Forum:Templatey things
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Templatey things
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3539 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Bizzeebeever and I have been changing some templates to look more like wikipedia's templates, but there wasn't any consensus on this and apparently there should have been. I've been asked to start a forum sort of thing on this, so here it is.
So the question is this - should we continue to use {{maintenance template}} with its grey colour scheme, or switch to {{utility box}} and make our templates look like Wikipedia's equivalents? Or possibly change {{maintenance template}}? I happen to think wikipedia-style templates are prettier than the grey things and emphasise our being a parody of wikipedia, but Zombiebaron thinks the wikipedia-style templates are ugly (or at least my version of {{vfd}}). And should we keep as is those templates that have already been converted to {{utility box}}?
Support changing everything to {{utility box}} or some sort of wikipedia style
Score: 2.5
For. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:09, 31 Jan 2014- For. Cosmetic preference, but not passionate enough to make the changes myself. Nominally Humane! 09:54 05 Feb
- Everything strictly related to maintenance (like {{Oldvfd}}) should use {{Maintenance template}}. Everything else should be standardized. If somebody doesn't want all the other templates to look like Wikipedia's style, fine. But for fuck's sake, come up with a fucking uniform style that doesn't blow dicks. ~ BB ~ (T)
~ Sat, Feb 15 '14 5:22 (UTC)
- Should the score be 2.5 or something?
Also, I'm quite well aware I made this vote terribly confusing. This header is for changing everything to {{utility box}}, including maintenance templates, whereas the other one is for changing everything back to pre-Bizzeebeever/pre-Llwy-ar-lawr. There is also another header for 'other stuff', which seems to have become 'replace everything with a goat riding a monkey'. I'm not entirely sure what to do about this. I suspect there should be more headers, different headers, or votes in different places. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 05:27, 15 Feb 2014 - I'm not sure I understand why we think the templates should be "standardized". Aside from making it slightly easier for a drunk IP late on a Saturday night to keep track of which site they're messing up, what does a uniform style across templates actually do for us?
Right now we seem to be voting for one of three categories, which we might call "Nelson Math", "Gradients Forever", and "Monkey on a Goat". Maybe there should be a fourth option, which we could call IDIC ? Snarglefoop (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)- You can always start a header for that or for anything else if you like. As for standardising the templates...I find that hard to answer, now I think about it. Someone else probably knows. Someone else should know, or this whole forum is stupid. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:33, 15 Feb 2014
- Standardisation to a high quality looking template adds an air of professionalism and authority to the statement. Among regular users it doesn't really matter too much - I tend to read the change summaries rather than look at the templates myself, for instance. For a new user writing their magnum opus on why their kid sister is a spazmoid, however, having three templates suddenly slapped on it that look like they've been created by a spazmoid kid sister looks like someone being petty. And then when their article gets deleted they turn around and scream "RDB is a nigger Dogshit sandwich" and never work out why there art has been violated in this fashion.
- Note that this post is mostly opinion based upon experience. None of this is policy. But it shows why Lyrithya (amongst others) went to the effort to try and standardise these templates to begin with. Nominally Humane! 07:47 15 Feb
- Thank you. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:50, 15 Feb 2014
- Well, ah hmmm. Thanks for the clearly correct explanation ... I shall retreat from my clearly untenable position favoring total chaos.
As to the explanation "not being policy", heck, this isn't Wikipedia! In this neighborhood, the thing that determines whether something is true is whether it's really true, not whether it comes from some so-called "reliable source". Snarglefoop (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:50, 15 Feb 2014
- You can always start a header for that or for anything else if you like. As for standardising the templates...I find that hard to answer, now I think about it. Someone else probably knows. Someone else should know, or this whole forum is stupid. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:33, 15 Feb 2014
- Should the score be 2.5 or something?
For. 
Oppose using {{utility box}} and change everything back to {{maintenance template}}
Score: 1.5
- I like the current templates and don't think we need a change. We are not wikipedia. -- The Zombiebaron 21:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- 1/2 vote against OK, somebody said I should go look at the template things, so I went and looked, and frankly, I like the froggy pineapple style, which looks kinda cool and waterfally,
much more than the Wikipedia style which looks like something out of a Nelson math book.[Actually I only don't like the one which looks like something out of a Nelson math book so I'm only recording half a vote],
On a closely related issue, however, the 'deletion' template wording really could stand being punched up a bit, IMHO. Rather than, "may not fit in... may not be funny" which kinda describes a lotta pages which aren't UFD, perhaps it could be switched to something clearer and more accurate, maybe along the lines of,
"This page may be a total loss and the space it occupies could be better used for ... almost anything, really. It may be so repulsive it would make a billygoat barf, or so unfunny that it can put people to sleep from clear across the room, or it might be so annoying nobody can even tell whether it's funny ... or, maybe it's really just fine. If you can stand it, please read it and then go vote on whether to burn it and scatter the ashes or try to bandage it up for posterity." Snarglefoop (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)- Ok anyone who says 'keep the current templates' should keep in mind that the current templates do not all use the grey maintenance template thing. Please take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Utility box to get an idea of what I'm talking about. We have already had a partial change (e.g. Template:Oldvfd), so your idea of 'the current templates' may not be entirely accurate. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 3 Feb 2014
- Ah I see I'm confused as usual. In fact the one dialog box I don't like is the one that looks like this thing:
So maybe I should reduce my negative vote to, like, 1/2 or something. Snarglefoop (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC) 
Comment. I should not have titled this 'change everything back to maintenance template', as that's stupid because maintenance template is for maintenance templates. That much is clear. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:35, 15 Feb 2014
Comment. I should not have titled this 'change everything back to maintenance template', as that's stupid because maintenance template is for maintenance templates. That much is clear. Something else
Score: 3
- Good; put a monkey riding a goat in all templates. Better; replace the templates with it. Best; replace every page with it. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- YES.--174.29.129.160 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Concur. Aleister 21:11 4-2-14