Template talk:Imbox/Archive 1

David G's colours

Since Kelly started out the {{imbox}} I went ahead and created these colour and margin suggestions:

I used the new images that we just have decided on for {{ambox}}. The colours are the same as those we use for the ambox.

The margins for {{imbox}} are tricky. I have tested in several different browsers and they all treat the margins differently. Firefox makes them the tightest. I have set the margin on purpose so there is a small space between the boxes when they stack, even in Firefox. Since if we have no margin they overlap and that doesn't work well with different coloured borders. And if we set the margins so they stack tight next to each other then it looks like one very thick border when two with the same colour are next to each other. I think {{imbox}} perhaps can have slightly darker background, the examples above use normal very light grey ambox background.

These are just suggestions. Although they are somewhat in line with what is already used for image space (both here and at Commons).

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the work so far looks great - one minor thing, the color looks the same for the "speedy" and "delete" classes. Also, in the "style" class, instead of using the broom, I think we should use or something similar, as most of those templates deal with things like out-of-focus images, cropping needed, image artifacts, and similar issues. Kelly ^hi! 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's perfect! Good job David! I oppose changing the broom to a camera because the broom has a broader meaning and means "cleanup". What if the image was an image drawn in MS paint. Surely, a camera is not appropriate for that. I support your versions, good job again!-- penubag  (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right on the camera - after I wrote that I remembered that imagespace also includes audio and video files, and other misc file formats. If this template has the ability to customize the image per template like {{ambox}}, a camera image can be specified when appropriate. Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kelly: Right, the "delete" and the "speedy" types have the same border colour, they only differ in the background colour. As is the case for {{ambox}}. (And that took lengthy discussions to reach consensus on.) They are both deletion boxes, just that "speedy" has a higher urgency and thus pink background.

I didn't think about the images, I just reused the {{ambox}} images for the time being. My suggestions above are about the colours, border thickness and margins.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Margins

Here is how the templates stack with different margins. Firefox stacks them the tightest thus too tight margins first become a problem in Firefox.

Margins as above, so there is a small space in between the boxes:

Tighter margins so the two boxes get in contact in Firefox. Looks very nice when the boxes are of different colour, but when the boxes are of the same colour it creates the effect of a thick border between them:

No margins so the boxes overlap creating one thin border in Firefox. Looks weird when the boxes are of different colour. Only looks good if the boxes have the same border colour. In other browsers they instead stack tight to each other and thus instead create the weird effect of a thick border between the two blue boxes:

That's why I think we have to have a small space between the boxes. Since that works well in all browsers.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the small margin between the boxes is the best option. Kelly ^hi! 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For the CSS geeks:

I just tested to use the other border model for tables and then I got the opposite effect. That is, wider margin in Firefox and narrower in the other browsers. So doesn't matter much which border model we use. {{ambox}} and the examples here now use "border-collapse: collapse;", what I just tested was the default "border-collapse: separate;".

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The small margins definitely look the best to me too. (Viewed in Firefox and IE). Anyway, I don't think having the stacking effect is as important for these type of boxes. Rocket000 (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove the coloured margins entirely. The colours look ten times better when they are a background as done in Template_talk:Cmbox#David.27s_colours_3 SunCreator (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

SunCreator: Oh, so you suggest using the same style for both image and category message boxes? Yes, that could be an option. It would make some things much simpler, like when a box is designed to be used in several namespaces. And it would save some code in the CSS files thus making page loading faster for users on slow Internet connections.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for picking this up David. I didn't think about the technical advantages as just looks much better. Glad to hear there are technical advantages as well and background colours are likely to be more consistent among different browsers then box bordering. SunCreator (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

David L's proposed changes

I suggest that we:

• Reduce the border to 2px (because the 4px border seems overpowering)
• Increase the margin from 3px to 5px (to make multiple boxes seem less crowded)
• Instead of light grey, use a white background for the non-speedy types (to increase the contrast with the pale blue image namespace pages)
• Include the oft-requested green color for featured images

Opinions? —David Levy 12:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For background color for the non-speedy types, I would suggest using the same color as {{Information}}, which is the template now standard for image information and is or will be found on virtually all image pages. I believe it uses the standard Table of Contents background color. The green 'featured' box is a great idea. Kelly ^hi! 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything between 2-4 pixels border is okay with me. (Today many image boxes use 4-8 pixels border, but some use 1-2 pixels.)

I too prefer a light grey background. I prefer the ambox #FBFBFB. I tested the slightly darker #F9F9F9 that is used for most other boxes such as the table of content, other spaces message boxes and the image {{information}} box an so on, but it was a bit too dark in my taste.

I think the boxes should stack pretty tight. And that was a very popular demand when we standardised the ambox.

I don't have that strong of a point of view if we should have the green colour or not. But I think like we did with the ambox: Such a "featured" or "good" message can just as well be a blue "notice" about it. And if we are going to use it then I think it should be for "good" images/media too. But still, reserving the green only for "featured" and "good" images/media is a very narrow use for an entire colour. But I guess you could argue that not having the green is even narrower... But if we are going to have it then you did choose a nice green that matches the other colours.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to think if any other imagespace templates would appropriately have a green color...maybe something like {{reviewedfairuse}} or {{PUIresolved}}, though nothing else comes to mind at the moment. Also, for some reason, green has come to be the color associated with {{Attribution}}-style copyright tags, but I don't think we need to worry about copyright tag standardization yet. Kelly ^hi! 13:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't mind smaller borders and I do like the green but I know it was rejected when we tried adding one for the ambox... something about that green. :) I guess it's better to keep it simple. Rocket000 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The green color was rejected (including by me) for use in {{ambox}} because it carries a positive connotation that doesn't apply to messageboxes used in the article namespace.

However, it occurs to me that the green color could be reserved for use in Commons templates designating that images have been verified as free, so I like Penubag's idea of using gold for featured media. —David Levy 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think these are great, as all of them are! I kinda wish the borders were a little thicker on Levy's version and I dislike green for FA status. -- penubag  (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't include green somewhere in this color code, I will do the same thing I did with the amboxes and banish this code from my screen via my personal CSS. Same with cambox as well. --  Denelson83  16:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The gold for featured makes sense (the green would imply Good Articles or Common's Quality Image program), but it might look too similar to the yellow and orange tags. It would have to be a dark gold, (like the star), but does that throw off the unified saturation/lightness whatever?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the thin borders. Morphh ^(talk) 15:09, 05 May 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer the thin borders. Broooooooce (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Current imagespace templates

I've started compiling a rough list of current imagespace maintenance templates at User:Kelly/Image maintenance templates. (Image license templates are being compiled at User:Kelly/Image license templates, but that is for a separate, future, standardization effort with Commons and they are not really suitable for Imbox.). Kelly ^hi! 13:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! That is a staggering amount of templates and a zoo of different designs. As it was with the ambox, it will be hard to decide on which "urgency level" (which colour) to use for some of those templates. Thanks for making those lists, they will help a lot during the standardisation discussions here.

