Template talk:Ambox/Archive 7

Overstandarization?

You can lump me in with the group that hates the left colour bar, and prefers a solid background coulour in its place. However, that is being argued to death, and I have a concern that is a higher priority to me. I have noticed that, evidently as a result of this change, the {{Current sport-related}} banner (and likely other templates that are similar) has had a significant change when one attempts to use the mini=1 parameter. In the current format, the only change this causes is for there to be less text in the banner (i.e.: Calgary Flames). What was once a subtle template box that fit in the top-right corner, above the team template in that example now throws itself right into your face. I am not sure if this was intended, or if the breaking of that parameter inadvertent. Since I have no idea how to fix/change this, I thought I'd ask here. Thanks, Resolute 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that mini functionality was really nifty. So I repaired your message box. But of course I used the new .ambox CSS classes so it does have the new looks and is still fully skinnable etc.

That mini functionality is very interesting. Perhaps we should standardise it and add it to ambox? Especially for notice boxes since they might sit forever on an article. Would be perfect for {{pp-protected}} etc as a compromise between the full message box and the small padlock up in the corner.

--David Göthberg 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix! And I agree. There are cases where a smaller infobox is most useful. The page-protected templates is a very good example of this. Resolute 19:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Many many great ideas

I'm not sure where we'll be going with all this, but look at all the awesome ideas coming in! Even if some of them don't work for the article templates, I'm going to be snagging many of these color themes and styles for other uses. A lot of great stuff can come out of a good 'ol style-fight! -- Ned Scott 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Custom width for {{trivia}}?

The {{trivia}} template has been modified for a narrower width than the other tags. While it's supposed to be put in sections instead of on top of the article, this may merit further discussion. See Template talk:Trivia#Width/date. szyslak 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Db-meta}}

I understand that you guys are doing, and for the most part, think you're doing a fantastic job, but the Template:Db-meta colour just won't work. It needs to be a really bright colour to stand out. That's why it used to be pink, so when reading the article, you know that it is basically waiting to be deleted. Is there any way you can change the background colout back to pink? If not, we're going to have to go back to the old style. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:26, 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. Personally I think the red bar and the size of the template brings sufficient attention to the notice. Red is only used for such serious problems, but we may need to look at a way of conveying the immediacy of db templates compared to xfd templates. violet/riga (t) 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well we can, as changing the db-meta template hasn't been discussed anywhere! Basically, all I'm saying is that it should have a background colour - one small red bar is not enough to make it stand out from the rest, especially when it is going to be going on pages that are ridiculous personal attacks against real life people. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template standardisation doesn't need the discussion of each and every individual template. We could look at a pink body for speedy templates because they are ones that will not remain for long on an article, while AfD templates do. violet/riga (t) 18:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you look into finding a pink body then please Violetriga? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The red bar does not suffice to make it stand out compared to the old pink background, and it doesn't communicate that this template has more gravity compared to others because they all have bright colors. Reinis^talk 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I definately agree! Why not just change the "serious" color to bright #f00 instead of the maroonish color? Red is certainly more attention grabbing. I'd be fine with just a brighter color like #f00. --froth^t 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan: Note that 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.

Reinis and froth: The same goes for you, stop talking about colours and start showing some actual designs that people can see.

--David Göthberg 19:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I wouldn't have a clue how do code it up, that's why I asked Violet! I would suggst that in the future, you don't get so defensive. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

4 minutes before you said that I posted one below..... --froth^t 02:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy templates

Should speedy templates have a pink body to highlight their severity and, more importantly, immediacy? Or is there another way we could highlight this? I think it is a fair comment that speedy templates should stand out a little bit more than others, and their short-term use would not cause problems with consistency. violet/riga (t) 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's important that people reading the encyclopedia know that the page is going to be deleted soon and of substandard quality, a bright colour draws attention to it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Look who's concerned over consistency now. Albeit, sadly, in this case it's not about consistency with the overall design, but with an inflexible standard. Reinis^talk 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the standardisation generally, but I agree speedy deletion templates need to be more noticeable. Given then should be removed or the article deleted, there seems little harm in making them stand out where as the benefit is obvious. I suggest making it look like: User:WJBscribe/Drafts/2 Is that what people had in mind? WjBscribe 18:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think the CSD template certainly does need to have its own unique level of customisation (background, specifically), simply to stand out from the rest of the "serious" templates. I think the above is a good example of how maybe it could look under the new system, and the contrast between the side bar and background indeed suit well. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, yes that's great. This is what I originally had in mind (for all "serious" templates not just speedy) but I don't like it as much as yours:

In any case I don't like the dark red color coding, it should be #f00 --froth^t 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Think of the epileptics? Use #f06 and white text instead. ^^ Reinis^talk 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearer definition for speedy templates is needed. How about the previous background colour?

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). Please consider placing {{subst:empty-warn|Template talk:Ambox/Archive 7}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author.

