User talk:Human/sandbox5/archive2

archived June 8 2008

Comments on the cdesign proposalists

Yeah? DogP 20:40, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Eye hate that purkle/mauve - always have - like the round corners - suppose they're not corners if they're round :) --  ^Contribs_Talk 20:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Wants some PICTURES. Gonna stamp my feet 'til I get some!   ^Contribs_Talk 20:48, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I did ask at talk main for color suggestions. Find something, anywhere, with a couple of good colors and I can easily work out the darker/lighter shades. As far as piccies - you mean like a Messterpeace of the Weak? human 20:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Just think picture(s) will lighten it up a bit & give casual surfers a reason to pause. Colours: I likes pale BLUES (but that's 'cause ise girly?)  ^Contribs_Talk 20:58, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Do you have any pictures in mind? I guess I can think of a few (Darwin...), maybe we can have a position or two reserved for randomly generated images? As far as blues... WP's got them, which is probably why we don't. Again, feel free to paste color swatches here so we can think about them. human 21:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

1. Any chance of defining the sections without colour panels underneath? i.e. page all white with only colour in the title panels/borders?
2. We should have Featured Article, Random Featured Article, and Featured Content. Avoid double use of work random.
3. 'Participate in Rationalwiki' should belong to the same colour theme as the 'About Rationalwiki', though perhaps a different saturation. It DEFINITELY shouldn't have the same colour as ATSP/WIGO, which should share a colour.

DogP 20:54, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi Dog... 1. I think there is some redundant crap in the coding - I see no color in the backgrounds, but my newish monitor tends to wash out pale shades. 2. The double use (non-random) is intentional for the funnie, and will disappear when Expelled is ashcanned. 3. While I broadly agree, I just went with one color for left and one for right -- for now? human 20:57, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I think I fixed #1, can you check on your screen? human 21:00, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Yup, that nailed the background colours. DogP 21:01, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Great, I'll work on #3 - I'll break that top section off from the Some Peeps & WIGO section I guess. human 21:05, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Can we reduce the quantity of included body copy from the Random Featured Article? It tends to take up a little too much space. DogP 21:03, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Really? I get both sides about the same length most of the time. But, it is easy to do over at the template thing that generates it. The tough part is it counts characters - even ones that aren't included. human 21:05, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's always longer than the E:LG section for me. Maybe just make it have the same number of chars as that? DogP 21:08, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

At the moment (chelation therapy up) both sides are exactly the same length no matter how much I squeeze the screen, If I remember right , we started @1000 chars & upped it to 2000?   ^Contribs_Talk 21:13, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

DogP, the random article tends to vary depending on its formatting and how many characters are "lost" in templates and images at the top that aren't included. The E:LG section is simply hard-coded, I copied in a couple of sentences that introduce it. That's why it's smaller. Some of the other random FAs aren't as concise in their first few sentences, and it would be a chore to either edit them all to be that way, or to build some kind of backbone template that describes them succinctly and include that instead of article characters. Susan, I thought we went back to 1000? Can't remember. Shall we try lowering it a bit? human 21:16, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, no, I'm explaining myself badly. I mean that the abstract of the article that appears in the RFA section always has more chars than the abstract of the E:LG article - I'm only referring to stuff going on in the Left side of the page. DogP 21:17, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Oops, edit conflict. OK, I get you Human. So what's the factor that determines how much of the article it takes? DogP

It's at the template template:coverstory, or should be. human 21:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Section colors

Per DogP's point above, I managed to break the "participate" section from the loonies and color it the same as the other RW stuff. human 21:48, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

What do you guys think of also breaking the WIGO link into its own tiny section, using some good ole red, white and blue for it? human 22:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I have issues with the excessive use of purple. Can we throw a little variety in? There are any number of colors we could try out. Also, how about rounding out the corners? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Colors in general

Please paste in swatches (as table cell backgrounds or small images) here for consideration. human 21:48, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

ff00ff	ff0000	00ff00	0000ff
ccccff	7777ff	0000ff

Feel free to play and save examples you like for others to see... human 22:27, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Images

Continue discussion here? I'm thinking of a small set of tasteful (!) images that get randomly inserted in two or three places? Better ideas? human 21:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Proposals:

• Darwin
• Voltaire
• Pascal?
• Fibonacci, of course!
• Galileo
• Newton
• Einstein

And some less-well known folks? human 13:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Partial work approval?

I think that the current version is actually an improvement over the actual main page. Shall we ask if we can swap it in, and then try to come up with better colors and a way to use some images as separate new revisions? human 21:50, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure! Why not! It's an ever-evolving thing anyway. DogP 22:11, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

OK, let's ask at talk main first, and give a few people a chance to see it first? I'd run with "be bold", but only three of us really had any input on this, everyone else is over at St. John's getting some assfly sprayed on them. human 22:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Re: Re: Re:

Re: coverstory length

suggestion: on some of the articles that have a lot of crap ( :)) @ the top, put an <includeonly> precis at the top. This won't show in ordinary viewing, but will on transclusion.

Re: rounded corners

you know they're square in IE? Right?

Re:Purkle

What is it with that colour?

  ^Contribs_Talk 11:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

I second Susan's complaints. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:56, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (not complaints: observations - & get to work RA!   ^Contribs_Talk 12:10, 14 April 2008 (EDT))

What rounded corners? I don't see them in Safari? 96.251.49.198 12:05, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

eggsaktly!   ^Contribs_Talk 12:10, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

re: includeonly vs noinclude, good idea. That way, we can actually pick exactly what text is transcluded. Who wants to do the work? ;)

re: Rounded corners, I suspected as much, if you look at the tag, part of it says "moz" so it probably only works in netscape, mozilla, and firefox. I'll see if there is a more global solution.

Re: Colors. You keep complaining, I keep asking for color swatches (see above, all you have to do is fill in numbers to play!). There are roughly 63,999,999 other colors, picking one other people like randomly is a lot slower than having other people actually suggest shades they think will work well for us. human 12:30, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Is there a colour swatch picker panel thingy? i.e. something that show us the number for a given colour in wiki-speak? DogP 12:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

In some places, yes. They are html colors, three double digit hex numbers (00 to FF) in a row, in the order of RGB. See the above section and play with numbers. Some or all image edit programs should provide color wheel type choosers that give you all the numbers, too. My old PSP 6 does, for example. Or, if you find a color you like in an image, crop it and paste it in below the table I made, above, and sign it saying you like it. I can get the numbers from a screen shot. human 13:58, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

re:include only → you! :-)

re:have to wait for t'others to catch up I'm afraid.

re:colours (secretly I'm not that bothered, the only time I look @ the front page is when someone decides to alter it. )

  ^Contribs_Talk 12:37, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Coverstory briefs

It does. Working on it!   ^Contribs_Talk 13:46, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't need the 1000 selection - just pull the whole document & then only transclude the required bit?   ^Contribs_Talk 13:46, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but we can't change the DPL until we've fixed all the articles, right? If you look above, the "noinclude" works when used in "raw" transclusions. human 13:54, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't "includeonly" be easier?   ^Contribs_Talk 13:58, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

... working ... !   ^Contribs_Talk 14:00, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

See above, "includeonly" actually removes the text when the article is displayed; does not affect the rest being included. Twas a misperception on my part of hwat the tag does.

My connection speed has dropped to crap - back later!   ^Contribs_Talk 14:14, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Sssh.(looks around carefully) It's only DogP who's worried. Why not leave it as it is   ^Contribs_Talk 15:49, 14 April 2008 (EDT)