Template talk:Imbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Welcome

Here are some useful pages:

  • {{ambox}} – For article message boxes.
  • {{tmbox}} – For talk page message boxes.
  • {{cmbox}} – For category message boxes.
  • {{ombox}} – For other pages message boxes.
  • {{mbox}} – Has namespace detection, for message boxes that are used on several types of pages and thus need to change style depending on what page they are used on.
Shortcut:
WT:IMBOX
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Contents

[edit] Other spaces message boxes

This discussion was cut out of the sections above to keep different issues apart:

I have a bigger plan with this: I want to keep ambox, imbox and cmbox parameter-compatible. Since I intend to make compatible standardised message boxes for talkpages and for "other space", thus covering all namespaces. Because then we can make an ambox compatible "multibox" that can detect what namespace it is in and change appearance accordingly. The multibox should of course only be used for templates that are intended to be used in several namespaces.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking very much the same thing... {{mbox}} anyone? Happy‑melon 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That one is taken... — Edokter • Talk • 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's an almost bit-for-bit clone of {{nowrap}} - I'm boldly clearing it. Happy‑melon 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy-melon: Well, the name {{mbox}} is taken, but you are right that that one should be merged with {{nowrap}}. And considering the naming discussion we had about {{catbox}} / {{cambox}} / {{cmbox}} I think we could call it {{mmbox}} = "multi-namespace message box" or perhaps {{multibox}}.
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I think the concept of {{mbox}} being the 'super-meta template' (although it's actually a level below {{ambox}}/{{cmbox}}/{{imbox}}) makes more sense to me. What do we do if we want to standardise the templates used in MediaWiki: ?? </devils advocate> :D {{mbox}} is now transclusionless, so it's available for our use if we want it. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 08:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We'd end up with one super-meta template that gets transcluded on virtually every article, if not page, on Wikipedia. And then we'd have to correct an error... No, I'm not fond of one the super-template modem. In fact, Ambox already received suggestion to break it up in categories because the template is used so much. — Edokter • Talk • 12:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not the idea at all: it's only supposed to be used for templates that are supposed to be used in multiple namespaces, of which there aren't that many. At the moment they either have to have individual code to switch their appearance by namespace, or they don't change appearance at all (which is obviously sub-optimal). One way or another, we need a method of switching which Xmbox template is called, and that code might as well be in a template for ease of maintenance (otherwise if we standardised another namespace, we'd have to update each multi-namespace template individually; which rather defeats the object of standardisation in the first place). It doesn't matter whether that template is {{mbox}} or an extended version of {{main talk other}} - it's still going to appear on every page where the multi-namespace template is used. But since we have relatively few templates which are 'legally' used in more than one namespace, over-transclusion is not going to be a problem. Anyway, the server load of high-use templates is massively overstated anyway - one day I'm going to do a null edit on {{!}} just to prove that the servers can take it... <evil laugh/> Happy‑melon 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've created what I hope is a reasonably clean-cut meta-template at {{mbox}}; it's got some tricks in it to retain the defined/undefined nature of the parameters passed through it (should work like that anyway - any undefined parameters are diverted to the null parameter so they don't corrupt live ones). In order for it to be able to work in all namespaces while maintaining clean code I need to create template wrappers for the 'coffeeroll' format used in talkspace (in normal, small and collapsed styles, I suspect) and the 'boilerplate' style used occasionally elsewhere (for the #default option). I doubt these will ever be called directly, it's mainly for the sake of competeness; I'm not suggesting that we change all the talkspace templates that currently use wikitables directly to use a talkspace meta-template. Any preferences on nomenclature? {{tmbox}} is an obvious choice, but that might lead to later problems if/when we standardise what Template: namespace messages we have. {{tambox}} might be usable, to allow {{tembox}} for templates if necessary; but it's out of line with the other names if we never end up doing the template templates (:D). It's a shame we've got two namespaces with the same first letter really - I think this is the only such conflict. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 11:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've now created {{dmbox}}, which is a 'default' based on the 'messagebox' css class. All the |type= parameter does is change the default image (it has one for all types supported by the other meta-templates, using the hierarchy ambox→imbox→cmbox to take images from), and I think that that's probably sufficient. Still interested to hear thoughts on the talkspace metatemplate (it seems {{tmbox}} was briefly a testbed for a Template: namespace metatemplate, but it's unused and inactive). Happy‑melon 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Talking to yourself, are you? :-)
Although you have resolved the letter conflict quite nicely, I do not believe it ought to have troubled us. How many different message boxes are used on templates? I believe they are rather few; too few to necessitate the creation of a dedicated template.
