Jump to content

Template talk:Tmbox/styles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for discussion concerning the merits of the varied styles (see Template:Tmbox/styles) for {{Tmbox}} as part of an ongoing discussion. Comments are appreciated but please refrain from voting as this is not intended as a poll.

Schmerker style with cmbox colors

[edit]
  • This is by far the best on the page, in my opinion, my reason being that they seem most like the other existing templates, especially {{ambox}}, but these have their own flavor and they seem to mix well existing talk page templates as well, including {{articlehistory}}. Gary King (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these have way too much colour. And the delete colour here is pink, in spite that for most mboxes the pink colour is reserved for the speedy boxes. But it is right that the speedy type here is more red (darker pink) than the delete type, so at least the colour order is right. Also, remember that the notice type is for non-urgent/non-warning message boxes, which means it is the default type that will be used for most talk page message boxes. Even though the WikiProject banners use their own meta-templates (since they need special functionality) they are using the message box CSS classes in MediaWiki:Common.css and thus will use whatever style we decide on for the notice type. I would not like to see all the WikiProject banners turn blue. Remember, we are not only designing the tmbox here, we are re-standardising the styles for all talk page message boxes. --David Göthberg (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AzaToth's idea (with amended colors)

[edit]
  • Interesting, but it's hard to tell what colors go with which template. Even if they aren't stacked, I think it's too much solid dark color in one place. Still, I prefer it to any of the cmbox backgrounded ones--sorry Schmerker, but they try to hard for a mundane job.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too think that this style makes it hard to tell which colour bar goes with which box when they stack. And even if we don't stack them tight then I think it is better to have the colour bar on the left side or like a thin border all around like in some of the other suggested styles. --David Göthberg (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schmerker-AzaToth hybrid

[edit]
  • Too much colours and slightly confusing to tell which colour bar goes with which box when they stack. And I wouldn't like to see all the WikiProject banners turn blue. Remember, we are not only designing the tmbox here, we are re-standardising the styles for all talk page message boxes. --David Göthberg (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HereToHelp's idea

[edit]
  • Scott: Compared to the current tmbox, David G. is almost identical. Compared to articles; yes, it's {{ambox}} + coffee roll. Still, I think it's one of the best designs and manages to be fairly non-intrusive while still having a splash of color. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? At the bottom of what "article" page? And what talk page? --David Göthberg (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in support of coffee roll smashed with ambox styling, as I'm of the opinion that talk pages hold the highest connection to article pages, which is the point of the encyclopedia, no? --Izno (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, "coffee roll smashed with ambox styling", you got a point there. But just so no one misunderstands: These styles are for all talk pages, also for "Image talk:" and "Wikipedia talk:" and so on. --David Göthberg (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually pretty good. I think this is the second best alternative after "David G's version" (my) version. I think it is nice to keep the old standardised talk page brown. And taking WikiProject banners into consideration I think they can be pretty okay with a blue bar to the left. --David Göthberg (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David G's version

[edit]
  • Another excellent design. It also distinguishes it from the article templates, although I like how mine (above) more closely mirror it. (I wonder how these would look with a white background?)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HereToHelp: Thanks. And no need to wonder, if you want to see how coloured borders with white background looks then go to {{ombox}} or {{imbox}}. And that also means that coloured border and white background is already taken. --David Göthberg (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The coffee-roll is associated with talk pages, anyway.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that all of the designs so far ( 10 ) could work : my preference would be for ( 5 David G's version) as effective and not-overstated. If more color differentiation is needed, then ( 9 Schmerker-David G. hybrid ) is good for me, also. --NewbyG (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, the borders really make the messages stand out so I like the hybrids that include this style, but by itself it's not bold enough. If tight stacking is used though I think the borders get too busy. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if we use borders all around then we can't stack the boxes tight. But note, many of us don't want to stack the boxes tight. And if you want the colours to stand out more then we could make the border thicker. When I designed this style I didn't dare to deviate too much from the old style with brown background and thin grey border, so I kept the borders thin. I see now that most people seem to prefer more colours. But some also prefer less, so it is hard to tell what is the right compromise. --David Göthberg (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it thin. If they want more color, they can support one of the AzaToth, Schmerker, or HereToHelp hybrids. I even tried a set with my (HTH) sidebar and a 1px border...--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my favourite. (After all, I designed it.) It is a careful addition to the old talk page brown style. Since most talk page message boxes are non-urgent/non-warning message boxes, then most of them will use the "notice" type. Thus I kept the thin grey border for that type which means most message boxes look the same as they did before. This means that the WikiProject banners will look like they did before, since they are of "notice" type. We did the same with the {{ombox}}, that is we kept the old grey border for the notice type thus most "other pages message boxes" still look the same as before. I bet most of you haven't even noticed that we "changed" the styles some time ago for the message boxes at the top of pages such as guidelines. --David Göthberg (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now prefer the new and slightly simpler "Waltham's style", see my comments there. --David Göthberg (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HereToHelp-David G. hybrid

[edit]

