Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Maintenance Template Standardization
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. 1358 (Talk) 14:43, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
I used to be a big Wikipedia editor, but have recently been spending more of my time on Wookieepedia. I noticed that the maintenance templates are all different sizes, have different text formats, and have different image sizes. This makes articles difficult to read sometimes.
I think we need to standardize these, and I'm willing to take the lead. I propose that we make the colors, image size, font size, and template size all standard. It wouldn't be too hard at all I don't think. The actual content doesn't need to change that much.
What do you all think? Sageleader (talk) 21:31, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
- Let me say that we're not Wikipedia and I wouldn't like to see their templates on the Wook (if that's what you're suggesting). Or do you mean make them all similiar, like the {{Twoconflicting}} and {{Threeconflicting}}? I do like our current templates, since they make us unique, and I believe others copied us. :P JangFett (Talk) 21:18, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- No I'm not saying we should make our templates like Wikipedia. I'm just saying they should all be similar and more streamlined. They just take up a lot of space and not all the images are the same size. I'm not saying change what they actually say or anything, just how they're set up a bit. Still the same rounded corner box with a Star Wars unique text and its translation. But just a removal of some of the space so they are easier on the eye. On my computer if there are two templates on a page, the title of the page and actual article text are almost off the entire screen. I actually like the "template" that is on the top of your user page, JangFett. Sageleader (talk) 21:27, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, now I understand. Well, I can't speak for others, but this is a bold move for a newer user. I would like to see some examples (if you're planning on preparing some). JangFett (Talk) 21:31, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, Sageleader, are you using the new Wikia skin? I saw
16:30 (User avatar log) . . Sageleader (Talk | contribs | block) User avatar added or updatedon the recent changes page. Try using Monobook and look at various templates on your screen. JangFett (Talk) 21:38, July 4, 2013 (UTC)- Monobook is certainly better than the Wikia skin. Still though, I think the templates should be standardized. Especially considering the average user doesn't create an account and change their preferred style to Monobook. I'm working on templates now :) - Sageleader (talk) 21:45, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- The underlying theme is that permanent templates (i.e. {{conjecture}}) are more "serious" while temporary templates (maintenance templates) are more humorous. That said, I wouldn't mind standardizing the image size, though it's a real small detail. 1358 (Talk) 21:50, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Note, though, that according to this, fully a quarter of our user base is now composed of mobile users, and our maintenance templates are a giant hurdle for readers using mobile devices. The future certainly doesn't bode well for that number going down any, so as much as I happen to like our templates, it may be time to rethink them in order to better serve the needs of our users. jSarek (talk) 22:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would be possible to hide them altogether from mobile users. It should be doable with a CSS class. 1358 (Talk) 22:12, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for bringing up the mobile issue. I have noticed that too, but then again Wikia's mobile skin isn't that perfect. In full site mode, the templates are better, but they could be reduced in size. Articles to avoid on a mobile device: Anakin Skywalker comes to mind. Also, per Xd. JangFett (Talk) 22:13, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would be possible to hide them altogether from mobile users. It should be doable with a CSS class. 1358 (Talk) 22:12, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Note, though, that according to this, fully a quarter of our user base is now composed of mobile users, and our maintenance templates are a giant hurdle for readers using mobile devices. The future certainly doesn't bode well for that number going down any, so as much as I happen to like our templates, it may be time to rethink them in order to better serve the needs of our users. jSarek (talk) 22:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- The underlying theme is that permanent templates (i.e. {{conjecture}}) are more "serious" while temporary templates (maintenance templates) are more humorous. That said, I wouldn't mind standardizing the image size, though it's a real small detail. 1358 (Talk) 21:50, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Monobook is certainly better than the Wikia skin. Still though, I think the templates should be standardized. Especially considering the average user doesn't create an account and change their preferred style to Monobook. I'm working on templates now :) - Sageleader (talk) 21:45, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, Sageleader, are you using the new Wikia skin? I saw
