This template is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement 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.
[[Systems of measurement]] vs [[Systems of measurement|Systems]] of [[measurement]]
Do we gain anything by squeezing this extra link in? Maybe. Is it worth the cost? What cost? Well, the second one links from Systems. Note that the Systems of measurement article is the origin of this template and as such covers the exact topic in detail. Measurement can be reached via Systems of measurement. I just wonder whether plain old [[Systems of measurement]] won't do a better job than [[Systems of measurement|Systems]] of [[measurement]] in terms of providing a navigational aid. JIMptalk·cont 08:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Martinvl, has added History of the metric system, undoubtedly in good faith. However, this article is not about the system per se but its history. Were we to carry on in this direction the template may be quite crowded with various aspects of various systems, of measurement in general, of this and of that. Do we need this link? We can still get there via the Metric system article. I propose to revert this addition. JIMptalk·cont 06:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It was added back. I suppose there is some merit to having this here but there must be a better place than in a list of various metric systems (SI, cgs, etc.). The best place I could think of was right under the main "metric system" link so I put it there. The same goes for the introduction article. JIMptalk·cont 01:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It is unnecessary, as is all his other stuff he keeps adding there. It is already linked to from inside the metric system article. EzEdit (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
EzEdit's revocation involves three articles, each of which should be discussed under their own merits:
Anyone interested in any of those will click metric system, then there they will find those links and more. We don't need this index template cluttered with links to every damned article loosely related to the metric system. If you do do that, you'll need to provide links to every damned article about every other measurement system too - TO KEEP IT BALANCED. EzEdit (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
A number of points:
There is no need to shout.
There is no need to use bad language.
In order to redress EzEdit's comments about other systems, I have broken the section on Customary systems into two - current systems and historic systems. Martinvl (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I see no shouting and I see no bad language. I see word emphasis and a strong belief that these changes are unnecessary and create an unbalanced POV. See how all the articles relating to the metric system were placed all together the top left hand box, the prime-location box, whilst anything to do with customary/English units was obfuscated and hidden in amongst all the obscure and historical crap in the lower right side boxes. Customary is the second most common system so needs similar treatment to the metric system. Let's KEEP IT BALANCED please. EzEdit (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. You boldly made some changes. I reverted them. It is time to discusss. Reinstating you changes prior to any discussion will only result in a WP:3RR block. Martinvl (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just reverted your bold and devious attempt to introduce un-discussed changes. EzEdit (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring. You have made no attempt to look at my original comments. You have made no attempt to comment on my subsequent re-organisation (splitting customary units in current use from those that are no longer in use). You have made no constructive comments other than in your view things are unbalanced - a view that I do not share with you. As far as I am concerned previous consensus was that all the articles should be catalogued. Martinvl (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong, I'm reverting your changes; not you mine! You added unjustified links to your article without agreement here. All I've done is restored the original state of the article. I had made not additions or subtractions of content. If anyone is warring, it is you! The links you keep adding are not required, this is a list of top-level articles on unit systems, it doesn't need links to all your articles, which are, no doubt, already linked to from the main SI article. Please stop your game. EzEdit (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverted again as no discussion took place. EzEdit (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just protected the article for three days one month due to the edit warring. Please discuss the issue here to try to come to a consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I meant to protect it for a month, but I will unprotect early if a consensus develops. I protected a different article for three days a minute later and pasted the same comment onto both talk pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
My attention has been drawn to this discussion and I note that there has been an edit war going on. It appears to be about what should and should not be in the template. As someone who has not been involved in this dispute, I hope I can bring a fresh perspective to it.
The headings Conventional and Current are not immediately clear. I think it would be preferable to refer to Ancient Systems,Historic Systems. and Current systems. I think that Mesures usuelles would be classed as historic, perhaps in a section about historic metric systems. I think the Apocatheries' System is largely if not completely historic by now.
I think it would be a good idea to provide a link in the template to introduction to the metric system. and the historic versions of the metric system should be classed separately in the template, as they are of historic interest rather than immediate practical use.
