Template talk:Tmbox/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Why this template?

The discussion that led 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)

DELETE IT. These message boxes are ugly, clamourous and irritatingly loud-coloured. They are no good. Just say what you have to say in plain words. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 07:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that suggestion, Steinbach, is that boxes call attention to the message one wants to get across. Without a large orange rectangle hanging on the top of the page, who's gonna notice the message? Few. 21655 ταλκ/01ҁ 22:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I am already satisfied with the left-border color arrangements and white Image Background on Template:Ambox, but a colored Text section a la Template:Userbox would be a good differentiating feature. Recommend testing the following text and background colors for readablity:
  • Speedy: Text-Color=#FFFFFF; Text-BG-Color=#FF0000.
  • Delete: Text-Color=#000000; Text-BG-Color=#FFCCCC.
  • Content: Text-Color=#000000; Text-BG-Color=#FF6633.
  • Style: Text-Color=#000000; Text-BG-Color=#FFFF66.
  • Notice: Text-color=#000000; Text-BG-Color=#CCCCFF.
  • Move: Text-Color=#000000; Text-BG-Color=#9999FF.
  • Protection: Text-Color=#FFFFFF; Text-BG-Color=#333333.
— B. C. Schmerker (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: An available example of background colors consistent with my proposal 16:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC) is already in deployment at Template:Cmbox; use for reference if desirable. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I coded up a visual example with these colours in the section B. C. Schmerker's colours below.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Do they have to be so thick though? Just looking at Image:PhishingTrustedBank.png, the thick lines above and below seem to overwhelm the summary, which, I think, is the more important information. Boxes are just detail. ALTON .ıl 01:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Alton: The message boxes you see on image pages like the one you linked to are "image message boxes" and they uses another meta-template named {{imbox}} which has a different style. This talk page is about the {{tmbox}} which should only be used on talk pages and it uses much thinner borders.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
How embarrassing, thanks for pointing that out. ALTON .ıl 07:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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:
WikiProject Opera This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
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)
Apologies for stepping in here so late, but are you still wanting to implement "small" and "nested"? If so, I'd be more than happy to work on this. In the same though, while Project Banners probably won't adopt this style quickly, if at all, might it be a good idea for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to adopt Tmbox so at least there is a start to the uniform appearance? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The current version of {{tmbox}} can not be used by {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} for several reasons. But I won't go into details why since I haven't studied and tested the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} system enough yet so anything I say about it might be wrong.
But as I stated above: We should first make {{tmbox}} compatible with the other mboxes so {{mbox}} can use it, so we can deploy mbox. Since that was the reason we made tmbox. The other features can be added in later versions. Tmbox is currently code compatible and style compatible with the other mboxes, but some users want to reduce the number of types and change to not having the default images. That will cause a major rework of the tmbox code. So lets resolve that first.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it wasn't anywhere near time to worry about such integration (first things first, as you pointed out), but as I work with WPBS and banner implementation quite often, I wanted to offer my support code-wise. Even so, given the aim of WPBS, the deal should probably be the other way around: rather than making Tmbox compatible with WPBS, I'd prefer to bring WPBS into style-compliance with this template system. I see no immediate reason for anything other than project banners to fall inside WPBS, though that is, of course, subject to change at any time should the community desire a more compressed appearance to the Talk page banner network. Should Tmbox pass, I'll work on updating WPBS's style to follow this system. Good luck with the endeavour...I'm all for standardised appearances! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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:
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)
FWIW, I like the coffeeroll + colored border style a lot. I've implemented it on my personal template collection at User:MBisanz/MESSAGES. Lemme know when this gets solidified so we can start converting all the templates. MBisanz talk 03:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've also introduced it at {{BLP Spec Warn}} and {{BLP Spec Sanction}} MBisanz talk 00:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Happy‑melon: As I state before: I don't think we can expect that all message boxes that will be built with {{mbox}} will support the "demospace=main" parameter, and certainly not that all users will know about the parameter and know how to use it even when it is supported.
MBisanz: Oh, your boxes are looking good! :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
As I understand the standardization requirements, the Coffee Roll pattern of 2005, which originally had a hard-coded text-background and border color, can be recoded to utilize the border colors from Template:Ambox, the new color addition being an Irlen-esque pastel or ice version of the border color for the text background (see also #Why this template?, above). The two exceptions I would recommend would be:
  • Speedy - Reverse-video'd text (TextColor=#FFFFFF; TextBGColor=#FF0000).
  • Protection - Reverse-video'd text (TextColor=#FFFFFF; TextBGColor=#333333).
Can this be done; and what pros and cons vs. both Template:Ambox and the existing User Message template(s)? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
Thanks, this needs to be advertised in more places. We need more comments before we can decide on such a big deployment (and perhaps style change too).
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't under the impression that this would be for template messages? -- Ned Scott 01:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
They are used in a talk namespace, this would be for all templates used in talk namespaces. MBisanz talk 01:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Ned Scott means that many of the warning messages (vandalism and so on) for user talk pages are not boxes, that is they have no border and no background. And right, if a talk page message is not a "message box" then it should not use {{tmbox}}. Of course, some of us think such messages should be boxes since that would make it clear they are template messages. But that is another discussion and is not within the scope of this talk page and this round of standardisation.
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Does this include WikiProject boxes, and, if so, will they be "notices"? Is there any chance of having a different image - a sort of WikiProject "logo" - replace the (i)? --NE2 01:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that this should apply to WikiProject banners as it stands. There is a lot of variation in how those boxes are put together and forcing a generic template on them would be a pain. I would rather see a seperate recomendation for Banners, specifically, which would allow at least the majority of projects to continue as they work now. If this page is going to be applied to Project banners each project should weigh in on what parameters and functionality is needed. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. The complexity of project banners is such that implementing them through a meta-template set up as a simple text transclusion would be infeasible. Given that they should all be using the standard CSS classes anyways, and thus won't look any different, I don't see any point to trying to force-fit them here. Kirill (prof) 01:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to try and answer some questions, the image can be replaced by any image, so no it doesn not have to be the Notice i, unique css coding and test formating can be used in the box, so it can be customized to unique sizing/formatting needs. MBisanz talk 01:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a template called {{WPBannerMeta}} that tries to standardise the WikiProject templates but it's not used everywhere yet. -- Uksignpix (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wut?