AzaToth-David G. hybrid

[edit]

Schmerker-AzaToth-David G. hybrid

[edit]
  • I like this one because each of the notices really stand out, and when it comes down to it I think that most of these templates should be obnoxious because they are meant to point out deficiencies and changes that need to be made. The big permanent talk page additions (Project banners, article milestones) won't use these template anyway, so it's best that they be a striking as possible. Though I dislike this if we're doing tight stacking. and would remove the borders. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schmerker-David G. hybrid

[edit]
  • Looks fairly good, but I think it is too much colours. And since most boxes including the WikiProject boxes are of notice type, then most boxes will be blue and I don't like the blue background. I'd rather have a white or brown background for the notice type, but that wouldn't work with the rest of the types in this style. And it is confusing that the "delete" type here looks like the "speedy" type does in most of the other mboxes. --David Göthberg (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schmerker-HereToHelp-David G. hybrid

[edit]
  • I think this one makes a great instant impression and a lot of my comments from Schmerker-AzaToth-David G still stand here. My only concern is that HTH is too similar to the article message boxes. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, extra all? I think it is too much colours and looks somewhat asymmetric. And since most boxes including the WikiProject boxes are of notice type, then most boxes will be blue and I don't like the blue background. I'd rather have a white or brown background for the notice type, but that wouldn't work with the rest of the types in this style. And it is confusing that the "delete" type here looks like the "speedy" type does in most of the other mboxes. And the speedy type here has to have darker red than the delete type, which makes it hard to read text in this speedy type. --David Göthberg (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy‑melon's style

[edit]
Before this style was added it was discussed below at section #What happened to the status quo.

Waltham's style

[edit]
Before this style was added it was discussed below at section #Well?.
  • This set of templates (Waltham's style, arrived at through discussion) seem quite suitable for the purpose. The number of templates has been reduced here to 7. The most used type will probably be the notice type. When these are deployed, many editors will probably not even notice the change. Thanks, this set now has my first preference. --NewbyG (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I now prefer this style. It is a careful addition to the old talk page brown style. Since most talk page message boxes are non-urgent/non-warning message boxes, then most of them will use the "notice" type. Thus we kept the thin grey border for that type which means most message boxes will look the same as they did before. This means that the WikiProject banners will look like they did before, since they are of "notice" type. The "protection" type also has the old thin grey "notice" border. Since some editors think that the thicker "protection grey" we use on the other mboxes does not look good here. And the padlocks we use in the protection templates probably are instantly recognizable, thus no special border is needed. --David Göthberg (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like it, but I can live with it (I'll just be implementing my preference in my own css). However, I must take serious issue with the varying border widths. Is there a compelling reason not to have them all at 1px like the current 'notice' style? Happy‑melon 20:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought of it myself at some point, and made a couple of experiments. The colour is practically indistinguishable in one-pixel borders due to the background. The solution does work in ombox, which has a white background, but not here. In any case, I don't find the different widths a problem; quite the contrary: they introduce variety and yet another element of visual disambiguation. I actually like the spectrum of ombox, tmbox, and imbox; it reminds me of Euro coins (the ten cents and fifty cents have the same rim but quite a different size, while the twenty cents, between them in size, have a different rim).
    If you intend to use css to override a style which you don't like, that is perfectly fine; what we need to decide here, however, is whether the new style will be useful to all users, which mostly depends upon the practical aspects thereof. Taste differs amongst Wikipedians, so it should be a relatively minor concern. Waltham, The Duke of 07:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With 1px borders:

