Template talk:Table cell templates/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Table cell templates. 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 2

Archive 3

Sitewide CSS

Has anyone tried to get the classes and colors into MediaWiki:Common.css? The table- prefix is actually unnecessary if you use selectors like th.yes, td.yes. One could still overwrite them in a user stylesheet. — Christoph Päper 17:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, these all need to be better standardized before inclusion in Common.css is considered (and yes, you would still be able to override them in your personal stylesheet file). In addition, only the widely-used styles would be included. I do, however, agree with your point that the "table-" prefix is probably unnecessary. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Status Quo
Template	Class	Default text	Background	Color	Other styles
{{rh}}	rh		#ECECEC	black	text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;
{{rh2}}	rh		#EEDDFF	black	text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;
{{yes}}	yes	Yes	#90FF90	black
{{no}}	no	No	#FF9090	black	style parameter
{{BLACK}}	no	N/A	#000000
{{siteactive}}	siteactive	Active	#90FF90	black
{{siteinactive}}	siteinactive	Inactive	#FF9090	black	style parameter
{{yes2}}	yes2		#DDFFDD	black
{{no2}}	no2		#FFDDDD	black
{{won}}	yes2	Won	#CCFFCC	black	text-align: align parameter; vertical-align: middle;
{{nom}}	no2	Nominated	#FFFFDD	black	text-align: align parameter; vertical-align: middle;
{{partial}}	partial	Partial	#FFFFDD	black
{{Yes-No}}	partial	Yes/No	#FFFFDD	black
{{some}}	partial	Some	#FFFFDD	black
{{any}}	any	any	#FFFFDD	black
{{n/a}}	na	N/A	#ECECEC	grey
{{dunno}}	unknown	?	#FFFFFF	black
{{unk}}	unknown	Unknown	#E4E4E4	black
{{depends}}	depends	Depends	#FFEEDD	black
{{included}}	included	Included	#DDFBFF	black
{{dropped}}	dropped	Dropped	#FFEEDD	black
{{terminated}}	dropped	Terminated	#EEDDFF	black
{{beta}}	beta	Beta	#DFDFFF	black
{{table-experimental}}	beta	Experimental	#DFDFFF	black
{{free}}	free	Free	#99FFFF	black
{{nonfree}}	nonfree		#FF99DD	black
{{needs}}	needs	Needs	#FF9090	black
{{incorrect}}	incorrect	Incorrect	#FF9900	black
{{no result}}	no result	No result	#DFDFFF	black	text-align: align parameter; vertical-align: middle;
{{pending}}	pending	Pending	#FFFFDD	black

Background colors in current use
Code	Red	Green	Blue	Hue	Saturation	Lightness	Suggestion
`000000`	0	0	0	0°	0%	0%	`000`
`90FF90`	144	255	144	120°	100%	75%	`9F9`
`99FFFF`	153	255	255	180°	100%	80%	`9FF`
`CCFFCC`	204	255	204	120°	100%	90%	`CFC`
`DDFBFF`	221	251	255	187°	100%	93%	`DFF`
`DDFFDD`	221	255	221	120°	100%	93%	`CFC`
`DFDFFF`	223	223	255	240°	100%	94%	`DDF`
`E4E4E4`	228	228	228	0°	0%	89%	`EEE`
`ECECEC`	236	236	236	0°	0%	93%	`EEE`
`EEDDFF`	238	221	255	270°	100%	93%	`DDF`
`FF9090`	255	144	144	0°	100%	78%	`F99`
`FF9900`	255	153	0	36°	100%	50%	`F90`
`FF99DD`	255	153	221	320°	100%	80%	`F9D`
`FFDDDD`	255	221	221	0°	100%	93%	`FDD`
`FFEEDD`	255	238	221	30°	100%	93%	`FDD`
`FFFFDD`	255	255	221	60°	100%	93%	`FFD`
`FFFFFF`	255	255	255	0°	0%	100%	`FFF`

The colors #CCFFCC and #DDFFDD, #ECECEC and #E4E4E4 are basically indistinguishable, #DFDFFF and #EEDDFF are also too close. We should either use digit doubles (like #FFCC99) or zero-padding (like FFC090), CSS uses the former for three-hexdigit colors (like #FC9) – as long as we don’t use optimized colors without looking at the hexadecimal RGB codes.

Except for rh all templates should probably be of this form:

style="background: #ABCDEF; color: black; text-align: {{{align|center}}}; {{{style|}}}" class="Class without table-"|{{{1|Default text}}}

With inclusion into MediaWiki:Common.css this would become:

style="text-align: {{{align|center}}}; {{{style|}}}" class="Class without “table-”"|{{{1|Default text}}}

or

style="{{{style|}}}" class="Class without “table-”"|{{{1|Default text}}}

or just

class="Class without “table-”"|{{{1|Default text}}}.