As the template is blocked, I think it would be a good idea for all interested editors to exchange views on how it could be improved. There is a lot of common ground between the two versions that have been in contention. Let us see if we can get the best features of both of them and produce a common version that everyone can find acceptable. Michael Glass (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The first thing that needs to be agreed is which articles should be included in the template. We then need to agree how they should be classified. My suggested list is the list given in the version of the article that EzEdit reverted. I am quite happy to adjust the classifications. Martinvl (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be difficult to begin negotiating on the most contentious areas. I think it might be better to begin by looking at areas where we are more likely to find common ground. Then we could look at areas that are more contentious.Michael Glass (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Michael. I've worked with Martinvl before in this area; he certainly knows much more about the minutiae than I do. I think the only point of contention here is whether or not to include the following:
I believe all of the other articles are common to both version. My preference would be to include this. As to the classifications, the language used in previous versions may reflect terms of art, but I'll defer to Martin's expertise here. Garamond Lethet c 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Garamond, I, too, am happy to work with Martin and you. As I write I have the two versions displayed side by side. I'd like to make the following points.
On balance, Martin's version is better, because it lists the historic systems separately.
I think that the history of the metric system, MKS, MTS and CGS, and even mesures usuelles could be listed in a section entitled "Metric systems - historic" - if that is accurate.
I would group the SI, Introduction and Outline in a section entitled International System of Units (SI).
The left hand column should be reserved for headings, as in the version that is locked down at the moment. However, the number of headings could be increased to list the historic versions separately, perhaps like this:
International system of units (SI)
Metric systems (historic)
Other conventional units
Customary units (current)
Customary units (historic)
Other systems and unit types
I think the left hand column should be reserved for headings (though hot-linking them is a good idea).
This, of course, is not set in stone. There may be better ways of arranging things. Michael Glass (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Michael: "Natural Units" doesn't mean anything to me in isolation; when the category is populated it may be obvious. And I'd like there to be at least three articles in each category—I think we have enough SI articles, but I'm not sure. Would you mind creating a mockup, either as a subpage (can we do that?), here in the talk page, or in your sandbox? Thanks! Garamond Lethet c 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Garamond, I'm not really sure what "Natural units" refers to, either, but it included a list of things and was common to both versions. I'm not very comfortable with manipulati tables and because the template is locked down at the moment i can't get at the table in the template. However, this will change on 22 October, and maybe we can do something then. Michael Glass (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Garamond, Michael
Natural systems of units are units of measure used in certain branches of theoretical physics including relativity, nuclear physics and electro-magnetic theory. For purposes of this discussion they warrant their own group.
I have reproduced the last version that I had as an aide memoire.
In other words, all the entries that I had in my last version are retained, but slightly reordered? I am quite happy with that. Martinvl (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. That looks right for the categories. Just a question. Is the Apocatheries' System still current? Is the Burmese system only historic? I think there will be a few questions like this to sort out. Michael Glass (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The Apothecaries system might still be current in the US. I believe that there is a move in the US pharmaceutical industry to move over to SI, but I don't know whether or not SI is mandatory. I think that you are right about the Burmese system - parts of it are still in use, though recent announcements from their government suggest that they might be moving over to SI in the near future. If and when that happens, we can always move that item into the historic category once the program is complete.
If there are any other questions, I am sure they can be resolved quite easily. Martinvl (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This template is basically an indexing system for systems of measurement, so I agree that the left column should contain only headings.
My view on the headings is that the major current systems: SI, US customary and UK imperial need to be given similar prominence in the table, as they are what people will be looking for. Currently, SI has a whole row, while the US and UK systems are buried under unfamiliar terms in a list of largely unused systems. The headings should be something like:
Natural Units and Conventional Systems could go in "Other", or add two more sections to give:
As neither ""Imperial and US customary measurement systems" or "Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems" are specifically systems of measurement, I would leave them out entirely.
Troy could go in Other, or if we keep Conventional Systems, then in there.
When planning a table such as this, we try to get an equal number of items on each row. It might be appropriate at this stage to examine the proposed layouts that we each propose. Here is mine (with Michael's influence):
The actual naming of the rows and the row ordering can be fine-tuned once the contents of each row has been agreed.
Once EzEdit has reproduced the template as he prefers it, we can identify areas of commonality and areas where we differ. Martinvl (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
My suggested row titles are listed in my previous post. The contents of each row would by systems of measure articles that fit the row title. That is articles for which this substitution would work: "<article title> is a <row title> system of measurement".
I don't think the template should be used as a vehicle to promote each and every article related to the SI metric system, which is just another measurement system in the context of this template. EzEdit (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Since you have not answered my questions fully, it might be easiest if you created template to show exactly what you have in mind. As I said before, once you have actually put your version together, it will make it much easier to identify areas where there are differences. Putting a template together will help you to make sure that you have thought of everything and will help us to nail down the differences of opinion. Since there are a number of templates around you should be able to put one together quite quickly. Also it should take less time than arguing why you don't want to do so. Martinvl (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi EzEdit. Just some feedback here: making the US and UK their own taxons seems a little strange, esp. since so many of the topics are common to both. There's also the confusion implied by the US and "other" having "customary" measurement systems but the UK having an "imperial", implying that imperial isn't customary?
I generally like to give positive feedback, and I do appreciate you being willing to enter the discussion. I'm just not understanding what problem your proposal is trying to solve, and so far as I'm able to understand it, it creates a couple of additional problems. Garamond Lethet c 00:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Garamond Lethe, some background as you arrived late to this. I'm reasonably happy with the template as it currently stands, and I have recently stopped Martinvl unilaterally trying to change it, without proper discussion, to promote 3 of his own articles by putting them into the top left cell, along with the header for the "Metric System" row. He first tried like this, then latterly like this. And this is why it was locked.
But if we are now going to redesign the table now, then I do have a view as to how it should look. The idea of it, I believe, is to make navigation around the "Systems of measurement" easier. The left column contains the categories and the right column the articles. As far as I'm aware, there are 3 main general purpose measurement systems in global use (but I could be wrong): SI, US customary and UK imperial. Although the US and UK may be similar, and seem to have come from the same pre-US-independence system, they have evolved separately in the last 200+ years, and have been under different jurisdictions. The UK system had been in use in most of the British Empire too, unlike the US system. The rest are either more niche, legacy, historical, ancient or other as I see it.
With that in mind, I have revised my proposal slightly to reflect that as follows (please forgive that it is pure text rather than fancy tables):
Current general purpose systems: SI, US customary, UK imperial
Other current systems: Apothecaries, Avoirdupois, Troy, Astronomical, Electrical, Temperature
On the basis of this, the five articles that you omitted could all be included in a category "Background to current systems"
I would also be reluctant to have such a large "Historic section" and would suggest breaking it up into three sections "Historic systems - metric", "Historic systems - European" and "Historic systems - Asian". The three are roughly the same size.
I would also suggested dropping the Canadian system of measurement from the template - it redirects to Imperial units.
Yes, I selected articles which represented unique measurement systems. What's the difference between the SI and the Metric System - is one current and one historic? Those articles you list as missing are missing because they are not about measurement systems as such; 4 of them are supplementary to the SI/Metric System articles and the other is a comparison of the US and UK systems. All of those will be satisfactorily linked from sub-sections within their respective articles, so I don't believe they need entries in this template. I already omitted Canadian. I also omitted "Natural units", but by mistake. I agree that the history section would benefit from a split, and accept your proposal for that. So now we have:
Current general purpose systems: SI/Metric, US customary, UK imperial
Other current systems: Apothecaries, Avoirdupois, Troy, Astronomical, Electrical, Temperature
Historic systems - Asian: Burmese, Chinese, Hindu, Hong Kong, Japanese, Ottoman, Taiwanese, Vietnamese
Ancient systems: Arabic, Biblical and Talmudic Egyptian, Greek, Indian, Mesopotamian, Pegu, Persian, Roman
Other: Humorous, N-body, Modulor, Unusual
That seems to cover your concern too about the lists - SI/metric, US and UK are all covered. "Units of measurement" would, as you suggest, make a good title and place "Arbitrary unit" in whichever category you think it best fits (I don't know). EzEdit (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
We had an edit conflict - I savced my work and am presenting it here]. I have put together a mock-up of the above proposal (line items not in any particular order). I have been able to collect all the entries together and also ensure that on reasonably wide screen, no rows wrap.
Uncanny, we're on the same wavelength now I think! The only problem I have is the "Current systems (background)" row, I still think those articles are misfits, and don't belong in this template. As background, they will all have links from the main articles. This should just be a top-level index into the main systems. I'd be happy to put that table, less that one row, into the article now. EzEdit (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The difference between metric system and SI is that the article Metric system covers the philosophy of the metric system in detail looking at both SI and cgs units, while the article SI concentrates on the practicalities of SI as it is today. Why don't you have a look at the two articles? Metric system has Good Article status and SI is currently a candidate for GA status.
AS you said, uncanny - I have met you half-way, so why don't you meet me half-way? Martinvl (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
We have both compromised, reviewed our thoughts, and independently now got massive commonality. I'd say let's stick with the 90% overlap and present it as a joint proposal, and see if the other interested parties will support it. EzEdit (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer to get rid of the parentheses. Perhaps this? The spacing can use some fine tuning that I'll attend to if folks like this. Garamond Lethet c 02:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Per offline discussion with Martinvl, I'll withdraw this an support the compromise version. I think that means we've reached a consensus. Garamond Lethet c 14:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I prefer Martinvl's draft, but without the row titled "Current systems (background)", for the reasons I give above. Without that row, I'd be happy for that version to be actioned. Until we reach consensus here I've reverted Martinvl's premature implementation of his preferred version - let's not go down that road again. EzEdit (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You have already agreed to the row "Current systems (background)", why this change of mind?Martinvl (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Where? I agreed to the 90% overlap: that is the table without the background row, as I commented above. EzEdit (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I reads that as the 90% where we had agreed, the 5% that I wanted and the 5%that you wanted. Martinvl (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Think of a Venn diagram, my set is 90% the size of your set, but wholly contained within it. This is the 90% overlap:
When I said "half-way" I meant that all your preferred features be included and all my preferred features be included. Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
We clearly cant't agree so I am reverting it to the stage as it existed when you first created an account. At that stage there was clearly a consensus. Martinvl (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
[unindent] I would just like to put in a plug for the second last version (Garamond's?) here.
It's got more white space, which makes it look less crowded and not so busy.
The stepped arrangement draws the eye towards the structure of the diagram. This is so much easier to follow than the same thing done by the use of brackets.
The extra links to the background information is valuable because these articles contain information that the reader may need. People might well need information about the differences between the imperial and American customary measures. Although the systems are so very similar in most details, the differences can be quite puzzling. Ditto with the history of the metric system.
While it could be argued that some of the articles in this section are redundant - both an overview of and a comparison between the US and the UK systems sounds like overkill - that's a problem that should be solved by combining the two articles rather than by linking one and ignoring the other.
If there's a difference between editors on what should be included, I think we should err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. The template should always be open for additions. However, when there are redundancies, the articles themselves can be combined or even culled and then the template can be changed.
I'm really not sure what is the problem with Garamond's version. Nor do I follow the logic of arguing that a comparison between two systems of measurement is not relevant because it is not about just one system of measurement. Michael Glass (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Michael that inclusion is better than exclusion. My biggest concern with Garamond's version was that of background colours -if that can be sorted out, then I go along with that - a matter of fine tuning perhaps? AS regards redundant articles - this template is a catalogue of what exists out there, not a commentary. As such it should list all relevant articles. Perhaps the article "Introduction to the metric system" could be shown here as "Layman's guide to the metric system". Martinvl (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Garamond's layout wastes too much space, as does the row for the background articles. The template is which is quite large already and anyone interested in the background of the SI system or the US customary system can find it all, and much more, at those articles. Keep this template focussed on just the general articles of each system of measurement. EzEdit (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you quantify how much space I've wasted? On my screen they're effectively the same size. Garamond Lethet c 13:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The last row in particular takes up 3-times more height than Martinvl's one on my screen. It's because of the line-break in the title, and the right box is a huge area of white-space because it has so few entries. EzEdit (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't particularly like these colors, but it shows what can be done. Garamond Lethet c 14:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It certainly goes part way to solving the colour issue. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Specific suggestions? I can throw up a few variants, but it would be easier if I knew what you found to be most annoying. Garamond Lethet c 14:58, 25 October 2013
Just a thought about the space. If Group 4 was labelled "Other" or "Other units" the width of the first column would be reduced. This would save space. As for colour, I have no problem with the green and the lilac, but the rusty colour is harder to take. What about shades of lemon yellow instead? This would go better with the lilac. Michael Glass (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
My first reaction is that the red looks out of place? I would be tempted to move around the colour chart from new purple (the current header) to say a yellow-green as the last entry, all having an intensity of say X%. The second pair of columns could then be the same colour, but at lower intensity. Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Both are helpful suggestions. Hope to get another iteration out in 12 hours or so. Garamond Lethet c 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
To save more space we could replace the full names of the articles with
Metric System: Introduction, History, Outline
UK & US systems Overview, Detailed comparison.
This would reduce the length of the lines and could help. Michael Glass (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The "Background" row is out of place here, all those articles are linked from within the headline system articles - as they should be. They have no place here. I propose this version, keeping the layout but with Michael's idea of an abbreviated title on the last row and removing that out-of-place background row:
Thanks for taking up my ideas of layout, but I still favour the idea of including the links you omitted. I think the comparisons between the imperial and US customary systems are particularly useful. Ditto the history of the metric system and the simpler accounts of it. If we can find room for humorous units of measurement then surely we can find place for these articles. It beats me why you appear to be so dead set against them.
On other matters,
I wonder about the "Industry specific" heading. I don't think astronomy is exactly an industry. "Other" or "Other units" would be more accurate here, and shorter.
I think that we could safely consign the Apothecaries System to "history". According to this link, it was abolished in the United States in the 1970s  The fact that a few physicians still use this historic system is an oddity, but the 1970s is about 40 years ago. For further evidence of its place in history, see . Of course, pharmacists in the US still need to know about it  but that strikes me like English teachers having to know the length of the league when explaining "The Charge of the Light Brigade."
"Imperial system" should be changed to "Imperial units," as with US units.
Michael Glass, those additional suggestions seem reasonable. EzEdit, I understand that you want to remove some links, but I don't see a consensus forming for that option.
I'm wandering in the weeds of parser functions trying to find the correct way of handling repeated style variables. As we're going to have article protection for a while longer I might as well learn how to do this right. Garamond Lethet c 19:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, the the difficulty with keeping the "Background" row will be the disproportionate size it could end up with all the background articles from all the systems of measurement articles being candidates to be included in out. EzEdit (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi EzEdit, I agree that the template is to index systems of measurement. Therefore it makes sense to include information on SI as well as the simpler explanations of it. When it comes to the imperial and US customary measures, a comparison between these two closely related systems is in order. The first three of your suggestions are of historical interest, the next two are about mapping and the last one appears to have no real evidence to back up its assertions, so I wouldn't be pushing to have them included. On the other hand, if Garamond wanted to include some of them I would not object. (NB, When I said that the Apothecaries should be consigned to History I didn't mean that it should be excluded but that it should with other obsolete systems of measure.)
If you are objecting to the category of background information because it might open the floodgates for all sorts of articles to be added then the answer might be to include some or all of the articles under other headings or to work out a different name for the category, or both. It is plain that there is very little difference between the list of articles you favour and the list of articles that I think should be included. With a little bit more flexibility we might be able to agree on a common list that all might be willing to accept. Michael Glass (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
So we're moving away from it being an quick index into the various systems of measurement articles, and instead to being a list of all articles written about the metric system and some, objectively selected, other articles. I cannot understand why you do not think that just the main article of each measurement system is enough. A reader interested in the history of the metric system can find that summarised in the main article, and click through to the more detailed article from there if desired. EzEdit (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This way the user doesn't have to click through to find what is available. There comes a point of diminishing returns, of course, but and if we get up to forty or fifty links then yes, it should probably be pruned. Garamond Lethet c 20:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
How do others feel? (If I've gone too far, I'll be guided by others about puttng back some of the words.) Michael Glass (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll go with that, including even wide columns if that's possible. Let's see what the others think, and if GL could get some decent colors/colours into it. EzEdit (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for that, EzEdit. I have made a few refinements (below).
