|
Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 4 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here. |
Recent event icons
I saw the new clock graphic for the "needs to be updated" template, looks hot. Think we could see if we could implement icons like this on the Current events templates? ViperSnake151 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm working on standardizing all the images, I'll get to it as soon as I do. -- penubag (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- How does this look? -- penubag (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- What's wrong with the current event icon we use now? Image:Gnome globe current event.svg
- --David Göthberg (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's been decided that any message box which uses the Ambox template will have a consistent icon style. See above. ViperSnake151 17:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- ViperSnake151: No, I am not aware of any such decision or consensus. The previous discussions on this page were just that we made the default images for the {{ambox}} meta-template look better together.
- However I have noticed that Penubag have been talking about that he now is "standardising" the other images used in article massage boxes. And from what I have seen that means he takes existing images and symbols and shrinks them and put them on top of round toned signs just like the default images. I disagree with that and as can be seen on for instance Template talk:Wikify#Image others disagree with that too. The round signs are fine when the symbol is a simple "i", "!" or "?", but for more complex symbols it just distracts and makes the symbol harder to see. I have been meaning to discuss this with Penubag but I have been very busy lately.
- And regarding the globe images above: The one with the red clock was developed as a teamwork with several editors involved, since we needed a free alternative to the old WikiMedia current event logo. Since the WikiMedia logos are not under free licenses they can not be used in articles since articles get mirrored to other sites. We kept a red clock since red indicates "urgency" as in "current". And we did put the clock in a high position so it would look okay with a shadow, since we wanted to have some 3D feel.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I just readjusted the new globe icon to be red and at the top like the old one. This better? ViperSnake151 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention this gallery. We got a ton of "current event" icons to choose from. I've been collecting them. If you want consistency, stick with anything that has the red clock (like in the current icon). The globe can change, but most topic-related ones have matching red clocks. Rocket000 (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"Coin" images?
I have noticed Penubag's campaign of standardisation for ambox images... And I am not fully satisfied with the results so far. Taking images, painting them white, and placing them on disks works well for the "content" boxes, where the contrast is sufficient (and I must say I was delighted to see the dreadful NPOV balance go), but in the "style" boxes things are different. The contrast is simply not sharp enough. Template:Grammar, for example, had a very nice gothic A for an icon, and with this edit (which refers to this page for a rationale, which I cannot find anywhere) placed the A on a yellow disk, rendering it difficult to understand, especially in its smaller version. Surely such treatment should be reserved for cases with good contrast, both in terms of colour and of a simple enough design? Waltham, The Duke of 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- The whole point is standardization, we are all working on imbox, ambox, and cmbox to achieve unity. True, I sort of arbitrarily decided that during this -box standardization, I would also standardize the images used by them to follow a common theme. But, I've also mentioned it several times (about 3 times) on this page, see above in New Ambox Version, and there were no objections. Being WP:BOLD I made the changes to the images without facing any opposition. If you oppose, I'd be glad to talk it out. The icon in Template:Grammar was good and sharp for the most part until it was overwritten. I'll work out the yellow in some problematic icons to fix this problem though. -- penubag (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- How's a darker stroke around images used in the yellow circle look when scaled down appear?
 -- penubag (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I still can't read that text at all. There's just not nearly enough contrast between yellow and white, even with the dark outline. --CapitalR (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Oy, I'd forgotten about this one. (Sorry.) Well... It might be an improvement over the previous version, but the contrast is still rather low. Personally, I don't think the icons should all be of exactly the same type, as long as they are presentable and follow some general lines. For instance, the previous grey A was handsome and clear-cut, and matched the style of most icons used in the various message boxes. As a matter of fact, some variation should be allowed, if only for the sake of avoiding boring repetition, as well as in order to ensure that if there are, say, two or three style amboxes stacked at the top of an article, they won't appear almost identical on first glance.
- All that said, I appreciate your efforts, and such standardisation might be more acceptable in the content boxes, where the contrast is better. As I said, I really liked the new NPOV icon, and the Rewrite one isn't bad either. (Also note that I did not watch closely the discussion above, although I did have a look once in a while and did not realise that anything else than the default images was discussed. Your three comments were in a small part of the discussion, near its end.) Waltham, The Duke of 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know standardizing all icons to this "coin" template is a great idea. The role of the icon is to allow the user to quickly identify the message if he is already familiar with it, or to get an idea of what it is about if he is not. The silhouette of an image is an important visual cue, and by confining all of the images to the same silhouette you give away some of the icon's power in this role. Not that it matters anymore, but when I designed these boxes, my idea was that the icons would have an overall consistent graphic style, and the color scheme would coordinate with the color bar. I never intended for the icons to be templated, though. The {{cleanup}} template was what I had in mind as a jumping off point. – flamurai (t) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Flamurai here. It is a benefit if different icons have different silhouette. Especially when they have the same colour. And it is not necessary that the icons be yellow in the yellow boxes, they can just as well be black (or perhaps grey) since those are neutral colours in the ambox scheme.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree also. I was under the impression that Penubag merely intended to standardize the icons that already contained color-coded circles (which was my intention when I replaced the "content" icon). I didn't realize that Penubag intended to replace other icons with matching circular ones as well (which seems rather counterproductive, as it makes the tags harder to differentiate). —David Levy 00:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ambox code changes
The two new message box meta-templates {{imbox}} and {{cmbox}} for category and image message boxes are based on {{ambox}}. While we worked with them we discovered some oddities and improvements that we fixed in them. Now I would like to apply the same improvements to the ambox code.
1: I intend to add -1 pixel top and bottom margin to the CSS code for the ambox so when stacked it only gets one single line between the boxes in all web browsers. If you compare the examples in the doc for {{ambox}} and {{cmbox}} you will see that ambox gets double lines between the boxes in some browsers.
2: There are several oddities in the second switch case in the ambox code. Among other things it misbehaves if you feed an empty image parameter, like this: image =
3: I would like to remove the parameter "image=blank". That's the parameter that causes a blank area the same size as a default image. I don't think any boxes use that one anymore, but I'll check that and change any boxes that do. We should of course keep the "image=none" parameter.
Any comments before I go ahead with this?
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Might it be a good idea to wait until the {{cmbox}}/{{imbox}} deployment is winding down (both to avoid putting additional stress on the servers and to ensure that no bugs emerge)? —David Levy 20:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'd keep the "image=blank" parameter around as an option, even if it's unused. The other changes sound reasonable.--Father Goose (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- David Levy: Yeah, I am in no hurry. I just wanted to bring the changes up for discussion while I was thinking of them and so people have some time to take a look.
- Father Goose: Ouch, you like "image=blank"? I always disliked it and since it seems to be unused I wanted to take the chance to get rid of it. But oh well, handling that one properly when I fix the bugs in the second switch case only costs a little extra code.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I agree that image=blank should stay; it's not in the way and is used mainly in custom boxes, not necessarely templates. — Edokter • Talk • 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Ah well, so we'll keep the "image=blank" parameter then.
- I have now updated the ambox CSS code in MediaWiki:Common.css to use the -1 pixel top and bottom margin. Such a change costs nearly no server work, so it costs nearly nothing to revert if I did a mistake. Now the amboxes will look nice in "all" web browsers as far as we know.
- The switch case fix needs to be done in the template code itself. So I'll probably wait until 20 May when we at the same time can change to use the CSS class "ambox-move" instead of "ambox-merge". (Due to that we added that new class name 20 April and the web browsers cache Common.css for 30 days.)
- --David Göthberg (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have now updated the code of ambox with the planned fixes: Using the new CSS class names (deployed for 30 days now). Fixing the empty "image=" parameter bug. I also fixed another bug: The padding for the image=none case. And I did some other clean-up. I of course tested the new code in the sandbox first. The "image=blank" parameter still works.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Per discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Metadata class in mboxes:
In the next {{ambox}} code update I intend to add the ".noprint" class. I also intend to remove the "@media print { .ambox { display: none; } }" code from MediaWiki:Common.css since that code will then be unnecessary.- --David Göthberg (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Not sure about using the "noprint" class anymore, I think I know a better solution now. Will test that some day when I get the time. Just wanted to note that here so others don't go ahead and do this change.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Message box standardisation, all namespaces
Last summer we deployed {{ambox}} for article message boxes and some weeks ago we deployed {{imbox}} and {{cmbox}} for image page and category page message boxes.
Now we have coded up the {{tmbox}} for talk pages and the {{ombox}} for all other types of pages such as "Wikipedia:" pages. This means all the namespaces are covered. Everyone is invited to take a look at the new boxes and have a say at their talk pages.
 |
Note that we are suggesting some colour changes for talk page and "other pages" message boxes. So we really would like some input from some editors before we deploy this all over Wikipedia.
For instance, this is a {{tmbox}} with the suggested style for "minor warnings and problems". |
 |
And this is an {{ombox}} with the suggested style for "major warnings and problems". |
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Article message box needing standardization or merging
{{Totally-disputed-lead}} was created on 9 September 2007 and probably escaped the standardization effort because it is not categorized. It is similar to {{Totally-disputed-section}}, with the only difference in text being that the former refers to "the lead section" and the latter refers to "this section". Since the "disputed-lead" template is only used in one article, perhaps a better solution would change it to a redirect. -- Zyxw (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. — Edokter • Talk • 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I just updated {{Totally-disputed-lead}} to the new style. It uses the same format and text as {{Totally-disputed}}, but replaces the word "article" with "lead section". I did this instead of using a redirect after noticing a similar template named {{POV-intro}} which is only used in two articles, yet survived a WP:TFD nomination (archived here). -- Zyxw (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Icons
Maybe this has been discussed before, but is there any reason we can't use the Tango icons?
|
|
The neutrality of this article is disputed... |
They all match and look nice together, plus they match the direction the open-source community's moving in. —Werson (talk) —Werson (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- It has been discussed extensively; the current icons are even custom made specifically for ambox. Have a look in the archives linked above. — Edokter • Talk • 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- There's no way that's true; Image:Merge-arrows.gif (
 ) dates all the way back to June 2005. This standardization project is less than a year old. I looked through the archive and couldn't find anything discussing an icon reboot. —Werson (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- This is all stated in the archives of this page, but for your convenience here is the compact version of it:
- Well, I was the one that created Image:Merge-split-transwiki default.svg
 and the purpose was to use it (or rather its ambox optimised PNG version Image:Imbox move.png) as the default image for the {{ambox}} move type.
- Already when I created it we were aware that it doesn't really match the other ambox icons. But its purpose and demands are different. It is only a placeholder image for demonstration and testing purposes, it is not meant to be used in actual move message boxes. But as such it still should match the style of the other move/merge/split icons, not the style of the other ambox icons. Take a look at the set of standardised move/merge/split icons at the description page of Image:Merge-split-transwiki default.svg.
- The purple bent arrow you suggest does not match the standardised move/merge/split arrows thus your suggested arrow is "wrong".
- And the reason the move box is purple is that the move/merge/split arrows are red and blue, thus the box matches them best if it is in-between, that is purple.
- Of course, already back then we thought that the standardised move/merge/split arrows were a bit flat and boring. So if anyone feel up to it you can design new more glossy versions of those arrows and present them at this talk page and you might get consensus for the new arrows. Remember to also announce it on the village pump since this would mean changing a very old and well used standard. And you need to make new versions for the whole set. Otherwise you probably will not get consensus for a change. Well, you can first make new versions for say two of them and start out the discussion to see what styles people like. And I recommend that you keep the idea of one red and one blue arrow since most move/merge/split messages involve two or more articles.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Move arrows
I never really liked our "move" icon; it seems relatively flat. So inspired by Werson, who purpled the redo arrow, I modified it to play nice with the current set. Any takers?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- See my response above. Although I admit you made a pretty cool suggestion. Nice shadow!
