Template talk:Punisher

Preotected

This template has been semi-protected in an effort to get annom editors to discuss the addition of minor characters or characters that are not solely Punisher related.

Thanks, - J Greb (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Header colour overriding

Template:Navbox/doc specifically says the following:

It comes equipped with default styles that should work for most navigational templates. Changing the default styles is not recommended, but is possible

So it's not recommended. This edit doesn't come with a rationale, makes the template code ~200 bytes heavier, makes the template non-standard and makes it more difficult to tell what parts are links. It should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no-counterargument from the editor who reverted, I've removed these styles again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I missed the post here on the talk page.

And I'll rephrase my edit summary query: can you provide a direct link to that equates "not recommended" with "shall not be done" or to examples of where the over ride should be made?

Most of the concerns that have been raise are due to accessibility issues - that there needs to be sufficient contrast between the text and the background so that anyone can easily read the text. White text on a black background does not suffer a "low contrast issue".

Beyond that, if there is a consensus, guideline, or policy that spells out exactly why the override is not to be used, I'd love to have it so that it can be applied consistently across the navboxes, comics and otherwise. Otherwise, this is boiling down to "I don't like it in this particular case."

- J Greb (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. I have never argued that changing the style was "banned"; I have pointed out that it is discouraged, and if there's no stronger argument for changing it than "pretty colours!" then the choice is between arbitrary-but-discouraged and arbitrary-but-not-discouraged. That seems like a pretty obvious call to me. The template used default colouring from inception until two weeks ago. The onus is on those wanting to use nonstandard styling to rationalise their choice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but without more than the one line "not recommended", which isn't quite the same as "discouraged", it falls down to personal taste. You've been quite clear about your take: if it's only to decorate, it doesn't belong. That reads a lot like, and correct me if I'm wrong, "The frivolous accenting of article elements has no place with in Wikipedia."

Personally, I'm not very enamoured of the candy coloring since it does create a morass when 3 or more hit on an article (see Stan Lee or Iron Man). But that's my personal taste and colors don't inherently make the navboxes hard to use (barring the contrast issue I noted above), I'm not willing to eliminate the colors on that alone. I'd rather have a consensus or guide line, something that passes for solid to point to that unless the alternate colors are unifying for a set of templates or under a Wiki-project, they shouldn't be used.

As for the bold change to this navbox... is there something other than an affront to you aesthetics that demands that the editor that made the change explain them self?

- J Greb (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "bold change" was the initial override. The template was perfectly fine not being overridden until two weeks ago. You seem to think that there's a greater burden on me to justify my position than on you for yours, which isn't the case. If nobody else provides input on this either way the template should go back to how it was two weeks ago, removing the discouraged style overrides. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the change to white on black was the bold change. Total agreement there.

And the template is perfectly fine with that change.

But your change is a bold one as well, one that you've made before. The previous instance being June 11 where you reverted out color changes made close to the inception of the template (May 13 and 10 respectively). The reasoning you gave then is just as shaky as the one you are giving now, and it does raise a question of when was that first bold edit: the initial coloring, the "strip to base" after the coloring had settled, the reversal of the strip, or the re-strip.

What I'm looking for is something more than a one liner that can be read very flexibility since it is likely that this will come up again with this 'box, if not others.

- J Greb (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a few in the first post, but here's more:

The change is arbitrary. There is no colour key being followed here, nor is there precedent to colour anything related to the Punisher black. That Frank Castle usually wears black is not a particularly strong argument. The choice is not between "arbitrary black" and "arbitrary lavender", it is between "arbitrary black" and "the default, as used by the majority of Wikipedia's navigation templates".
It adds code. Not much more, but every increase in code size makes the template take longer to load and makes it more difficult to maintain.
While you waved away the a11y argument by saying that black-on-white is "high contrast", this ignores that high contrast is not the only factor in a11y. Changing the link colours makes it non-obvious to any user where links are without having to hover over the text.

These may not be rock-solid indictments of changing the styling in the general case, but in this one there are no arguments for overriding the styling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The default coloring is also arbitrary, even with the statement that all generic navboxes share the same schema. Without something more than "not recommended" it becomes an argument about which arbitrary colors are used. And in that light, a color schema associatios with the linking topic is more valid than the "out of the box" color.

