Template talk:Sci-outline

Talk copied from sci-intro before deletion.

Sorry, bad idea. I vote to kill this template. Sci-outline is good enough. We already have a template that makes a box on the right saying if you want a broader, less biased view, etc, go to WP - with a link to the article title. It's template:wp, as I recall. I agree that the template can go. Locke Always Watching...... 21:45, 7 September 2007 (CDT) sci-outline is more appropriate - and can always be improved. Anyway, shall we set the timer? 24 hours from now? 48? I hate to move quickly and not let others chime in. humanbe in 21:47, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I'd say 24, that seems to be enough time to cycle through a good deal of editors, considering all of our weird schedules. Locke Always Watching...... 21:49, 7 September 2007 (CDT) Kill in 5 ... sg 19:37, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

(Edit conflict. BTW, did you mean 5 minutes? I made it just in time.) OK, I've changed the one article that I had so far that uses it (electric field) over from sci-intro to sci-outline, and I'm OK with killing this EXCEPT: I have a problem with "RW is not intended to be ... a text book for students". Of course, that's not in the template itself, but it's a statement of policy. Can we soften that, please? And I'm not crazy about the "in any way" in the actual template text. Of course it isn't a full scientific explanation, but the existing text belittles the accompanying article too much.

I believe that RW can be a resource for students. Doing right what CP does wrong should be part of our mission, and we have a number of CP refugees who are interested in working in these areas. I'm fully in agreement with using other means, at the end of the article, to point people to WP. That is, we're not a "linkwell". Gauss 19:39, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

---

Aha! Thanks for the fix, SusanG! (When I started writing this message, I didn't realize that you had already changed the template itself. When you said "5", you really meant it :-))

But I still have a problem—it's the "articles needing expansion" category. This implies that the article should someday be made into a full-blown detailed explanation of whatever it is. But I would like to create articles that have this template but have no expectation of becoming a full "professional" treatment. For example, I think it would be good to have student-or-lay-adult-level treatments of relativity, quantum mechanics, and the like. Can we take that out of this template, and have people put in the category on a case-by-case basis? Gauss 20:09, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

New design

— Outline Only —
This article is only a brief description of the subject, and is not intended to give a full explanation.
Check out the "see also" or "references" sections, or Wikipedia's article for more detail.

— Outline Only —

This article is only a brief description of the subject, and is not intended to give a full explanation.

Check out the “see also” or “references” sections, or Wikipedia's article for more detail.

I've come up with a new design for this template. I can't edit the template page, so I'll just leave it here. 46.7.249.24 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an improvement how? Scream!! (talk)

1. It replaces the ugly "1 pixel border box", common on wikis years ago [1], with an updated design using lighter colors, gradients and shadows.
2. It replaces the obsolete <big> tag with CSS. [2]
3. It increases the amount of white space used. [3]
4. It uses left aligned text instead of centered text (except for the "Outline only" heading). [4]
5. It resizes with the browser window, instead of remaining at a fixed size and overflowing the window.
6. It increases the size of the Wikipedia link. [5]
7. It uses more descriptive text for the Wikipedia link. "Wikipedia's article" vs. just "article". [6]
8. It increases the contrast for the Wikipedia link using the default colors, by using blue text on a light gray background, instead of blue text on a light blue background.

46.7.249.24 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh! Scream!! (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Retire this template

This template is the "Sci-outline"; specifically, science outline. None of our articles are meant to give the full general science version of anything, anyways! So I contend that this template is useless and should be retired. Aside from looking about as teal and homely as a urinal cake, its existence makes it look like the articles that don't have it are not just outlines. And again; none of our science articles are meant to compete with Wikipedia. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Five years late but I agree. Don’t think it’s worth afding, I’ll just delete it unless anyone objects. Christopher (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)