Elemental colors

The elemental colors should be removed from the template so people aren't tempted to use them in place of the actual colors. After all, that was the reason this template was created. ~ Karuberu 19:30, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

No objections, you're the one that made the template in the first place. --User:Charitwo/Sig 19:33, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I haven't quite figured out the point of this template. 1) Both NM and Negative are the same. 2) Both Beige and Neutral are the same. 3) What was wrong with the Fire and Water templates? 4) And is this an alternative to the Fire, Water, etc. stuff, or a replacement? Should the others be deleted? If not, why not? Because red and Fire are the same thing.

The reason I'm annoyed by this is that the purpose of a Template is so that if someone wants to make a change to a format, you just have to make a change to the Template, rather than 1500 different pages. But we keep making drastic changes to the template that we still have to go back and make changes to 1500 pages. Why are you taking Fire, et al out of this template? Does it really matter? I don't want to be making changes to 1500 pages. It's easier to just add fire here than to delete from 1500 pages. That's what a template is for. --User:Mierin/Sig 14:17, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

This template was created as a general-use color template, to easily create bold colorful text without having to use HTML formatting. The elemental templates already do this, but their use is limited to certain colors, and I think they should only be used for element-related things, just in case we want to change the way elemental text is formatted some time in the future (that's what templates are for, after all). It is not meant to replace the elemental color templates, just take the casual use away from them. Here's the original discussion.

The #switch colors were put in there to make editing easier: Light Blue and Beige were in the Editing Guide and the NM, positive, negative, and neutral colors were put in there for standardization purposes (I guess they could have thier own templates if needed). ~ Karuberu 14:45, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, that only answered half my questions. NM and Negative don't need their own template. But why do we need them at all. They're just red and ... well ... red. And if we're going to have stuff in there for NM and Negative, why can't we have stuff for Fire, Water, etc.? Why do Fire and Water need to be pulled out of this template? --User:Mierin/Sig 14:56, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
(this was a conflict edit so maybe some was already addressed). I can address some of these questions. The reason there is an NM and negative entry even though they currently look the same is so that down the road if we want to change the color for one or the other we can do so. I.e. we'd be able to change the Notiorious Monster to Notiorious Monster in one swoop if we wanted. Same concept goes for positive/negative/neutral. As for not including the elemental colors as defined terms - the concept was to use fire only when actually wanting to refer to the element rather than as a proxy for red text. That way if we someday wanted to change fire to Resist Vs. Fire, we can do so. --GAHOO t/ c 14:59, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
This still doesn't address why {{Color|Fire|Red}} cannot be part of the Color Template. I understand the move from {{Fire|red}}. --User:Mierin/Sig 15:07, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
"The elemental colors should be removed from the template so people aren't tempted to use them in place of the actual colors. After all, that was the reason this template was created. ~ Karuberu 19:30, 20 July 2007 (CDT)" (quoted from above) Maybe after everyone has gotten used to using actual colors instead of elements, we can add them back to the template. Besides that, there's really no reason for them to be there while we have the elemental color templates. ~ Karuberu 15:25, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe I was being articulate. What is wrong with them being tempted to use it instead of actual colors?

I'm really annoyed that for the second time in under two weeks I've had to do massive changes to this website for coloring. Originally we had the html font. It was fine, but someone wanted a cute Template, and we changed 1500 pages to put in the Fire template. Then someone is worried about confusing Fire and Red, so we have to change all 1500 pages again. Now were worried about someone being lazy and using Fire in the color template, so I have to make changes again. I'm tired of it. If people want changes, make changes to the template, I'm not making changes to individual pages for people's whims of what is the latest and greatest template.

Just leave it in. If later on someone wants to change Fire from Red to Blue or Purple, so be it. The beauty of the switch is that you can just add tons of stuff later. If someone wants to use "grass" to mean green, they can add it to the template in the switch. If someone wants to use "sky" to mean light blue, they can add that too. Heck, if someone wanted to put in "snarflepunk" to mean turquoise, they can add that too. I'm not seeing any good justification for the removal of Fire, et al. except for the whim of an editor who is worried about people to being tempted to use the evil, demonic plan of Fire instead of Red, heaven forbid. There is absolutely nothing wrong with fire being in the switch.

And, just for the record, my annoyance here is at having to constantly change 1500 pages, not necessarily because I must have fire. Once a template is instituted, changes to the template that require changing multiple other wiki pages, should not be considered. It defeats the purpose of even having a template.
--User:Mierin/Sig 15:59, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