I've never seen a speedy deletion notice, merge notice, etc, on the talk page. There might be one or two general notice banners at the top. What exactly is this for? I loved the other standardization we've done with these kinds of templates, but this seems kind of silly to me. -- Ned Scott 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Think of the tiered warning levels of UTM/Test, I could see a good use of the color steps for them. MBisanz talk 01:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The primary places I see this being used are in:
Ned Scott: Well, talk pages can be speedy deleted under some circumstances, and non-admin users can request that they be speedied by putting a speedy template on them. (Even though that is pretty rare.) Thus since speedy templates can be placed on talk pages we need to decide what style they should have there.
I have already written a detailed explanation about why we need all the different types at the section Types / colours above, take a look there.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter? What's wrong with using the normal colors when a talk page is tagged for deletion? --NE2 05:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I was thinking you guys were talking about a speedy delete for the article being placed on the talk page (in addition to the other one). Even so, like NE2, I'm not sure what's wrong with the normal templates used for deletion.
Unlike article space message boxes, talk page templates are actually more consistent (compare with image:NewbieTags.PNG). We'd really just be adding a colored border, and even that I'm not sure about. I won't say I'm necessarily opposed to the idea, it just seems like.. we're fixing a problem that might not be there. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ned, most of the actual block templates use a border and colors, as a representative sample that was easy to pull out, can you really say User:MBisanz/Blocking degree of variation is a good thing? MBisanz talk 06:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just talking about page headers, not about template messages. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ned Scott: Well, many of the deletion and speedy deletion templates can be used on several different kinds of pages (different namespaces), so they are going to use the {{mbox}}. The mbox detects what kind of page it is on and calls different meta-templates depending on page type, for instance on articles it calls the {{ambox}}. During the last 10 months we have standardised the message boxes for all other namespaces, see {{ambox}}, {{imbox}}, {{cmbox}} and {{ombox}}. Talk pages is now the only missing namespace in this set. Mbox needs something to call for the talk pages and that is why we made the {{tmbox}}. And thus we need to decide on how the different message types should look on talk pages.
You suggested using "normal colours" for the speedy message boxes when on talk pages. So exactly what do you mean by "normal colours"? Can you point to an example? (I think I know what you mean, but I don't like to guess what people are suggesting.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Basically, what you see with {{db}}. -- Ned Scott 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you meant talk page brown. The current style for {{db}} uses the {{ambox}} speedy style since it has a red left side colour bar, and pink background. We have already standardised another (but similar) style for the speedy templates when on other kinds of pages, see {{imbox}}, {{cmbox}} and {{ombox}}. That is, a red border all around instead of a red left side colour bar, and pink background.
There has been a fairly strong consensus since we standardised the article message box (ambox) styles last summer that left side colour bars are only for message boxes when on articles.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Then remove the side color bar. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I now see it was NE2 that wanted "normal colours" for the speedy and/or delete box, which might mean a thin grey border and talk page brown background.
Anyway, Ned Scott: What do you mean by "remove the side color bar"? What should the speedy type have instead? Just a thin grey border and pink background? Or do you mean remove the left side colour bar and use a coloured border all around instead? (Which is what I suggest.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Small request

Just while this page has a little bit of attention, I thought I could bring up that the talk page templates {{ArticleHistory}} and {{NewsBanners}} being used on many talk pages (Talk:Evolution which is where I first noticed the problem) look like they need a little bit of tweaking. If you compare the {{NewsBanners}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} templates, you'll see the text is slightly off centre in the NewsBanners template, but centred in the WikiProjectBanners template. Likewise, the Article milestones text in the {{ArticleHistory}} template is slightly off centre. I'd try and fix it myself but they're protected so I can't even try, and my template experience is somewhere around 0, so I'd probably break them anyway. Can anyone have a look at these and see if it's possible to fix? I was thinking it might be as simple as using the code in the WikiProjectBanners template, that keeps things centred, on the other two templates. Much appreciated, Ben (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility

I don't really care for the standard peachy-tan background color myself, nor do I think that having all templates standardized on the same color scheme is going to encourage people to read them (any of them) instead of skipping over the web equivalent of the oblong gray blur.

Do we have any colorblind readers on this page? Just the wrong shade of light brown can occasionally be a serious problem for people with colorblindness, and colors that are obviously different to me may blend together for some readers.

Similarly, can we hear from some people with impaired vision? Low-contrast designs can be difficult for people with significantly impaired vision. Could we consider the occasional plain old white background if it would help these readers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the desire to standardise, I'm going to have to agree with WhatamIdoing, here, that peachy color is horrendous (hard to read, right?). There are tons of people with colourblindness and it seems to me like picking a color even close to red or green is asking for it! Can we change the color of the box itself to something more neutral (a really light gray, perhaps, with black text and a black border, perhaps?) Not only would this increase the contrast, but it would make the icons, which standardisation is making more important, stand out better since they're coloured. Just my two pennies. L'Aquatique[ review ] 05:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Right now a good number of our templates at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Blocks use that tan, as do all Wikiproject/assessment boxes, so it would seem rather hard to change that consensus. MBisanz talk 06:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this on the theory that if you can't read half the existing templates, then we should make sure you can't read any of them?  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I won't be too worried about accessibility, since it would be easy enough to make another skin with different CSS, etc. In other words, it's easy for the end user to override most of our style settings. A similar discussion is open at Template talk:Infobox Television#Request for comment: Small fonts in templates regarding small fonts and accessibility. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I just tried all seven of the alternative skins, and they all use the specified colors for these templates. Did you perhaps mean that "if you happen to be one of the rare people who know how to write a .css file, then it would be easy enough?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure we could code up a generic .css code, and put it at the Accessibility page, that people with sight difficulties could use. Also, if you look at User:MBisanz/Blocking, the level of variation is confusing enough already, I don't see how any single change could make it worse. MBisanz talk 07:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)"I won't be too worried..."? Well, that's well and good for you, but I need to be worried about it. It's like, my job. I understand perfectly (although I don't agree) why many users refuse to heed accessibility guidelines when said guidelines have the potential to make a page look aesthetically poor (which never actually happens, by the way), but this is isn't even one of those times!
I ask again: what is so special about the ugly peach colour? Was there a big meeting where everyone but me, apparently, sat down and said, "let's use #F4C47E because... and then listed a multitude of perfectly acceptable reasons? Or, more likely, did one template designer like it, and no one could think of a reason not to use it, so it spread and now everyone is apparently very attached to it? Well, guess what, here's a reason not to! I give you my solemn vow as a former girl scout that 99% of Wikipedians won't even notice if you change the base template color. This is something simple we can do to make a lot of peoples' lives easier, so why not do it? L'Aquatique[ review ] 07:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The number of times I've been yelled at for trying to change a template that people had their heart set on is more than I can count. If we changed it, based on a discussion at this page, people would probably kill whoever made the edits. Could we keep the status quo by making a .css code, that people with visual difficulties could pre-load into their code page that would cancel out this color altogether? MBisanz talk 07:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)How are we ever supposed to improve if breaking away from the status quo is discouraged? I'm not blaming this on you, so don't take it that way please. Why don't we ask for a request for comment and get some more minds in here? L'Aquatique[ review ] 08:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran my User:MBisanz/Blocking page through the filters at http://colorfilter.wickline.org and didn't see any problematic tan/tope backgrounds. MBisanz talk 08:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique: The colours for the talk page message boxes were standardised to light brown background and grey border in 2005 and written down as the guideline Wikipedia:Talk page templates. Personally I don't have much of a point of view what background colour to use for talk page templates so I kept the standard background and border for the notice type. That is the type that the vast majority of boxes will have. For the other types I added a thin coloured border using the ambox/imbox/cmbox/ombox colour scheme.
WhatamIdoing: Yes, accessibility is important. So I tested to view the boxes in black and white and they are still very readable, so they should not be a problem for the colour blind. For those with other visual impairments high contrast and big text is usually important. The brown background in these boxes has luminance 204 and the text has luminance 0 so the contrast is fairly good. For comparison: 240 = white, and 0 = black. The table of contents and <pre></pre> boxes and so on have a background with luminance 234 and article message boxes have a background with luminance 236.
But sure, if you can get consensus for it then we can make the brown background lighter thus increasing the contrast. Something like this perhaps?
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique, I'm not saying we shouldn't change the color, and I do see a good point about doing so simply because we're dealing with the default view. My main point was that it is pretty easy to give someone an over-ride option. I'm a bit surprised that no one has made an accessibility skin yet, and while I'm not very good at CSS, I'll try to see what I can do (perhaps kidnap.. err.. find some other willing editors and see what we can come up with). -- Ned Scott 05:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

David, thank you for your information. I do think that the lighter color/higher contrast could be better for some readers, but I realize that isn't the same as consensus. BTW, it's not so much the black text that worries me as the colored text: the blue links, purple ("visited") links, red links, and pink "visited" links. A red link or especially a pink link on a tan field could be perceived as very similar colors, if you have the "wrong" combination of colorblindness. Could you compare those colors as well?
Ned, thanks for offering to do start development of a CSS. Perhaps you would post a note to WP:WikiProject Accessibility when you have something workable? Perhaps editors at Color blindness would also be interested. I'll post a note there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The potential accessibility issue notwithstanding, it should be noted that the standard talk page template color scheme was determined via a dedicated project through which numerous proposals were discussed and formally voted on. That doesn't mean that it can't be changed, of course. I just want to make it clear that it wasn't, as theorized above, unilaterally selected by one template designer and accepted because no one bothered to question it. —David Levy 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: Here comes my very late answer:
Ah right, I did forget to test the link colours. In the settings I use for Wikipedia I only see three kinds of links:
I did a screen dump and converted it to black and white and those three links are still very readable on that background. So all kinds of colour blind people should be able to read those links without problem.
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Red vs orange

To me, red is more of an alarm color than orange, and notices about improper conduct even more important than about deletion. I'd reverse he use of the two--use red for the serious warnings & an orange for t he deletion notices. I'm concerned similarly about the shapes--the triangle also seems more alarming than the circle. Or is the intent to make the deletion notices stand out more than anything else. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

The terms are a carry over from the {{ambox}} standard, they don't actually mean anything in relation to the template itself (at least in the Ombox and Tmbox implementations), also the images are not linked to the colors, so any images can be used. I'd suggest using the "delete" colors for level 4, 4im, and block templates, orange for level 3, and so on, at the article talk level, probably the standard Style or Notice colors for most talk messages, and maybe the Content level for things like BLP warnings and DR tags at talk pages. MBisanz talk 14:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That's another thing that kind of gets me.. the categorization (for a lack of better words) that ambox used, doesn't really work for talk pages (delete, merge, etc). -- Ned Scott 04:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz is correct. We kept the names from ambox for backwards compatibility reasons, that is to enable some message boxes to be able to be used on several different kinds of pages and "shape shift" to the appropriate style for the page they are on. If it wasn't for that then the orange tmbox type would perhaps have been called "major" or "major-warning" instead of "content" and so on. We can of course make it so that tmbox understands several names for each type, that is the global name that is used in ambox/imbox/cmbox/ombox and a local name like "major". Back when I made ambox I wanted to make it so one could also feed the colour name as type name, that is "type=orange" instead of "type=content", since I find that easier to remember. But consensus went against that idea, but perhaps people will think differently now?
And regarding what DGG really was talking about: Which colour level to use for what: Red is already standardised for deletion notices in all other namespaces, so I think they should be red here too. However, blocking a user (especially indefinite blocks) is kind of like "deleting" the user. So perhaps we could use the red type also for the highest level block messages? What colour level to use for each individual message is something that will have to be further discussed when we deploy tmbox.
And I agree with DGG that a triangle seems more alarming than a circle. So for the more serious warnings you can feed an orange warning triangle, like this:
{{tmbox
| type = content
| image = [[Image:Ambox warning orange.svg|40x40px]]
| text = A really serious major warning.
}}
And right, the default images are only there for convenience and for demonstration purposes. Many or even most talk page message boxes will use other images or in some cases no image at all, that is "image=none".
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
For the hard-coded version of Imbox on Wikinews, I have it set up with a type called "custom" (which can take in a custom color for the border. Still defaults to blue no matter what you do, but still. ViperSnake151 03:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Color of the bikeshed

I have created template:bikeshed as a redirect to this template, for hopefully obvious reasons. --NE2 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The aforementioned template was speedy-deleted a few minutes ago, for hopefully obvious reasons. Waltham, The Duke of 08:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

What is going on here? Why on earth do we need to change these templates again? (I went to the recommended page and still couldn't figure it out.) I would much prefer the current templates with the colored bar on the left over these juvenile looking full color things.

Look, you've got a small but vocal group out there who already hates these templates because they feel that they are obtrusive and non-professional looking. Well, a solid majority disagrees and believes that these are necessary, but do they have to become even more obnoxious? I am completely baffled by this, other than to presume that some editors have become bored editing in the mainspace and need to come up with alternative projects to work on. (I do recognize that, without the benefit of seeing my smiling face whilst I wrote the above words, that someone may interpret that as an uncivil comment. Please do not take offense; tongue is planted firmly in cheek.) Cheers. Unschool (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's wipe that smile off your face, then. (evil grin)
You are talking about the mainspace. Very public pages; the face of our project to the world, in fact (plus the portals). For the templates used there, see {{ambox}}. Coloured bars on the side. Happy, bright colours, too; I'd be happy to see them on pages if it weren't for the mean stuff written about articles inside. So distressing, really. Anyway, these were standardised months and months ago. Hard task, long, not without its fights, but finished—thank Unicorn—all that is to sort out now is some images here and there. The discussions concerning it are rather boring now, but in a good sense.
On the other hand, here we are talking about a different thing: talk pages. You know, blah, blah, blah... Backstage stuff. Mostly "for editors' eyes only", and for a good reason: Wikipedians are experts at creating gigabytes of discussion out of nothing, and casual readers might get lost inside, never to resurface. Not good publicity. Now, this template is called tmbox. See the first letter that's different? Small to the eye, but important. Different templates, different purposes, different application spheres. (And there are more; check the box at the top if you're not bored.) The first templates to be standardised (a couple of years ago) are the last to be taken care of by the mighty standardisation squad of today. It's almost historical, though in a nerdy way. I'll stop here, or tears will start coming.
So... This concludes today's fascinating journey through Wiki-land. I hope you have enjoyed it, because it's your last one. Mwahahahaha! :-D Waltham, The Duke of 05:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I feel much better now. Unschool (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

tmbox type=style

Compare these variations on tmbox (type=style) : the second box is in ambox:type=style default color

<-- Using this text, from template talk:tmbox above, [1] --> --NewbyG (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Have you taken a look at these on IE7? Or were you trying to make them look like that? Happy‑melon 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah. No. Sorry, if it looks bad in IE7. I am stuck with a much older browser than that. Cheers. --NewbyG (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:UW

Has anyone taken into account the opposes for icons, coloured boxes, bells fairies & whistles, etc when we did the user warning harmonisation 2 years ago? And also what is the impact with regards to WP:UW & WP:UTM. Khukri 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well images aren't required, that variable can be set to "none" so only text is produced, colored boxes are a bit more difficult, and most of the other bells and whistles are internal technical stuff, not things the reader would see. MBisanz talk 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This isn't for user warnings or messages. This is for talk page banners and such. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

David G's colours

Since there now are several different suggestions for the styles for talk page message boxes and the code for {{tmbox}} might change, here are the styles I suggest:

Most talk page message boxes will use the notice type and thus continue to look like they do now. And the default images are only for convenience and demonstration purposes. Most boxes will use more specific images or no image at all, that is use the setting "image=none".

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not usually a fan of change *grin*, but I really like these. The simple, bold graphic is easy to understand, and lets me know what I need to pay attention to when I'm on someone else's talk page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
A good basic update to the Coffee Roll pattern of 2005 to meet the new requirement. The only amendment I would suggest is a blue thin border for Notices; otherwise this is potentially the best candidate to succeed the pattern of 2005, so I am recommending this one for the vote-off. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
So let's try how that looks:
Nah, I don't like the blue border here. Most talk page message boxes will be of "notice" type, thus I think it is better to let the notice type have the old thin grey border so they will look the same as they did before.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy‑melon's colours

These are the styles that Happy‑melon seems to suggest for talk page message boxes:

These boxes do not have default images, but message boxes built with the {{tmbox}} can feed an image as parameter if needed.

Technically the "style", "move" and "protection" types don't have to be in the tmbox code since if a non existing type name is fed the {{tmbox}} defaults to the "notice" type. That means that for instance the {{mbox}} still can call tmbox with those types even if they are not in the tmbox code.

Happy‑melon: I hope I understood your suggestion correctly?

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I really like the colored borders, at least for my work in warning templates, could we just make the non-bordered style the default? MBisanz talk 05:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz: I assume you by "the non-bordered style" mean the thin grey notice border? And yes, for both this suggestion and my (David G's) suggestion in the previous section the notice style is the default type. Thus when no type is set the boxes get the thin grey border. And most talk page header boxes are not urgent but rather informative boxes and thus should have the default notice style and thus will look the same as they did before. Then the coloured borders I suggest in the previous section can be used for instance for warning templates just as you suggest.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The thin border, using the left-side color specification from Template:Ambox, provides differentiation for this design, which can be done more compactly than the other candidates for the final version of this Template; it also provides reasonable uniformity with the Coffee Roll standard of 2005 in terms of scalability and readability. In my judgment, this proposal is a good candidate for the vote-off. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
That's correct, DG. I'm not sure myself about default images; we should be careful in any discussion or poll to separate the colour/no colour issue from the images/no images one. Happy‑melon 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy-melon: Right, (border) colours and the default images are two separate issues. With ambox the colours were set within some weeks and kept since then, although they were heavily discussed and many versions tested during those weeks. While the images have been modified/improved every now and then ever since. The default images are mostly for convenience and for demonstration and testing purposes. As you can see the examples above look pretty empty and small without the default images. But of course, we could fill the examples with lots of text instead to get a feel of how they will look, and we can do test examples where we feed images to test the padding etc.

But if we look at the other mboxes some of the default images have become very widely used. But we also have the opposite with for instance the {{imbox}} type "license", it on purpose has a default image that should not be used:

Thus that image is not there for convenience, but only for demonstration and testing purposes. (Well, having a test image is pretty convenient too.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

B. C. Schmerker's colours

These are the styles that B. C. Schmerker seems to suggest for talk page message boxes. I am not sure I understood his suggestion correctly.

The default images are only for convenience and demonstration purposes. Most boxes will use more specific images or no image at all, that is use the setting "image=none". Then looking like this:

B. C. Schmerker: Did I understand your suggestion correctly?

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I really prefer these boxes. They are all clearly different from each other and the colors tell something about the box, which enables users to directly see what the notice is about, in contrast to the more yellow-ish ones like David G's and Happy-melon's. As humans visibility abilities are way better than their readability abilities, from a usability perspective these boxes deserve a preference. Van der Hoorn (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
My screen's on fire. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 07:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
These are great because you really, really want to get rid of them. -- Henriok (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
One detail: these are for the talk pages; you are not supposed to get rid of them. Waltham, The Duke of 07:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

From this proof, I find Version 1 Speedy better suited to Halt/Blocking notices, similar to:

Otherwise recommend Version 2, below. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Schmerker style but with cmbox colours

I don't like Schmerker's colours above. They are way too intense. But let's try the background colours from {{cmbox}}:

Now that was nicer. Though I still don't know if I like the idea or not. It would mean we are departing totally from the old brown talk page message box style, and it means most boxes will have the notice blue background which I dislike.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it nicer because the colors are 'nicer' or because people can distinguish easily between the colors? If people are unable to easily distinguish between the colors, you do not need multiple colors. There should be a goal in choosing a template, and that is imho not whether they are 'nice', but whether users have benefit of it. Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Standardisation is proceeding most suitably! Hoping to make a helpful suggestion, these styles (cmbox colors) look OK. There is enough contrast here. In my opinion though, a plain box without the left vertical (or horizontal) color block may be all that is required on talk pages. I have no problems though, if such a suggestion is not taken up at this late stage of proceedings. --NewbyG (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Tossing a comment in here, I really like these because the format is attention-grabbing and each type is very easy to distinguish. However, I think I would prefer AzaToth's version below if the colour bar fully encircled the box, rather than just sat at the bottom. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the style of the ambox works with a colored background. It was specifically designed to have a neutral background. – flamurai (t) 01:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This proof I consider a better candidate for a vote-off to decide the next Talkpage Message standard. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Here, before the honourable editors, I solemnly vow that for as long as I am a Wikipedian...
...I shall oppose this type of talk-page templates. :-D
Sorry, but I really like the current templates. The categorisation scheme is rather irrelevant, and most of the colours here are redundant in talk pages, so a common background makes good sense. I also find that the uniform and uniquely coloured background is a) distinctive and particular to that namespace (or, rather, group of namespaces) and b) neutral in a "these are backstage pages" way. The current system works optimally, and I see no special benefit in changing it. Waltham, The Duke of 07:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

AzaToth's idea

Have to dump an idea here as well then... →AzaToth 14:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Well for what it's worth I like those better than the proposals above or on the proposal page. Similar enough to the ambox versions to correlate but definitely different. Adam McCormick (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I like it as well. Best suggestion so far. Simple, close to the current templates, but with all the visual refs.to the ambox style. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I like this at first glance. I am in favor of a consistent background color. Maybe not the specific background color, but that's minor. – flamurai (t) 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's very easy on the eyes in comparison to some other designs. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This design is a logical modification from the Coffee Roll standard and, in my judgment, a good candidate for the vote-off. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it rather confusing; in cases like above, where many templates are stacked on each other, it will hard to tell in a glance which colour goes where. Waltham, The Duke of 19:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Waltham. This style is confusing since it makes it hard to tell if a colour bar belongs to the box above or below it, when several boxes are stacked.
And I don't like the colour nuances. If some kind of colour bar or border is used I think we can use the ambox/imbox/ombox nuances.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

HereToHelp's idea

Cool idea, though I'm not sure about the colors. Have they been desaturated compared to, say, {{imbox}}? The "notice" one looks especially, erm, off, but if they are chromatically uniform and based off other templates, leave 'em how they are. Also, with the bottom border it's difficult to discern whether the color belongs to the box above or below. How about these?

--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This design is a good one from the coding perspective, combining the color differentiation of Template:Ambox with text-field uniformity from the Coffee Roll standard of 2005. In my judgment, a good candidate for the vote-off. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, though I really just took AzaToth's idea and changed border-bottom to border-left and whatdayaknow, Wikimedia software threw me a bone. As per comments below, the styles and colors are subject to change.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This style at least makes it clear which box has which colour. But I don't like the colour nuances, if some kind of colour bar or border is used I think we can use the ambox/imbox/ombox nuances.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

HereToHelp: From your comment here and in section GA and FA classes? it seems you agree to use the colour nuances from the other mboxes. I also suggest using the old talk page brown and its light grey border instead. With the exception of the speedy type that has pink background in all other namespaces so lets have pink here too. Lets try it:


Ah, I see now why you made the colours a bit more "brownish" (lower saturation). The plain ambox colours look a bit too happy compared to the talk page brown background. But I think you made them too sombre (gloomy), but a bit lower saturation than ambox might be good.