A bit lighter than WJBs option but still stands out. I think it works quite well with the red bar. mattbr 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this one. Also, there needs to be some thought into how to change the background color for speedy templates; there are several options. --MZMcBride 19:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. This one looks even worse with a #f00 color bar.. I'm finally convinced that the dark red is best. Either that or a black background with neon green text ^_^ --froth^t

My current screen isn't great at showing colour (poor laptop LCD) but I'd go for the first option by WjBscribe. violet/riga (t) 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WJPscribes looks good to me, think it stands out better. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary unindent

FWIW, I think the WJBscribe versions is the most attention-grabbing one. That's probably what's wanted. — Coren ^(talk) 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put together a version with a pink background at User:Anomie/Sandbox2, if it's liked by all it should be directly copyable to {{db-meta}}. Anomie 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And here's a version with WJBscribe's darker color. Anomie 19:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is how to implement the change. Should {{db-meta}} use {{ambox}} or not? If so, some changes will have to be made. --MZMcBride 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy to add an option to ambox, but I wouldn't want it to be abused and used in other places too. But then introducing a second meta template seems a little odd when it is so easy to add to ambox. violet/riga (t) 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any particular need for it to, the design of this system is such that the CSS classes can be applied directly to tables for the more unusual cases like this. Anomie 20:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I say give a parameter to {{ambox}}. This way, possible future changes will percolate down to {{db-meta}} without having to remember it (or run the risk of it getting desynced). — Coren ^(talk) 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Increasing flexibility in the template is always better than no option at all, since it's protected. Come on lets get comments already before this is buried in an archive and no admin ever sees it. --froth^t 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently the points brought up above were discarded along the way? See the discussion at Template talk:Db-meta. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, this discussion was started after the change was made. In other words, this is us talking about fixing the issue raised on Template talk:Db-meta. On that note, I support WJBscribe's version as well. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that there's one main consensus here - the background colour of speedy deletion templates must be changed. First of all, we are now standardizing the templates, which is generally a good idea, but isn't necessarily the most important thing on the planet.

It seems to me that we need to give ambox an extra parameter. The worst-case scenario is that this gets misused - but we should realize that this is a wiki, in case you've forgotten. If people are in support of a particular system, no one user's reverts can kill it. I'm not quite happy with the ambox setup as is, but as this is a wiki, I am perfectly happy to be able to change that setup, or suggest changes, so that it works better.

I do a lot of deletion work with speedy deletion, so I'm in favour of making the setup the classic pink to complement the red sidebar and not have to retrain my eyes for some new colour. That being said, I do see some support for WJBscribe's version. It might therefore be helpful to leave in some support for user CSS customization here. This is, after all, a wiki. Nihiltres^(t.l) 05:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nihiltres when it comes to using the classic "Speedy" pink. I'm using the colour in my own Monobook.css, as well as using other colours for other "severity" levels. Harryboyles 09:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(Shameless notice) - This discussion appears to be along the same vein of some comments I just made below. Please voice your thoughts (regardless of whether you agree of not : )- jc37 10:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey -- I realize that while we're discussing this, the speedy templates should go back to being pink, but the juxtaposition of the hangon tag and the speedy tag currently looks incredibly ugly. Could someone change the hangon tag back as well while this is being discussed? Gscshoyru 17:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Float issue

e.g. NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters. Template goes over infobox, shouldn't do that. Can this be fixed, or is this just inevitable? User:Krator (t c) 22:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge tags should be at the very top. I've moved it there. --Quiddity 22:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any message templates should be at the top (they are not part of the article proper, should only be temporary), followed by any dablink templates (again not part of the article proper, but long term), then the infobox and the intro (start of the article proper). Hope that makes sense, and I have ordered the page accordingly. mattbr 23:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to stop these templates 'sticking' to infoboxes? Examples: House music, Euro-Mir. I've noticed a lot of 'current event' articles linked to from the main page have been using line breaks, but that's not acceptable to have to alter every article. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a break (<br>) after the template in House music and it fixed it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 00:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's not my point - these templates have been suddenly rolled out across the whole of Wikipedia. It would be a million times easier to modify the templates rather than every single article in which they are included surely? Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We could just put {{clear}} at the bottom of the ambox template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that break the stacking? --Quiddity 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I've found the problem too. Crossroads (Battlestar Galactica). That does intend pose a problem. Any code wranglers watching this thread? --Quiddity 06:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{clear}} tag above that section. It isn't a pretty fix, but it works for now. Perhaps some coding for "small left" alignment? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious issue templates

In looking over the schema, most of the templates are "fine". I dunno if it's a good idea to use for the default background the same blue as is used on Wikipedia-space pages, but someone else can start that discussion.

However, I have severe concerns about the "serious issue" templates. I don't think they should be a part of this at all. They are not about anything "within" the article, they are about the article itself, and its place on Wikipedia. That makes them, essentially "meta-templates". When you add the fact that many or most are also used in namespaces other than the main namespace, you run into further trouble. (This is besides the fact that the new schema makes these rather important notifications seem to blend into this new "template wall".)

I'd like to suggest that all the "serious issue" templates be reverted to their previous form (if they haven't already, I've seen some reverts already).

