Template talk:Ambox/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Ambox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

You do not own templates

No, really, you don't. Comments like the following examples need to be mercilessly squashed:

"with our colour-coding?" violet/riga (t) 18:43, 14 September 2007
"I see some user complaints on some talk pages. But the enthusiasm to get this done is probably unstoppable" -David Göthberg 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"Using terms like "trainwreck" and "amateur" immediately make me want to discount what you're saying." violet/riga (t) 16:43, 15 September
"Presumably the colors can be changed if you can propose choices that others see are better." — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"The new style has been implemented and any objections you have should be brought up as constructive comments" violet/riga (t) 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"...announce your suggestion in many places and let people come and look at it and discuss it. Most likely that will spawn changes and other sub pages with suggestions. And in the end perhaps consensus is reached that one of the new suggestions (perhaps your) is better than the current standard. Then we will change to the new standard. So again, Reinis, stop complaining and do some work. --David Göthberg 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)"
(I find this one the rudest, personally)
"it's difficult to be concerned about you feeling hard done by." violet/riga (t) 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"You can't really say "we're going to have to go back to the old style", but you are of course welcome to discuss things like this" violet/riga (t) 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"it is you, not violetriga that want a pink box, so I suggest you code one up and show it for discussion instead of asking that violetriga do it for you." --David Göthberg 19:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
(All he wants to do is change a background colour! But no, he must submit it for approval!)

Given the notion that people must come here to "seek consensus" (read: "seek permission", because I am absolutely certain that if I changed the colour of a template one of a small number of editors would revert me with a link to their project), I should like to make plain the error of that notion. All you have done is add uninvited stripes to the sides of templates. People can reverse that if they want to. You do not own templates - any of them. Splash - tk 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Such revert wars would be a bad idea when the whole idea is standardisation and the aesthetic improvement of the project. You, along with everyone else, were given a lengthy period in which to comment and object to the proposed design. You still can, and if you have alternative ideas in mind you are welcome to bring them to the table. Merely quoting comments that you don't like is hardly going to help. violet/riga (t) 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is there is no table. If someone wants to edit a template, they should do so, even if you and one or two others do not like the fact. Quoting comments I don't like is a very effective way of highlighting how wrong they are. Trying to wall in the templates garden is not something I will give a free pass to. Splash - tk 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation requires all templates to follow a certain scheme. They can be edited within that standard but should remain basically consistent. violet/riga (t) 19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in philosophies of standardisation, and I did not bring them up. My point is quite simple: this project does not own templates or their layouts. You are not guardians of Template: space, and the exhortation to edit boldly (which you have yourselves quite legitimately done) continues to apply to all editors. They do not need any permission, nor reversions, from this project. Splash - tk 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If there were so many objections to the standardization project, I'd imagine either (a) there'd already be a mass revert war or (b) the editors who have pitched in with {{ambox}} conversion would all just get reverted and give up. There are far more editors pitching in on this project than there are editors objecting and/or reverting. szyslak 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember encountering such comments last time with the standardisation of talk page templates. Thankfully people realised that standardisation and consistency trumps pointless individuality. violet/riga (t) 19:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you dislike individuals, however, they still don't need any permission from you. Please bear that in mind, or you will in due course find yourselves very unpopular and will eventually go the way of other over-bearing projects recently. It's just a matter of conducting yourselves better than you have done in the past day or so, and better than you have done in the last few comments. Splash - tk 19:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template individuality, not individuals. Alternatively, of course, we could look at all the positive comments and think that we've done a good job here. violet/riga (t) 20:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the aggression being generated towards this project. They have devoted some of their time to making what they think are improvements to our (the project/Wikipedia/whatever) templates - I think they have largely done so. Where specific criticisms of the new system have been made (eg. the CSD templates) the members of the project have been helpful in discussing improvements. Yes, they have been a little negative where the comment has just been "the new system is crap" - but I think that is understandable. I see on this page reasonable responses to reasonable complaints, and more abrupt responses to unhelpful blanket opposition to change. WP:BOLD exists for a reason and I think this project has done good work. WjBscribe 19:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what about criticizing the colored bars? Is that "unhelpful blanket opposition to change", and not a specific suggestion? Reinis^talk 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not start a section about "coloured bars" and clamly explain how you think they could be made better. That way the issue can be discussed and if there's a consensus for a better format, the master template can be changed... WjBscribe 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a section, and the question was discussed there (not sure if you read it), but sure, I can make an another one. I was just protesting against your unfair characterization of the objections. Reinis^talk 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit that your opening post describing the changes as "amateurish" and "a trainwreck" weren't very condusive to positive discussion. I think you were responded to in a similar manner to how you expressed your concerns- voicing your criticisms in a more friendly manner would probably have received a more helpful response. WjBscribe 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a response to the tone of my message, and not the substance. Anyway, I wonder how this digression supports that what I said was "unhelpful blanket opposition to change" (a description conductive to positive discussion, I guess)? Reinis^talk 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To those who have brought up objections to what we're doing: Is there anyone who opposes the concept of template standardization? Is there anyone who thinks we shouldn't have stackable boxes that are the same size? Is it better for our article pages to have a lumpen, awkward assortment of big blue cleanup boxes and little peach-colored POV dispute boxes? Or is it more about the look of the "new" templates themselves? Concerns about the aesthetics of the {{ambox}}-based templates can be addressed simply by proposing changes to the {{ambox}} template. szyslak 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that this project (which I just discovered on 10 September) is overstepping its bounds. Consensus to standardize the article templates (something often discussed and long overdue) has been established (just as it previously was for the talk page templates). This cannot be accomplished if individual templates retain differing visual styles. To revert in such a manner is a good-faith act, but it does not reflect consensus. Splash appears to imply that consensus cannot be established for templates in general (as opposed to individual templates), and that simply isn't the case. —David Levy 20:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

None of you have read Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates, have you? – 81.153.158.137 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL - There really is an essay for everything. ←Ben^B4 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I love the idea of a standardized format for these things, but it's darn annoying to have them all in a centralized template! Let me explain.. if it's all one template then it's obviously very high risk and protected. But this means that no matter how flexible the template is with options and things, we have no freedom to tinker with the look of these things.. it has to be hammered out with exhausting discussion on some talk page.. there's certainly a good side and a bad side to standardization. They look really cool though :) I'm sure I'll get annoyed by the forced format soon enough and make my own alt template under the guise of a special case on some unique article but for now it's cool! --⁪froth^t 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No feeding the trolls

Just a reminder that the largest change in Wikipedia recent memory has just occurred with overwhelming support, but careful about feeding the trolls. Jeepday (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gone by tomorrow?