[edit]
  • I'm not objecting to the difference in border width between tmbox and cmbox/ombox/ambox/imbox - as you say, the variety and variation between the various namespaces is pleasant to the eye - but rather the non-standardisation within the tmbox series in this style. Currently the tmbox-protect and tmbox-notice styles have 1px borders while all the rest have 2px. I've added a section to demonstrate 1px borders all round - I personally think that they are less intrusive while still being noticeably different. I'd be amenable to leaving the tmbox-speedy style with a 2px border, seing as we all agree that the speedy genre is a bit special. What does everyone else think? Happy‑melon 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that. Personally, I view that (i.e. the thin, grey notice- and protection-type border) as a non-border. It only exists so that the coffee-roll background will not spill onto the page, so to speak; it is barely visible, the epitome of discretion and non-intrusiveness. Keeping it like this will retain a classic style people are used to and seem to like. On the other hand, having slightly thicker borders will make clearer the theme I have been talking about lately: visual distinction of temporariness. Like the sidebar is intended to denote an entire class of boxes that have no place in good articles, the coloured borders should show the same thing on talk pages.
    On another note, the two of us may see the thin border clearly enough if we look at it, and recognise its colour with ease. The point is, however, that we shouldn't have to look carefully in order to tell the colour. And then again, there are many people who won't tell the colour even if they do look closely. For users with poor eyesight, a one-pixel line next to a coffee-roll background will simply not be enough. (Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the first time that accessibility concerns are in my favour. :-)) Waltham, The Duke of 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that the grey 1px border is intended to be as unintrusive as possible, I think it's disingenous to pretend that it 'doesn't exist'. Similarly, "temporariness" is something of a risky argument because most of the warning messages placed on talk pages aren't temporary! The warnings at the top of Talk:Muhammad will need to remain ad infinitum. Although my perception is certainly skewed by not wanting to see the colours, I think that in this instance discression is the better part of valour: the talk namespace is where the standard red/orange/yellow scheme has the least relevance, and where the class names ("style", "content", etc) make the least sense. Using existing classes to create a generic warning scale in talkspace is already something of a hack, so it's not something I would personally want to advertise with vibrant colours. Categorising talkspace templates is going to be much harder than other namespaces, so we should be minimising that problem by reducing the differentiation between the classes. It seems to have been decided that we don't want there to be no differentiation, but keeping the visual differences subtle in the namespace where the contextual differences are also subtle, strikes me as good sense. Happy‑melon 11:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (switching to a more sustainable indentation format)
    Well, you might be right about my "temporariness" argument; there do seem to be boxes taking up indefinite residence on certain talk pages. However, we could still play on it somewhat. The thing is, we have deletion and speedy-deletion classes, and we have a "move" class; these are clearly defined and entail no confusion. (They are also, as I've said, temporary.) I add that the names of these types are pretty much accurate and the types' purposes do not change between namespaces. Correct me if I am wrong, but the main issue seems to be the distinction between yellow- and orange-bordered boxes.
    Actually, it kind of has been all along.
    To the point: Instead of a vague minor notice / major notice separation, we could adopt a sharp distinction clearly denoting which box means what. Ideally, it would retain a certain relevance with the current type names (changing which would be quite awkward). Indeed, even ombox retains a vestigial relation with "content" and "style" (consider template space), and things look more promising in this case—in article talk pages, at least, a fitting matching could happen, propagated throughout the other talk namespaces by extension of usage.
    I'll try to clarify. I believe we can agree that the major warnings posted on article talk pages, for shorter or longer periods, mostly concern content disputes. Sure, there are disputes about style (some of them extremely silly, in fact). When you talk about discussing controversial subjects, danger of censorship and euphemisms, and contested inclusion of images, however, this is all content-related. The kind of style-related boxes one would (expect to) see on a talk page would be close to "this article needs an image". So, why not use orange for content-related disputes, messages about which appearing on a talk page are generally pretty serious, and leave yellow for notices regarding style matters, which are usually pretty insignificant and basically form a part of an article's development process? This way we stick to the names and we end up with a pretty meaningful separation.
    And although I shall not insist on sticking to a temporary–permanent distinction, such a scheme would restrict long-term messages to orange, a suitable colour for important warnings (but just below deletion red). For exceptionally important notices we could change the icons, thus drawing more attention to boxes like the ones on Muhammad's talk page—given that they are custom-made, such measures would be recommended relying on the specific circumstances.
    For non-article talk pages, I cannot say much, given that I don't have a list of such templates in front of me right now. However, even if only in terms of relative importance, parallels could be drawn with the article-talk-page templates that would help with the categorisation task. This is certainly preferable to having no standards at all, and remember that even with your style we'll need to separate "content" from "style" type.
    Ah, and as far as the grey border is concerned... Well, it does exist and I cannot deny this. However, it does not attract attention; its colour is best described as "neutral". The eye-catching colouring of the other borders is what will draw attention to them, and I believe this can justify the slight inconsistency in line thickness. (And add to that the other arguments...)
    And speaking of attention... It's not just that I agree we need more differentiation than your model supports... I really feel that we shouldn't have major warnings appear as urgent as deletion notices; what could be worse than deletion? (That is, except speedy deletion.) I like the scale that is being proposed here—all we need is a clear delineation of the rungs of this ladder. After all, isn't this what happened in the last instalment of the Great Assessment Debate? Waltham, The Duke of 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what a comment! Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much of it is relevant. In the interests of compromise and development, I'm shelving my absolute opposition to the use of orange/yellow/purple borders; I'm just asking why they need to be 2px when the 'default' border is just 1px. I think your comments about how the field of talkspace templates is likely to be divided up are astute, although there are certain to be 'oddballs' that don't easily fit into any class. I agree that it is the "eye-catching colouring" of the borders that is important to draw attention and to differentiate between the types. The thickness of the border only determines how eye-catching the boxes are, and it's my opinion that the distinctions in talkspace are not sufficiently important to justify varying the line thickness within the tmbox series. Happy‑melon 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was late, so I simply wrote down my thoughts without attempting to cut from anywhere. Mind you, more of it is relevant than you might think. Considering the merging of talk pages (after all, these templates are for all talk namespaces), it transpires that only the yellow–orange distinction needs to be clarified, and the colour issue will be all but resolved.
    Which leaves us with the borders' width... First of all, you have yourself agreed that the inter-namespace differentiation (namely ombox→tmbox→imbox) is something positive; I find that using two-pixel borders makes the colour better visible and the boxes generated by this template better differentiated from the other types. I know we have coffee-roll for the latter, but that's not a reason not to be a little more unique. As far as intra-template inconsistency is concerned, I think it is justified by the circumstances. Look at the other cases: {{ombox}} uses thicker borders for the two deletion types and for protection type (so that there will be a difference from notice type). {{Cmbox}} uses a border for speedy type and for no other, and {{ambox}} and {{imbox}} use a different background to draw attention to speedy deletion due to its urgency. Why can we not reverse this here?
    The two deletion types are important and pretty urgent, and have red borders. The move (or, rather, merge) type is important, and also relatively urgent, and has a purple border. Content type is important and has an orange border. Style type is not as important as the others, but is the most important style concern of the lot, or it would be on the article along with the rest of them. And that leaves us with... Pure information. Notice type tells nothing that is urgent or particularly important for the fate of the article; the exceptions are distinguished by prominent images like stars and padlocks. We have a practice of using special marking for the most urgent speedy; since here the border does not change for it, why not apply it to denote the opposite? Not to mention that notice type is the only one with a more-or-less guaranteed presence on the page; only content type could also remain indefinitely, and that not always. And add to that the historical interest of retaining the established and familiar format... I think we have enough reason for this deviation. Waltham, The Duke of 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal opinion is increasingly "meh" - I'm not going to see it, so what does it matter? But there is also the inertia of people used to not seeing any borders on talkspace messages at all to consider - the more prominent you make the colourscheme, the more difficulty we're going to have deploying tmbox. Why make it harder for ourselves when there are few benefits to doing so? Happy‑melon 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Waltham here, 2px borders are better. He has explained the exact reasons why I choose 2px borders in "David's style". Although I now prefer the similar "Waltham's style" with 2px border. That is, 1px borders are not visible enough for the talk page brown boxes. The 1px borders for the {{ombox}} is a bit thin too but the white background there makes them more visible, and a 2px border there would have made the ombox look too much like the {{imbox}}.
And Happy-melon, if you read through the comments for all the different styles above you see that most users seem to prefer very colourful boxes. Those users came here when we had the watchlist-notice so they might represent what the majority thinks.
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's go for it; I hope you have strong sunscreen :D!! Anything to end this deadlock and get the show on the road... Happy‑melon 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy-melon: Based on how we worked together with the other mboxes I interpret your comment "Ok, let's go for it" like this: "Let's settle for the 2px border and no border for the protection class for now. That is Waltham's style. And let's deploy it now. Since when we deploy it people will notice the new styles and if people don't like it we will get new active discussion here. And we can of course change the styles even after we have deployed the {{tmbox}}. Thus we can adapt to any future consensus."
Did I understand you right? And I do agree with that, let's deploy now to get things rolling. And I don't use sunscreen since I have thick skin! :)
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, pretty much, except that there are still some technical issues to handle before deployment. I think we can, however, put a line like
return style.waltham('2px')
on the bottom of this page (ye gods, that was a geeky joke!) and adjourn back to Template talk:Tmbox. Happy‑melon 17:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One final point... Some people have acted a little prematurely, and as of this moment many talk-page templates do include coloured borders. If there are any complaints about them, I haven't seen them yet. Maybe this says little, but I don't think there will be much reaction to the borders, especially since most of the templates will not use them. Waltham, The Duke of 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy-melon: Hahaha! Took me a minute to understand that joke. :)) And I agree, lets adjourn back to Template talk:Tmbox. I have written an explanation there in section "Deploy?" about our conclusions here.
Waltham: Good conclusion, seems sound.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With 2px/1px borders:

