Template talk:Website-stub/Archive 1

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Oni Lukos in topic Image


It's hard to figure out what the image represents - took me about 15 seconds of staring. What about replacing it with a stylized icon? Or some smaller (in terms of screen size) website, so that at least something is recognizable when viewed so squashed? Also, wouldn't it be better not to display the browser chrome? After all, the template is about sites. (my discussion page) 16:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced it with this. - Kookykman|(t)(c)
Semantically not bad, but not really pretty, either. But, after all, I could go forward and fix together my own version, so I can't complain. What about rendering the WWW in some blockish/techy-lookin' font? --logixoul 18:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Another idea - take a screenshot of google.com and cut off the logo so it doesn't look too much like promotion --logixoul 18:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, this one's a little bit more tech-y. Kinda. I'm using Paint here, folks. - Kookykman|(t)e
How do you like my version? I'm using The GIMP here, folks ;) . --logixoul 13:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of logixoul's version

Yeah, uh...I don't really like it. Strikes me as too texty and blocky and not eye-candy...y...enough...we could always use the same icon as Template:Web-stub. ~ Oni Lukos ct 00:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Analysis of Oni Lukos' comment follows.

  • too texty - That's the intention. Most websites' main part is text.
  • too blocky - I guess you're referring to the rendition of "Index". I tried to simulate web design - if it were in some widely used font such as Lucida Sans, then the design part of the idea is lost. That's not to say weird web design is mandatory - what's important is that it's vastly present. If you suggest some other fairly uncommon way to write it, fine.
  • not having enough eye-candy - This, I agree with. Feel free to enhance this aspect ;) , IANAArtist.
  • we could use Template:Web-stub's icon - Let me try to follow your logic. Canada is a thing. Software is a thing. A black square is a thing. So why don't use a black square on Canada-related stub, software-related stub (and any stub, for that matter)? My best guess is that we're supposed to be specific, not arbitrarily keep different things under the same roof. Simply said, why have two templates if the difference between their purposes doesn't justify a different icon?

--logixoul 15:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Most websites' main part is text - While this is true, so are many things. It doesn't really stand out as a website. Especially with the weird-looking text for "Search". (Might I comment that Σ is pronounced [s] and Λ is pronounced [l]?)
  • I guess you're referring to the rendition of "Index" - Well, that and the search field...and the background (which does have curved edges)...
  • IANAArtist. - I am, a bit. I'm fair at SVG "Shiny" style, so I could make some graphics if need be.
  • So why don't use a black square on Canada-related stub - That's COMPLETELY unrelated a poor exaggerated analogy. I understand what you're getting at here, but websites have do do with the web, do they not?
I could make a shiny rendition of text, but I'm not sure what that'd accomplish. Perhaps and image with the text:
<!DOCTYPE html
<html xmlns="
sort of fading out on the right side? That says website to me (as a programmer/web designer)... ~ Oni Lukos ct 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • doesn't stand out as a website - seeing "Index" brings two things to my mind - a website and a dictionary (yeah, most books too, but typically this isn't the association). Seeing it in a stereotypically-geeky (?!) typeface kicks out the latter, and the Search thing with an editbox gets rid of any doubt left.
  • weird "Search" - again, the Faux Cyrillic/"Faux Greek" was intended to make it look as if designed to catch attention - most sites are. As a matter of fact, in my native language Λ is pronounced [l], so don't think you're surprising me :) .
  • blocky Index, editbox, background - At first I thought about making the editbox look like some well-known GUI's widget, but then I thought that in order to be maximally neutral, I've got to stick with simplicity, as opposed to e.g. cutting off a KDE Keramik editbox and then implicitly claiming, "Here, that's an editbox. teh mcintoh Sheot iz FAKN SX0r.!". But I could be wrong. Besides, if the background wasn't rectangular, it wouldn't have fitted in 48x48 IMHO.
  • I'm fair at SVG "Shiny" style - since that's seems to be the de facto standard for icons in Wikipedia, your work would be well received, I think. But you already knew that...
  • websites have do do with the web, do they not? - they do, but my point was different. It's painfully obvious that the analogy is not direct. But still if you don't have the same icon for a zillion categories, why have for 2? Then, if we assume that the WWW and a website are close enough to have the same icon, what about, say, a website and an optical cable? What I mean is that your approach implies that a threshold of similarity has to be applied to the decision making. And there arbitrariness comes into play... which we should avoid. Now, in one simple sentence - if the WWW and a website are sufficiently distinct to justify separate stubs, then they are sufficiently distinct to justify separate icons.
  • fading, shiny <!DOCTYPE html... - way better than my icon... in theory. First of all, you can never compress this fragment into 48x48, let alone beauty. So it goes shorter, and more recommendations-compliant:
<?xml ve
<html xm
Perhaps it'd look nice overlaid on a bright version of Template:Web-stub's icon. Secondly, this leaves out non-coders - but I guess we could ignore this, couldn't we. After all, somebody may not know that the Web comes (mostly) through wires, so Template:Web-stub's icon would say nothing to them - we can't satisfy everybody.
BTW I'm sorry for my likely next-to-incomprehensible grammar (or lack of such)... best I can do >:-/ . --logixoul 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[1] Prototype version. Managed to pack a fair amount of text in 48x48px, and the fading looks okay (although a bit awkward). Text is definitely too small to make shiny, though. This fills the pixels rather well, though, and perhaps may be enough. The font, however, is copyrighted, so I have no clue how that will work out. Then again, most fonts are copyrighted, and the one in the Wikipedia logo propably is no exception. (On a side note, your grammar is better than some native speakers of English, actually. You've made a few mistakes that a native speaker wouldn't make, but they're easily idenfiable and fixable by a native speaker.) ~ Oni Lukos ct 14:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
How's this one? --logixoul 16:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a little big (shouldn't it be 32x32?), but otherwise, it looks nice. ~ Oni Lukos ct 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)