Template talk:DYK-Refresh

From Pindula


After removing the red uglyness from the template, I saw in the revision history that it might be intended so I reverted back. Could someone elaborate? --Dandin1 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The template is designed as a timer to notify admins when the Did you know section on the main page needs to be updated. It is a six hour timer, the period when DYK needs to be updated with a new list of articles. When the timer goes off and an update is overdue, the template becomes red. Most of those who maintain the DYK section prefer this shade of red because is better signals a sense of urgency that DYK needs to be updated immediately. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Zzyx11 is right, bright red is the color that we watch for. The uglyness is intentional. Royalbroil 04:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Way way too ugly. Find something nicer. Prodego talk 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been told to move my comments here, after commenting on it on the main page talk for today. I also think it should be made unred because I'm sure many more users than admins browse the page and it is just horrifically jaring. Black on red is also rather hard to read. So what if it spurs admins into action? They are admins they shouldn't need colours to tell them when to edit. TheGreatZorko (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The point as I understand it (not saying I agree with it) for the template in particular and for that matter the errors space in general is to alert admins to problems to fix. Therefore it doesn't matter so much whether users find it ugly. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd bet that the admin:editor ratio on WP:ERRORS is one of the highest on the site. Furthermore, WP:ERRORS isn't really meant to attract editors. It's specifically *for* admins. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, also I was going to add that it's worth remembering that the talk page isn't really a place for ordinary readers. It's a place for editors to discuss or be made aware of problems and issues in making the article (or in this case the portal that is the main page) a better place. Therefore unlike with an article (or a portal) where the reader should always come first, with a talk page this isn't really necessary. Also it's worth bearing in mind that the colour alerts normal editors too even if they can't do anything directly. In my case, despite being a fairly frequent visitor to the main page and main page talk page and being actively involved in ITN discussions I wasn't even aware of the 6 hourly schedule for DYK until fairly recently (before the template went red though). And to be honest I probably still wouldn't notice or care were it not for the template which means I do usually notice. Although I don't actually usually bother to alert admins when I see it red I would suspect there are some editors who are bothered enough that they alert admins on IRC (or whatever). So to some extent the template also tells normal editors 'there's a problem here, get an admin to fix it' Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried implementing a green/yellow/red scheme both to delay the appearance of the 'ugly' red and insert a 'may update' period between the 0-5 hour 'do not update' period and the eventual red 'update immediately' line. I used a muted green so that it shouldn't jump out until you hit the 6+ hour point. Thoughts? --CBD 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite sure I understand, because there really shouldn't be updates before the 6-hour mark, so that the hooks get exposure. I'd say maybe yellow from 6-7 hours, and red thereafter, or something like that. Personally, I just like what it was before, no colors or the regular formatting, and then red after 6 hours. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
It just seemed odd to go directly from 'do not update yet' to that screaming red which always sends people running to WP:AN/I to report that DYK was critically overdue. I put the yellow in for hours 6-8, but it can easily be adjusted to any timeframe if people think it makes sense to retain as an indicator that 'the template now CAN be updated but it is not yet critical to do so'. Since the change it seems like the update has been made during the 'yellow' period each time. The color for hours 0-5 could also be changed back to the tan color rather than green if people prefer that... was just going with a green/yellow/red progression for symbolism. --CBD 18:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, could the red at least be toned down a notch or twelve? It is rather blinding and hard to read. A darker shade of red would work nicely. - Koweja (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about making the links colored white (or yellow) when the background is red? --Howard the Duck 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to template

I made a change to this template yesterday, which was reverted. It was actually a series of quite minor changes which I made in the /sandbox, although I guess there combined result might have seemed like a major change :) Basically, no functionality was lost (if it was, then that was not intentional). This is a summary:

  1. Use of {{mbox}} to make the display of the box consistent with other message boxes in the same namespace. (The current style is only appropriate on talk pages, which is not where most transclusions occur.)
  2. Change of wording from "time since last update" to "last updated: xxx ago"
  3. Use of the template {{time ago}} which, for times less than 2 hours, will display in minutes rather than hours. This avoids the less useful message "Time since last update: 0 hours."
  4. Removed some bold type and compacted the box to three lines. I think it looks more attractive than the current version.
  5. Various other code simplifications which did not affect the display or functionality.

Perhaps you could tell me what your concerns are? The edit summary used when User:Shubinator reverted said "the most useful parts of the template (time since last update and background color) don't work correctly with this revision)", and I don't think this is true — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Most importantly, these changes were not discussed at WT:DYK (and there still doesn't appear to be a thread there). Even a DYK regular would hesitate at making these changes without at least dropping a note.
Regarding the two specific problems, the background color didn't work. It was white all the time. The template's most useful feature (especially when the bot is not running) is the color so users can see at a glance if an update is due. Also, it said there were "144 minutes" since the last update when I saw it (should be in hours).
The main point, though, is that you should start a discussion at WT:DYK before making major changes. Shubinator (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I must say that I think you are wrong on all counts:
  1. The border color did work. When the elapsed time is less than 6, it will use the default color for the namespace it is in. So that is white on a project page, light brown on a talk page. When the time is higher it will use yellow and red as before. I've put some examples on the /testcases page for you to look at.
  2. Minutes are used for times up to 2 hours, and then hours are used. (I really can't see how you could have seen 144 minutes - I've tested it again just now. Maybe it was 44 or 104 you saw?)
  3. You might like to read WP:BOLD again. For non-controversial changes, there is no need to discuss them before making them. If anyone disagrees (as you did) then we start the WP:BRD cycle. But reverting just because something wasn't discussed beforehand is not valid, in my opinion!
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I thought the color would be tan, like it is now, when everything's fine. I don't have a screenshot of what I saw, but it was definitely over 60 minutes. I didn't revert simply because it wasn't discussed, I reverted because I also saw issues, and because this could affect many people. Shubinator (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It is tan (when it's on a talk page - see Talk:Main page). And yes, times 60 < x < 120 are shown in minutes. I'm reinstating for now, feel free to tweak it or whatever. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)