Template talk:Ambox

Is this page still needed?

The page as it stands appears to be an overview of the design rather than the usage of amboxes; since this is now complete, does this page still need MOS status? Can it be marked historical? Or would a rewrite serve it better? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a rewrite may be in order. This page is useful as a background as to how these message boxes became standardised, but I think it should contain more about their usage. And perhaps it does not need to be part of the MOS now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am planning to move some or all of this talk page to Template talk:Ambox because it all discussion concerns that template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Now done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Template loop

Why did I get a template loop on Template:Contradict-other-multiple (see documentation)? I got one on Template:Contradict-other as well, and the only way to fix it was to stop using the automatic documentation (see this diff). Debresser (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

More generally: whenever I use the "name" parameter, then if there is a call to the template on its documentation page, it causes a template loop. Why is that, and can this be helped? Debresser (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that "Ambox" stands for "Article message box", and that documentation pages are in template namespace. But that seems like a small matter, and shouldn't be hard to fix. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Namespaces aren't the problem, as afar as I can see. Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

Yes this is curious. I wondered why I didn't get template loops with documentation before, I suspect some cleverness with parseing "noinclude". Probably this fails with the auto-doc. And to be frank, I don't like the auto-doc, clever though it is. The reason is that, on opening an auto-doc'd template my first instinct (which I have followed once or twice) is to add the standard documentation cliché. Then I get puzzled about the double-docs. It also makes hard work for, for example, interwiki bots. The same reasons, in fine, as for not putting {{Reflist}} in a template. Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

(Template loops are to stop a template calling itself infinitely, or indirectly a->b->a->b... Unfortunately they also stop well managed recursion, or at least make it harder - see my reverse family of templates.) Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

The template loops and the bot argument make a strong case against having this automated documentation feature. Wonder what MSGJ will have to say to defend this functionality. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I tested the Ambox code on Template:X5 calling it in Template:X6 in the simplest rudimentary form possible: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:{{PAGENAME:{{{name}}}}} |{{Documentation}}}}. And there still is template loop inherent somewhere in the code. Using the name parameter and including a documentation page leads to a template loop. Now let's try and solve it. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Forget about X5 and X6, look at Template:X4. These parser functions return the main template name without the "/doc" extension when the documentation page is visible on the template page, so they call {{Documentation}} again, causing a template loop. Solution: the {{Documentation}} template must somehow be transcluded together with noinclude tags. How to do that, I don't know. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative, undo the automatic {{Documentation}} functionality. Because it does not allow for examples on the documentation pages. But then we shall have to check for all usages of it, and add {{Documentation}} back in. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Shall we remove the auto-documentation feature? I thought it was good because it made the code shorter and simpler, but I see there are disadvantages. (However there are several templates which will need the documentation adding again if we remove it here.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no fix for the template loop issue? If there isn't, then perhaps indeed remove the auto-documentation functionality. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something with "<" instead of "<"? Debresser (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried some things, but to no avail. Debresser (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Nifty coding, but to no avail in this case. Rich Farmbrough, 06:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

Okay I will remove the feature. I see it has created more bother than not. I've added a tracking category Category:Article message boxes with automatically transcluded documentation, which will contain the templates to be fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I added the Documentation template to all non-fully protected templates there, and made other improvements to the those templates en passant. An admin will have to do the (so far 5) fully protected ones. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing about the automatic addition of the Documentation template in the documentation of Ambox itself. If I am correct, the 'name' parameter serves only for this issue, and can now be removed from both the Ambox code and the documentation. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is another use of the name parameter which may be useful. If the template is substituted accidentally, the warning message will say which template has been substituted and this may help when fixing up Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. For example:

In any case I think it would be useful to leave this parameter in as it would allow other functionality to be added if we choose later. Future-proofing if you like. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I finished making sure that all templates transclude their own documentation and have now removed the auto-documentation feature from Template:Ambox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Request