Or we can use a thinner left side colour bar since then the colours doesn't stand out so much, just like the thin border I use in David G's colours above. Like this:


Looks pretty okay I think. But I still prefer David G's colours.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You give me too much credit; I borrowed the saturated colors from AzaToth, but I'm all for consistency. I've got a bunch of variations in my User:HereToHelp/sandbox; I was going to start a new format thread as soon as we ascertained that all we needed were the mbox styles, featured, and GA. I address some of your programming issues here, but from a design standpoint, there needs to be uniformity. But if we're sure of what we need, I'm more than ready to move on.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Going about this all wrong

We're trying to treat this as if it were the same situation as article space templates. The different talk space templates aren't going to be in these same groups, or at least, we can use better groups (referring to "delete", "content", "style", etc). We have project banners, notices, those "in the news" templates, deletion templates, article history, archive boxes, and so on.

And even then, I'm not really sure we need to make any additional visual distinction between these templates. This is a totally different situation than when we wanted to clean up article templates. Some notices don't even need to change layout simply because they're in another namespace. This really seems to be like we're just doing it for the sake of doing it. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. My arguments are here. Waltham, The Duke of 07:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
So do we need visual distinction or not? Or do we need to come up with new styles? If not, there probably isn't much harm leaving them as they are. If so, we can still use the above formatting, just with new styles and colors, with talk-specific purposes. Perhaps like these?
--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, User:HereToHelp—Talk Messages and/or User Talk Messages need a larger set of Types than Messages for Articles, Templates, Images, and Categories. I already recognize Types with similar values at code level to those of Articles, Templates, Images and Categories (References: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace) in addition to the Talk Namespace messages above:
  • Warnings and Notices: Multi-level templates (1=Notice, 2=Notice, 3=Content, 4=Delete, 4im=Delete).
  • Warnings and Notices: Single-level templates (consistent w/ Content and Notice)
  • Blocks (1=Content, 2=Delete, 3=Speedy)
Any suggestions on how to integrate the larger set of Types into this Template? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
As much fun as it was to create the above mockups, let's consider that the formatting is still evolving (unless everyone really likes my version!). The assessment templates especially, in their possibly-double-sided multi-WikiProject show-and-hide templated glory, will probably go through many versions. But let's identify what styles we need before we worry about color scheme and formatting. Useful links: Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Even though it will mean a lot of work for those of us who work with project banner templates, I rather like this. Remember, though, that the class/importance types must copy the format currently used by the assessment grade systems (eg FA/FL, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub, "everything else", Top, High, Mid, Low; plus all the dual derivatives) so kludges can be avoided. To simplify things a bit, you'll probably want to throw a {{lc:}} magic word on the type field so there isn't a chance of accidental capital letters messing things up. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping there'd be a way to specify quality and importance independently, so we could avoid 28 (7 qualities x 4 priorities) different combinations. And we still need a clolor for generic WikiProject banners, unless each project wants to assign its own, which is probably not a good idea.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
← I've not really peeked at the deeper code, but would it be possible to simply create separate "class" and "importance" fields alongside "type"? Would certainly simplify things. Considering the majority of non-user-space talk page banners (both in number and application) are project banners, it may be warranted.
As for the "other" colour, a simple light gray should suffice, unless you really want to get into the unwieldy array of additional values represented at {{Cat class}}.— Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Grey is used for protection (although we can have more than one grey), but do we really need a protection class for articles? It would be easier, certainly, and I'm not sure how informative color-coded assessment classes might be. ALSO: it occurred to me that having a featured template and an assessed-as-featured template is redundant and silly. Furthermore, they'd use different colors (if we wind up using colored assessment boxes). Such, I've inquired into why the assessment color is blue here.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What about WikiProject banners?

← My patience is wearing thin; most of the proposals on this page take for granted that we want templates to stack on talk pages, which is probably far from the truth, especially considering that important templates like {{ArticleHistory}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} are collapsible. And the sidebar only looks good if templates are stacked. Besides, the scheme above would lead to redundancy (the classes are given in the project banners as icons anyway, and these are more explanatory) and inconsistency (many articles are not assigned importance ratings, or even a quality classification). Frankly, I cannot see the benefits. Waltham, The Duke of 23:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the color-coded assessment bars are (needlessly?) complex. Even so, I think bars of some sort are a good thing. Although, with the collapsable templates you mentioned, it might be best to see a real-word demonstration.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Ouch! WikiProject banners are informative non-urgent "notices" and should not have warning colours like red, orange or yellow. Instead they should all be of "notice" type. And I think the notice type should have the old grey border. Thus the WikiProject banners should continue to look as they do now.
Actually, we don't really need {{tmbox}} for the WikiProject banners. They already have their own meta-templates that work fairly well.
Rather the reason I made tmbox is so that {{mbox}} has something to call when on talk pages. Since there are some message boxes that go on several kinds of pages and thus need to "shape shift" to the proper styles for the pages they are shown on. Thus we built the namespace detecting mbox that in turn calls one of ambox, tmbox, imbox, cmbox or ombox depending on page type.
So the primary concern for tmbox is to be compatible with the other mboxes. Thus the question really is: What should tmbox show when used via mbox by say a message box with "type=delete"? Deletion boxes have a red border in all other namespaces, what should they have in the rare occasion they are shown on a talk page? And the same goes for the other mbox types: speedy, delete, content (which means major warning or urgent issue), style (which means minor warning or less urgent issue), notice, move and protection. Sure, many of those types will only be used very rarely on talk pages, but we can not deploy mbox before we have decided what should happen in those rare cases. Thus all the message boxes that need to "shape shift" are right now in limbo, not working as they should.
And regarding type naming: The current type names like "content" and "style" were inherited from {{ambox}}. Tmbox needs to understand those parameters to work with mbox. However, if people think it is needed I can make it so that tmbox also understands other names for those types. For instance the orange major warning type could have the following names: "content", "major-warning" and "orange". Thus "type=major-warning" and "type=content" would mean the same thing.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
All this is rather theoretical. Can we first see exactly which templates will be affected so that we can base our decision on actual practices? These changes should address existing or foreseeable needs; if we continue down the road discussion on this page has taken, we run a very real danger of addressing imaginary needs. Waltham, The Duke of 01:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's theoretical, let's examine the facts. I say we figure out what styles we need first and then worry about formatting--I was premature in running the various assessment mockups. David Gothberg has made it clear that all mbox types need to be accounted for. FA and GA should also have styles. (Rather than duplicates like "type=major-warning", how about useful and unique talk styles?) Other than that, if assessments are going to use the old thin grey border and look like they do now, I don't see any other classes we need to create. But I'll leave the floor open for anyone to add to in case I've missed something before we worry about formatting (telling the template what to shape-shift into in each case).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think tmbox is going to really shine in a more general way by replacing/absorbing our general templates, like {{notice}} and {{warning}}, etc. I'm just not sure there's much of a point to changing the style (at least for all of them), or having tmbox be a template wrapper for most other template notices.

This also seems to have been a good discussion for other things, such as reviewing the coffee roll color used, and pointing out that boxed user-warnings need standardization. I think we'll definitely see some good talk page template standardization come from all of this, but it might not be what was originally expected. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Waltham: When I write software I don't leave gaping holes. Instead I see to that all parameter combinations have a defined behaviour, even those parameter combinations that are less likely to be used. I have several times on this talk page given examples of message boxes that are used on several namespaces, including on talk space.
The very reason I started investigating namespace detection last summer and in the end made tmbox is that I wanted to make {{notice}}, {{caution}} and {{warning}} work properly. And yes, those ones are often used on talk pages. So this didn't come out of some imaginary need, but from an actual need. So {{caution}} and {{warning}} are examples of warning boxes that go on talk pages. I think they should use yellow minor warning and orange major warning respectively.
There are speedy and protection boxes that are used on several namespaces, also on talk pages. Yes, talk pages are sometimes speedy deleted and sometimes protected.
I am not aware of any move boxes that are meant to be used on talk pages, but there are move boxes that are used on more than one namespace, for instance {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Such move boxes in the future probably will use {{mbox}} instead of manually coded namespace detection. (That is, mbox makes it possible for editors who don't know all the intricate details of namespace detection programming to easily build shape shifting message boxes.) But when people discuss boxes they show them on talk pages as a demonstration. Thus the move boxes that use mbox need a defined style when demonstrated on a talkpage. Or do you mean we should display an error message instead? Or do you mean tmbox should do fall back to the default talk page brown with grey border (notice style)? That would be very confusing when a move template is being discussed and demonstrated.
I just listed the need for all the mbox types. That's not imaginary needs, but actual needs.
HereToHelp: Right, talk pages might need some extra types that are unique to talk pages. When we made {{imbox}} we added two types that only imbox has (license and featured). However, I ask that we wait with adding any new types and any extra functionality to tmbox, since that will delay this process and I really would like to deploy mbox this year. So let's focus on the ambox types. I think it should be pretty obvious what colour scale to use for the types since we use the same colour scale in all the other namespaces. That is blue or grey for notice, red for delete and so on. As I see it the question is rather where to put that colour. That is, perhaps as a border all around or perhaps as a left side colour bar or perhaps as something else like the "Schmerker colours" above.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me; I am equally against gaping holes and I completely support the idea behind mbox and tmbox. And I am aware that talk pages can accommodate "speedy" templates, and I agree that they should have a red border and background colour. However, I am against using other coloured borders. Or at least the entire roster that you propose.
Protection can be indicated very well with padlocks; as images are not often used in talk-page templates*, any padlock will be distinctive enough (and given the generally temporary nature of protection on talk pages, that template should be the first one on any talk page; for permanently protected templates, the red padlock is even more distinctive). Not to mention how bad the grey border looks with the coffee-roll background—and it is not much visible anyway. Rather similar to the current border, too. And now that I think of it, it will look strange with red padlocks; the shade chosen for protection only works with silver and golden padlocks, but more are used on talk pages.
*I do suggest eschewing usage of placeholder images; if there is already an image in a template, that is all good, but why should we fill all the templates with general images? Especially if we are to use coloured borders for every class. Not using placeholders will make images where they are used all the more eye-catching, which is more important for classic templates like those for featured content and good articles—I really believe those are just fine as they are. Besides, the gold colour is unsuitable for article talk pages, where the assessment scale cleary defines blue as the FA colour.
The rest tomorrow. Waltham, The Duke of 09:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I have stated repeatedly at this talk page: The default images are only there for convenience, demonstration and testing purposes. Talk page message boxes that today don't use an image probably should continue to not use an image, since as you point out many of them simply don't need an image, thus they should set "image=none" when/if they use tmbox.
And regarding colour for messages about Featured Articles: We have already deployed the gold colour for the {{imbox}} featured type. Among other things since it matches the featured article star. And have you ever heard about winning the "blue medal" at the Olympics? Are you suggesting we should change it to a blue star? Nah, featured articles are "gold medal / golden star" articles here.
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is quite long, and my attention is not undivided, so forgive me if I have missed something. I am happy to hear what you say about the images. And I do find reasonable what you say about the colour. What I don't find reasonable is why we should apply a metal colour to FAs and leave GAs green, whether they leave the main scale or not; there are arguments to be made for both eventualities. In any case, I don't find using borders for FAs and GAs necessary at all—see my message in the next section. Waltham, The Duke of 06:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

GA and FA classes?

