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: Attribution and notice how sections are marked. 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 Village pump (policy). Thanks. 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&lrm; 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 ✅. 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? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing ✅ to would eliminate the distortion of the surrounding text; these things are cluttering documents all over WP:FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Luna Santin (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Sandy Georgia  (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:
 * ✅ Done
 * ✅ 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.  Sandy Georgia  (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. Sandy Georgia  (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?  CO 2 16:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably, unless used on a page where a Bot looks for ✅ 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)