Template talk:Tmbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Talk page message box standardisation

Here are some useful pages:

  • {{ambox}} – For article message boxes.
  • {{imbox}} – For image 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.

Pages that lists message boxes that might use the {{tmbox}} when it is ready:
Shortcut:
WT:TMBOX

Contents

[edit] Why this template?

The discussion that lead to the creation of this template is at Template talk:Imbox#Other spaces message boxes.

There are several reasons this template is needed:

  • Using an ambox/imbox compatible meta-template is easier for those making message boxes than hand-coding the boxes using a table and the "messagebox standard-talk" CSS classes.
  • The ambox and its sister templates have code that handles box flow better than the hand-coded boxes. That is, in several browsers the hand-coded boxes get box overlap when there are other boxes aligned right or left of them.
  • The namespace detecting {{mbox}} needs a message box to call for the talk pages. Thus mbox can now work for all types of pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft version

Note that this template is currently just a beta version. It should not be deployed yet and needs much more discussion.

I just updated this template to use the standardised brown talk page colours. I derived the code from the {{imbox}} since the imbox code is flexible when it comes to image size.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types / colours

It is unclear to me exactly what box types ("colours") this template needs but I know some things:

  • Since this template will be called from {{mbox}} it needs to be able to take and in some way properly handle the parameters "type = speedy / delete / content / style / notice / move / protection".
    • I don't know if we should change the border or background for any of the "type" values or simply resort to the default brown talk page colour for all or most of them.
    • I think we should have a default image for each type, for instance the same default images as the other mboxes have. (Which is what I show in the version I just made.)

An example is the {{warning}} template that currently uses red background even on talk pages. I think that one should be changed to use the {{mbox}} so it can adapt to the page type it is used on. Then I think it should be an orange content box when on other pages. Question is how it should look on talk pages.

Examples of protection boxes for talk pages are: {{temprot}} and {{permprot}}. They currently use talk page brown style when on talk pages.

Any comments/advice about this are very welcome.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose dashed border for this template with the colors from {{ambox}}. What do you mean? I just translated this template into upper sorbian in the hsbwp. It has a message box about its unfinished status. Greetings --Tlustulimu (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that was a fun idea. But I took a look at your version over at hsb:Předłoha:Tmbox and I think the dotted border looks kind of stressful. But what it does show is that a solid coloured border might work with the brown background. I'll test it in the {{tmbox/sandbox}} right away.
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I just saw your test. The solid borders looks much better than dashed. Greetings --Tlustulimu (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I tried with 1px and that looked a bit skinny, but 2px looks good. I am surprised that the default ambox colours work so well with the brown talk page box background.
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I just tested with 3px for speedy instead of the other color for the background. What do you mean, David? --Tlustulimu (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean "what do you think". And I think that just having a slightly thicker border for speedy delete doesn't tell it is a speedy when you see it alone on a page, since then it just looks like the imbox delete. All other mboxes now use a red border and a pink background for the speedy, so I think the tmbox should do that too. The speedy is a very special case so it doesn't have to match the other boxes for the same kind of page, it should stand out. (But I don't even know if there are any speedy message boxes for talk pages so it might not be used at all.)
Anyway, I added a {{tmbox/test1}} page where I show my personal suggestions for the tmbox.
--David Göthberg (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we might be getting a bit overenthusiastic with the colour schemes here. Let's not forget, this one is not like all the others: here a standardised scheme already exists, so anything we do is actually changing that scheme, not implementing it. I'm not convinced that we need separate colour schemes, or even most of the types. Although there are speedy templates ({{db-g8}}, {{db-u1}}, and potentially any of the {{db-g#}} series) that could be used on talk pages, there is never (as far as I'm aware) a need to place deletion templates there. Why do we need to differentiate between 'content' and 'style' - for that matter, what 'style' templates would apply to a talk page? I honestly feel that here, we only need to define a separate style for |type=speedy, and use the current coffeeroll format for all the other styles. Happy‑melon 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the vast majority of message boxes on talk pages will use the "notice" style, thus most boxes will continue to look exactly as we are used to. However, after thinking more about this I now think we need the ambox/imbox colour scheme for the other types. Here's why:

