Wikipedia:Talk page templates

This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

[[Category:Wikipedia {{{1}}}s|Talk page templates]]

Shortcut

[[:|WP:TS]]

To try and ensure some level of design consistency throughout Wikipedia the template standardisation page explains how talk page templates should appear. Currently a work in progress, the designs and guidance set out below are based on a vote. While this is not a firm policy it is advised that any new talk templates should be based on the standard design.

Current situation

The chosen template.

Now the vote has taken place the chosen scheme, "ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll", is open to final comments before it is fully implemented around the end of 4 May 2005. You are welcome to add any suggestions for tweaks to the design (including images, size, colours, text style and borders) – such ideas may be worked into the scheme if they gather enough support, but radical changes will most likely not now occur. Comments about the exact written content of the templates should wait until they are implemented and then discussed on the relevant talk page.

Not all templates have a design made for them – this will happen over time and, in some cases, with further discussion with the relevant parties.

Wording discussions

This is a list of templates with further discussions about its individual content:

{{facfailed}}

Comments and suggestions

Two comments:

On the featured article template, community consensus has been anthromorphised. Perhaps it should be reworded to "as the Wikipedia community, through consensus, has identified it as one of the best articles produced."
The survived VfD says "This has article" - redundant word "has".

Good job! Talrias (t | e | c) 23:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, Talrias. Thanks for the observations and the kind words. I fixed the extraneous "has" that you noticed, but I'm going to listen for a few days before I propose a new wording on any templates. – Clockwork Soul 00:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Clockwork. Only change I would make would be a very slight paling of the cell bgcolor. It's a totally subjective thing of course, but I think it goes a way toward staying in harmony with the monobook stylings while still demarcing the template from random Talk page stuff. So, I'd change the current

#F8EABA

to

#FFFFBF

Of course, I think we're going to have to really thresh out the wording of the main FA template. If I understood Talrias correctly, this will be done after the new design is live? JDG 23:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As this is the standardisation page I think it would be inadvisable to discuss specific wordings here. Furthermore there is already some discussion about this topic at individual template talk pages and we should look at, and expand, those. violet/riga (t) 23:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we continue to discuss on scattered pages of proposed templates no longer in the running? Talrias, are you a sort of organizer here? If so, please tell us where and when to discuss wording. JDG 00:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's me that's organised it. The discussion should take place at, for example, {{featured}} once (now) the scheme is implemented, not the development/design pages of those articles in peoples' user space. As you are aware there are already discussions at the talk pages of those templates and we should continue them. The wording of one template isn't really a "standardisation" issue, hence me looking at not holding the discussion here. violet/riga (t) 07:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good reason to have the discussion here is that now it has been changed, there will be lots of people looking at this page. So I propose discussing it on the template talk page but having a clear link from here to where it should be discussed. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the new section above. violet/riga (t) 08:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bedroom was that exact shade of canary yellow when I was a very little Clockwork. If I remember correctly, it had puppies and kitties painted on it too. :) I'm very open to working on the wording, but I want to wait a day or two for some more proposals to come in before I update it. – Clockwork Soul 00:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a nice room. When I was a tiny JDG my room was done up in a brilliant jungle scheme. Not a good idea. My dreams are still neon bright... Clockwork, don't take this wrong, but I wouldn't say it's a question of your being open to changed wording. It was understood from the start that the voting was on aesthetic formatting and that new text would be a separate process, including a vote if necessary. I hope it's not necessary, but I feel new wording is at least as important as new design, and I hope Talrias or whoever sets up a clear, well-attended place for discussion....Hmm, re-reading Clockwork's above comment, are you saying my proposed new color looks "Canary yellow" to you? On my screen it just looks like a little more milk has been poured into the coffee, which is what I intended. But I'm on a cheapish laptop LCD monitor at the moment. JDG 00:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to drink that coffee. --Dmcdevit 00:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (it's yellow)[reply]

My screen must be tricking me. Could one of you come up with a "Lite Coffee" color? JDG 01:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the background colour as it is now. It does seem like a "Lite Coffee" colour to me. Perhaps #F8EECC seems better, though? Ben Babcock 01:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also voted with this understanding. I hope now we can come to a consensus on wording. I don't think wording is so subjective as the design, so a vote on it shouldn't be necessary. See my comment above for where I think we should discuss it. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we'll have any real difficulty with the wording. We all seem to be thinking along the same lines. I'll be able to work on it with you all tonight. At the moment, it's 5:17 am EST, and I'm slaving away on a research paper due at 11 am. Speaking of coffee... – Clockwork Soul 09:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious about the creation of an additional template. It strikes me that we need a "previous COTW" template to stay on the page for posterity, just like the facfailed, and peer review and that kind of thing. Just to further document it's development. Currently there's no template at all (and thus no wording). --Dmcdevit 00:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Create one and then discuss it at WP:COTW – I think it'd get support, and I certainly think it's a good idea. violet/riga (t) 07:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the coffee color, either.

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments on its nomination sub-page.

Eh. The yellow is only very slightly different, but I think it goes a little better with the monobook grays and blues. - Omegatron 03:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's more than very slightly different. It's the color of sulfur, and I don't think that it's very attractive... :/ – Clockwork Soul 03:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, sulfur ( ) is more of a #D3D301, according to the GIMP. I think it's kind of pretty, but not as a color for templates... - Omegatron 04:41, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
On my laptop's LCD, the two colors are very similar, both a light tan. On my desktop's CRT monitor, #FFFFBF is yellow, while the original color is a "coffee with cream" color. --Carnildo 05:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The colors above seem a bit strong. How about toning it down to something like ece8c9, like with Template:Oldpeerreview. -SV|t 14:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other templates

{{TrollWarning}}, {{Cleanup taskforce notice}}, {{Cleanup taskforce closed}} and {{Cleanup taskforce 1911}} have since ben redone to follow this. Would we want to eventually have ALL the talk page templates to follow these standards? Circeus 17:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uniformity never hurts... but a suggestion for {{TrollWarning}}: maybe the "comment" exclamation mark image would look better than the hand? File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 18:21, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Chosen scheme

The following standards of design have been chosen:

Background colour of #F8EABA and border colour (1px solid) is #C0C090
Use of a table, not divs, and using two columns: one for an image, one for the text
Size is 85% width and the whole template is centred
Cell spacing is 5px
The margin seperating the templates is 3px

See the template {{standard template style}}. Template tables can be created as follows:


{| {{standard template style}}
|-
|align="center"| [[Image:icon.png|alt text]]
|align="center"| Template text
|}

Is the centered text justification considered part of the standard? JDG 22:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the design, but there are some cases where centering is not desirable, such as the "cited as a source" template. – Clockwork Soul 03:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments on its nomination sub-page.

This is a featured article, which means that community consensus has identified it as one of the best articles that the Wikipedia community has produced. If you see a way this page can be improved further, we invite you to contribute.

This article is listed as a featured article removal candidate because it may no longer meet the standards of style, prose and completeness to be a featured article. Please add a comment to support or contest its removal, or improve the article by being bold.

Peer review

This article has a peer review request that has been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed in order to get a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

WikiProjects

This article is part of the WikiProject on Chemistry, which gives a central approach to Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Talk page templates, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.

Other

This article survived a vote for deletion. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

This article has been cited as a source by a media organisation. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The source is: "Foo" (Today). Wikipedia. [1].

The above peer review and FAC highlighted that this article is actually quite rubbish

Template:Chembox simple organic The abovementioned wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, and notably the Chemical Infobox workgroup is considering to fall in with the ClockWorkSoul Coffee Roll colour scheme. Using just the style in the infobox table will give an infobox without dividing horizontal lines, so we enhanced the scheme to include some dividers within the table as well. See as an example the {{chembox simple organic}} infobox template here.