Wikipedia talk:Category message boxes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Category message boxes page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Why there's a need for standardization

The following are some examples of the current styles in use:

Content moved to Wikipedia:Category message boxes/Pre-standardization. It was taking up too much room. - Rocket000 09:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Rocket000 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord. I knew it was bad, but I hadn't realized it was this bad. Ok..... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it looks like

First thing we need to figure out is what this stuff is going to look like. It needs to be general, with everything falling into a singular design. We shouldn't need to worry about the fancy stacking thing that {{ambox}} does, since we're generally using only one per page. Rocket000, you mentioned that it should look different from the amboxes to differentiate, which I agree with, but the design should probably be similar. Another form of color coding should greatly help. Any ideas on how this should look? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To start things off, I rather like the look of this style, which was originally suggested at the ambox debate page here:

The inclusion of certain people in this category is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussions on the talk pages of those individual articles.
Consider rewording the inclusion criteria of this category if they are unclear.
See also the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people.

It hasn't been decided on yet over there, and in fact they still seem to be debating whether or not they're dealing with those sorts of templates at all, so I say steal the design before they lay claim. We can use the border to distinguish the type of template, and the rest of the box is set up similar to the amboxes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure yet; I'm testing some stuff out in my sandbox. Personally, I like the classic Wikimedia look (a muted color boarder with a lighter background shading - think main page), but I also like the ambox design. A fusion of those two, is what I'm thinking.

And I think what you just suggested captures that perfectly. Now for the colors...

Let's first list all the types of messages we're dealing with, like we did with the article messages (serious, content, style, etc.). See the following section for some questions about this. Rocket000 06:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, the pmbox style I had proposed is being stolen to create cmbox! :P FunPika 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea 1

Ok, here's one option so far. The blue "info" box might look out of place, but there's a reason. Unlike the blue "notice" article message boxes, these are permanent and I don't think they should stand out as much as the rest. The redirect one and the second category-size ones are also permanent, but I think they still should stand out (especially the redirect).

This is for speedy deletion messages.

This is for deletion messages.

This is for redirect messages.

This is for content issue messages.

This is for category size-related messages.

This is for permanent size-related messages.

This is for permanent informative messages.

This is for merge and related messages.

This isn't a proposal or anything, I'm not even saying this is what I want to go with (as of now anyway). I just thought I'd throw it out there. Also, I was only focusing on the colors; things like padding, icon use, width, etc. aren't being suggested here. (Well, maybe width (80%) as it's the same as the ambox.) Rocket000 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This project's scope

For the most part it's obvious what falls in the scope of this project - any message template that is used on category pages. However, what about about the following:

Templates that are currently not in box form, e.g. {{SCD}} and {{Stub Category}}. (This excludes disambiguation header templates (hatnotes) like {{catmain}}.)

Table-of-contents/category navigation boxes, e.g. {{categoryTOC}} and {{Bookdecade}}. Lots of variations.

~~Category headers like {{Category:Prefectures of Japan}} (see: Category:Ehime Prefecture for an example).~~

There's probably some more questionable types out there, but these are what I came across so far. Rocket000 06:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese header you pointed out is more like a navigational box - since those can be used in both articles and categories, are you sure we want to mess with them? I know AMBOX specifically veered away from them in their discussions.

This is a separate topic, but what exactly is the point of {{SCD}} when we've got the template I used as an example above? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't realize that was a article navigational box (I thought used as a category nav. box). Yeah, let's stay away from those.

About {{SCD}} - I was wondering that too, but looking at how it's used, it looks like it's a more permanent message for the readers, whereas {{Categorisation of people disputed}} is a more temporary "this category needs help" message to editors. I don't think we need it though. I know it's not used on articles but it kinda goes against WP:NDT. After this standardization, when we're converting templates, we'll run across a lot of unnecessary templates. I suggest that would be a good time to discuss issues like this. Rocket000 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

I like the full border for these.