There are many flags that could be used in WP tables, here are some I could think of.

highest | high | medium | low | lowest
all | many | few | none
good | neutral | bad : green | yellow, orange | red
good | neutral | evil

always | often | sometimes | rarely | never
correct | indeterminate, no result | incorrect
result (match): win | draw, remis | lose || N/A
result (competition): win | nomination, place | qualified | disqualified | not qualified
yes | maybe, unknown | no
active | inactive
active | passive || interactive
feature, product: planned, announced, proposed, alpha | in development, pending, beta | in testing, RC | current, in production | outdated, abolished, deprecated | proposed but rejected | antique, dropped, terminated
feature: will have | has, included | had | hasn’t, excluded
support: extended | full | some, partial, limited | since version X | depends | basic | none
price: free | share, donate | pay | not for sale
price: free | cheap | expensive | not for sale

I believe a scale of five background colors (including the three known from traffic lights) together with one for the indeterminate state (probably gray) should cover most cases. We might want to provide two sets of these, one vivid, one pale. — Christoph Päper 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC) PS: When some of these were using icons instead of text it was much more feasible to use templates rather than just classes.

You should announce this discussion somewhere (a pointer from WP:VPT should get a number of views as well as suggestions on where else to advertise); I'm really not the best person to discuss this with except for some technical points, and this template isn't widely watched. 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried, nobody seems interested. — Christoph Päper 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Such is the nature of Wikipedia. *shrugs* If you have a proposal ready to run, I'd say just post it on MediaWiki talk:Common.css, being sure to point to this discussion and your attempts to garner wider discussion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed / planned new scheme

Systematic background colors (third draft — Christoph Päper 13:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC))
Pale color	green	blue	yellow	orange	red	gray
Vivid color	green	blue	yellow	orange	red	gray
Standard color	green	blue	yellow	orange	red	gray
{{Match}}	{{win}}	no result={{future}}	{{play}}, {{in play}}	{{tie}}, {{remis}}, {{draw}}	{{lose}}	no result={{unknown}}
{{Competition}}	{{won}}, {{first}}, {{best}}, {{gold}}	{{place}}, {{runner-off}}, {{silver}} + {{bronze}}, {{second}} + {{third}}	{{qualified}}, {{QF}}		{{disqualified}}, {{DQ}}	{{not qualified}}, {{NQ}}
{{Award}}	{{won}}	{{nominated}}, {{nom}}				{{not nominated}}
{{Ranking}}, {{rank}}	{{best}}	{{good}}	{{average}}, {{avg}}	{{bad}}	{{worst}}
{{Truth}}	{{yes}}, {{true}}	{{maybe}}, {{unknown}}, {{unk}}, {{uncertain}}	{{yes-no}}, {{but}}		{{no}}, {{false}}	{{not available}}, {{NA}}, {{N/A}}
{{Validity}}, {{valid}}	{{correct}}, {{right}}		{{indeterminate}}	{{incorrect}}	{{wrong}}	{{no result}}, {{pending}}
{{Activity}}	{{active}}	{{interactive}}	{{paused}}	{{inactive}}	{{passive}}
{{Scale}}	{{max}}, {{maximum}}		{{med}}, {{medium}}, {{middle}}, {{mid}}, {{median}}	{{avg}}, {{average}}, {{mean}}	{{min}}, {{minimum}}
{{Measure}}, {{size}}	{{huge}}, {{XL}}	{{large}}, {{L}}	{{medium}}, {{M}}	{{small}}, {{S}}	{{smallest}}, {{XS}}
{{Value}}	{{highest}}	{{high}}	{{normal}}	{{low}}	{{lowest}}
{{Quantity}}	{{all}}, {{every}}	{{many}}, {{most}}, {{much}}	{{some}}	{{few}}, {{any}}	{{none}}, {{nil}}
{{Quality}}	{{best}}	{{good}}	{{neutral}}	{{bad}}	{{worst}}, {{evil}}
{{Frequency}}, {{freq}}	{{always}}	{{often}}, {{usual}}	{{sometimes}}	{{rare}}, {{seldom}}	{{never}}
{{Temperature}}, {{temp}}	{{moderate}}	{{cold}}, {{freezing}}		{{warm}}	{{hot}}, {{boiling}}, {{burning}}
{{Product}} {{phase}}, {{cycle}}	{{current}}, {{in production}}, {{production}}	{{Beta}}, {{in development}}, {{development}}, {{pending}}; {{RC}}, {{release candidate}}, {{in testing}}, {{testing}}, {{test}}	({{proposal}} but) {{rejected}}, {{deprecated}}	{{outdated}}, {{abolished}}	{{antique}}, {{dropped}}, {{terminated}}	{{Alpha}}, {{planned}}, {{proposed}}, {{announced}}, {{nightly}},{{experimental}}, {{in research}}, {{research}}
{{Feature}} {{implementation}}	{{has}} ({{present}})	{{will have}} ({{future}})	{{may have}} (present)	{{had}} ({{past}})	{{has not}} (present)
{{Feature}} {{support}}	{{full}}, {{complete}}, {{default}}, {{included}}	{{extended}}, {{optional}}	{{basic}}, {{version}}	{{some}}, {{partial}}, {{incomplete}}, {{limited}}, {{depends}}, {{buggy}}, {{excluded}}	{{none}}
{{Price}}	{{share}}, {{donate}}, {{cheap}}	{{free}}	{{rent}}, {{lease}}, {{subscribe}}	{{pay}}, {{buy}}, {{retail}}	{{expensive}}	{{not for sale}}, {{unique}}
{{Source}} {{code}}, {{license}}	{{open}}	{{shared}}		{{licensed}}	{{closed}}
{{Gender}}, {{sex}}	{{neuter}}	{{male}}			{{female}}
{{Sexuality}}		{{heterosexual}}	{{bisexual}}		{{homosexual}}, {{gay}}, {{lesbian}}	{{asexual}}
Pale color	green	blue	yellow	orange	red	gray
Vivid color	green	blue	yellow	orange	red	gray
Standard color	green	blue	yellow	orange	red	gray

