Template talk:Ambox/Archive 10

message: OK, well not fixing it all all isn't a solution - like I calculated somewhere, nobody with a 17" screen and 10pt fonts can possibly have enough room to have an ambox to the left of an infobox with everything sized the way it is. The question seems to be between:
#display:block.  Doesn't add vertical space but allows border collisions
#clear:both. Prevents all collisions but adds vertical space.
There is also the possibility of reducing the width of an ambox in certain circumstances. Thoughts on how to go forward? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens if you place a div (a block element) around the table, and give it a small amount of horizontal padding? --ais523 13:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be easier to simply left-justify the amboxes? That would eliminate potential issues with infoboxes. Horologium t-c 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There just isn't enough space with the widths set the way they are. On a 13" wide screen (like a 17" diagonal) with 10pt fonts, there are about 82 ems of space for the content (excluding the portlets), of which the infobox want 20 and the ambox wants 66. And we can't assume our readers use fonts as small as 10pt or that they maximize their window. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing the flow conflict problem 

message: Wikibooks has copied the standardization idea with Template:Mbox, and the Polish Wikipedia has followed suit with Szablon:Ambox. Just thought you guys may want to know... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, the Wikibooks version is funny. Shorter name (Mbox) but wider box (90%). And interesting to see what changes they do. Thanks for the tip Titoxd. --David Göthberg 03:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reminds me of a certain song by three long-haired little lads.  Nice to see it being adopted elsewhere.  violet/riga (t) 07:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other wikis 

message: I think you guys have done a fantastic job changing the templates, they look so much better now! I use Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup quite a lot and there are still a few on there that haven't been changed over - just letting you know in case you didn't know about them. Thanks, Cricketgirl 22:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are intended for the talk: (and specifically covered elsewhere) or image: namespaces. Circeus 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from those, there may still be a few unconverted article notices bouncing around. A few days ago I found a couple just by browsing random articles. All of them are likely (a) uncategorized and (b) not listed on Wikipedia:Template messages. I wish we had a "random template" feature, like Special:Random or Special:Randomredirect. szyslak 23:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Random/Template? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been a Wikipedia editor for just over three years, and I can't believe I didn't know about that. On Special:Specialpages, only "Random article" and "Random redirect" show up. Since you pointed that out, I've been surfing through random templates in the hopes of finding that last unconverted article message box. Though I haven't found any message boxes, much less any unconverted ones, I have come across quite a few TFD candidates. It's sad how so many uncategorized templates become orphaned and forgotten, floating around in the WikiEther until someone finds them on Special:Random/Template. szyslak 09:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been periodically doing cleanup with :category:Uncategorized templates. Circeus 21:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some old templates still knocking around 

message: I don't think it should be using a red bar. Thoughts? --MZMcBride 02:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's always going to appear in tandem with a red-bar speedy template.  It's not a "deletion template", logically speaking, but I'd say it's a deletion template rider, so the red makes sense to me, visually and otherwise.--Father Goose 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is very much "deletion related" so should be red. --David Göthberg 10:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Red looks good to me. Red is for serious issues such as deletion, and the creator of the page requesting that the page not be deleted is certainly a serious issue to the exact same degree as deletion. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Hangon]] 

message: You may remember the issues around the first stub tag of a stack needing double blank lines - in case it was preceded by a nav-box - well we seem to have the same issue with  the first and last AMB of a stack running into preceding or succeeding boxes.  IS this worth implementing the CSS fix suggested for stub-tags? Rich Farmbrough, 07:29 25 September 2007 (GMT).
:(See, for example, Xenogears) Rich Farmbrough, 08:20 25 September 2007 (GMT).
::See also the thread #New templates don't combine well with  above, about the same thing but with dablinks. (I don't know the answer) --Quiddity 02:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs all over again 

message: Does anyone think that having a "stronger" color for  would be useful? I understand it's not a deletion request, but if it IS a hoax, the next step is pretty obvious... 68.39.174.238 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of know what you mean... but either it's not a hoax, in which case it's a false alarm, or it is one, in which case it's an AfD, prod, or speedy candidate.--Father Goose 06:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I really think the deletion template should blink just so people don't miss them. If you don't want the whole thing to flash, maybe just have a big red stop icon that blinks. I would hate to miss one of these warnings and put a bunch of work into an article just to have it deleted later. Think about it. - 205.215.119.104 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem likely that you'll overlook a big red deletion template.  More likely is that you'll put work into an article before someone tags and/or deletes it.--Father Goose 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No offense, but that's probably the worst idea I ever heard. - Rocket000 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. Please, no blinking icons. This is not a circa 1996 Geocities personal website. Horologium t-c 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion templates