Also, there is a difference between those educating the reader ("This category is for.." or "TO use this category...") and notices (disputed, deletion, and cat redirects). But then, maybe those are your 5 types.

I also wouldn't mind discussing merging/deleting as many as possible. I presume that categories shouldn't need as many such boxes as articles. - jc37 06:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Namespace category for more. - jc37 06:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I came up with eight possible types.

Proposed types

Speedy - Speedy deletion (includes speedy rename?)
Deletion - All other deletion notices that aren't speedy
Redirect - Soft redirects; provides information about where the appropriate category is.
Content - Inclusion disputes ({{Categorisation of people disputed}}).
Maintenance - For clean up of categories ({{verylarge}}).
??? - For expansion requests, like {{popcat}}, and permanent maintenance messages like {{CatDiffuse}}.
Info/Type - Displays information about what pages (in what namespace) should be placed in the category. Defines the type of category (tracking, templates-only, administrative, top-level, etc).
Merge - Suggested merges and related.

...and their corresponding colors

Speedy = Red with pink background
Deletion = Red

Content = Orange?
Maintenance = Yellow?
??? = Same as "maintenance"?

Info = Blue
Merge = Purple

Redirect = ?

Now, redirect messages are not something we had to deal with in the article namespace because those are hard redirects. I would place them right after deletion in terms of severity, since it serves as a warning that the category should be empty. I would like to keep it orange, but I don't want to mess up the color scheme set by the ambox. I think it also should have a background shading, not unlike its current form. Rocket000 07:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, categories are different than articles. To merge or rename means to delete. (main templates are cfd, cfm, cfr, and cfr-speedy) Some of the db- templates apply as well.

Since the background of these pages are blue, we can do complete borders in colour, and the borders don't have to be very thick at all.

So if we're going to assign border colours, I would suggest:

Red - Speedy, CFD, CFR, CFM, Redirect
Orange - disputed, and other warnings
Yellow - I don't think that this will be distinct enough from white to use as a colour
Green - Requests for help (verylarge, popcat, catdiffuse, etc)
Blue - Since this will be the same colour as the background, I suggest that these be content informative: What should be in a category, what type of category is it.

This doesn't look that different than your suggestions, now that I look at it as a whole : ) - jc37 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow can be made distinct enough, especially if we have a fairly thick border. The sample box a couple sections up originally had yellow, and it looked fine. Perhaps use yellow for redirects, since they're not assigned yet? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background color

Ok, here's a question (because I'm a perfectionist on a LCD monitor). What background color are we using?

F9F9F9 - category links box on the bottom, TOC boxes
F8FCFF - category page background (very light blue)
FBFBFB - background color of amboxes
FCFCFC - background color on main page
FFFFFF - and of course, white

- Rocket000 09:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was presuming white, or some version of white, except for the red bordered ones. However, you make a good point. I think that the current blue background of most of the informative boxes (like parent) looks better than a white background. Maybe we should step back from the border idea, and just go with backgrounds with a black/grey border. And keep white (or whatever shade of white) just for the non-speedy/non-redirect red bordered ones? - jc37 09:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. If we do use the backgrounds for the color coding, we've got to make sure it's really light so it doesn't overwhelm or force us to change the text color. Perhaps:

#FFAAAA for light red sample text
#FFCCAA for light orange sample text
#FFFFAA for light yellow sample text
#AAFFAA for light green sample text
#BBCCFF for light blue sample text
#CC99CC for light purple sample text
#CCCCCC for light gray sample text
#000000 for the borders

These are intentionally very simple hex values, but they should work out fairly well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment: please remember that the background color on anything outside the main namespace is not white, it's a blue tint (#F8FCFF). --MZMcBride 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, so what background color are we going to use? :) Rocket000 21:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of black for the boarders, I think we should go with the standard #aaa or maybe a darker shade of the respective background hue (ambox colors?). Rocket000 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the ambox colors for the borders. So each type of template would have a dark border and a light background, both in the color appropriate to that class of template. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea 2

Here I went with Hersfold's suggestion. I'm not really happy with the colors, so feel free to tweak them. I'm also posting some alternate "info" type boxes, which we might want to treat differently. There pretty similar to what we have now. Rocket000 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Idea

This is for speedy deletion/rename messages.