Background colors systematic
Name	Code	Red	Green	Blue	Hue	Sat.	Light.	Code	Red	Green	Blue	Hue	Sat.	Light.	Code	Red	Green	Blue	Hue	Sat.	Light.
green	`EEFFDD`	238	255	221	90°	100%	93%	`CCFF99`	204	255	153	90°	100%	80%	`80FF00`	128	255	0	90°	100%	50%
lime	`DDFFDD`	221	255	221	120°	100%	93%	`99FF99`	153	255	153	120°	100%	80%	`00FF00`	0	255	0	120°	100%	50%
green	`DDFFEE`	221	255	238	150°	100%	93%	`99FFCC`	153	255	204	150°	100%	80%	`00FF80`	0	255	128	150°	100%	50%
blue/cyan	`DDFFFF`	219	255	255	180°	100%	93%	`99FFFF`	153	255	255	180°	100%	80%	`00FFFF`	0	255	255	180°	100%	50%
yellow	`FFFFDD`	255	255	221	60°	100%	93%	`FFFF99`	255	255	153	60°	100%	80%	`FFFF00`	255	255	0	60°	100%	50%
orange	`FFEEDD`	255	238	221	30°	100%	93%	`FFCC99`	255	204	153	30°	100%	80%	`FF8000`	255	128	0	30°	100%	50%
red	`FFDDDD`	255	221	221	0°	100%	93%	`FF9999`	255	153	153	0°	100%	80%	`FF0000`	255	0	0	0°	100%	50%
gray	`EEEEEE`	238	238	238	0°	0%	93%	`CCCCCC`	204	204	204	0°	0%	80%	`808080`	128	128	128	0°	0%	50%
	Pale							Vivid							Standard

Many of the (good) template names are taken. We could introduce a special character, a kind of a poor man’s namespace, for example {{!foo|bar}}, {{foo!|bar}, {{foo-|bar}}, {{-foo|bar}}, {{Tfoo|bar}}, {{table-foo|bar}}, {{cell-foo|bar}}, {{cell|foo|bar}}. I like the appended exclamation mark. — Christoph Päper 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Older {{Won}} discussion

Color change?

When did the color change from green to blue? That affects every single article and infobox providing a summary for the awards and nominations received by musicians, etc. Was there a discussion relating to this color change? --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was changed to aid those with red-green color blindness. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right. I think think this small change has a huge effect, as about 5.5% of the human population suffers of red-green color blindness. Greetings, --Revolus 23:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I support this change. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Undo last edit to fix chinese character

213.106.225.195 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. —TheDJ (talk •contribs) 14:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility for Colour-blind Users

The shade of green currently in use is quite difficult to differentiate from the shade of red (Template:Won vs.Template:Nom). I am red-green colour-blind to an extent and believe me it is difficult to differentiate!--JovianEye (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It was supposedly changed a while back [1] to address this issue. This template uses the same colours as the yes2 and no2 set of table templates. Do you have any specific colour recommendation? Gimmetrow20:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going through this section of an article when I came across the problem. May I suggest PaleGreen (Hex Code-98FB98) as a replacement. This colour works well in contrast to the existing Template:Nom colour. --JovianEye (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Former	Former
Former	Temporary
Current	Current
Proposed	Proposed
{{Yes}}	{{No}}
May 13	May 13

I've added the colours from some former versions and from the {{Yes}} and {{No}} templates for comparison. My impression is that the proposed green is too similar to the green from the Yes template. The (current) blue tint was used supposedly to avoid the red-green issue. Is that not the case? Gimmetrow 21:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Jovian asked me to give some input, as I too have colourblindness issues. I have to say that the middle row is the most confusing of all five, while the bottom is the easiest to distinguish. The fourth row ("Proposed") is easy to distinguish the two colours, but not quite as well as the bottom; however, I wonder if people worse off than I (e.g. my grandfather, who can't tell the difference between the colours of stop and go at a traffic light) would perhaps have an easier time with the fourth row than the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the fourth and fifth row easy to differentiate. Either one is fine with me. The proposed green is identical to the green from the Yes template. But is that an issue? --JovianEye (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't {{good}} and {{yes2}} now be changed to match {{won}}? --Gyrobo (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As per this discussion they too should be modified to improve accessibility! --JovianEye (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed {{good}}, but {{yes2}} requires an administrator. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is the "Yes" and "No" set of templates were made to use "bold" colours, and the "Yes2" and "No2" set of templates were made to use "muted" colors. The proposed green is not quite identical to the "yes" template green, but it looks close to me, and it falls into the "bold" category. Is there any way to have a contrast with muted colours? If one colour must be "bold" to contrast, then is there any point having the other colour muted? Why have the muted forms at all? Gimmetrow 21:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I’ve slightly changed the color from #98FB98 to #99FF99 (or #9F9 for short). This shouldn’t be noticable on most screens.