- --David Göthberg (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- So, something stylistically similar but with red and blue arrows?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes! I like your "Potential replacement 2" Image:Merge-split-transwiki default 2.svg to the right. It is clearly an improvement over my old "flat" version. And that kind of "shiny" arrows would work fine with all the other move/merge/split icons.
- Perhaps we can even make the arrows slightly rounded or bent in some way so they don't look so straight? Don't know if that would be an improvement but might be worth a try.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Caution: Not all users think that flat=boring. I (and many others) prefer the less-flashy less-cartoony icons. I also prefer the small file sizes for the simple icons. The more distinct we make the aesthetic style - the less people are going to like it - which is why simple and minimal is generally best. Dropshadows and 3d-effects are not necessarily helpful. Basically: Please don't force an AOL/AIM/smiley aesthetic on us! Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, but can we at least agree that "all flat" and "all 3-D" are each preferable to a disparate mixture of the two? —Werson (talk)
- Generally agreed. But there will always be some 2d icons (eg Image:Unbalanced scales.svg) so forcing icons into 3d is unnecessary. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (edited at 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC))
- But you won't need a disparate mixture; I've created a complete set:
(Pardon the odd formatting; I borrowed it from commons:Template:Series-merging.) I was thinking of adding drop shadows, but I guess I've got enough of a fight on my hands. Anyway, I'll let the images speak for themselves. I fully support them.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Quiddity: So why can't we get 3D scales? There are a finite number of icons. There doesn't have to any 2D icon.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to your "move" icon. The problem extends way beyond that. —Werson (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- So does the lack of 3D icons prevent us from implementing those we already have? They're not even 3D (no drop shadow), just a border and a gradient.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- This conversation's a little mixed up. I was disagreeing with Quiddity and supporting you. Most of the icons being used are 3-D(ish) so let's move in that direction. —Werson (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. (*blush*) Thanks. Quiddity: I agree that the "candy" icons at the top of this section aren't serious enough. They're characterized by a semi-transparent whitish sheen meant to simulate reflection. Mine, on the other hand, don't have drop shadows or the sheen, rather just (like I said before) a border and a gradient. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I'm not opposing the "Potential replacement 2" style. I just wanted to inject a voice a caution into the conversation. Plus it never hurts to remind/inform editors that things like this are to be avoided (Because it appeals to some, but repels others). As long as we avoid decoration-for-its-own-sake, and keep it to simple usability improvements, then I'm happy.
- I would oppose 3d scales (for example) because it wouldn't make the image any clearer in meaning. That would be "complication/decoration for its own sake".