For formatting, I was going to suggest something like these but with the fully saturated colors of {{ambox}} and {{imbox}}. I think the coffee roll color has too much social inertia behind it (people are too used to it to change it) and while it's slightly ugly, it emphasizes that these pages are for editors, not readers. Someone used a "backstage" metaphor, which I like. However, I must insist that we have GA, or at least FA, classes. You mentioned that there is a featured class already in mbox for imbox; what happens when that class is applied to another namespace? Answer:

It seems like it should be fairly easy to have the same class transfer over to a featured class in on talk pages. (Do you think we can have it create the featured star in the corners of articles? I digress.) It would be nice if we could come up with an mbox GA class, but that opens up the whole issue with branding GAs in the article namespace (which I oppose). So for GAs, I'll reluctantly support a separate but formatting-wise uniform template (or templates). But as for featured, it seems to me that we can just use the class already there for imbox.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

HereToHelp: First an answer to your technical question regarding the featured star: No, a template that goes on a talk page can not automatically add any content to the article page, it can only add content to the talk page.
HereToHelp: You have slightly misunderstood it, but just slightly. Yes, {{imbox}} has two extra classes not supported by the other mboxes: "type=license" and "type=featured". Any message box that uses one of the extra imbox classes clearly is intended to only be used on image pages, thus it should not use the namespace detecting {{mbox}} but instead directly call {{imbox}}. Thus mbox doesn't have to have a defined behaviour for such extra types. (But it actually has a defined behaviour for any "type" parameter that is unknown, since all the mboxes it calls do fall back to the default notice style, and that is what we see in your "absolutely nothing" example above.) The advantage of calling for instance {{imbox}} directly for a message box that only is intended for that kind of pages is that the message box will look the same on its template page and on any other place where it is listed/demonstrated, thus making it clear what kind of pages it should be used on. It also saves some server load.
As some might have noticed I think that pretty much any non-urgent/non-warning message box should use the notice style. However, the featured contents (yes, there are more than just featured articles) and good articles (warning, very heavy page to load) do have formal approval processes involving many editors. And there are a number of message boxes dedicated to them at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace. That makes them special enough that it might be acceptable to give them their own message box types. Although personally I would prefer that they continue to use the notice type as they do now.
If we create such types then for me the choice of colours for them and the name for those types are pretty obvious. For the imbox "featured" type we did choose a border colour that matches the featured star so let's reuse that type name and colour for the tmbox. For a tmbox "good article class" I suggest using the type name "good" and a green border matching the good article icon. I would strongly advice against calling the type "good-article" since if we keep the type name neutral we can reuse it in the future when we get good content processes for other types of content. So in the style of David G's colours above that would look like this:
Oh, that actually looks pretty good. The exact nuance of the green might have to be tweaked somewhat since this is just a draft and I haven't tested it next to all the other ambox colours. But the featured colour should preferably be used as is since that was tweaked and reached consensus already for the {{imbox}}, and I think it also looks very good with the talk page brown.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah. So the featured class in in imbox, not mbox; somehow I missed that. What it now boils down to is whether we can add new featured and good classes (notice the omission of "article") without disrupting mbox--like what was done with license and featured in with imbox. If we can, let's do that, and then use tmbox in the various good and featured templates. Featured star: what I meant was use mbox in an article, and have the namespace detection redirect to {{Featured article}} or something like that. I think we're done here and ready to move on to deciding between a number of formats, which is something we need the community's opinion on. I'd rather not hold a vote...--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to open up a comments section for each on the talk page and link the titles there. Is that ok with you (Since it's in your namespace and all)? Adam McCormick (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I've created a mock-up of a discussion page linked from your examples. I did have one request though, would it be possible to make a Schmerker-AzaToth-DavidG hybrid? Adam McCormick (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Adam McCormick:
If you are going to do tmbox examples and have a comments page for the examples then they should be saved for future reference with this template. So I recommend that you move them to subpages of this template right now. That makes them more "official".
HereToHelp:
Yes, adding extra types to for instance {{tmbox}} does not disrupt {{mbox}}. As long as all the mboxes has all the types that we expect to use with {{mbox}}. Since the extra types should not be used with mbox at all, but rather by directly using tmbox.
Actually, most message boxes are only supposed to be used in one namespace, thus most of them should use one of the ambox/tmbox/imbox/cmbox/ombox templates directly. Only those message boxes that need to shape shift should use mbox, that is message boxes who are supposed to be used on more than one type of pages. So using mbox is the exception.
I knew we should not have called the shape shifting meta-box "mbox". I wanted to call it "multibox" to make its purpose clear but the other editors preferred "mbox"...
Ah, now I see what you mean about the featured star. You seem to want to have a single template called say {{featured article}} that can be put on both article pages and talk pages. When put on article pages it should produce the featured star in the corner, and when put on talk pages it should produce the "This is a featured article" message box. That's what you want, right? And yes we can do that. But doing it by using the mbox would be very messy. Instead you should use for instance {{main other}} for that. But that's another story so let's not discuss that on this talk page now.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I've recreated the page at Template:Tmbox/styles and the associated talkpage (with your style correction). Adam McCormick (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, looks good. Now we just need to publicize the straw poll (yes, it belongs in a subpage of like it is and not in my userspace) and to create the featured and good classes in tmbox. Featured star: If it's more trouble than it's worth, don't bother.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 11:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I consider the proposal of User:HereToHelp a good one. I have prepared a test scheme at User:B.C.Schmerker/Templates/MBoxSampler1 for study and potential inclusion in this Discussion. Adding Featured and Good to supported Types for this Template (viz., Template:Tmbox) will help with differentiation even with an unchanged Text Background Color from the standard of 2005. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

←There's already a Template:Tmbox/styles set up. All it needs now is people. Also note that the icons are a whole different issue, currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Article_message_boxes#Icons. There seems to be commitment to keeping the colors, so we should be able to evaluate the box layout without being sure of the icons.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is agreement to use borders in talk-page templates, I believe that we should not use them for featured-content boxes. First of all, it would look strange on collapsible templates (and {{articlehistory}} normally is). Furthermore, they have distinctive images rendering borders redundant, especially if no placeholder images are to be used in general. Finally, there is no consensus for using the golden colour. I don't think the imbox selection should set a precedent; as I have said, even though gold might be more intuitive for featured content, it clashes with blue, which is in the scale, a scale appearing in the very talk pages you wish to use gold on. And, even semantically taken, these templates are informational. I fail to see the necessity of splitting off classes for a grand total of two templates for each. Waltham, The Duke of 05:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
So the question remains: Do we need the "featured" and "good" types? Can someone that knows more about featured and good stuff point to what message boxes we have that might use these types? I have only found one so far: {{featured}}. But I haven't been seriously looking around.
Personally I think the "featured" and "good" types probably are not necessary. The reason I showed the examples with them above was to suggest proper type naming, default icons and colours for them, in case people think we need them.
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Tmbox/Archive_1&oldid=1130179407"