Forum:CT Archive/Why the New Boring Templates?

I don't quite understand why there has been a shift to new "boring" templates. Previously, many templates contained a picture and a pithy quote that was related to Star Wars. For example, Template:Noncanon used to have a picture of Kreia and her quote "This one walks a different path" followed by a brief explanation about it being noncannon.



Now however, there's just a picture of an exclamation mark and it goes straight to explaining the situation.



Personally, I really prefer the pictures and quotes. I find them to be part of what gives Wookieepedia its character and its charm. But at any rate, I was wondering if there is a reason for this shift in template style. To further the confusion, about half the templates use the plain style and half use the picture and text style. It really ought to be uniform. For example, on Jedi Exile, we've got right next to each other, one plain, one with quotes and text. It looks weird that way.

So I guess I've got two questions. Why the switch to the plain style and which style should all the templates have? Again, my vote is for restoring all of the "picture and quote" templates.Thunderforge 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) The code could, admittedly, be cleaned up, but this could suit things a bit better. Other possible changes include shrinking the width, or even leaving off the header and making the message in normal-size font.-- Goodwood  ( Alliance Intelligence ) 00:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's because Imp hates fun. Take it up with him. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One admin/BC cannot simply change styles that he does not like. It should have been voted on, and I request that we start one either here or in a CT. --  Riffsyphon  1024 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason for the change is that the "quote and picture" templates that were changed are permanent, that is, they will always stay on the pages in question. Thus, it was necessary to make them less intrusive and space-demanding. I also happen to think they look far better this way. If you want to make Wookieepedia less user-friendly and more "fun," go ahead and start a consensus track to change the templates back. --Imperialles 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with Imp on this one. That and they do look more sleek and professional. Now if only we could do something about the rounded edges and the fact that they have no borders...-- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|25px]] (Talk) 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's . . . a tiny bit smaller. And the picture is a tiny bit smaller with fewer colors. I don't think we're gaining that much here, and I'd rather just have the fun, consistent-with-the-other-templates old ones back. That, or actually make enough of a difference in the thing that arguing it's less intrusive actually makes sense. Havac 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that more an more the term "unprofessional" is being thrown around to mean things like "I think this is childish, therefore it should go." It seems that all the joy in Wookieepedia is being eaten up these days. I'd fully support the return to pithy-comment-style templates. In any case, there should be a CT diciding this one. Havac is correct: either way, they need to be uniform. Din&#39;s Fire 997 07:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting childish in any such way. That's why I described them as sleek. This really isn't that big of a deal to me so even if Imps way doesn't work out, then it's whatever. Though I still forward the motion of sharping out the corners and adding a 1 pixel border. -- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|25px]] (Talk) 07:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There probably could have been more discussion, but I'll give up some of the personality in exchange for not seeing Jango Fett taking up a big chunk of real estate and saying "Master Who?" on every third page.... &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree with Silly Dan on this one. Although these quotes are nice to have in terms of layout and 'fun', as some said, it can get pretty annoying to see "Master who?" all the time.  Stake black   msg 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't like fun here, you know that. :-P Just kidding. KEJ 18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I liked the old templates better. However not all of said templates made sense.  Why not change them to make sense and be fun at the same time?  ~Roger Roger~  Home of the B1s 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with the change, particularly with the shrunken state of the conjectural tag (Jango Fett was getting annoying), but they could possibly be redesigned to be a bit smaller, too. This could be done by making the font slightly smaller...and the rounded edges do seem to make it a bit bigger overall.-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 00:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible replacement:
 * I don't know, the letters on that template look almost incomphrensible without vastly increasing text size on my browser. Unit 8311 14:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to register my agreement that whatever the ultimate outcome here, it should have been at least discussed before being implemented. I also want to register my disagreement with everybody who hated the "Master Who?" template. (Since it keeps being used as an example). Yes, it REALLY drew your attention, but of all templates, the one for totally conjecture name OUGHT to draw your attention so you KNOW we don't have something official to call it. And I won't lose sleep over it, but I generally lean toward the "fun" templates. Wildyoda 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally favored "fun" too, otherwise what sets us apart from other wikis? --  Riffsyphon  1024 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Our content and community? Wikis are not defined by how "fun" their templates are. --Imperialles 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was our community that decided to go with the "fun" templates in the first place. It should have been discussed with the rest of us BEFORE changing them, but whatever.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. There was no vote to change the original templates. --Imperialles 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like both "versions" of the templates but I also think this is not just about which templates we like and which templates we don't like. I think it should also be about "what we want to be," do we want to be a "fun" wiki or a professionally looking one. What really matters is that our templates "do what they are meant to do," if they are meant to tell you the title of a page is non-canon then it should do that in way that both draws your attention to the fact that the page is non-canon and in a way that is not annoying. I'd like to think that we are both a professional and a "fun" wiki, therefore some of our templates should be fun and others (the ones that are on a lot of articles) should look more professional, if possible more professional in a fun way. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fun and professional is what they were. I call for a vote now. By the community here, rather than moving this all to a new CT page, to straighten this whole mess out now.

For "Fun" Quote Templates

 * 1)  Riffsyphon  1024 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Din&#39;s Fire 997 06:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my comment above, "Fun" but professional. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Against "Fun" Quote Templates

 * 1) Yeah, I know. I am a fascist. Sorry guys. Carlitos Moff 06:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Changing back to the amateurish old style would be a step back for the site. --Imperialles 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In between

 * 1) Right now, the templates which are meant to stay on an article permanently, like Conjecture, Nickname, etc., are fairly dry. Temporary templates, like Delete, Verify, Cleanup, are a bit more "fun."  I'm satisfied with that. Otherwise, I'd be happy with drab informational templates across the board: the fun here is supposed to come more from article content than article formatting anyway. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)