Wikipedia talk:Template index/Cleanup/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Standardisation of template styling

So {{ambox}} is now mature and used everywhere, and most templates have a pretty similar style. However, it's come to my attention that there's no actual guideline on how they should be styled, other than using the ambox class.

I'd like to propose that we standardise on the following layout:

The main areas to note:

1. The image is standardised at 40px height. For most readers, this results in an image which neatly fits with two rows of text without distorting the box.
2. The template starts with "this article", although "article" can be replaced by adding an attribute.
3. Only the policy / style guideline violation is bolded, not the whole first line. This helps to show exactly what is wrong.
4. A link is provided to editing the article, in order to encourage participation. No link to the talk page is provided unless the issue demands discussion, such as an NPOV dispute.
5. Line breaks and small text are not used to separate the problem and the resolution. Bolding the problem is sufficient to highlight it; using small text for the resolution makes it harder to read, makes it harder to click any links in it and generally doesn't improve the layout. It really seems like more of a hack to prevent the template from wrapping over into three lines; removing manual line breaks obviates this problem.
6. The date, which is fairly trivial, can be left small.

I've been working on rolling this out over templates recently, such as Gtl|unreferenced}}, {{self-published}} and {{advert}}. I think that this should be adopted by other templates, and that we should have a documented guideline on layout. Suggestions? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally agree. I wish more of these templates did resist growth, and fit on two lines (at 1024x768). Good simplifications/clarifications. Large icons are a particular atrocity. I'm not sure about point 5, will have to take a longer look around first... -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

With the possible exception of size, I do not see how this isn't process creep. I believe that some templates need a slighlty different style to get the message across. I see no real benifit to non-size standardization, if the consensus on a template talk page is for this idea, go ahead with that template.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems Thumperward/Chris Cunningham isn't talking about templates in general, but about "message boxes", and probably "article message boxes", or perhaps even "cleanup message boxes" specifically. So which are you talking about?

Note that we have a style guideline for Wikipedia:Article message boxes.

I disagree with Thumperward's/Chris Cunningham's suggested new styles for several reasons:

1: No, all icons should not be 40px high. Yes, quadratic images should be about 40x40px. But there are a number of cases when other values are better. Some images have some built-in padding, then we need to set them to slightly more than 40x40px to make them look the same size as the other icons. So they look okay when several different boxes are stacked. For instance compare the visible size of these icons:

[[File:Ambox content.png|40px]]
[[File:Gnome globe current event.svg|40px]]
[[File:Ambox notice.png|40px]]
[[File:Gnome globe current event.svg|42px]]

As can be seen if File:Gnome globe current event.svg is set to 40px size it looks smaller than the standard ambox icons.

And images that have different width and height should not be 40px high. The human brain judges size of two dimensional objects not based on height or width, but on surface area. Compare these icons:

[[File:Merge-arrows.svg|40x16px]]
[[File:Ambox notice.png|40px]]
[[File:Merge-arrows.svg|50x20px]]
[[File:Ambox notice.png|40px]]
[[File:Merge-arrows.svg|63x25px]]
[[File:Ambox notice.png|40px]]
[[File:Merge-arrows.svg|100x40px]]

The largest of those arrow images are 40px high. But it looks more than twice as big as the standard ambox icon, since it then becomes 100px wide. The arrows with the 63x25px size has about the same area as the standard ambox notice icon. But since {{ambox}} can only take images up to 52px width we usually set that icon to 50x20px. (Actually, those arrows have been 50x20px since long before we made {{ambox}}.)

3 and 5: I disagree. I think the first line is kind of a heading. So it should be a separate line (followed by a line break) and be all bold. That is the style the article message boxes have been using for a long time. But I think I agree that we should avoid using small text, in the big boxes. (We also have small left-aligned section message boxes now, and they of course use a smaller text size.)

