Template talk:Immigration to the United States

Formatting

Is there disagreement over the formatting? Personally, I think we should keep the template as skinny as possible, so it doesn't overwhelm articles. I also think that left justification looks best with bulleted lists. Perhaps it's just my browser, but it looks very odd to try to center everything. -Will Beback · † · 03:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where your going on the small thing - but I kinda disagree on forcing it left...Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 03:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K - I've made the thing smaller (Mr. Beback) and I incorporated the edits of the last user who edited (Mr. McBride) with the colors that had been discussed earlier - red white blue (me)- I think this might be the best we'll agree upon...it has a bit from everyone.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 04:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that left alignment should be used for bullets. If you really want to keep a center alignment, then I would suggest just removing the bullets altogether. As for the header, people with color blindness or other visual impairments may have difficulty reading the white font. Using that light blue background without a modified font color is very common throughout Wikipedia. Just my thoughts. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not color-blind, but white text on a white background is invisible. -Will Beback · † · 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the bullets. -Will Beback · † · 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was white text on a white background? - StrangenessDaniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 04:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the background to light blue. I don't like how it looks, but at least it's legible.Will Beback · † · 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If folks don't like the change I made then please don't just put it back the same way - it doens't work on some browsers. Find a different color combination. -Will Beback · † · 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second making the width thinner and aligning it left. Currently, it's about 180px wide - here, it was 160px. Also, I don't believe it is a necessity to maintain colors of the flag in the template. After all, this is not the war for independence but the debate on immigration reform. --Yonghokim 08:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the colors are significant in that it represents the priamary nation - and it's a political debate. The flag represents the country - not its war. At the begining of the thing it was over 200 px wide - so I made it one eighty thing that would be the best compromise. The aligning it left just looks odd to me - but it might be my browser. Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I flushed it left BUT in order to prevent what I called the "metal box" feel, I made the title go right. I might be getting too involved in this template, I mean I'd like to keep an hand in it given that I was the original author, but it's starting to feel like everything I tried to do for it is being taken out and completely changed ... but hey, I guess that's a wiki. Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 16:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, welcome to Wikipedia. The colors work fine now, so far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure what a "metal box" is in this context. -Will Beback · † · 19:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't refering to the colors - yah as of now I'm fine with it.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSS

Let's use CSS and not tables. It's much, much easier to edit the contents of a DIV layer than navigating through the wikisyntax of columns and rows of a table. (Especially for newcomers). --Yonghokim 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the CSS feel is too simplistic - the tables adds color and makes the appearence up to par with what the other templates are. If newcommers don't know how to use tables than they should probably read about it - given that it's a farily big thing in Wikipedia. I personally don't think that the table styles aren't any harder than the css styles - and as stated above - the advantages are too great to ignore. Also css styles will probably make the code even longer (if we were to try to achieve close to the appearence of what it is now). However, I will post instructions on how to add links - which is probably the most important thing any 'newcommers' will do (again - if they want to change appearance - they should learn about tables - and they should probably post on the talk page)Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾ 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waitasecond! - A) You don't need to know about tables to add links, B) If you want to change the color it's essentially the same code as CSS.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾ 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Danielfolsom, please do not revert templates unless you think 1. it's NPOV or 2. it's vandalism. Please edit from the latest version. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and contributions from everyone count. --Yonghokim 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yonghokim - a) given that we've just decided on the layout (see above) - and given that this is a template (where a drastic change really effects a lot of articles, and given that it is customary to suggest major changes before enacting them - you probably should have brought it up on the talk page first. B)Please take up your issues with my on my talk page. C)Please put all of you comments (you have two sections) at the bottom of a template's talk page.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾ 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And technically had I not reverted it I would have editted it (as WP:REvert says - improve if you can) so much that it would have been simmilar to what it was before - so I just took an easy way and improved by reverting.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾ 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Why does the link to the Immigration reduction article keep getting removed? It covers the anti-illegal immigration movement. -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