This is for deletion/rename messages.

This is for redirect messages.

This is for content-related messages.

This is for expansion requests.

This is for permanent informative messages.

This is for merge and related messages.

Other options for the permanent "info" boxes

These colors are based on the main page.

Some other possible options for informative messages.

These are permanent non-issue messages, so they shouldn't stand out much.

This boarder's color is taken from the "what links here" boarder.

I just ran across this page → Category:Underpopulated categories. So far, this is the best looking category page I've come across that has more than two boxes. It's similar to the style above, and I think this is the direction we should go in. I'm undecided about the saturation, though. Pastels are definitely the most in-line with Mediawiki's style in general, yet sticking with them doesn't accomplish the goal of merging the two styles (ambox and everything else). Rocket000 02:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These options are very nice. --Eliyak T·C 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I've been waiting for some input on my two suggestions, so I know which direction to go in. Rocket000 22:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reuse ambox?

I haven't yet seen any argument as to why category pages shouldn't use {{ambox}}. The color scheme could be changed, I imagine, but the ambox style is crisp and seems suited to any kind of message box.--Father Goose 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, IMO it's best for each namespace to have a distinct style. For a couple of reasons. One, it makes it obvious where a template should go based on looks alone. This helps avoid confusion in where to place a template (more of an issue with talk vs. article pages) Two, depending on the namespace, there are different types of messages. The ambox standard does not cover all these namespace-specific types. Also, most categories have or should have a permanent header, where an ambox-style template would stick out too much and wouldn't be appropriate. Rocket000 20:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instinctively, I agree with a different style for talk pages, since they're for "discussion" and not "content". But category pages are a type of content (content indexes, specifically), so I don't see a problem with using amboxes on them. Can you give me an example of the permanent header you speak of? I haven't seen this yet. I have however seen a number of "cleanup"/"content" messages on category pages, which seem to be a good candidate for reusing the ambox style.--Father Goose 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, we could use the ambox for templates that already work with it (like {{cleancat}}), but then they wouldn't be consistent with the rest. Rocket000 20:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that we were going to use ambox. Here's the deal though, you can change the border like this | style = border: 2px solid #e00; for example. Take a look at the speedy deletion templates for examples. So we can use ambox without the boxes having the same colour scheme as the article message boxes. And I presume icons can be changed (or not used) as well. - jc37 20:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the permanent headers in use are these:

...among many others, I'm sure. Since those aren't likely to be changed, they should probably have a different appearance from the more "temporary" ambox style. I greatly like the idea of having a template's appearance immediately identify the namespace it is to be used in. We've got the cream colored talk templates, the minimalistic ambox templates, the sectioned infoboxes, the short stub templates, and the collapsible nav boxes. Categories should be differentiated from all of those with yet another style to make usage even simpler. If we only change the border, the cat boxes are still going to appear mostly like the amboxes, leading to some confusion, no doubt. It's gotta be new. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see some sense in having a non-ambox style for "permanent" headers. Then again, using a blue "notice" ambox for permanent headers is not out of the question, at least in my mind. I have serious doubts about how much "confusion" would result from using amboxes in category space. Has there been much confusion like that to date?

I think using ambox for headers that duplicate the role of their articlespace counterparts (content/cleanup/delete/etc.) makes the most sense. Category pages work in concert with article pages to present content and while I agree there should be some aesthetic differences between the two (the category list itself is a big difference), if we're going to post the same type of message on each, we should use the same style.--Father Goose 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid confusion, when I talk about "ambox", I'm talking about the template itself, which is customisable, I'm not necessarily talking about the default "style" of the article clean up templates, which was built into ambox.

