Template talk:Notice/Archive 2

PNG versus SVG
We shouldn't go out of our way to accomodate people with broken browsers. Use of this image should be replaced with Image:Information icon.svg. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, we should go out of or way to punish people with broken browsers. Please explain how this benefits anyone.  &mdash;David Levy 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The benefit is that the SVG is resizable without pixelization or artifacts. The same benefit that all of our SVG images have over their PNG counterparts.  Its not punishment, it is the natural side effect of not properly implementing the specification &mdash; and not by us, by Microsoft.  I just pulled up a Windows box and viewed both versions of Template:Notice in IE6.  Speficially, IE 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519.  There were no artifacts on the rendering of the SVG version.  I can upload a screenshot if you would like.  Also note WP:IUP rule of thumb #9:


 * Use ... SVG format for icons, logos, drawings, maps, flags, and such, falling back to PNG when only a raster image is available.


 * So SVG is clearly preferred by policy. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the SVG format has benefits! That's why it's preferred by policy.  (If we're going to use one or the other, SVG clearly wins out.)
 * We do not, however, rigidly adhere to the letter of policy when doing so provides absolutely no benefit. (See WP:IAR.)  You have not cited an advantage to using the SVG icon in this instance (because there is none).
 * The SVG already served its function as the original source, just as it does automatically via MediaWiki. (In case you didn't realize, all SVGs are converted to PNGs for display.)  I merely took the exact PNG generated from the SVG by MediaWiki and tweaked it to render properly for far more users.  (I also switched to a slightly different shade of blue, but that's a separate matter.)
 * You say that "there were no artifacts" in IE6, so I assume that you overlooked the fact that the background is gray white instead of transparent. This is far more noticeable when the template is transcluded onto talk pages (given that the background color otherwise is a fairly similar shade of gray).  &mdash;David Levy 19:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I stand corrected on the artifacts. The background was white (255,255,255) instead of slightly grey (249,249,249) via the transparency.  I couldn't see that until I blew up the screenshot.  I am aware of how SVGs are rendered on MediaWiki.
 * The problem with the logic of using the PNG "in this instance", is that each instance can have the same argument. Eventually you are explicitly using PNG renderings of SVGs instead of using SVGs (think 20 PNG renderings, each a different size, each having their own image: page), just to satisfy IE6 users.  It would be excessive, but that is the logical result of the argument you have layed out.  Are you going to start a campaign to upload and use IE6-compatible PNG images for all SVGs with transparency? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not going to start a campaign, but if I occasionally want to invest the small amount of time and effort that this entails, I don't see why you should object. (I'm not asking you or anyone else to do it.)  In most cases, I probably wouldn't bother, but this is a particularly prominent template.
 * Also keep in mind that this issue pertains strictly to images with transparent backgrounds. &mdash;David Levy 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As for SVG advantages in this instance, I can think of several:
 * PNG resolution is too low for printing (proper printing of the SVG will convert it to postscript directly and not go through a raster phase)
 * updates to the SVG image will not be propogated to the PNG image
 * PNG colors differ from SVG colors (which you say is purposeful, but could be considered a detriment, an instance of the last item where the PNG and SVG are not in sync)
 * --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To what context are you referring with your "printing" scenario?
 * This is not a chart or a graph. Any update would be minor and purely aesthetic (and of far less significance than the solid background that appears for a majority of users.)  Of course, I follow these matters and would promptly incorporate any worthwhile changes.
 * The shade needn't vary from that of the SVG; I simply switched to one that I felt looked nicer. If you prefer the original shade, I'll change it back.  Of course, there's no need for such sync; we already have several renditions of circular "i" icons in use, and that isn't a problem.  &mdash;David Levy 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I give up. Just one question.  What percentage of usage share does IE6 have to drop to before this is abandoned?  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends on what you mean by "abandoned."
 * I don't have any specific numerical cutoff point in mind, but such a setup will become decreasingly worthwhile to create as more and more users switch to another browser (which will most often be IE7).
 * Barring unforeseen circumstances, at no point do I anticipate deciding that the existing instances should be removed, even if they benefit only a small percentage of users. &mdash;David Levy 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

SVG version and PNG tweaked?
I have several things to report and ask regarding the image Image:Info non-talk.png and I ask it here since its talkpage until now redirected here.

1: It was confusing that the talkpage of Image:Info non-talk.png redirected here since many other templates use this image to. So I removed the redirect. But since they are related and you do discuss that image here I instead made a soft but visible link between these two talk pages. I used this very notice box for the soft redirect.

2: I normally use Firefox but I also test pages with Opera and my very old Internet Explorer 5.5. Until some year ago my IE 5.5 could not handle transparent PNGs properly, especially the transparent PNGs that MediaWiki rendered from SVGs. It caused a very visible grey background for SVG images on Wikipedia. So I got into the habit to add a big white box behind my SVG diagrams I made for Wikipedia, a box that covers the entire image so they don't have any transparent areas. But then one day suddenly my IE 5.5 rendered transparent PNGs perfectly. Perhaps some bug fix I did receive when doing Windows Update or has MediaWiki changed how it renders SVG->PNG? At about the same time my VERY old image editing program suddenly could load and save PNGs so I think it is some update to my OS. My image edit program is older than the PNG format. So does IE 6 still have problems with transparent PNGs?

3: David Levy: You mentioned you made a PNG from the SVG and then "tweaked" the PNG transparency so it works for more browsers. Since I make images for Wikipedia I would like to know exactly what kind of tweaking you did? And what software did you use to do the tweak?

4: My experience is that PNGs work better here at Wikipedia. MediaWiki does very good scaling+rendering of PNGs. While there are all kinds of problems with SVGs like several kinds of font and text problems. (Of course, might be my old version of Inkscape that is buggy. I can't run the new versions on my OS.)

5: David Levy: I like the colours you did choose for Image:Info non-talk.png It is better for the article message boxes since Image:Information icon.svg  is a bit to intense.

6: Yesterday I was unaware of the discussions here and I was still brainwashed by other editors to "convert all images to SVG". Image:Info non-talk.png is going to be the default image for the blue article notice message boxes in our new Template standardisation project. So I went ahead and created a SVG version with the same colours: Image:Info non-talk.svg and uploaded it to commons. So is the right conclusion that it is better that we stick with the PNG version for the article message boxes?

I thank that was all for now...

--David Göthberg 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 8-bit PNGs never had the problem in question. Yes, the difference that you noticed with the 24-bit PNGs stemmed from a change to MediaWiki that resulted in scaled/SVG-derived PNGs being rendered with a bKGD (background) attribute of 255,255,255 (white), which replaces the grey that IE uses by default.
 * I modified the image file via the same method. Using a program called TweakPNG, I added a bKGD attribute of 249,249,249 (the color used by Template:Notice on non-talk pages).  For talk page transclusions, I created Image:Info talk.png, which contains a bKGD attribute of 248,234,186 (the color used by Template:Notice on talk pages).
 * For the English Wikipedia, this basically has been rendered obsolete by the past week's introduction of new code that circumvents the IE transparency bug for most users. —David Levy 09:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, so you have done with those images as I thought. Well, I didn't figure that out until I noticed yesterday you used two such images when I read the code for notice.
 * And a strange side notice: I use an old Internet Explorer 5.5 for compatibility testing of web pages and my Wikipedia coding. And since a year back or more I have had no problems with transparent PNGs at Wikipedia. No matter if they were actual PNGs, MediaWiki scaled PNGs or MediaWiki rendered SVGs->PNGs. But at about the same time my VERY old graphics editing software could suddenly open and save PNGs. So I think I did get some OS upgrade or something that enabled PNGs to work properly.
 * Thanks for the explanation. By the way, you say Wikipedia now has fixed the rendering problem? So we can start using SVGs without problem now?
 * And I am aware that Wikipedia in different languages are differently upgraded when it comes to things like this. (They even resolve internal wiki URLs differently.)
 * --David Göthberg 10:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The fix was implemented locally (not as a standard part of MediaWiki). I don't know whether/which other wikis have done the same.
 * This should resolve the issue for most users, so I would say that the IE transparency bug no longer should be regarded as a major concern at the English Wikipedia. The problem with poor scaling of some SVGs remains, so it still might make sense to favor PNGs in those instances.  —David Levy 11:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. So would you say that this image can now be marked as obsolete ? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Its Commons description page already contains advice to use the SVG equivalent
 * We now have custom-tweaked PNG icons for the mbox variants (which remains worthwhile for templates as widely used as those), but this particular file has been superseded. —David Levy 13:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request
editprotected

Can someone fix this template so that people can set the CSS class to be either grey or the peach colour, e.g.

I don't know how to code this myself, so have taken it to editprotected instead!

Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When would this be needed? –Pomte 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This could be useful for if people wish to change it for their talk pages, personal sandboxes, etc. - and without the change depending on namespace. Could work possibly. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This template already switches to the standard colors for talk pages. You can always just write the div in your source code if you want something that looks different than this. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Documentation
editprotected It would be great if someone could add the template documentation. I've created the /doc file, but &lt;noinclude>
 * the original file still needs this instead of the current info:

&lt;/noinclude>

I plan to add examples of what each of the ways to customise the template look like (from the Usage section).

Thanks very much, Drum guy (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Remember the dot (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Adjust the padding?
The box hugs the text and image so much. It looks small and unpleasing to me. Does anyone else agree? I believe padding would be really, really nice. – The Obento   Musubi  ( Contributions ) 03:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs more padding. Boxes are only supposed to be big enough to hold the text. This box doesn't have any less padding than any other template. And we don't need any more space taken up by boxes on talk pages. Talk pages tend to get overrun by them already.  Equazcion •✗/C • 03:32, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that all of the English Wikipedia boxes have WAY too little padding. It feels as if everything is squished. – The Obento   Musubi  ( Contributions ) 19:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If this were a widely held view, it would be addressed by now, and it wouldn't be addresssed here but in Template:Mbox and all of the other meta templates. It isn't something that could be changed here anyway, since this template's style code is inherited from Mbox. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Change the style for article notices
Currently this notice box has two styles: The brown "coffee roll" standard for talk pages and the old grey style for other pages. When on article pages it still uses the old grey standard instead of the design that is standard for article message boxes since about six months.

I intend to fix that within some day. Then it automatically will look like this on article pages:

I just thought I would give anyone that watch this page a heads up so you can discuss it here if you like, before I do it. (I am anyway busy with doing some other template stuff before I give this box its make over. :) --David Göthberg (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --David Göthberg (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am finished with the new code for notice. Take a look at the code and examples at the test page and say what you think. It works almost exactly like before but with some minor changes and some additions:


 * The new version of the template uses "ambox" notice style when shown on article pages, as the standard for article message boxes says.


 * As probably was the original intention the "small=yes" parameter is now only used to make small right-floating boxes for talk pages. On other types of pages the parameter will be ignored. Image size for the small boxes is now set to 30 pixel as the standard for talk page boxes says.


 * Image sizes have been increased to 40 pixels as is the standard for article message boxes.


 * Image size standard for talk pages really says 50 pixels and we should perhaps obey that for talk pages. (The code at my test page currently uses 40 pixels for all types of pages, the old code here uses 35 pixels.) But that is a rather big change from the old code here so I thought I would like to hear some comments from you people first.


 * The code takes a new parameter "demospace=main/talk/other" that makes the box behave as it does on the three different kinds of pages. ("demospace=main" means article pages.) This makes it possible for us to show on the documentation page how the box behaves on different kinds of pages, and is also good for future testing of the box after code updates.


 * So can we deploy this?
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion monologue above here is the new code for this template. It is all the code for the template so all lines should be removed and then what you see below added instead. If you want to see how this code functions go to the test page where there is a full demonstration.

(Oh, and if you distrust my expertise, you can check and see that I am the one who created ambox and pp-meta, so I hope I know what I am doing...)

And I will of course update the documentation for this template when this code has been added.

That's all. Thanks in advance.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done … and as the person who implemented in the various protection templates, I've updated the template as needed. :)  Nihiltres { t .l } 00:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, hi Nihiltres, thanks. And now I have to go investigate why the examples in the doc page looks all screwed up. "Odd, that wasn't supposed to happen". :))
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Phew, I was almost scared there for some time. It was a sneaky bug, but not in the template code so no other pages should have been affected. Instead in the docs there was a ":" in front of some examples, and that made the examples show up without borders. Fixed.
 * Now I will give the docs an overhaul.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with external links
Whenever I try to put external links in the bodytext the template just outputs where the text should be. Why doesn't it let me use external links and could this possibly be changed? I don't see anything in the code to make it break like that. Thanks. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a weird bug. I don't get that problem if I use an external link in the notice box. Look at this example:


 * Could you code an example here of how you use the notice box so we can see what happens?
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, let me guess: I think your external link contained HTTP parameters with an equal sign "=" in the link, right? MediaWiki has trouble with some special characters in the parameters. If the parameter contains an equal sign it thinks the part to the left of the equal sign is a parameter name. Then you have to feed your text as a numbered parameter so MediaWiki knows what the correct parameter name is. That is, this does not work:

But this works:

Am I right or am I right? :))

Eruhildo: You really should link to or make an example when you report a bug. Then I would have found your problem much quicker.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, I should have thought of that - that's exactly the problem. Sorry about including no example - it was late at night and I wasn't thinking. I was trying to put in a link for watching my talk page with  to give this link: text. I did what you said and it works perfectly. Could a mention of this be put in the docs? I know it's probably a rather obscure problem, but the heads-up would still be nice. Thank you so much for your help! --Eruhildo (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mbox
editprotected

Please replace the page with the contents of Notice/sandbox. This version uses mbox for all non-talk namespaces, to make sure it conforms to the most recent style guidelines. It also removes some code duplication. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Hope it didn't break anything.  Cheers.  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The doc page for mbox says: "Note! This template is NOT ready for use yet."
 * Please don't deploy templates that are not ready yet. Have some patience, tmbox and mbox will probably be ready in some weeks, until then let templates like this one use their old code. Doing hacks like this are just a waste of your time and in this case broke the examples in the documentation for this template.
 * And Ms2ger, please don't remove the blank lines between all the comments on a talk page like you did here, it makes it very hard to see which comment is which in the edit window.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Replace with SVG?
editprotected Could we use Image:Info non-talk.svg in the template please? It Is Me Here (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

editprotected
 * The above edit appears to have accidentally also changes the template to use "Image:Info talk.svg", which is a non-existant image at this time. Can that part of the edit be reverted? (it affect the notice on talk pages, see the sample at the very top of this talk page for an example). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, stupid me. I need to actually pay attention when doing these things, apparently.  Feel free to WP:TROUTslap me for that one.  Cheers!  lifebaka++ 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add shortcut support
The shortcuts on pages using this template are not showing up properly. See WP:ROJW for an example

I believe the required line of code (taken from Essay) is {{quote| | imageright = {{#if:{{{1|}}} | {{Ombox/Shortcut|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}|{{{5|}}} }} "}}

Skomorokh 16:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This template already uses parameter 1, so the code would need to be adjusted to begin with parameter 2. (This is not a problem.)
 * However, the proposal warrants discussion. There probably are very few transclusions of this tag for which the inclusion of a shortcut box is advisable (and one does not already appear within another header tag).  And in the few cases that do exist, it's fine to simply place the {{tl|shortcut}} template alongside the notice (as I just did at WP:ROJW).  For those of us with relatively high resolutions, that layout looks much better than one in which the shortcut box appears within a header tag containing as little text as the example does.
 * Apart from the lack of a need for this option, an argument against adding it is that this would encourage the creation of inappropriate shortcuts. —David Levy 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, David. Bearing in mind the importance of consistency in template formatting, how is this different from the case of {{tl|essay}}? Skomorokh  16:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The {{tl|essay}} template is to be used exclusively to tag essays. The {{tl|notice}} template, conversely, is widely used on pages that should not have shortcuts (such as articles, article talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, template pages, template talk pages, category pages, and dedicated discussion pages like deletion debates and requests for comment).
 * Meanwhile, most of the pages on which this template is transclused for which a shortcut is advisable are likely to also contain one of the header templates that support nested shortcuts (such as {{tl|policy}}, {{tl|guideline}} or {{tl|essay}}). The relative few that don't (with WP:ROJW serving as an example) lack the type of header clutter that led us to create nested shortcuts in the first place (so there's no problem with the presence of a separate shortcut box).  —David Levy 17:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with David Levy here. I think this box should be kept simple. That's really its main purpose, as a simpler to use alternative to the actual mboxes. If we add too many parameters its documentation will be so bloated that we could just as well redirect users to the mboxes instead.
 * In a case like Role of Jimmy Wales then you can use the {{tl|ombox}} directly to get what you want. Like this:

{{ombox state of affairs on the English Wikipedia as regards J. Wales. }}
 * imageright = {{shortcut|WP:JIMBO|WP:ROJW}}
 * text = This is an information page, describing the current

{{ombox }}
 * imageright = {{shortcut|WP:JIMBO|WP:ROJW}}
 * text = This is an information page, describing the current state of affairs on the English Wikipedia as regards J. Wales.


 * Note: The text in the code example code above has a line break so the example don't get to wide, but avoid such line breaks in the real code since it causes extra top and bottom padding.
 * Ouch, David Levy is right, that box doesn't have enough text to have the shortcut box inside. So in this case it is nicer to have the shortcut box outside the message box. And then you can use the {{tl|notice}} box as usual.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Info needs protection!
Someone just vandalized info because it's not protected. Based on the amount its used I think it ought to be. Wizard191 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've protected it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)