  • Protection type: As far as I understood (but I am no expert on this): Sometimes talk pages are semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. And on very rare occasions the talk pages of permabanned users are even fully protected so the banned user can not continue to leave unblock requests on his talk page. So for these rare instances I think it would be nice if the protection boxes actually used protection-coloured borders.
  • Move type: I don't think we ever tag talk pages with move/merge notices. However, some of the move templates are used on several types of pages, for instance {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Thus such templates will probably use the namespace detecting {{mbox}}. People often show templates in discussions on talk pages. So what style should such mbox based move boxes use when people show them on talk pages? I think it would be nice if they then actually looked like move boxes with a purple border, since if they don't it will be confusing. This same reasoning applies to all the other types, even if they are rarely or never used to actually tag talk pages.
  • Style and content types: These types mean any kind of minor and major warnings. Since minor warnings on article pages are about style this type got named "style" for the amboxes. And likewise major warnings got called "content" warnings. To keep parameter compatibility we have kept these names for the warning types in the other mboxes. So of course on talk pages minor warnings won't be about "style issues" such as grammar and spelling, but there might still be minor warnings. For instance the {{caution}} and {{warning}} boxes are used on many kinds of pages including talk pages, and I think they should use the yellow "style" type and orange "content" type to keep them apart. It would be nice if they actually looked like warnings with yellow and orange borders when used on talk pages.
  • Delete and speedy types: Talk pages are deleted sometimes, so delete and speedy boxes might perhaps be occasionally used to tag talk pages. And I think we will use the {{mbox}} to make many of the deletion boxes change appearance on different types of pages. Besides, the reasoning from the move type above applies.

So one of my main reasons that we need the coloured borders is that mbox based message boxes need to look like the type they are when shown and discussed on talk pages. I don't think most editors will be knowledgeable enough to feed the boxes the "demospace" parameter to make them show in some other page style, and there is a risk that many mbox based message boxes will not even support the "demospace" parameter. Most editors do not know how namespace detection works, and that is the very reason we are making the easy to use mbox. Thus I think it is time to extend the old talk page colour standard.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sizes / modes / shapes

The {{tmbox}} should probably be extended to handle "small" talk page boxes. See Wikipedia:Talk page templates for examples of that. And Happy-melon mentioned "nested" talk page message boxes, but I have not yet figured out what that means. (Happy-melon: Can you link directly to an example instead of the category you linked to? I did not see anything "nested" there.)

Perhaps we should call the setting "mode = small / nested", since as I see it we can't use the "type" parameter for that. Since we need to be able to set for instance "type = style" to get the default yellow "style" broom icon, and at the same time set "mode = small".

I don't think adding these modes to the tmbox is that urgent. It is more important to first make tmbox compatible with {{mbox}} so we can deploy mbox and start using mbox for the message boxes that need to go on several kinds of pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, by far the most common use of the "nested" feature is in WikiProject banners. All WikiProject banners have code looking something like
{| class="{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|collapsible collapsed messagebox nested-talk|{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{small|}}}}}|yes|messagebox small-talk|messagebox standard-talk}}}}"
|-
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|
! colspan="2" style="text-align: center" {{!}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject .NET|.NET WikiProject]]{{#if:{{{class|}}} |      (Rated {{ucfirst:{{{class}}}}}-Class)|}}
}}
|-
|
At the top. When project banners are placed inside {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, |nested=yes is defined, which turns the box from looking like this:


This article falls within the scope of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
To this:


Make sense? I'm not too sure how widely used this is outside WikiProject banners, but they are by far the most popular type of talk page template, so {{tmbox}} needs to efficiently handle them. Happy‑melon 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the links and explanation. After looking at those pages it seems it might be better to not call the parameter "mode = small / nested", but instead use the old parameter names "small = yes" and "nested = yes". I think we have to discuss this carefully with the people who take care of / made the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. I will leave a notice about this discussion over at the talk page of that template.
Oh, and by the way: We should of course also make the tmboxes work well inside {{WikiProjectBanners}}. (I think I know how to do that.)
But as I stated above: I think we first should make {{tmbox}} compatible with the other mboxes so {{mbox}} can use it, so we can deploy mbox. The small and nested features can be added in the next version.
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eww! (coffeeroll and colored borders)

