YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Template talk:Style

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 04:09, 29 September 2011 by WTjk44 (talk | contribs) (Standardizing: done)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Should we have a {{Message}} for these articles?[edit]

This discussion was originally posted on Wikitravel talk:Articles needing attention:

Should articles needing attention have a message on them asking for them to be edited? (Like the {{stub}} message, but say {{style}} instead of stub.) The only way we can find these articles at present is by looking here, instead of on the page in question. If the articles in queston had a message on them that said that they needed work then perhaps more of them might be updated and corrected, and when they were people could remove them from this page. (Or the pages would not link here.) Or am I barking up the wrong tree? -- Huttite 21:26, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

I think yes, I haven't gotten into the maintenance side of wikitravel yet, but on my own articles I usually try and get all of the information out of my head and into the articles first and then later (sometimes several days....weeks later) try and do formating. I think being able to add a style tag at the end would help to notify other people that they can feel free to work on style and spelling, grammar etc. and would help them find the articles.Aburda 07:11, 25 Jul 2005 (EDT)
I agree that articles needing attention would benefit from a message. Go for it, Huttite! --Evan 08:00, 25 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Hmmm... I didn't know this page existed until today when I was called here for a different discussion... how about that. A style tag would be pretty cool and I'd contribute one if I had a clue. -- Ilkirk 17:07, 28 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Should this be a different color or style to differenciate it from the stub? -- Ilkirk 14:45, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)

"Sections" needing MoS work?[edit]

Any objections to modifying this template's language so it refers to an "article or section" that doesn't match the MoS, as is done for the corresponding Wikipedia template? It might be helpful to be able to place it at the point in the article where there's a problem, if the article is otherwise in reasonable shape. I've done this experimentally for Calcutta, without however modifying the language. The result is not as aesthetic as one would like, but it's more informative than putting it at the top. Opinions? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:06, 22 November 2006 (EST)

I don't see why it would be an issue if the language was modified. As we say - plunge forward. Otherwise, maybe a seperate template would be acceptable, but I don't think it's necessary. -- Sapphire 21:12, 22 November 2006 (EST)
Done, then. It can always be rolled back ... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:58, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Help it grow?[edit]

I don't think "helping it grow" is the actual issue here - sometimes an article is big enough, it just doesn't follow the MoS. I'm changing it for "help it improve", feel free to change to something else if you think improve isn't quite the word. -- Ricardo (Rmx) 18:02, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Agree. — Ravikiran 23:38, 3 March 2007 (EST)

"Reason" argument?[edit]

There are currently over 200 articles that include this template, and it is often unclear why an editor added it to an article and whether the reason for the addition has been addressed. In particular, someone unfamiliar with Wikitravel style guidelines might have no idea whatsoever what needs to be fixed. Would there be any objections to adding a "reason" parameter to the template that would allow the person including the template to add a note about why it is being added? Something like "Cleanups needed in this article include: {{{0}}}" where "{{{0}}}" would be something like "removal of promotional language and updates to the article template to use standard article headings"? -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:18, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I've added an optional argument to this template to allow a reason to be provided when adding the style tag. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:59, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
Since the additional argument can cause this template to take up more vertical space I've widened it from 60% to 70% of available width - the TOC can easily get bumped by this template if it gets much wider. If anyone feels that is worse visually please revert and we can discuss. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:34, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
*BUMP* Even as someone who has been contributing for many years I often see articles with "style" tags for which I can't determine why the tag was added, so a reminder to people who use this tag to please add a sentence or two explaining why the tag was added & how to fix any problems. For example:
{{style|Listings in this section do not follow the standard Wikitravel [[Wikitravel:Listings|listing format]].}}
Thanks. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:41, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
Since this tag is still used in a huge number of articles without the "reason" argument I've added default text indicating that the article talk page should be used to discuss what is wrong with the article, although I'd still be hugely in favor of making sure that this tag is never used without providing a pointer to what needs to be fixed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:27, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
Not a bad idea. I think it would look nicer if we get rid of the line break. What do you think? texugo 08:16, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
Sounds reasonable. It might also make sense to shorten the intro text (and thus shrink the box slightly) by changing the first paragraph to just "This article or section does not match our manual of style or needs other editing. Please help it improve!" - the "plunge forward" link and especially the "articles needing attention" link seem unnecessary given the purpose of the tag. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:04, 5 May 2011 (EDT)


I added the broom icon from Wikipedia to this template as an eye-catching way of indicating what the template is for. These sorts of icons grab attention, as opposed to having people just gloss over text, and using the same icon as Wikipedia should hopefully make it clear to people who are familiar with that site what the box is there for. However, in the past people have occasionally spoken out against changes that make Wikitravel more like Wikipedia, so suggestions for alternatives or for returning to the status quo would be welcome. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Line break[edit]

I like the broom icon there. Could we maybe get rid of the line break before "suggested fixes"? I absolutely hate the way it displays on my browser (very long line, very short line, very long line, very short line). texugo 02:54, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:43, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
Looks good, nice work. --globe-trotter 08:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
I like it better too. Could we possibly un-bold "Suggested fixes" and italicize that and the rest of the message? This would be to reduce the number of text formats jumbled together in this space, of which there are currently at least 6 (normal, normal link, italics, italics link, bold, bold italics link, etc.). I think it looks rather jumbled-y as it is now. texugo 11:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
I removed the italics entirely, which eliminates one of the formatting styles - is that acceptable? I think the bold is helpful for calling out the important part (how to fix the issue) and it follows the precedent set by Wikipedia (see for example wikipedia:Apollo 11#Support crew. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:55, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
It's better without italics, but I still don't like "Suggested fixes" in bold, and don't think that is the most important thing to highlight, especially in the majority of cases where no suggestions have been given. texugo 02:45, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I actually think "suggested fixes" is the most important thing since it gives a reader specific guidance about what needs to be done to fix the issue, even when displaying the default text. Perhaps others can provide some input. -- Ryan • (talk) • 09:15, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
Be that as it may, it is still ordered as a secondary point within the short notification, and I think the whole box is short enough not to need a big black bold call for that much attention on the second line out of 2 or 3, especially when, as I said, it is most often followed by a message stating that there are no suggested fixes. Gonna insist it looks weird. texugo 09:46, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't think the bold looks weird at all. Rather it draws attention to the most important part of the notification. An all-round excellent job I think Ryan.--Burmesedays 10:05, 4 August 2011 (EDT)


It might be nice to standardize this template with some of the similar editorial notice templates such as Template:Vfd and Template:Merge. Here's the current version:

This article or section does not match our manual of style or needs other editing. Please plunge forward, give it your attention and help it improve! Suggested fixes: None specified. Please use the article's talk page to ask questions if you are not sure why this tag was added and whether it is safe to remove it.

...and here's a proposed change that uses the same style as the vfd & merge templates:

This article or section does not match our manual of style or needs other editing. Please plunge forward, give it your attention and help it improve! Suggested fixes: None specified. Please use the article's talk page to ask questions if you are not sure why this tag was added and whether it is safe to remove it.

Any thoughts or suggestions? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:39, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Yep, works for me. texugo 23:53, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Any other comments? -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:28, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
This update has been made. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:05, 29 September 2011 (EDT)