Template talk:IBM/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Software Products[edit]

Should OS/2 really be here? I've heard rumours that it's been dead since way back. --Unixguy 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the OS/2 page on wikipedia, support for 0S/2 from IBM is scheduled to discontinue on 31 December 2006 and the last release was 5½ years ago... So maybe it doesn't qualify as one of IBM's active projects.
It would, however, fit quite well in some sort of "abandoned projects", "old projects" or "history"-section - David Björklund (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting[edit]

I restored IBM thematic formatting, which was removed without an appropriate rationale. If there is an issue, let's discuss first and explore whether a superior iteration can be identified. —Eustress talk 19:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

All of that extra markup is completely superfluous, and the choice of font is unreadable on a Linux system I use. In the absense of a solid reason to override the default navbox styling it shouldn't be overridden. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for providing comments. I disagree that the formatting is "completely superfluous," as thematic formatting tied to the article's subject helps to better tie it to the article, differentiate it from other templates on the page, and make article-related content more accessible. If this is an issue of OS compatibility, please determine the minimum amount of changes needed to render the template visible in Linux. I wouldn't see any reason to remove the coloring. —Eustress talk 11:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
template:navbox/doc:

Changing the default styles is not recommended

There is no systematic link between the dark slate colour chosen for the header and the company: it is not part of the official company livery, nor strongly associated with the company ("Big Blue") in popular culture. The same goes for the font: Palatino is not an official IBM font, nor one presently used by the company for its logos so far as I know. So that leaves "make it distinct", and the whole point of our spending thousands of man-hours converting navbox templates to use {{navbox}} over the last three years was to avoid having technicolour templates everywhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
As I read it, there was an overwhelming majority of editors who, like myself, appreciate some stylistic formatting (see discussion here). In the case of the IBM template, the coloring is supposed to reflect the banner color on IBM.com, and the font somewhat mirrors the hatting of the company's official typeface. If other formatting would better map onto the company, then any suggestions would be appreciated. But there is value in template stylism, and Wikipedia policy supports that. —Eustress talk 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a very interesting reading of that discussion: my own take would be that is precisely the sort of misuse on this template which provoked that debate, and that while it is better for the meta-template to be able to support styling cleanly it is still not encouraged to use it. Now that you've clarified that the styling being used is simply an approximation of the current website colours I feel even more strongly that it should go: we try not to mock things like that up here, and there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason at all for overriding the defaults. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that we disagree as to the utility of stylistic formatting in templates. Seeing as how no definitive, consensus-derived policy exists one way or another (i.e., stylistic formatting is only unofficially "discouraged" but not forbidden), I believe the formatting here is both permissible and justified. (As I said, it ties the template to the article, differentiates it from other templates on the page, and makes article-related content more accessible.) I again welcome any suggestions that would help the template achieve the objectives I've listed above, and I would encourage you to stop removing such formatting from other templates without talk-page discussion. Regards —Eustress talk 21:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've taken this to WP:3O for further input. Once again, I'm of the opinion that if the formatting truly relates to the subject then it can be useful, but where the styling is simply arbitrary (as here: neither the font nor the colour have any strong tie to the company) there is no point in them and they simply draw undue emphasis to one particular template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

3rd party Opinion[edit]

I agree with Chris Cunningham - while I don't rule out that unusual formatting could work, this particular theme seem pretty arbitrary (come on, it's IBM, if anyone ought to be bland it should be them :D) and if it's causing problems on Linux or whatever that's also problematic. My opinion is not strong enough that I have reverted to a standardised version, but I hope this input is helpful. I will remove the link from 3O but won't be offended if you want to put it back and get a 4th party! Egg Centric 21:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Concession[edit]

I still feel there are valid reasons for coloring here, but I now feel that they are not strong enough in this case to merit overriding the default settings. I hope care will be taken when considering the removal of styling on other templates. Thank you for a civil and patient exchange. —Eustress talk 18:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Thanks to you, too, for your patience and civility in this discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)