Perhaps we should discuss (somewhere) a more generic version of ambox called something else (mbox?), since in general the template is useful for page headers. Especially since there are templates which see use in more than one namespace. The left border colour, the background colour, and icon usage is all that's really specific to article usage of ambox, I presume? And those are even customisable in the current version of ambox. - jc37 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An "mbox" discussion is not a bad idea, although we should first see if there's any agreement over using ambox-derived template styles outside of article space.--Father Goose 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm currently against the idea of using the ambox for permanent headers. All ambox use should be temporary, since they're so different from Mediawiki's global style. Everytime I see an ambox I think there's a problem with the article. If we start applying the ambox-style to non-issue boxes, the intent of the ambox will diminish. The following is another reason why I against it:

Now, I can see using the ambox for temporary messages (deletion, merge, and cleanup). Just changed the name to "mbox" and you're done. But here's the main reason I wanted to start this project instead of simply going with the ambox: category pages are a lot different from article pages, in both layout and purpose. Cat. pages may include a general header, a category/article navigation box, a sister project link box, issue boxes (like cleanup), among other things. Unlike article pages, these all congregate at the top. I've come across many cat. pages, where using the ambox wouldn't work or would look really bad. (For example, see these pages: Category:Wikipedia category redirects, Category:Engineering, Category:Category needed... there's definitly worst ones out there, but you get the idea.)

The category namespace is somewhere between the article and the Wikipedia namespace. That is, it is used by both the readers and the editors. Some categories serve as a searching mechanism whereas others serve as an aid in maintaining Wikipedia. Because of the nature of this namespace, I thought we should have a style to match. One that bridges the gap between amboxes and everything else. We should strive for a general style that doesn't clash with all these other boxes. The ambox, because of it's uniqueness, clashes. Rocket000 02:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a fair demonstration of why permanent headers shouldn't be mboxes. Of the three template-heavy category pages you listed, I only see one as a problem -- Category:Wikipedia category redirects, which has nested templates (both permanent headers), so I guess mbox is to be avoided there. For the other two, mbox would probably work well. Be aware that we're just about to implement a change to ambox to keep it from colliding from other templates such as infoboxes (see Template talk:Ambox#Latest iteration) -- so that style would probably work even better than the current situation.

I still think we could find a style for "permanent headers" that is complementary with the ambox style. I hope we don't have to go reinventing the wheel for every single namespace. Where there's common functionality, we should use common styles.--Father Goose 04:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical bulk

I like the direction in which this discussion is going, and I don't have much to add on colour etc ... but my main concern with category templates is visual bulk.

I have always followed the school of web-design which holds that the first screenful of any page is hot property, for two reasons:

When readers are scanning pages quickly, they often decide from a quick first glance whether the page is useful.
If they do decide to stay, they want to get as quickly as possible to the info they want, with minimal scrolling

This is important with articles, but even more so with categories, because:

the hierarchical nature of categories and the absence of the sort of hierarchical sidebar menu familiar to readers from other contexts encourages readers to jump from page to page to find what they want, so any scrolling needed may have to be repeated on several category pages
Even on a relatively uncluttered category screen (no message boxes, 1 line of category text, 1 row of subcats), the monobook theme has an article listing which starts more than half-way down the screen in Firefox on a std 1024*768 laptop.

I can see a few possible directions which might help here:

Copyedit extraneous text from the message boxes.
Consider making the boxes collapsible, either individually (as with the {{navbox}} templates) or collectively (so that if there is more than one, they can all collapse down to one line, with a sort "expand 6 infoboxes" button)
Consider making the boxes float left or right rather than going full-width

Number 1 and 2 are probably combineable. The {{cfd}}/{{cfr}}/{{cfm}} templates strike me as a particularly bad example of verbosity, and ideally the instructions to the nominator should disappear the next day. But even if they aren't trimmed, couldn't they be displayed initially in something like this very crude non-functional example:

This category is being considered for deletion. more

Even that crude doodle seems to me to stand out more than the current wall-of-text, which many readers will speed-read past. It offers both more screenspace and a clearer warning, which looks to me like a win-win.

I'm sure that a polished version won't be quite so compact, but consider how a category with a few such notices might look.

This category is being considered for deletion. more

This category is overpopulated. more

The inclusion of some articles in this category is contested. more

Anthropomorphism portal

This category lists nuclear-powered hamsters elected to public office in Puerto Williams

See also

Pages in category "Hamster nuke politicos in Puerto Williams"

That's much less bulky than the current setup, and a lot clearer. Please tell me that something like this is feasible! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly strongly oppose in the case of timed notices, and especially deletion ones. They should be as clear as possible, and not be a part of a wall-o-notices- jc37 13:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I'd be happy for the CFD/CfR/CfM notices to be exempted. Are there any timed notices other than those for CfD etc? And apart from CfD, what do you think of the idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why we can't use the ambox style itself for deletion, cleanup, and content messages. The role of those messages is identical to their article counterparts.--Father Goose 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good, although I do agree that deletion notices should not be included in that. And now that you mention it, there should be a way to get the nominator's instructions to go away after a certain amount of time... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see doing something like this for things like {{image template notice}} and {{tracking category}}, but I think all temporary templates (what we would make yellow, orange, or red) should be centered and span full width or close to it, like how they currently are. However, I definitely agree that they need to be trimmed down.

Father Goose, most of the boxes I see on category pages do not have a article counterpart, so if we did go with the ambox (for deletion, cleanup, and content issues), it would only be used for a small minority of the templates currently present (all of which are temporary). These wouldn't look right next to other boxes. I mean we could go with the ambox-style. It would save us a lot of work, but I think we all enjoy this "work", so that's not really an issue. :) Rocket000 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you say that temporary templates should be full-width. I guess that may be because you see them as important (which the deletion ones certainly are), but in general surely the aim to make important boxes attention-grabbing. When it comes to grabbing people's attention, less is more: two or three stark headlines grabs the reader's attention much better than three big boxes which make a wall of text and which many readers will simply skip past. The small expandable headlines also massively increase the useability of the page for readers, and we are creating this project for readers rather than for editors.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I totally agree that usability for readers should be the primary goal, and just like with the article namespace, certain messages should dominate other (less important) messages. I do think we can utilize your idea, though, just not for all messages (specifically deletion/rename and content issues). This is where I see the strength of your suggestion. By making certain templates full-width (actually 80%) and using your idea for the rest, I think we can accomplish our goal of improving usability while still making sure the important messages stand out. Rocket000 12:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so far as I can see from the Pre-standardization boxes, only two are not directly related to the category's content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then the discussion turns to: What is important enough to be centered, and what can be shoved over to the side? Also, doing things two different ways isn't exactly standardized. I thought differences were what we were trying to avoid. At risk of sounding absolutist, I think we need to make everything centered or everything a sidebar (with the exception of CfD as noted). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I may have been mistaken in agreeing that deletion notices should be full-width. I quite agree that some notices need greater prominence than others, but think that some contributors here are mistake in thinking that a full-width notice is necessarily more prominent. Looking again at {{afd}}, for example, it's much clearer since the redesign, but it still doesn't shout its purpose: the headline is too close to the wall of text, and the headline itself is too verbose. It would be much better for the headline to just say "This article is being considered for deletion", and put the "in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" in smaller text in the next sentence. That's what needs to grab the reader's attention: the fact that the category may be deleted; the rest is detail, which they can explore once they have been altered to the fact that this is something they need to know.