"This is just a temporary caching problem that should be gone by tomorrow."

Well, the software sets s-maxage, max-age, and Expires. They all point to a month from the request's time. So, the temporary caching problem should be gone by the middle of next month. --cesarb 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tech stuff

Let me clarify some technical things, things that I was supposed to document on the project page today. But all this message traffic meant I didn't get the time.

{{ambox}} is just a thin wrapper that uses CSS code. The design you see of the boxes is almost entirely controlled by the .ambox CSS classes in MediaWiki:Common.css. Ambox were just created to simplify the usage of those classes for the majority of cases. The classes can just as well be used directly in a wikitable. There is one short example of how to use the classes in a wikitable at the bottom of the documentation at {{ambox}}.

When/if you need some more advanced things then you should use a table with the classes. It would be way more complicated and much less robust to add all those extra features to ambox. There's nothing to gain from that.

Anyone that want to know more can go and read the archives of this talk page. And study the CSS code and test examples at Wikipedia:Template standardisation/issuebox demo.

--David Göthberg 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikify

Would an admin object to setting image = [[Image:Wikitext.svg|50px]] for {{wikify}}? That seems to be the image we were planning on using, and if no one disagrees, I think it would be appropriate. Please say so if you disagree. (Some other templates, such as {{orphan}}, could use this image, perhaps.) Gracenotes^T § 23:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:notice

{{notice}} should be converted. User:Krator (t c) 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We are already standardizing project namespace templates? I thought we were only doing the article space. 0_0 FunPika 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Slight Idea

Maybe for the articles that have something like:

Some text Here (Normal Size)
Some smaller text here (Small Size)
This article has been tagged since: XXXXX (Small Size)

Maybe have the "this article has been tagged....." line in italic style, an example of this tag would be the copedit one. Peachey88 (Forgot to login by accident) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.70.164 (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good!

Nice work! Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also very impressed. Good work all around, I'm absolutely for it. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not sympathetic to the existing wikipedia look and need to be completely rethought. Tyrenius 08:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Reinis^talk 08:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if at least a hundred editors have seen this, and offered suggestions as to how to implement these changes. They have been widely advertised in noticeboards, the Signpost, VP, etc; so I'm not sure that everyone will agree with it being "not sympathetic to the existing wikipedia look," unless we're talking about a chaotic mess as the previous Wikipedia look. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please show where there is anything similar to these templates in the MonoBook design instead of making ad populum arguments? There are no color bars anywhere, it uses bright colors very sparingly, and the backgrounds to such panels are usually shaded. The new templates are a step away from this in several ways. Reinis^talk 08:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the coffeeroll template specification for talk page templates does not use subdued colors at all, to begin with; in fact, there is nothing that has similar colors to it. Additionally, navigation templates usually use a bright shade of blue as their background color, so not everything is subdued. Infoboxes use gray as a background, but they also use strong colors (e.g. {{Infobox hurricane}}) to convey message using both text and color. The color bars are indeed a new element, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, as these can be duplicated and expanded into other templates if they work. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any bright colors in {{infobox hurricane}}, #CCF is very far from, say, #1E90FF that the current templates use, and is more pastel than bright, and the talk pages templates use a pastel tones too. The point that Monobook and other templates use such bright colors sparingly stands.

What I'm trying to say is that the templates should follow the paradigm that Monobook sets, not create innovations. Saying that the color bars could be used more is irrelevant if we're talking about consistency with the existing design. They are not consistent, and their purpose can be much better served by shaded background and good icons. Reinis^talk 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at any of the 800 transclusions of the template, or of {{Infobox hurricane current}}, or {{HurricaneActive}}, which all use the {{storm colour}} color scheme. The Saffron series of featured articles is a great example of how bright colors can be used and be visually appealing as well. As for the Monobook paradigm, I don't know where it is documented; every user has a different idea of what Monobook entails, or whether it is even desirable for these templates to follow or break the paradigm, so I'm not sure that is anything everyone will agree on. I had zero input during these discussions, yet I consider the bars to be a positive, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I too like these changes. I had noticed the change to the AfD template and though it an improvement, but I hadn't realized it was deliberate and widespread. Kudos for actually doing it. --Gwern (contribs) 18:03 16 September 2007 (GMT)

Final thoughts

Everything in the Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-related namespace section has been converted, except {{Uncategorized}}.
Thanks again to everyone that helped plan and implement all this. Sorry again if I was a bit hasty in implementing it yesterday, though I'd imagine that more than a few days would've been necessary for the world's browser cache's to empty!
A few people have been commenting about or actually converting talkpage templates. However those are covered by the "coffeeroll" standard explained at Wikipedia:Talk page templates. (just fyi)
I've uploaded a (large, 1.7mb) Before & After image: Image:Wikipedia - comparison of template standardisation.png just for curiosity.

--Quiddity 22:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Now then...how about we standardize the project namespace templates? :P FunPika 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The only one I still see around with an old color scheme is {{cfd}}... but then, it uses coffeeroll, so I don't know whether to change it or not. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article templates

Should we move this page to Wikipedia:Article templates (similar to how this page was moved to Wikipedia:Talk page templates last year)? FunPika 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

With only five incoming links, think we should snag the WP:AT shortcut? :) -- Ned Scott 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. :-)

(Incidentally, I removed that shortcut from around a dozen pages, though some were intended to lead to WP:ATT.) —David Levy 07:07/07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, Navboxes and Infoboxes are "article templates" too. If you take a look in the archives you can see that we suggested/agreed on the name "article message boxes" for the kind of templates we are currently standardising. But, ah well, I guess this project can be called "Article templates" for now. But will be confusing when we need to standardise other article templates...

--David Göthberg 10:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the other types of article templates couldn't be covered on the same page. —David Levy 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Color

Where's green?

How about "This article might be OK because it doesn't have any templates on it" template? violet/riga (t) 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But that would mean no templates on it, much less a green ambox. Seriously, what are we going to use green for? -- Denelson 83 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

GA/FA candidates? Not really appropriate for the article page I suppose --⁪froth^t 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We could use green for some form of stable version implementation. Since green is associated with "good" and templates are not added about something positive it would be hard to see it used for much else. violet/riga (t) 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The {{inuse}} templates were previously on a green background. Maybe use green for that? -- Denelson 83 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of the point of the standardisation was to minimize the colour variations. We originally started with just four colours, and adding the fifth was debated for a while. Adding a sixth would require a strong rationale. (Though I think you might be joking, I'm not quite sure...) --Quiddity 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not joking. To me, in Wikipedia, "everything's okay" is associated with the colour white. -- Denelson 83 23:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Denelson, {{inuse}} should be green so it looks less like {{current}} and the related ones. Also, {{expand}} should be green (I'm think green for growth, but this should at least be yellow, just not blue). - Rocket000 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Since {{inuse}} and {{expand}} can both be associated with the conceit of "progress", maybe associate the colour green with "progress" template messages, including content requests. How does everyone feel with that? -- Denelson 83 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Green = Growth. - Rocket000 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, if this color-code thing expands to other namespaces like wikipedia, then we're going to need green anyway. (For example, {{policy}} should be green to match the checkmark.) Might while use green in the article namespace if there's a valid reason for it. - Rocket000 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How would you feel if I followed WP:BOLD and implemented this right now using a new CSS class called "ambox-progress"? -- Denelson 83 23:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He you can do whatever you like of course, but i don't see the point in creating something just for the point of creating it. "we need green" is simply a bad argument. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see R-O-Y-G-B-I-V.... wait, where's indigo? ←Ben^B4 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indigo is just a variation of blue. None of the colours in this code are variations of green. -- Denelson 83 23:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, the point is not simply "we like green." No, the point is there are valid reasons for have a green ambox, as stated above. Our reasoning falls in the same boat as why create different colors in the first place. You know why not just use one color? Because each color means something, and we need a color for progress related templates. - Rocket000 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Only one objection... I'm going to go ahead and add the "growth" category now. -- Denelson 83 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Denelson, I was thinking of doing the same, but it's fully protected and I'm not an admin. I completely support you in this. - Rocket000 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented the "ambox-growth" class for template messages relating to adding content, such as {{expand}}, {{expand-section}}, {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}}. Do any other messages exist that relate to article growth? -- Denelson 83 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What about {{Uncategorized}}?? - Rocket000 00:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that falls under content addition as well. -- Denelson 83 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it seems someone already changed it. Nice. - Rocket000 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what about these: {{orphan}}, {{orphancat}}, {{popcat}} ?? - Rocket000 00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say {{Single infobox request}} should be green, but really it should of been left alone in the first place since it goes on talk pages. {{ambox}} shouldn't be applied to talk page templates, right? - Rocket000 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No. It should be reverted, as it's not used in the article namespace. -- Denelson 83 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of my reasoning for adding green was that the {{inuse}} series of templates had been on a green background for a long time. It seemed only logical that we continue that. -- Denelson 83 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We need gray, pink, and brown templates as well.--Father Goose 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reasons? Or are you making a joke? I can see uses for more colors, like gray, for other namespace templates. With green, I think we covered all the article namespace template types that deserve a color. - Rocket000 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Joke or not, we'll be getting them.--Father Goose 04:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of a blue eye as the default image for growth messages, what about a green eye or a sprouting plant? -- Denelson 83 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the eye image is jarring. But in the long term let's try to stick to SVG images to reduce server strain, though another type might work for now. By the way, Denelson, the green parameter was an excellent idea. szyslak 01:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, when I said "sprouting plant", I meant like a Nuvola SVG style icon of one. -- Denelson 83 01:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about Image:Wiki letter w.svg? It's not a plant, but it looks very nice. You could also try to adapt Image:Gxermo2.png. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsure about the use of colour coding

I have a couple of issues with the use of colour coding for these templates. With the templates at present, some articles with only minor issues are completely dominated by colourful explanations of fairly unimportant information. Worse still, some articles with major issues don't immediately stand out from other articles - Maybe keep colour only for the important issues such as CSD etc. Seaserpent⁸⁵ _Talk 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The colors are so bright they look like the crayons we used when we were young. As stated earlier, the pastel-based color scheme fits much better with our project and its traditional usage of color. Badagnani 01:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The EYEBALL flag todo (image needs rehabilitation)

I've been following along silently for a while now, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for the way the template standardization efforts have been going ... however, I specifically logged in just to make this single comment.

THE EYEBALL HAS GOT TO GO ... pretty please.

All of the images (so far) have been appropriately balanced to the purpose of the templates and the aesthetics and design necessary to convey the point. This eyeball is a stark and pronounced deviation from that standard. It calls too much attention to itself and looks "glaringly" inconsistent with the rest of the content.

My guess is, the eyeball was probably a lot of fun to make, because it shows the mark of a lot of effort. Unfortunately that's the very thing that shouldn't be showing in this context.

Something more subdued (and hopefully, less horrifying and more aesthetically pleasing) seems appropriate. If no one chimes in and nothing changes I may just look for an OpenSource substitute or just make something myself. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh good it's not just me, I sat paralised with fear for a few seconds upon seeing that in an article! What does an eye have to do with expanding an article anyway? Seaserpent⁸⁵ _Talk 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. If we can't find another image, could we use image=blank for now? *shudder* Gracenotes^T § 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a better image as we speak. What we need is an SVG representation of a sprouting plant. -- Denelson 83 02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I began searching for one before I even saw these discussions. So far, no luck. —David Levy 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Asking at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve#Green_icon_for_template_standardization for a green icon. Circeus 03:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, can we please remove the green eye from the expand template? It's a nice image, but a little jarring. Gracenotes^T § 03:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the proposal. Any thoughts? Circeus 04:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Make it slightly darker? The cross is barely visible. -- Denelson 83 04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, too little contrast. --Iamunknown 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the plus sign David Levy added. Much more professional and acceptable. --Quiddity 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now THAT's much better. -- Denelson 83 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a gaudy image which does not accord with the existing graphics of wikipedia. Tyrenius 08:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not "Gaudy" as long as the content icon is not, and this is based exactly on that design. As far asI'm concerned, the "notice" icon is "gaudy"-er. Circeus 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The major problem I have with this is that it's similar to the GA icon, I think you either need something unique or nothing at all. Seaserpent⁸⁵ _Talk 11:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's completely different from the GA icon! The only common point they have is that they're green (and not even remotely the same shade) and have a "plus" symbol. Besides, since the GA icon is not used in articlespace, the point is pretty moot. The GA icon is actually used for completely different aspects of the site (It's a checkuser symbol) and nobody complains about that... Circeus 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Another possible "green" icon... Circeus