- Okay, now I understand. Well, I can't speak for others, but this is a bold move for a newer user. I would like to see some examples (if you're planning on preparing some). JangFett (Talk) 21:31, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- No I'm not saying we should make our templates like Wikipedia. I'm just saying they should all be similar and more streamlined. They just take up a lot of space and not all the images are the same size. I'm not saying change what they actually say or anything, just how they're set up a bit. Still the same rounded corner box with a Star Wars unique text and its translation. But just a removal of some of the space so they are easier on the eye. On my computer if there are two templates on a page, the title of the page and actual article text are almost off the entire screen. I actually like the "template" that is on the top of your user page, JangFett. Sageleader (talk) 21:27, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- See Forum:SH:Too Many Page-Top Templates... JangFett (Talk) 22:21, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest making all warning templates dismissible with two clicks: one to dismiss permanent warnings like Template:Nickname or Template:Conjecture, and one to dismiss temporary clean-up warnings like Template:Cleanup or Template:Citation. Make all temporary warnings minimized by default for mobile users who can't edit much anyway, trash Template:Doom as a non-informative redundancy, and I'd be happy. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:16, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- So it seems based on this discussion and the Too Many Page-Top Templates discussion that was linked to, that people are on board with a reorg/redesign of these templates. Nobody seems to want to organize it. I am willing to do so. I imagine creating a grid or spreadsheet with each page-top template and having a discussion about whether or not it should be:
- Merged with another template
- Refined to be more helpful
- Kept as is
- Deleted
- I also plan to make a suggested redesign so we can discuss that and see if we can come up with something better. So how do I go about doing all this? Should I house it on this discussion page or should we create some sort of WikiProject where we can house the grid and discussions? Sageleader (talk) 04:07, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
- You have too much Wikipedia in you. :P Now, I'm not sure if Wikipedia does this specifically, but any change needs consensus first. While it's fine to be bold here (as we do have a policy), you mustn't assume that you could merge, change, keep, or delete a template without consensus. JangFett (Talk) 05:42, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's exactly what I meant. I want to do work on this and then have a discussion and come to consensus on what the best way forward is. I'm just looking for the best venue for that. Sageleader (talk) 05:59, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
- For starters, suggesting the merging/deletion of templates, such as {{Inuse}}, will be hard to pass, unless you have a good explanation for it. Try not to see this as discouraging. I like how you want to tackle the templates, but I think this will be too much for one person. In the CT, expect a lot of polarizing thoughts. JangFett (Talk) 06:06, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to help with this process, so I volunteer myself to assist. I agree that any changes made should be ones that the community agrees with. —GethralkinHyperwave 05:16, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
- For starters, suggesting the merging/deletion of templates, such as {{Inuse}}, will be hard to pass, unless you have a good explanation for it. Try not to see this as discouraging. I like how you want to tackle the templates, but I think this will be too much for one person. In the CT, expect a lot of polarizing thoughts. JangFett (Talk) 06:06, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's exactly what I meant. I want to do work on this and then have a discussion and come to consensus on what the best way forward is. I'm just looking for the best venue for that. Sageleader (talk) 05:59, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
- You have too much Wikipedia in you. :P Now, I'm not sure if Wikipedia does this specifically, but any change needs consensus first. While it's fine to be bold here (as we do have a policy), you mustn't assume that you could merge, change, keep, or delete a template without consensus. JangFett (Talk) 05:42, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
The thing is noting which template notice goes for which user. There are template notices for the reader (ie, conjectural titles, assumptions, recent spoilers), and notices for the editor (excessive deadlinks/redlinks, cleanup, sourcing). The notices for the reader should be easily visible (for reasons that may still fly over some people's heads), while the editor notices can be tucked away somewhere. DAWUSS (talk) 22:40, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
- I see a lot of those as being just as important for the reader. Maybe not the redlink one (that one probably ought to just be deleted; anyone looking at the article can see if it has a lot of redlinks in it), but I think it's important for the reader to know that there are issues with an article that may impact his ability to use it. For instance, Template:Citation is important to inform the reader that an article isn't up to our sourcing standards and thus may contain unverified, unverifiable, or outright fanon information. jSarek (talk) 05:26, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Something to remember, when considering the deletion of maint templates (e.g. {{Tl|redlinks}}) is that many of these templates are also used to categorize pages in to maintenance categories, which in turn get linked from Wookieepedia:Things to do and/or Wookieepedia:Maintenance (BTW, in my opinion, those two pages should be merged. But that's a discussion for another time). - Esjs(Talk) 17:04, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
- The other option that TrakNar and I had discussed was moving header templates to the talk page, with an top right icon indicating template issues (!). -- Riffsyphon1024 06:36, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
- OK this is my proposal: first we tackle the merging and deleting of maintenance templates. Then, we tackle a redesign. I'm already working on a grid/spreadsheet with each template and my proposed action on each template. It's not finished yet, but I'll present it here when it's done. Then we can generate a consensus or if I'm way off we can revise. Then for each individual template we can make proposals and let others weigh in. Sageleader (talk) 22:01, July 15, 2013 (UTC)