4: No, the link to edit the article is confusing. A new user probably don't understand what it links to. And it links to editing the whole article, which is not especially useful. And an experienced user like me expects such a link to go to some help page about how to edit articles. And having too many links in the box makes it harder to read.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't disagree that there can be exceptions here; I do think, however, that we should endeavour to have some guideline in place for them, such that we can at least point to something as agreed upon should someone create a template with a 60x60px icon or whatever.
2. Am I correct in saying that you don't disagree with the general subject-verb order here?
3. But is isn't a header: it's just the first part of the message. The resolution text is equally important to the current problem with regard to the ultimate goal of de-tagging the article. Line breaks do little except waste space in the box where there could be text - they mean that in many more cases boxes have to stretch to three lines on average displays, whereas presently we have a situation where it's only really highly important mboxes like the deletion ones and {{BLP unsourced}} which overstep that. It also leads to the shorter templates (particularly {{cleanup}} itself) looking odd on wider displays - there was a huge debate about that prior to this proposal which was one of the big factors in the idea in the first place.
4. So let's discuss that! Should we remove edit links? Should we add help links? Or should we have no guideline at all, leaving editors to do what they like (and lead to annoying experienced editors / confusing new ones, as you assert)?

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

0: I still wonder what scope you are referring to in your suggestions. Is it message boxes in general (all namespaces), or article message boxes, or only cleanup message boxes? If it is article message boxes then this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes. If it is some other scope, then I have to think a bit more which is the proper talk page for it.

To be able to say anything about this I assume you are meaning article message boxes. Not boxes for other namespaces, and not only cleanup boxes.

1: The {{ambox}} meta-template has a hard limit of max 52px width, and its documentation explains that. And that hard limit was set long ago as a result of discussion and consensus on the talk page of the article message box guideline page Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes. That hard limit for ambox has also been discussed and confirmed several times on the talk pages of the other mboxes. While the other mboxes don't have such a hard limit, since they occasionally need larger images. Most users agreed on about 40x40px as the normal size back then. But some wanted up to 50x50px. For me anything from 40-50px is okay, but I prefer if all boxes use similar sizes so they look good together. And since most boxes now use 40px then I want them all to use that size.

Note that there has never been a demand for quadratic/round icons. (Except for one single user who want all icons to be round, but his additions of round icons are usually reverted by many other users.) Other size to height ratios are not even exceptions, they are normal. They are very much allowed.

If a more specific recommendation for the icon size should be written, then I think the right place for it would be as a section in the guideline Wikipedia:Article message boxes. So you could write up a suggestion and show it at its talk page, to get consensus for the wording. There already is consensus for the size, but how to specify that in words and how hard to specify that will probably take some discussion. As you can see I think just saying "40px width or height" is too simplistic. But we should probably also give some freedom, since I think the exact size really isn't that important.

2: I currently don't have a point of view on point 2.

3 and 5: The first sentence is the most important one, or rather, the one that should bring attention. The rest doesn't need to be bold since its enough that one sentence brings in the attention. But I find your way of just bolding parts of the first sentence to be pretty ugly, and also confusing and hard to read. And I think having a line break between the first sentence and the second sentence makes it easier to read, and makes it better looking in most screen resolutions. This is of course mostly a matter of taste. But as you can see on this page, several users disagree with your taste, and as far as I can see no one has expressed that they prefer your style.

4: Yes, definitely don't use edit links. And help links should only be added on a case by case basis. In your suggestion there already is a link to the Manual of Style. But if there is a good Help/Wikipedia page about the subject that the message is about, then there might be use of a second link. I think there should not bee too many links in a message box. But I am not sure we need any guidelines on this, it might amount to instruction creep. If any guideline about this is added then it should be kept simple.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

0: Scope here is strictly limited to {{ambox}}es, specifically cleanup / warning templates. Other message boxes have their own styling quirks, and unifying them all probably isn't prudent (although it would be good if all the policy/guideline headers looked consistent with each other, for example).

1. That's fine: I have no problem with exceptions, and if you're okay with a general move to 40px then I can take that and take it for further discussion. We're not actually in disagreement here.

2. Nobody else has disagreed with this either (other than ipatrol's general disinclination for a guideline in the first place), so I think we can take this as settled.

3. What about the awkwardness of {{POV}} (which was the original inspiration for the loss of line break) and {{cleanup}} on wider displays? The line break can mean over 50% of the width of the template is unused in these cases. As for the bolding, the MOS says that we should use markup sparingly, and MOS:BOLD doesn't even allow for its use here - we don't bold whole sentences in articles where we can be more specific, so why do it here? And I only see one editor disagreeing with #5 - Quiddity only said he'd look at it further (four months ago, since which time the style has been rolled out over most high-profile cleanup templates) and ipatrol disagreed with the idea of a standard but didn't voice any disagreement with the particular points in question. I'd very much like to see further participation in the discussion, but having posted a notice on as many relevant fora as I could there's been little response.

