photo src: www.templatemonster.com
photo src: www.templatemonster.com
Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Sneaker wave
This template is for use in articles regarding the science of physical oceanography. I deleted Sneaker wave from the template, since it is not a scientific term, and not used in scientific papers. It is even unclear what it is (e.g. in contrast Rogue wave is used, and defined, in the scientific sense; although news agencies use it in a very sloppy sense). But my deletion of sneaker wave from the template has been reverted, and I am curious to hear the opinion of others, in order to build consensus. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Fishing Website Template Video
Colouring
Please discuss any colour changes here, rather than engaging in an edit war. In my opinion, and the opinion of several other editors, there is no reason to deviate from the default. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the colouring is inappropriate; I said so in an edit summary and on Epipelagic's talk, where I went unanswered. I had seen that it was fixed, again, and now you're (Epipelagic) calling others for edit warring? You're the one edit warring and forcing a personal preference, here; we're just trying to make this template normal. I simply sought to follow the applicable guidelines. The new colour you've changed to here, and on dozens of others it would seem, is worse. Now you've got blue-on-blue, which is going to be a problem for some with vision difficulties. And the wider issue is that this is shoving a non-standard colour into 187 articles. I noticed this on Current sea level rise and Future sea level, where it appears adjacent to a standard navbox. This results in hundreds of 'off' looking pages. WP:Deviations is about avoiding deviations. That the seas are blue, or blue-green, is a pretty thin rationale for this. You also claim in your last edit summary that others have no right to edit in areas where they have not contributed content. Really? You WP:OWN this walled garden? The colour and other weird styles should be removed from this template and from the others in Category:Fishing navigational boxes. One Ton Depot (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC) One good reason to leave the templates at the default colours is because there are often multiple templates on any given article. The trend lately, at least on the more serious articles such as those on history, science, and the like, has been to remove the rainbow of colours from the templates for a more uniform and professional appearance that presents as a more serious resource. It wasn't that long ago that the bottom of the article on Elizabeth II or Adolf Hitler had a half a dozen differently coloured templates across the bottom, which frankly looked childish, and has no place on a serious encyclopedia, imho. Also, according to Snook's tool at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html, your new colour is only "sort of" compliant: it meets the AA guideline but not the WCAG 2 AAA standard, which is the ideal. The default colour schemes have been tested on a wide variety of browsers and platforms to assure that those with vision impairments will be able to see the material clearly. --Dianna (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC) I was surprised to see that the dots are now deprecated, and have been since August. Flatlist is the new best practice. Yesterday a friend and I were comparing displays, and on my Toshiba, the navboxes with default colours display as a shade of blue, but on the Mac (and on my Dell, where I am right now) they look purple. The colours look about the same on Internet Explorer as they do on Firefox, but the example One Ton Depot prepared at {{Physical oceanography}} displays with horizontal and vertical gradients of colour on Firefox. These gradients do not display at all in Internet Explorer. People using a better browser get a better experience. I am in favour of re-introducing the improvements to the whole group of templates. --Dianna (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC) I see no problems with converting to flatlists. Because I was happy with that side of things, I didn't initially revert the changes made by One Ton Depot. The reason I subsequently reverted was because he also changed alignment parameters, I presume because he was unaware of the point of them, and had announced, in a non negotiable way, his intentions to strip all the templates down to some minimalist state which could be beloved only by coding purists oblivious of any other issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC) I would ask our host to accede to the consensus above regarding the colour. All please comment on the padding, line-height and width. The first to are trivially removed. The widths are bound-up with the pairedness of many of these. I think these should be separated, allowed to autocollapse, and the appropriate navbox brought-in from linked-pages without hauling in eighty other also-ran links. navbox templates should be of workable size:
(hey, it's not used)
One Ton Depot (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
photo src: www.templatemonster.com
Finding a solution
@Epipelagic: I was intrigued by this comment of yours: You talk of "inline styles which hard-code a background colour". The code is just a script, which is read and interpreted at runtime. It is not hard-coded, because can be changed before rendering. Thus, if a user identifies as having a visual deficit, then it would be a minor coding matter to replace the inline background colours. Now, I've been programming computers since the late 1960s and designing webpages since the mid 1990s, but I still can't see how I can run a script on Wikipedia to allow an user to replace background colours that have been defined with an inline "style=" declaration (which is what I mean by 'hard-coded', i.e. a cascading style definition that will override all the earlier ones defined in .css files). Could you give me an example of what you mean? It would be a great help to me because I'm having real problems reading the text links against the #ABBEDC background:
@RexxS: I was familiar with css as it was 15 years ago. The core principle of separating content from formatting was well established back then, though in those days there weren't the tools to fully implement it in real world apps. It is, as you say, a key issue which must ultimately prevail. I was arguing on this page that this approach still seems unable to deliver desired outcomes on Wikipedia, and asking why interim ways of getting the best possible outcomes shouldn't be used. Anyway, maybe the time has come to bite the bullet. Wikipedia already has a mediocre format, which will become even blander after this move. At the present, this will offer a solution to the few who can adjust their css-skins; the same few who are pushing for these changes. Tough for the rest. Anyway, solutions to relax this rigidity do seem to exist within the new framework. Maybe making the move will force the issue. Thank you Rex for allowing me to have my process, and addressing the issues without the patronising and bulldozing. It would help if there was a policy essay on Wikipedia where the rationale and capabilities of this framework, and where it is headed, are set out in readable way, so content editors need not be jerked around like this. But that wouldn't be Wikipedia's way. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Hi, Epipelagic. It was not my intent to be disruptive by adding a title to this template and several others; the intent of the edit was to get the correct colour in the bar. I will undo the edits where the title was added. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have now got them all, I think. Please note that those particular templates are not very functional, because they are poorly designed. I am gonna leave it up to you whether to repair them or not. The way to do it is to break them into separate, smaller templates. --Dianna (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon