Template talk:Done

Green check

The check was moved back to the green form, I agree with this. It should be probably discussed here first anyway as this is used a ton in FAC's. I think the green version is better. Quadzilla99 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just changed it back to green let's discuss this. Quadzilla99 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Quadzilla, the green form is more visible. Just because the banner that denotes an official policy uses a check isn't a good reason to not use a green check elsewhere. It is highly unlikely that the two will ever be confused. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy is marked with this check. It is problematic to be liberally using it as it sets up confusion for newbies. See: Wikipedia:Attribution and notice how sections are marked. (→Netscott) 21:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there have been several specific cases of confusion that can be cited I would say keep it green. Quadzilla99 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Thanks. (→Netscott) 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to making this substable?

Is there any? I just mean making it where there are no nested templates, so it can be more easily substed? - cohesion 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

This template should be semi-protected as it is used in many many places.--The Joke النكتة‎ 14:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Bah, for now there never has been any vandalism here. Let's cross our fingers :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This should be semi-protected, it can be considered a high-risk template. I will apply for it. -- Reaper X 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, its  Done. I actually got it fully protected. -- Reaper X 07:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Too large

The image on the green check mark is larger than the text font and distorts text wherever it's used: can the image size be reduced? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing {{tick}} to {{tick]10}} would eliminate the distortion of the surrounding text; these things are cluttering documents all over WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done – Luna Santin (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the template if the tick is so small it can barely be seen. We don't need to illustrate "done", it seems to me we use a large symbol so its prominent and informative. At that size people may as well use '''done''' instead. The template is used in a lot of places where requests are made of admins and bureaucrats so the outcomes are clear on a quick scan of the page - it does that in the first example but no longer really does in the second:

Y Done

Y Done

Done

I don't see what the second example achieves that the third would not. I propose the template be reverted to the larger size and where it causes display problems it be replaced with '''Done'''. WjBscribe 09:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I've made the image bigger but not quite as big as it was previously. violet/riga (t) 09:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; WJB, the point that you're making is exactly the point I've been making at WP:FAC. Rather than cluttering FACs with numerous green check marks throughout the FAC, the nominator could use half as many keystrokes to just type the word Done. This template probably serves a purpose elsewhere; the way it's being used as FAC is creating messy pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If used properly in FAC the template can be useful to both nominator and commenter. There are some places where it has been used confusingly and messily though, and I understand what you are saying. violet/riga (t) 09:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least the current size is better; thanks all for the help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the same thing need to be done for Template:Not done and Template:Doing? -- Reaper X 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Green tick as opposed to Yes check

Could we possibly use instead of Yes check, ? It looks slightly better, what does everyone else think? –sebi 07:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Too bright. Just leave it alone. Might that screw up people with colour blindness anyway? -- Reaper X 08:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does it "screw up people with colour blindness"? A slightly brighter colour won't affect any person's current or future vision impairment in any way. –sebi 09:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Subst?

Should this template be substed? CO₂ 16:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably, unless used on a page where a Bot looks for {{Done}} before archiving requests (like WP:CHU). Still its such a short template that I doubt much extra server load is caused by it not being substituted (and it is fewer characters to type). WjBscribe 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please change this template so there is a full stop after the done text, but I think its more appropriate for the full stop to not be in bold, and to be in regular text style. If this is performed, please apply this to Template:Not done. Cheers, Qst 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it always requires a full stop, and it's easily done without it being placed on the template itself - it's best left how it is. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the full stop is not a good idea, can there me added a break space after the e? It should not affect anything in a bad way, and I have seen the tempalte being used right before a letter (so the done merges with the next word without a breakspace). Nergaal (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki link to ja

Please add an interwiki link to the Japanese version of this template:

[[ja:Template:済]]

Thanks. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)