Template talk:Attention (on talk page)

Use

How come nobody uses this message?? 66.245.11.3 01:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Red and other colors

If you'd like justification for using red in the template, please refer to Wikipedia:Use color sparingly:

Use the color red only for alerts and warnings.

As the message is intended as an alert that the article may be in severe need of rewriting or correcting, or may even be misleading, capturing the reader's attention is entirely appropriate here. Please also note that it is one word, with an appearance similar to a red link in an otherwise normal article, and consider that every article is sparsely filled with single, isolated words of various colors. Indeed, lack of color is discouraged as much as its excess. --Eequor 05:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You should not be using red for anything other than links to articles that don't exist. See Template talk:Red. Also, the message should be only on the talk page, not on the articles. Angela. 14:55, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed Template:Cleanup. The colors of links definitely should not be changed. However, in this template the text is not a link. There are all sorts of ways somebody can see it isn't a link:

• no underline
• no effect on the cursor
• no status bar message
• no effect if clicked
• it isn't even the same shade of red (red vs. red)
  • this is true regardless of the skin in use

Wikipedians are bright enough to not be confused by text in a different color.

As for the proper location of the message, I have to disagree. Capturing the readers' attention makes it clear that the article is of dubious quality. Placed at the top of the article and as visible as it is, the notice encourages other users to get involved in the article's development. Talk pages have minimal significance unless there is a good reason to look at them: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. There is no reason to expect users to look at the talk pages. --Eequor 16:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please note that nobody else has complained. --Eequor 16:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template changes

I like the new design! Nice ideas. --Eequor 06:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Class, Class

Following Guanaco's addition of class "metadata" to the div as well as class "boilerplate" (what happens when a div two classes btw), I can now see this template again, when it used to be blanked out by my user css. How can I blank it out again? Pcb21| Pete 23:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Only the last class is used if there's multiple class= in a tag. The proper way to give something multiple classes is to put them together separated with space, class="class1 class2" Goplat 23:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia average?

What the hell does this mean?

"Please remove this notice and the listing on "Pages needing attention" after the article has been revised to Wikipedia average." It's part of the "attention" tag thingy thus:

Note: The above was changed after the surrounding comments were written.

Is there some dialect of English in which the bit about "Wikipedia average" makes sense? 138.37.188.109 07:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Why not go to Template:Attention and be bold? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:32, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Aha - someone has done just that and it now reads much better, thanks. Nevilley 07:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My only comment would be that a standard one person finds acceptable, another may not. Darksun 09:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Condensed version

This would be less distracting if it were one line instead of three. I suggest a condensed version:

This also avoids the confusion over what the standard should be. Angela. 02:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I've done this now since there were no objections for over two weeks. Angela. 03:57, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

"Poor quality"

I quickly looked thru several articles in this category. Not all of them of realy poor quality. The name of the template does not warrant the word "poor", so I guess people may misuse it. Also, it is quite possible that the template keeps hanging after some cleanup done. I would suggest to thiunk about renaming this template into {{quality}} and leave the word "attention" for a template with less offensive text. mikka (t) 21:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This wording is needlessly confrontational. Cleanup templates already cause much angst for new contributors. There's nothing gained by calling their articles "poor quality". I removed this text. Rhobite 04:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if it was high quality it wouldn't need the special attention. - Stoph 04:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link change

This template currently says:

This article is in need of attention.

Please improve it in any way you see fit.

but the first link goes to Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention which says:

These listings are for pages that need attention from someone familiar with the subject, sometimes referred to as an "expert".

I'm changing the link to point to Category:Pages needing attention, so that people get a list of pages needing attention, not pages needing expert attention. -- Reinyday, 9 August 2005

Change of wording proposed

I propose to replace "Please improve it in any way you see fit." to "Please help us to improve it." The words "in any way you see fit" are actually not true; we want them to make edits that are good by Wikipedia standards (NPOV etc) and not according to whatever standards they like. Also, using "us" is more warm and fuzzy. Objections? --Zero 12:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Maurreen (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• In addition, it might be helpful to new users to provide a link to one of the helpful-hints-for-editing pages, e.g. Wikipedia:How to write a great article. Radiant_>|< 14:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The change with the small text looks out of place because it does not actually shrink the box vertically, but instead just leaves empty space. - Stoph 14:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To me it looks fine but maybe this is browser-dependent (I'm using Safari). See if it looks better to you if the opening <small> is moved to before the <br>. To me it looks the same both ways. --Zero 15:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This template seems redundant

According to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, this template should be placed on articles requiring attention from "someone familiar with the subject, sometimes referred to as an expert.". But isn't that what Template:Expert is for? Is there any reason this template actually exists at all? --82.7.125.142 22:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)