Be honest, how much of a lag, even on dial-up, does color override cause?

Aside from the group labels, all of the text in a navbox is supposed to be to live articles, 'box title included. That means they'll all be the same color. Since the override is also overriding the "used link" text color, there is no issue of disappearing text. The only potential issue is the assumption that the title bar does not work in the same manner as any other navbox's title bar does.

Let me repeat something here: At a certain level I agree with you that the color override with this 'box and most of the related navboxes is not a good thing. But that is my opinion, my taste, my likes and dislikes. I am uncomfortable and unwilling to either strip the colors myself or support such a stripping on only that basis. "Not recommended" isn't a stronger basis. it comes off as a very mild "this isn't a good idea" comment. Show me that there is a much more solid principle that states that altering the colors should not be done without a consensus for and I'm more than willing to see the override removed from this and/or other navboxes.

- J Greb (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take:

As it is "not recommended" then there should be a good argument for it and few against. I'm seeing quite a few against and none actually for it (with quite a few neutral).

Black is a strong colour and should be used sparingly. As the top bar to the footer it gives undue focus to it, "over-riding" other page elements - when you scroll down and that pops up on the screen it draws the eye right to it. Check it out: Punisher#See also. J Greb toned the Black Panther template right down [1] which was a good move, as was removing them completely which Chris Cunnigham/Thumperward did [2], which is also the case here.

I think both points are equally strong, such a strong contrasting colour ruins the balance of the page, if the default is over-ridden then it should be to a much less intrusive colour. So tone it down to a light grey or get rid of it, I don't see any good reason for keeping it as it is other than it is the Punisher's colours and such reasoning seems more suited to a fan site (it has that "my first website" feel) and even where they have distinctive colours they are still toned right down (like on the Iron Man one, although I'd still prefer the main text area to remain white, as on the Avengers one where where a softer yellow is used for the top and side bars). (Emperor (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with Emperor in that "not recommended" suggests "needs a rationale".

As for the rest, it's a style issue, and I don't have a strong opinion on it, except that we shouldn't condemn variation automatically. Navbox templates (and quite a few others) are simply generic "boilerplates", and as such should (and do) allow for configuation for content and style. - jc37 07:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not condemning it "automatically", but in light of the absence of any good argument for keeping it. I'll remove the styling tomorrow if that remains the case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we keep running into footer template issues I've started a broad discussion here: WT:CMC#Footer template guidelines. (Emperor (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

LBJ

Should LBJ (Loony Bin Jim) be included on the villains page?(JoeLoeb (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Bushwacker and Bullseye

Can these 2 be added to the template? (JoeLoeb (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Update this

No Mercy to be released in a week (and not "TBA"), The Punisher (1990 video game) just stubbed. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Films

The films section is for Punisher films. The animated Punisher film is a Punisher film. See Template:Iron Man, Template:Thor, Template:Hulk etc. This is how we handle these things everywhere else. The section is for all films, and nowhere does it specify that it's "for live action films where he's the main character", as Control9000 continues to suggest. If you want to split the section into animated and live-action films, fine. But continuing to remove a valid link with the flimsiest of arguments is not in anyone's best interests. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should TV shows be added?

Personally, I think this is a fine idea, especially given the hype surrounding the second season of Daredevil. Just because a show isn't complete focused on the Punisher doesn't mean we can't list it.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are for the articles that the they will appear in, and the Punisher template does not belong at the Daredevil page, because that show is about Daredevil. See Template:Captain America and Template:Spider-Man films where this is also an issue currently. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those talk pages you provided have any reference whatsoever to what you are talking about! I checked both of them, and there were no references whatsoever to any situation about adding TV shows to either of those respective templates.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never said it had been discussed on their talk pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see both sides here. While it's true that all navbox links should be bidirectional, the three articles in the "Television" section all do mention the Punisher in the article. But for consistency, either the Punisher template should be added to those articles, or if this template is not appropriate on those articles, the links should be removed from this template. Personally, I think that this template should be added to the Daredevil article, and the other two should be removed. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]