Please add the possibility for a second and third dated and undated category, that is: category2, category3, all2, all3. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Ambox/sandbox, and Template:Ambox/category/sandbox. I have tested these versions successfully , see Template:Template sandbox and Point Valid (my usual testing sacrifice). Just don't forget to remove to remove "/sandbox" from Template:Ambox/sandbox when copying. Note that the documentation should be updated, minimally, by adding these parameters at least to the full list of parameters. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please copy the tested and ready versions from these two sandboxes to the templates, to add the possibility of a second and third dated and all-inclusive category. Debresser (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Killiondude (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Great. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Got a slightly cleaner and more efficient method in the sandboxes (Template:Ambox/sandbox, Template:Ambox/category/sandbox) which allows the latter to be significantly shortened. Good to go? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It makes the Template:Ambox/category subpage simpler, but the actual Template:Ambox a little longer. A matter of taste. I think we should make category handling of Ambox and Fix alike as much as possible. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Shorter overall and a more efficient approach IMHO. I take your point about {{fix}} - can we change this one too? Actually why do we need all these separate templates which do the same thing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Borders, proeminence

I agree that making the borders color match the special left border used for example in {{Cleanup-rewrite}} would be good. I'm under the impression that boxes are not proeminent enough to attract my attention. The 10% margins on each side may have something to do with it too. --Chealer (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The catastrophically broken ambox system

For many years already, articles have been tagged with "issue tags." There are all different types of issue tags. POV, unreferenced, bare URLs, just to name a few. There are dozens of them. New ones are created a lot. In fact anyone can create one, and a consensus is not even needed. I have created some myself. They can also be deleted using the TfD process, and I have watched some long in use get deleted.

Here's the problem: they have gotten so out of hand that in many cases, their presence in an article does not always make sense anymore. Quite a lot of the time, they seem to be sitting there indefinitely, and one cannot figure out why they are there. The editor who originally tagged the article often has disappeared from the project, and the reason why the tag has been placed there to begin with cannot be determined. Not to mention, there are actually quite a lot of tags themselves that have a very ambiguous meaning, and many people do not really know what they are.

Here's another question: who are the tags for? Are they for the readers, the editors, or both? Or are some for the readers and some for the editors? This is yet another thing that remains unclear. The tags have gotten to be so overwhelmingly used that they are to the point of being an eyesore.

I am not in favor of abolishing the system, just revising it so that: 1.) The clear meaning of every tag be known to everyone who views the page, and there be a link to the policy or guideline it references 2.) The reason a tag was placed be stated in the tag, possibly in a collapsible section in case the explanation is long, so editors can more easily figure out how to solve the problem and fix it and know when to remove it 3.) The exact date a tag was placed (not just the month) be within the tag 4.) There be a link to the editor who placed the tag, so that editor can be contacted if possible to be asked more details as to why s/he placed it there 5.) Some tags seem to remain indefinitely and the issues never fixed. There should be a project aimed at getting to those that have remained beyond a certain amount of time.

Sebwite (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

After you had finished ranting, there were some interesting points there :)

1. Yes, the meaning of every tag should be clear, and there should be a relevant link to get more information. If you know any templates which don't do this, please fix them or draw my attention to them so that I can fix them.
2. I think in some situations this might be a good idea. For example it is now mandatory to add a reason when using the {{cleanup}} tag. However in other cases, e.g. {{wikify}} I'm not sure what other reason could be given except "this article needs wikifying"!
3. In fact I asked the bot's operator a while ago (see User talk:Anomie#Questions from MSGJ) whether the date could be added to the template along with the month and year. This would obviously be a prerequisite before this can be displayed on the template. His response can be seen there.
4. Yes, this might be a good idea, and this info could be added by the bot at the same time as the date is added. I might make the suggestion to Anomie.
5. There are various projects (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia#Maintenance) which work on various maintenance issues. But editors will only work on what is of interest to them and there are no deadlines on Wikipedia.

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Small ambox

There is a discussion currently taking place at Template talk:Unreferenced section#Date not showing about the small form of the ambox template and, in particular, whether these templates should be display the tagging date like the full-size amboxes do. Any comments there would be welcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

More structure for this template

I'd like to add some new parameters to this template, which would allow us greater control over the formatting. It will greatly help with proposed changes being discussed here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk page link

A lot of amboxes contain a sentence which is similar to "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." I propose we add this to ambox which will be called via a talk parameter, which will either be the name of the talk page or the name of the section on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is now coded on the sandbox and awaiting comments. The talk parameter can be either

• the name of the section on the talk page of the article
• a link to a different talk page (plus section anchor if needed)

the case will be determined by parser functions automatically. See the examples below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

{{ambox/sandbox|text='''There is something wrong with this article.'''|talk=Foo}}

produces

and

{{ambox/sandbox|text='''There is something wrong with this article.'''|talk=Talk:Banana#Foo}}

produces

I have now deployed this code. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to roll out this feature to all ambox templates? So that |talk=Foo would always give a link to section Foo on the talk page, whichever template you were using. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. —SamB (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

issue / fix

Most template messages are separated into

• an issue (e.g. This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.) and
• advice for fixing the issues (e.g. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout.)

