Forum:Banned from chat template

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Banned from chat template

Banned from chat template

The current Banned from chat needs to be superseded in my opinion.

For starters, it looks unprofessional to me. Wikipedia may have no use for colourful templates, but we are not Wikipedia and require a certain amount of aesthetics. A user with this template posted on their talk page may not take notice, as it is easily missable and by all account, doesn't look like an official wiki template. The wording is also specific to Wikipedia:

"You may contact an admin to remove your ban"

— Template:Bannedfromchat

Wikia implemented the chat moderator user right to administrate the chat, a banned user seeing this might think that only administrators alone can unban users from chat, ignoring the chat moderator with the powers to do.

I propose we supersede Template:Bannedfromchat with something along the lines of User:JPanzerj/Sandbox. This is immediately more noticeable and looks more professional and official. It also allows the banner to add their signature into the template.

I also propose we amend Project:Chat to have a list of chat moderators, so users can see who are the current moderators without going through Special:ListUsers.

Apologies for any lack of clarity, I have just woken up.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 08:11, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the list of moderators, but I'm a bit iffy on the actual template. One thing that comes to mind is that the current template has you sign, which means the user knows which mod or admin banned them. There's also the problem of several bans, which could spam up the talk page, especially for connection problems. I'm indifferent to the decision made for this, but these are my points in this. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 17:25, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

If you had looked at the example I gave at the template, there is a place where you sign

Other then the fact that lag bans could in theory be removed from talk pages once over, since they aren't a hostile ban and it would not be deleting a discussion or perhaps a slim variant for lagbans could be produced. Thank your for your comments Shad.

Example {{Banned|spamming the chat with inappropriate images|five days|~~~~}}

User:JPanzerj/Sandbox

I understand you can put the signature in that template. That's my point. The signature is all you need for the admin/mod problem. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 21:12, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused at why there's a problem with the user knowing who banned them?

User:JPanzerj/Signature 17:28, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I figure it's time I threw my hat in the ring. I must say, I like the template (did you base it off the one on the CoD wiki? It looks similar, from what I've seen during the times when I've explored the CoD wiki). And as for the problem of clogging up the talkpage, not a problem either, as coincidentally, I myself was working on a simpler template for connection issue bans, which can be found here (the corresponding documentation is here). Also, I don't know if this is the proper place to propose this idea, but I think there should be a rule added to the chat rules (added to the chat page when that list of moderators is added) that connection bans should not be dealt with by kickbans, but rather, placing a banned from chat flag on the user's user rights page.

Also, Panz, I was thinking that, in addition to the chat mods, we should include the admins, since sometimes it's admins that ban users from chat, rather than chat mods. Also, is it ok if I amend your new banned from chat template to use the full wiki name? I figure for something official like that, our full name should be used. One more thing: should your proposed template be used with subst:, like our current one is (supposed to be), or will transclusion be fine? -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 21:22, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable to me Jonny, and yes, I did base it off the CoD Wiki template which has served without any issues with regards to clutter and whatnot. That lagban policy is used on several wikis and doesn't clog up the logs, so I'd certainly support it. In my opinion, transclusion is fine, since there is absolutely no reason to use substition on this sort of template. Full wiki name would seem more professional.

Thank you for your support, Jonny.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 12:08, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

The current plain text template is just fine as is. The new one you propose is over-engineered and cluttered in my opinion. Keep in mind it's a "Talk page" Not a "Post images and art" page. Most people, including me, don't want their talk page cluttered up with images that other people post on it and such. There's a principle of good design that an image should not be used if it doesn't add anything useful to the content. And in this case, I'd have to say it doesn't add anything useful. EquZephyr 22:00, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no need for a bing pink balloon spanning 400 pixels to tell someone they are banned, for how long, and when can they ask for their ban to be removed. –Throwawaytv 10:37, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I like this redesign because it makes the template look "official" (with the wiki logo) and it also simply looks nice. It's more friendly looking than the bland and short-lipped template we have now that although it does its job, could do with some refinement. Right here is that refinement.      23:10, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

That's clutter. Visually:

• Header inside a border. This should never happen.
• Different background color. This should be avoided. Good uses include infoboxes, index galleries, and other elements that are distinct from the rest of the page. Elements that are not distinct (a message on a talk page) should not have their own background color.
• Comment inside border. This should be avoided. Good uses include badges and awards. Bad uses include regular discussion. Ban messages are regular discussion, not badges or awards.

Conceptually: slapping a big fat ban message on a user's talk page. –Throwawaytv 11:20, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Why should any of that be avoided? 'Because Wikipedia doesn't do it' is not a valid reason.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 12:08, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Because it is not normal for a message to user (admin`s post in this case) to start not with a heading but with a border. It is a decent Wikia and Wikipedia practice to put a heading before the message. Teyandee (Talk) 14:19, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Wikia is not Wikipedia and what is common practice on Wikia doesn't make it bad. Each wiki is left to create it's own policies and standards of what is normal. Galleries are normal here, but on let's say the Fallout wiki. Not normal isn't bad. Can you give a reason that is not "uncommon policy" or "not normal"?

User:JPanzerj/Signature 15:00, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not something is considered "decent" is irrelevant. We should be able to do something if it's good regardless of whether or not it is "decent" by these Wikia standards that may or may not exist. And the heading does go before the message, the border surrounds the heading so it combines the heading and message into one module.      15:19, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well, there should never be something that looks good to mean something that is bad. It just puts a big "Look what I did" on their talk page, which could be bad for users of good faith, and good for "feeding the trolls". Not everything needs to be intricate and big. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 17:17, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the whole new design for the ban from chat template so I'm supporting it. - -KingLazy93 06:34, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Use subst:

I would like to remind the people who gave out these bans that you must use the subst: keyword for the template to be used properly. –Throwawaytv 10:41, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Why? The permanent copying of a template such as this is not required. Transclusion is perfectly acceptable for a banned from chat template and doing this is another unnecessary step moderators and administrators have to take.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 12:08, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I've never used subst: with it and it works properly for me. Subst: should only be used for templates which change regularly but do not need to change on the page it is used on.      14:07, March 22, 2012 (UTC)