Forum:Templates

A lot of the templates such as the Template:Missing Picture and Template:Incomplete do not match the color layout of the wiki and look bad. I also have an issue with big banner templates such as those, they should be made smaller and should match each other. I also have a problem with the Nominated Featured Article template being featured on pages, because, who cares? It doesn't really relate to any information, and at most there should be a small template like the Master Emerald on featured articles. --- 19:40, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with anything. This is just your opinion. I respect your opinion though. 19:44, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Soalce It would be much better if all the templates looked the same/had the same layout. Some pages look hideous having three+ different colored and different sized templates. By making all the templates the same size and color, the page will look better overall. The Nominated Featured Article template is also much too big and is irrelevant to the article itself, let users comment on featured articles, but don't use a gigantic template to notify people wanting information who could possibly care less. --- 19:47, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with all of this. The Nominated FA template is so big so it can grab the attention of the viewer and push them in joining the nomination. The incomplete template & missing picture template are that color so it can grab the attention of the editor so he/she knows this page needs help. This is just mostly your problem rather than a problem as a wiki. Why do people continue to make forums about their issues and other things that can be done with a admin? 13:03, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fly's concerns. -- Supermorff (talk) 15:34, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

16:10, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The mismatching colors are because there are still a few elusive templates whose colors have not been reverted since Forum:New Look.
 * 2) I agree that banner templates should match, but I don't believe they should be made smaller. I think most should be the same color and length, but should differ in width.
 * 3) Maybe the Featured Article Nomination template could be slightly smaller, but most certainly not as small as the Past Featured Article template.


 * @Silver Since when has it worked? We have had the same featured article for a year and we have hardly accumulated any more votes since then, and the color scheme is awful... There is no need to make these templates stand out with different colors when they are the... first things you see on a page, users can already see the templates. Making them the same color will help the aesthetics of the wiki rather and make the pages and the templates look better. Can you please tell me how Tails_Color_3 (example) looks visually attractive in any way? By making all our templates have the same color scheme (preferably blue), users can still blatantly see it and it makes things look good.


 * @Unleashed Why differ in width? There is no need to make the templates larger than others. A few are already different in width, but there is no need to make it a point to make sure all the templates are different in width. The nominated featured article template should not be there period. It is ineffective and takes up way too much space. It is irrelevant to the article itself and most people hardly notice anyways. Remove it entirely. --- 20:00, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Looks like I missed a couple of words...I meant that they "should be able to differ in width". Pictures keep banner templates from looking dull, and I believe that should be the only reason (aside from amount of text) that should warrant a change in width. Otherwise, keep the banner templates the same size.

As for the Nominated FA template, it is not ineffective. It catches my attention every time I land on a page I don't know is a nominated FA. If it takes up way too much space, make it a bit smaller. It is not irrelevant to the article itself, but when I see it, I am notified that I should scan the article to make sure it is fit to be displayed on our main page...it is relevant to the quality of the article's content. "Most people hardly notice it anyways"? That is a huge generalization that cannot hope to back up with a proper amount of proof (I hate unproven generalizations); just speak for yourself and not the rest of the wiki. 20:12, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Unleashed, no need to accuse me (which falls under our Personal Attack rule, may I add). It is, in my opinion, ineffective. If it was effective, then why aren't more than two or three users voting? The color scheme is horrible, and why should visitors looking for information be notified about something they probably could care less to partake in? It's already specified on the main page, why make it more obvious then it needs to be? If editors cared to partake in the conversation, they wouldn't need a template to make them do it. Based on the edits to the page in the past, most vote when someone else voted as it appears in the Wiki Activity. I know when Kyle (asked him just now) was still on the wiki, he actually followed the page and asked users to vote on chat sometimes when things didn't get done. --- 20:15, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Now you mention it, the Featured Article template is rather worthless. Unlike others, I'm not badgered by its yellow/blue colour scheme, but it does tend to blare out at the reader upon visiting the page. And since it's not even working to encourage users to vote, then yeah, I'd be better off having nothing at all.


 * As for other templates, I'm completely okay with them. I'm once again not irked by the colors or the dimensions. However, you can change them to match each other if you like, and see if it looks better. The only template I disagree with altering is Missing Picture. Its black and white scheme may not look visually eye-catching, but does it need to be? It's meant to be a template for an absent image. It would look weird having bright colours and containing an image in itself, in my opinion. 21:10, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

@Fly: I have no idea how you got the idea I was "accusing" you, but I see your point now. I still wouldn't say we should remove it completely, but find a less garish and annoying way to tell the reader that this is a nominated featured article. But I now see why you call it useless and ineffective. (By the way, it may be that because the text is blue on the Nominated FA template, users can't tell that there's a link to a nomination page) 13:12, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Any final thoughts before I close this partially? If not, the Nominated FA template will be nixed. A basic scheme for the templates has yet to be decided, though. --- 06:32, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said, that the Nominated FA template should stay, with revisions. 19:48, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. I also believe the category should be nixed categories like that do not belong in the mainarticles, so I'll remove it. Do you want to make a new version of the template, Unleashed? I'm not sure what you mean by "revisions", but if you could make one or explain what should be changed, it would be easier to make a new one. --- 20:32, April 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * No it wouldn't. What? Just edit the one that's there. -- Supermorff (talk) 21:32, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

@Fly: I'd like to make a new Nominated FA template, thanks for the motivation. ;) I'll put it on our sandbox. As for some of the things I think should be changed...it should be in the banner template format that is yet to be decided, and the colors must be changed...for one thing, the bright yellow is a bit obnoxious and the blue text disguises a link to the FA nomination page. 14:11, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to help you guys with this one. Would be this sprite rip better at the left side with the text being on the right side? As when I looked up the Sonic gif file, it kinda looked getting too pixelized when its size is reduced. It's taken from Sonic the Hedgehog 2 ripped quickly by myself, if someone asks. It is also a suitable for the Nominated FA template. - MarioSonic (talk) 15:23, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Only one comment: Cool! 15:20, April 8, 2013 (UTC)