And then a new discussion started just concerning them (if wanted), since they are beyond the scope of "article templates". - jc37 09:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the page again, I see that "Merger and transwiki proposal" templates would fall under this as well. - jc37 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All templates that appear in an article should conform to a set design scheme, and AfD templates are no exception. I don't see it as an issue if the MfD tag is updated as we will be looking at Wikipedia-space templates soon too and they will likely follow this scheme too. violet/riga (t) 09:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you see how the current changes pan out with more people, before going any further. Tyrenius 09:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All templates should conform to a design scheme to themselves. There are a lot more templates that are used on articles than the ones listed here. And the serious issue and merger/transwiki templates often have a time-based deadline, as well. Consider that such templates also are likely to be removed once the deadline has passed means that these templates should stand out more. They simply are not and should not be part of this plan. I don't think they should have the "same colour", as the individual notices "stand out" in some ways specifically because of their colour differences. Same goes for size, and so on. It's a whole other creature, and should be treated as such. - jc37 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They are article templates and should be treated the same. Deletion templates are differentiated by the red (serious) sidebar and there is discussion about getting speedy templates to have a pink background. violet/riga (t) 10:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That's like saying that templates that create tables are article templates. Or how about templates that create infoboxes? Or succession boxes? these are all article templates. Things used for varying purposes. And notices about the articles themselves, should be entirely different than internal article notices.

Also, in my opinion, the "red (serious) sidebar" is just this side of useless (have you considered people who don't have large monitors to view pages, for example?). The discussion to have the speedy templates to have a pink background is an direct example of what I mean. All these templates should be noticeable. - jc37 10:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not like saying that at all - they are all obviously tags that go at the top an article to warn users of a problem. Sorry but the red sidebar stands out very easily even on small resolutions. violet/riga (t) 10:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, they're not. They are not "to warn users of a problem". They are to notify users of a discussion. As I said, an entirely different thing. - jc37 10:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"This article might be deleted" is obviously a problem with that article. violet/riga (t) 11:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's "obvious", then you haven't hung around XfD discussions, or RfC, or DRV, or RM, or or or or... See they're because someone has a problem with the article as an article (it's name or its very existence). Not that there necessarily is a problem with the article. That's quite different than the obvious self-evidence of lack of references, or need for cleanup, or being a stub, or whatever. Look, I understand you like the results. And I like the idea of standardisation. But I think you're grouping apples and oranges, and telling me: "They're both fruit." Aside from the colour bar screaming I read from complainers below, I think putting these two things back "on the table" for discussion, would mean that the rest of the standardisation should go through uncontroversially. - jc37 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a relevant distinction. violet/riga (t) 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention something: why do you disagree. Reinis^talk 23:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just allow the user to disagree. I personally think "time-sensitive" and "notices about discussions about the article" are strong enough reasons, but that doesn't mean User:violetriga may agree. In any case, I've restated this (hopefully) more clearly in a new section below. - jc37 09:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Background color

Light blue does not go with red, orange, yellow, green, purple, and blue. OK it probably does go with all of those colors except orange, which it looks hideous with. Why aren't we using a neutral light grey for the background instead of blue? The blue was fine before we had this new color code system, but it really needs to go now. Kaldari 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the color bars that need to go. Reinis^talk 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The colour bars are fine, in my opinion. I'm not married to them, but they instantly communicate information about the level of the warning.

As for the background colour, what about trying a 20% opacity fill of the bar colour? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the same could be communicated better. Reinis^talk 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try some examples. Here is the current setup:

A version with a neutral grey background:

And a version with pastels:

Thoughts? (Besides "The color bars must go!!!") Anomie 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly prefer the current high-contrast version. ←Ben^B4 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here. The grey background makes it more difficult to read and doesn't look as good. The pastel backgrounds go back to the horrible days of rainbows on articles and don't work alongside each other. So, high-contrast (current) for all but speedy templates. violet/riga (t) 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the grey to be closer to the current extremely-pale-blue. Anomie 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, pretty good job with this whole standardisation project, I must say. I think what we have now is much better than what we had before. That said, I see where some of the anti-comments of the past 24 hourse are coming from, mainly the current look of the templates involves completely unwiki crayon colors. Aside from what User:Anomie has suggested above, I also thought of this coloring version:

Serious issues, such as {{afd}} and {{prod}} (#b22222)

Content issues, such as {{POV}} and {{globalize}} (#fce6cc)

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

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

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

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

This also makes the red deletion templates stand out more. You can see like they apporximately look with images in an article (and a few other possibilities) in my sandbox. But I am also fine with leaving the colors like they are. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer either the current version or the one with the #fbfbfb grey. Anomie 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like the idea of this muted set. It looks closer to what we've been using at Wikipedia talk:Colors (for themainpage and contents pages and community portal, etc). Something between this and the current version would be my preference. --Quiddity 18:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think these ones look a little washed out. Where the colour meets the border there is a jarring mismatch. violet/riga (t) 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Muted color bar suggestion

An experiment to adapt Sgeureka's example above, to something closer to the current version, taking Wikipedia talk:Colors into account too.

