} on every stub; {{expand}} is only for articles where their short length is a serious detriment to their functionality as articles. Mr.Z-man 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See my sample page for an example of what template standardization of stub templates would look like on a short stub. Mr.Z-man 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A stub article probably won't have a cleanup tag. Also, your sandbox article doesn't look much like a real article page. I've done a little fixing to make it look a little more real. Check it out now. Still might be in need of some work but I think the general concept has promise.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:42, 09/18/2007

I also changed the width to 50%, as I think there should be a standard width for stub tags, but it doesn't necessarily need to be 80%. How many stub tags have text that takes up 80% of the page width? These only need to be stackable with each other, not with other tags, so a different standard width can be used for this purpose.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:51, 09/18/2007

There's no reason why stubs may not have maintenance templates and many do. It illustrates my point above about content appearing secondary to the templates. Also, articles should not begin with a level one header. To make it look slightly more realistic, I would need a {{wrongtitle}} type template that works in usersubpages. Mr.Z-man 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the fixes to the page. It looks good now though.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 18:26, 09/18/2007

I strongly disagree with including stub templates in this standard. Please see also #Is a separate "Growth" color necessary? above. --Quiddity 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think stub templates should not be included in this round of standardisation, partially since I think they have other needs since we put them at the bottom of the pages and they always are on small pages. (And I certainly don't want them anywhere else than at the bottom.) And partially since we already have too much to discuss here. --David Göthberg 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please no box. Leave the stub temps alone. - Rocket000 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Stub templates are already standardized. They all have the same format: a line of italicized text with perhaps a small icon on the left. There's no need for a box there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

the end result

I thought this was a great improvement, until I saw the end result over many article pages. The color bars has made them more conspicuous. This may be good for the warning tags, but not for anything else. We had a problem with inconsistent and obtrusive tagging--we now have it more consistent, but also more obtrusive.DGG (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more muted colors would help.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 21:37, 09/18/2007

I agree. There have been a handful of complaints about the bright colors, and nobody was opposed to the idea of muting them. Muted colors would blend better with monobook. Here was my pallet suggestion:

Serious issues, such as {{afd}} and {{prod}} (#ff8888)

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

Style issues, such as {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} (#eeee00)

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

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

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

I support muting the colors, with the following caveats:

1. The colors shouldn't run together. In the example above, I think yellow and orange run together a little too much.
2. The red "serious" color should not be muted. If any templates should stand out in a very garish, obnoxious way, it's the deletion templates.

szyslak 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are too pastel and light -- not really quite muted enough. These are from way further up this page, most are from Quiddity, the green is from me.

(#B22222)

(#FFCC66)

(#F3EF84)

(#9EE27C)

(#BB99FF)

(#BBE3F4)

I think the yellow and cyan could use some more muting (changed both). Otherwise I think these are better, less "in-your-face", "look at me", "I am taking over your article" -type colors.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 23:06, 09/18/2007

To me, the proposed colors seem less muted than the current ones. I strongly dislike them. —David Levy 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the current ones for comparison:

(#b22222)

(#f28500)

(#f4c430)

(#228b22)

(#9932cc)

(#1e90ff)

Still think the current colors are more muted? I sure don't...

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 23:52, 09/18/2007

I do. To me, the darker shades seem more sober and professional than the lighter shades. —David Levy 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're calling my colors drunk and amateurish?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:01, 09/19/2007

No. In case you aren't kidding, I'm sorry if I offended you. —David Levy 00:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was kidding :) I guess I should be more careful about using deadpan humor online. Well DGG's point still stands, these things stand out too much. So anyone else have any other ideas? I invite anyone else to post some samples...

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:13, 09/19/2007

Okay, I just wanted to be sure.  :-) —David Levy 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The first set in this section are the most compatible with the existing shades in wiki. The last set are back to kindergarten colours. They are loud and unecessarily assertive. If you want to "mute" the yellow, it should tend towards a cream colour. Tyrenius 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The last set are the current colors.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:14, 09/19/2007

It's the lighter colors that remind me of a toddler's nursery, et cetera. —David Levy 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Main Page is a good starting point for deciding on colours. This is the primary "corporate image" and, unless and until its colours are changed, the rest of the project should harmonise with it, not adopt a radical departure. Tyrenius 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's only three colors there. And you can't equate the same shades used for huge text area backgrounds with those used for tiny color bars. Colors that light look a lot different when there's just a small sliver of them. I think those colors would show up too light.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:56, 09/19/2007

Here are the colors that appear on the main page:

(#F5FFFA)

(#CEF2E0)

(#F5FAFF)

(#CEDFF2)

(#FAF5FF)

(#DDCEF2)

They seem very light to me. I dunno. Might be a possibility. Except for a couple that are so light that they match the background color.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:02, 09/19/2007

Those are all intended as background colors, so I'm skeptical they should be that muted. ←Ben^B4 02:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting using them, but relating to them, i.e. a user coming from them should find subsequent colours they encounter to read as part of an overall site design. Were there bright colours on the main page, then it would follow visually to continue that. The tone set, however, is restrained, which creates a mood. Tyrenius 02:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Redone with the yellow tending to a cream color, per suggestion:

Serious issues (#ff8888)

Content issues (#FFCC66)

Style issues (#f7f777)

Contribution requests and notices (#BBFF99)

Merger, split and transwiki proposals (#ddbbFF)

All others (#aaeeFF)

I agree that yellow is better. I think the lighter colors match monobook and the solid, more pure colors clash. I wonder if clashing is a bad thing for message boxes, they are there to say that something needs attention. So I have no opinion on the change of colors. ←Ben^B4 02:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, the colour generation guide/instructions we used can be found at Wikipedia talk:Colors. Here's what that looks like:

Serious issues (#F2CECE)

Content issues (#F2E0CE)

Style issues (#F2F2CE)

Contribution requests and notices (#CEF2E0)

Merger, split and transwiki proposals (#DDCEF2)

All others (#CEDFF2)

The red would obviously have to be darker. Here's a fullsize example:

Those might not bold enough, and the icons stand out too much; however, see also my suggestion above that we reduce the default icon size, which might help. If there was consensus (ha!) I could accept these (with a stronger red). --Quiddity 04:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I rather like those. I'm all for subtlety. It's enough that people know the message is there. Unless there's a major warning, we want to obstruct the article as little as possible. Articles are meant to be read, after all -- they're not just there for us to work on them.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:02, 09/19/2007

Those are wayyyyy too faint. I think BenB4's "redone" set looks pretty good, although in the following test:

the yellow seems too attention-grabbing to me.--Father Goose 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's right, you better indent :)

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:29, 09/19/2007

To say that those shades are wayyyyy too faint is an understatement. On the monitors at my college, I doubt that they'd show up at all. —David Levy 05:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty bad. Your college definitely needs better monitors. Hey by the way, I think there should be some good documentation on skinning this stuff using monobook.css. There have been the odd comment here and there about it on talk pages, but with the personal nature of color scheme preferences, I think there should be sample color schemes of the most popular choices, and CSS copy-and-paste code to implement them, in a sub-page on Ambox or something. That might help a lot, for frequent editors at least.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:48, 09/19/2007

When the sidebar colour gets too light it no longer works with the rest of the box border. Some of these suggestions don't work for me because of this as the the box seems to have a gap on the left side. Rewriting the box code to make the border encompass the side bar might be one option, but I do prefer the darker, stronger colours. violet/riga (t) 09:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to David Göthberg (in this thread), the border cannot be made to encompass the colored bar without the addition of "ugly coding" that "would take away the freedom to skin the boxes" (including for reasons of acceptability to people with visual impairments). —David Levy 09:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he's right. That "color bar" we all keep referring to is actually the left border of each box. It's just set to be a lot thicker and a different color than the top, bottom, and right borders, which are set as gray and thin. Getting that thin border AND the thick color border to show up on the left would require somehow coding two borders, maybe another <div> within the main <div> box to contain the color bar, and yes it would be quite ugly in the code, and probably have frequent issues.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:23, 09/19/2007

the "background tint" is almost invisible. The boxes should be tinted in a brightened version of the colour of their left border: instead of

Serious issues, such as {{afd}} and {{prod}} (#ff8888)

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

use:

Serious issues, such as {{afd}} and {{prod}} (#ff8888/#ffeeee)

Content issues, such as {{POV}} and {{globalize}} (#ffcc66/#ffffdd)

the warning boxes do not need to be in a heavy, screaming colour, but they do need to stand out. yes, I do want to "go back to the horrible days of rainbows on articles and don't work alongside each other". There is a reason these templates are on articles, and they should scream at people (with reservations). "standardization" in my book does not need "tone down", it just means "orchestrate the screaming". --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While I personally agree with the idea it's supposed to stand out and it doesn't matter too much if it makes it ugly since the whole reason the article is like that is because there are major problem with the article, I find it hard to agree with this considering Ben's point about the problems it causes for the visually impaired. I personally think it is better to consider their needs even if the template doesn't stand out as much as we would like Nil Einne 11:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer the current colours, but of the suggestions above, those by User:Equazcion (at 23:06, 09/18/2007) are the ones I prefer. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that those with visual impairments have a valid issue, I'm concerned that it's going beyond "let's make sure the visually impaired people can read these things as well" and towards "We have to make sure the visually impaired people are catered for, even if it starts making it difficult for the casual reader". Surely the best option, given that the visually impaired are such a small proportion of the user base, is to design for the general populace in mind, but in such a way as to provide an option to improve the experience the visually impaired. Following that principle, the boxes should have colour backgrounds to help them stand out, and the visually impaired can create monobook.css entries to remove those background colours. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree since I don't feel standing out is that important nor is it going to have a great negative effect on the 'general' populance. While I agree we shouldn't go overboard, it seems to me that what we're doing here is something which has a minor negative effect on the general populance instead of something which will have a very major negative effect on the visual impaired. I consider this an acceptable tradeoff. Requiring people to go through complicated procedures just to use wikipedia is hardly ideal. Nil Einne 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a comment by someone above that those who are visually impaired are likely to go with a different skin anyway. Besides that, I think that we should go with the clear-cut primary and secondary colours. Otherwise, it defeats the whole point of the bars being a visual cue of some sort. - jc37 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While this is just a complete guess, I would assume most people with visual impairements would not bother to customise their style sheets, they may not know how and they may not wish to know how. They would just hope that people designing webpages design them so they are resonably accessible to people with visual impairements. Remember our primary focus here is readers not editors. Nil Einne 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

An experiment, for the heck of it -- colored borders all the way around, using BenB4's "redone" colors:

--Father Goose 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Those don't stack well with different color boxes, which is why I went with the same border on all the boxes. – flamurai (t) 07:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I seriously dislike the colored border all the way around the box. The "rainbow brite" effect mentioned earlier is a big factor if there are stacked boxes. I'm not wedded to any particular set of colors for the sidebars (intense or pastel), although the set proposed by Quiddity at 04:58/19 September 2007 is too pastel. For the color of the text box, I feel that they should all be the same color, either very pale blue, very pale grey, or very pale ivory. Different colored backgrounds become distracting, and one of the objectives of standardization was to come up with a uniform appearance. Horologium t-c 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I like BenB4's colors, except for the red, which I think should remain how it is (bold). Kaldari 21:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to any muting and I think current colors are great. All these notices are up so people would notice them (d'oh) and bright colors do just that. Old templates attracted attention by having a colored background. With these new templates having a really really light background (it's white to me), there has to be a focal point, otherwise there is this urge to skip them. Folks, it's only one thin bar - will it kill you? If it will, adjust your monobook settings. Renata 04:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with a non-distinctive background. I feel that the bars or icons or both do the job (or even the wording). People are used to seeing this sort of separation of types of information in boxes. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08 20 September 2007 (GMT).

Bug in Firefox?

Apologies if this has been mentioned before but I could only find mention of an overlap bug. In Firefox (v 2.0.0.7) I'm not seeing any borders or right-hand-side colour bar on the new templates (though I do see them on this standardisaton page), I can see the borders with Internet Explorer. Has anyone else noticed this? CheekyMonkey 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They look fine to me, and I updated to 2.0.0.7 yesterday. Look at the two boxes at the top of the page. They should look the same. Btw, there should only be a colour bar on the left side. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 12:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I meant left-hand-side not right, my bad. I'm still not seeing any borders or colour bar though and I think this has been on more than one computer. Will try and upload a screenshot this evening if I can figure out how to. CheekyMonkey 12:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried bypassing your cache? —David Levy 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

*slaps head* That's solved it, should have thought of that before! Thanks. CheekyMonkey 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is disputed

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

I couldn't agree more, and I brought up the same points yesterday.[2] Reinis^talk 08:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I only became aware that a proposed change was taking place when I saw the changes taking place and came to the Pump looking for the reason. Not all editors read the Pump regularly - but that is no reason to disenfranchise them. Indeed, that attitude is against one of the core principles upon which Wiki was founded. "if you don't care enough to read the Village Pump then why should we take your objections seriously" would be an appalling statement to make, suggesting the very elitism that Jimbo says must not take place on Wiki - so I'm glad you resisted the temptation to say it!

I'm not sure if I object to the changes taking place, but I'd like to be welcomed to the discussion as invited by David Göthberg. And I'm glad that someone is asking questions. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusion with article text

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

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

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

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

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

Tint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stacking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good it does, for example, can be shown when both the {{prod}} and {{tl:prod-2}} templates are used, as they are here. As it stands, that looks like a single notice, and you have to look really carefully to see that it's two. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I think that some of the stacking visual problems are caused by some templates having horizontal rules in them (usually to separate the template from "internal use" details). Should we think about removing them or would that cause other difficulties? Since the "internal use" text is usually smaller I think it should be alright. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Side bar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side bar colours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side bars and stacking

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

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

Icons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old templates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New templates

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

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

Protection Templates

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

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

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

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

The protection templates (e.g. {{Pp-semi-protected}}) are not concerned with article content, but are meta. Therefore they should not be included in this standardised style. They already use an internally consistent style too (Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance#Protected articles, pages and images), and therefore don't need to be changed at all. --Quiddity 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are ugly and they don't stack together with the others since they have other margins and slightly other widths. And I think they need to match the others since they are placed in the same place. I think that is more than enough reason to standardise them too.

And as violetriga said, we could use a grey bar on them since some think that blue will not match the padlock colours. Well, let's see, here they are with the left bar in the same colour as the old border colour for the protection templates:

Not sure I like exactly that kind of gray. But anyway.

--David Göthberg 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for:

Fits in with both of the two padlocks, I feel. violet/riga (t) 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, nice. Now, lets test with the rest of the padlocks that are used. And see how the colours goes with the other boxes:

Didn't work as well, but those two padlocks are rarely used anyway.

And with a blue notice bar:

The grey ones perhaps is better?

--David Göthberg 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Violetriga's grey too. --Quiddity 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

i just noticed this discussion. I think standardizing the protection templates is a must, and I concur on Violet's suggested color.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 18:49, 09/19/2007

<aol>Me too!</aol> Actually, I think I saw a proposal somewhere with an even warmer, brownish shade, somewhat like the color of the brass padlock, that I liked even better, but I can't find it right now. But the gray is OK too. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I like the grey proposed by Violetriga best. WjBscribe 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the gray needs to be tad darker, to match the other colors, but I think gray was a great choice. - Rocket000 05:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not use a namespace check so they appear amboxed if and only if they're on articles? --ais523 10:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ais523: Hehe, great minds think alike. That has been suggested several times now and I too think that is what we should do. See below at #Next steps. I am just about to code up such a thing.

--David Göthberg 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For further discussion about this see the new section #Protection templates, new meta template below. --David Göthberg 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it yeah, It's a great idea to use these templates--Phoenix 15 20:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea; I personally like the color suggested by Violetriga as well. Gray definitely makes senses for protection—it's the color commonly used to represent something being frozen or locked. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Standardization is fantastic.

I must say that the template standardization has to be one of the best improvements to Wikipedia in a long while. The old ones were mismatched and didn't fit well together, and with the nice stacking and simple design, these new ones are fantastic. I've been away from wiki more since school started, but this feature made me smile when I saw it. I'd like it if all templates become standardized (perhaps not with the same design as the article ones, but standardized somehow). — Bob • (talk) • 03:18, September 20, 2007 (UTC)

Prior notification

I don't like the way the new user boxes look - the little strip of color on the left hand side seems odd looking among other things. However, I am more concerned with the fact that there wasn't extensive notification that a style change was proposed or implemented. Such prior notice could have been easily been done by copying some generic notification and request for feedback on the talk pages of all the affected templates. I don't frequent pages in the Wikipedia namespace, but from time to time I do look at the talk pages of article message templates. Placing notices on those talk pages to solicit further feedback would have been advisable to get a more broad range of input from people who don't normally get involved in Wikipedia administration, but do care about individual templates. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept what you are saying but the change was extensively advertised in multiple places. Placing notices on every template talk page would've been akin to spamming and would've been an excessive way to publicise something when the usual venues had already been explored. violet/riga (t) 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Which venues? I don't believe placing messages on all the talk pages would have been spamming - it merely would have been good faith cavassing to get further feedback. It certainly would not have been as jarring as seeing every article message box in the article namespace reformatted. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)