I propose that we add two parameters issue and fix designed for these two sentences. The current parameter text would still be supported for templates which do not fit this model. The advantages would be as follows:

• Being able to display one without the other (the main application for this would be displaying a shortened version on {{multiple issues}})
• Displaying the talk page link (described above) in a more natural position between the issue and the fix.
• Allowing consistent control over formatting, for example making the issue bold.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No comments, so deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Could you please update the documentation as well? GoingBatty (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is going to be a complete overhaul of the documentation in due course, because there are lots of changes that need to be made! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started work on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Documentation is finished. Perhaps you could let me know what you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! I fixed a few typos and combined the issue and fix sections. Should there be a better example than {{citation style}}, since it doesn't link to a policy or guideline? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Span around text

It is proposed to make this edit to Template:Ambox/core which will allow us to control which part of the message is displayed when using Template talk:Article issues. For further discussion please see Template talk:Multiple issues#Suggestion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This change has now been made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment guff

Wrapped around a lot of these templates is HTML comment like

<!--{{Fringe theories}} begin-->

and

<!--{{Fringe theories}} end-->

I imagine this was to aid fixing incorrectly substituted templates, but now we have the proper substitution detection I don't believe there is any need for this and it just makes the code look messy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

See this edit that even with the detection we need an indicator of where the template starts and where it ends. Also, I wasn't very pleased to see that you remove this without first seeking consensus. Also, messy is a relative concept. I do not find the addition of those remarks messy, rather they impart a feeling of order, imho. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you are still here. I think we are the only two editors watching this template and I was wondering if I was on my own here! In response to your points,

even with the detection we need an indicator of where the template starts and where it ends

I would question how much the comment helps here. Most people working with templates would understand that the double braces indicate the start and end of the template call. But in situations like this, using undo is the much easiest solution and doesn't require any knowledge of the code.

I wasn't very pleased to see that you remove this without first seeking consensus

It is a very minor change and this is the first time anyone has questioned this, so I had no idea it would be controversial. Also I could turn this around and ask whether there was any consensus to add this stuff in the first place. (If so, perhaps you could point me towards the discussion.) Anyway I have now stopped removing it and am happy to discuss.

messy is a relative concept

Yes, I suppose it is :) One person's mess is another person's feeling of order I suppose. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I sometimes also think we are alone here. I think this is a wonderful template, and you are doing good things with it. You are, of course right about the fact that a knowledgeable editor will simply press "undo" or will know what code to remove, but we should take into account that not all editors are as knowledgeable and who knows where we will be in another five years etc. So I think the comment has a function and should stay or be (re-) added where it is absent. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There are 181 people watching this page, so where are they all? I still disagree with you about the comment, but as I stated above, I am stopped removing it until we get a consensus either way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I dunno about the other 180, but I'm here, I just don't check this page every day.

I'll merely echo debresser's comments: a.) you're doing some good things and b.) I think that in general the "start/end" comments are very helpful. - jc37 20:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Tracking category

In order to track which amboxes have the name parameter set I am planning to set up a tracking category (perhaps Category:Article message templates) to place all named amboxes in. Category:Article message boxes will gradually clear out as the names are added. The advantage of this method is that we will only categorise the actual ambox templates and not every page in the template namespace which transcludes one of them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've now made this change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The name parameter has now been added to all the amboxes and Category:Article message boxes is now clear. Shall we delete this category and keep using Category:Article message templates, or switch back? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be a CfD question. Personally, I'm torn on the issue, and would like to hear others' thoughts on this. - jc37 20:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to take it to CfD but it seems a rather trivial issue, and is "back of house" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but you'd be surprised (well you probably wouldn't) how what may seem minor are suddenly big deals when dealing with category names.

