Template talk:Ernest Hemingway

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles

Poetry

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles

Books

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. For guidelines on this template's usage, see its documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Categories in the template

I've taken the category Category:Books by Ernest Hemingway out of the template, though kept Category:Works by Ernest Hemingway in its place. I'm not sure if it should actually be included in the template at all - e.g. it produces silly results if placed on the page for EH himself, since he's not a work by EH (in the sense intended by the category at any rate ;) ) Dsp13 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Color

It's not set in stone - the color can change, develop consensus - I think it needs a change. See the templates on:El Greco, William Blake, Vincent van Gogh and Surrealism to name a few...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist. I prefer this version with a sort of a khaki color but am happy with about any color but the baby blue. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That version is where you threw out all the fixes for properly structuring the navbox per WP:HLIST. I no reason at all to deviate from the normal colour, which is more of a light lavender than 'baby blue'.. Alarbus (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That 'baby-poop-brown' fails colour contrast analysis (you need an add-on to invoke it). See WP:COLOUR. Alarbus (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The color is changing, get used to it...Modernist (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you'll break my kneecaps? Alarbus (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Develop consensus its against you...Modernist (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that Truthkeeper88 WP:CANVASSed you to "gain consensus". Alarbus (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, she asked me a question and you seem like a Troll - [1]...Modernist (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2011

{{wikify}}. Should be Internet troll for your attack. You see that I had a lot to do with getting WP:HLIST implemented? Alarbus (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. I've fixed like a thousand templates. I also remove that colour you stuck in there as it, too, fails WP:COLOUR. Alarbus (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alabus - have a look at the edits to Ernest Hemingway that both Modernist and I have made. Have a look at my page and his. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned this falls squarely into incivility. You haven't tried to explain why it has to be baby blue, you haven't tried to engage in discussion - you've launched directly into insults. Can you please link to the color contrast analysis and give range of colors from which to choose. You've reverted three times now. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I look? I'll assume you've made useful edits, there. I did see that you've both run roughshod over the good edits, that I've done to this tempalte. *I* wasn't the one who called another a troll, BTW. I"ve pointed at the appropriate guidelines, and you two are acting like you WP:OWN this template. Alarbus (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look. Anyway, thanks for your useful edits. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did look, a little. I've no doubt you two have done good work here. But I touch your sense of 'pretty colour' and a shit-storm of abuse lands on me. I'm a developer, I do accessibility a lot. Pretty colours are usually inappropriate as they are a disservice to some readers and amount to whims. Alarbus (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Editors need to express their opinions concerning the color of the template, someone wants change and someone doesn't:

Support changing it...Modernist (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLLS are evil; I see no reason to deviate from the normal colour scheme of the site. Alarbus (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tan color you have chosen, E1A95F, does not meet even the basic "WCAG 2 AA Compliant" guideline, much less the best-practices "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" guideline, and thus will be difficult or impossible for people to read if they have contrast issues or colour blindness issues. In case you do not know, the colour to test it against is 0645AD, the basic unclicked link colour. The standard colours have been tested on a wide variety of computers and on a lot of major browsers for compliance with the contrast and colour guidelines. I am strongly in favour of using the standard colours for this template and all other templates. Sincerely, --Dianna (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the recommended website to use for testing colour compliance: http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html -- Dianna (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, and while I don't disagree with you concerning the color that I selected, it could definitely be improved upon, the question here is shall another color be selected for the template and I take your comment to be that you oppose the change...Modernist (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell Diannaa you are recommending a template color that can counteract contrast issues and color blindness issues, fair enough, clearly though all templates do not use the standard color...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is incredible how much work there is to do. I am afraid we will be in for a fight regarding every sports team, political party, and awards programme on the planet. What about the Simpsons? What about WP:MILHIST? It's endless. However ... "Other stuff exists" is not considered a valid argument in a content dispute. Especially when the colour fails to meet the contrast guideline. --Dianna (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dianna we don't really need a lecture about how much work there is to do. I've changed back the color and dumped the stars on my page that represent a significant amount of work. Everybody happy now?~~ Truthkeeper (talk)