Ok ip address, i can see your argument for racial profiling - I think that might be slightly NPOV. but 9/11? I'm not sure what your disputing here. That 9/11 made americans think more about terrorism ... or that national security (esp. the terrorist department) doesn't cover illegal immigration. Now first of all - the reason I didn't cite the comments was because you don't cite things in a template. But have a look at ... how about the CENTER FOR IMMIGICRATION STUDIE'S page on immigration and terrorism (you know it only took me two seconds to find that - i think you removed the link because your own knowledge wasn't adequete in this area (I'm not saying your not smart - i assume that you are, it's just (metephorically) Bill Gates probably doesn't know about sports) - which is essentially originial research. I mean honeslty this has been a pretty big deal - and in fact, there's even a section on it at Wikipedia's page, Illegal immigration to the United States page. And the first line in that section mentions 9/11 ... seriously, what's going on here? Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾ 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was the lack of a source. You've provided one.

However, the article is discussing how terrorists violate immigration law and that expands beyond 9/11 to terrorism in general. I think, given that, we should change the 9/11 listing to "terrorism". And, incidentally, don't feel bashful in pointing out where other editors appear ignorant. There's no way I can stay on top of every aspect of every issue.-198.97.67.59 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply to the guy above - i must have missed the change on my watchlist - ~~but I agree completely - I'm glad the change was made.~~(see below) I will however check if there is an absolute subsection on illegal immigration - that way the template can be more direct.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾

Ok no - linking to "terrorism" doesn't work. The word immigration isn't even mentioned. I'll find something betterDaniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾

and by the way - please, please please! remember to put the template on the page you link to (and remove the template from pages you take off)Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾

Ok - I can't find any specific article dealing with terrorism and illegal immigration. There is however, a section about terrorism in the US Illegal immigration page (the first small link in the template - under issues). But I believe that's already a link...Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾

Relevance

As per the last paragraph within the Immigration subsection, this topic does not deserve this degree of prominence as a sidebar graphic and resource table on the REAL ID Act entry. Immigration is but one of many issues with complex nuances and implications emanating from the REAL ID Act of 2005. The immigration debate deserves no more prominence than privacy issues or the value of having more secure driver's licenses and IDs. The sidebar is a great tool to summarize and collect disparate information and data, but it should be discussed whether or not it would be more appropriate to place it within the Immigration subsection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick.kowalski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Nick.kowalski 13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is this covers all aspects of immigration - and the RealID act would effect II.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾

Department of Homeland Security Logo

I believe the DHS logo works better than the North America geographic. We are referring to the United States only, correct? Also, centering the top information makes the rest of it look better, in my opinion. I changed it, but if you don't like it for some reason, please revert it and bring up why here. —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 23:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care which, if any, graphic we use. But since the seal imparts no information as is merely decorative I shrank it to 100px. -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert it (however I'd be happy to change it back after we talk a bit here) - just because I think it defin. gives the wrong idea about the template (homeland security implies terrorism now and days - immigration may be dealt with by homeland security - but I just think it gives the wrong idea). I think if there's a logo on a department of immigration like this one (foound by searching "United States Department Immigration" in Google images) - that would be even better than what we have now, however again, I'm happy to use the homeland security one if the said image can't be uploaded for some reason.daniel folsom © 11:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how that looks. However, that department has unfortunately merged into Homeland Security (I don't make the laws - it's a bad one IMHO). Placing that icon on the front would probably look good, but it would be against current affairs. —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 21:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ohhh... and there's no sub-division of the department of homeland security (which from here on out will be stated as - d'oh s) ... that's too bad.daniel folsom 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm looking on their website right now, and I can't find a department inside their Homeland Security department. Best I got is the same logo with "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services next to it. (Shown here[1]) —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - great work, really impressed with how much you researched that - amazingness. Really I'd prefer the one you linked to (a rectangle thing might actually look a bit more professional and make the template look nicer), but if your absolutely against that than I'm fine with the other one.daniel folsom 22:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. :P ) Well, the one I linked to would be good if the Federal webmasters could use photoshop a little better. Personally, I still suggest the original. It just seems to fit better into the template and doesn't violate any colors we already have etched into the plan. —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]