[edit]

Content, style, notice and protection could stay on talk pages for quite a while, they can be distinguished by colour well enough with the thin borders. Speedy, delete and move probably would be more temporary, and so maybe the wider 2px borders can work best for those. --NewbyG (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the move style need the thick border, given that we've spent kilobytes of this page arguing on the assumption that it will rarely if ever be actually used on a talk page? I can certainly accept that there is an argument for the speedy style having a thicker border, since it's different anyway. Possibly the delete style too, although there's less strength in this. I certainly can't see any reason why the move style should be more eye-catching than the 'content' style, which is the one going to be used for most warnings. Happy‑melon 14:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find this occurrence quite amusing in its being almost self-referential... But if we follow the principle that provisions should be made for plausible and legitimate usage of a template even if it is rather infrequent, the example of Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes should be taken quite seriously. It is a most unexpected turn of events; even I had not considered that move type could be properly used on talk pages. (By the way, that discussion needs some input.) Waltham, The Duke of 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL yes I see what you mean! Still not an argument for 2px over 1px though.... Happy‑melon 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is an argument for using a border for move type. I'll answer to the width issue tomorrow; I have to sleep now, for I have an early rising tomorrow. I'm going mountain-hiking... Waltham, The Duke of 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well? Happy‑melon 16:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the impatience! :-) I was tired yesterday, so I postponed it for today. I'll reply above; I don't this proposal has much merit. Too much inconsistency—besides, I think style boxes are less likely to stay long on the page (unless nobody can find a suitable picture for months, or something similar), and there are many content boxes that will be similarly temporary (things here are even more hazy). Only notice type is more or less permanent, and although protection is as dubious as content, it doesn't really need a coloured border. Waltham, The Duke of 21:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you guys already have understood this, but just to be clear: I didn't add the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} boxes to Template talk:Ambox and Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes to prove a point. Although I realised you guys would react on it which made me chuckle while I added the boxes. And I am happy you too got a good laugh from it! :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above

[edit]

Sorry to be negative, but these are all terrible, IMO :( Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's really beneficial to the discussion, thanks. Adam McCormick (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can come of with something, we'll work with you and put it up for dicussion.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, you have to give opportunity for someone to oppose all designs. Just because a few individuals came up with designs doesn't mean you are obligated to choose one of those designs. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with opposing everything, I have issue with no rationale or suggestions for better options and from an admin no less. Relative merits of the options above was the point of this discussion not a poll on which one to chose. And anyways when I initially drafted my response it read "Why are these all so ugly?" which was hardly constructive. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone checking these color schemes for general usability? What about colorblindness compatibility? Values are often too close (same value, similar hue = not enough contrast). The red box/black text are uniformly difficult to read in grayscale. Might be easier for the designers to start from grayscale values, get those right and then colorize -- that way the contrast will be correct at least. And remember to choose each successive bar from its opposite on the color wheel; that pumps up contrast as well. cb (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cb: Last summer when we made the colour scale for {{ambox}} we had some colour blind guys commenting. So we read up on it and designed a colour scale where people with most of the different kinds of colour blindness could tell all the "ambox colours" apart. However, the colour scale was really ugly, and the colours had no intuitive meaning. Thus we could just as well not use colours at all. So we decided on using the traditional signal colours. The colour blind simply have to resort to actually reading the content of the boxes to find out what a box is about. Of course, if a box uses a well known icon like one of the default icons then even a colour blind person can instantly see what kind of box it is. By the way, that is kind of a good reason to use icons, it helps the visually impaired to easily spot what kind of box it is.
--David Göthberg (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in on the none of the above as well. I'm reluctant to say it because I know you guys have been working hard on this. I just don't see any real need to make some color coded borders or shades that don't seem to be of any real benefit to the talk page. Stylistically, the addition of colors just seems to make them seem less standard and kind of.. bleh.. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. See here for more. Waltham, The Duke of 01:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it right?

[edit]

Is it right, do we feel, that the creators of the various forms are praising their own efforts and criticising others'? Are you trying to accumulate thoughts, or thrashing things out? Just asking :-) almost-instinct 15:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is not censored, and that applies even more to talk page discussions. Every one has the right to state their opinion on the designs here, even we who have put together one of the designs. And if you read the comments again that I and the other "design creators" have written you will see that we explain why we don't like the other designs. There are specific reasons why we each have chosen another style.
Oh, and our suggestions carry our names, so we are not exactly hiding who has what "bias". Well, the hybrid suggestions were put together by other editors but I think that naming makes it clear what the different suggestions are based on so that is okay.
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but we the unwashed rabble of WP editors have been invited—on our watchlists—to offer our opinions; the sight the creators of these very fine designs stalking the page acts as a break on this invitation. So if you are trying to accumulate thoughts, then adding your opinions now will inhibit this. If, on the other hand, this is the final discussion, then go for it. Hence my question: at what stage are we at, currently? almost-instinct 15:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree that our opinions are more or less worth than others. But I think it might be good that we who have been working in this project for months now explain some stuff since the newcomers might not know all the details. But I hope that other editors will not hesitate to comment just because we have already commented.
This is a talk page, it is meant to have wild discussions and everyone is invited. So we can come to a good consensus, so that in the end what we deploy is good stuff™.
Oh, it is hard to know at what stage we are currently. This discussion might quickly boil down to one design that most like and then we will be ready to deploy tmbox almost immediately. Or discussion of styles might take a long time. I think we will be ready to deploy within some days, but I might be wrong.
--David Göthberg (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's pretty obvious that the creators would support their own designs. Still, I hold them (including myself) to the same standards as "the unwashed rabble": don't say "I like this one"; rather, say why. As for what stage, at this point we need to just gather comments. We can't rush this, but when we're done, we I planned to narrow the field and repeat the process, perhaps (or perhaps not) moving into a formal vote. Sorry David, but this is probably going to be closer to two weeks than two days. Transparency requires time, unfortunately.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the status quo

[edit]
The style discussed here is now shown as Happy‑melon's style.