On the bottom of Template talk:Table cell templates there’s a table of colors we probably should choose from. The green (or lime) of {{won}} is in the “vivid” column with 80% lightness, whereas the red of{{nom}} (#FDD) is in the “pale” column with 93% lightness, both have 100% saturation. — Christoph Päper 14:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've temporarily reverted that change pending a discussion of that change. Is the new color visible for everyone?
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Older {{Depends}} discussion

The colour for this need to be changed. It's too similar to Dropped style="background: #FED; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="dropped table-dropped"|Dropped.

MJaggard (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

appropriately coloured background

Is there any rationale at all for colouring all these tables cells? Seems to me that this is all gratuitous ornamentation, a major contributor to the Skittlepedia effect.

These templates offer handy centering of text in cells, and that can be useful. In order for the colouring to remain, a solid rationale is needed per:

WP:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Styles and markup options

If there is a rationale for some cases, then the extant usages need to be pared back significantly.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Color should not be the only way to convey information (see WP:ACCESS#Color), which these templates permit by allowing overriding the default text with a parameter. I have no idea if that's a problem in practice, but it's something that these templates allow. At the very least, it should be more clearly defined when use of these templates is/isn't recommended, and what text is suitable as alternative text. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

New parameters for medal/ribbon colors

In September 2010, a user requested having a place parameter (rather than only "Won"), and allow for gold, silver & bronze. Now, I have added new parameters "place=1" (or: 2, 3, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, gold, silver, bronze) with related colors gold, silver & bronzish, plus new parameters "text=white" and "color=blue" or =#1122CC (etc.) for ribbon colors. See the doc page for listing. In the U.S., a first-place ribbon is typically color blue, but some events mix white and gold ribbons; other cultures favor red for first place ribbons. The Olympics use Gold, Silver and Bronze (for 1/2/3), and some events copy that style.

Inside Template:Won, the expanded markup has added a #switch, only 1 level deeper in expansion depth, with the following logic:

style="background: {{#switch: {{{place|Won}}}
  |Won = &nbsp;{{{color|#99FF99}}}
  |1|1st|gold |Gold = &nbsp;{{{color|Gold}}}
  |2|2nd|silver|Silver = &nbsp;{{{color|Silver}}}
  |3|3rd|bronze|Bronze = &nbsp;{{{color|#D9A821}}}
  |#default = &nbsp;{{{color|#f8eaba}}}
}}; color: {{{text|black}}}; vertical-align: middle;
text-align: {{{align|center}}}; {{{style|}}}"
class="yes table-yes2"|{{{1|{{{place|Won}}}}}}

For the #switch of parameter {place|Won}, note how the branches allow count, ordinal and uppercase ("1|1st|gold|Gold"). Each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd branches set the color, unless parameter {color} is already defined by the user. That logic allows place=1st & color=blue to override the color Gold. Since user-selected colors can be darker, the option text=white (or text=yellow) can improve visibility of the parameter 1 text. Each use of {color} is preceded by " " to allow leading "#" in hex-colors, and avoid the 2010 MediaWiki preprocessor bug which generated newline "1." for # as an auto-numbered line. The 6-character " " is used, instead of <nowiki/>, to avoid the 44-character hidden marker of the nowiki tag, saving 44-6=38 bytes in the internal post-expand size of each "Won" entry. Note the text in parameter place=First can be bolded (with triple-apostrophes), if needed:

Some examples:
{won\|place=1st}	1st	{won\|place=First\|color=blue)	First
{won\|place=Silver}	Silver	(won\|place=First\|text=white\|color=blue}	First
{won\|place=3\|Bronze}	Bronze	{won\|place='''First'''\|text=white\|color=blue}	First
{won\|place=sliver}	sliver	{won\|place='''First'''\|text=white\|color=red}	First

I do not forsee any major technical problems with these new parameters. They are already listed in the doc page. -Wikid77 10:55, revised 11:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to use nowiki since using   won't work since it is converted to  . Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This new addition is messing up {{Infobox musician awards}}, for example, in List of awards and nominations received by Leona Lewis all cells for award wins should be green, but they're gold, silver or bronze. Anemone Projectors 19:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The film accolades infoboxes are also affected (Ex List of accolades received by The Hurt Locker). - JuneGloom Talk 19:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Basically anything using {{won}} to show the number of awards that have been won. Anemone Projectors 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) - JuneGloom Talk 21:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add nl:Sjabloon:Tabelcel genomineerd. Thank you - Grashoofd (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Background color for {{Rh2}}