Someone went and added to ambox, so I made an SVG version: . Anomie 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the completely patronising reply, Circeus. The icon I was referring to is the one above, with the dark green circle - I'm not getting into an argument over something so petty, my point was merely that there are probably hundreds of relevant icons that could fit the bill, why use something already used for GA? Seaserpent⁸⁵ _Talk 22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Background

Please read Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/Archive 2#Merge-specific color for the recent discussion.

And please wait until there is a strong consensus before implementing any major changes. There's no rush, and we've already taken things a bit too fast for some editors' liking. Plus it's the weekend. Thanks :) --Quiddity 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just happy that we now have a full colour wheel. -- Denelson 83 05:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also this current thread: Template talk:Ambox#New colors. --Quiddity 05:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement tag with improper image of newspaper

There are two issues I have with the use of a newspaper as an icon for the tag below

First, it offers a negative (and illogical) appearance regarding newspapers. Are we saying that newspapers are tools of the advertising industry? Newspapers often use a 70/30 ad approach - 70% is editorial (news) content. Wikipedia articles filled with advertising are looked down upon in Wikipedia I think this negative association is misappropriated to newspapers.

Second, on a more picky level, the image suggests advertising (the black squiggle) above the fold of that paper. This is almost a nonexistant happening in modern newspaper work.

In short, we need a more representative image of advertising. I would suggest something like a pastel "starburst" with the word "buy!" on it. -- Guroadrunner 05:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this was fixed (or I have the wrong template tag?) Was there a very recent change? Guroadrunner 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this image? I just made it, as an example of what could be done to add to this template. With the image, the template would look like this:

That's just an example... comments? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely hideous. Tyrenius 08:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that helps me fix it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If this image is on a page, it will visually dominate the page, because it is so gaudy. It sets a completely inappropriate tone and makes it look like a supermarket special offer. I suggest a more subtle image would create the seriousness which wikipedia aims for. Tyrenius 08:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the point: for it to look like a supermarket sale image; we want the articles to look less like advertising, so we want them to fix the article, at least to get rid of the image. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So you agree it's a ghastly image. Then we shouldn't litter the project with it. Tyrenius 08:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The image itself isn't "ghastly." It's merely indicative of the undesirable nature of advertising within our articles. —David Levy 08:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My only criticism is that the dollar sign isn't used throughout the world (though I don't know what could replace it). —David Levy 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the dollar sign is still the most commonly-used currency sign in the world (with the Euro sign coming close behind) so it would be as universal as you could get... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As currency symbols go, that's true. I was hoping to think of something else that might be more universal, but I've been unable to. —David Levy 08:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO there is a bigger problem then whether or not the currency sign is understand. While advertising is often about financial gain it's not always. There are a lot of other reasons other then financial why people advertise. Nil Einne 09:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Perhaps we could use Titoxd's proposed shape with the conventional explanation point in the center. —David Levy 09:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, feel free to hack it. It is after all just a proof-of-concept image. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Simon Cowell, ladies and gentlemen. —David Levy 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's tacky and it makes the project look tacky. Tyrenius 09:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've made your opinion quite clear. Do you intend to continue posting similar comments at random intervals? —David Levy 09:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems necessary following your post "Simon Cowell, ladies and gentlemen". Would you care to explain exactly what you are trying to say then? Tyrenius 10:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I fail to see how the two comments relate to one another.

2. Are you familiar with Simon Cowell? "Absolutely hideous." is the sort of thing that he would say. —David Levy 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on folks - it looks like the newspaper image that offended me was removed. I think the (!) image works just fine. The "buy" image with a $ sign violates the "no currency" rule used for images (see Template:NoCoins. No worries here - I think the issue is solved unless that newspaper crops up again. -- Guroadrunner 11:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That page has nothing to do with that, that is because scale shouldn't be defined by a coin. _→AzaToth 19:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the dollar sign one. -- Ned Scott 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If it ain't broke

The old template designs are perfectly in accord with the overall look of wikipedia. They have an appropriateness to the tone of the project and should be retained. Standardisation of width is desirable, and different tints for different functions. The tints previously in use are clear, but not overstated, and do not create visual discord. I am in favour of retaining the previous designs. Whoever made them had a good eye. Tyrenius 08:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They were horrible pastel messes that looked horrible next to each other because they were designed by different people and implemented in different ways, destroying consistency. violet/riga (t) 08:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. They were fine designs and it would be easy enough to tweak them to eliminate inconsistencies. The new designs are overbearing and inappropriate individually and a cacophony when used together. Tyrenius 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They were not "fine." Would you please try the "Experience it yourself" at http://www.webaim.org/articles/visual/lowvision.php so you can see for yourself the problem with the tinted backgrounds? ←Ben^B4 17:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop flooding the page, Tyrenius? You're entitled to express your opinions, but it isn't helpful to continually create new sections for the purpose of posting essentially the same comments. —David Levy 09:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not flooding the page. I created two sections only - the previous section to point out what was wrong with the new design, and this section to advocate keeping the old one. I fail to see the problem. As violet/riga pointed out to Splash above: "if you have alternative ideas in mind you are welcome to bring them to the table." Do you agree with that? Tyrenius 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You created this section to post virtually the same comments that you posted in your "#This guideline is disputed" section. You also posted similar comments in various other sections, and you even revisited one to inexplicably lodge essentially the same complaint that you'd already made there. Okay, Tyrenius, you don't like the changes. We get it. —David Levy 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I created a level 2 heading, which overlapped a level 3 in the preceding section. That was because I thought this topic merited its own discussion. My apologies if you thought it was not appropriate. As far as I know, I am commenting on specific proposals in other sections, or answering existing threads. It's not a question of like. It's a question of design appropriateness. It changes the presentation of wikipedia. Maybe it should be changed and brightened up all round, but if so, that needs thorough discussion. Design is a unity, which is exactly the rationale for changing the templates, but that unity also extend to the whole page, and not just the templates in isolation. Tyrenius 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Those that don't like the design