To bring the second column more nearly into line, I have changed the adjectives to nouns: Europe, Asia
In the Background section I have added a link to the main metric system article. (a different article to the one on SI linked higher up.)
I have kept the hot linking of Metric. This goes to a disambiguation page about various uses of the word.
In the UK/US section I have removed the hot linking on UK/US and put the same link under the word Overview. This is more intuitive for the reader looking for an overview of the two systems than having the hotlink under the title UK/US.
Everything else should be the same.
I hope these changes are acceptable to all, but please don't hesitate to change and refine further, if desired. Michael Glass (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The "metric" and "metric system" links were wrong, so here it is again, with them corrected. And made capitalization consistent and removed parentheses around UK and US main systems and used "Overview" for metric system overview article. That's acceptable to me still.
Yes. Those changes are better and make the template more consistent. I think it's good to remove the hotlink to the the disambiguation page, as anyone who is looking for information about systems of measurement doesn't need that distraction. I think the template draft is just about ready to go. It is certainly better than either of the versions that were in contention. The only refinements I can think of are the colour coding, as discussed, and straightening up the second column. Perhaps Garamond would like to make some input into wording and layout before we go any further. Michael Glass (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ working... Garamond Lethet c 19:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl and EzEdit: Are you two aware that you are being extremely stupid in starting an edit-war after the protection was removed to stop previous edit-warring. One would have thought you had more sense than to begin this again almost immediately after the previous protection had lapsed, and particularly whilst an issue that deeply involves one of you with accusations of edit-warring is still open at AN/I. You both this case is open, so there is no excuse. I have made a note of this in that thread, and I expect there will be some comment about it, and possibly some action. You need to note that 3rr does not always have to have happened for an edit-war to be judged to have happened. And I suggest we have none of the tedious wiki-lawyering or game-playing to wriggle out of this. Just stop it, immediately! I will impose another protection. DDStretch (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
A new edit-war started almost immediately after protection to start a previous one ended. Consequently, I have protected this template for a further 2 months one month. It could be removed, I imagine, if the danger of edit warring disappears. DDStretch (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the protection because the danger appears to have been removed by other actions, and there was some problem with it anyway. NO more edit-warring, please! DDStretch (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the revised colours. However, the first three cells of the first column are too dark. This makes the wording harder to read. I suggest keeping the general colour scheme but use the colours in the second column for the corresponding cells in the first column. I think this would remedy the problem. Michael Glass (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Any comments, criticisms or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
There has been no comment in two weeks. If there is no objection in the next 24 hours I will put the latest proposal into the text.Michael Glass (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I completely missed that you had made this improvement. Nice work! Go ahead and make the change whenever is convenient for you. (And thanks for keeping up with this; it had completely fallen off of my radar.) Garamond Lethet c 00:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I have now made the change as proposed above. Michael Glass (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I notice that the chromacoding has been removed from the template? Why?Michael Glass (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
seems contrary to wp:deviations, but could be added back if there is a real reason for it. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems that there are two issues mentioned by wp:deviations.
Regarding consistency, the chromacoded version doesn't seem to deviate significantly from the standard colour scheme. Rather than looking unprofessional, the chromacoding makes things clearer. I'd suggest that unless there are real accessibility issues, we return to the chromacoding. Jimp 08:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
If this is a vote, I would vote no additional colouring. I think it looks cleaner with the default colours. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 05:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I originally added the chromacoding at the request of Martinvl and others who were concerned about accessibility. I'm not an expert in either accessibility or design, so I can't speak from personal knowledge as to whether the accessibility issues are significant or if the alternate color scheme was helpful. Someone at the WMF might be able to speak to this. Let me see if I can find out who that person is. Garamond Lethet c 16:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)