Template talk:Output?

Make this look less severe

We recently had some confusion over the meaning of this template. I think it partly comes from the fact that it's a gigantic red box. It makes it look like it's saying the code is incorrect (even though we have {{incorrect}} for that). Maybe we could change the color of the box to gray? The wording may need to be reworked too. Maybe it should say something like "This code example shows the desired output when run, but the output is not shown on this page. Please run the code, copy the output, and paste it with the example."? --Mwn3d 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see what you are getting at and changing to a less severe colour seems good, but even when I try and explain what is being requested I usually end up with a lot of text. I find it hard to be both explicit and short on this particular task. (But others might do better). :-)
--Paddy3118 16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried out some new stuff in {{Output?/Beta}}. See if it's OK. There may be a problem with using "lightgray" in some browsers. I can't remember if that color name was supported everywhere. --Mwn3d 17:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I also use the template when the code to generate missing output might also be missing, so your current alternate text needs a tweak. --Paddy3118 17:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried again. It's getting kind of bulky again. I wish I could think of a more concise way to put it. --Mwn3d 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I just gave it a go too. Feel free to revert the change if you don't like it. --Arm 15:58 16/08/2011 (GMT-3)

Don't do this

Please, please, don't make showing output normative. I have noticed a trend towards this on RC, and I dislike it. In particular, the "beta" version of this template says "It is good practice to show the output of a program whenever there is output.". I disagree that this is good practice.

In particular, I consider it useless clutter to show output per-program on tasks where the output is specified so precisely as to be identical across all correct programs — the output need only be shown once, in the task description.

In other cases, I wish that it be left up to the discretion of the task, and there not be a RC-wide policy of including output. —Kevin Reid 21:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be the norm for RC either, but I do think it has advantages in catching wrong implementations especially where the task goal is to give short, precise output such as in Range extraction amongst others, where, with the best will in the world, it can be difficult to see that last t to be crossed in ones implementation. --Paddy3118 21:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)