If we want to make some boxes more prominent, we can use color, add extra whitespace, and add a graphic, but we don't need to make a box significantly bigger for it to gain prominence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a single header bar that goes on all category pages and includes all the necessary information. We can create a multipurpose template with parameters for each message. It would kinda be like {{articleissues}} mixed with {{ambox}}. (This wouldn't include messages like deletion, of course.) Rocket000 08:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What advantage does that offer over a sidebar? And if it excludes deletion, then we're back to squeezing the content way down the page again :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No advantage - just another option. I was just throwing it out there. It wouldn't be as much of a drastic change as your idea, but it would still save us some space. I'm still open to the sidebar idea, though. Rocket000 08:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two axes of coding?

The above discussion seems to centre largely on article-space categories, and "issue-tagging" of same. However, there's a couple of examples of others on the /Pre- subpage, so I assume this is wider in scope. So are we going to need one axis of colour-coding (or coding of some other sort) for "issue", and another for "namespace", or "type" of category? For example, (permanent) mainspace categories, stub cats, cleanup cats, talk-page cats, template cats, Wikiproject/Wikipedia namespace in general cats... Alai 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "article-space categories" as all categories are in the category namespace. I'm assuming you mean non-administration categories for articles only (designed for reader navigation). It's true, the discussion so far has dealt a lot with content issue messages, mainly because this project was directly inspired by WP:AMBOX. However, I believe the primary focus of this project should be the permanent message templates as these are more prominent and unique to the category namespace. As for the color-coding (and if we need two different systems), that is what we are trying to figure out. Rocket000 21:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "article-space categories" I mean, "categories whose contents are in in the article namespace", which would include maintenance categories and "permcats" (though that's such a large grouping that it presumably requires the most distinctions and subdivision). But there are also categories whose contents are templates, talk pages, wikipedia: namespace (wikiproject and otherwise), and I don't see any real cognisance of that in this discussion so far. Perhaps multiple axes is to over-egg things, since the non-article cases may only need a single design or colour each, but it does require some consideration. Alai 18:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out a discussion currently going on at WikiProject Stub sorting concerning a certain category page message box. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Colour scheme for {{WPSS-cat}}. Rocket000 22:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main talk category other

From the (in)famous creator of the {{ambox}}, here comes a new meta-template:

I have coded up a solution for the message boxes that are used on several types of pages. Take a look at {{main talk other}} and {{main talk category other}}. They help other templates detect what type of page they are on, so they can change appearance. And I think I have managed to make them really easy to use.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should have linked to it from WP:TS. Rocket000 (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:TS as in the actual front page of Wikipedia:Template standardisation? That might be an idea, thanks. Or did you mean its talk page? I did announce this at its talkpage.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant the front page. (You could also steal the shortcuts of Wikipedia:Category message boxes if you want, they weren't really used). And good job by the way. Rocket000 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! Yeah, I should perhaps advertise {{main talk other}} and its sister templates more. Been busy with other stuff lately. And now I am going to make a {{main talk category image other}} since there seems to be a need for one. That name is starting to get rather long...

"Steal" the shortcuts? As in WP:CMBOX? So you are aware if the two new meta-templates we are preparing? We will probably announce them on the Village pumps in a day or so. You are of course welcome to comment on their talk pages already today.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found that template awhile ago and it inspired me to make a {{main talk category image wikipedia template user mediawiki help portal other}}, actually I was just going to called it {{nsSwitch}} but I figured it was a little excessive (especially when I made an option to treat each type of talk page differently :). Rocket000 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Hilarious template name. I guess the "other" just is for future compatibility since you already covered all current namespaces. And yeah, for that kind of template you need a shorter name. I hope there will never be a need for such a meta-template. Did you see a need for it?

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... Not at all, but it was a good exercise in template building. :) Rocket000 (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your links are red and they have no deletion log. I guess you just tested it in your user space or so? Anyway, I made a full version that handles all namespaces in a very flexible but still fairly easy to use way: {{namespace detect}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message box standardisation

To standardise the look of message boxes in image space and category space we have now coded up some suggestions. See the new meta-templates {{imbox}} and {{cmbox}} and discuss the design for them at their talk pages.

I will announce this standardisation effort in the appropriate places here at Wikipedia during the next few days.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]