Forum:Deletion templates revamp

Ok, I thought I'd bring this up once again since with the upgrade we're going to be switching to vector. Mission is fugly, delete has an arbitrary size for no good reason, and it might as well look consistent with mission because the hobgoblin says so.

My mockups are at User:Nx/sandbox. I've replaced the icon with a shredder box, feel free to suggest anything else. Also any constructive criticism is welcome, but please no "Why are you ruining my wiki?", I'm tired of that shit, and I have better things to do in my life. -- Nx  / talk 11:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I like arbitrary sizes. If there's an icon, it should be a picture of a memory hole.   12:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for Nx's versions any day. The mission template has been too big for too long and we need to start getting a better and more consistent pro look to these info boxes. Now, I like the black because it stands out like a big fugly motherfucker (a good impetus to deal with the situation) but the white version is far less jarring. 12:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A redesign for Mission would be nice, as it's simply a pain to look at. delete is fine the way it is IMO. -- 14:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea though is not just whether a current design is fine or not, but consistency between templates and having a "look" to our site. As for Nx's suggestions they are nice, the black is very jarring if that is what we are going for, though I liked the lighter background more. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think mission should have a different icon to distinguish it from the delete template, but I can't think of anything appropriate. -- Nx  / talk 15:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at Nx's sandbox, I like black for the deletion template and white for the mission template. It would be a nice contrast between the two. -- 17:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I still like the delete key as an icon for delete. I don't think mission should have an icon, as the box is inevitably very big, & icons only really work well on relatively slim boxes & banners.  Alternatively, the mission template could be slimmed down by just having a link to the missions statements without repeating them in full.  & I really don't like those (i) icons; they're bland & they make the templates too cluttered.   18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The (i) icons are there to draw your attention, and to break up the wall of text. -- Nx  / talk 08:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite like Nx's versions. It seems to me like black for delete and offwhite for mission would be best to distinguish them... 18:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the black ones too. Stand out more. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Something about the black one is pretty badass. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye to the black ones for both, actually. 01:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I really like the black ones, with or without the icon. Maybe lean towards with icon, but only slightly. Really good work. 02:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If we make them both black, they'll look to similar. I like different color as a distinction. -- 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. I quite like grey for the mission template, as it is now, though maybe a bit lighter.  18:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated my sandbox, the changes are:
 * No icons - for the mission template, a logo icon would cause brain overload, there's already another brain on the left side, the site logo. So instead of the icon there's a watermark brain in the background. (Since the watermark is used to identify the mission template, the delete template doesn't have it any more). I think there should be an icon for the delete template, although it is quite recognizable without it too, thanks to its color scheme.
 * I've added back the big bold headers so the boxes can be identified without reading through the tl;dr stuff.
 * Mission should have the mission statements IMHO - anyone who knows them would be skipping the text of the template anyway.
 * Personally, I like the black mission template better. -- Nx  / talk 08:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My issue with including them is that 1) the template becomes a lot larger and 2) they're linked to anyway, and that page doesn't add much because it's the basis info that we transclude around the site. I understand the reasons for adding them, and agree, but that would make linking to them again a little superfluous. Additionally, I suppose an argument can be made that a large and intrusive template would encourage people do deal with the situation faster. I certainly wouldn't want one of those black ones hanging around on site for more than a day. 09:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If we continue to include the mission statements in the template, then rather than link to MISSION, which just repeats them, the link should be to the main RationalWiki page, which includes the missions prominently at the top but also includes other general info on the site & its content which may be relevant to those encountering this template for the first time. 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. 15:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. The black delete template and the white mission template in Nx's sandbox are absolutely perfect. -- 16:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the incumbent/drive-by notice need to appear on the actual template? It would be better placed in the template's doc file IMO, since it's a how-to-use notice aimed at the person who posts the template.   20:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you think anyone will read the documentation? -- Nx  / talk 20:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They might or might not. But template usage instructions is what we have doc pages for.  We could just delete them all & pile instructions into the templates themselves instead, but it makes them unnecessary long & ugly.  20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference?
What is the difference between deletion and a mission problem? If it's "off-mission" it goes up for deletion, and the most common reason for deletion is... "off mission". So why bother with differentiating the two any way? 13:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. In many cases, off-mission stuff gets moved to other spaces (fun, essay, user) rather than deleted.  Plus it may be the content of the article which is off-mission rather than the subject - i.e. the article can be improved to bring it within the missions rather than deleted.  Mission-tagging the article, with relevant comments on the talk page, helps in this process and should not be regarded as the same as deletion-tagging.   13:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * but that could happen with any deletion debate. User A says "delete this" and user B says "no, move it to fun." There's really no need for two templates because the motion to delete is only a start, and there are many possible endings. Real first name and last initial (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Motion to delete is just that: a motion to delete. Mission-tagging isn't necessarily a motion to delete.  19:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But a motion to delete can still end up with the article moving to another space or being rewritten, so in practice it's not a motion only to delete. because of this, is serves the function of a mission tag, making mission tags redundant. Real first name and last initial (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. If you tag something with "delete", you're expressing the view that it should be deleted.  That people may disagree & end up doing something else with it doesn't change the initial intent.  The mission template invites users to "edit the article so that it meets our mission statements" or discuss alternatives.  There's a huge difference between saying "this article has some problems; what can we do about?" and saying "this should be deleted", so users should be able to tag an article for either.  Neither template is redundant: they have distinct, though overlapping, purposes and in my experience they get about equal use.  20:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Viezel is making the Zense, you know. 05:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this done
Seriously. I really like these by Nx:

