Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:AMB
WT:AMBOX

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Article message boxes page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 4 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Contents

[edit] Template escaped standardization

Y Done - Kelly hi! 11:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it's mistakenly categorized as an image box, but it's actually an article cleanup box. Kelly hi! 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that clearly is an article message box. I say a yellow "style" one. Feel free to fix it.
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's completely unused, and not even mentioned in the template lists: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cleanup-images. It should either be added to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Images or TfD'd. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see how it would potentially be useful...my guess is that nobody knows about it. I'll take responsibility for it, clean it up tonight, and add it to the cleanup template page. If it turns out that nobody wants it there I'll nom it for deletion. Kelly hi! 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mysterious change in appearance

Wikipedia:Words to avoid is tagged with {{pp-dispute}}, but it does not appear on the page as it is supposed to be; it has a thicker-than-normal grey border all around and no sidebar, and the lettering is smaller. In the source, the code is a simple {{pp-dispute}}, and I wonder what could be responsible for this change in appearance. Waltham, The Duke of 07:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That template, or actually {{pp-meta}}, is set up to have a different appearance in different namespaces. In articles it adopts the {{ambox}} style, on talk pages it follows the standard "coffeeroll" color scheme, and in other namespaces it looks the way you see on the page you linked to. The point is that you can use the same template on any page, and it will adapt itself to the specific visual style used in each namespace. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I kind of knew that already, but it escaped me that the page in question was in the project namespace. I'll try to be more careful in the future, but I promise nothing. :-) Anyway, thanks. Waltham, The Duke of 08:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent event icons

I saw the new clock graphic for the "needs to be updated" template, looks hot. Think we could see if we could implement icons like this on the Current events templates? ViperSnake151 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm working on standardizing all the images, I'll get to it as soon as I do. -- penubag  (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
How does this look? -- penubag  (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with the current event icon we use now? Image:Gnome globe current event.svg
--David Göthberg (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been decided that any message box which uses the Ambox template will have a consistent icon style. See above. ViperSnake151 17:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
ViperSnake151: No, I am not aware of any such decision or consensus. The previous discussions on this page were just that we made the default images for the {{ambox}} meta-template look better together.
However I have noticed that Penubag have been talking about that he now is "standardising" the other images used in article massage boxes. And from what I have seen that means he takes existing images and symbols and shrinks them and put them on top of round toned signs just like the default images. I disagree with that and as can be seen on for instance Template talk:Wikify#Image others disagree with that too. The round signs are fine when the symbol is a simple "i", "!" or "?", but for more complex symbols it just distracts and makes the symbol harder to see. I have been meaning to discuss this with Penubag but I have been very busy lately.
And regarding the globe images above: The one with the red clock was developed as a teamwork with several editors involved, since we needed a free alternative to the old WikiMedia current event logo. Since the WikiMedia logos are not under free licenses they can not be used in articles since articles get mirrored to other sites. We kept a red clock since red indicates "urgency" as in "current". And we did put the clock in a high position so it would look okay with a shadow, since we wanted to have some 3D feel.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just readjusted the new globe icon to be red and at the top like the old one. This better? ViperSnake151 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention this gallery. We got a ton of "current event" icons to choose from. I've been collecting them. If you want consistency, stick with anything that has the red clock (like in the current icon). The globe can change, but most topic-related ones have matching red clocks. Rocket000 (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Coin" images?

I have noticed Penubag's campaign of standardisation for ambox images... And I am not fully satisfied with the results so far. Taking images, painting them white, and placing them on disks works well for the "content" boxes, where the contrast is sufficient (and I must say I was delighted to see the dreadful NPOV balance go), but in the "style" boxes things are different. The contrast is simply not sharp enough. Template:Grammar, for example, had a very nice gothic A for an icon, and with this edit (which refers to this page for a rationale, which I cannot find anywhere) placed the A on a yellow disk, rendering it difficult to understand, especially in its smaller version. Surely such treatment should be reserved for cases with good contrast, both in terms of colour and of a simple enough design? Waltham, The Duke of 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole point is standardization, we are all working on imbox, ambox, and cmbox to achieve unity. True, I sort of arbitrarily decided that during this -box standardization, I would also standardize the images used by them to follow a common theme. But, I've also mentioned it several times (about 3 times) on this page, see above in New Ambox Version, and there were no objections. Being WP:BOLD I made the changes to the images without facing any opposition. If you oppose, I'd be glad to talk it out. The icon in Template:Grammar was good and sharp for the most part until it was overwritten. I'll work out the yellow in some problematic icons to fix this problem though. -- penubag  (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
How's a darker stroke around images used in the yellow circle look when scaled down appear? -- penubag  (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I still can't read that text at all. There's just not nearly enough contrast between yellow and white, even with the dark outline. --CapitalR (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Oy, I'd forgotten about this one. (Sorry.) Well... It might be an improvement over the previous version, but the contrast is still rather low. Personally, I don't think the icons should all be of exactly the same type, as long as they are presentable and follow some general lines. For instance, the previous grey A was handsome and clear-cut, and matched the style of most icons used in the various message boxes. As a matter of fact, some variation should be allowed, if only for the sake of avoiding boring repetition, as well as in order to ensure that if there are, say, two or three style amboxes stacked at the top of an article, they won't appear almost identical on first glance.
All that said, I appreciate your efforts, and such standardisation might be more acceptable in the content boxes, where the contrast is better. As I said, I really liked the new NPOV icon, and the Rewrite one isn't bad either. (Also note that I did not watch closely the discussion above, although I did have a look once in a while and did not realise that anything else than the default images was discussed. Your three comments were in a small part of the discussion, near its end.) Waltham, The Duke of 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know standardizing all icons to this "coin" template is a great idea. The role of the icon is to allow the user to quickly identify the message if he is already familiar with it, or to get an idea of what it is about if he is not. The silhouette of an image is an important visual cue, and by confining all of the images to the same silhouette you give away some of the icon's power in this role. Not that it matters anymore, but when I designed these boxes, my idea was that the icons would have an overall consistent graphic style, and the color scheme would coordinate with the color bar. I never intended for the icons to be templated, though. The {{cleanup}} template was what I had in mind as a jumping off point. – flamurai (t) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Flamurai here. It is a benefit if different icons have different silhouette. Especially when they have the same colour. And it is not necessary that the icons be yellow in the yellow boxes, they can just as well be black (or perhaps grey) since those are neutral colours in the ambox scheme.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree also. I was under the impression that Penubag merely intended to standardize the icons that already contained color-coded circles (which was my intention when I replaced the "content" icon). I didn't realize that Penubag intended to replace other icons with matching circular ones as well (which seems rather counterproductive, as it makes the tags harder to differentiate). —David Levy 00:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ambox code changes

The two new message box meta-templates {{imbox}} and {{cmbox}} for category and image message boxes are based on {{ambox}}. While we worked with them we discovered some oddities and improvements that we fixed in them. Now I would like to apply the same improvements to the ambox code.

1: I intend to add -1 pixel top and bottom margin to the CSS code for the ambox so when stacked it only gets one single line between the boxes in all web browsers. If you compare the examples in the doc for {{ambox}} and {{cmbox}} you will see that ambox gets double lines between the boxes in some browsers.

2: There are several oddities in the second switch case in the ambox code. Among other things it misbehaves if you feed an empty image parameter, like this: image =

3: I would like to remove the parameter "image=blank". That's the parameter that causes a blank area the same size as a default image. I don't think any boxes use that one anymore, but I'll check that and change any boxes that do. We should of course keep the "image=none" parameter.

Any comments before I go ahead with this?

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to wait until the {{cmbox}}/{{imbox}} deployment is winding down (both to avoid putting additional stress on the servers and to ensure that no bugs emerge)? —David Levy 20:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd keep the "image=blank" parameter around as an option, even if it's unused. The other changes sound reasonable.--Father Goose (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
David Levy: Yeah, I am in no hurry. I just wanted to bring the changes up for discussion while I was thinking of them and so people have some time to take a look.
Father Goose: Ouch, you like "image=blank"? I always disliked it and since it seems to be unused I wanted to take the chance to get rid of it. But oh well, handling that one properly when I fix the bugs in the second switch case only costs a little extra code.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that image=blank should stay; it's not in the way and is used mainly in custom boxes, not necessarely templates. — Edokter • Talk • 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, so we'll keep the "image=blank" parameter then.
I have now updated the ambox CSS code in MediaWiki:Common.css to use the -1 pixel top and bottom margin. Such a change costs nearly no server work, so it costs nearly nothing to revert if I did a mistake. Now the amboxes will look nice in "all" web browsers as far as we know.
The switch case fix needs to be done in the template code itself. So I'll probably wait until 20 May when we at the same time can change to use the CSS class "ambox-move" instead of "ambox-merge". (Due to that we added that new class name 20 April and the web browsers cache Common.css for 30 days.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have now updated the code of ambox with the planned fixes: Using the new CSS class names (deployed for 30 days now). Fixing the empty "image=" parameter bug. I also fixed another bug: The padding for the image=none case. And I did some other clean-up. I of course tested the new code in the sandbox first. The "image=blank" parameter still works.
--David Göthberg (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Per discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Metadata class in mboxes:
In the next {{ambox}} code update I intend to add the ".noprint" class. I also intend to remove the "@media print { .ambox { display: none; } }" code from MediaWiki:Common.css since that code will then be unnecessary.
--David Göthberg (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message box standardisation, all namespaces

Last summer we deployed {{ambox}} for article message boxes and some weeks ago we deployed {{imbox}} and {{cmbox}} for image page and category page message boxes.

Now we have coded up the {{tmbox}} for talk pages and the {{ombox}} for all other types of pages such as "Wikipedia:" pages. This means all the namespaces are covered. Everyone is invited to take a look at the new boxes and have a say at their talk pages.

Note that we are suggesting some colour changes for talk page and "other pages" message boxes. So we really would like some input from some editors before we deploy this all over Wikipedia.
For instance, this is a {{tmbox}} with the suggested style for "minor warnings and problems".
And this is an {{ombox}} with the suggested style for "major warnings and problems".

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article message box needing standardization or merging

{{Totally-disputed-lead}} was created on 9 September 2007 and probably escaped the standardization effort because it is not categorized. It is similar to {{Totally-disputed-section}}, with the only difference in text being that the former refers to "the lead section" and the latter refers to "this section". Since the "disputed-lead" template is only used in one article, perhaps a better solution would change it to a redirect. -- Zyxw (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. — Edokter • Talk • 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I just updated {{Totally-disputed-lead}} to the new style. It uses the same format and text as {{Totally-disputed}}, but replaces the word "article" with "lead section". I did this instead of using a redirect after noticing a similar template named {{POV-intro}} which is only used in two articles, yet survived a WP:TFD nomination (archived here). -- Zyxw (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)