Wikipedia talk:Don't edit war over the colour of templates

This page is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Wow, looks like I missed a big crisis there :) >Radiant< 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Template standardization.

Someone forgot to read this essay...! – 81.153.158.137 21:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say[edit]

I demand we move this article to Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the color of templates. I plan to promptly move it, and revert anyone who undoes it. This type of relaxing the standards of a US based encyclopedia is wholly unacceptable. Don't you all agree? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even here in the good old US of A, "colour" is not only acceptable, but techinally correct!Mk5384 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While "Colour" may be marginally acceptable in the US, it definitely brands the writer as smug, sanctimonious and way too british. "Color" is more democratic, and additionally, since WP was created in teh USA, it should be "color". An acceptable compromise would be "Fixed wing aircraft". "Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classic example of silliness[edit]

Template:Infobox_NFLactive A huge RfC over the color of templates. They even have WP:Color guideline now! Ikip (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the discussion now found here? -- llywrch (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Color[edit]

I think there is an exception to that rule and it's strong reds (and sometimes green) when looking at a TV show's episode list if you see red you immediately associate it with something like a cancellation, delay or unreleased episode. I think that in lists that don't show something negative (ie: cellphones or software of some type) people shouldn't use strong red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.103.233 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden?[edit]

I'm so sick'n'tired of Sweden! Couldn't we have Norway instead? That would be much more funny. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't edit war over the color of templates[edit]

I think the above sentence should be added to the essay, preferably at the beginning, because many edit wars are over the use of the word color or colour. Even though there are many arguments over British and American spellings, arguments over the spelling of color are the most common, and it is somewhat related to the subject of this essay. --WikiDonn (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BEANS[edit]

This page is in clear violation of WP:BEANS, that is why I deleted it two seconds from now. Mwahahahahaha!!!!!!!! Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This page in a nutshell"[edit]

Really? Doesn't seem very nutshellish to me (even the first two paragraphs goes off topic). Just because all the other policy articles are nutshells doesn't mean we have to say this one is. I'm not saying this is too off topic, in fact, I approve of the off topic style (if it isn't off topic the title would be the whole article), but it definitely isn't a nutshell. 173.183.66.173 (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia might as well be a MUD called 'DEFEND THY SENTENCE!' subtitle: 'DEFEND IT UNQUESTIONINGLY AND UNCRITICALLY WITH YOUR LIFE!'[edit]

I came across an excellent statement encapsulating the message of this essay, by the user tehloki at the web site MetaFilter:

“

Wikipedia might as well be a MUD called "DEFEND THY SENTENCE!" subtitle: "DEFEND IT UNQUESTIONINGLY AND UNCRITICALLY WITH YOUR LIFE!"

”

Couldn't figure out how to fit it into the essay though maybe it would be a good nutshell statement. Actually, y'know what, I'm going to be bold and change the nutshell statement to this. Suwaliyattas (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Example of nitpicking over the color of a template, and a comment on this essay[edit]

Here is a good example of someone nitpicking over the color of a template - of an editnotice template of all things, that is only seen when someone clicks to edit a page:

Nitpicking over the color of an editnotice

So I certainly understand why this essay is necessary. However, if I can offer a little constructive criticism, the introduction rambles and drags out, it is totally WP:TLDR. Yeah, we get that there are other things which are more important than the color of a template, so land your plane. Get on with telling people not to edit war over it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red or blue[edit]

Using red or blue backgrounds may make it hard to see links to non-existent (in case of red) or existent (in case of blue) pages. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is referred to in the final paragraph:

There's one caveat: colour contrast is of particular importance to people with poor vision, including those who are colourblind. Please preserve the accessibility of Wikipedia, per the colour guideline.

Belbury (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]