WikiProject Musical Instruments	(Rated Template-Class)	Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WPMusInstmusical instruments articles
Music portal v • d • e This template is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This template has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

---

Template documentation is found at Template:WPMusInst/doc

Contents 1 talkheader overkill 2 Discussion requests 2.1 Future enhancements 3 Edit Warring

[edit] talkheader overkill

"This template should be used only when needed. Do not add this template to every talk page. In particular, it should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages." -- Template:Talkheader ¦ Reisio 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Ouch. OK - I didn't know that - I'll pull it now. Thanks. - NDCompuGeek 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion requests

[edit] Future enhancements

What about some additional parameters on the template that I have seen on other templates, and seems to be useful (some of them):

• Peer Review - a simple "Y"es or "N"o (default [blank] is no)
• Immediate Attention - a flag to let the project members know that some issue with the article/page is urgently requiring help. There's a list of things that could be put here - that's another discussion matter....
• Comments - a link going to the "/comments" subpage of the article/page, to allow the reviewer to comment on why the article deserves the review it got. This page could also be used for just about any comments specifically about the ratings only (quality and importance) of the article, not the article itself (kind of contrary to what a talk page is).
• Signature - a field that would document who did the assessing to make it easier to question the reviewer to improve the article. Could be linked in with the comments page though....
• √ Nested - to have multiple project headers "nested" in one large outer box
• Collapsible - option to shrink the project box
• √ Auto-stub-class - for automatic assessment of stub classes

Please, PLEASE participate and comment so we can advance on this, and in doing so improve the project! - NDCompuGeek 21:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring

I'm not going to get into an edit war with User:Bdesham about the Times font on the banner template. The reason the font is there in the first place is to set the project apart - to bring your attention to the name of the project. The MoS chapter he linked to was referring to articlespace, so it (at best) only referentially applies to this instance. This user (an administrator even, so you think he'd know better) is not even a part of our project, but he feels he knows what is best in this case. Whatever....

Sorry about the tactless and slightly angry vent. I took the time to think about it for a day so I didn't put my foot too far in my mouth, and this is my minimized reaction. I would really like some input from the project members (and honoured guests, of course) about what the consensus is about this.

I guess the question is this: do we keep the font different to bring attention to our project (and in doing so, hopefully get more users interested in our project to help us out), or do we lose part of our uniqueness and become just another bland project? - NDCompuGeek 04:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My first thought was that the font didn't matter, but the Manual of Style gives some pretty good reasons for not specifying a font.[1] On the other hand, I don't think it can be that important, because I see a lot of signatures that specify fonts.

I really appreciate all the work you've done on this wikiproject's organization-- it's amazing really! But I don't think a different font will attract people to the project--either they're going to be interested in instruments, or they won't. So how about we just keep it the standard font? --Fang Aili ^talk 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)