Jump to content

Template talk:Ambox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible redesign of small=left version

[edit]

I have implemented a requested edit at Template:Incomplete list which uses a custom designed smaller version of ambox which is left aligned and automatically adjusting width. If this change sticks it would make sense to modify other templates (e.g. {{expand section}}) to match. Rather than adding an additional variant of ambox, I wonder whether we should explore changing the small=left version to match this style? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied current and sandboxed versions of {{expand section}} below for comparison — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:MSGJ: Do you think it might help to post about this discussion on one of the village pump pages, whichever is appropriate, to get more input? DesertPipeline (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:MSGJ: Since nobody has objected, I think it might be okay to start an edit request for this – that might help to start a discussion with whoever responds at least, if they don't want to implement it yet. Also, would it be a better idea to have a different parameter variable for the width-variable version? Something like |small=variable maybe? DesertPipeline (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support new layout of small=left. Nice and compact.  Question: would the modification be for {{ambox}} only? Looking at Module:Message box, it seems that the CSS is taken from the .mbox-small-left class at MediaWiki:Common.css, line 910. But that is used for when |small=left for any message box. Not sure what you're intending. — hike395 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hike395: Only Template:Ambox supports |small=left, I think. I wanted to get that working for other message boxes while still allowing for |small=yes (which positions it on the right with templates other than ambox) but someone else opposed it because they didn't think my reason for requesting it was sufficient. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MSGJ: Would you mind if I start an edit request for this? I think we've waited long enough; nobody has objected so far. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I would not mind at all. But do you know the specific pages and changes that need to be made to achive this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:MSGJ: I would presume that the changes only need to be made in the message box module. I'm fairly certain that it's acceptable to write an edit request for the module of a template on the template page. Am I correct? DesertPipeline (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect - I believe the styling for the ambox is held at MediaWiki:Common.css#L-826. We'll need a specific request before it can be actioned. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:MSGJ: Okay. So I'm guessing the edit request would be "please change width: 238px; at line 831 to width: auto;", and explaining why. Also, I think I should check all of the templates which use (or can use) the small-left parameter before doing this, as depending on the amount of text, they may need to have line breaks added so they don't turn into a box spanning the entire width of a page. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: How is textstyle changed via that file, actually? Unless it's redundant we also need the text style to be set to width = auto. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:MSGJ: Can you advise regarding my previous question? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure. I think it might involve mbox-text or mbox-text-span. Izno is pretty good with this stuff, perhaps he wouldn't mind helping. We are trying to encode |style=width: auto; and |textstyle=width: auto; to make it the default style in MediaWiki:Common.css. Can you advise please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:MSGJ: Not sure if this is the right way to do it, but if I add "text-align: center;" to the style parameter of a template with that parameter supported, it centres all the text. Presumably then, if that's added on a new line to that CSS page you linked in the relevant area, it should work. That is, as long as it's not the 'wrong' way to do it in this context. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have some thoughts about this discussion.
  1. Regarding auto-width rather than fixed width, I believe it is fixed width because we have an interest in lining up the right edge of the small version of ambox for stacked templates being used at the section level. Do we believe that requirement has gone away or changed since we instituted small versions of these templates? (I doubt it, but maybe you can persuade me and/or others.)
    1. The reason we have amboxes at all can be attributed basically to differing widths and variable, inconsistent colors in amboxes pre-standardization some 10+ years ago.
  2. Changing the width so that it is auto in all cases rather than fixed is more or less trivial. It's the removal of current lines MediaWiki:Common.css#L-799 and/or MediaWiki:Common.css#L-809.
    1. NB, if you decide to make it auto sizing, that will hamper future work to remove the reliance of ambox on being structured as a table for presentation. That is something of a soft oppose for me personally right there.
  3. I am not interested in removing the fixed width globally regardless without a larger community discussion on the topic than here, at a minimum demonstrating the effects of the change in the single and multiple-mbox (i.e. stacked and/or separate section) template cases, such that the wider community can weigh in on appearance.
  4. One thing to consider, without tossing the goose and gander, would be to set a larger width in the general case. (I am not necessarily a fan of the squat versions but I do not know if these templates will broadly appear any better in a world with wider, but still-fixed-width, templates.) Either way, our computer screens have gotten wider (and then smaller again with best web practice having a relatively 'narrow' main column of content), so that this may be a reasonable approach. 238px is more or less tiny at the end of the day, even if you have, say, an infobox to your right.
--Izno (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here's what amboxes looked like before they were standardized: Media:NewbieTags.png The standardization was done circa 2007. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which I noted at 10:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC) above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this didn't go further? I highly support this; more readable, takes less space (and causes less whitespace), helps with banner blindness. Our fixed-width {{expand section}} can look much taller than the example given at the top, if the "Reason" parameter is filled; that's not great.
I think the frwiki design (see here and here) addresses Izno's concerns : left-aligned text, no left/right borders, full-width top/bottom borders, subtle background colour (= no edge-alignment issue). Looks clean and minimalistic. They've already switched from tables (if I understood Izno correctly) to divs (they're generally much further along than us in the Lua transition and in template standardisation efforts). Like them, we should also standardise all section banners to this "small" appearance (no opt-out), since consistency is the goal here. This looks terrible. DFlhb (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How To Add School Songs?