PS: Please warn me in advance when you decide to edit {{!}} (but nobody else). Waltham, The Duke of 05:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
<plaintive wail>There was no one else to talk to!</plaintive wail> :D If you're confident that we'll not regret it later, I would prefer to use {{tmbox}} for the talkspace wrapper, for consistent nomenclature. Happy‑melon 09:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not over-confident about it, which is why I require information on the matter. Is there no one here with knowledge of the template-namespace message boxes? For Unicorn's sake, we are supposed to live in the Age of Information. Do I have to start bribing around again to get what I want? So disappointing... Waltham, The Duke of 09:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Template-namespace message boxes are, in a way, standardized: the standard is {{Documentation}}. Nihiltres{t.l} 14:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Clever. :-) What I meant, however, was something closer to {{intricate template}} and {{high-use}}. Waltham, The Duke of 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, I shouldn't have mentioned my plan to make more mboxes... Anyway, here goes:
1: As Happy-Melon said above: The multibox (or whatever we are going to call the message box meta-template that will detect namespace and change appearance accordingly) should NOT be the basis for the others, instead the multibox should only be used for the small number of message boxes that are used on several types of pages. And I would like to call it "multibox" since it is different from the others. Although I could live with the name "mmbox" or "mbox".
2: Yes, we should do an ambox compatible box for talk space templates. And I think we should call that one "tmbox". And that one should of course use the standardised brown colours for talk space templates. See Wikipedia:Talk page templates for the official guideline. There are some reasons to make the tmbox: Easier to use than hand coding boxes with a table like people do now, if it is parameter compatible with the other mboxes it makes it easier to build the multibox, and it can use the same flow tricks that ambox has thus will look good in all browsers. (The current talk space message boxes do look strange in some older browsers and do have box overlapping problems even in some modern browsers.)
3: We also should do an ambox compatible box for all the "other pages". I see that Happy-Melon likes to call those boxes "default" but I would like to call them "other" as in "other namespaces" and "other pages message boxes". Thus I want to call that box "ombox", not "dmbox". And that box should use the standardised grey colour and one pixel border already used for such message boxes. With grey border for normal boxes, and perhaps coloured borders for the more urgent boxes. Of course, that old standard is not set in stone, consensus can change.
4: I think we should NOT make any new message box designs for any other namespaces. For instance I see no reason to make a new standard for template pages. The big green documentation boxes should be more than enough to make it clear that you are on a template page. Thus template message boxes like {{intricate}}, {{high-use}} and {{pp-template}} can continue to use the "other pages" style. The reason we made special standards for category and image pages was that there already were kind of de facto standards for them. Those de facto standards are what we now have formalised into the {{cmbox}} and {{imbox}}. (Personally I think we could just as well have used the same design for both those namespaces, but popular demand seems to be to keep them apart.) There's also some technical reasons to keep the number of styles low: Adding these styles costed a lot of new CSS code in MediaWiki:Common.css, which makes Wikipedia even slower to load for modem users. Add a little more and I don't think modem users can really use Wikipedia anymore. Modem users already have to turn of javascript loading to be able to visit Wikipedia without having to wait for ages for the first page load since the javascript pages are about 250-500 kbytes to load now! (Of course, there are technical workarounds the developers could add to handle that, but currently they have not added those workarounds.) Also, I think we might be running out of good looking styles to use...
5: Waltham: Yes this is the "age of information", as usual the problem is just to find the information: The list of template namespace message boxes is just some clicks away: Help -> Templates -> Template = Wikipedia:Template messages/Template namespace. As you can see there aren't that many template message boxes. If anyone know any other just add them to that page.
6: Happy-Melon: I have already made the new extended über-version of {{main talk other}}, it is called {{namespace detect}}. I think you will like that one.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not place much trust on the relevant categories, and perhaps that has spilled over to template lists; the categories are often convoluted and scarcely maintained, and editors who actually use the templates can sometimes be more reliable in this sense. But I've never really thought there were many of theses templates, and I have mentioned that again. Waltham, The Duke of 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fussed over {{dmbox}} vs {{ombox}}, but I feel quite strongly that the switch template should be at {{mbox}}; there's no all-powerful reason why, it just seems to make sense to me. I agree with the comments above vis the template namespace; which frees up {{tmbox}} for the talkspace meta-template. How extensively do we want to implement that? Given that it should produce no visual changes, there shouldn't be any objections to us converting talkspace templates to use it. However, there are a few caveats we'd have to work through (I assume we'd change between "normal", "nested" and "small" using the |type= parameter, but the "nested" boxes need to be passed header text in a separate parameter...). Thoughts? If we're concerned about the length of common.css, there are various things we could (and should) be doing to optimise it. Apart from cutting out some of the more egregious comments, a number of the classes are either duplicates or deprecated: we should be trying to get those classes removed from use thoroughly so we can remove the code. Happy‑melon 11:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the name "mbox" makes it sound like that is the one to use in the normal case and the others like imbox and ambox are just special cases, when it really is the other way around. While "multibox" tells that it is special in some way, different from the others.
Regarding {{tmbox}}: I don't know if the "small" talk page message box type is used anymore, I haven't seen it for a long time now. (For those that don't know the small type, look at the example close to the end of Wikipedia:Talk page templates.) But if it still is used I think then tmbox should support it. But I am partial since I think the small type is cute.
Happy-Melon: What is a "nested" talk page message box? Can you link to some example?
Also, I think we should not use the "type" parameter name to switch between normal, small and nested talk page message box style. Since that means tmbox will not be parameter compatible with the other mboxes and then multibox/mbox can not use tmbox at all. See for instance the templates {{notice}}, {{caution}} and {{warning}}. Those templates will use the multibox/mbox and need to feed the type parameter to all the different mboxes to set the type as in how urgent the message is. And {{notice}} currently has the parameter "small=yes" which works fine.
The first concern should be to make a tmbox that is compatible with the other mboxes so that multibox/mbox can use it. Adding the other talk space specific functions can be done later, since message boxes that are used on several namespaces will probably not use the talk space specific functions anyway.
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd have thought it would have the opposite effect: surely the higher up the template tree it appears to be, the less likely it is to be used? If the perception was that {{mbox}} was an all-powerful meta-template, of which {{ambox}}, {{imbox}} etc were derivatives, then the instinctive reaction is to use one of the lower-level templates if possible. In the {{db-}} template series (for CSD templates), for instance, we have {{db-meta}}, the over-arching meta-template which is not supposed to be called directly, then we have an instance for each CSD criterion (eg {{db-a7}} for WP:CSD#A7); that template itself has a number of derivatives like {{db-corp}} and {{db-web}}, which are for more specific instances - those templates for specific instances of CSD#A7 are instances of {{db-a7}}, not directly to {{db-meta}}. I think this perception of a template hierarchy is well ingrained into a large number of editors' wiki-knowledge, along with the perception that new templates should be 'hooked' onto the tree as far down as possible while still doing the job effectively. Although {{mbox}} isn't a higher template than {{ambox}} etc in terms of code flow, it is in its usage, so I don't think we have to worry about new templates using it when a 'lower' template would suffice. {{multibox}}, on the other hand, suffers from obscurity: it doesn't sound like it's connected to the messagebox standardisation program at all, which I think is likely to lead to it just being forgotten, and people either adding the code by hand or not adding it at all, neither of which are optimal solutions.
The "nested" type is used very widely: all WikiProject banners, for instance, have an option to specify it. It's basically just an implementation of collapsible tables - the problem is that if we want to get a {{tmbox}} that's at all useful, we'll need to provide a separate parameter for what displays when the box is collapsed, which has to be sent to a header cell of the table (I'm also not sure how to code that in raw HTML, although I'm sure there's someone else who can). I certainly know people who are still fond of the small types - personally I think they're horrible, but that's just me. I don't think using |type= to switch between "small", "nested" etc would affect portability: neither "small" or "nested" are acceptable types in any other mbox, and if we were to precisely mimic the current implementation of talkspace messages, there are no other 'types' to switch between - there isn't a different appearance for deletion templates or content templates in talkspace, although perhaps there should be a different appearance for what we'd recognise as the "delete" and "speedy" types. The problem with using |small= and |nested= is that we'd have to ensure that every template which used {{tmbox}} passed those parameters with |small={{{small|}}} etc, which would be over the heads of many template writers. More food for thought. Happy‑melon 16:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, many things to consider.
1: You got some good points about the mbox name. So to get things going I'll agree to the name {{mbox}} then.
2: Seems everyone likes the name {{tmbox}} so that name is clear. I think we should continue the discussion about the details of tmbox on its talk page. But as I said above: I suggest we first make it a "simple" mbox compatible meta-template so we can use if from mbox as soon as possible. It won't be usable for all talk page message boxes then, but will be usable for the boxes that need to go on several pages since they won't anyway use the talk page special features. Then we can extend tmbox later.
3: We need to decide on the naming for the message box for the other namespaces. (The one that will be used on "Wikipedia:", "Help:" and "Template:" pages.) I prefer the name {{ombox}} as in "other spaces message box" and Happy-Melon seems to prefer {{dmbox}} as in "default message box". To decide this we need input from more editors. So what do the rest of you think?
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've always favored {{pmbox}} as a name for a message box used in the project (Wikipedia:) namespace, and pages in the Help: and Template: namespaces are also thought of as project pages (as opposed to parts of the encyclopedia proper). As an added benefit, "pm" (pmbox) is memorable as the opposite of "am" (ambox). —David Levy 04:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I also think of those three and some of the other as "project space". (Although in strict MediaWiki naming "project space" is only "Wikipedia:".) But the "other spaces box" are going to be the "default box" for all the namespaces not covered by ambox, imbox, cmbox and tmbox. Thus it should/may be used in these namespaces: User, Wikipedia, MediaWiki, Template, Help, Portal and any new future namespaces.
Oh, haha, now I see your wordplay, "am" vs. "pm". Well, for me as a Scandinavian the word "om" is a very old and very powerful word. In this case similar in meaning to the Latin word omni meaning "all". Perhaps that's why I like "ombox" so much. Of course, the true "omnibox" will instead be the mbox.
Anyway, I am not so sure that "project message box" feels like a good name for a box used in user space, but perhaps not worse than "other message box" or "default message box". So the suggested names so far are: pmbox, ombox and dmbox.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the disparity between the User: namespace and all of the others listed above, I suggest that we create {{umbox}}; it should be geared toward customizability (given the fact that users are free to use whatever styles they please). —David Levy 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The PM at the dispatch box
The PM at the dispatch box
I am also unsure about "pmbox"; it is not very accurate and, in any case, it doesn't necessarily evoke in everyone the am–pm contrast. "Dumbox" is probably out of the question, for obvious reasons. (You say there is no u in the proposed name? Well, it won't take long for someone to add it.) Waltham, The Duke of 06:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear on how "pmbox" is inaccurate, and please note that I mentioned "am"/"pm" only as a cute mnemonic device (not as something intended to be obvious to everyone).
The "dmbox" option is my least favorite, but I have to say that your "dumbox" objection is a bit of a stretch. I don't see how that's inherently implied, and it certainly didn't cross my mind. —David Levy 06:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was mostly joking about the am–pm thing, but I believe that using "project" in this sense might cause confusion with the Project namespace. I shouldn't make such a mistake myself, but on Wikipedia I have learnt to pay more attention to the dumbness of many of its users. Which brings me to the other name... It might be a stretch to you, but it wasn't to me, and I am sure that it will be as easy for many other people to make this association. It might have to do with how "phonetically" people think, and whether English is their mother tongue, but I assure you that, in the end, it will look silly. Waltham, The Duke of 06:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that most users are aware that Wikipedia: is our local name for the Project: namespace, and those of us who are also are knowledgeable enough to know that pages from many other namespaces are commonly referred to as "project pages." My suggested template name is based upon the latter meaning.
I really don't see how the "dumbox" issue would be a problem, even if this does seem obvious to some people (which it doesn't to me). What harm would this silly joke cause? —David Levy 07:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how I feel about "umbox", except that it sounds like "ambox". Waltham, The Duke of 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but so does "ombox." —David Levy 06:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite as similar, I'd say. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 06:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To me, "ombox" seems more similar (given the fact that "ambox" could carry the same pronunciation in some English varieties).
I don't regard this as a major issue, however. —David Levy 07:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither do I, and dumbox would not really be harmful (it might even result in a popular in-joke). This whole exchange (and here I unite the two sub-threads) probably shows how I tend to rule out options when there aren't more serious reasons to help me make a seletion. :-D For those who haven't noticed, this entire debate falls squarely under the category minutiae. Waltham, The Duke of 07:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. And as I said, "dmbox" is my least favorite of the options presented thus far (because I don't regard "default" as an accurate description). —David Levy 07:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of compromise, I'll support {{mbox}}, {{tmbox}} and {{ombox}}. From my reading of the discussion above, that kills {{dmbox}} dead :D, bringing us back to two options. Given that this box is also going to be used in the Template: namespace and potentially the Transwiki: pseudospace as well, "other" seems a more comprehensive description than "project". Thoughts? Happy‑melon 10:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For the same reasons, I'll support {{ombox}} as well (so we can eliminate {{pmbox}} as an option). —David Levy 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Great. I've moved {{dmbox}} to {{ombox}}, updated its only transclusion, and deleted the redirect. Since this discussion is getting very tangential to {{imbox}} itself (and the number of colons here is getting ridiculous!) I propose we continue the various threads of this discussion on Template talk:Mbox, Template talk:Ombox and Template talk:Tmbox. Happy‑melon 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Indention is not a problem if you unindent occasionally.
I have now coded fully working draft versions of {{ombox}} and {{tmbox}}. Thus the mbox series of meta-templates now cover all namespaces. Everyone please have a look at them and discuss their design on their talk pages. This should also make {{mbox}} fully working, but I haven't tested that yet.
--David Göthberg (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Imbox-inside

Just in case anyone wants to know what is going on and for future reference:

I have updated the CSS code for imbox in MediaWiki:Common.css. The main reason is that I needed to add proper padding for the image cells since we have changed the image-cell code in the template. That is, I copied the new hard coded styles from {{imbox}} to Common.css.

But I also added automatic handling of when imboxes are placed inside other imboxes or other templates. Otherwise they will be 80% wide and that looks bad. This can be manually fixed by using the style="" parameter, but it is much better if it is automatic. Here's an example:

Description

Testing imboxes inside the {{information}} template.
Source
With the default imbox styles.
Date

2008-06-01
Author

David Göthberg
Permission
(Reusing this image)
With 'style="margin: 4px;"'. This can also be done automatically with CSS.


If we add the "below" parameter to imbox I intend that the below cell will use the class "imbox-text", since it will in some cases contain text and thus needs the same padding as the normal imbox text cell. The first class in the code below fixes the margins of the inner imbox when inside an imbox-text cell.

Imboxes will also be placed inside some other templates, such as {{information}}. If those templates do not have a class name of their own then imbox can not detect that it is inside them. Therefore I have invented the class name "imbox-inside" that I will add to those templates, thus making it possible for imbox to detect that it is inside those templates. The second class in the code below uses that approach.

Here's the code I have added to MediaWiki:Common.css to handle imboxes inside other boxes:

.imbox-text .imbox {      /* For imboxes inside imbox-text cells. */
    margin: 0 -0.5em;     /* 0.9 - 0.5 = 0.4em left/right. */
}
.imbox-inside .imbox {    /* For imboxes inside other templates. */
    margin: 4px;
}

I have of course tested it in some sandbox pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gah! Just as I had finished it all I realise that "imbox-inside" should perhaps instead be called "mbox-inside" so we can use it for {{tmbox}} and the other mboxes too. Since tmbox will be placed inside some different talk page templates and most of them lack their own class name. Seems simpler to have one single class name for this, among other things it might decrease human mistakes and only needs one class documented at Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes and so on. I'll wait a little before I update Commons.css again. Just in case someone has some comments or advice.
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rounded edges

Well, now that this "OMG IMBOX IS GFDL! DELETE DELETE!" nonsense has blown over, I could use some help trying to implement our version of Ambox to have rounded edges. Check out my testbed version of Imbox along with my test page (well...actually, the "this is my unique login box" is the one you wanna watch if you try and help me). In order to easily progress from my hacked up Roundbox, mine (which is based off the hardcoded one) has a custom color scheme option (you can specify a custom border/background by not having a type in). Ultimately, I'm going to be redirecting my old template over to Imbox on Wikinews... ViperSnake151 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Egad, not that horrible "moz-border" effect with no anti-aliasing and no compatibility with non-Gecko browsers! What's wrong with straight corners? —David Levy 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, that box is, and will remain, resolutely square-edged on IE7, which means that for 70% of all viewers, whether or not the box is supposed to have rounded edges is very much irrelevant. I recommend that, whatever you do with it, you keep checking that it looks OK in IE, because that's your biggest target audience. Happy‑melon 09:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the lack of compatibility with non-Gecko-based browsers is a good reason to avoid this nonstandard, experimental code (because relative uniformity across all major browsers is desirable). That it looks very, very ugly in the browsers with which it is compatible is another. —David Levy 10:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I ended up not doing it. ViperSnake151 11:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missed templates

In rolling out Imbox, it appears several image tags were missed, since I don't know the hooks and variables well, could someone standardize these:

Thanks. MBisanz talk 20:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The striked ones already use imbox through the {{Deletable image}} meta-template. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also: {{retouched}} -- penubag  (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tossing in {{Non-commercial from license selector}} MBisanz talk 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of these and redirected a couple of the deletion templates (as they are unused and their usage instructions actually had you using another template through subst). There's actually several templates on Kelly's pages that have yet to be converted. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Two more {{Fu-na-in-why}} and {{Fu-re-in-why}}. MBisanz talk 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And {{Non-free use disputed}}, {{ImageRound-Nosource}}. MBisanz talk 09:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Hangon}}

The above template is used in both image and article space - needs modification to use the Imbox format in image space. Kelly hi! 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I made it use {{mbox}} instead of {{ambox}}, which should solve the problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)