You can't please everyone all the time. Some people don't like the new designs, and that was to be expected. Those people must remember, however, that there will never be a design that we all fully agree on and that the current scheme has wide acceptance. While discussing improvements is fine do please realise that what you want to implement may be equally (or more) disliked by other people. violet/riga (t) 09:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all we'll have to wait for people to realise there is a new design in existence. It has been rushed through. What I want to implement is a restoration of the old designs. I'm not aware of any ongoing previous outcry in the years that they have been in use. Tyrenius 09:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is basically WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have no opinion either way, but it would have helped if there had been greater discussion of this prior to it just up and happening out of nowhere; I didn't know there was a discussion about template standardization until I saw that {{afd}} had changed. --Core desat 09:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of IDONTLIKEIT. I have pointed to specific design flaws. Tyrenius 09:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Where else should advance notice have been provided? —David Levy 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A sitenotice would have helped; I notice it had been suggested above but it doesn't seem to actually have been done. There was also no mention on WP:AN until the standardization was well underway. --Core desat 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If it were a change that could not easily be tweaked then you may have a point, but as ambox can easily be changed I don't think that WP:BOLD was a problem. It was widely advertised on WP:POST, WP:VP, WP:CENT, and the mailing list. violet/riga (t) 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A sitenotice (or even an entry in MediaWiki:Watchdetails) is usually greeted with angry lynch mobs arguing that anons don't care, and that things like these are not important to put a Wikipedia-wide message, so I'm afraid that wouldn't have worked. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There should have been a notice on the templates themselves, as there is when they are proposed for deletion. This would then have alerted the people most affected - those who regularly use them. Tyrenius 09:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That would've created the ugliest mess since the Main Page was unprotected! violet/riga (t) 09:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That idea is unfeasible to the point of absurdity. —David Levy 09:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're quite happy to change the whole design of the templates, so I don't see the problem with one line of small text above the template, as seen here for TfD,[1] to let users know. Tyrenius 10:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On every template that was to be affected?! —David Levy 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether is has been adequately advertised or not is besides the point. I think it should be acknowledged is that the consensus that built this page is based upon a relatively small subsection of the community; and the broader consensus may or may not be the same as the one here. The best way to raise awareness is to make the changes. As this is a ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKE it change, it might be appropriate to formulate a poll (and advertise that).--Nilf anion (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A poll to gauge consensus would be a good idea. Do people prefer the old or the new. Let's see if there is an overwhelming view one way or the other. Tyrenius 09:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

About "design flaws": We could have an even longer discussion about the "design flaws" of Monobook, and of MediaWiki in general. But I'd imagine most readers and editors are fine with it. If we're looking for strict adherence to someone's ideal of professional design standards, perhaps the Foundation should look into hiring a professional web designer to overhaul MediaWiki and Monobook. szyslak 10:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what is your point? We could, but we won't, and what you're saying is irrelevant to the current discussion. Reinis^talk 10:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair comment - don't be so dismissive. violet/riga (t) 11:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the issue of "design flaws" in the new templates is kind of silly, because by some people's standards there are design flaws everywhere on this website. szyslak 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong objections to the new look

First of all, I want to make it clear that these aren't objections to the standardization effort as such, just to the current visual implementation. These two things are unnecessarily confounded by people who support the new look. I also want to remind everyone that consensus does not mean that there are many WP:ILIKEITs, but that objections are addressed in a logical discussion.

The basic objection is that the new look does not adhere to good design principles. Some of the problems, like the dissimilar icons, were inherited from the old look, but others were created with this redesign. It must also be noted that, among the new templates, some look worse than others. {{disputed}} is an example of one of the worst, and outlines the deficiencies of the design, but some others are partially saved by their better icons. This, however, does not change that the design is not satisfactory. There are 3 main points about this:

Contrast
A light background, with a light border, does not make the panels distinct enough from the rest of the page, lacking contrast. This is appropriate for some templates, but not for others. It's exemplified in {{db-meta}}: see before and after. A small bright colored bar can not differentiate a template from the rest of the article as well as a shaded background. If the purpose of the template is to be noticed by readers or editors, it loses function if it's blended into the rest of the page. The old background colors were also an established tradition, and the templates could have been standardized without casting them away completely.
Composition
The single color bars make the composition imbalanced, because all of the weight is distributed to the left side, and there is nothing on the right side to counteract it. This was not a problem in the initial design with double bars, but it had the problem that the bright colors were too intrusive, so the ad hoc solution to remove the right bar was introduced.
The imbalance is made worse by the fact that the icons are on the left side, the text is left aligned, and the background is empty. The effect of this is very noticeable on larger screen resolutions.
Repetition
The Monobook design does not use such bars anywhere else, and the use of bright colors in it is very sparing. The color bars introduce a new paradigm that looks out of place with not just the rest of Monobook design, but the other banner templates that we use in image pages, talk pages, user pages, policy pages etc. The function of these color bars also overlaps with the function of icons. They are used as a substitute to harmonizing the icons, and the icons, even the dissimilar ones, are still kept, creating partial redundancy.

This project, instead of simply standardizing the templates, has been made into a design playground for a group of editors. Many changes were made not for the sake of standardization, but for the sake of changes. The templates that were changed are so widely used that this has an impact on the entire Wikipedia, and it is not clear whether the project enjoyed consensus for their stylistic innovations, because the issues were not clearly separated from the beginning. It's also apparent that there are editors who missed the notifications about this project, and would have objective disagreements with the implementation.

I also raised the same objections yesterday, but their substance was addressed poorly, and many defensive remarks were made.[2] It can bee seen in the current discussion that the objections are answered flippantly, by people who do not have a clear grasp of design principles and have an emotional investment in this, creating WP:OWN issues. Some things that were conceded yesterday as problems, are not conceded now, like the imbalance that is created by the bars. There are many appeals to numbers or emotion made, used as a substitute for answering the reasons to oppose this look.