- Lastly, the new images (in the table above) are all 300% the size (in kb) of their old counterparts. I don't know enough about images to help, but perhaps an image lab editor could help reduce/optimize the file size somewhat? -- Quiddity (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- We won't be using SVG files for message boxes anyway. They'll be optimized PNGs once we come to an agreement (IE and MediaWiki have a joint problem with SVG-PNG transparency). —Werson (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- They're bigger files because they have to store data on gradients and borders, although in one cases there are fewer shapes. And I'm aware of the PNG optimization, but that's fairly easy to do. Sorry about the misunderstanding, but it seems like there's fairly strong support for the new set. Thanks.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Integration Proposal 2
Given the previous standardization on a set of icons that partially reflects several known computer operating-system GUI's (incl. Microsoft Windows 4.0-up), I see an alternate set of icons that may meet the requirements, several of which are in routine use here on Wikipedia®. One new icon I would recommend for Speedy-Deletion and Indefinite-Block is a transparent-backed PNG consistent with Image:Dialog-error-round.svg, shared by several OS's, incl. MS-Windows and the Tango Desktop Project. My proposal for default Icons for certain Message Box Templates I demonstrate using the basic form of Template:Imbox:
 |
Type:Speedy. (Example: DB-CopyVio.) |
 |
 |
Type:Delete. (Example: AfD.) |
 |
 |
Type:Content. (Example: Totally-Disputed.) |
 |
 |
Type:Style. (Example: Cleanup.) |
|
 |
Type:Notice. (Example: CurrentEvent). |
 |
 |
Type:Move. |
 |
Type:Feature. |
 |
Type:Protection. |
 |
Type:License. |
This setup could work on a Template using BGColor=#F8EABA (for Talk pages), excepting Speedy and License; additional icons consistent with preexisting practice for given situations may be applied with the ImageRight parameter. What pros and cons per new default icon? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: Image:Ambox deletion.png, similar to Image:Ambox warning pn.svg, is already standard for Nominations for deletion; I consider Image:Deletion icon.svg and Image:Octagon delete.svg candidates for a Speedy default icon, as both are immediately differentiable from the exclamation triangle of Image:Ambox deletion.png used on Nominations for Deletion. Using the form of Template:Ambox, they would appear thusly:
Reactions? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes; I react to the use of thusly. (Sorry, I couldn't resist; it's a strange word for me. :-D)
- Seriously, now, although I don't have much heavier arguments than "I don't like it" (the X icons look somewhat bulky), I do believe that disambiguation through the icon is not all that necessary, considering the different background. It is quite distinctive on its own. And I could add that there is no difference in meaning between slow and speedy deletion—just in urgency—so there is no reason to change icons. Especially since the triangular one are more familiar and conveys the appropriate message ("Attention!") more accurately. And the consistency between the three triangular icons is also an attractive feature, as I see it, showing increasing levels of urgency in a way easy to understand.
- Hm. Maybe I do have arguments after all. (scratches head) Waltham, The Duke of 11:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Contingency MOVEs for existing Images supplanted
As illustrated in the foregoing examples, PNGs developed from Image:Ambox warning orange.svg (for an updated Image:Ambox content.png) and Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg (for an updated Image:Ambox style) will require MOVEs of existing Images, which I still consider useful. Should both exclamation-triangle Ambox ID images be adopted, recommend the following MOVEs for the pre-existing Images:
- B. C. Schmerker (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Merging the talk pages
- This section was previously named "Discussion on colour change for template". --David Göthberg (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
An editor feels that {{POV-check}} should belong to style instead of content class. The relevant discussion (right out of the freezer) can be found here.
I was unsure of where to post the above... Now that the standardisation effort is more or less over, at least where ambox is concerned, which is to be the difference between this talk page and Template talk:Ambox? Waltham, The Duke of 21:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Even though that the standardisation effort is more or less over for ambox, this is probably the best place to discuss things like what colour level to use for a message box. Since this page is watched by many editors who have worked with this and have discussed such colour levels before. So thanks for pointing to the discussion about {{POV-check}}. I responded at its talk page. (And my personal view is that it should remain orange, although it is a tough case.)
- And regarding this talk page contra Template talk:Ambox: Yes, having these two talk pages have caused a lot of confusion and split up discussions all since we started the ambox project. That is why when we made the {{tmbox}}, {{imbox}}, {{cmbox}} and {{ombox}} we kept all talk on their talk pages. Both regarding the templates themselves and regarding the new colours and styles for such message boxes.
- I am thinking of solving this problem by doing this: Archive all the sections of Template talk:Ambox, then link to those archives at the top of this page (next to the box that links to this page's own archives), then redirect Template talk:Ambox to this talk page.
- And I think this talk page should be the "main" one for article message boxes since this is the talk page of the guideline.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- You have left nothing for me to add; I agree completely. Waltham, The Duke of 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes please. Merge to keep things together/simple would be good. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I laughed when I saw the {{mergefrom}} on this page... I've indirectly provided an argument in favour of borders in move-type boxes. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
|