And I agree that the license templates probably should have their own standard (and they kind of already have) that is similar to or the same as on Commons.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I think that all deletion templates should have that pink background. How about just making the speedy border thicker? (I was going to suggest that only speedy have a complete border at all, but honestly, I prefer the (thinner) border to the left side line currently used in ambox). It's a shame that there isn't an easily identifiable, different than regular delete, "speedy" icon. - jc37 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this has been extensively discussed over at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes for months. The weak consensus was/is that only speedy delete message boxes should have pink background, while the less urgent delete message boxes should just have red border. I think we should go with the same solution here for reasons of consistency.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I seem to recall that the only way that that even had weak consensus was that it wasn't going to apply to other namespaces. (Note for transparency, I was involved in those discussions.)

The ambox discussion had fires to put out on many fronts. That's no longer the case. Ambox has been implemented. So there's no reason to default to that debate.

There are many reasons that an XfD template should stand out (not just speedy). - jc37 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy templates are the only templates using pink backgrounds and red borders of which I am aware, and I believe that this should remain so - the contrast implies an urgency which is already adequately implied for longer-term deletion issues by a thick, red border. Nihiltres^{t.l} 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - add "category" parameter

I don't want to hang too many bells and whistles on a metatemplate with simplicity and consistency as its primary appeal, but I would like to suggest the addition of a "category" parameter to add the category associated with the maintenance tag - virtually all of these tags have them. (An example would be Category:Images for cleanup, which is accociated with {{Cleanup-image}}.) One of the most common errors that template designers make is with the "includeonly" and "noinclude" parameters, this would take that part of it out of their hands. Also, I'd like to see that addition of the associated maintenance category includes a namespace test, so the category is only added if the template is used in Image space. That prevents the category from being added if the template is shown on a user page or Wikipedia help page for purposes of explanation. (For examples of what happens when templates don't include a namespace test, look at the cats on the bottom of User:Kelly/Image maintenance templates.) Is this a do-able thing? Kelly ^hi! 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically it is doable, but I'd say from a human perspective it is not doable. See, this meta-template will be used for all kinds of messages on the image pages. In some cases those messages have a category associated with them, but in some cases not. The meta-template can not figure that out by itself. (MediaWiki doesn't come with an AI module yet.) Though the namespace detecting part I know how to do.

I have seen approaches like the one you suggest, and they are usually very confusing since they have to include settings to turn it off and to add or remove categories. If I as an experienced template coder have had problems to understand what those templates were doing and how I was supposed to use them, then I think others will have an even harder time.

I think we have to live with the occasional faulty category inclusion of templates. I for one isn't disturbed when I see the occasional user page and talk page in a category listing, I know it means someone is just showing the template.

But that gave me an idea: Instead we could make a separate template that takes a bunch of categories as parameters, and only adds those categories if the template is in the right namespace. Thus making it easy to add the function you are thinking of to any template. Come to think of it, I actually already have made such a template, take a look at {{main talk other}} and its sister templates. I can easily make more variants of it if you need it. I guess you need a simpler variant that only renders its content if in image space. Like this:

{{image space | [[Category:One]] [[Category:Two]] }}

Should I code that one up for you?

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfect...you're right, it's simpler than trying to code it into the template. Kelly ^hi! 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

After a little more thinking I instead called it {{image other}} and made it compatible with my other name space detection templates. Take a look! And I would love if you could correct any weird English in its documentation. (I am Swedish after all.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

penu's version

How are these? I set the border to 3px except for the deletion ones which are 4px (hardly noticeable), margins are also 4px. The featured boarder is gold and has a slight gold tint to it. I added the licensing template since licensing is the most common template in an image page. I also think that all our imboxes should have parameters to add other icons such as , , , .-- penubag  (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

1: Regarding border widths: Anything from 2-4 pixels are fine with me, although I have a slight preference for 3-4 pixels. And I would be okay with having the delete types having a slightly thicker border, although I think it is inconsistent. Have you seen the delete templates? They are huge anyway so they don't really need to stand out with a thicker border.

2: I don't have much of a point of view on what border colour to use for a "featured" + "good" type, if we should have one. But I think it should have the same background colour as the others. I think we should leave tinted background for category templates.

3: The reason we choose the grey semi-protect padlock as default for the ambox protection type was that it is the least untrue one when a template is demonstrated on an unprotected page like this one. When real protection templates are made they feed their own coloured padlocks as needed. So the grey padlock in that type is merely decoration for demonstration purposes.

4: The licencing colour works for me. Although as Kelly kind of said earlier we should perhaps let licensing have its old grey style since that is more in line with what Commons use. (So I contradict myself now by arguing for a grey tinted background for the licensing type.)

5: And I am one step ahead of you, the {{imbox}} already has full support for the "imageright" parameter, just like in the {{ambox}}. Check this out, it uses the {{imbox}}:

This image could benefit from being re-created as a vector image.

Its probably not very clear from the documentation pages but the {{imbox}} and {{cmbox}} now has fully working codes with all the features that the {{ambox}} has.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (and sorry for the late one), now that I think about it, I also believe that delete and speedy should have the same border width as the others. *changing my version*. I think 3px suits these nicely, 4px is just as good, but 2px is too thin. I think that for featured status images, we should use gold instead of green as Commons uses gold and consistency is a good thing, besides, green is reserved for QI. I also prefer the background color although consensus appears not to like it. -- penubag  (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at this and have thought about it, I don't see any reason not to include licensing templates in this...I do think we should go with the most prevalent Commons color scheme, which is F7F8FF for the background and 8888AA for the border. There is one common practice I don't know to cope with, though - when a license is deprecated, as happens when some country changes its copyright law or one of our tags is found to be faulty (see {{PD-Russia}} or {{PD}}) the border is typically changed to red to make it stand out. Never mind, the box could just be changed to a "delete" style. But perhaps just changing the box icon from to would be sufficient. Kelly ^hi! 02:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My views on Penubag's proposal:

1. I agree with Mr Göthberg on the border widths; I prefer standardisation in this respect, and I should say that I like three pixels the most. However, I could accept keeping the thicker border only for the speedy-deletion tags, if there are concerns that they do not stand out enough.
2. Although I did not mind much the selection of green for featured articles, I think this colour is better. However, I support standardisation here as well—in my opinion, the background colour should go.
3. The red padlock is associated with permanently protected templates; it has nothing to do with images, to the extent of my knowledge. Actually, I doubt any part of the padlock colour-coding (besides red; olive for moves, black for Office actions, and sky-blue for recreations) is really suitable for images. But again, I am not that knowledgeable in images. Waltham, The Duke of 07:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Waltham, The Duke of 07:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Red padlocks can also be used for images. :) -- penubag  (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I think the most common reason for image protection is when the image is on the Main Page or something similar - for instance, see {{Mprotected}}. Kelly ^hi! 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And we do apply indefinite full protection to images that are used in high-risk templates. That is, templates used on many thousands of pages. Then we even upload a copy from commons onto the English Wikipedia so we can protect it here. And then we use a red padlock. For instance see the image pages of any of the ambox images that we use in the examples above.

