This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was no consensus: templates remain as is (but see the last section for my comments.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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. -- Riffsyphon1024 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^(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'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^(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.... —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 ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 00:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Possible replacement:

This article is non-canon. This article covers a subject that has been deemed non-canon by either the author or the Star Wars licensees, and thus should not be taken as a part of the "real" Star Wars universe.

<clear> 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)

• 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? -- Riffsyphon1024 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 never said anything about a vote, because I am taking into account that most of the "fun" templates were created during the Wook's first year when there were only a few of us and we were still figuring stuff out. When someone made a funny template back when we were starting out, the community at the time then took it upon themselves to make the rest of them match. I don't recall anyone ever saying that the templates were stupid or anything, and the community (even you, Imp) seemed to enjoy bantering about ideas to Wookify the templates. You say want us to be know for our content and community...well, the fun templates WERE the results of the site's early community. If anyone felt there was a problem with them, it should have been discussed with the rest of us before changing them. That we are doing so after the fact saddens me. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 19:40, 1 February 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. Riffsyphon1024 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Why should the templates look professional? Is Wookieepedia a business? Who gets paid? What's the salary? Where's my paycheck? KEJ 09:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 For "Fun" Quote Templates 2 Against "Fun" Quote Templates 3 In between 4 Just Shrink Them 5 Comments from closing admin

For "Fun" Quote TemplatesEdit

1. Riffsyphon1024 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Din's Fire 997 06:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

   Per my comment above, "Fun" but professional. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 09:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Purely because it should have been discussed first. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
4. I don't think there can be 'too much Wookiee' in Wookieepedia (c'mon, I think the "Help me, your name here . . ." template is neat)Tocneppil 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Per my above. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
6. I prefer fun over self-inflatedness anytime. KEJ 09:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
7. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 19:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Purpilia 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Even if they stay as is can they at least have the colour variations back instead of just blue? Vetinari^{(Appointment)} 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
10. These templates help differentiate Wookiepedia from other Wikis, such as Wikipedia. I think they should stay. As for all those who think they are 'too intrusive', I can assure you that you can scroll down the page. TheFeldster 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
11. I think that the fun templates should stay. Also, something like this should definitely, definitely be discussed before any changes are made. No one user has the right to begin changing things to this degree without a consensus first being reached (I do realize that it's a little late for that this time, but please, let's do this properly in the future.) – Aidje _talk 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Against "Fun" Quote TemplatesEdit

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)
3. While I agree with Culator that changing it needed to be discussed first...I can't abide while sloppy looking templates run amok. Call them fun all you want but fun usually means a mess. --Redemption^(Talk) 02:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In betweenEdit

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. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with Silly Dan on this. Though if this doesn't fly, then I'm for putting them all back to the fun templates. - JMAS 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
3. A mix is best -- fun temporary templates with drab permanent ones (in fact, the permanent ones could use an aesthetic overhaul). But like others have said, this should not have been changed unilaterally.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 18:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
4. This is actually what I meant above, "Fun" but also professional. The {{Delete}}, {{Verify}} and {{Cleanup}} templates are the "fun ones" I like, I think the ones that look more professional now, should stay that way. Like I said in the discussion above, some of our templates (the temporary ones) should be fun and others (the ones meant to stay on an article permanently) should look more professional, if possible more professional in a "fun" way. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 19:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Agreeing with all the others. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Per Dan. Prefer the boring ones but don't mind the "fun" ones if they're not permanent. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
7. I've come to believe that while some templates should be changed to the plain style, not all permanent templates should be plain. "Master Who?" is one that should be changed, but the noncannon one should not, for example. I guess my view is that all templates should be "fun" templates unless they are both permanent and exceedingly prevalent. Thunderforge 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Per Goodwood and Dan. Unit 8311 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
9. I concur with Thunderforge. If we are now so stuffily professional that we don't want ANY fun templates, then we should also lose the search icons, change our logo, lose the background, nix Mr. and Ms. SW, etc. etc. ...That being said, however, the permanent templates that get lots and lots of use should be plain. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 12:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
   • Gonk has a big point here. Once you start with templates, where will it end and what will Wookieepedia end up looking like afterwards? -- Riffsyphon1024 07:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
10. To be quite honest, I have always found almost all of the "header templates" to be somewhat obtrusive. That said, I'm all for keeping at least some of the templates fun and colourful. I understand that it's more practical for some to be simple and to-the-point but I do like the little remarks and images with some of these templates. Perhaps it's just nostalgia for the earlier days but, this isn't a tremendously serious website and thus I would hate to see all the pretty templates become overly serious. Balance. 30px Shadowtrooper _talk 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Ditto Shadowtrooper. —Xwing328^(Talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
12. "There is a time and a place for all things."--Some wise guy. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey guys, here's an idea! We could make it so that you could choose between the two on preferences! ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's possible... --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 13:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • You must admit if it's possible, it would be a good idea. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
13. The new templates have been in place for quite a while now, with only limited complaints up to this point. Before I say anything else, I would like to note that the conduct of this argument, particularly on the highest levels of the site, has been nothing short of despicable, and I think everyone who decided to make low blows or attempted to affect the decision-making process should grow up and be constructive instead of punitive. That having been said, I am strongly against reading the same damned quip over and over again, so it is my opinion that the more prevalent templates should be of the more professional-looking type created by Imp. However, some of the rarer, and more charming, templates have grown on me, and it would be sad to see them go, as funny templates have been a trademark of the site for quite some time. On a side note, I think the {{delete}} template should change, because I am sick and tired of staring at Darth Malak's face every time I am feeling vindictive and want to delete something. Graestan^(Talk) 04:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ooooh, we could always use the "Alderaan gets blowd-up" picture for the CSD template! :-D --Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Good idea, MCA. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • What if we said that all templates would stay quote templates unless they are permanent and there are, say 500 or more articles with that template on it (I don't know what a good number is, I just pulled that out). Articles that meet those two criteria should be modified into a smaller and plain template. Alternatively, we could just take a vote over each template we want to change, but that obviously has its drawbacks too. Thunderforge 01:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
14. I would hate to see this go: "Help me Adamwankenobi, you're my only hope." :p Adamwankenobi 01:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just Shrink ThemEdit

1. I don't care one way or another how 'fun' they are... I'd just like them to go on a major diet. As it is now half the screen is taken up by these things on some articles, and it looks sloppy. - Trip 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
   • Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that that's exactly what the "in between" section is for, professionally looking permanent teplates and fun looking temporary templates that are meant to draw all of your attention so you know what's "wrong" with an article so you or someone else can fix it and the template will be removed. Also, if you want all templates to be made "smaller" and less fun, that's exactly what the "Against 'Fun' Quote Templates" section wants. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 10:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
     • You have to pardon Trip here. He just wants to be different. ;) -- Riffsyphon1024 05:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

66.153.29.27 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC) hi. im relatively new 2 wookiepedia but i think its a great site & i was drawn in by its fun & interesting templates.i dont see why imp seems 2 think that we have 2 conform 2 standards set by other wikies

Comments from closing adminEdit

This discussion had to be closed as a "no consensus" result, which results in "no changes." I would personally interpret "no changes" as "no changes from how the templates are now", where some templates have fun quotes and some, usually the more temporary ones, do. This is the same as the "in between" option I suggested, so I may be biased here. It is also clear that changes of this type would benefit from some discussion first. —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)