91.155.96.165 changed the background color for {{Rh2}} (usually for discontinued softwares) from #edf to #adf, I don't know if this color was chosen ramdomly, maybe he wanted to use the azure to indicate the discontinuity, but on the contrary, it became actually highlighted and focused compared to {{Rh}}'s #ececec. So I'm changing it back to #edf. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Template:Rh2/bgcolor is created to be {{Rh2}}'s background color, which is used in {{Rh2}} and can be used in any article for a legend. For example:

*{{legend|#ececec|Development status: Current/Active}}
*{{legend|{{Rh2/bgcolor}}|Development status: Inactive}}

shows

Development status: Current/Active
Development status: Inactive

--Tomchen1989 (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Standardize Won/Loss Colors

Has anyone considered creating a template similar to {{CollegePrimaryHex}} to store some standard colors such as the green that should be used for winning and red for lossing? I know in a number of places different colors are being used for winning and losing such as {{CFB Schedule Entry}}, {{CBB schedule entry}}, and many more. It would be great to keep this standardized. --ben_b (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Win	Draw	Loss

Cheers!--Echetus Xe 20:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've always used #ddffdd for wins and #ffdddd for losses. I believe these are most common. They are used in the college basketball schedule template. ~ Richmond96 t • c 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bundesliga, and other association football league results are usually represented with the following colours: , , and . There is also a football table, {{footballbox collapsible}}, that uses the following values:

{{legend2|#CCFFCC|Win|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}}
{{legend2|#FFFFCC|Draw|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}}
{{legend2|#FFCCCC|Loss|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}}
{{legend2|#CCCCCC|Void|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} <!-- optional -->
{{legend2|#CCCCCC|Postponed|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} <!-- optional -->

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So given that you each gave me three different examples of colors you guys use for win, loss, tie, etc. do you agree we should have some sort of standardization template such as {{HexColors}}, with {{HexColors|won}}, {{HexColors|lost}}, {{HexColors|tie}}, {{HexColors|up}}, {{HexColors|down}}, etc? --ben_b (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Standardization should be done. The differences in the colors posted are subtle. I have no preference for which particular hue is eventually chosen. —Ute in DC (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My preference is #ddffdd for wins and #ffdddd for losses. All of college basketball and most if not all of college football uses these. I think they are better because they are a bit lighter, and they are not as overwhelming. ~ Richmond96 t • c 23:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not picky. Perhaps someone could start a table with proposed colors for their different calls (e.g. win/won, lost/loss, up, down, etc.) --ben_b (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Win	Loss	Hex Code (win)	Hex Code (loss)	Article
W 24–17	L 17–24	#d0ffe3	#ffd0e3
W 24–17	L 17–24	#ddffdd	#ffdddd	2011–12 Florida Gators men's basketball team
W 24–17	L 17–24	#ccffcc	#ffcccc
W 24–17	L 17–24	#cfc	#fcc	2011–12 Boston Celtics season
W 24–17	L 17–24	#bbffbb	#ffbbbb	2012 Boston Red Sox season
W 24–17	L 17–24	#bbffbb	#ffbbb0	2011 South Carolina Gamecocks baseball team
W 24–17	L 17–24	#D0F0C0	#FFE6E6

These are some combinations that I found on this discussion and on various sports articles. ~ Richmond96 t • c 01:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And maybe we should standartize the colors, that are used in the standaings tables (example). The codes could be the same as win/loss colors. --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been dealing with these issues and I pretty much used the same hues (dunno about the exact hex codes). Perhaps there could be a separate hex code for OT wins and losses, and forfeits. I previously used quite dark hues but switched to lighter ones. See UAAP Season 73 men's basketball tournament (old and new hues are used) for an example. Other European basketball league season articles also use this but there is no single template. –H T D 00:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am content with each sport using their own colors. If we are going to standardize anything, I would suggest doing it within a specific sport's WikiProject. ~ Richmond96 t • c 01:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally would much rather see more uniform coloring across sports unless someone has a good reason why that is not a good idea. The less decisions and work people have to do the more likely they are to use a template that does the deciding. --ben_b (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much every sport uses green for a win and red/pink for a loss, except for the football (soccer) ones that use blue for a win. I do think there not that many templates so all we need is a notice for the respective Wikiprojects for them to chime in here to determine what should be exact hexcode to use, which should be relatively easy; perhaps those at the football (soccer) Wikiproject can be persuaded to use greens for a win too.

The problems are on the hardcoded ones; I used these myself before I made the templates, and they're still widely used elsewhere: see this for example. –H T D 15:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'd like to see these colors also applied on the team standings/league tables, but apparently they use a lot more colors (and a lot more hues) so it'll be significantly harder for standardization vs. the team results which are basically three results (W-D-L). –H T D 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already pointed to this conversation on most sports related Wikiproject talk pages and still not really many people have commented here. I'd say that this should be created and added to templates and then where people aren't using templates it will gradually be picked up. As for the multiple hues for various reasons it could be piped in with more details so as to show different colors and that way it would be uniform across projects for those same reasons. I'll start this template soon just to get it started and then we can add colors to it. One area worth looking into would be creating a list of templates that do automatic coloring so we can update them. --ben_b (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment, I think its much easier to type #ddffdd that is is to type {{HexColors|won}}. Unless we can make a shorter template name, I would rather leave it as it is. ~ Richmond96 t • c 15:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

But do you have all the colors memorized? To me it's the nonstandarization we have going on now that is the problem. Technically we could probably get a bot to go through and search for colors and replace them/put them on a page for processing. Perhaps a redirect to the template could be {{hc}}. --ben_b (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I was bold and just created {{hue}}, because {{color}} was taken already. Most colors are missing yet, though. We could add a second parameter to select a lighter or darker variant. — Christoph Päper 10:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen #ccffcc or #bbffbb used, but never #ddffdd. –BuickCentury Driver 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

All of college basketball and college football use #ddffdd and #ffdddd. ~ Richmond96 t • c 22:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A start but certainly in need of some work. Where did you get all of the initial colors and phrases from? --ben_b (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

From further up. I don’t care much for the actual color values, but I think it’s valuable to be able to check and change them all in a central place, and to have cheap aliases. — Christoph Päper 09:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Language

The template lacks some interwiki language links, including the romanian ro:Format:Nom -Eb00kie (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nominated-colour

The template colour red is a bit disturbing as red signifies a total loss. But nominations should be treated as a honour, not a total loss. Please give it a more neutral colour like yellow.-- Dravidian Hero 00:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Less busy-looking templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Format the {{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}} table-cell templates with smaller gray text (Proposal #2), as is done for {{N/a}}. Discuss a possible merger between any two of these three templates separately (as the formatting side of this discussion should be closed before it is implemented), and leave that discussion open for a couple weeks. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Current look	?	Unknown
Proposal #1	?	Unknown
Proposal #2	?	Unknown

In the last few days Voidxor and I have discussed how {{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}} templates could be made less busy-looking so they produce less distraction when used in more than just a few table cells. A good example of how distractible they can be is available in Nested RAID levels § Comparison, and here are the proposals resulting from our discussion:

Proposal #1: gray labels in {{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}}
Proposal #2: gray labels in {{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}}, made even less busy-looking with ...

That way, gray labels would represent "fill me in" cells while black labels should be reserved for the templates producing definitive answers (such as {{Yes}} and {{No}}) that aren't to be filled in later.

Furthermore, {{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}} templates might be merged as they represent pretty much the same thing so having two templates introduces a redundancy. However, having two templates that produce "fill me in" cells with labels of completely different widths might actually be good so the narrow one can be used where the space is tight, and the wide (and more descriptive) one where the space isn't an issue.

Let's discuss, please. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Support proposal #2 per our previous discussion. I'm tentatively supporting the merge proposal as well, unless somebody can explain why two different templates were warranted in the first place. The difference in text width can be solved by going with the question mark rather than the word "Unknown"; not only would that work in narrow cells, but it would be less busy in wide cells. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Any further opinions, please? Does anybody else care about the whole thing? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I invited Howard the Duck, Richmond96, Crissov, AnemoneProjectors, and Dravidianhero to participate, but that was I month ago. I dare say that we're the only two who are passionate about this, so perhaps we can proceed with your proposal #2, as well as the merger if so inclined. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be right, and the silence may also indicate no objections. :) Perhaps we should go with the proposal #2 now and with the merger a few days later, so we space it out a bit allowing other people to see the actual changes and potentially comment here? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Support proposal #1 or #2: I thought the difference was that {{Dunno}}’s question mark indicated info to be filled in later, whereas {{Unknown}} was for info that is not and cannot be known (i.e. more like {{n/a}}), but I assume they’re more likely to be chosen by horizontal space constraints. Otherwise I’m fine with the proposed color semantics, although the red from links would be an option, too.
Styling like smaller font size should be done with CSS, so no  please. — Christoph Päper 22:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Using ... was proposed because that's how {{n/a}} template does it, so we should probably take that route to ensure consistency between different templates. Another option would be to modify {{n/a}} as well so it uses CSS styling. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Christoph is right about  being deprecated HTML formatting syntax; we should definitely use CSS instead. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 00:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
That's fine with me. So, we should use ... instead, right? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I just proposed ... over at Template talk:N/a#Protected edit request on 15 July 2015. That's probably a more direct replacement for the small element than 90%. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 01:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
You can style the table cell directly in this case. — Christoph Päper 05:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that we may proceed with putting ... into {{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}} templates. Christoph, I'm a bit confused about the table cell styling you've mentioned; any chances, please, for clarifying that a bit further? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I think he means alter individual table cells on articles like {{Unknown}}, instead of changing the font size for the template as a whole. Personally, I'd regard that as a workaround, and am more inclined to modify the templates consistently across all articles, but that's just my two cents. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 19:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
No! I mean don’t use a span element when you can put font-size:small into an existing style attribute, i.e. the one for the table cell setting background color etc. — Christoph Päper 22:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Good point. There's already a Wikitable |style= parameter in these templates. So now that we have input from presumably all interested parties, what have we decided to do? Gray text? Smaller text size? Merge? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 22:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, now I see, thanks, that's a very good point about the CSS styling. We should do the same to the {{n/a}} template in which the  element is pretty much redundant; Voidxor, would you prefer to create another protected template edit request on {{n/a}}, just because you've already created one? Speaking of the next steps on {{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}} templates, IMHO we should go with font-size: small; CSS styling and gray text for now (proposal #2), and leave it so for a week or two before deciding on the merger. That way, more people will be able to see this whole discussion, which should be a good thing before the merger. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Done, see Template talk:N/a#Template-protected edit request on 16 July 2015. Don't forget that we'd be using smaller rather than small, though. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Support proposal #1 or #2 and merger: For what it's worth, I would support either proposal #1 or #2, whichever others prefer! I think a merger would make sense, though. –Anemone Projectors– 09:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Longlisted