But as I said, the default padlock here is merely for demonstration purposes, and thus the grey padlock is the least untrue when the {{imbox}} is demonstrated on non-protected pages like this one.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I like all the styles presented above; fantastic work (giving you the mop has really paid off, David!). There will never be a case for the semi-protection of image pages (and uploads are autoconfirmed anyway) so the silver padlock is not really appropriate. However, as David days, protection templates will be instituted through {{pp-meta}} and so the default value is largely irrelevant. Happy‑melon 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Image pages are very rarely semi-protected (the only cases I've seen are the rare events when vandals decide to mess with image descriptions, like removing speedy deletion tags, something few vandals bother with). Kelly ^hi! 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, though I agree with Gothberg and Waltham's numbered comments.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Imbox types

It seems we need to discuss what "types" of image message boxes we need. Message box types are what we make visible by using the different colours as in the examples above. It might be so that the old ambox types are not enough or do not fit exactly since it seems image pages have some special types of messages that are not used on other kinds of pages.

For an overview of the current zoo of image page templates, see User:Kelly/Image maintenance templates.

Here is a list of types as I see it. The colours I mention here is at the moment not so essential, since first we must identify what types we need. For simplicity I use the type names from the ambox here.

• Speedy = Red border, pink background. Used for message boxes that suggest a speedy delete. Highest urgency of all the types since the image might be deleted within hours.
• Delete = Red. For other delete message boxes, like when an image is brought up for discussion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.
• Content = Orange. When there is some kind of serious problem with the image or image page. Like if the image seems to be a fake. I think we can probably use this type also for messages about copyright problems.
• Style = Yellow. Minor things that needs fixing with the image or image page. Like that the image might need to be processed to remove speckles or when it is asked that anyone that knows more about the image add a description to the image.
• Notice = Blue. Any kind if informative message that does not indicate a problem. Can be used both for a temporary message and for permanent messages. This could include messages like "This image has been featured on the main page". And I think it includes messages such as "This image could benefit from being remade as a SVG.", since that doesn't really indicate a problem with the image. But I guess people will make such SVG messages yellow.
• Move = Purple. Could be used for instance for when there are duplicates of an image or when it should be moved/renamed.
• Protection = Protection colour. (Don't know what to call that colour.) For protection templates. For instance images used in widely used high-risk templates and images on the main page are usually protected.
• License = Dark grey border with lighter grey background. I think we should use one type for ALL kinds of copyright licenses. I don't think we should use different types and thus not use different colours for different licenses. It is only confusing. Instead we have icons for most licenses and the text in the box should be enough. I think that messages about copyright problems or unclear copyright status should not be seen as license boxes, they are instead yellow style or even orange content messages, since they report a problem.

I think that we should try to keep the number of types low. Today most Wikipedians know that move/merge/transwiki message boxes are purple, in-spite that purple has no such meaning outside of Wikipedia. If we add too many types then people will just be confused. Thus I am against having a separate type for something as rare as featured images.

And I think we should leave the big {{information}} box as is. (That is the template where we fill in the description for an image.) It isn't really an "image message box", it is more like a full-page-width infobox. And besides, image message boxes and licence boxes are often placed inside it. I think its current subdued navbox/infobox similar style is just fine.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The above pretty much matches what I had in mind...I went back and looked at the image page boxes I've been able to find so far, and everything seems to pretty much fit in one of the above categories. The color scheme makes sense to me. Kelly ^hi! 21:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the colour scheme is, as has been mentioned, secondary to the purposes of this thread, I should like to say that:

• the border colour for deletion templates has been red in all proposals so far; where did the "pink" idea come from?
• I should probably call the "protection colour" light grey.

Anyway, I find the above scheme perfectly reasonable: we use the red–orange–yellow scale for problems, purple for moves, light grey for protection, and blue for information, with the exceptions of dark grey for licences and gold for featured articles. Yes, I think that one should go into the list as well; the coffee-roll scheme has no place in the image namespace, and "informational blue" is neither suitable nor intuitive for this purpose. Waltham, The Duke of 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support the addition of gold for featured articles. I initially suggested green for this purpose, but I now believe that it should be reserved for Commons use. —David Levy 22:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Waltham: Oops, the "delete" border should of course be red. I did a typo above and wrote "pink". I have now corrected it to avoid further confusion.

Yes, the "protection" colour kind of looks light grey, although technically that is a dark yellow with low saturation. That colour works well with both the grey and the golden padlock. So it is meant to be "grey-goldish". That's why someone came up with that colour for ambox protection.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... One learns new things every day. Waltham, The Duke of 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the general setup, but I'm concerned about the featured picture templates. I think it's probably reasonable to say that the "notice" colour doesn't do it justice; I'd personally support green so as to contrast from the warmer "problem" line of coloured-classes. Its inclusion can be justified as image pages do post explicit positive notices which are generally discouraged in article space - perhaps green could be a rough analogue of the featured article star? I'm concerned about what coordination we have or lack with Commons: shouldn't they be aware of standardization efforts? Would they appreciate or adopt any standards we produce? As such I'm doubtful about reserving any particular colour for Commons use without being aware of their position on the matter. Nihiltres^{t.l} 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My politically oriented mind says we should appoint a Wikipedia ambassador in Commons. My more practical side, however, says that we should contact a couple of administrators over there and ask them what the situation is like. Perhaps a cross-project standing committee... All right, I am going political again. Waltham, The Duke of 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons already uses the green color in the context that I have in mind (confirmation that media have been confirmed as free). For example, see the Flickr tag here.

So while I initially suggested that we use green for featured media, I later realized that it would make more sense to leave it available for that purpose (even if it goes unused here). —David Levy 01:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist message?

I have announced this message box standardisation effort on many talk pages and on two of the Village pumps. But I would like that more editors came here and voiced their opinions so we can reach a proper consensus before we deploy this. So how about putting up a watchlist message? (That's a message that all editors will see on top of their watchlist for say a day or so.) After we deployed the {{ambox}} many editors who didn't find out before we deployed it said we should have made a watchlist message.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me. Being in the watchlist and not at the top of every article makes it fairly unobtrusive. --CapitalR (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I also announced this at the Commons Village Pump. Kelly ^hi! 21:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message in the Community Bulletin Board. Waltham, The Duke of 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks Kelly and The Duke for announcing this in more places. And I have now put the watchlist message on-line. The system we use for watchlist messages means that the message is visible in both the watchlist and the recent changes list.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I do not like these boxes. They are just too simple. There is no other text than the initial word. What is the reason for the simplification? Experienced people on Wiki will know what they mean but new members won't have any idea why something says "delete" "move" and such.

Vala M (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

These are just examples of the style. If/when the standardization is done, the boxes will contain the same text as the current boxes. Kelly ^hi! 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Same for all?

