Template talk:User PH-2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Template:User PH-2.

Wrong colours[edit]

@Thibaut120094 and Dsimic: there are 35 templates on {{User/Abilities}}, with one {{User PH-2}} not following the colour scheme of the others. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Totally agreed, and it also makes little to no sense for {{User PH-1}} and {{User PH-2}} userboxes to have the same color. That needs to be corrected for consistency. Though, Thibaut120094 just keeps reverting as it those edits were vandalisms. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say « vandalism » ? The userboxes don't follow the colour scheme because Medium69 changed the colours of the others userboxes templates without any explanation. I would really appreciate that you stop changing colors/fonts/whatever for your personal liking, you're not the only one using those templates. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Thibaut120094 would try to adopt another scheme, e.g., as in {{User/Language1}}+{{User/Language2}}, I'm not opposed to fix this smaller zoo, but of course some kind of consensus should exist to change the abilities set. Meanwhile {{User PH-3}} is also wrong, and it was certainly not my "personal" choice, as wrongly claimed in the edit history. I never used any {{User PH-*}}, maybe the current scheme (35-2) is older than my account (2011). –Be..anyone (talk)
@Thibaut120094: Well, by not providing an edit summary while reverting, the reverted edit is implicitly treated as a vandalism. Also, keeping userboxes consistent can by no means be seen as a personal preference; following that, why aren't Medium69's edits you're referring to treated in the same way? However, if you could, please, provide a reasonable explanation why {{User PH-1}} and {{User PH-2}} userboxes share the same color, while {{User PH-3}} doesn't, I'll be a happy camper. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thibaut120094: From the beginning, it was always the only one to use the same color for both levels. This is totally incoherent. If you like this color, change the box for you but not for the whole community!--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 00:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Medium69: Well it's because you changed the colours of all the others templates, no wonder the PH-* ones don't follow the colour scheme. Thibaut120094 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But anyway, there's 2 people who agree to keep Medium69 colour scheme, go ahead then, I don't care anymore. Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look in more detail before and after for each model. Before complete confusion! This person is stubborn as a mule. Can we do a vote on Commons?--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Thibaut120094 prefers the {{User/Language1}} colour scheme for consistency with language levels it's an idea, but so far all I understood is that he doesn't like PH-2 and PH-3 in the different {{User/Abilities}} scheme. I don't recall how it was before you introduced level 4 for this zoo, but it was consistent. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it's all about consistency. I'd be fine even with some ability-related userbox groups (I call them a group if only n changes in AB-n) using the same color; some userbox groups do that on English Wikipedia, for example, but it has much more groups. Though, there are simply no reasons why should some userboxes share the same color, while the remaining one in the same group doesn't. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might even make sense for userboxes in a group to share the same color between them except for the highest-level one, but that still needs to go along with the color scheme used in the whole userbox series. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]