It's definitely time for a change for the mission template. A big battleship-gray block is just plain ugly. 02:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. These are much better. Тиранес, ? 02:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. 03:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess we just replace the exisitng temps then? Тиранес, ? 03:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Shredder is wrong for mission, should be RW logo, or a "missiony" icon - Alamo, perhaps? 03:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would go with the RW logo. Does "Alamo" refer to the Texas-Mexico battle? 03:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See further up this page - there's quite a lot of discussion about what to include & what not to include. If this all gets swept under the carpet in favour of keeping the prototype exactly as it is, it really makes makes the exercise of asking for feedback, criticisms & suggestions rather pointless. 07:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that never goes anywhere, this is a mobocracy and despite numerous objections, there are plenty of people expressing an interest in changing things. Indeed, this entire section is pretty positive towards changing them over. We have the above to take into consideration, but there's no need to delay doing something just for the sake of arguing the same immovable points repeatedly. 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If noone says anything before 1:30 CST I am changing the delete template to the one above. Тиранес, ? 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Half an hour is not very long to allow for responses on a wiki edited by users in various time zones around the globe, many of whom also have jobs to go & can't watch the wiki constantly.  00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say change them. Just one point on the mission one, the note
 * "It is incumbent on the editor who adds this template to an article to explain why they did so, in order to start the discussion. "Drive-by" templating without stopping to discuss is discouraged"
 * is in a sense redundant isn't it? I mean, what they would say is "This doesn't fit the mission" - which is what the template already says. How about something like
 * "It is incumbent on the editor who adds this template to an article to also insert a discussion point about the mission. "Drive-by" templating without stopping to discuss is discouraged"--BobSpring is sprung! 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this for mission, then:

20:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Better than the one we have now, but then again ANYTHING is. Тиранес, ? 20:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got to say that I prefer yours as the black is a tad heavy. Now I think about it some more I suppose it should be ...... "a discussion point about the mission on the talk page".--BobSpring is sprung! 20:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If I change the text to what you say, would you support replacement? Тиранес, ? 20:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Armondikov: I'm not against "changing things" & I don't think that anyone is, but several issues have been brought up re the look of proposed template, none of which are "immovable points". I don't like the attitude that because nothing's been done with this in several months it should now be rushed through in a few hours using what we started with & ignoring all alternative suggestions. Anyhoo, my suggestions are:
 * Colour: black is fine for "delete". "Mission" should be something else like grey or pale blue.  It's really not the same as "delete" & should look different.
 * Icon: I don't much like the shredder; still prefer a delete key. "Mission" should have something else entirely - maybe  ?  or a brain with a question mark above it.
 * Mission text: takes up too much space, especially as there are now 4 missions. Better to link to them than repeat/transclude in full.
 * Drive-by warning: this is an instruction to the template user rather than the reader, & as such I think it belongs in the /doc page rather than the template itself. I think this warning dated from before the days of doing /docs & it should now be moved there.  It makes the template look clunky, & is also kindof redundant for "mission", as Bob said.   21:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Color: I agree.
 * Icon: I prefer the warning for "mission," because it is more "serious" than something like sources needed or suchlike. disregard that
 * Text: I see no issue with transcluding the entire mission statement, and it is kind of helpful to readers or newbies.
 * Drive-by warning: Again, I agree. I think it should read something like "Please help to make it more in line with RationalWiki's mission guidelines."  22:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As Weaseloid noted above, a half an hour is not enough time to let people discuss this. However, it has been nearly 24 hours since the last suggestion was made, and I am ready to implement the changes to the "mission" template. Are there any objections. 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do it. ТиранесAn, yet ? 21:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FAFUXAKE: either do it or don't. Pages it appears on will either vanish or the notice will be removed. Either way it won't be there long. Who cares? 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Indeed. Let's go! Whatever we do will be better than what we have.  And, in this case, it really only has to be "better" it doesn't have to be "perfect".--BobSpring is sprung! 21:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)