[edit]

I would like to add the two school songs; old one 'Morning Has Broken' and current one. I'm not sure how to open a new section. Roscha (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscha: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Ambox}}. You may find that either WP:HD or WP:TEAHOUSE is a more appropriate location for your query. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. Much appreciated.
Roscha (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 13 June 2024

[edit]

I've updated Module:Message box/sandbox so amboxes have the notheme class. This improves how they appear in the night theme, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ambox/testcases?vectornightmode=1

🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdlrobson Kind of only gives us back the left border color in exchange for changing the whole background to white? Not sure that's a win above how things display right now.
And also where it's been added will affect the two classes of boxes that currently support night mode ({{cmbox}}es and {{ombox}}es), which I think is not good? Izno (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I hadn't considered ombox and cmbox - I guess we need to tackle these one by one. For example add color: #202122; to .tmbox in Module:Message box/tmbox.css - what do you think? 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can pick out a color background set. Just tmbox and ambox to poke at. Ambox will effectively be fixed when .metadata dark theme can be turned off. Izno (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now tmbox is done. Izno (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to revisit param type severity scale to encompass ToU violations

[edit]

There is an implicit severity scale in the description of Ambox param type, which is expressed primarily by the left border color, with red as the highest severity, and secondarily by the default image icon, and in one case, by background color. But I believe that the typing fails to take into account one of the most severe type of article issue, namely violation of Wikipedia's terms of use, and this should be corrected. Possibly this can be corrected solely by changes to the doc page, in how it specifies the purpose and values of param type, but more likely it will require an additional param value. I am proposing a modification to add support for this (extract in the style of the Ambox doc page for param type):

Currently, the top two (most severe) type values are |type=speedy and |type=delete and generate the red border and so on, but are restricted to deletion issues by dint of their names and of the doc explaining them. However, there is another category of issue that imho is of top severity, but that is not a deletion issue and that are not currently handled by the template (at any level of severity), namely, violations of the ToU, or at least, violations of portions of the ToU involving legal implications unrelated to content, such as WP:COPYRIGHTS (ToU §7). In this case, deletion does not solve the problem, nor is there any particular reason to delete the page, as long as the issue is speedily dealt with by compliance with the Terms, which at English Wikipedia is described at WP:RIA.

The best approach in a missing-attribution situation is just to provide it, but it is not always clear where content comes from, or the user may not have the permissions or the skills to do so. For the latter case, we have two templates (that I know of) to deal with it: {{copypaste}} (with red border/type=speedy), and {{Unattributed translation}} (orange border, type=content). In neither case is the type value accurate, because the first has nothing to do with speedy (or any) page deletion, and the second has nothing to do with content. Both are related to ToU violations in the area of COPYRIGHT, and this type of violation must be corrected, per the ToU, and may not be overruled by consensus, nor by Pillar Five (IAR), or by anything else. Nor is deletion appropriate; copying relevant material from sister projects is encouraged, and marking it speedy or delete would be entirely the wrong resolution.

The existing delete and speedy values are not adequate for the purpose, consequently, we need a new Ambox type imho, to flag cases of missing or incorrect attribution, perhaps |type=terms, and possibly a new border and background color as indicated above.

A test version is available in the Ambox sandbox and supporting module files. View and compare the look and feel in context of the other Ambox types at {{Ambox/sandbox/doc#type}}. You can use the sandbox version to generate different versions of existing templates, for example, here is how one template would look in the new style:

{{Copypaste/sandbox|section|source=another Wikipedia? |date=December 2024}} ⟶

And another:

{{Unattributed translation/sandbox|source=another Wikipedia}} →

(This demo requires sandbox versions: Template:Ambox/sandbox/doc rev. 1261227368, Module:Message box/sandbox rev. 1261223846, Module:Message box/sandbox/ambox.css rev. 1261219502, and Module:Message box/configuration/sandbox rev. 1261228574.)
(Not an edit request, yet, because I think it needs discussion first.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Ambox&oldid=1261380720"