Template talk:U

From PathfinderWiki

Discussion moved from {{Update}}

This discussion was moved from Template talk:Update. {{Update}} was deprecated in favor of {{U}} and was deleted due to disuse.

While poking around other wikis over the holidays, I saw and was impressed by Wookieepedia's {{Update}} template. What I particularly like is that you can indicate the source with further information right in the template. Any thoughts about doing something similar here? —aeakett 17:51, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I considered that when adding this one, but I also wanted to keep the template subtle and unobtrusive, since we often have a lot of templates at the tops of pages. I figured we could use the talk pages to list additional sources when adding this template to an article. —yoda8myhead 18:18, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we might change the wording of this template. "Outdated" makes it sound as if the information contained therein is no longer valid. Although that may sometimes be the case, it's more likely that a new publication expands on what has already been written, rather than making the old info obsolete. Perhaps it could be worded: "This page contains older information and needs to be updated" --brandingopportunity 13:16, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Visually unappealing

I understand the desire for the template to be eye-catching so that it doesn't go unnoticed, but based on observable editing patterns among the handful of Chroniclers we have, it doesn't seem like folks on here are actually going through articles and adding content when they come across this. Would anyone object if we made it a little less of a rad banner and more of a means of applying a category to the page (while still pointing to the discussion for info on where more canon appeared)? I really, really, really want to make the wiki look as good as possible, and this template seems to be everywhere (as does {{stub}}).—Paizo Publishing, LLC.png Yoda8myhead (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the text should still be there, but I don't think the explosive color choice is needed - I think those colors were chosen before we started using the maroon background image for the sidebar, and that makes it clash even worse -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a fine line here, and I go back and forth over it. The truth of the matter is that we'll never be able to keep up with new material coming out and eventually we're likely to see this template on most every page. On the other hand it is nice to note that we know that the article isn't totally up to date with the newest information. At the very least, the less intrusive colour is a step in the right direction I think. —Aeakett (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)