Is the no colours version (well, with red borders for serious) not being showcased here because it's so similar to what's currently out there, or because no one wants to talk about it? Happy‑melon 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that we should seriously consider this option. Personally, I prefer it. I find that most of the proposals have too much colour, making the boxes rather flashy and depriving them of their uniqueness and distinguishing sobriety. Furthermore, I absolutely oppose stacking the templates, a method most of the proposals seem to be taking for granted, and I reject the idea that the boxes require so much differentiation. In my opinion, this is largely redundant and functions more as a creative exercise than as a fruitful development process of something actually useful. I am sorry to sound so negative, but I have just now found out about the debate here, and I need to concentrate here all the comments I should have otherwise made throughout the page. This change is not needed; considering that most proposals bring talk-page templates closer to other styles, it might even be detrimental.
I'd like to believe that the participants are not too attached to their ideas to consider that they might have to be discarded. I propose taking a minute to discuss to what extent these changes are really needed. Waltham, The Duke of 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy‑melon: Well, calling your suggestion a "status quo" is not entirely correct. Many message boxes that are used on talk pages currently use special colours, thus what you are suggesting actually means forcing those templates to stop using colours.
I don't know why your suggestion wasn't added on this page. But I think you should add it. Then we can yet again explain the problems with your suggestion.
Waltham: I agree that most of the suggestions are too colourful, and as you know my suggestion (David G's version) is the least colourful of the ones that use the mbox colour scale.
As you know the need for the colour scale has been extensively discussed several times on Template talk:Tmbox. I am still waiting for your response what to do with for instance "type=move" templates like {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} when they use {{mbox}} and are shown/demonstrated on a talk page?
An argument some have mentioned is that "the other types will rarely if ever be used". Well, for those of you that think so: Then why does it bother you since you think you will rarely if ever see them? And if they are indeed needed sometimes, then why shouldn't those rare cases be allowed to work properly?
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember a couple of message boxes with a red background, but other than that I cannot recall anything much different from the usual format. After all, there was a standardisation effort some years ago, and the exceptions might as well have slipped through the cracks, or were developed later. As I see it, Happy-Melon's proposal is very close to the status quo. If I accept anything other than that, it will "David G's version". It's not just the liberal use of colour in the other proposals that will remove the "backstage feel" I like and find so appropriate for talk pages, and which has the potential of turning them into flashy displays of colour painful to the eye (cmbox is fine because it's hard to find more than two templates in a category—talk pages use many more). It's the designs themselves which I cannot accept.
I have already mentioned how confusion-prone I find the lower bar (AzaToth's idea). What I haven't mentioned yet is my case against the sidebar, aside from the "stacked" argument. I honestly feel that we should restrict this bar to the mainspace. Symbols and images create codes, and with this standardisation we are creating one as well: the sidebar is an element so far particular to the mainspace, where message boxes are by definition temporary, and one can easily see how the sidebar is very much associated with temporary boxes. This is exactly how a request to make a small "special characters" box conform to the ambox model was struck down in the Village Pump. This is our opportunity to keep this association clear, and think a little more of the principle of keeping styles different in different namespaces. Sidebar and white background for ambox. Coloured background for cmbox. Coloured border and white background for imbox. These are very different designs, and the reader can make the distinction without much thought, which is a Good Thing. Ombox is rather similar to imbox, but the borders are thin, the boxes generally smaller and in a completely different environment, and info-class (the one most often encountered) has no border colour. We shouldn't use anything close to all these for tmbox—the sidebar and coloured background are off the table for me. Keeping the classic colour for tmbox and making a similar compromise with the borders as in ombox is something I could perhaps accept (after all, the borders are two instead of three pixels wide, right between imbox and ombox).
(I note here that I also cannot accept any of the available hybrids, as all of them include either the sidebar or the lower bar.)
To finish with the border design, I want to apologise for failing to continue my response on Template talk:Tmbox; I mostly focused on expressing my disagreement with stacking and creating FA–GA classes. We have made clear that placeholder images are not to be used by default, and we seem to be in agreement about the classes, so all that is left from there is the discussion on the necessity of borders overall. I shall respond here, as most discussion seems to have stopped on the main page. I've just now realised what you meant about the move boxes; the case is rather strange, and I am not sure why one could not simply link to the template. True, using borders will help a little. I don't consider this case a convincing one for either side, however. I might be a little inclined to agree with you because of the colour combination; purple matches the best with the coffeeroll colour, in my opinion. :-D Red is also very good; yellow and orange not so much, I think. And protection grey is plain awful in these templates. I have noted several problems with that colour, and perhaps we should consider using the same border as for info-class. This is the one point I've raised you haven't replied to yet. :-)
Ok, rant over. Waltham, The Duke of 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The borders on Template:Tmbox/styles#David G's version: are thin, in my opinion those colours work. This gives tmbox a reasonably calm feel, similar to Stacking, no colours.
With standardization, (tmbox) all talk pages should look as 'backstage' as possible. In my opinion, that would mean minimal use of colour, the sidebar used only for ambox. --NewbyG (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NewbyG: Thanks. Yeah, that was part of my reasoning when I designed "David G's version". Although personally I wouldn't mind thicker borders, but keeping them thin might be a good compromise between the old standard and the new mbox colour scale.
First a clarification for other readers of this page: What Waltham calls the "info-class" is the "notice" type.
Waltham: Thanks for the response. I agree with parts of your analysis, among other things you almost exactly describe the reasoning I did when I designed my "David G's version". And I too think that stacking the boxes tight would be bad, since I think it might decrease readability. And the sidebar only looks good when stacking tight thus I slightly dislike the sidebar in this case. And I don't know if we need the FA and GA types: So far I have only found one single box that clearly could use the FA type, and no GA type box. (If anyone knows some FA or GA boxes, please point to them.)
Default images: I prefer to have visible default images, since it makes demonstration and testing easier. Sure, most or at least many talk page message boxes will probably set "image=none". But reverting the order, that is to only show the image when say "image=default" is set, would be strange. I prefer to have {{tmbox}} compatible with the other mboxes, since that simplifies the learning curve for the editors that use them. And it makes {{mbox}} work across all namespaces, which is its purpose.
I can see that you think my "move" type example is strange. But it is a very real case. Sure in some cases we can link to a box, but showing it is much better when discussing, especially if several different boxes are discussed at once. And in some cases we have to feed parameters to a box to show one of its features when discussing it. Then just linking to it is not an option, then it has to be shown on the talk page. I can't see how it can hurt that in that case the move box gets an appropriate purple border? (Even if some might think it is ugly.) I mean, its not like the top of our talk pages will be crowded with move boxes. And hey, check out Template talk:Tmbox, we have been showing lots of different boxes there, and some of those examples use parameters. Think of the nightmare if we only had linked to those templates...