Serious issues, such as {{afd}} and {{prod}} (#b22222)

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

Style issues, such as {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} (#FFFF66)

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

Merger, split and transwiki proposals, such as {{split}} and {{copy to wiktionary}} (#BB99FF)

All other article notices, such as {{current}} (#99DDFF)

Just a draft, for the sake of discussion. --Quiddity 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll support it, to quell the complaints about bright colors. I muted your colors a little further. ←Ben^B4 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find those all that muted. They actually hurt my eyes. Look at your yellow and your cyan -- light doesn't mean muted. I might support muted colors, if I saw samples of some genuinely muted ones.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:55, 09/17/2007

I'd suggest mixing your own example, if the set above, and the set above that, can be improved upon (which I'm sure they can. It was just another draft :) --Quiddity 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They're a lot better now. Looks like BenB4 had just messed them up.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 06:18, 09/17/2007

BenB4: Never change another user's talkpage comments (unless they specifically announce that anyone may change certain aspects). See WP:TALK#Editing comments. It makes it very confusing for everyone else as to what the original writer was actually supporting/saying. I have now changed the colours back to those I had originally used. --Quiddity 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I kind of like those, although I think the green and possibly the purple are a little too faint.--Father Goose 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The green looks faint because it's very similar to the box's background color. It should be darkened for some contrast.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:23, 09/17/2007

To something like these? That's 50% saturation instead of 40%. (In the examples above, the yellow/orange are at 60%, the blue/green/purple at 40%.) --Quiddity 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Contribution requests and notices, such as {{expand}} and {{inuse}} (#80FF80)

Merger, split and transwiki proposals, such as {{split}} and {{copy to wiktionary}} (#AA80FF)

Higher saturation takes away from the mutedness. Better to play with the brightness, to darken them. Here's my green (and yours for comparison):

My green (#9EE27C)

Your old green (#BBFF99)

Your new green (#80FF80)

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:29, 09/17/2007

Disputed tag

From watching this entire process evolve over the past several weeks, there has been broad support for it. There are a couple of vocal critics, but no page is truly disputed if some people don't agree with it. There are undoubtedly policies and guidelines that some people do not personally agree with or like, however, I've seen no evidence of a broad dispute on this page. --MZMcBride 17:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. The editing public at large did not know about this until it started showing up on templates. The bright color bars should be abandoned in favor of different pastel background shades for the templates, as recommended above. The recommendation is a good one, because it harmonizes with our design. The new designs' bright color bars dominate an article and appear like the crayons we used in kindergarten. Badagnani 17:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus and the editing public at large was informed in the most reasonable way possible. There wasn't really a need to insert a 200% bold font message into the MediaWiki:Sitenotice, especially because this proposal received such a wide swath of approval on this page and on the Village Pump. If you want to discuss using different colors, that's what this talk page is for. But that discussion isn't a true dispute, it's a suggestion that would need consensus. It's aesthetic, it's not "political" (i.e., relating to the actual "policy"). --MZMcBride 17:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw no such message on my watchlist. Further, any editor expressing concerns about the use of these bright colors has been ignored or summarily dismissed at this talk page; you've seen this as clearly as I have. Badagnani 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the measures taken to notify people were quite modest, and it's being flaunted on this same talk page what a huge change this was. The actual policy also deals with aesthetics, namely, the design, so people criticizing the design and people suggesting new versions confirm that there's a basis for dispute. Drawing arbitrary lines that, say, only 4 people disagreeing against 20 is still a consensus, and that there's no need to look at the substance of the disagreement, makes this a vote, and is against the principle of consensus as defined by WP:CON. Reinis^talk 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's more like 5 vs. 40. But why do think "good design" (for which you have cited no sources agreeing with you) is more important than people who have a hard time with low contrast? ←Ben^B4 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, if Wikipedia was a democracy, you would win the wote. Reinis^talk 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia puzzle logo should be replaced with a picture of a kitten. If I get a couple of other people should we seriously consider it? This whole "not a democracy" thing is taken out of context by vocal minorities that will never agree with the rest - there is no consensus that could ever be attained here, so we simply have to have majority rule. violet/riga (t) 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You want to get it your way, I want to get it my way, the difference is that I'm making rational arguments about it, but you're trying to make this into a majority vote and dismissing the opposition with one liners like "you can't please everyone". Reinis^talk 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the current scheme has been fully justified and I don't need to continue talking about any of it. You have your own opinion which many people disagree with, and I see no need to keep discussing it when we will never agree or be able to compromise. violet/riga (t) 20:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While you're right that I'm probably not going to suddenly start liking the color bars, I will do what it takes to fix the current design, including proposing my own. If you want to cling to the majority or a past consensus, you can do that. The current design is not becoming justified because of your say-sos, however. Reinis^talk 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And of course you know better than everyone that likes this design. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems so, yes. Reinis^talk 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - With all due respect, that is a silly argument. It's clear that the community at large did not know about this before the template was actually implemented (I never saw anything about this huge change on my watchlist), and thus consensus did not even *begin* to be built, except among the enthusiasts of the bright-color scheme--which goes against our long-standing design aesthetic. If you want to begin to build consensus, please do it in the proper way. Badagnani 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust you've checked the archives and seen the amount of support this generated? You know, those people that heard about this through the normal communication channels and backed it without being otherwise involved? violet/riga (t) 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a past consensus, and you're overstating it. Compared to the global scale of it all, the people who agreed to this were relatively few and self selecting, and the changes were rushed through in a few weeks. The most vocal supporters are also those who were involved in it. Reinis^talk 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is the agreed-upon place for proposals of this sort. Is it on your watchlist? ←Ben^B4 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it needed to be on everyone's watchlists, but a story (not just a one-line mention here) in the Wikipedia Signpost would have attracted some attention to the conversion before it happened. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, it might have been best to add a watchlist message to limit the number of people who felt "blindsided" by the change. However, the near-unanimity of support following its prior rounds of publicity made it seem unlikely that the change would be controversial.--Father Goose 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there are always people that will disagree with every change, especially one about style and visual design. The hassles of the talk page standardisation were much worse than this. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change, can't it. Reinis^talk 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can, sure, but I haven't seen any evidence that it has. I don't say that as an advocate of the project; in its early days, I was one of the few people voicing any kind of criticism.