I was wondering, since there is a template for "shortlisted", should there be one for "longlisted"? For example, in List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders, taking the National Television Awards as an example, a longlist is released, then the public votes and there's a shortlist. I'm currently using "nominated" for those that don't make the shortlist, but I think if there was a "longlisted" option, it would mean less confusion as to what everything actually means. –Anemone Projectors– 09:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I decided instead to use the {{TBA}} template adding "Longlisted" as the text. I still think it would be a useful template though. –Anemone Projectors– 16:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Since {{TBA}} was changed to make the text size smaller, I created {{Longlisted}}. Feel free to change the colour if there's a more appropriate one. Anemone Projectors 09:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge missing-data templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge templates by having {{Dunno}} transclude {{Unknown}}. Keep the text gray per previous discussion. Add a parameter to switch to short labels (i.e. "?" versus the full-text "Unknown"), and have {{Dunno}} use said parameter in order to maintain existing short labels in tables pressed for space. – voidxor 21:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

{{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}} templates might be merged as they represent pretty much the same thing so having two templates introduces a redundancy. However, having two templates that produce "fill me in" cells with labels of completely different widths might actually be good so the narrow one can be used where the space is tight, and the wide (and more descriptive) one where the space isn't an issue.

Let's discuss, please. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me mention Howard the Duck, Richmond96, Crissov, AnemoneProjectors, and Dravidianhero again in order to invite them here to comment. All are welcome, though. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 00:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge by redirecting {{Dunno}} to {{Unknown}}, and making {{Unknown}} the question mark. I believe a small gray question mark should be intuitive enough to convey that the article needs the help of anybody with the missing information—similar to red links or the {{Expand section}} maintenance tag. I'd be fine with a small red question mark too, as proposed by Christoph above. By going with the question mark instead of the word "Unknown" in the merged template, you avoid tight-space versus wide-space headaches. Also, note that both templates belong to the table-unknown CSS class, whereas {{N/a}} and {{BLACK}} both belong the the table-na class. Thus, I think {{N/a}} is more geared toward cases where the information can never be known (see also, n/a). – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Merge: I couldn't agree more that having both {{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}} is quite confusing. We should have one template (which should be {{Unknown}}) for the cells that are to be filled in by someone at some point in time, and the other template (which is {{n/a}}) for the cells that aren't applicable and shouldn't ever be filled in. Another option for the {{Dunno}} → {{Unknown}} merger might be to introduce a template parameter to the destination template that would allow a selection between the long and short labels ("?" vs. "Unknown"). Oh, and I'm more geared toward gray letters. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Adding a template parameter is a great idea! Aside from allowing both long and short text labels, that merges the two into one template that avoids confusion and enforces formatting consistency between the two. If {{Dunno}} and {{Unknown}} were created for different size cells, why do their background colors differ?! It makes no sense. A shorter version of a template should only vary by the text label, not the color scheme nor font size. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Right, the difference in background color is even more confusing. Furthermore, I'm not sure is it possible to know in a template how it has been transcluded, directly or through a redirect? If knowing that is possible, we could even implement automatic selection between the short and long label in {{Unknown}}, depending on the way it's transcluded; as a result, we'd have zero disturbance to already existing tables, in case one of the templates has been selected specifically for its label length. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, another great idea! The way we'd accomplish that is to set the contents of Template:Dunno to {{Unknown|small=yes}}, instead of doing a redirect. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. :) That would be a really nice and simple implementation, avoiding the Wiki-fu that the in-template redirect detection code would probably look like (if something like that is possible at all). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Merge: I think a merger would make sense. –Anemone Projectors– 09:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It makes sense to have just two templates for the two separate meanings: ‘I don’t know’ ({{dunno}} or {{unknown}}) and ‘cannot be known’ ({{n/a}} or {{unknown}}). How they’re merged, I don‘t care much since I’ve rarely needed to use these templates myself. The narrow vs. wide distinction may be useful, I guess – explicitly entering parameters to make something smaller when rendered is not helpful at least. I’m worried, though, about existing transclusions which won’t all match the future semantics. — Christoph Päper 07:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you thinking of any specific articles where {{Unknown}} is used in a "cannot be known" capacity? Perhaps we should spot check the transclusions list. – voidxor 17:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Documentation missing