My suggestion is to let go of the bars, and bring back shaded backgrounds, because they would be sufficient for providing visual identification of templates. I do not think there's ever been a consensus that something is wrong with pastel colors, and I think WP:DEW applies strongly here. In the end, this project should standardize the templates, not do site-wide design experiments. Reinis^talk 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent post. (And I especially like the reference to WP:DEW : ) - jc37 10:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate go on since it began after the "rollout" and I've been swayed from side to side based on what comes up when I next click "Refresh". After this post (which, I agree, is well thought out), I've begun to think this (the continuous restating of one viewpoint and it's opposing view) has gone on a bit too long. One question I have is whether (Reinis, Tyrenius, and others) are opposed to the "severity grading scheme" (not the red and orange bar, but the concept in general) Because when it comes down to it, it's only a few CSS parameters to go from this:

to this:

which (on my screen) looks very similar to the {{db-meta}} before the rollout (excluding padding and margin change).

Personally (and I mean only personally), I like the left coloured bar. But I also changed the shading on my monobook to distinguish specific severity levels better. Having the templates standardised is far more important, because it allows people to customise all of them consistently for themselves, not just a few here while leaving the rest as they are.Harryboyles 11:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To distinguish the several points you made, first, I'm not defending the arguments against standardization, the issue is with the redesign that was sneaked into it. Second, as was elucidated by Tyrenius, design is a unity — you can't judge the templates separately from the rest of the design they are going to be in. If you are going to compare the two versions, do it in the actual design and see how they will actually look. The red bar does not work like the background shade did, and does not distinguish the template enough from others like it. You should also consider the other templates, and the other arguments that were made against the current style, not just compare these two examples. Reinis^talk 15:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You still need to read WP:AGF and should word things better than you have been doing. Your issues have been addressed I feel, so I won't be adding anything more. violet/riga (t) 11:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How have they been addressed and by whom? Reinis^talk 14:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied to all of the points you have raised here when you posted them previously. I'll add to it though: Where does Monobook use pastel shades? Nowhere? Well the old ones didn't fit in either. violet/riga (t) 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean here? What about the counterpoints that I raised, including that a couple of your answers had nothing to do with my objections? You even agree now that the new ones don't fit in, and you agreed that there is an imbalance problem yesterday. As for Monobook not using pastel shades, of course, it doesn't, but its colors are very subdued and it only uses bright ones for links and message notifications. Most of the rest of Wikipedia, however, uses pastel or relatively light colors — open the main page, for example. Look at all the other templates, the templates that are still used in many articles included. The new ones break the long established convention, which is also compatible with Monobook. I mostly refer specifically to Monobook in relation to the color bars anyway, which appear nowhere else — not in other templates, not in Monobook, and are completely inconsistent with them. I have also read the archives, and you are overstating the consensus. This is a disputed guideline now, and will stay so until the templates are fixed or you make a convincing counterargument. Reinis^talk 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't see how you've countered my replies. I can't also see where I say there's and "imbalance problem" - I don't believe there is. Where do I say they "don't fit in"? I merely state that using your own logic then the old ones don't. You say that Monobook uses bright colours for message notifications? Well there's no problem using them for article notifications. We don't want this design to be used elsewhere as they are a specific class of template and such a design should not be repeated everywhere. As for the disputed status I'm sorry but there are far too few voices against the templates for it to remain so when compared to those supporting it. Consensus of many trumps the vocal tiny minority. Since you have not come up with any way to progress towards a compromise I'm afraid your personal view will be confined to your personal CSS file. violet/riga (t) 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is, of course, a blanket dismissal of what I said — again. Anyone reading the actual discussion will see how some your answers were just a more verbose form of "nu-uh", and that you said nothing when I countered them point by point. I also have very clearly stated what is the solution that I see — bringing back the old background colors, and doing away with the bars.

Actually, I'll bring back some of the things you said. For example, these are supposed to be your answers to my objections. I will reorder them to make them readable, the first and third ones are mine, and the second ones are yours.

because of the unbalanced composition (the color bars making one side of the page too heavy, clearly an ad hoc solution to two color bars being too intrusive),
- It is clearly used as a margin and uses a common design technique of left-side weighting [violet/riga]
  - That it's a "common design technique" does not mean that it fits here. A lot of things are commonly used but wouldn't fit in this design, and your answer doesn't even address the issue — that it gives too much weight to one side thus making the comp unbalanced. For example, if a different design would be using this color bar, I would expect that it adds an element somewhere on the other side (not necessarily symmetrically) that balances the weight.
because a completely unique design element was introduced, breaking the rule of repetition,
- It can't be "unique" if it's used on all templates, thus bringing about consistency [violet/riga]
  - The templates are a class of elements, and the color bar is consistent only within this class, so in this case it's not consistent with the rest of the design, because such an element isn't used anywhere else. Analogically, you might also add pink dancing elephants there and then claim that it's consistent with the rest because it's on all the templates. Repetition means a design pattern is used on more than one class of elements.
because the color codes, even though they may be based on some standard, look simply random; there is also no other place where such colors are used in this style.
- The colour-coding is simple and obvious. [violet/riga]
  - My point, of course, wasn't that they're complex or non-obvious, but that the bright kindergarten-style random colors aren't repeated elsewhere in the design. MonoBook uses bright colors very sparingly, and now you add a whole hodge-podge batch of them.

After that you made WP:ILIKEIT arguments and appeals to numbers, and when I said that you haven't answered my counterpoints, you said that you had "other things to do than talk to someone that is being rude and isn't showing any signs of contributing anything worthwhile to these discussions".[3] Today, on the other hand, you're claiming that you've answered them.