And regarding colours from an ugly/pretty perspective: First of all I think that all the mbox colours do work with the talk page brown. But even if some of them would have been ugly to me I would say this: I am an engineer and teacher by profession and habit, I prefer functionality and understandability before prettiness.
--David Göthberg (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had confused the name. Notice type it is, then.
GA and FA templates are few. {{ArticleHistory}} is used for all current and former FAs, FLCs, and GAs, although there are also templates for nominations and reviews. A total between five and ten for both classes, and of basically temporary nature; they are semantically indistinguishable from notice boxes and distinctive on account of their images. I don't think it's worth either the trouble or the inconsistency.
The technical reasons you give for retaining the images as default are convincing. If we are to make no change to the template, however, I should like us to agree, at least, that we'll try to avoid them in practice, unless there is a good reason to use an image. I simply suggest some restraint in image-usage in the talk namespace.
I am not saying that we should not display templates on talk pages; I am basically doubting that the border is of much help. But I am not entirely opposed to it—at least not as much as I used to be. The market law of contrast also helped here, as seeing all the subsequent proposals has somewhat changed my view of your proposal into a more favourable one. Although, mind you, I still have reservations about the "minor warnings, major warnings" system. At least these get to be near the end of the unofficial order of templates (which I am more than eager to have codified as some sort of guidelince; I've seen too much disorder in talk pages). Waltham, The Duke of 07:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added the "simple" style to the styles page. I'm now convinced as to the default images, although I know most of the templates I work with won't use them. Although most of the imbox images are alright, the 'content' style definitely needs a redish one (the orange circle clashes horribly with the red border). I'm still not convinced about the move option: since {{merge}} etc shouldn't ever be placed on talk pages, why are we concerned about how it looks as a demo? We've already accepted that it won't look as it's "supposed to", because it will have coffeeroll background instead of whatever is appropriate. Why are we trying to 'compensate' for that by adding purple borders, especially given that it's not even supposed to be used in the namespace under discussion!! A sense of perspective needs to be maintained... Happy‑melon 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{geek joke begin}} Happy-melon: I always wondered about your sharp logic. Now I know, you use 1 bit logic, as in 0/1. {{geek joke end}}
1: Let's see, in your "simple style" you only have two urgency levels: non-urgent/non-warning (thin grey border) and very urgent (red border). And nothing in between. Unfortunately reality is not that simple, some message boxes will belong somewhere in between.
2: And yes, for the "content" type the red border clashes horribly with the orange circle. But if we use an orange border for the "content" type, then it matches the current image, and matches the "content" colour for all the other namespaces.
3: We can not guess what namespaces a move box that uses {{mbox}} is intended to be used on. For all we know it might be a generic box that may be used on any namespace. I have even seen move/merge/split/transwiki boxes used in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. So we can not pick one of the other namespace's style and use that when such a move box is being demonstrated on a talk page. And yes, I think people should demonstrate message boxes on talk pages, since showing is better than telling. So you say that since we can not support this case to 100% then we should not support it at all (0%)? I say we should do as good as we can and use a purple border and thus support it to 50%.
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1: Hehe, but I'm not sure I agree - I don't see them as graduations of "urgent", and I don't think other people should either. The fundamental difference between the talk namespace and the other spaces is that it's the "backend" - the place where we discuss everything that goes on. Tmboxes will hold important summary data; readers should go to a talk page expecting to read all the tmboxes, because they all carry important messages and metadata. That's why, in an ideal world, we don't need to colour-code the boxes: all the content is equally important. But in the real world, viewers aren't necessarily going to read everything; so we want to give ourselves the option of saying "whether or not you plan to read all the boxes, you really need to read this". So yes, I do think it's a binary system... but for the talkspace, unlike every other namespace, I don't think that's a bad thing. Having styles which scream "read me" or "Oi! You! Yes, really really really badly read me" is clear, simple and will probably have the desired effect of making sure that, whether or not they skip the rest of the tmboxes, the red-bordered ones get their attention. Having a plethora of styles which scream "read me" or "read me if you're interested in this" or "read me first, I'm more important than that one over there (although not as important as the one above" or "don't be distracted by all those other colours, I'm the one you want to read" will be like being in an African flea market: presented with so much conflicting "read me" signals, readers are no more likely to read the important messages first than they would if there was no colour at all. In other namespaces, that's not a problem, because readers aren't intending to absorb all the information, only the types they're looking for - and the colour coding helps them find that information. In talkspace, however, that's not what we want to happen: we want readers to go into the discussions taking place in posession of all the important facts. Some of them we could consider "really important", and we should, and will, be able to highlight those with the red border. But anything more than a binary system, and you start to confuse people and lose the effect that you're trying to accentuate.
3: I'm not saying that we should deliberately craft {{merge}} or {{mbox}} to disallow it being used in talkspace; that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. I'm saying that we shouldn't be troubling ourselves to make sure, when a template is used out of context, in a location where it's not supposed to be used, where it isn't even being used to do anything other than demonstrate, that it looks good. It still shows the same content and has the same message; why do we need to add the subliminal messaging stuff as well? Surely we all have more important things to be doing than dealing with this extraordinarily specific exception-case? :D Happy‑melon 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, why are we having this discussion about the 'move' style, but not about the 'protect' style? Protection templates are legitimately used on talkpages, yet we don't have a problem with not colouring them... is it just because the purple border goes reasonably well with coffeeroll, while the grey looks truly diabolically awful? :D Happy‑melon 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You again chopped up and edited my comment. When others respond it quickly becomes very broken up. So I repaired my comment.
Well, I started using the "move type with {{mbox}}" example since that is the "worst case" example. I think someone mentioned that there are no move/merge/split/transwiki boxes that are meant to be used on talk pages, while there are boxes for all the other types that are used on talk pages. So I showed that even though the move boxes are not "meant" to be on talk pages, they will occasionally be demonstrated on talk pages. And thus we have to decide what they should look like on talk pages. That is, we need a defined behaviour for all cases, even the less common ones. And while we are at it we can just as well make that defined behaviour a useful behaviour. (And we already have the code for it, since I copied and pasted the tmbox code from the other mboxes.)
We know that there are "protect" type boxes that are used on talk pages. I think they should have the protect colour. But that is not as necessary since we know they will have a padlock icon, and I think people instantly recognise the padlocks no matter which colour the padlock itself has.
The same is unfortunately not true for the "move" boxes, there are many different move/merge/split/transwiki icons thus the purple colour is more needed so people can easily tell what kind of box it is.
--David Göthberg (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well?