{{Color|Fire|text}} is only used on a few pages. I'd just remove the usage and break those pages if one of them wasn't the main page. Nix was the one that added the elemental colors to the template; I never intended for them to be in there. I decided I should discuss it instead of just removing them, but that took too long and people already started using them. Next time I'll just revert usage changes that aren't discussed and put up a discussion about them.
This template is still in its infant stage, so changes should be made now before it becomes too widespread. I don't know where you're getting the 1500 pages number from, since this is used on less than 100 pages, most of which using {{Color|NM|text}}. ~ Karuberu 16:26, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Oh so we made the change apparently... I guess I need to go change my guide but after reading all of this I am very confused on how to do this... Now... To change say my White Mage Guide by Nynaeve/Weaponry colors which happen to be Green using the Wind Template, Turquoise using the Ice Template and Black using the Dark Template. I guess I can't use the words Wind, Ice or Dark now. Will someone please explain in english how to make the change or show an example as such so I don't go phrasing anything wrong... And... can I use any color now? --User:Nynaeve/Sig 17:28, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
You can use any color now. If you want to use a named HTML color (such as red, blue, green, black, etc.) or a color from this template (such as beige or light blue), just enter it like that ({{Color|light blue|text}} = text). If you want to use a custom color, you'll have to use the hex triplet ({{Color|#abc123|text}} = text). Oh, and due to a problem that arose recently, you can only use lowercase if the color is not in the template (i.e Beige and beige both work, but red works while Red doesn't). ~ Karuberu 17:57, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I disagree with the removal of the template from the Main Page, there is no reason Fire and Water variables cannot stay in this template. It's how we've always done it, now it's with this template as opposed to their elemental counterparts. --User:Charitwo/Sig 17:41, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't want this template to replace the elemental color templates (unless that's what everyone wants). Having the colors as an option would likely do that (in time). And we haven't "always used" the elemental colors in place of colors, just look at the old food pages. ~ Karuberu 17:57, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
I meant for the main page specifically. --User:Charitwo/Sig 18:00, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
 "This template was created as a general-use color template, 
 to easily create bold colorful text without having to use HTML formatting."
I know how to use HTML editing. I'm comfortable with it. I am not comfortable with the unstable nature of templates because we seem to be changing them quite often. I know I always want the front page red and blue, that won't change. I don't need a Template that could possibly change put on there in its place. Templates were put in place as a convenience. They are no longer a convenience, but a pain. Thus the template was removed. --User:Mierin/Sig 17:48, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
That's fine. This template is optional. If you want to use HTML instead, feel free. The only time this template should be used instead of HTML is with the NM line and the food effects lines. And templates change often, it's thier nature, thier purpose. It only becomes a problem when using the template changes (like in this case). ~ Karuberu 17:57, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Furthermore, the color scheme I designed for the Main Page had the color links bolded, and it looks HORRIBLE without. Simply using plain HTML won't do this without extra hassle of adding '''Bold text'''. --User:Charitwo/Sig 18:02, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Actually, the bolded text annoyed me and I was happy to see it go. --User:Mierin/Sig 18:05, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
I won't let this go, I didn't redo the Main Page just because you are as finicky with color as I am. And I am not alone in this. --User:Charitwo/Sig 18:07, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
No, you didn't redo the Main page because you are not an Administrator. --User:Mierin/Sig 18:16, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
The history says otherwise. --User:Charitwo/Sig 18:17, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Feel free to try and convince Gahoo or Ganiman of the bold text. If they are both for it, we can put it back in. As for this template, it will not be used on the front page. Nor will I use any template when putting up new announcements. As for presuming you're an admin ... O.o ... and making major changes to the Main Page without prior authorization? .... --User:Mierin/Sig 18:20, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
This is what I was referring to from the history, As far as Gahoo, he is the one that made my changes, as for Ganiman, he told me his opinion over AIM, so you'll have to ask him directly. --User:Charitwo/Sig 18:21, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
(cur) (last)  08:19, 23 May 2007 Gahoo (Talk | contribs) (revamp courtesy of User:Charitwo) 
Another note as far as the bold, it better mirrors the announcements from SE anyway(e.g. the links to articles whether here or at POL.com), which is why I kept/defined those changes. Even the header and intro text suffers because of the lack of bold. --User:Charitwo/Sig 18:35, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Would you two mind removing your discussion about the main page from this discussion? It doesn't have much to do with this template, so it really doesn't belong here. Moving it under another header would also work. (feel free to remove this comment) ~ Karuberu 18:33, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Resolution: Gahoo and Ganiman like the template, however, they agree with me about making changes to the template that require edits on multiple other pages. Therefore, no more making changes to this template that requires me to make changes to other pages. Make the template conform, not the pages. If that means leaving Fire and Water in, leave them in. In fact, leave all the elements in. The Element template is meant specifically for elements. But the element reference in the color template is for people who want to use that color, but not the element template. In short, put all the elements back into the color template. --User:Mierin/Sig 08:38, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

My question still remains: When would you want to use the element name for a color, but not reference the element? I understand you guys are stuck on using the old ways of doing things, but it really makes no sense to use the name of an element instead of the name of the color. Seeing as how this could be a very difficult thing to reverse in the future, but a relatively simple thing to change right now, I think this should be discussed a bit more before a resolution is decided. If there's even a single situation where you would want to use an elemental color for something unrelated to an element, I'll be all for the change, otherwise there's really no point to the change. ~ Karuberu 21:55, 27 July 2007 (CDT)


I've made some improvements to the style setting for the template, making it less to type and a little cleaner-looking:

|normal = {{{3|}}}
|bold = '''{{{3|}}}'''
|italic = ''{{{3|}}}''
|bold-italic = '''''{{{3|}}}'''''

Instead of having the style variable declared (i.e. style=italic), I've put it as an optional variable between the text and the color ({{Color|color|style|text}}). Since it's optional, the basic usage of {{Color|color|text}} will still work. The only articles that will break are ones that use the old style usage, which will simply appear as the default style of bold (I didn't find any of these articles when looking). ~ Karuberu 17:46, 14 September 2007 (CDT)