You have a very large number of people you need to convince of your views, and the way you've been conducting yourself here has, I believe, just been alienating people.--Father Goose 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is one of the most presumptuous statements so far. I think you are the one that needs to convince the WP community that jarring, bright colors that conflict with our design are a good thing to rush through without wide consensus, and I believe your own statement is alienating people. You are laying out a statement that any comments that criticize the imposition of these crayon-like colors will not be tolerated. That is wrong. Badagnani 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You ought to make it clearer who it is you're responding to with these comments, either by indenting in the usual fashion, or including users' names in your replies. I presume the above comment was directed at me, but I can't be sure.--Father Goose 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

'Alienate'... oh right, then it is me. I'm not sure whose 'silly statement' you are referring to in your earlier comment, however.

You've jumped to quite an extreme position. I'm fine with criticism; as I said above, I was one of the project's earliest critics, at least regarding selected points. I'd say that the standardization project was neither rushed nor delayed, although, again, in retrospect, a watchlist message would probably have been a good idea.

I don't need to convince the community that this project is a good idea. Their responses have consistently suggested that they think this is a good idea -- though there are a couple of highly vocal dissenters. You've repeatedly explained to us that you think it's a bad idea. If your goal is to convince us of this view, you should focus on being persuasive instead of combative. The only way to truly win an argument is to get people to change their minds. Are you accomplishing that?--Father Goose 05:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag (section break)

Right now it seems like this tag is a little silly. I mean, looking at this talk page, I'd say that there's roughly 85-90% support. A few vocal critics don't really merit the disputed tag. -Chunky Rice 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The supporters of this change want to brush any dissent under the carpet with belittling comments like "a couple of highly vocal dissenters". Dissent has been expressed by Reinis, Tyrenius, Badagni ("the brightly colored bars ... conflict with our traditional design and use of color"), Resolute ("hates the left colour bar, and prefers a solid background coulour in its place"), Y ("can't deal with indistinguishable template, this helps nobody")[1] Splash ("The top of articles is not a kindergarten for would-be web designers"), and Ian Manka ("I don't agree with the (lack of) tinting"). Clearly this change is disputed. Tyrenius 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not - we're merely stating that there are many more supporters than those objecting. Y has not commented here and his concern has been dealt with (what?! we actually listen and work to resolve things?!) and Ian Manka's comment there is hardly a massive rejection of this whole scheme. I agree that it is disputed but don't really see how any compromise can be reached, so I think that you might have to focus on your own Monobook CSS. violet/riga (t) 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

His concern seems to have been adressed by reinstating the pink tinted background, which is one of the main points of contention, so the template is now the old one with a bar added down the side. Are tints going to be restored to other templates also then? Tyrenius 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you're merely harping on the majority. Reinis^talk 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Three major issues are in dispute:

• Use of sidebars
• Absence of tinting
• Use of icons

There is agreement that rationalisation (e.g. width of templates) is desirable. Tyrenius 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite that I like the new look on the whole, Tyrenius et al., do have points. This project has made a lot of changes. Some will not be liked because they're new, others for aesthetic/design reasons. Other problems will come up as the templates are tested. This is the time to get it right. If ultimately a significant proportion of users (e.g. 75%) like the new templates, then that should be the default version. It may be worth having alternate skins easily available (i.e. linked from the project page) for those who prefer something different.-- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody objects to discussion and changes. However, I'd say that we're well over 75% support right now. Which is why the tag is a little misleading. -Chunky Rice 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Great for you. If this was a vote, you'd win. Reinis^talk 19:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You act like the number of editors who support something is irrelevant in determining consensus. I assure, that is not the case. Wihtout any real policy issues, this is, essentially a vote as to personal preference. -Chunky Rice 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the numbers? There are thousands of editors and millions of readers that are impacted by this change, and the way the consensus was sought was inadequate. The project was basically rushed through. The "unanimity" was flaunted even when there was just a handful of people commenting in the very first days. The whole project was started to implement Flamurai's design that's remained completely unchanged since then.[2] On 22 August, a post was made on the Village pump about his design by violet/riga.[3] On 23 August, this project was started with the support of about 12 people.[4] After that, no notifications to the wider public were given just until before implementing it, and even then it looked almost like going through a formality, not seriously seeking input. Until deployment on 14 September, only 92 people had commented on something that affected the entire Wikipedia, a number that is often surpassed in mere XfDs. On 27 August, a small message was posted to WikiEN-l that garnered no responses on-list or on-wiki.[5] A small notice appeared in a subpage of the Signpost in 10 September,[6] saying nothing about the scale and drastic nature of the changes. In the following 3 days after the notice, only 8 people commented that hadn't commented before. On 14 September, just before deployment, a (rather pointless in retrospect) posting was made to Village pump,[7] saying nothing about the scale of the project again, and receiving no responses there. Then, after the project was deployed, vehement criticisms came almost immediately. The most vocal defenders of Flamurai's design were incidentally mostly the same people who had been involved in pushing this through since the beginning.