This template is not documented in Template:Table cell templates/doc. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinky colour for "nominated" (Template:Nom)

It looks red on articles. It looks like a fail. It should be changed. Maybe a very light blue or a slightly lightened purple colour. The redder colours are conventionally to highlight a failure(/), that you got burned by the embers, but nominated is lifted to the circle. Actually, maybe a lighter green than Template:Won would look much better lined up beside each other. Thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 17:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Being nominated assumes you did not win. Not sure that a "lighter shade of green" would get that point across. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia articles, being nominated is given as a form of credit. Not sure if appearing to be a loser in that situation is appropriate, regardless of contemporary culture. Being nominated for such a title could make your career in many disciplines and it is only natural for us to reflect that? Perhaps another colour but I have no definitive suggestion, that's why I thought of lighter green (as it seems a similar choice to other such notations of varied degree) ~ R.T.G 19:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I moved this from WT:WPT to avoid decentralized discussion. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess that's my point, though; in a "nominations" article (e.g. Adele) there are nominations and wins, and that's it; having the red/green (and occasionally yellow for "pending") is kind of standard; as mentioned, if you don't win you "lose" in a way. With only 29 people watching this template, I doubt there will be much in the way of other discussion, but if you really want to change the colour scheme I would suggest the Village Pump to gain a wider audience. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

When I look at your example article, the first thing I see is the infobox. Adele is a prolific loser, it would appear. ~~Maybe that's the best way to look at it.~~ ~ R.T.G 22:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Done ~ R.T.G 02:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The new colour is indistinguishable from Template:Pending and is too confusing for older films- why are they still awaiting results from the nomination? I disagree the pink looks red and suggest this change be reverted. Or else rethink the whole system. If no one likes traffic lights, change Template:Won to gold and Nom to green. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

indent changed to show a "new" subthread I've reverted the change to yellow as not having consensus. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice: of ongoing dicussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#The_colour_of_nomination ~ R.T.G 20:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Question mark.svg

Hi, GermanJoe, I thought I'd match the style of {{ya}} and {{na}}. Currently, it doesn't match any other set of table cell templates. Cheers. Guarapiranga (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Moved from redirect page Template talk:Dunno. GermanJoe (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC))

Hello @Guarapiranga:, thank you for bringing this up for further discussion. I have seen the new version of Template:dunno in Comparison of note-taking software, and the new question mark really was too large and visually distracted from the actual table content in other cells. Of course I am not against tweaks to improve this particular cell's visibility if needed, but this change made it too visible compared with other cells. For layout changes that affect hundreds or thousands of articles it is usually better to create a test version for discussion first. GermanJoe (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I'll just create a new one (too bad dunno is what matches ya and na). Guarapiranga (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

wikitable-gray instead of #ececec

Hi, the templates {{N/a}} {{Rh}} {{CNone}} {{Varies}} {{Non-album single}} {{Unreleased}} {{Dunno}} are all using a gray what looks first like the wikitable-header-gray #eaecf0 but IT IS NOT the wikitable gray. Why not adapting both colours to each other? I mean: changing the templates from #ececec to #eaecf0?

#eaecf0
Does not appear #ececec	—	Rh	Does not appear CNone	Varies	Non-album single	Unreleased	?

Best Regards, --W like wiki ^{good to know} 00:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way: why templates {{Unreleased}} is sometimes working sometimes not, for example here:

#eaecf0
Does not appear #ececec	—	Rh	Does not appear CNone	Varies	Non-album single	data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" \| Unreleased	?

Thx for that too!! --W like wiki ^{good to know} 00:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

This edit request to Template:Rh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add "| Row Header" at the end of the 3rd ligne to display the template instead of its code. Kebaab (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain in more detail what change you would like? Are you asking for a change to Template:Rh, or to its documentation? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request disabled, pending clarification — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe @Kebaab: was asking about the documentation, although {{rh}} differs from the other table cell templates: it does not take alternative text as a parameter but expects it after the tempalte call (because there is no useful common default text for table row headers).

Nevertheless, while we are at it, {{rh}} and {{rh2}} should probably get scope="row" added to them. — Christoph Päper 09:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{rh}} has been stable for over five years and has 780 transclusions. Please continue to discuss, make a change in the template's sandbox and testcases, and then activate the edit request only when there is a consensus to make a change. If there is a change needed in the documentation, it can be made by any editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

This edit request to Template:Won has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the 2nd place color to a lighter gray and the 3rd place color to brownish-yellow. Thanks! HappyMeal189 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. firefly ( t · c ) 21:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)