- (Copying discussion from my talk page)
Criteria for moving templates to starter
I noticed you were a sysop on w:c:starter. Are there any specific criteria or process for getting new templates on to starter? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:27 PM PST 25 Aug 2010
- If I can butt in, I can say immediately that updating Starter with the current version of
{{Documentation}}
from here would be good, though it would require us to roll a better-suited preload template and cut a few things from the documentation.{{T}}
could also be updated. 「ダイノガイ千?!」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 08:53, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Robin put a response User_talk:Fandyllic#Starter on my talk page.
- If the a template needs to be significantly changed to make it ready for starter, I would say it isn't ready for starter.
- I will think about how to get the ball rolling on presenting candidates for starter and some process for agreeing to move them. I may have to turn on forums here. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:21 PM PST 26 Aug 2010
- Forum:Index is already setup. I will put a link under Community on the sidebar. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:24 PM PST 26 Aug 2010
- Yeah, I knew about his response there. ;)
- The template itself is ready to be copied; I could have an appropriate preload ready to go after 10-15 minutes. This would be made easier with the creation of an analog to Wikipedia's Template:Documentation subpage automatically adding the category to documentation pages (since we wouldn't need the <noinclude/> section anymore).
- The forum would be a good venue for such discussion; probably the first one we should have would concern what templates to update and how to do so. 「ダイノガイ千?!」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 03:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
OK, here it is. I suggest we list them under separate headings. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
{{Documentation}}
See intro above. That would be a major alteration! Should be discussed with the author(s) of the original if possible. On the side issue of Template:Documentation subpage, one of our template experts at Familypedia has now altered {{Documentation}}
there, which could be worth a look. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Familypedia's version has some nice features, but is overly complicated. It has a dependency on 5 other templates. Not the kind of thing for starter, in my mind. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:53 PM PST 26 Aug 2010
{{T}}
I recall seeing that one of you clever guys had made a version that doesn't need T/piece. Again, it should be run past the original authors. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this new version doesn't need T/piece and that's a good thing. The T/piece dependency was somewhat foolish in the first place. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:54 PM PST 26 Aug 2010
{{From Wikimedia}}
This update actually makes it useful for actually denoting sources, as starter wiki it fails to trull denote the free licence let alone the attribution requirements of the free license. -- Roguebfl talk contribs email 05:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Not bad, but I'd like to see some optimizations first. For example it could support a
wp=
parameter to auto-add a[[wikipedia:...]]
link and acm=
parameter to auto-add a[[commons:...]]
link based on what was passed to those parameters. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:57 PM PST 26 Aug 2010
{{Information}}
For much the same why Wikimedia uses as similar template, it helps organize File info, gives strong hints on the info Free licenses require, and will make porting images from Wikimedia Commons simpler. -- Roguebfl talk contribs email 05:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- This is one of those templates that I think is a bit too complicated for starter. I'm also not a fan of templates with very general names that actually serve a specific purpose. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:59 PM PST 26 Aug 2010
- but it lack make it more conflicted to take images from Wikimedia Commons. and while the code it self is complated, the USAGE is not. And it is named such because it replicates the usage of the same named template on Wikimedia. so chnagin it's name is NOT usefull. and it name is exactly what it does, collects and displayes the file information.-- Roguebfl talk contribs email 07:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
File:Example.jpg
Needs more info in page, while Public Domain does not require attribution it set a very good example. -- Roguebfl talk contribs email 05:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
{{Wikitemplates}}
For all the same reason you have {{Wikipedia}}
and as hint for people to come here for the templates rather than Wikipedia. -- Roguebfl talk contribs email 05:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Unnecessary. We need a better way to advertise Templates wiki. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:05 PM PST 26 Aug 2010
- Hardly unnecessary, ever template here is under CC-BY-SA, This template provides the BY requirements of the license when they copy templates from this wiki. and having this on on all new wiki's prevents on less thing that need to be ported. -- Roguebfl talk contribs email 07:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
{{Infobox}}
So the Infobox's color scheme will match the user's theme -- Roguebfl talk contribs email 05:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe. Personally I've always hated this template. Making it support the wiki's theme (not the user's) isn't much of an improvement. This is one of the hardest templates for most new users to understand, because it is really a meta-template. I'd also prefer this template not hardcode the table background color to white. It really doesn't work for dark skins.
- So, in short, my initial answer to the idea of moving this to starter in its current form is "no". -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:03 PM PST 26 Aug 2010
- it might be generic, but it lays the ground work for people making customized ones for their wikis. And you cant say no to it, IT's already there, it's just an update. And it DOES match the wiki theme. The curret one does unless your wiki uses that shade of blue. -- Roguebfl talk contribs email 07:09, August 27, 2010 (UTC)