Why don't we just use {{Ambox}} for everything, allowing for complete standardisation across all three namespaces. We could do project pages at the same time. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that each namespace has its own subtle cues so a reader knows where he is, hence slightly different template styles for each space. This has already been discussed pretty heavily at WT:AMBOX. Kelly ^hi! 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, each namespace has particular issues related to its content. Although an ambox might have types suitable for the article namespace, it is questionable whether these types would apply well to the image, or category namespaces. Deciding on standardization formats within each namespace first is useful as we can distill all the templates into broad categories of the type of issues relevant to that namespace. Once all (!) of the namespace-type templates are standardized, it would be relatively simple to merge the styles if that was desirable. Until then, it might be considered too complex a task, or too confusing for end-users, to unify the design of all template messages. Nihiltres^{t.l} 17:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ditto the above, we should use {{ambox}} for image messages as well. It's an agreed upon style and I don't see the need for yet another layout change (no matter how minor) simply because we're discussing image messages. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: implementing {{ambox}} was only traumatic because it was the first time we'd done a major standardisation (and we picked the biggest set of templates to do it on). I approve of each namespace having its own distinct style, while retaining certain colour-schemes and ideas throughout. As Nihiltres says, converting all image namespace templates to {{imbox}} would actually make it easier to move to one universal style: just redirect all three metatemplates to {{mbox}}. I would, however, strongly oppose such a move: we put the severs under enough strain just by editing ambox - imagine what it would be like if we had another two namespaces worth of templates weighing down on it. But the image namespace templates are in as much of a mess as the article namespace templates were: it's definitely time to standardise again, and a new meta-template is the way to do it. Happy‑melon 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Third - the talk messages were standardised in 2006 and the user warning templates were standardised a few months before the amboxes. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd count the user warning templates, but you're dead right about the coffeeroll format for talk pages; and in fact, that just lends weight to the argument in favour of different styles for each namespace: the two most heavily-populated namespaces already have their own styles. Can you' imagine having WikiProject banners or {{articlehistory}} in {{ambox}} style? Happy‑melon 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-license legal issues?

I've been looking at some of the existing image namespace templates, and a number of them, while not specifically reflecting license information, do reflect relevant legal issues about the image. For an example, see {{Nazi symbol}}. Should these notices use the "license" style, or the "notice" style? Nihiltres^{t.l} 18:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the "content" style is appropriate for those Kelly ^hi! 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? These are issues that cannot be fixed – an image of a swastika, which would be tagged with {{Nazi symbol}}, can never have that "problem" tag removed unless the laws of those countries change. Nihiltres^{t.l} 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly. Messages about legal issues are not licenses so should not be grey. And they have an urgency since they are a warning, so I would apply yellow (style) or orange (content) depending on severity, in spite that they can not be "fixed" so easily. (Such issues can actually be fixed, I've been a politician and then learnt that laws are just like WP:MOS, they can be changed if consensus changes. But I also learned that consensus in the parliament can be swayed if a corporation pays enough dinners for the parliamentarians...)

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Two new parameters

I have added two more parameters to Imbox that you should take note of:

non-free

I personally think color-wise, non-free licenses should have a distinct color scheme while free licenses have a brighter "happier" color. Non-free will automatically append the Copyrighted image icon (I'm working on a fixed one, so right now it uses Red copyright.svg), and makes it appear darker.

warning

This yellow template is used for warnings separate from the license, such as insignias, non-commercial, etc.

ViperSnake151 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much dislike the current styling for the "warning" class - it's almost impossible to see on my LCD screen and it clashes horribly with the red warning triangle. What's wrong with using "content" - this strikes me as unnecessary specialisation, when keeping the classes generalised is the key. In fact, I also disapprove of splitting the generalised "license" into subcategories: at the very least, "license" must be renamed to "free", as that is what your change entails: free licenses use one class, and non-free licenses use a different class. Why is such distinction necessary? Happy‑melon 15:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Happy-melon, I think it's unnecessary proliferation. Also, would you mind moving your proposed changes here to the talk page for now, unless/until there's a consensus to add to the template page? Kelly ^hi! 15:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

CSS

I presume that, once we've decided what colour schemes to use for imbox and cmbox, they'll be loaded into mediawiki:Common.css in the interests of improving display efficiency and to follow the same schema as ambox? Happy‑melon 15:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the plan...also that would allow use of skins like {{Ambox}} does. Hopefully Common.css isn't getting too huge. Kelly ^hi! 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the plan. But since many web browsers cache the CSS files for 30 days we have to wait 30 days after we have added the styles to MediaWiki:Common.css before we can update {{imbox}} to use the CSS styles. But since I hardcoded the styles into imbox we can cheat and start deploying imbox before the 30 days have passed.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you live with yourself? :-D

For the less technically educated... Are you saying that we don't have to wait because we are using a template instead of the style sheets? Waltham, The Duke of 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. 2-3 nights a week I leave my geeky laboratory and go dancing with the cute girls, anything from the Lindy Hop to the waltz. That keeps me in shape both physically and mentally.

And yes, the {{imbox}} already is fully functional and can be used immediately. (As soon as we have consensus that is.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

bgcolor and bordercolor

The background color and color of the left bar colored border need to be specifiable, either as css information like "noticeleftbarcolor""noticebordercolor" or as an absolute color. This would override the default provided by type=. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC) edited davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC) - thanks Kelly!

For this template there won't be a left bar, we are instead using a coloured border. Kelly ^hi! 19:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You already can. As the third sentence in the green doc box for {{imbox}} says: "This template works exactly like {{ambox}} and uses the same parameters, see full documentation there." So go to ambox and read up on the "style" parameter.

The reason we have not copied all that documentation to imbox yet is that it is new and still being discussed here and might change. So for the time being we just point to the documentation for ambox.

But you really should not need to set any colours. So I am curios what usage case you are thinking of since you want to set special colours?

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't catch the full flexibility of the style parameter earlier. The request is moot now, but I wanted to make sure we didn't lock ourselves out of using another color in the future. I see now that this is already architected in. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Consistency with ambox

Standardising these templates is an excellent idea, but for the sake of ultimate consistency, should not imbox (and cmbox for that matter) just use the same styles as {{ambox}}? --bainer (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Standardisation within limits... See #Same for all? section above. Waltham, The Duke of 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Content" style tags

Looking at existing image tags, I'm thinking the most common use of the "content" style will be for restriction tags. Examples on en Wikipedia would be {{Nazi symbol}} or {{Freedom of panorama}}. If we're going to think about eventual Commons standardization, it looks like the preferred icon for those types of tags is as opposed to . I personally have no preference but wanted to put the option out there for comments. Kelly ^hi! 12:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I do prefer the first option—it looks more... elegant. In addition, it will be one more difference from the format used for the mainspace, and if standardisation with Commons is indeed in its favour, that is one more benefit. Waltham, The Duke of 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a comparison:

This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

Kelly ^hi! 14:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before and as we did with the ambox standardisation: Lets focus on the colours and borders first. When that is done and agreed upon and deployed, then we can discuss the images. It took some weeks to standardise the colours and borders of the ambox and deploy it, but the ambox images are still being discussed and modified now 8 months later. If we throw images into the mix we will never ever finish this standardisation. Note that each template that uses this meta-template anyway usually should use an image more specific to the message in the box.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking maybe messages like those above shouldn't be orange, it makes more sense to reserve orange for issues that need to be fixed, not messages that will always be there. Maybe we should rethink the "types" of imbox messages, On Commons we generally divide them up into 6 categories: licensing, restriction ({{trademark}}, {{insignia}}), problem (missing source, wrong-license, etc.), cleanup ({{cleanup-image}}, {{watermark}}), marker templates ({{FeaturedPicture}}, {{created with Inkscape}}), and of course infobox templates (mainly {{information}}). As for the image (sorry), what if we go with a orange version of Image:Ambox deletion.png? Rocket000 (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need to discuss what "types" of image message boxes we need. For instance for such a box as the example above I would choose a blue "notice" box since it is an informative message, not a problem with the content in the image. Not like "this image might be a fake" and similar. Anyway, I'll start a section below where we can discuss what types we need.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the insignias should be the sky blue "notice" type.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But the notice type is only for message boxes of purely informational content; this one also restricts the usage of the image under which it is placed. The content type is the only suitable one, in my opinion. Waltham, The Duke of 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course we have to Amboxize it to fit with the style - enjoy :) ViperSnake151 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ViperSnake151: Oh, nice amboxizing! :))

But one tiny detail: Is it only me who notice that the style of the "content" boxes above is orange? Thus the triangle should be orange too.