Sorry, just venting a bit. I am off to the gym now, ttyl. --Dianna (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before the color needs changing and I am awaiting consensus...Modernist (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem to raise the level of awareness amongst editors about the unintended consequences of some edits. I sympathise with editors who are not aware of these problems, because it is not at all apparent that something as simple as a change of background colour can cause real difficulties for other viewers. I'm sure we can all accept that the proposed background colour #E1A95F fails WCAG 2.0 AA against a #0645AD link, and WP:ACCESS is clear: "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches the AA level." However, that is not the whole story because registered editors are free to amend any of the default colours and (like me) may have changed link colours to compensate for colour vision defects. As soon as a template receives an in-line css style (by making use of the colour parameters), I am no longer able to easily override that style in my skin.css file. Keeping to a relatively small number of (default) background colours across the encyclopedia not only makes it look more professional (in my humble opinion), but also enables some visual impairments to be compensated for. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Rexxs, if the color changes and I am involved, I will consult you and ask for your visual input...Modernist (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically the khaki we didn't like was WCAG2 AAA compliant, but I've changed to gray which is compliant according to the tool if I'm reading it correctly. Can this be checked and consensus reached? I'm fine with gray because it doesn't clash as much with the other templates on the Ernest Hemingway page, is less obtrusive than the baby blue, and matches the Ezra Pound template, so I might use the same color for other modernists. Input? Truthkeeper (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that the standard colour does not look baby blue on a Mac; it looks lavender. There are even colour differences between by Toshiba laptop (running IE9) and my Dell downstairs (running IE8). --Dianna (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Mac & have never used anything but a Mac & it's definitely baby blue. Anyway, if you don't like it, I can put it back to blue. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the gray and I would like to use it for awhile, if nobody objects I will revert to TK's last edit. I agree with Diannaa on my Mac the standard color is lavender...Modernist (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange. I have three Macs and it's baby blue on all of them. Do you use Safari or Firefox? Truthkeeper (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I almost always use Firefox, but it's also lavender on Safari - Tk - shall I change to gray, I've been away - were there any objections?...Modernist (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think people object and honestly this is a tempest in a teapot. I have no objections myself, but also well, dunno, am tired of it. So it's up to you. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done...Modernist (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Anarbus 1 more revert and you will be reported for edit warring - you have reverted the color from 2 separate editors 3 times, once more continuance of your Edit warring and you will be blocked...Modernist (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is editing all inappropriately. Weird indenting, ignoring the guidelines I've cited. ATTACKS. Alarbus (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you have not cited 'any policies, guidelines are just that, you have been in violation of wp:civil, and you are engaging in an edit war, and you mistake the 3rr warning for an attack. Read this Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird indenting came from haste, and has been immediately fixed after each edit...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who went hyper-uncivil by calling me a troll. Now you tossing out essays. Alarbus (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? After you rudely reverted three times the changes? You added a few bogus attacks, then a guideline that basically says nothing about the color being set in stone and I suggest that you read that essay about not edit warring...Modernist (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest Alarbus. Usually the person using words like troll and posting the word ATTACKS in CAPS is in a corner and onto a looser. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, please read what I just said in the section above about the tan colour not meeting the contrast guidelines, and consider reverting the template to the standard colour. The tan fails to meet our contrast guidelines. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring the attacks into this mess; Modernist did. Alarbus (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you did with your edit summary to this edit - [2] before my calling you a troll - WP:TAGTEAM, WP:ZOMBIES

Actually, I didn't, as that's not a personal attack, just an observation of how you two ganged up on me. Alarbus (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to inform you that nobody ganged up on you - as I said she just asked me a question - she brought this article to featured status (with some help from me and a few others) before you were ever on this encyclopedia and its you with this issue WP:OWN that has caused this problem, some sort of hysterical maintenance of a color, hello...Modernist (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not kidding, at all; Truthkeeper started this unpleasantness by discarding the whole conversion to the use of hlist over a colour neither of you even really like. See WP:HLIST, it's the Manual of Style. hlist is about improving the site structure, the site's accessibility, about reducing the server-load of millions of {dot} templates that limit articles in fundamental ways. Why should this template look different than others? And, yes, I means besides the fact that you have a preference. Alarbus (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I consider the comment above a personal attack, but whatever. You've won. Have fun.~~ Truthkeeper (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you reverted *everything* over a colour, which is one line (and the color:black is redundant; plain text is black by default). The discarding of the entire conversion is what led to this mess. Sure 'undo' is easy, but I gave a link to WP:HLIST, which is probably going to be mentioned in next week's Signpost. The {nowrap}, {dot} and other such templates are a big problem; they suck the life out of thes servers, limit article size, and they are no longer helpful re line wrapping because the are higher level styling ruls in place that perform this function. And this whole talk page, and mine, explode over an ornamental colour. Colouring templates is hostile to the visually impaired, and amounts to editors simply expressing a personal preference. Alarbus (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure defending the rights of the visually impaired not to have colors is a good justification for acting like this. I am pretty sure WP:EDITWAR doesn't mention an exception in those cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also [3]. Further, we now seem to have moved the argument from think of the children to think of the servers. Is there no end to the evil perpuated by the Hemmingway editors. They are killing the internet and all who sail in her. Why can't the world be a lovely fluffy bubble cocoon where everybody spends their life preoccupied about not offending the impared. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, if you could comment on the content, not the contributors, that would be awesome. --Dianna (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dianna, it would be nice for you to warn Alarbus too. He reverted 5 times, and last I knew that was a bright line offense. On this page and mine he was very aggressive, and sorry if you think that's commenting on the editor but I can recast to say his words were very aggressive - means the same thing. Why isn't anyone concerned about the reversions and aggression which in my mind is not civil. Also this is a lot of disruption over a color; twice I've been interrupted in writing to deal with this, so let's just try to achieve consensus which is the point of using this page. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Tony, there's no reason to remove red links as you've done here. In the least I think we should get consensus. As it is now, all the stories are red linked in the articles and I'll probably be filling them in fairly shortly. But overall the nice thing about redlinks is that reminds readers that we haven't covered all the essential material. There's been more than enough edit warring over this template, but pending comments, I'd like to put them back. Victoria (tk) 15:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, Redlinks are for content we expect to have. If you intend to create these articles in the short run that is fine. However, any work by Hemingway that does not have an article already, may never have one. Please consider what your intentions are. If you add red links, I expect that they will be blue in the near future or you should not add them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations section

I collapsed the adaptations section in anticipation of expanding the template by adding Hemingway's family and homes, and thought it looked fine. An editor came by and expanded it again, making for a larger template. Anyone else have any thoughts on which way to go? Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, that was too jumbled to be useful. But if you were to going to do it that way, you should have followed the usual list protocol. In any case, there has been a long discussion on the navboxes, there used to be individual ones for each work, and it was agreed to merge here. I'm wondering if the discussion might be on the deleted talk page of Template talk:The Sun Also Rises. Although, I think there was a suggestion made of maybe splitting to a separate "Adaptations of Ernest Hemingway works" template... --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ernest Hemingway/Archive 4#Templates redux, Talk:The Sun Also Rises#Proposal, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 28#Various Hemingway navboxes --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, and it's good to get these links on this talk page as well. This seems like a good template for all the data, and although a little large it is Hemingway, who tried to live larger than life. My intent was to make it a little shorter, but this works too. Randy Kryn 12:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]