Template talk:Ambox

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

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}} → Template:Ambox/sandbox

(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]

Requested move 10 February 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. A consensus does not appear to be forthcoming. The support position has a straightforward argument based on Wikipedia:Template namespace guidelines (at WP:TMPG and WP:TPN), but the oppose position is also quite reasonable in its arguments based largely on consistency and non-brokenness of the established system. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 11:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– As per the result of Template talk:Article stub box#Requested move 15 January 2025, move all of the templates "...per WP:TMPG "Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use"." Steel1943 (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised that Template:Message box is a separate template, and isn't just a redirect to Template:Mbox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This makes it much more clear for newer users. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I don't buy the "make it more clear for new users" argument. These templates shouldn't be used by new users, they're used to build other templates and by the time a "new" user should encounter them then they shouldn't be so "new" anymore. But the "we must rename all templates to over-long names" crowd will probably win out here anyway, because I can think of no good reason to oppose other than a forlorn hope that the abbreviated name might make it very slightly less likely for someone too-new to think they understand it well enough to misuse it (versus all the people who understand templates so poorly that they think they have to copy-paste the wikitext into articles). Anomie⚔ 12:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Anomie. I don't think this is a good move at all. I think the naming consistency in this case actually makes their usage clearer than the proposed rename targets. - jc37 15:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Message box" is a very generic term. There are probably dozens of different "message box" templates on Wikipedia. Whereas these templates are a well-known (to experienced template editors like me) part of the infrastructure with a well-known naming convention. Moving them from a name that's very familiar to a name which is totally unfamiliar is not helpful. This attempt to fix something that's not broken has broken my bot's processing, by requesting the move of cascade-protected templates. It's also distracted my attention from the backlogged maintenance tasks that should be my higher priority. I'd rather the editors trying to work above their pay grade helped me clear these backlogs, where I constantly feel obligated to work below my pay grade. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Unless you are a WMF employee, we all technically have the same pay grade... 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For real though, may want to consider the target of WP:TMPG be rewritten since it's a guideline. Lack of adhering to a guideline can always be considered as something that is "broken". Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a short, slippery slope around here, from a guideline to a law that MUST be followed without exception, given the number of obsessive personalities running all over the project. Meta-template families should be a perfectly allowable exception to the guidelines. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the moves, with redirects left behind to help old-timers like me, per the guideline. We are gradually moving away from obscure, insider template names, which is helpful for new editors (or new template editors who might be experienced editors) when they are trying to understand what a template does and how it differs from similar templates. As for There are probably dozens of different "message box" templates on Wikipedia, it's not that difficult to do a search, which results in exactly one template with "message box" in the name that functions as a message box. This move can only result in reduced confusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I mean – Template:Requested move/dated is a message box, which internally uses {{Tmbox}}. Following this guideline down its slippery slope will inevitably lead to a requested move to Template:Requested move message box/dated, in order to explain to our clueless newbie editors who can't see that it's a message box, that it's a message box. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I the thing prompting this move request is more-so the abbreviations, where WP:TPN would apply as well as WP:TMPG. There's always a chance that someone would request a move on that template, but it seems less likely to me, and less still that such a request would succeed. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this move does go through, the new names should follow the pattern, {{Article message box meta-template}} to explain to our clueless new editors that these are actually meta-templates, and not templates intended for broad, general stand-alone usage as message boxes. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To the extent that templates are difficult for newbies, and abbreviated template names even more so, just wait till you throw the term meta-template at them in the title. Far better to avoid that and just spell it out, enumerating the messages boxes involved. How about: {{Message box maker for articles, talk pages, categories, images, footers, stubs, disambiguation, and other types}}. Could anyone claim that that wouldn't be clearer to newbies?[just kidding] Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:TPN and WP:TMPG. I seriously doubt this would lead to a significant increase in newbie editors misusing these, although I suppose it's possible. They'd still be usable by the old names via the redirects. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per wbm1058 and Anomie. Going from systematic names to descriptive names makes it more difficult, rather than easier, to understand the relationships among the templates. Dekimasuよ! 14:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are good arguments on both sides and I had to think about it, but I have to come down as oppose. 1. Parallel structure is better achieved with short names. 2. Win or lose, I'm surprised nobody has turned all those red links blue yet with redirects, and when we do, doesn't that make half the issues in question here go away? 3. And that handy little box flush-right top on all of them, as created by {{Mbox templates}}: are we gonna change that to use the long names, too? That will be ugly. 4. There's a trade-off, perhaps, between more clarity for newbies (which I support and spend a good deal of time on), and efficiency and productivity enhancement of shorter terms for more senior editors, and for most things by far, I choose the former, but in this case, I tilt towards the latter. Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: For what it's worth, for your point 3: "3. And that handy little box flush-right top on all of them, as created by {{Mbox templates}}: are we gonna change that to use the long names, too? That will be ugly.", I'd say the template names should appear as their current titles but link to the new titles, such as what I did here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But there would be no point link[ing] to the new titles, would there, given that the old ones would be redirects, right? So in fact, iiuc, no change at all to the template would render the way you wish to see it displayed, i.e., exactly as it is now. Or am I missing something? And if that is okay despite newbie-unfriendliness, then why are newbie-unfriendly titles not okay? Mathglot (talk) [subscribed] 23:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: WP:BRINT. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, for the the bolding, good point. Doesn't answer the substantive question, though, about inconsistent approaches towards the use of short names, not okay in one case, okay in the other. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've argued against these moves—but being fair, the proposed new names could be accommodated within {{mbox templates}}. The table would just get a little wider or longer. Arcticocean ■ 21:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As a requested move attended by three users is not binding on the community, this proposal should be assessed on its merits. I am not sure that our template naming guidelines should apply to these extremely widely-known, established templates. Very likely there is greater consensus for the existence and current characteristics of the templates, including their names, than that guideline enjoys. Even were that not the case, the terms of the guideline itself support the current names, so they satisfy the requirement of "Template function should be clear from the template name". Everybody who wants to use these templates knows the 'ambox'. The move would create a lot of disruption and make a lot of work for no appreciable gain. I would argue that a proviso should be written into the template naming guideline: name the templates clearly except where a template is already widely known under an existing name, in which case prefer the existing name. Finally, I do support assessing these things and trying to simplify, so I would not want to discourage similar proposals from emerging in future. Times change and modernisation is good. However, the new names aren't great. They are appreciably longer and wordier. I also endorse Anomie's view. Arcticocean ■ 21:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the disruption that you anticipate? I haven't seen disruption from previous renamings that bring template names into compliance with guidelines. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Users will inevitably try to use the new template names, which are not intuitive or easy to remember. Is it article message box or messagebox? Is there a hyphen in multinamespace? This is a rare case where the wasted editor time is quantifiable. Conversely, I can think of few use cases where a user inexperienced enough to have never met the mbox also needs to use the template or know what it is. I don't have any view on whether other moves have been fine, although I am sure that they have been, but if there have been "previous renamings" and there are going to be a lot more future ones, more views should probably be sought at WP:VPT or a similar forum. Arcticocean ■ 04:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. Something as fundamental as these templates shouldn't be changed with a local consensus. - jc37 04:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: No abundantly clear consensus on some widely-used templates; would like more opinions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.