Other pages message box standardisation Here are some useful pages:
  • {{ambox}} – For article message boxes.
  • {{tmbox}} – For talk page message boxes.
  • {{imbox}} – For image space message boxes.
  • {{cmbox}} – For category message boxes.
  • {{mbox}} – Has namespace detection, for message boxes that are used on several types of pages and thus need to change style depending on what page they are used on.
Pages that lists message boxes that might use the {{ombox}} when it is ready:

From wikipedia page related to template source

Why this template? Edit

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

There are several reasons this template is needed:

  • Using an ambox/imbox compatible meta-template is easier for those making message boxes than hand-coding the boxes using a table and the ".messagebox" CSS class.
  • 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 "other pages". Thus mbox can now work for all types of pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This template Edit

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

I just updated this template to use a colour scale just like the other mboxes. I derived the code from the imbox since the imbox code is much closer to the needs of the ombox than the ambox is. Here is a detailed description and motivation:

  • The ombox needs variable width left side image cells since templates like {{guideline}} use thin but high images (30px wide) which would look too thin using the fixed width ambox left image cell.
  • The ombox needs variable width right side image cells since many boxes on "Wikipedia:" project pages feed a {{shortcut}} box as the right side item and the shortcut box is larger than the fixed ambox right side image cell.
  • I used 1px border for most of the types since that is the current standard for most "other pages" message boxes. But I used 2px border for the protection type since that is the current standard for protection boxes and I think it needs the thicker border to be more visible. I also used 2px border for the speedy and delete types to make them more visible.
  • I used the current standardised grey background (#f9f9f9) used for this kind of message boxes. (That is, boxes that go on "other pages".) That is slightly darker than the very light grey background (#fbfbfb) used for ambox and imbox. The darker background matches the table of content and to me it looks more "official" so perhaps is good for policy pages etc. But the lighter ambox background looks happier. So I don't have a preference on this.
  • For the notice type I used the current standardised 1px grey border (#aaa) used for other pages message boxes. (Instead of the ambox/imbox blue.) That is also the same as for the non-coloured sides of the ambox.
  • For all the other types I used the ambox/imbox border colours. This means the protection type now gets "grey-gold" (#bba) border instead of its old "other pages" grey-blue (#99B). I think we should have the same protection colour for all mboxes, and the old grey-blue "other pages" protection colour is a bit too close to the imbox license colour. (Although the imbox license boxes and the other pages protection boxes should never be used on the same page.)

So, what do you people think?

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Mr Göthberg. Nice boxes, and solid logic in their formatting. I have no objections to the roster. As far as the background colour is concerned, I do not have any scruples with using a not-so-happy light colour; I believe that consistency with the practices followed so far, as well as a slight differentiation from the other, more visible boxes, should be preferred. Another factor we have not yet considered is the colour of the pages themselves; they have different tinctures in different namespaces. I have yet to see any list of these tinctures, and am very interested in knowing exactly what these differences are, but I am fairly sure that the "other pages" are darker and should thus have darker message boxes. Waltham, The Duke of 16:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
All namespaces other than the mainspace have a pale blue background (I can't remember the exact shade, it's in MediaWiki:Monobook.css somewhere); so the 'palette' we're working with here is the same as for the image or category namespaces. Happymelon 21:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that there were variations. Anyway, thanks.
PS: The shade seems to be this one: #F8FCFF;.Waltham, The Duke of 09:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

More comments before deploying? Edit

The {{ombox}} are going to be used on a lot of pages, among other most "Wikipedia:" pages, so I am hesitating to deploy it until we get comments from more people. 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) 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks great. There's nothing serious to take care of before deployment and if any small problems do arise then I doubt they'll be a major hassle. Besides, it's already being used on many pages so you might as well officially "cut the ribbon", so to speak. --.:Alex:. 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If my word means anything, I like this template and have already begun deploying it on new templates I create. MBisanz talk 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks .:Alex:. and MBisanz. Counting Waltham and Happy‑melon from the previous section and myself, then it seems we are five users for the current design suggestion, and none against. So it seems the design is uncontroversial. And .:Alex:. is correct, even if people later want some style changes then that can easily be done even if this meta-template is already in use. And this has been announced for 2.5 weeks in several places. So yes, we can probably start to deploy the {{ombox}} if we like.
(A side note: For the {{tmbox}} the situation is worse, there we have very differing views on what styles to use.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We are deploying! Edit

So no one thinks anything else: We started deploying {{ombox}} some time ago. Feel free to convert any message boxes used on "other pages" to use this meta-template. If you find any tricky cases then list them on this talk page and you'll get help.

Ombox currently uses the imbox versions of the default images. This means they have a slightly too light grey background when viewed with old web browsers that doesn't understand transparent PNGs. (If we use the SVG versions then MediaWiki renders them as PNGs with full white "transparent" background which looks bad in those browsers.) However, the imbox images are only slightly too light so it is only barely visible in the old browsers. Thus I think we don't need to make special ombox versions of the images.

Today I added the ombox CSS classes in MediaWiki:Common.css. Due to the 30 days CSS caching this means we can change {{ombox}} to use the CSS classes on 4 August. I didn't get around to this until now since I have been way to busy elsewhere.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.