To summarize, there was never a point in time in this project when something else than Flamurai's design had been considered, different proposals for the design were never sought, and wider consensus was sought only right before deployment, attracting the attention of only a few new editors, and in this the issues of a redesign and standardization were conflated. Therefore, what enjoys consensus is standardization as such, not this design. Reinis^talk 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the effort was a little bolder than was necessary. However, all of those people who edit Wikipedia will surely notice the change, as you did. If they come here and voice their dissent, perhaps consensus will change. For now, however, the best way to gauge it is with the people who have already voiced their opinions. And they are overwhelmingly in favor of the change. -Chunky Rice 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, anything would have gained support that standardized the sizes of the boxes. It's a different issue whether the people would have preferred Flamurai's design over others, if any alternatives would have been provided before implementing. Most of the supporters also seem to be under the impression that it's either Flamurai's design or back to how it was, including the nonstandard sizes. In the end, there's no evidence that there's a consensus against using the standard pastel colors from almost all Wikimedia projects. People like violet/riga have also been very dismissive of the possibility of change. What will hopefully happen now is that alternatives will be proposed and proper consensus sought, and if it goes well we won't get to RfC or similar places. The point is that this should have been done before implementation and any designs proposed now will be in a bad disadvantage. Reinis^talk 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been dismissive of people being rude to those that have spent a lot of time working on this. You also might want to look at the history of WP:TS - the competition that was held for talk page templates was a long and arduous process that should not have been repeated, and Flamurai's design was the best of those that had been submitted in the short time that I pursued article standardisation two years ago. What we have now is better than what we had. violet/riga (t) 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That Flamurai's design was the least bad does not mean that you could not have standardized the templates without changing their visual style. The issues of redesign and standardization should not have been conflated so. I do not think that Flamurai's design would have gained consensus if it was proposed after the template sizes would have been standardized. Unless it's conflated with standardization, it's clear that Flamurai's design is not harmonized with not just Wikipedia, but all of the Wikimedia projects. Reinis^talk 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We know you hold that opinion. You know that far more people disagree. Now are you going to go and create your own proposal? You said you were and it would be so much more productive than these lengthy chats we're having. violet/riga (t) 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we do not know that, and please see my response to Chunky Rice below. Reinis^talk 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if you agree that there is and was broad consensus for the change, then why do we need the disputed tag? -Chunky Rice 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, only a part of the project has a consensus, because the design is disputed and will hopefully change. Reinis^talk 21:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was to change to the current design. You acknowledge that there was consensus to change to this design and then say that the design doesn't have consensus. Regardless, you're welcome to propose an alternate design and gather significant support for that. Until that happens, however, the tag is inappropriately placed. -Chunky Rice 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a guideline, and guidelines are supposed to reflect the current communal consensus, not a past one, and I've pointed out the problems with the past consensus anyway. I need time to propose something, and this whole lengthy discussion has been taxing on my nerves. I've also got real life matters to attend to, and I'd actually prefer that someone seen as more neutral by the community would propose the changes, since I feel I've somewhat antagonized myself by opposing the current design. Reinis^talk 22:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You forgot WP:CENT. Communication on Wikipedia is always a problem and BOLD is often best. I notice that you're still going on about things that are irrelevant - how is this going to change what's happened? Come on, you'll have to take a different approach if you want to try and get your way. Oh, and wouldn't it be good if you also thanked people for working towards standardisation which you yourself agree with? Look for positives even in "trainwrecks". violet/riga (t) 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The two unfortunate epithets I used might have justified you not being keen to listen to my objection initially, but it's getting ridiculous if you're still going on about my "rudeness" days after. The positive in the changes that were implemented is only in having a standardized template, but what we have now is worse than what we had before in non-technical aspects, namely, design. I thank you for the template, but I won't thank you for making it very hard to implement a design that would actually fit Wikipedia. Reinis^talk 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. violet/riga (t) 21:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My concern is with the impression created for the general user. There is not a proper franchise for evaluating a response, and a much wider consensus needs to be achieved, as dissent has occurred with some users, such as myself, who have only just seen these changes. I have Village Pump watchlisted, but nothing came up which alerted me to the extent of the changes: "Template standardisation" as a heading somewhat understates matters.[8] Even so, the request to "have your say before it is too late" was posted on 14 September, allowing a very small window before mass changes were enacted. Tyrenius 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what: you guys make suggestions we can actually act upon, instead of grousing about how we're ignoring you, and we'll actually stop ignoring you. We may continue to disagree with you, however, but assume good faith that we're willing to listen to your suggestions. Don't turn this into a self-fulfilling conspiracy against you. Try to get some actual work done here, not just characterize yourselves as martyrs.--Father Goose 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a less than courteous comment to have been made. That the situation is being discussed, including the difficulties of proposing the old visual style again, does not mean that anyone is characterizing themselves as a "martyr" or turning this into "a self-fulfilling conspiracy" against themselves. You should perhaps try some of your own medicine and assume good faith. Reinis^talk 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume good faith habitually; it is among the most virtuous of behaviors. However, there is a point at which you have to confront people who are acting in a manner that serves neither their cause nor others'. I'd really like to suggest that you switch to making patient and compelling suggestions on how to change the templates instead of spending all your time complaining and fighting.--Father Goose 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then confront me without making unfounded speculations about my motives and in a less condescending tone. Reinis^talk 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think you would be well served by taking your own advice. Second, this still isn't advancing the discussion at all. We all know that you hate the design. But until you propose an alternative design, there's really nowhere to go. -Chunky Rice 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't pile on me. I have not touched anyone's motives, and I have been very patient in discussing this. I already explained why I haven't proposed a concrete design yet above. Reinis^talk 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I've found many of your remarks in this discussion to be extremely condescending. -Chunky Rice 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't pile on me. Reinis^talk 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have a better idea, don't disparage the existing idea. Suggest specific changes if they occur to you. I'm not sure I drifted into ascribing motives to you, but if I did, I apologize. I did make some sharp comments on your behavior, and how it has not been constructive; these, I stand by.--Father Goose 23:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, we're not here to "pile on you"; if a large number of people disagree with your statements or actions, all it means is that they disagree with your statements or actions.--Father Goose 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am putting forward a proposal at the bottom of this page under the heading "A way forward". Tyrenius 04:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What the pastel background looks like with low vision

It's not this bad for me, but when I make it like this, I have to get close up to the screen or I can't read it all. ←Ben^B4 18:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people with severely low vision will have difficulty reading any part of Wikipedia. Badagnani 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

:( Those of us with moderately low vision have difficulty with the shaded backgrounds and no problem with white backgrounds. ←Ben^B4 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This argument would make sense if the templates would include more text, but it's mostly short and static. If you had such bad vision that you couldn't read it, you'd have to use some sort of other accessibility aids anyway. Also, not all templates use this particular blue shade, the others are lighter. Reinis^talk 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What does the amount of text have to so with it? Hard to read is hard to read. Are you saying that I should just grin and bear it to satisfy your unsourced sense of aesthetics? ←Ben^B4 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My what?… Anyway, it's not that hard to read, there's very little of it, not all templates use that color, and if it's really so bad, it can always be made lighter. Reinis^talk 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Above you say that you are making "rational arguments," but you have raised objections based on your own personal preferences alone, and not on any respected graphic design source (you haven't cited anything but a google search.) I am very much in favor of making the background as light as it is in the {{ambox}} now, and I have an objective reason for it. Do you have any source which agrees with your repeated preferences? ←Ben^B4 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this source as a starting point. Tyrenius 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It says, "Successful design incorporates the use of the principles and elements to serve the designer's purpose and visual goals. There is no hard and fast rule for their use - it is directed by intent. The designer's purpose drives the decisions made to achieve appropriate scale and good proportion, as well as the degree of harmony between all the elements achieved through the sensitive balance of variety and unity."[9] ←Ben^B4 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Location/scope of this

This page is clearly about tags designed to be placed at the top of an article (or section). However, that is a fraction of the templates used in article space; there are all the stub ones for a start. I think that this page should be moved to a more appropriate location, unless a broader discussion of all article templates is to be brought into this page.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - it's too ambiguous as it stands. violet/riga (t) 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We will need an admin to do it since someone went ahead and pressed the full protect button. :| FunPika 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That won't be a problem. We need to come up with a name first though. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article message boxes? ←Ben^B4 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMB That sounds good. FunPika 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. -- Visviva 12:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Article message boxes is a very good name. --David Göthberg 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In the days before standardization

I just found a screenshot of a page that was tagged with multiple dispute/cleanup tags back in March of this year. Whatever one might think of the current design of {{ambox}}, the colors, the background, etc., I think most of us can agree that what we have now is a tremendous improvement over what we had back then.

For reference, here's how the same tags would look now, with the unstandardized semiprotection template placed on top per common practice. I'm substing the templates to remove categories and to account for possible changes after this comment is written. (n.b.: {{noncompliant}} is now deprecated.)

Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. {{howtoeditsemi}}

So ... which looks better? (Obviously, neither look "good", for the simple reason that such a large number of tags always looks bad.) szyslak 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The ambox one...but the semi template stands out. FunPika 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The protection templates are out of scope for this project, as it's only for article templates, and protection templates are above that level. _→AzaToth 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

...which might not necessarily be that bad as protection templates are of a different nature — they do not communicate problems with the article itself but rather with some lame or stupid people. :-P And yeah, the screenshot is priceless - but on the other hand, it's the kind of past we would prefer to forget. ;-) —Миша13 22:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If consensus emerges to standardize the protection templates, I wonder which type we should use. "Notice" has been suggested, but I wonder if "serious" should be considered. After all, if one is unable to edit an article, that's a pretty serious restriction. szyslak 22:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, protection templates are not article templates. _→AzaToth 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

*2 edit conflicts*This is a project for article templates, and yet we messed with all of the speedy templates, even the ones specifically meant for non article namespaces such as Template:Db-norat. :P FunPika 22:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a transclusion of {{db-meta}}, so that's the one that was "messed with". It would be good to include protection templates in the standardization, but they should probably have their own style, and have top/bottom margins so they stay a bit separated from the other templates, and stand out more. They're a more important technical issue, not a mere issue of article contents.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 23:04, 09/16/2007

If we really need a whole new style specifically for protection templates, then maybe we should use brown. FunPika 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That or grey, to be metallic and match the padlock graphic.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 23:15, 09/16/2007

I think protection templates should be standardised, either with red or metallic. GDonato (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic: I just came across Wikipedia:Huge message boxes, a humor page created in May 2005. My fellow editors who were around back then, remember New Cleanup? That was an attempt to replace the {{cleanup}} tag and listings with individual tags, leading to a large number of tags still used today. It caused Wikipedia's first outbreak of "tag madness", where troubled articles would be tagged with three or four pastel boxes in an assortment of shades. Coincidentally, the article whose large collection of tags was used for this page, Kryon, is up for deletion again! And it still has a large assortment of tags! Some things never change ... but the tags on the Kryon article look much better now! szyslak 06:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs-refs graphic

Is there no 'needs-refs' graphic? Can one be designed? JoeSmack ^Talk 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a question mark icon, like these? szyslak 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be a bookshelf with a row of books, something like that. I don't know if a pic exists like that.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 23:46, 09/16/2007

I kind of like these three:

Anyone else? I too would prefer something else, but perhaps something like this until it can be made? JoeSmack ^Talk 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Those seem kind of generic. How about these: File:Paperback book black gal .svg

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:00, 09/17/2007

Can we somehow combine a couple of these? I was thinking:

and

making the book color orange to match the color of the tag sidebar color? JoeSmack ^Talk 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How bout this (followed your suggestion):

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:24, 09/17/2007

Here's an example of how it looks within a template:

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 04:12, 09/17/2007

I like it! I used Inkscape to make an SVG out of the image for us to use:

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you make the pages white (instead of transparent)? —David Levy 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I also like it a lot! If you're doing David's suggestion above, I might also suggest making the orange a wee bit darker so the icon stands out a little from the sidebar as well. Other than that this is exactly what I was picturing - good work! JoeSmack ^Talk 10:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:18, 09/17/2007

Oooh, and i just found this icon, i'm about fifty fifty split between this and the above. JoeSmack ^Talk 10:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That image looks much more easier to understand at a glance, over the other one. I think the book looks fairly ambiguous in understanding, in this context. If you want more aesthetics, maybe try combining the two..? Place a pencil and magnifying glass on the book, with a question mark on top/the side. Maybe that would be too wide/complex..? - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, I've made some changes to the colors on the book: _→AzaToth 11:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Beautiful. JoeSmack ^Talk 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. The problem with my version was that the colors matched too completely, when really most of the boxes here have contrasting colors in their images. This looks great, I hope we can go with it.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:15, 09/17/2007

<unindent> Ok, I gave combining it a shot. How do people feel? Can anyone do better (I hope so :/ ). JoeSmack ^Talk 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this version best. However, the previous one is also nice. Good work! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the previous one better. This one seems too busy.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:51, 09/18/2007

How bout this, combining the the magnifying glass and the question mark:

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:20, 09/18/2007

Caution Please!!! there is a long history of rejection of icons on the reference related tags. A conversation has been started at Template talk:Unreferenced#Is it time to add an icon? to consider adding an icon to the {{unreferenced}} family of templates. Icons are an Option not a requirement of this Manual of Style. If you would like discuss adding an icon to the {{unreferenced}} family of templates please do so on the templates talk page. Jeepday (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So... if we think there should be an icon for the unreferenced family, and we think we have some good ideas for one, wouldn't this be the place to discuss that?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:51, 09/18/2007

Would you discuss changing the text of the template here or at the template? Jeepday (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the text of the template, and you're using that to make a point, then I'd say you're probably right, because I thought there was a separate style for unreferenced, but now I see it uses the content style with no image. So we should probably take this discussion over there.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:25, 09/18/2007

I've pasted some of these icons over at Template_talk:Unreferenced#From Ambox talk page, so whoever's been in on this here, feel free to continue the discussion there.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:38, 09/18/2007