Template talk:Roc Nation
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Colors
[edit]Here is one of the tools that is accepted by Wikipedia for determining if color schemes are compliant with WP:ACCESS: http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html Dennis Brown (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- additionally, we standardize template colors for a class of templates. I have reverted to the standard,and I will consider any non-standard colors used here as disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Latest reversion
[edit]- To be clear, you can never have red text on black background. Ever. Use the tool above to demonstrate this. This is because the contrast is about 1/2 of what is required. Additionally, the template should be the same as templates for other similar companies, they can't be individualized with corporate colors for that company or team, as that is promotional in nature, that is the point DGG was making. The fact that other articles have colors isn't proof that he is wrong about the policy, it is proof that we need people to go in and remove the colors, but there is only so much time in a day. Please note that this also applies to infoboxes, which are a problem with the other articles as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I see where your coming from Dennis Brown but surely a white background for title and bottom of the template with three letters in the color Red and the word website is not too much according to the color check website you gave me and compared to my previous revisions?, or is it again too much in your oppinion?, if so I would revert it back all to the standard color. Just to let you know, I do believe this edit I have just done is not too much. MarkMysoe (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- You can always try it. No one, including DGG, will take offense for trying it since you are discussing it on the talk page and not just trying to force it. I will say this, DGG (who is an admin, I'm just an editor) as well as other admins are not keen on the idea of color coordinating according to company logos because it looks spammy. Like I said before, content and consistency are the goal here, cool factor isn't. My biggest concern was the WP:ACCESS (I literally had to struggle a bit to read the original and I have 20/20 vision), and even spam to a degree. You wouldn't see template or bios on a print encyclopedia being color coordinated to the corporate colors. The info box is a little different (in my opinion), and a little color there doesn't bother me so much, although the article's infoboxes are currently out of WP:ACCESS because of the red on black/black on red which fail the contrast test. I think the issue DGG will have with color in the template is that all templates of a given class (all teams, or all corporations, or all bands, etc.) should look the same, with the same general format and color scheme. This isn't my field of expertise, which is why I asked DGG. He and I have been on opposite sides of discussions many times, but I completely trust his judgement on policy issues. Of course, you can always get the opinion of another admin, or go to WP:3RD if you disagree, that is what it is there for. I wouldn't take offense because although we had a rough start, you have been acting in good faith and discussing each time there is a reversion. My first priority is 'what is best for Wikipedia', and I think it is yours as well, so getting other opinions is never a bad idea. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- The template as you have edited looks ok to me, I don't think it is too promotional in tone. I can't speak for anyone else though. I would recommend looking at the info boxes for the two articles and doing something similar to fix the contrast issues. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thats alright Dennis Brown, I have re-edited the color schemes in the infoboxes of the two other articles, Roc Nation albums discography and Roc Nation singles discography to improve on viewability as you suggested that I do. So whenever you have the time to take a quick look at them to see if it does not cause difficulty in viewing, then let me know. Thanks. MarkMysoe (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- The template as you have edited looks ok to me, I don't think it is too promotional in tone. I can't speak for anyone else though. I would recommend looking at the info boxes for the two articles and doing something similar to fix the contrast issues. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- You can always try it. No one, including DGG, will take offense for trying it since you are discussing it on the talk page and not just trying to force it. I will say this, DGG (who is an admin, I'm just an editor) as well as other admins are not keen on the idea of color coordinating according to company logos because it looks spammy. Like I said before, content and consistency are the goal here, cool factor isn't. My biggest concern was the WP:ACCESS (I literally had to struggle a bit to read the original and I have 20/20 vision), and even spam to a degree. You wouldn't see template or bios on a print encyclopedia being color coordinated to the corporate colors. The info box is a little different (in my opinion), and a little color there doesn't bother me so much, although the article's infoboxes are currently out of WP:ACCESS because of the red on black/black on red which fail the contrast test. I think the issue DGG will have with color in the template is that all templates of a given class (all teams, or all corporations, or all bands, etc.) should look the same, with the same general format and color scheme. This isn't my field of expertise, which is why I asked DGG. He and I have been on opposite sides of discussions many times, but I completely trust his judgement on policy issues. Of course, you can always get the opinion of another admin, or go to WP:3RD if you disagree, that is what it is there for. I wouldn't take offense because although we had a rough start, you have been acting in good faith and discussing each time there is a reversion. My first priority is 'what is best for Wikipedia', and I think it is yours as well, so getting other opinions is never a bad idea. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I see where your coming from Dennis Brown but surely a white background for title and bottom of the template with three letters in the color Red and the word website is not too much according to the color check website you gave me and compared to my previous revisions?, or is it again too much in your oppinion?, if so I would revert it back all to the standard color. Just to let you know, I do believe this edit I have just done is not too much. MarkMysoe (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- While I can read it, the black text on red back is out of compliance, strictly speaking. The whole block is kinda confusing to me (nothing to do with colors, just a personal observation from an outside view). Do other similar articles use that same layout/format? Dennis Brown (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well Dennis Brown, I have sorted out the black foreground on red background in the infoboxes of the two articles, Roc Nation albums discography and Roc Nation singles discography, so it is now a white foreground on a red background. This should be alot brighter when now viewed by anyone. As to whether any other discography articles have the same or similar infobox layout/format, I really would not know because Wikipedia is a really big online encyclopedia and tens of thousands of new articles are created everyday. The discographies for individual artists have multiple colors in the infoboxes for each section in the particular discography, but in separate discographies such as singles discography, albums discography and videographies, as I mentioned before, I honestly don't know as their are many articles and discographies on Wikipedia, and many more new articles and discographies created everyday. MarkMysoe (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Special formatting
[edit]So I want to bring this issue again. Why does this company have such a huge template with dummy items, and in particular, special formatting? I don't see any other company having templates with colors related to their brand identity. This template looks like blatant advertising. There's no need to have these colors (which also look ugly) and border styles, since this is just another company listed and should be given no special treatment. (Wikipedia:NAV) --Lprd2007 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Reply by MarkMysoe, please read the discussions above carefully, this discussion has been closed since 13:34, 5 November 2011, because the final decision was that the colors on the Roc Nation template were not deemed as promotional. If you seriously personally think that the coloring on the Roc Nation template is promotional, then see for similar templates which have more coloring but are also not deemed as promotional on Wikipedia, Template:Miami Heat, Template:New Jersey Nets and Template:Manchester United F.C. just to name a few of a dozen using these same format throughout Wikipedia. MarkMysoe (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- LOL I'm so damn glad someone (Plastikspork) put some sense into this! I haven't checked the page since March. Lprd2007 (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)