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How astute of you, Mr Göthberg. However, as I also say below, this might be what we need to counterbalance the "strength" of the exclamation-point-in-triangle, which you have yourself noted. Plus, it looks good.

I might, of course, consider supporting an orange outline, under the condition that I have the picture in front of me. Waltham, The Duke of 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to establish a color-coded system. Conflicting colors are confusing, and I don't agree that this looks good. I also see no problem with the circular icon. —David Levy 01:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

I fixed up the orange to be closer to the shade used by the border, is this better? ViperSnake151 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice colour, and it's just a little lighter than the border, as it should be. I love it. Waltham, The Duke of 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, I fiddled with it and it should match the orange border even better! -- penubag  (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I love it. It reminds me of a similar style I used on Commons (although that was meant to be temporary because the old design was just too ugly). Rocket000 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I just changed that template to use it just now! I renamed it to Ambox warning orange.svg, please note... ViperSnake151 15:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This page

Hello everyone, and thanks to David for the link to this page, and Kelly for your reply.

1: Can I just say that I've read the page, and I'm very impressed by how everyone is being so constructive, and really working things through positively - well done to you!

I think the work you're doing here is really useful, and you all deserve a big ol' pat on the back :D

2: Now onto all the stuffs.. personally, I slightly prefer a two pixel border for the boxes, however to be quite honest I suppose I could just about manage to get on with my life with it as it is - I'm not very fussed (at all).

3: If there's been discussion (see section above) as to having slightly different boxes for each namespace - well done again on creating such a nice one for image:!

4: I've made an example image (oh, and there's now a box at the top with nice links - moved from the first section), but yeah - I've made an example image, which we can test the designs on, to see how they fit in with the rest of the page. Personally, I'd like in the future for the {{information}} box to be changed, because I really don't like how it looks at the moment. But, let me add some {{imbox}}es to the image to see how they fit in with the box.

5: I wonder if {{MediaWiki:Sharedupload}} could be changed to fit the style as well - could we add that to Kelly's brilliant page? I wonder, out of curiosity, why it's italicised on image pages...

6: We should also bear in mind the possibility of eventually looking at how the bar at the top looks with everything else. Try as I might, and with searches of the System message (warning: massive page), I can't find the template for it (if that's how it works) - but it's the Table of contents-esque one with the anchor links to the Image, File History/Files/Something, and File links sections further down the page. Actually, if it is just a sideways TOC, it might look alright? TOCs do tend to be the same, rather than customised, I believe.

7: Is the best place for permission templates inside the {{information}} box. Personally, just personally, I would only have them there if they're plain text and not template boxes. I'd rather move the template boxes outside.

8: Image:Imbox featured.png looks a bit fuzzy to me - I don't have a good enough understanding of the image processes here to realise why the default one isn't just used. Or maybe it can be resized again with an image editing program in a way that will make it a tiny bit clearer? It's good though.

9: For the moment, are we just leaving table templates like {{Non-free use rationale}}, or can we find a way to apply the {{imbox}} template to them?

10: Just thinking, it'll be quite a job conforming all the templates to this one (though useful and needed!) but it'll be quite another choosing, with templates like {{C-uploaded}}, whether to keep both images, or just one - for that, we could move the to the right, or it might fit the {{imbox}} style better to just have the padlock, I think. What do you think?

11: On the image page, it would be good to have some padding at the top and bottom of the series of boxes. Should we write in the documentation that it's good to add two line breaks at the top and bottom?

12: Well, having finished adding a thousand to Image:Example for imbox testing.png, one comment is that I think {{information}} should look more like it - at least changing the background colour of it to #FBFBFB too (from #F9F9F9). Maybe it could use the notice colour?

13: Well, that's something to get started, anyway. Hah, I don't know how I wrote so much - apologies.

Thank you for all your work, and bloody well done on reading this century of a comment.

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For changing MediaWiki:Sharedupload, this would only be an issue if Commons decides to adopt imbox. Until Commons does so, all of the pages with MediaWiki:Sharedupload on it should have only Commons templates on them anyway, so adapting it would seem pointless. It's also part of the interface, so I cringe somewhat at changing it to match the template design. This is the same for the bar at the top, which is a TOC and is governed by CSS, through its id "filetoc".

I'm divided on whether we should immediately focus to change templates like {{information}} or {{Non-free use rationale}}, but I figure that we can wait on that one. Nihiltres^{t.l} 02:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Drum Guy: Ah, many interesting points and questions.

1 and 3: And thanks for all the enthusiasm!

2: After seeing your example image-page I would instead like to use 4 pixel border. (We use 3 pixel border now.)

4: Oh, your example image-page is very good. Gives a feel for how it will look in reality. Made me add some more margin to {{imbox}}, just like people had suggested here.

5: I have to agree with Nihiltres on that one, probably better not to change {{MediaWiki:Sharedupload}} since it kind of is a Commons template.

6: As Nihiltres said, not change that one either.

7: I find it okay with the the licence boxes both inside and outside.

9: I think they look pretty okay as they are, and they are more like full page width infoboxes. So I think we should not change them now.

10: {{C-uploaded}} is a protection template and should only have the padlock. That template is only an explanation why the image is protected, it is not a warning so the triangle should not be there at all. Oh, and a note since I noticed your code at the example image-page: {{imbox}} supports a parameter "imageright" just like {{ambox}} does. Imbox has all the functions and parameters that ambox has.

11: That is a matter of taste. I do it with some templates that stack to close to text, but many dislike that.

12: As per my answer to point 9.

13: No worries, good that someone brings up all the things.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me just add a completely useless comment in addition to the above one, which was actually very useful. I want to echo the praise of the work here. I like the consistent look and feel you guys are giving this place. It makes Wikipedia look much more professional. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured box type?

The question of if we are going to have a box type for featured images has come up several times in the previous sections.

It seems most think if we are going to have such a box type it should not be green since that will collide with a green image box type used for other purposes on Commons. Instead some kind of golden-brown border has been suggested. But note that we can tinker with the colours and image after we know if consensus is that we should have a "featured" box type. So, voice your opinions here.

Support

• Weak support - After looking at the description pages of several of the images listed over at Wikipedia:Featured pictures I realise that our image message box in this case should match the featured image boxes from Commons since they are shown together on those image pages. (I guess all featured images are uploaded to Commons, right?) So the blue "notice" type would probably not look good there. --David Göthberg (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per David, makes sense. Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per the above. Happy‑melon 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, and gold seems like the way to go. "Featured" templates should stand out (both for those seeking them and those who prefer to ignore them). —David Levy 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per David, and per me liking the gold. --CapitalR (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support – I like the gold colour, and the arguments for not using green are reasonable. Blue would look rather ugly for this use in my opinion, and FP message boxes should be distinct anyway (they are already, even though the coffee-roll scheme is no longer acceptable in image space). Waltham, The Duke of 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Not sure if I like the non-white background or not, but the rest is great.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Green is used for commons:QI -- penubag  (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Since there seems to be a consensus I added the "featured" type to {{imbox}}. I also added a test box to a featured picture page so we all can see how it looks: Image:8 - AmStar 7.JPG. I think it looks decent, but perhaps needs some colour tweaking. Anyone good at handling brown colours? I suck at it.

If I understand it right the featured type doesn't have to match our other types since it will only be used together with the brown Commons featured boxes. But it might be a point that it looks like an English Wikipedia image message box so it is clearer that the box is added locally here at the English Wikipedia.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out this template on Commons. It may one day be the only award/assessment type template (FP, QI, VI, POTY, etc.) Rocket000 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Seperate colors for Non-free licenses

I think there should be a noticable difference between free license tags and non-free license tags to signify the difference better. So, right now, I'd like to present you this little tweak to the generic "license" tag:

In comparison to just License (which would be only be used for free licenses like GFDL, CC-BY-SA, PD, etc)

This color scheme would only be used on non-free license tags or any other license considered non-free on Wikipedia. Your thoughts? ViperSnake151 18:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

free

Alternative color --h2g2bob (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Support - there's a big difference between what we can do with free and nonfree licenses, and that should be reflected on the tag. Regardless of what's decided here, it would be good to split the css style into 2 classes (even if they're the same colors) to allow for skinning. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - I think the copyright icon is sufficient to diffentiate between free and non-free licenses. Kelly ^hi! 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are hundreds of different kinds of licenses, it would be very hard to draw the line since some are somewhere in between. The two types you suggest above looks very similar, the colour difference is hardly discernible. License boxes already use different icons showing what the license is and explain clearly in their text. The default icons used in {{imbox}} are merely there for convenience. Actual message boxes should feed a more specific icon if there is one. And if there is no fitting icon and the default one also does not fit then set "image=none". --David Göthberg (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. Subdividing the licensing classes is unnecessary. Happy‑melon 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose – We do not need a spectrum of grey tinctures; we have a dark one for licences and a light one (with some yellow in it) for protection. I think these suffice. Waltham, The Duke of 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

• comment - the gray crossed-out copyright symbol is only appropriate for public-domain images - a green copyright symbol should be used for free licenses. --Random832 (contribs) 15:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

International symbols preferred

Internationally-recognized symbols such as are preferred over other variants such as .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs)

Why? It's not as though it's a traffic sign - it's not life-threatening if people don't grasp the nuances of the icon immediately. Anyway, how is the triangular symbol more intuitive than the circular one? Happy‑melon 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the triangular icon, but it's not a big deal. The triangle seems to be the one used most on Commons. We had initially tabled discussion of icons, though, until the color scheme was hashed out. Kelly ^hi! 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because it is more universal. Personally, I have no preference of one shape over the other, but as long as we are standardizing, we should dovetail with other existing standards where it is useful to do so. I think it is useful in this case since the symbols will be more easily recognized worldwide. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the triangle has a more well known meaning as "warning". But I find the triangle too strong, so I think it mostly only fits for the red deletion boxes. The exclamation mark also has a well known meaning of "warning" or "important" and alone it is not as strong as a triangle with an exclamation mark, thus fits better for the lower urgency orange "content" type.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the yellow colour of the outline enough to show that the sign is not as strong as the well-known version with the red outline? It looks mild enough to me. Waltham, The Duke of 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone can see the colours. Significant differences should be indicated by shape, too. There's nothing about the triangle which prohibits its use away from roadways, and its familiarity is a benefit. It's not life-or-death, but recognizing it more quickly is still better than not, and may be important to some people with reduced vision or cognitive difficulties.

Unfortunately, the content and notice symbols are pretty similar. Why not put one of them into a rectangle, and/or reverse the tones so one of them is dark on light with an outline? —Michael Z. 2008-05-06 21:00 z

Don't forget, there's no requirement that all "content"-type imboxes will carry warnings, which is what the triangular symbols suggests to me. A (purely for the sake of example) template saying "this image contains an image of a bird now thought to be extinct in the wild" would be a valid "content" template, but would not count as a 'warning'. I think here that using the triangular template might actually be confusing rather than enlightening. Also, remember that these are only the default images: many or even most instance templates will define their own images as appropriate. Happy‑melon 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstandment: content means "content problems", as style means "style problems". The former are more serious than the latter and should thus be more urgent-looking (colour, icon). Your example should get a blue info box; there is no problem with the image's depicting an extinct bird (if anything, that is a good thing). Waltham, The Duke of 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility

The templates look great. (Can we see the sample frames with realistic sample text in them?)

But an open encyclopedia should be using current best practices for accessibility. Why are we ignoring them in a major design effort by using table-based layout, à la the late twentieth century?

• For exactly nine years the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines have said "Tables should be used to mark up truly tabular information ("data tables"). Content developers should avoid using them to lay out pages ("layout tables"). Tables for any use also present special problems to users of screen readers..."[1]
• The brand-new WCAG Samurai errata reiterates: "Do not use tables for layout."[2][3][4]

<table class="metadata plainlinks ambox">
<tr>
<td class="mbox-image">
<div style="width:52px;"><a href="/wiki/Image:Ambox deletion.png" class="image" title="Ambox deletion.png"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Ambox deletion.png" width="40" height="40" border="0" /></a></div>
</td>
<td class="mbox-text">speedy</td>
</tr>
</table>

Can we not format this as a single div, with an image background for the icon (therefore no decoy link to an image page), employing padding-left to keep the text away from the image? At worst, two divs nested should make the layout work acceptably in every browser. The icon and colour can be applied with a class, like .ambox-speedy, etc.

Function is more important than looks, especially for the significant minority who is burdened by having to use assistive technology to use Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2008-05-06 02:43 z

The following code seems to duplicate the table layout pretty close to pixel-perfectly, in Safari and Firefox 2. It ought to be a good start. CSS has to go in a style sheet (may be your user style sheet), because Wikipedia doesn't allow image URLs in inline CSS.

.imbox applies the default "notice" style. Adding a second class like .imbox-speedy overrides the background image and colours.

CSS

.imbox {
    margin: 4px 10%; 
    border: 3px solid #1e90ff; 
    background: url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Ambox_notice.png) no-repeat 12px center; 
    padding-left: 58px;
    min-height: 44px;
    }

	.imbox div {
		padding: .25em .5em;
		vertical-align: middle;
		}
	
	.imbox.imbox-speedy {
		border-color: #b22222;
		background-color: #fee;
		background-image: url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Ambox deletion.png);
		}

HTML

<div class="metadata plainlinks imbox imbox-speedy">
    <div>notice</div>
</div>

 —Michael Z. 2008-05-06 04:06 z

While I agree that accessibility is a good thing, I think the proper place for this discussion would be on {{ambox}} instead of this template. This template is designed to use/inherit the basic structure and styles of {{ambox}} instead of creating its own new basic structure and styles. Thus, if these templates were to be converted to a div structure instead of a table based one, it should first happen at ambox, then happen here.

As for your design, I see a couple of problems, the most obvious being that it can't handle the imageright parameter, requires a massive amount of CSS for each different box type, prevents images from being easily changed (if they are updated in CSS, we'd have to wait 30 days for the CSS to propagate to all users), and has some clearing problems (though that could probably be fixed easily). --CapitalR (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how imageright works or what it's for.

5 lines of CSS for each additional box type is not "massive". It's all cached in the style sheet once, instead of far more HTML+CSS code being tossed into every single page load when using 1999-style table layout.

I believe images can be updated by replacing the image, and the CSS can remain the same. Why is this important?

I don't see what clearing problems there would be, since there are no floats, and the exterior div has the same CSS positioning as the original table.

I have tried to contribute the start of a realistic option after a couple hours work, not a finished solution. I came here in response to a request posted at the top of every page, and tried to contribute. I can't say I'm too impressed with the enterprise if swapping icons is more important than basic accessibility for disadvantaged readers.

I'll post a note at ambox, as you suggested. —Michael Z. 2008-05-06 07:45 z

Okay, I'll try to see if I can make up a version of ambox using divs that supports the imageright parameter and has the clearing problems fixed. I'll get back to you after I run some tests. --CapitalR (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it turns out I'm pretty good with html tables, but not so great at getting divs to line up properly, so I'll have to let other editors figure this one out. I do like the idea of accessibility for those using screen readers, and would be interested to see if someone can make a div version work (preferably without using the background parameter for images, which seems like an odd solution). For now, I'm in favor of sticking with the current table design until someone can write a ambox version using divs; after/if that works, then we can convert imbox and cmbox. --CapitalR (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If the image is strictly presentational, then it makes sense to use a background-image (aside from the Wikipedia-related problems mentioned below). For example, if the message text starts with "Alert" or "Speedy delete" or whatever, then there is no point in repeating that information in an embedded image and its alt text (although including alt="" is acceptable in this case, to prevent screen readers from reading out meaningless cruft like "Image:Ambox deletion.png"). On the other hand, if the image is relaying information that isn't repeated in the text, then it is required to have alternative text which conveys the same message.[5][6]

In either case, having the Wikimedia software include a distracting and irrelevant link to the image archive page is just bizarre, and it would be functionally beneficial to avoid this. —Michael Z. 2008-05-06 21:43 z

Direct url-links to images stored on MediaWiki are not stable - that's what the Media: namespace is for. Plus such links circumvent the image caching and rendering software, resulting in a significant drop in efficiency (AFAIK). So using image backgrounds are a Bad Idea. I concur with the opinion that this should be proposed and implemented on {{ambox}} first, and ported to these templates as and when it gains consensus there. Happy‑melon 09:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Plain unlinked images are used on the international top page wikipedia.org. Is it possible to do this in a template? —Michael Z. 2008-05-06 21:43 z

I have to oppose implementing all boxes in CSS; it has been tried before, with such dismal results that we went back to tables out of pure dispair. Tables is by far not a decrapated technology, and while building entire pages with tables is generally a bad idea, we're not talking about pages, but message boxes. Tables give us far more control then divs, which require an insane ammount of coding to achieve the same results. So far, we haven't had any complaints from people using screenreaders, which I suspect is due largely to the simple table markup (only two, sometimes three cells) we currently have. — Edokter • Talk • 11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied)Agreed, the reason the tables are there is because it was the only way to get consistent widths when stacking the ambox, as well as proper repositioning when there are floating elements in the articles. We tried A LOT on different browsers, and unfortunately this seems to be what we are gonna be stuck with. :( It truly is a shame. If you find a method that works with all browsers, I'm all for it, but atm I do not think it is possible. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, all.

Whether tables for layout are deprecated, even in doses, is definitely arguable, and I'd say a "free" resource like Wikipedia should place some importance on it anyway. Accessibility means trying to make things easy for tiny, often silent minorities. The only way to be sure is to do extensive, expensive testing, or at least not to flaunt decade-old accessibility guidelines.

Anyway, I'd like to be able to work on this problem, at a slow rate. I'll read over the discussion when I have time. In the meantime, if it's no trouble, can someone point me to a plain-English description of how "imageright" works (I can probably figure it out it easily enough), and examples of the clearing problems? Is there anything like a test page?

And would someone add realistic placeholder copy in the message boxes? These are functional interface examples, and it's impossible to evaluate them if they are presented only as decoration.

Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-05-06 18:02 z

There are now a sandbox and a testcases page. — Edokter • Talk • 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the problem was that most infoboxes are floating tables, and that the background of divs started colliding with those. (testing) I made and adaptation in Template:Ambox/sandbox, together with some CSS in my monobook file and my Sandbox. Right. The borders of div blocks do not take into account floating elements of a page. This leads them to run "behind" those elements. Basically, this is an oversight in the post-table design of HTML/CSS. The problem here is that wikipedia has a highly dynamic pagelayout. We bring consistency to this by using floating block elements (images/infoboxes etc), like we are supposed to do. The problem with floating block elements is that they overlap normal block elements and only push aside the contents within those divs. So the only way to get the border of a block element (like with ambox) visible in that case is to clear that block element. Unfortunately that then adds vertical whitespace which is often undesirable in a vertical structure (such as wikipedia). I talked about this with some webkit folks back then, and they told me that this currently cannot be prevented. A sort of cross-over between block and inline (actually the current "table" behaviour, but not all browsers support that "display" property.) seems necessary to be added to CSS to get this properly fixed. An alternate idea was to introduce a "dock property" as opposed to float. Until such an addition has been made however, an actual table is only way to get this working properly across multiple browsers.

So in short:

illustration of the problem

A block element with fixed left and right margins, that has three "columns" of which 2 are fixed and one is "as wide as possible", that has the chance of running into floating elements but does not want to clear those, but neither wants its border and background to vanish behind those floating elements, is simply not possible currently with the current specifications of div html markup and CSS. Let alone is it consistent across browsers. Now for the Image namespace, this issue with floating elements is not as important of course, so it might be possible to decide for an alternate implementation for imbox, but if that is the case, we need to document "carefully" why we use different implementations for the different namespaces. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility, section break 1

Parts of this has already been said above, but since I have been writing this up in my own sandbox and have to run to a meeting, here goes:

First of all: That screen readers have extra trouble with tables is almost a myth. As far as I know the only problem screen readers have is if the tables have the data in weird orders in the tables, like if the table is meant to be read column by column instead of row by row. Since the screen readers always read the cells row by row. Unfortunately when tables are used for page layout the page is often meant to be read column by column. There are new HTML markup to tell the screen readers to read the cells in other orders, but I bet some people use old screen readers and perhaps not even all newer screen readers support those new HTML extensions. A simple way around that is to put tables in tables, thus making it so that the cells come in the order they are meant to be read. So tables in tables can actually be MORE accessible!

Note that DIVs can actually cause accessibility problems too, if for instance the DIV for the menu are put first in the page code then the screen reader will read the menu before the content on every page you visit. Probably pretty tiresome to hear the same menu for every page you visit before you get to hear the actual page content. And that is probably why Wikipedia has the menu DIVs after the page content DIV in the page code.

Anyway, the table cells in imbox and even in the very complex and often huge {{navbox}} are meant to be read row by row, thus screen readers will read the cells in them in the right order. So no problem!

Michael Z: You wanted to see how the {{imbox}} looks with real text in it. We have a test page for that: Image:Example for imbox testing.png. Note that the red box on that page currently uses the imbox in the wrong way, that is why it looks weird. And I also added two boxes to this page, Image:8 - AmStar 7.JPG, to see how the "featured" type looks together with the Commons featured boxes.

And regarding DIVs versus tables: Well, most template coders here at Wikipedia gave up on using DIVs for boxes in pages long ago. Since it simply doesn't work in all browsers. You get all kinds of weird flow bugs and overlapping boxes and so on. Tables work way better.

One of the main reasons why CSS people dislike tables is that tables can not be put in the style sheets, thus they have to be "hard coded" into every page. But here on Wikipedia that doesn't matter, since we use templates that are transcluded into the pages. Thus we don't need to manually code the tables for each page. So we get the same "code once, use many times" effect by using templates.

Here at Wikipedia using tricks to make images non-clickable is frowned upon. Since this is a wiki, editors are supposed to be able to easily reach the image description page so they for instance can upload a new improved version. (This might be a bit silly, but anyway: Making an image non-clickable breaks licenses like the GFDL, since then you can not easily find the attributions. Thus using GFDL images the way you suggest is probably illegal. The reason that the official icons here at Wikipedia can be non-clickable is that they actually are non-free images copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation.)

Also, we can not use hardcoded icons in the CSS for the imbox, cmbox and ambox meta-templates, since they are used to build message boxes and those actual message boxes often set a more specific icon. So it must be possible to feed the image as a parameter to the imbox template.

Now let's test Michael's code. As usual when testing CSS I have hardcoded the styles here so people can see the result immediately. And there is no image in the box since those have to be put in the style sheets.

Michael's DIV based box

As you can see DIVs and other floating elements overlap each other. (At least in the three different browsers I use for testing.) Also as you can see vertical-align doesn't work well in DIVs, but I won't go into the details about why since this message is already way too long.

Box made with {{imbox}}.

Now that's much nicer isn't it?

And let me repeat: Tables have no accessibility problems for screen readers if the table cells are meant to be read in row by row order.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the patient explanation.

Can you point to some documentation about the accessibility of tables used this way? All of the usability experts and guidebooks say to avoid tables for layout. I am skeptical of the claim that nesting tables within tables is more accessible than semantic HTML.

Here's the quick solution for modern browsers, a near-duplicate of the layout using divs with display: table, etc, and a normal wiki image. Advantages are economical code, and no tables. With style sheet support, it could be implemented with three divs and only a single class attribute in the outermost div. Seems to work perfectly in Safari 3.1.1 and Firefox 2.0.0.14 on the Mac, but I have no doubt that MSIE will mangle it (anyone have MSIE 8 beta to test it?).

The right-hand image can easily be implemented the same way it is currently, by adding another div with a template switch. —Michael Z. 2008-05-07 20:40 z

UGH! you do not want to know how that shows in IE! Do you want a screenshot? — Edokter • Talk • 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Beat you to it :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, replaced with a slightly narrower version. — Edokter • Talk • 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! That Internet Explorer 6 screenshot is ugly. It actually looks better in my IE 5.5.

Michael: Okay, first let me say I am duly impressed that you almost solved it. Now your example looks okay in my Opera. Looks okay part of the time in my Firefox but part of the time the icon centres above the text in the box. Its like 50/50 how it renders when I load the page in Firefox, very weird. And unfortunately in my Internet Explorer 5.5 it both overlaps the wolf image and the icon centres above the text in the box. And yes, some people still use IE 5.5 since that is the last IE version that works on Win98 and on non-US WinME. (I wish people would upgrade to Firefox since that one runs fine on those old Win versions.)

But you kind of cheated, you used "display:table" and "display:table-cell" so you really turned those DIVs into a table. So then you anyway break those accessibility guidelines you are talking about. And it won't be more "economical code" since you will still need all the code you see in imbox now, since it handles the different types of boxes, that is which colour and which default icon to use and inserts an icon if it is fed as parameter and so on.

And regarding accessibility: Did you understand what I meant about screen readers reading tables row by row? That is, as far as I understand they read the page content in the order it comes in the HTML file, not in the order we seeing people choose to read it on the screen. And do you understand the consequences of that?

And I am not going to find any documentation for you anywhere. If you are interested in this matter, then you do the work yourself and go and find out and test things. Yes, test things, don't believe what some "experts" say. (Articles are based on references, but software like templates are based on testing what actually works in the real world.) And since you mentioned that you are using a Mac, you probably have VoiceOver on your computer. So try it and hear what happens. And if you want to try more screen readers, then you can call your local organisation for blind people and they will surely let you come to their office and listen how their screen readers behave.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which version of Firefox do you have? I have read that some versions of Firefox require an intermediate div to act as a table row to display correctly, with display:table-row. I was guessing that this was fixed, because it seems to work fine in my latest Version 2, but maybe not.

Yeah, I don't know if it will ever work right in MSIE. But maybe I'll pick at that problem later. It may be possible to throw something into the MSIE-specific stylesheets to make the display satisfactory.

Using display:table is not cheating, and doesn't break any accessibility guidelines. It only affects the layout, but screen readers shouldn't treat the content they way they treat data table. If all of the CSS in in a style sheet, I would say the code would be a little more econonomical than a table, because all that is required is two classes in the outer div. For example, .imbox could apply the basic layout and default colours, while imbox-speedy, etc. would override the styles for the style of box. CSS for the the inner divs could use selectors like .imbox div, and .imbox div+div, which I think even MSIE supports. All of the CSS would be cached in a single style sheet (updated monthly, it seems). The code would be very simple, compared to the table code I quoted near the beginning of this thread:

<div class="metadata plainlinks imbox imbox-speedy">
    <div>[[Image:Ambox notice.png|40px]]</div>
    <div>{{{text}}}</div>
</div>

I understand what you mean about the page remaining serialized in the right order if the tables are not complex. But I understand that screen readers also have special features for properly presenting tabular data in table cells, which are not desirable for other content. I don't think it's a serious problem, but we should try to make things better when we can.

My understanding is also that screen readers are hard to use, and that just noodling around with one is not comparable to testing by real users. One of these days I may dim my display and really invest the time to get some real experience with VoiceOver. I don't have the time or resources do anything more right now.

I'm not sure what you mean by templates being based on the real world, but here we are creating templates with zero actual user testing with any assistive technologies.

I have already invested some time in reading and trying to understand the actual accessibility guidelines, a number of online experts on the subject, and a couple of books. They all say not to use tables for layout (except for the WCAG 2.0, which hasn't been released and is very controversial in the field). I am not an expert myself, so I have to rely on what I read, not on my own amateur original research, and don't be hurt, but not on hearsay opinions. —Michael Z. 2008-05-08 06:14 z

PS: Thanks for the screenshot, DJ. On a hunch, I just added a CSS trick to the last box above which might change the display in MSIE. Any luck? —Michael Z. 2008-05-08 06:28 z

I uploaded a new version of the screenshot that shows it with this _width change. As you can see it now seems to behave like normal divs with display:block set. See also the browser compatibility status of display:table --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)