Forum:New template design

OK, for a while now, I've been looking for a better template design as improvement templates are taking up a lot of space on articles. I therefore propose that we start to use this design User:Solar Dragon/ArticleTemplates. You can see it in action in the Sandbox. Best thing is that we can add as many templates into that as possible. Templates we don't need on an article don't show up etc. Hover over the images to see text. Only problem is that we can not add links in text, however, links can be added on the images.

If we go for this design, It will take a lot of effort to change all templates on the wiki but they will gradually be changed. So, what do you think? ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 20:25, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Support (5)

1. Looks fine now.--PSIWolf 09:48, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
2. I like the new templates. Frees up space on pages. Phinbart - just one of the huge Bart fans! 09:50, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
3. Not as space consuming as the current ones, and once you know what the images mean you don't read it again anyway.--Cook879 17:08, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
4. I like the idea, but they could stand to be a bit bigger. Even double the present size in the demo would be OK. -- Mythigator 21:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
5. Not sure why I didn't vote before. --Will k (Talk ~ Contributions) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Oppose (3)

#Some people may not directly think about hovering over the images and maybe even remove them because they think it's misplaced or something.--PSIWolf 08:53, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

1. Oppose FatHomer^Talk 12:23, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
2. To hard to understand. AleWi 06:59, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
3. Weak Oppose because I still have a few concerns: As Jake said below this will not work for any smartphone/tablet readers. Even though that's very small it's still ⅛ of our readership. Also for people who've never been here before, the templates might leave potential editors very confused because it's not what they're used to. I can also see the benefits, like more space for articles. But until these problems are sorted out I'm going to remain opposed. Doh5678 (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Comments

• I left out neutral as neutral won't help anyone in this situation. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 20:25, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
• Made a bit of a change to the template. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 09:42, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
• @FatHomer, could you explain why you oppose please? The Solar Dragon 13:30, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
• I wouldn't move my "mouse" over the pictures if i didn't knew that they meant something. Now i now, but i also comes people from the outside. Also i don't think the "conjecture" with more templates are annoying. FatHomer^Talk 09:12, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
• I don't have any problems with making them smaller, but the ones above might be too small. I mean, the templates are supposed to be more eyecatching (I'm assuming) so that a person reading the article would see them and know immediatly how the article needs to be improved, what it's missing, etc. Nick97 10:38, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Firstly, this is optimised for readers who have no interest in editing. Also, editors will see the templates and check them out if they are interested in improving the wiki as the text above them is part of the actual template. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 11:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
• One disadvantage I see to this would be that people using mobile browsers would be unable to read the descriptions because they cannot hover over the images. Now we only have a small number of mobile users (Others), but it's still something to consider. --Jake 22:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Agreed, but point taken. Also, as a suggestion, maybe make it centred? --Will k (Talk ~ Contributions) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

• 5-3 in vote for support at the moment. Should I implement the design? ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 08:37, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
  • Not fully - I think maybe a limited trail run at most, due to the various problems and disadvantages that may occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cook879 (talk • contribs)