[edit]
The style discussed here is now shown as Waltham's style.

This might be just me, but this discussion has fallen dormant. Where has that urgency of "we need to deploy mbox and we cannot do it without a standard tmbox format" gone?

I say let's get this done with, or we shall never be able to move on with the rest of the issues regarding message boxes (and, well, the entire encyclopaedia; there is always so much to do, and I hate unfinished business).

Personally, I have come to terms with the coloured borders of "David G's style" (it's basically the yellow and orange that takes some getting used to) and recognise the arguments in favour of using a border for "move" boxes (I don't agree entirely, but having them separated from the standard notice type is probably a plus—and I really like the colour. For reasons already stated, I am willing to support a version of the aforementioned style that will not create classes for GA- and FA-related boxes, and which will absorb protection type in notice type. In other words, this without the final three boxes (and the alternative notice type, of course). Apart from the basic style supported by Happy-Melon, which does not constitute a significant change, I think David G's style is the least controversial and best-justified solution, and a sound foundation for discussion; the details can be worked out, but I believe I have explained my views well enough. Waltham, The Duke of 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The featured and good type is not needed (but I don't mind them). And after seeing how {{permprot}} looks with the gray {{tmbox}} border I think we can just as well be without gray border there, since I think everyone recognize the padlocks instantly thus no border is needed.
Waltham: Do you mean that the notice and protection type should have blue border or the old thin gray border? (I prefer the old thin gray notice border.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely the old grey border. My view is that, like with the sidebar in the mainspace, coloured borders in the talk namespace should signify message boxes of temporary presence on the page. Not using such a border for protected type helps in this respect, because although most protections are temporary, many templates and various other pages are protected permanently. Waltham, The Duke of 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good. I will code up your suggestion and add it as "Waltham's style:" on Template:Tmbox/styles. I hope that titling is okay with you?
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At last, something named after me. Just when I thought I'd have to resort to bribing. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 13:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Tmbox/styles&oldid=1145846036"