I just have to say that, personally, I really don't think the combination of thick colored borders and the coffeeroll background works at all. Either we should make a clean break from the coffeeroll design, or we need to come up with some other classification system that works better with it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that I quite agree; the resulting visual effect is rather inelegant. Given that the coffee-roll design has been well-received by the community, and has worked satisfactorily so far, I believe that it ought to be retained. Apart from this, the various ranks used in other namespaces rarely, if ever, appear in talk pages, rendering this system largely redundant in this case, as has been also mentioned above. Waltham, The Duke of 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you guys even seen the current variation in box designs and colours over at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace? Some of the worst cases are the two red {{Warning}} and {{Censor}} and the white {{Off topic warning}}. To me that shows that the current old colour scheme does not provide what people need.
Look at this:
Warning This is the current {{warning}} template.
Don't you think it is much more in line with the coffee-roll design to use this:
 The suggested new {{tmbox}} major warning design.
So I am not suggesting we drop the coffee-roll design, instead I mean we should extent it somewhat so we can get more message boxes to use it. Note that most talk page message boxes will use the plain "notice" style and thus will continue to look just like we are used to.
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I maintain that it is not necessary to port the full range of colours to the talk namespace just for the sake of it. In particular, I can see absolutely no need whatsoever for the 'move', 'delete' or 'style' classes to ever be used on talkpages, and no reason why the 'protection' class needs to be different to the standard coffeeroll style. I do think that we need a separate class for 'speedy', but given the proliferation of templates in the talk namespace with no image at all, I don't think there's an argument to keep the separate styles just for different default images. Why do we even need a default image in the talk namespace at all? My proposal: give the 'content' style the red border from the current 'delete' style (maybe we should keep that one just in case), keep the 'speedy' style, and merge everything else together into the standard coffeeroll style. There is really no need to overcomplicate this. Happy‑melon 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Happy-melon: As has been stated many times before: "The default images are mostly for convenience."
So what colours do you suggest that {{Warning}}, {{Censor}} and {{Off topic warning}} should use? And what colours should an {{mbox}} based "move" message box have when shown (as in used as an example) on a talk page during a discussion?
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Coffeeroll, coffeeroll and coffeeroll :D. Seriously, there's no reason why {{censor}} should have a different style to {{round in circles}}, or any of the other templates. If we really can't get them all on the same level, then I there's the compromise of having one style for "urgent" warning templates - not wanting to introduce a new class, I suggested that we use 'content' for that. But there's really no reason not to use this opportunity to get rid of some of the horrible styles that some people have taken to using. As for the example, surely the user should be using |demospace=main to display it how it would appear on the main page anyway? Regardless, I can't see a convincing reason to give move templates a purple border in the rare instances when they're supposed to be put on talk pages (can't think why they would, but that's not the point). Happy‑melon 14:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(this was written as a response to the 13:00 comment) There's a plan. I mostly agree, but before we proceed with any changes, I believe a survey of the usage of talk-page templates is in order. We should adapt to the conditions, not the opposite; please, let's get organised.
(new comment) Again, I agree with Happy-Melon. Apart from the awful visual effect of such boxes, we should try to differentiate talk-page boxes as much as possible from the ones from other namespaces, in an attempt to limit the inappropriate usage of the latter in talk pages, which I have been seeing more often than should be the case. Waltham, The Duke of 14:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist notice

The {{tmbox}} needs more discussion from more editors since it is going to be used on a lot of pages. I have announced it on the Village pump and at some other places. I am thinking of doing a {{watchlist-notice}} when the current watchlist messages are done.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed it over at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace as a standardization of all our warning messages. MBisanz talk 01:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)