Template talk:WPMILHIST Infobox style

message: Please change the line "|nav_box_wide= margin-bottom: 0.5em;" to just be "|nav_box_wide=" (i.e., delete the style for the wide nav box).  This will make these navboxes have the same formatting as all other navboxes that use the  form.  With this line in place, a strange gap appears that shouldn't.  --CapitalR 06:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (although, in my opinion, navboxes look much neater when they're spaced out than they do when the borders are run into each other). Kirill 10:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make navbox margin conform to other navboxes 

message: This is an exceedingly wide infobox. I suspect that it is this wide because you guys apparently mandate 300px for all your images. In general, it is best not to overrule user thumb size preferences. If people set their thumb size preferences to smaller sizes, you should assume they have done so for a reason, and respect that.
You can defer to user thumb size preferences without putting a frame around your image by using the "frameless" argument on images. I've just implemented that on Template:Infobox Ship. []
That template now respects user thumb size preferences, but unfortunately it remains 315px wide even when the image is small, because of the unusually large width of this template. That means users with small thumb size preferences get presented with a small image drowning in a sea of whitespace, in an overly wide infobox. This can be fixed by reducing the width of this template to something much smaller, such as 195px. If you do so, the template will still expand in width to accommodate users with larger thumb sizes.
Hesperian 12:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's part of it, but not the entire issue.  The infobox(es) using this style are meant to stack; see, for example, any article using campaignboxes (e.g. Ulm Campaign).  The fixed width is necessary to ensure that this works properly; a narrower box would be stretched by a wider image, but this wouldn't stretch the other boxes below it as well, breaking the stacking effect. Kirill 13:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Note that, in any case, WP:MOS considers a fixed width to be appropriate for "a lead image that captures the essence of the article (recommended not to be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences)".  So the overall point—allowing thumbnail preferences to work on the lead image—isn't necessarily one that enjoys consensus anyways. Kirill 13:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't agree with what the MOS says there - I see no reason for a lead image to defy thumb settings merely because it is the lead image. But your stacking argument is impossible to argue with. That's a shame, because I really think these infoboxes look bizarrely wide. Hesperian 13:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. [] Hesperian 13:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  Personally, I'm not sure whether the image size really matters—I think that an image significantly narrower than its enclosing box can be used to good effect in some cases—but that's more of a personal preference, I suppose. Kirill 13:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wide

message: Hi. This is an edit request originally filed on the Infobox Military Conflict talkpage, so references to "the template" etc were made with that infobox in mind:
----
Please:
*Reduce the template's default line-height to 1.25em so the gaps between wrapped lines don't make wrapped lines look like new entries in lists of combatants, commanders, casualties, etc; and also so that the gaps between wrapped lines are smaller than those between lines and the top/bottom edges of the boxes they're in.
*Boost 's font-size to 115% so it appears more title-like, i.e. larger than the text in the body of the template.
----
Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one shouldn't be a problem, I think; but the second one doesn't really make sense to me.  That line isn't intended to be a title; it's just another field that happens to be displayed with a colored background for aesthetic reasons (hence why it's also not bolded). Kirill (prof) 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: * Thanks for your response.  appears bolded here and is at the top of the Military Conflict infobox, so it sure looks to me as if it's trying to be a title/header..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * There's certainly no bolding on that line in the base template; it's just regular text with a blue background.  Is there somewhere in specific where it's appearing bolded? Kirill (prof) 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does seem a bit cramped.  Part of that might be the ship infobox itself—some of the others don't seem to show it as much—but I'm not sure whether this is really an improvement over the old version. Kirill (prof) 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some pages seem to be showing it while others aren't, and it's affecting more than just ship infoboxes, compare Battle of Trafalgar with Battle of Waterloo. I agree with Martocticvs that the previous, more clearly spaced version is preferable. Benea (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this change be reverted and, perhaps, further tested before any future implementation? The spacing of Ship infoboxes is too tight right now. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it only shows up on a page once the page's cache has been purged... so hitting edit shows you what it really looks like. Martocticvs (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look a little cramped, however, I've long thought the spacing between the various fields is too wide. Perhaps something in between would be best? An additional problem with the recent change however is that the spacing doesn't appear to be regular either, it actually gets wider toward the end of the infobox, which is weird. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Halfway might be ok - I think the main thing is that the spacing between fields needs to be more than exists between lines in other elements - unordered lists, for example. With it the same, everything is mashed in together making it much harder to follow. It possibly was a little on the airy side before, so a halfway or thereabouts compromise might be an ideal solution. Martocticvs (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Reverted for now.  It looks like this is going to need some experimentation before implementation, so I've disabled the editprotected tag (Kirill can handle any edits required anyway, I'm sure). Happy‑melon 20:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request transferred from Infobox Military Conflict 

message: Is it possible to add a class, to , which uses this template, such that it will apply to the whole of the former template? The class is needed for a microformat, not for styling. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a class 

message: Could someone please change three instances of;
* background: lightsteelblue;
to
* background-color: #B0C4DE;
and one instance of;
* background: gainsboro;
to
* background-color: #DCDCDC;
The '-color' is the correct property name and the named colors are invalid; numeric values are almost always required.
* Web colors and the CSS spec
Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the need to make these changes, especially renaming the colors to their hex values.  Both lightsteelblue and gainsboro are supported by every browser I'm aware of, and named colors are used widely across Wikipedia.  Also, I can think of a few thousand other templates that use "background" instead of "background-color", and there's no real harm done in it.  --CapitalR (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's probably little point, but given that they don't hurt anything, I've gone ahead and changed them.  This template is almost never edited, so there's no real impact from using the (less readable) hex values. Kirill [pf] 01:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid CSS 

message: Please change:
}}</includeonly>


 

to:
}}</includeonly>


so that the documentation for this template is transcluded via a proper /doc subpage. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation