Template talk:Ambox/Archive 1

message: Internally this meta template uses HTML markup instead of wiki markup for the table code. That is the usual way we make meta templates since wiki markup messes with the possibility to use parser functions and special characters in parameters.
Sure, one can force wiki markup to work by using things like  etc. But in the end that increases the pre- and post-expand sizes of the template. Thus causing more work for the Wikipedia servers. 
To make the code dependant on other templates like  can cause problems if they are changed. Even if their functionality isn't changed even a minor edit to them causes all articles that use our template to be dropped out of cache and re-rendered. And since this template is used to create article message boxes that would mean a big part of Wikipedia...
Also, wiki markup table notation is more picky about where line breaks occur in the code than HTML markup is.
Personally I also think that HTML tables are more readable in this case, since here we have lots of other functions using braces and pipes like {{#if:||}.
Wiki markup is not better technically. Wiki markup is just there for the convenience for article editors.
--David Göthberg 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're not supposed to worry about performance, and  should seldom (if ever) need to be edited, I do agree that HTML markup is the more robust way to go here. For example, if someone uses  in their text parameter instead of | or |, it can screw up wikitables while HTML tables handle it fine. As for readability, if I were really concerned I would get rid of some of the comments like ""; if someone can't read ParserFunctions well enough to figure that out…. Anomie 14:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm, I am guilty of putting those "" statements into the code. I have been programming since 1982 but I am new to MediaWiki parser functions so my eyes still don't read them well. Especially when they are nested in several layers like in this template. Now I know how people who are new to C/C++/Java feel when they say "just a lot of braces and parentheses". --David Göthberg 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML markup instead of wiki markup 

message: Per a request at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation , I have fully protected this template with cascading enabled since it is a part of all new article issue  boxes and thus at high risk for abuse. Feel free to adjust this protection. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've turned off the cascading bit due to it blocking any edits to the /doc subpage. High-risk, high-use template don't ever get cascading anyway. --MZMcBride 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: For type=style, the icon is missing.  At a blind guess, I'm assuming that the image that looks like "wiki" was the intended one, but you tell me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the detault icon for orange "style issues" is the :Image:Broom_icon.svg  but sometimes Wikipedia do not render some images for some hours but they usually come back. I have seen it for years. It seems to happen more often during high load. And it happened a lot the last few hours with our images here. I think it is a simple priority setting in the servers, when they are too busy they render the text but skip the images. --David Göthberg 11:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay; that explains what's been going on with flag icons lately too, then. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing icon 

message: What a brilliant idea barnstar
		-- Jeandré, 2007-09-15t14:38z
:Yeah, this template is freakin sweet. However, instead of requiring users to know the names of alternate images, how about expanding the number of possible types? Why isn't there a POV type that automatically uses the unbalanced scales image? I'm not highly familiar with this, and associated, templates; are there only 8 total images to worry about, concerning this issue? Xaxafrad 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is intended to be used manually at all. The point of this template is to be transcluded from other templates with more mnemonic names such as , , ,  etc. --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't enough good things said on talk pages.  So let me add my 2¢: This is a great idea and it looks wonderful.  Those two things rarely go together.  Good job in execution, folks!—Markles 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reiterate: this template is freakin sweet. Sorry I don't have a sweet barnstar to go with the comment. I was just throwing out a stupid suggestion (I find that if I do that often enough, sometimes one of them isn't as stupid as the rest). Now that I know how Ambox works through transclusion, I'll state that the whole Wikimedia software is freakin sweet too. Awesomeness abounds. Xaxafrad 03:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Well done.

message: Should  be applied to project-space templates like  and ? I don't see any reason why not, and I've experimentally applied it to a few (, , and , for starters), but I figured I'd ask here before I go any further. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation The general idea is, let's finish one thing, before we start other stuff i think. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh. Well, nothing wrong with jump-starting the process, I guess. Although they all got reverted... Zetawoof(ζ) 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-space templates? 

message: For me imageright doesn't seem to be working atm. Anyone else see the same issue ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Worked fine for me in  after a bit of futzing. Point me at the template you're having trouble with and I'll have a look. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  imageright 

message: 
should be changed to 

to make it work. Thanks. Ms2ger 09:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  imageright 

message: I'm not seeing the colour sidebar when I try to add a type to Template:Refimprove...I'm not seeing it at Template:Unreferenced either, and the type parameter is being used there. What's going on?! -- Reaper  X 03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried bypassing your cache?  —David Levy 03:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I took the liberty of adding it myself. Cheers. -- Reaper  X 05:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice idea Reaper X. I took the liberty of simplifying your addition somewhat. No need to leave my old "tech talk" in that notice box. --David Göthberg 06:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour sidebar 

message: Instead of edit-warring over whether this should support multiple paragraphs properly or not, why not add a CSS rule so that paragraphs inside an ambox don't have margins except between paragraphs
table.ambox p { margin: 0 }
table.ambox p + p { margin-top: 1em /*or whatever the margin is*/ }
After all, even on a single-paragraph ambox, the content is semantically a paragraph and should thus be in a  tag rather than as bare table cell content. --Random832 12:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only IE6 happened to support adjacent sibling selectors, this would be a good idea ;) Ms2ger 17:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not fix it in CSS 

message: Rather surprisingly, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Image for "growth" type has shown overwhelming support for changing  to . Please make this change on the ambox template. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  —David Levy 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for "growth" type 

message: What are you doing removing one of the major four hue groups from the ambox scheme?  We got to have green somewhere in this code.--  Denelson83  18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We got to have green somewhere in this code" Really? We have to have it in the code? What will happen if we don't? Will the serveers crash? Will Jimbo not love us anymore? Is there a particular need for green, or is it just a pretty color? --YbborTalk 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the consensus was that we wouldn't really use green for anything, as it indicates "all is well".  is a stylistic problem, so it uses yellow.  is a request (notice) for expansion, so it uses blue. What would we use green for? —Remember the dot (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the...?!?! 

message: The existence of a maximum width in this template seems to be causing a rather ugly effect on some templates.  For example, on the  template (when viewed in 1280x1024) the last word of the sentence needlessly wraps onto a second line, making the template look rather odd, and causing it to take up more room on the article than necessary.  To correct this problem, would it be possible to add a maxwidth property to the Ambox template, which would override the default maximum width? —gorgan_almighty 12:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't really correct for size-specific aesthetic flaws for 2 reasons: There are too many different combinations of screen-resolution and font-size in use by the world, and this would prevent the standard-width ambox stacking effect from working properly. --Quiddity 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum width problem 

message: I think we need the green growth back in there, it made those messages stand out from the others.
--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 03:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed from MediaWiki:Common.css, so an editprotected request here won't do any good. It was determined to be unnecessary; see WT:AMB for more. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was consensus reached both on this page and on the standardization page for its removal. This has been in practice for some time (relative to the life of the change anyway). --YbborTalk 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: - I kinda liked the way it looked, but we can always re-add it if the need arises. Nihiltres(t.l) 19:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the green "growth"? 

message: ru:Template:Ambox, please. — Kalan ? 05:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The docs subpage isn't protected though. ;) --Quiddity 06:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki