Template talk:Ambox

Possible redesign of small=left version

I have implemented a requested edit at Template:Incomplete list which uses a custom designed smaller version of ambox which is left aligned and automatically adjusting width. If this change sticks it would make sense to modify other templates (e.g. {{expand section}}) to match. Rather than adding an additional variant of ambox, I wonder whether we should explore changing the small=left version to match this style? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've copied current and sandboxed versions of {{expand section}} below for comparison — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MSGJ: Do you think it might help to post about this discussion on one of the village pump pages, whichever is appropriate, to get more input? DesertPipeline (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MSGJ: Since nobody has objected, I think it might be okay to start an edit request for this – that might help to start a discussion with whoever responds at least, if they don't want to implement it yet. Also, would it be a better idea to have a different parameter variable for the width-variable version? Something like |small=variable maybe? DesertPipeline (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Support new layout of small=left. Nice and compact.  Question: would the modification be for {{ambox}} only? Looking at Module:Message box, it seems that the CSS is taken from the .mbox-small-left class at MediaWiki:Common.css, line 910. But that is used for when |small=left for any message box. Not sure what you're intending. — hike395 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Hike395: Only Template:Ambox supports |small=left, I think. I wanted to get that working for other message boxes while still allowing for |small=yes (which positions it on the right with templates other than ambox) but someone else opposed it because they didn't think my reason for requesting it was sufficient. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:MSGJ: Would you mind if I start an edit request for this? I think we've waited long enough; nobody has objected so far. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No I would not mind at all. But do you know the specific pages and changes that need to be made to achive this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MSGJ: I would presume that the changes only need to be made in the message box module. I'm fairly certain that it's acceptable to write an edit request for the module of a template on the template page. Am I correct? DesertPipeline (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect - I believe the styling for the ambox is held at MediaWiki:Common.css#L-826. We'll need a specific request before it can be actioned. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MSGJ: Okay. So I'm guessing the edit request would be "please change width: 238px; at line 831 to width: auto;", and explaining why. Also, I think I should check all of the templates which use (or can use) the small-left parameter before doing this, as depending on the amount of text, they may need to have line breaks added so they don't turn into a box spanning the entire width of a page. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: How is textstyle changed via that file, actually? Unless it's redundant we also need the text style to be set to width = auto. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MSGJ: Can you advise regarding my previous question? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure. I think it might involve mbox-text or mbox-text-span. Izno is pretty good with this stuff, perhaps he wouldn't mind helping. We are trying to encode |style=width: auto; and |textstyle=width: auto; to make it the default style in MediaWiki:Common.css. Can you advise please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MSGJ: Not sure if this is the right way to do it, but if I add "text-align: center;" to the style parameter of a template with that parameter supported, it centres all the text. Presumably then, if that's added on a new line to that CSS page you linked in the relevant area, it should work. That is, as long as it's not the 'wrong' way to do it in this context. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have some thoughts about this discussion.

1. Regarding auto-width rather than fixed width, I believe it is fixed width because we have an interest in lining up the right edge of the small version of ambox for stacked templates being used at the section level. Do we believe that requirement has gone away or changed since we instituted small versions of these templates? (I doubt it, but maybe you can persuade me and/or others.)
   1. The reason we have amboxes at all can be attributed basically to differing widths and variable, inconsistent colors in amboxes pre-standardization some 10+ years ago.
2. Changing the width so that it is auto in all cases rather than fixed is more or less trivial. It's the removal of current lines MediaWiki:Common.css#L-799 and/or MediaWiki:Common.css#L-809.
   1. NB, if you decide to make it auto sizing, that will hamper future work to remove the reliance of ambox on being structured as a table for presentation. That is something of a soft oppose for me personally right there.
3. I am not interested in removing the fixed width globally regardless without a larger community discussion on the topic than here, at a minimum demonstrating the effects of the change in the single and multiple-mbox (i.e. stacked and/or separate section) template cases, such that the wider community can weigh in on appearance.
4. One thing to consider, without tossing the goose and gander, would be to set a larger width in the general case. (I am not necessarily a fan of the squat versions but I do not know if these templates will broadly appear any better in a world with wider, but still-fixed-width, templates.) Either way, our computer screens have gotten wider (and then smaller again with best web practice having a relatively 'narrow' main column of content), so that this may be a reasonable approach. 238px is more or less tiny at the end of the day, even if you have, say, an infobox to your right.

--Izno (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

For reference, here's what amboxes looked like before they were standardized: Media:NewbieTags.png The standardization was done circa 2007. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Which I noted at 10:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC) above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft articles not in category?

Why do drafts tagged with {{Cleanup taxobox}} fail to end up in Category:Taxobox cleanup requests ( 0 ), unlike mainspace articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkwafaba (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Because categorization is applied only to pages in article space, per the template's documentation. "Ambox" is short for "article message box". – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Draft articles are articles, and people have edited {{Don't edit this line}}. How can I ensure that all pages tagged with the template are categorized? --awkwafaba (📥) 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What happened when you asked at the talk page for the template, or at Template talk:Don't edit this line, or at Template talk:Automatic taxobox? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: i asked the template creator, and they didn’t know, because that is me. --awkwafaba (📥) 20:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft articles are drafts, they are not articles until they are moved to mainspace and so become part of the encyclopedia. The categories are also suppressed when other cleanup templates - such as {{neutrality}}, {{original research}} or {{unverified}} - are used on drafts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: so again, how do i change that template behavior. Other templates work on drafts; it’s not universal. --awkwafaba (📥) 02:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The usual way to make a maintenance template apply a category is to add the category to the template code itself, preferably within <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags. YMMV. You'll need to change the word "article" to "page" within the template and its documentation if you do that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Param "info" missing...

In the full parameter list, "info" is missing. Only when reading the detailed description does one fall over its existence. Nb, this is only a documentation issue. GrayanOne (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 17 September 2023

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

154.183.62.172 (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)