Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Icon remove please

{{editprotected}} Please remove the icon that was accidentally added durring the ambox update by adding | image = blank following the entry "| type = content" in the template. There is long standing argument to not include an icon on this template. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

it's gone :) Jeepday (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor visibility

With neither an enclosing box nor an icon, this template has extremely poor visibility in articles. It just looks like inline text. Where is the consensus to make these changes? Ham Pastrami 12:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to second that. It looks very messy and it looks like the template is part of the article text. Please add a subtle background, box or whatever. --Jeroenvrp 12:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You may need to clear you cache to see the change correctly for the next couple of hours. Stron consensus for the change was reached at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation Jeepday (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to add an icon?

Warning this is a controversial topic, do not make changes to the template before consensus is clear

The new template standard at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation will be bringing increased attention to this and other templates for the next few days. The new template format also address a couple of long standing arguments against having a icon on this template. I would like to suggest that is now time to seriously consider adding an image to this template and suggest this one in particular. There are a couple of similar icons at Commons:Category:Books icons I think that image of magnifying glass and a book suggest that someone needs to take a closer look at the content of the article and works well with the {{unreferenced}} family of templates including {{refimprove}}. Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

General concerns with adding any icon to the template

Please no image! Speaking in graphic icons is for the birds. The current layout is really good. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok with adding an Icon and thoughts about a specific icon

Much too large. Whatever the icon is, it should not force the box to a larger size than at present. Of course this is easy to scale. DGG (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I put up the standard options on Template:Unreferenced/Icon. I will try to scale the icon above and add it as well. 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The text is 3 lines anyway, and the 50 px version doesnt force it beyond that, but I also tried a smaller size-- 40 pixels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I did the Nuvola apps kpdf.png at 40 px also I think if we had to use a 40px I would prefer the "Nuvola apps kpdf.png" but if we can go 50 or even 65 I like the "Nuvola kdict glass". Not that it matters much because so far it is only you and me talking about adding an icon which is a long way from consensus when you look at the history. Jeepday (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Family of Templates

A note of this suggestion was posted on templates considered to be in the {{unreferenced}} family of templates.

From Ambox talk page

We were discussing a possible icon for this over at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes, until Jeepday kindly informed us that we might be discussing in the wrong place. That discussion produced a few different icon possibilities, so I wanted to float them by here to see what people think. Here's what we came up with so far:

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:35, 09/18/2007

I really like the book design (good work Equazcion and AzaToth!) and I hope it can be used. The magnifying glass covers up to much of the book on the bottom two. The third one's too busy, but maybe it can be tweaked (like flipping the magnifying glass). The first one conveys the message the best, but again I really like the book. - Rocket000 07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the second and third designs best, particularly the third one. I don't think it's too busy, but maybe the glass could be scaled down a bit to appeal to more people. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Question book-2.svg is my favorite for this purpose. The magnifying glass addition seems redundant (because the search and question refer to the same issue; we aren't searching for a question). —David Levy 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The second is my favorite, but that could be because it's the closest to my original design :) But even so, I think it's the sleekest and most concise. I tried combining the magnifying glass in there somehow but its just seems cramped, redundant, overkill... Thanks for the compliment by the way, Rocket000.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 08:55, 09/18/2007

Have modified my alternative a bit, as seen here: _→AzaToth 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bring the discussion here. Please note that this template has a long history of reaching consensus to add an icon only to find after adding it that there was a much greater opposition to the icon then anticipated. Many of the users who tend to object to the use of an Icon do not watch the talk page, but do apply these templates regularly, when they notice a change to template (icon or text) they come here to address the issue. The discusion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_message_boxes#Needs-refs_graphic started with the assumption that the lack of a icon indicated there was a need for an icon, this is not true. There is no icon because the community here has repeatedly rejected the use of icons on these templates. There are really two questions here.

1. Do the unreferenced family of templates need an icon? The answer to that is no and is evidenced by the repeated communty reject of any icon.
2. Could an icon be selected for this family of templates that would not result in rejection by the community? That is the question, we are here to find out.

Having said that and seeing that the current proposal icons are similar to the related icons all ready in discussion on this talk page and shown at Template:Unreferenced/Icon. I personally prefer the one below as it offers a slight contrast to the side bar, but I can appreciate using coloring that is more in keeping with the side bar color.

Image:Nuvola apps kpdf.png

Signed Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A thing that is positive for using an icon, is that it can be easier to directly see that it's a "unreferenced" tagging, but true, the icon must have something in common with the purpose of the template. _→AzaToth 14:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That one's good but I think it stands out a bit too much. I still like

best, plus it's more subtle so it may be more acceptable to those who've been against an icon thus far.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:41, 09/18/2007

Okay on second thought I think I like

best. I think it offers the quickest recognition.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:16, 09/18/2007

Here's my quickie attempt to recolor the icon (which someone more skilled than I could apply to the SVG version):

And here it is horizontally flipped:

—David Levy 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an SVG version yet (I was looking for one). This looks pretty good, and I like the non-flipped one better.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 18:36, 09/18/2007

The SVG version is Image:Postscript-viewer.svg. —David Levy 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a chance I didn't look hard enough. I'm having trouble downloading that file though, I'm getting a strange error from the server.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:19, 09/19/2007

Of all the ones that have been suggested; I like this one best.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (edit to say that I'm only talking about the icon and the look of the template of course.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:01, 09/19/2007

I would also be ok with Image:Nuvola apps kpdf recolored.png at 50px (p.s. it should be moved to commons if the decision to use template is made) Jeepday (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's where I uploaded it. :-) —David Levy 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm honored that Anetode has chosen to implement one of the icons I made, but the one s/he chose is hardly the product of a consensus. Some admin want to revert that?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 04:14, 09/19/2007

It looks like we are moving towards consensus of a specific icon to use on the unreferenced family of templates (if one is used). I would caution editors to read #icon above and the other talks about icons here and in the archive #Image and Box Formatting before making a decision about consensus for actually placing the icon on templates. Not counting archived comments I make the count on this talk page of using any icons here to using no icons ever, about even. Many of the past supporters of icons usage on this talk page were supporting specific icons that they had found or made themselves so there are WP:COI concerns there. The recent redesign of the templates has brought this into public view so consensus may or may not have changed. If an attempt to add an icon and maintain (or find) consensus is unsuccessful at this time consensus will probably never be reached to add an icon. Use your best judgment, I am just the housekeeper here. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I love the one by AzaToth posted on 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC). Renata 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Aza's modified alternative one too, with the Q-mark and text. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sooooo, whats the score here? Where are we at with this? JoeSmack ^Talk 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. Can we get some icon in there already? Every other maintenance tag has an icon, it aids in quick recognition of the tag. This is the only tag I actually have to read in order to see what it's suggesting (please don't make me read! :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:40, 09/24/2007

Color

This template looks really silly with the orange bar. Very lack of aesthetics. Ga ladree-el 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent drive for template infobox standardization. I found the talk page for it earlier today, but have lost it again. --Alvestrand 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article templates Jeepday (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree, the new layout is great and much more professional-looking. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Without the colour or border, the infobox looks like a bunch of random text. -- Reaper X 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple of improvements

I have

Ditched the "Tagged since the year dot" thing. There's a dated category at the bottom of every such article, and that's enough. There is no value to the reader in knowing since when and what few editors have the slightest utility for the information are already going to have to use the category anyway. There is no use for the clutter at the top of articles therefore.
Removed the links to
1. Help:Help since that's available elsewhere particularly as soon as they click the far more important "edit me" link, and doesn't need adding to every page yet again.
2. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. It looks to be essentially comprised of tumbleweed to me, with vandalism still sitting on talk pages and no interest in a month or more. The top of reader-based articles isn't the place for futile pleas for membership - we have more appropriate venues for that.

Given the growing over-burdening of the tops of articles, minimalism is essential. Editors who work on 'unreferenced articles' and the like as their Wikipedia 'hobby' are already knowledgeable enough that they don't need all the extra duplicate links. Those that are not, will derive little use from them when all they want to do is fix a comma or something. Splash - tk 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good move, could be applied to many other tags. Rich Farmbrough, 17:44 18 September 2007 (GMT).

I guess you could call me an 'unreferenced articles' hobby editor. I am ok with the removal of the extra links, they come and go, gone today back tomorrow... I am even ok with losing the This article has been tagged since but I do find having the date on the template useful. I know it is on the category and for the most part when working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles I get to the article because it is in the category of the oldest articles wearing {{unref}}. I would really prefer for a number of reasons to have the date remain on the template. In my "hobby" I look at a lot of article every day must are ugly, and I fix the things that need to be fixed the most (in my skill set) that have been tagged the longest. Please do not make my "hobby" any more difficult put the date back on the template. Anyone that can't figure out that the date on the template is the tagged since date, is not going to be helped by the This article has been tagged since. Jeepday (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the date too--I don't do this as much as Jeepday, but I too will try to deal with the oldest preferentially. DGG (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The date is still on the article, since it carries the category at the bottom. To have it at the top is just putting administrative information unnecessarily in the headline of the readers' view of the article. It's fine to warn them "caveat lector, this is unreferenced", but with the proliferation of 'high-impact' graphic design and other tags at the tops of such articles (often each containing the same date), administrative burdens need to be removed. Splash - tk 09:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Our point is that date is no longer on the template, and you have a fine point of view about administrative burdens, but it is your point of view and the removal did not find consensus. In keeping with Splash's WP:BOLD style I requesting the reversion of the removal of the following code which has does not have consensus for removal and had previously found consensus for addition.

{{editprotected}}

Please place this code <br />{{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.}} Directly before </small></span> at the end of the template. Jeepday (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't think you have actually given any reasons to add it back, and this 'consensus' of which you speak is not a reverting force. There is nothing 'bold' about a reversion to a poor version of a template. The date is on the article as much as it ever was, and serves no use in the template. Splash - tk 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to explain that have the date on the template makes it easier to assess the article while improving it. It is particularly helpful on the very ugly articles that have multiple templates and or categories. For the template reader the date provides some information about the quality of the article and ongoing maintenance. An article that has been tagged for clean-up or references for over a year is more likely to have been abandoned and is in need of adoption where as an article that has tags with relatively current dates is receiving some current attention. You have four arguments to remove the date.

. There's a dated category at the bottom of every such article, and that's enough. I have disagreed and addressed that it is not enough for editors who are improving articles.
. There is no value to the reader in knowing since when... I have addressed this as well, old date = abandoned article
. few editors have the slightest utility for the information are already going to have to use the category anyway. I am on of the "few editors" which I identified in my first post on the topic when I pointed out that the date in the template is helpful to me. It may seem surprising to you but I don't always find {{unreferenced}} on articles via a dated category and even when I do it may have multiple {{unreferencedsection}} with different dates.
. There is no use for the clutter at the top of articles therefore, use has been discussed it is not clutter and serves a useful purpose to working editors and random readers alike.

Now do I need to spend more of my limited volunteer time on Wikipedia discussing this or can we replace the date so I can go back to fixing articles? Jeepday (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem very angry. I would suggest that you move on to looking quickly at the bottom of articles rather than the top. It makes no difference to you which you look at; if you think it does, then I really think that's rather over-sensitive. To take 1, 3 and 4: you just make the one point: that you personally find it useful; well ok, but the information you find useful is still in the article and as accessible as always. On the other hand, the mess at the top of the article is reduced. Net benefit to readers, who matter more than editors. Point 2 is material: the abandonment thing. But the reader already has a caveat lector, a shiny bar, a picture, some words and so on. That's enough, and once the date is removed from other templates, the improvement is substantial on a multiply-tagged article.

You need waste no time further time, since the information you require is still there, as it always has been. It is even still at the top of the article when you press 'edit'. The change from your point of view is irrelevant. The change is important from the point of view of presentation and compression of clutter, however. See if you can make the transition from top to bottom of article. It might be easier than you fear. Splash - tk 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I, too, prefer to have the date of tagging "smalled" within the template itself. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Any reason for that? It's in the category at the bottom in bigger text. Editorial convenience (which is minimal since all you have to do is scroll for half a second!) is trumped by improved presentation for readers. So far, the only surviving reason anyone has for adding the clutter back into thousands of articles is "I want it there". Splash - tk 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Splash - Am I angry? I can't imagine how I managed to survive my whole life without you tell me what makes a difference to me "It makes no difference to you which you look at" So I guess I must be angry if you say I am. I realize that it's not just me, you know for the whole universe it would seem. In counter to your argument that "There is no value to the reader", I provided a valid value for the reader to know when the article was tagged, but as you know better then I "But the reader already has a caveat lector, a shiny bar, a picture, some words and so on". So I apologize for questioning your superior judgment, you appear to have the "Net benefit to readers, who matter more than editors" as a primary concern. How could I have imagined that a "shiny bar" and a "picture" could have been less valuable to the reader then a date? And when you consider that this template does not have a picture because years of consensus by the community has indicated that the text was more important and the picture did not add value to the message, well that leaves the reader with a "shiny bar" and some text, and we would not want to give the reader any more information then Splash beleives is appropriate for them. Maybe to meet your goal "The change is important from the point of view of presentation and compression of clutter", we should just remove templates completely? The categories would still be listed at the bottom of the article.

Lets review

Splash Item 1 for removal of date - There is no value to the reader or the editor to have the date on the template.
Mixed support for and against date on template
An editor (jeepday) posted {{editprotected}}, which was canceled by Splash Diff
More responses that it provides value, only a single editor continuing to speak to keep date off of template
Leaving the only argument to remove the date is Splash took it off, who counters with a request to replace the date with "the only surviving reason anyone has for adding the clutter back into thousands of articles is "I want it there". Splash - tk 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)"

Splash it is unclear if you are going to continue to challenge the rights of other editors to make individual template changes that you do not personally agree with. Maybe this is a bigger policy decision that should be made some place more visible then this talk page. Splash if you really beleive it is in the best interest of Wikipedia globally not to include dates on templates please bring it up some place more visible and appropriate like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Signed Jeepday (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried re-reading your comments to work out concretely what the reason is. I think you are saying these things:

You find it useful at the top. But I haven't worked out why - what critical benefit do you have from it being at the top and bottom rather than just the bottom. Saving 1 mouse click occasionally is surely not all?
Multiple unreferenced sections with dates. Well, these per-section templates ought to be burned anyway. They just destroy articles. Why use a gazillion templates when one will do?
'Abandonment' of an article. Not something that's material, really, once you've received the caveat lector. If interested, the information is still there on the page and in the history. Abandonment isn't information we routinely put on articles, referenced or otherwise; and some very quiet and unref'd articles are actually perfectly correct in their content and oughtn't to have so many shades of doubt cast on them.

So the important thing is that I haven't understood why you find it essential to have the date at the top of the article, and why you think the additional 'clutter' up there is so important it overrides all the presentational aspects. Maybe once I understand that, I will be clearer on things. Cheers, Splash - tk 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the categories might vanish to be replaced with another mechaism, the approach of {{trivia}} may be a good way forward - include just the date in parenthesis. (done) Rich Farmbrough, 12:52 25 September 2007 (GMT).

I am pleased to hear that the date information looks like being gotten rid of completely. However, for this template, having the (imo redundant) information expanding the height of the template by something approaching 33% is not a solution. I've therefore moved the 'small'ed text onto the first line of it. I hope to remove it completely in the near future. Splash - tk 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the template before making the change? It would have looked like this:

Not adding to the height at all, nor breaking the flow of words. Looking, in my opinion like a date for the tag, rather than for the headline. Rich Farmbrough, 14:04 29 September 2007 (GMT).

I think the date looks more professional at the end of the last line, or pushed all the way to the right of the top line. Also would someone replace the date on refimprove, it looks like Splash, accidently removed it diff when trying to move it. Jeepday (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)