Regarding the issue of Monobook using a bright color for the message notifications, I want to note that the background for that panel is pastel, and the bright color is only used in the thin border and text, and that it doesn't use different bright colors together in kindergarten or supermarket style. The pastel colors also enjoy consensus in the main page and other article templates, and I hadn't heard any objections to them prior to this project. Reinis^talk 16:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments. You have your opinion, I have mine; the difference being that yours isn't supported. The fact that you don't know of the years of objections leading up to this is not my fault. Sorry but I'm not going to continue with all this because I simply disagree with you and don't think there is any point trying to change your mind by justifying the design decisions. I fail to see how your personal opinion is going to drastically change things, so it might be better for you to divert your attentions down a more productive avenue. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated how my opinion "isn't supported", and the guideline is disputed, because refusing to discuss something does not mean that there's a consensus. Reinis^talk 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So you haven't seen the dozens of people that support the new scheme? Don't be daft. violet/riga (t) 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't attack me, and see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. I'll quote: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." Counting heads is not a substitute for discussion, and you haven't polled others anyway. Reinis^talk 17:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thankful for #1, because I find low-contrast text hard to read. As for #2 and #3, they serve to draw attention to the templates, which is a useful purpose. ←Ben^B4 14:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand #1, and the argument that bad design is useful because it draws attention to something is not serious. You don't need bad design to draw attention to something, the same can be done with good design. Reinis^talk 14:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I to have been watching this discussion for a while, and my main response to the above objections is {{fact}}. Who says these are even "bad design principles"? Are there even widely-agreed-upon design principles, or does it depend on the designer you ask? Anomie 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried my best to explain why the choices are bad, but it's beyond my powers to educate others about design. I can only say that there indeed are principles that are widely agreed upon and that are taught in schools.[4] Reinis^talk 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And this meets several design principles that the previous ones did not. Please stop trying to imply that you are so much more knowledgeable about design than everyone else here. violet/riga (t) 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What principles would those be? Reinis^talk 17:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough different people have different ideas about what makes a good design. I'm not going to go into it because I have no reason to defend this scheme from one person who doesn't like it - you're taking up too much time and are being completely unproductive. violet/riga (t) 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you count as productive, of course. For me, opposing bad changes would fall into that category.

Regarding design, people having different opinions does not mean that they can't discuss them with words. Reinis^talk 17:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your composition assessment. Aside from being visually interesting, that there is only a single, left sided color bar emphasizes the bar's functional nature, like colors on a military uniform. Where a solid block of color forces its intent, a color band merely suggests that an article falls under that color's category. The new design is less offensive, more dispassionately bureaucratic. The old grey deletion template was like a heavy rain. Plus, the Kindergarten color palette encourages creativity. Ichormosquito 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can untangle all of your points, so I'll answer to the most clear ones. First, that something is "visually interesting" by itself isn't a reason to include it in a composite. The analogy with military uniforms is just "thinking too much", design doesn't work like that, because people form their impressions about these kinds of trivial things very quickly, without any reflection about meaning. I also see a contradiction in you saying that it's "dispassionately bureaucratic" and that the "Kinderagarten colors palette encourages creativity", because these two things don't match in my mind. I also don't understand how mere template borders could encourage such a thing. Reinis^talk 17:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It reads like a Chewbacca defense, doesn't it? I think I was a bit over tired when I wrote that. Still, I like them. Ooooo, WP:ILIKEIT! OOOOOOO! ;) Ichormosquito 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain some of my design choices:

My goal was to make the boxes stand out without shouting. They don't have to stand out in 20 different ways. It's like if I emphasize a word in text by doing what I just did instead of just making it bold, or italic. The box is already set off from the text by its margin, its placement, its border, and in many cases, an icon. The background color is different, too. It doesn't need more.
I used the same background to create a consistent, elegant color palette for the site. Frankly, the pastel backgrounds are tacky, and with multiple boxes, they make articles look like Rainbow Brite. I wanted to minimize the colored area and place it in a consistent location. I didn't use a colored border because of the function of the color: It's a flag. The point is to draw the eye to the infobox, and the best place to draw the eye is to the beginning of the text. Plus, with borders, we're getting into Rainbow Brite land again.
The bar is only on one side to aid scanning. The text is ragged right for this reason, too. The bar draws the eye directly to the beginning of the text of the notice. If there were another bar on the right, or a border of the same color, it wouldn't have the same effect. This is to enhance the presentation of information, not just look pretty. The composition is supposed to be imbalanced for this reason. Think of it like a bullet point, or one of those post-it flags in the margin of your textbook highlighting key points. It has more than one function.

I hope this helps in some way, and good luck forming consensus on a design change... – flamurai (t) 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The pastel colors are not tacky, but the super-bright bars are, and do dominate an article in a jarring way that diverges from our overall Wikipedia design. Badagnani 18:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond, and I want to note beforehand that this isn't just a response for response's sake, I'm actually carefully thinking about what I say.

The banners are used in different occasions, so the standard should be flexible enough to be able to reflect this diversity. Making them all relatively monotonous might be appealing on some rational level, but it's not good if they're blended into the rest of the page as a result. The very light background shade and light borders don't help very much — you can test it by squinting, they disappear. The whitespace and icons do help, but not enough in some cases — {{db-meta}}, for example, needs more serious treatment. The fact remains that background shades help distinguish the whole banners from the page and each other more effectively than a color bar.
I don't understand this argument, because you can see that the connected "Kindergarten" colors are much closer to a rainbow just by looking at them. Likewise, when you say that they're consistent, do you mean internally? They can't be consistent with the rest of the site if the site only uses such bright colors on thin borders and some text, never on thick bars or in random combinations.
In relation to leading the eye, it can be much better achieved with icons, no intentional imbalance is required.
What you say about the pastel colors being tacky seems a bit prejudiced. Just as the bright colors have their place, the pastels have their place too, and it's not like a color can be universally "tacky". The colors should be looked at as a composite, and their appropriateness or un-appropriateness decided by the context. In this case, the overall design is light, and uses bright colors sparingly and never on thick bars, so the pastels fit in well. It must also be noted that they're being used on the main page, among other places, and look very well, and there's a consensus about it.
A bullet point is exactly that — a point, not a long slab, and if, say, the template banner is alone, it doesn't make much sense for it to have something like a bullet point. It also doesn't seem to make sense to lead the eye to the entire left side, not just the starting point. For example, if the rest of the article had a bright bar at the left side, I think the effect would be better described as "distraction", not aiding the reader. The banners also usually have icons, which also would serve the same purpose and make the bars redundant. As for the post it notes, in my experience, books usually seem to use background shades for such things, as they highlight the whole section, not just one side. Reinis^talk 19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give the servers a rest

I don't have any preference either way for the new design but this giant update seems to be effectively disabling illustrations on a large number of articles. WP:VPT has received several reports about these effects which began appearing when the job queue skyrocketed. The job queue is now up to 3 million outstanding jobs, so please don't make further modifications for the next day or so to give the servers a chance to catch up. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The image issue appears unrelated as it is to do with Commons images and is an image caching/thumbnailing issue (see WP:VPT and the commons: site notice), plus most of the conversions happened yesterday and the job queue was not that high after most of them were done. Also Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, if there's a serious problem that edits/editors are creating, the devs will let us know. Thanks, matt br 13:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see, as far as I understood it and from what I heard on the dev chat etc: The image problem is due to the servers prioritising text rendering when they are too busy (which is a good thing). The servers are too busy because several of them have been going off-line the last 40 hours or so. The servers have been going off-line because their memory swap disks have become full. This started happening right after we started converting article message boxes. So it might be we who fill up the memory of those servers. Of course, that is a bug that needs fixing in the servers.

--David Göthberg 14:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

True, the developers haven't sounded an alarm bell - and let's hope it doesn't come to that - but we have a huge job queue and a massive image problem at our hands at the same time. What's worrying me is that the image problem seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. I check a number of images, and I've already had to purge their cached versions three times this day. As long as something is obviously malfunctioning, we shouldn't add more work to the existing pile. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Y (talk · contribs) just went ahead and reverted the fix to {{db-meta}} without waiting for a tweak to come from here. I'd have reverted with a polite note to wait for concensus but no can do: no admin bit. — Coren ^(talk) 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to get a tweak working. violet/riga (t) 14:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have two non-ambox options here and here, or I see someone has added a style parameter to ambox so you could just go back to this and add style="background:#FEE" or style="background:#FFDAB9". Anomie 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just tried that and, on preview, it didn't seem to work. violet/riga (t) 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

D'oh. Try this hopefully-correct code: | style = background:{{{bgcolor|#FEE}}} or | style = background:{{{bgcolor|#FFDAB9}}}. Anomie 16:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While we're waiting, could someone change the hangon template back too? Because the juxtaposition of the old speedy and the new hangon looks incredibly ugly. Thanks! Gscshoyru 17:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Still no joy. violet/riga (t) 17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I found it. Whoever did the original conversion had a bug. This or this seem to work. Anomie 17:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the template with the former, which I feel is the closest to a compromise position. violet/riga (t) 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. Any opinion on creating a specific "ambox-speedy" class for these templates so that we could get rid of the hardcoded styles entirely? (I've proposed this also on the db-meta talk page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An alternative approach

I, generally, like the redesign. However, I do have a problem with the serious issue templates (which I believe encompasses AfD), which, after the redesign, are too easy to ignore. Now, there has been a lot of discussion about the shading, so I'll try to be brief and save everyone a bunch of time (provided that somebody reads this).

I propose that for the serious issue templates (and the serious issue templates only) should have some sort of shading that would make the notice stand out from the page, such as the red used prior to standardization. This would: (1) show a definite contrast between these and general page issues such as cleanup and (2) make it stand out from the rest of the page. Less experienced users might not pay attention to these boxes with such a neutral color (simply glaze over them, as they would cleanup boxes). And for those who argue that the red bar stands out enough -- IT DOESN'T! A little 5px (or whatever size it ended up being) bar of a solid color does not stand out enough -- it looks too much like a part of the article.

If, however, people are looking for an alternative approach to the current redesign (which I acknowledge took a considerable amount of time and restating that I like the redesign, with a few reservations), I propose the following:

On the List of South Park episodes, for example, thin bars are used in the List of South Park episodes#DVD releases section. While looking over that list, I noticed a (perhaps) better alternative to make these notices appear, um, more noticeable: above and below the box bars, coordinated to the respective color of the category of boxes. For example:

Serious issues, consider borders similar to season 2
Content issues, consider borders similar to season 9
Style issues, consider borders similar to season 5
Contribution requests and notices, consider borders similar to season 7
Merger, split and transwiki proposals, consider borders similar to season 4
All other article notices, consider borders similar to season 6

This proposal would (using some of the objections raised on this page previously):

Allow for less confusion with the article text, as the borders would make it stand out considerably from the rest of the page.
Stacking would still be possible (I think). Each box could still be somewhat separate (with the top and bottom borders), but yet combined into one continuous box.
Allow for users with smaller monitors (or less resolution) to better see the notices. Horizontal bars would allow said users to see these notices better.
Allow for better balance within the box. As Reinis pointed out, the current incantation of these boxes are unbalanced to the left side. This new proposal allows for a better (but not perfect) balance within the box. Left to right, there is only an icon on the left. Top to bottom, the box is balanced.

Admittedly, there are some flaws to this different approach:

Possible conflict with top/bottom bars when stacked
~~Difficulty in coding~~
Could have more negative feedback than current one has
~~Wasted time and effort by the original redesign and standardization team~~
May not fix the problems that I think it will
Other things I haven't thought of

Once again, I essentially like the new design, but I don't agree with the (lack of) tinting. This is just another potential starting point for discussion and further evaluation. Thanks for reading, and I look forward to the comments that will inevitably follow. Feel free to tear apart my proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing; is it thinner color-bars above and below the boxes? (updated)

I personally prefer the current style to that. But as for your flaws, #2 is not the case, and #4 I wouldn't worry about. Anomie 16:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, but no left-hand bar. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So like that then? Anomie 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly nicer, albeit still not consistent with the rest of the site. The collapsing doesn't quite work out with the 2px differently-colored borders, so a little whitespace would perhaps be good. Reinis^talk 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is what you think looks (relatively) good then no wonder we disagree. I don't like this design: the borders clash with each other and don't allow for quick scanning. violet/riga (t) 21:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just said it's nicer, and I also pointed out that the borders don't work. I'm not sure what you mean by "quick scanning", though. Reinis^talk 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is preferable to the side bars. These sort of options should have been put forward in the first place and widely discussed before anything was implemented. Still, better late than never. Tyrenius 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. What I meant was neutral/gray side borders, with the top and bottom colors being as they look now. Sorry for being so unclear and non-responsive. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)