4. Very well - in general this isn't something I've been pushing for when rolling the template out anyway. I've mostly kept the wording and just updated the styling.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related note

User:Mikco recently attempted to get the default ambox warning image updated, and having failed to do so has started applying it (at 50px height) to a number of articles (list). Not only are the new images of questionable quality relative to the current ones but are also mis-sized, and other changes made to those templates (most notably the line breaks) force them onto three lines on regular displays. These changes aren't productive, and aren't compatible with the guidelines I suggest above, so I think we should revert them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Stylisticly the new image is an improvement. I find no problem with the resolution. The change was declined for the default Ambox image, not for all Ambox templates. I added the image to a few templates where it would improve the look of the template and the articles they are posted on. And what do you mean by the three-line push? The image doesn't push the text put any further. I only broke an additional line on one template, where the line was breaking anyways (on all pages where the date was applied). You actually removed a few breaks from the images unintentionally making the template messier. So the templates pretty much remain the same besides the image. Mikco (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The new image is not objectively superior to the old one; that can be discussed, but what should not be done is for it to be replaced manually on a whole bunch of different articles when the request to overwrite the old one is turned down. It is disingenuous to argue that the image is now an alternative rather than a replacement, because it's basically a redrawn version of the same thing. For the issues regarding the image sizing and the line breaks, see the parent section. You added a manual line break on two pages: here and here. In the case of {{biased}}, you made several changes to the formatting. "Messier" is a subjective call, and I don't think it applies here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started to remove these again, as there has been no further discussion of why the new image is better. We shouldn't override it based on one user's opinion that the default image styling is inferior. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh

When it comes to templates like {{expand}}, {{trivia}}, and such, why are we violating this? Is there even consensus for this guideline other than wide adoption? ViperSnake151 15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I advertised the thread where I could, and waited for two months before moving for it to be rolled out on high-use templates. It makes sense to bring those template in line with the guidelines over time, especially since the wording on both has long been suboptimal. Both {{fictionrefs}} and {{in popular culture}} (the most commonly used subsets of {{trivia}}) use the new styling already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Need a template for "Amerocentric"

Y see {{globalize}}

While there is a template for "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject (see {{Globalize}}) there is a need for a more specific template, perhaps with an image based on the US flag instead of the globe, that more specifically says "The examples and perspective in this article may improperly represent an American rather than encyclopaedic view of the subject".

Because Wikipedia came out of America, its articles are laden with American assumptions of reality. A familiar example is calling the ultimate contest in an American game, baseball, the World Series. In looking for articles as reference, I find I become frustrated when instead of giving a good encyclopaedia article, I get what passes for reality in America... American companies, American news, American computer games or TV shows.

Simply flagging an Amerocentric as not representing a worldwide view is inadequate.

I feel that I lack the authority to create such a template, thus I ask that someone higher up on the Wikipedia food chain create it. Akonga (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what you want is already available, see {{Globalize}} and the listed sub-pages for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between these two templates?

-- OlEnglish (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The former can be used when

• The links that are there are not relevant
• There are more than "a few" links but the article is long, and there are not enough for an article of its size.

These templates can probably be merged with some good wordsmithing. However, I think they have categories as well, which is why I'm subst'ing I subst'ed the templates and stripping out the categories in your message above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC) update davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Both already make mention of "relevant"/"related" links. They really have no substantive differences other than tone and the quality of their own internal link usage. Combined them below. Might remove the word "relevant" and move the link down to the word "related" if people think it's a bit too up in your face, but I personally like it as is. The link should, however, definitely be retained if were also linking to We Can Link It.

MrZaius^talk 06:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice, I like that one, so will it be "nuevointernallinks" then? OlEnglish (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can't get the new text put in place of the other two and the one redirecting to the other, yeah. We might as well. Is this controversial enough to warrant further discussion on the Template talk: pages, or should I skip straight to an editrequest? Seems like it shouldn't be too big a deal to push this out. MrZaius^talk 14:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure it'll pass, but maybe we should bring it up in the appropriate talk page just in case. Whether that be in Wikipedia:Requested templates, Wikipedia:Template standardisation, Wikipedia:Template namespace, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates I'm not sure. The sheer size and thorough comprehensiveness of Wikipedia amazes and sometimes confuses me :) OlEnglish (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I did go ahead and drop the proposed text at Template:Nuevointernallinks and started a little discussion thread at its talk page. Dropped links to it on both affected templates & the WP above and WP:DEP. The other links are largely irrelevant, targeted as they are at some slightly different topics. MrZaius^talk 02:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There don't seem to be a whole lot of people watching these templates, but the only feedback so far has been positive (seen both here and at Template talk:Nuevointernallinks). Submitted {{editprotected}} requests at both affected templates. MrZaius^talk 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Need a template for "Unreliable Sources being used as references"

Right now the closest I can find to meet this is {{primarysources}}, but that doesn't really fit a lot of the situations I am coming across when doing backlog assessments for Category:Unknown-priority video game articles which often use blogs by unknown individuals or forums as basis for notability and/or verifiability. The number is enough that I think a cleanup template is appropriate. I know i can use {{notability}} or the like, but it seems that something more appropriate as to explaining why it wouldn't meet it would be better considering the number.じんない 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Verify credibility}} is probably what you want. Also look at {{dubious}}, {{self-published}}, {{citecheck}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{or}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I have yet another suggestion for improvement.. re: of {{nofootnotes}} and {{morefootnotes}}

In {{nofootnotes}} the template text mentions "Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate" but it doesn't mention how to do this. I think it would help the editor to include a link within the template text to "Wikilinks to full references" (or WP:CITEX) which shows the editor a quick and easy way how to create inline citations from the existing list of full references. Maybe something along the lines of.. "For help on how to do this, see WP:CITEX" or something like that. OlEnglish (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Too many sections

Looking for a template other than general cleanup that deals with articles that have too many small sections, usually for game articles that have many sections for different elements of gameplay and plot items.じんない 21:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean.. {{cleanup-reorganize}} isn't specific enough? -- OlEnglish (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why settle for cotton when you can have silk? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I added it to the main list. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 16:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.じんない 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

More info?

At present, the tags simply read "This article is..." Would it be preferable to include a category, so that the tags read "This religious article..." or "This physics article..." etc? The reason I suggest this is that lists of articles in need of attention could then be automatically listed by topic. This would make it easier for an editor willing to help to narrow down the list to his/her area of speciality. I would imagine that a bot could readily add the relevent category to existing pages with tags.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would actually be pretty hard to do right, given the number of categories and the length of category names on most pages. I'd say the status quo works best, but that if you really need to include these special terms you could add a second argument to it, say "topic=physics" - Still, though, it seems largely redundant and unnecessary. MrZaius^talk 11:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I suggested it is my own experiences. I have on occasion had a bit of time spare and thought I would use it to help clean up some articles. Trouble is, the list is currently so long that I keep getting fed up of trying to wade through it before reaching an article I feel capable of editing. It just seems that as things stand the backlog is just going to keep on growing.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to cross-reference categories when searching. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it? I haven't got a clue how and I have just searched the backlog. Maybe it would be a good idea to actually include the information as to how somewhere where editors can readily find it.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, User:Drilnoth is currently experimenting with adding topic-specific support exactly as you described. might be worth pinging him. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep! I have a sample idea of how this could be implemented in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 5 (permalink). I think that this would allow better categorization so that separate WikiProjects could work on cleaning up their problem articles more easily. -–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

when to Remove one of these?

ok so I dutifully made some article intros more lay-public understandable. Can I remove the "intro is too technical" template? Or is the original person who put it there supposed to judge?

on a broader note, does anybody REMOVE these notices, or do they just snowball forever? :-)

Yes you can go ahead and remove it yourself. I always make an attempt to fix and remove tags from articles that can be fixed quickly and others that just don't deserve the tag in the first place. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Error in template?

Please see this section where the first entry {{citation style}} is listed. Read the message in the box..."This 's citation style may be unclear."

The "'s" is the error but the actual template does not appear to have this problem. Any way to correct this?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an issue with {{tlrow}}, the template which is being used to show these tags without filling this page with cleanup categories. Ideally, we shouldn't have to use {{tlrow}} - cleanup templates should be able to tell that they aren't being used on articlespace, and thus no include the page they're transcluded on in categories. But few templates support this right now. The best solution for now would probably be to hack {{tlrow}} itself so that it doesn't call templates with empty parameters. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing tags

A frequent question on the Wikipedia:Help desk is: who can remove cleanup tags and how? It would be very helpful to have a short and simple statement in each tag to answer the question. Perhaps:

(How to remove this tag)

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. But I hope it won't encourage vandals. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)