Template talk:Ambox/Archive 9

message: I have created a guide about how to use the ambox CSS classes directly in wikitables and HTML tables. Its not complete yet but has all the basics in it so should already be useful: Wikipedia:Ambox CSS classes
--David Göthberg 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work - we all really appreciate the work you've done on the ambox.  violet/riga (t) 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I finally understand them. Nice work! -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How-to guide 

message: Apologies if this has been mentioned before but I could only find mention of an overlap bug. In Firefox (v 2.0.0.7) I'm not seeing any borders or right-hand-side colour bar on the new templates (though I do see them on this standardisaton page), I can see the borders with Internet Explorer. Has anyone else noticed this? CheekyMonkey 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look fine to me, and I updated to 2.0.0.7 yesterday. Look at the two boxes at the top of the page. They should look the same. Btw, there should only be a colour bar on the left side. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 12:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I meant left-hand-side not right, my bad. I'm still not seeing any borders or colour bar though and I think this has been on more than one computer. Will try and upload a screenshot this evening if I can figure out how to. CheekyMonkey 12:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried bypassing your cache?  —David Levy 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *slaps head* That's solved it, should have thought of that before! Thanks. CheekyMonkey 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug in Firefox? 

message: These new designs end up with a result which looks far too much as if it is part of the article. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you've updated your cache?  They look totally separate.  violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I have done. Tyrenius 09:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the design makes it look like any part of the article? I am not aware of us using a design similar to this anywhere else on the site.Circeus 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion with article text

message: The old templates had a background tint that set them apart from the article. The new tint is too close to the colour of the page and is ineffective to distinguish the box. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But is enclosed in a border and the side colour highlights them.  violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the tint doesn't contribute anything in its present form. I suggest either making it clearer or not bothering with it. Tyrenius 10:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the issue of lack of tint. It might be in a border, but it still isn't as nearly defined. Would be nice if it had a very light gray (think of it like a 90% opacity of black) to counter the brightness of the side colors. -- Guroadrunner 11:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would also like to see a little more contrast with background tint.  But I don't beleive this guideline would qualify as disputed based on a couple of minor formatting disagreements by a vocal minority.  Jeepday (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tint

message: When these new designs are stacked, they run into each other in a way which the old templates did not. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which works so much better, linking them together.  violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that was intended to be a feature, not a bug.  I appreciate it as such. —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that each communicates a different message. They need to be differentiated and, when they are, can be understood more easily. The stacking mandates an unecessary decoding of the form, before the content is even reached. Tyrenius 09:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree. I think the stacking is effective. See Marlboro (cigarette). -- Guroadrunner 11:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's funny.I've been vigorously opposed to the new navbox footer design for that very reason, but my opposition have been dismissed. In this case, I believe that the formatting is appropriate, however. Circeus 15:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The good it does, for example, can be shown when both the  and  templates are used, as they are here.  As it stands, that looks like a single notice, and you have to look really carefully to see that it's two. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stacking

message: These bright colours do not harmonise with the existing colour scheme of wikipedia, which is subtle and subdued. They also upstage any images within the article. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They stand out enough to highlight a problem while not being overbearing.  The images of the old templates could be said to be similar.  violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: While I would not object to the re-discussion of more subdued colours, I have no objections to the current colours used.  Further, I don't understand how the little blob of colour upstages images. —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because colour is relative. The existing design of wikipedia is deliberately understated. An image on a page stands out in contrast, because it is the most dyamic visual feature. Now the colour bars are the most dynamic visual feature, but they shouldn't be, as they are functional messages. Their strong colour dominates any other colour on the page. Tyrenius 09:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many ways it's supposed to stand out.  Yellow doesn't stand out much, but orange and red (the real problem areas) are highlighted because they are important.  violet/riga (t) 09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarity is fine. Dominating the page (which the colour of these designs do) is not. Tyrenius 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that these templates, particularly the red and orange ones should dominate the page. Even the yellow ones should dominate; the goal after all is to fix the article so that these templates aren't present. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 13:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Side bar colours

message: The stacking example reads visually as a jumble. Strong visual features read together, so the side bars do not differentiate the different templates: they form a vertical unity which has the opposite effect to differentiation. Tyrenius 09:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the horizontal rule running the full width, which universally indicates separation. ←BenB4 17:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Side bars and stacking

message: The small icons shown on the project page are unecessary, unattractive and intrusive. Tyrenius 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are intuitive and help people to quickly spot the type of problem.  violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they don't. They just provide needless clutter. The previous pastel tinted backgrounds were far more intuitive. You have to stop and think what they symbols mean. Tyrenius 09:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The side colour echoes what the pastel background did and the image adds to the visual cues.  There is simply no argument to say that the previous scheme was more intuitive when this clearly highlights the severity of the problem.  violet/riga (t) 09:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is to discuss the icons. Tyrenius 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are going to strike your own comment that started discussing the background colours?  violet/riga (t) 09:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all the off-topic stuff, including mine, but you've reinstated it, so that's your choice. My remark was intended to make a comparison about intuitiveness, not to open up in this section a debate about the tints, just FYI. Tyrenius 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Icons

message: These have worked successfully for a long time. In terms of design, harmonisation, communication and user friendliness, they are superior to the new designs.  They should be reinstated and tweaked where appropriate for standardisation. Tyrenius 08:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is crazy to say "harmonisation" when talking about the old scheme.  They were also poorly designed, communicated less effectively, and were mismatched.  violet/riga (t) 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to provide a more analytical argument of each point. Tyrenius 09:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do?  And here was me thinking that you were trying to change things back with very little support.  The old templates were not standardised and were mismatched - that is the overriding reason for template standardisation.  violet/riga (t) 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I really didn't like the previous templates. They were non-standardized to the nth degree: colours, widths, styles, images v. no images, some spaced between themselves while others didn't, and so on; I found them quite unharmonious for these reasons. As for communication and user-friendliness, I don't see how these are any more or less better at communicating or being friendly to the user than their predecessors were. —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an argument for standardisation of the existing design, not a complete redesign. I have pointed out why the redesign is not as good. Tyrenius 09:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old templates

message: I love them.  They're a bit Googly, but at least we're stealing from the best.  Ichormosquito 08:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary. Look at a google page. It has colour for the google name, but not on the rest of the page. It is a very understated design and all the more effective and user-friendly for it. Tyrenius 08:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New templates

message: I don't like the way the new user boxes look  - the little strip of color on the left hand side seems odd looking among other things. However, I am more concerned with the fact that there wasn't extensive notification that a style change was proposed or implemented. Such prior notice could have been easily been done by copying some generic notification and request for feedback on the talk pages of all the affected templates. I don't frequent pages in the Wikipedia namespace, but from time to time I do look at the talk pages of article message templates. Placing notices on those talk pages to solicit further feedback would have been advisable to get a more broad range of input from people who don't normally get involved in Wikipedia administration, but do care about individual templates. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept what you are saying but the change was extensively advertised in multiple places.  Placing notices on every template talk page would've been akin to spamming and would've been an excessive way to publicise something when the usual venues had already been explored.  violet/riga (t) 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which venues? I don't believe placing messages on all the talk pages would have been spamming - it merely would have been good faith cavassing to get further feedback. It certainly would not have been as jarring as seeing every article message box in the article namespace reformatted. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior notification