I'll be happy to start a CfD, but I'd ask if you would write the nom/explanation, as I'm fairly certain that you would explain it better than I would : ) - jc37 20:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not, simply because I have no opinion one way or the other. I needed to introduce a new tracking category for a technical reason, which I have now finished. Whether we stick with the new one or go back to the old one makes no difference to me ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have seen many cases where changes were made to templates reflecting on categories, and unless somebody found a serious problem, these were not dealt with at Cfd. I propose to do the same in this case. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Supplementary material

Some templates (e.g. Template:Wikify) have some extra content which appears after the date. There is currently no way to display this properly using the issue, fix and date parameters. I propose to add an extra parameter supp to support these templates. Anything put inside this will be hidden inside the small and compact forms. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Are they all "how to" sections? I think "supp" is probably too vague. - jc37 20:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact I only know of that one, although it is possibly something which may be used elsewhere. Alternative names would be good, but the only minor consideration is that all the current parameter names have 5 characters or less and keeping within this limit would keep the code aligned nicely :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Other possibilities: ps for postscript, add for addendum or additional, info for additional information. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are further comments in the next day I intend to go with info for this parameter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Article / section

A lot of ambox templates have code to allow the wording to change based on whether it is applied to an article or a section of an article. Some go further and will allow variants such as list, biographical article, section of a biographical article, etc. Currently this is rather haphazard and the method to do this varies from one template to another. On some you must do

{{Wikify|section|date=}}

whereas on others you have to do something like

{{Cleanup-rewrite|section=yes|date=}}

I'd like to bring this code to the meta-template and make it consistent across all templates, so that you do not have to study the documentation of each separate template to learn how to do this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Been racking my brains for a suitable parameter name for this. type is an obvious choice, but it is already used by ambox for something else. So how about form or mode? I think an unnamed parameter would be easiest to use for ambox templates, so we could choose to keep it unnamed at the meta-template as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

'Unnamed' you mean like {{Wikify|section}}? That seems to me to be by far the most common way. I think this is a very good proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we will keep it as an unnamed parameter on the templates that use ambox, but I think it would be sensible to give it a name on the meta-template. What about sect for section? So we would pass it through to ambox by specifiying |sect={{{1}}} on each template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now added this functionality, along with some code efficiencies. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Default to small for section templates

What do people think about defaulting to the |small=left format for section templates? In other words, if someone types {{Unreliable sources|section}} it will automatically display the small format

instead of the standard format

Some templates already do this actually. There would still be the option for an editor to override the default by specifying |small=no. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note: there was some discussion on section templates at the village pump, although no consensus developed. Consistency was important for some of the participants of that discussion, and this proposal might help with that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have seen this style more and more lately. I personally like the large template better, but - as always - favor a uniform style. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it looks terrible if adjacent templates are using different formats! I'm thinking we could maybe adjust the small format to be a little less narrow. There were some other suggestions on that discussion I linked to as well, such as making the text flow around the box. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have informed the four participants of the previous discussion, in case they are interested in this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few minor issues with the small format, one is that the left makes the appearance unbalanced, another is that the tag takes more vertical space, which is at a premium near the top of a page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC).

This is rather interesting, and difficult to handle. Certainly space is a premium in many articles, and in others it's not the topmost priority. Uniformity is great, and it really can cause problems in some places too. Leaving it up to the editor works well to tailor the solution and get the best results from one wikiproject to the next with the different lengths and types of articles, but when it comes to uniformity, it's not breaking ranks to create a new default, it's simply creating a new norm. Then there is the whole alarm that some people seem to suffer from any changes, like the watchlist. Introduced, massive alarm, withdrawn, massive withdrawal symptoms, and eventually maybe they find the balance. This is nowhere near as big as the watchlist thing, but there'll still be some outcry, with luck, maybe one or two "ARRGHH I AM GOING TO DIE, IT'S THE END, 43:12 some bible verse" yeah, there has to be at least 3 of them for any good idea, and 3 dozen for any new thing project wide. There is the semi sneak-attack as well, having the cybernetic editors use them as default when they are tagging articles, but getting good comments for good ideas is harder, people are less likely to say 'this is fantastic' when they like it then they are to say it sucks if they don't like it. I guess asking more people and hassling them for an opinion is a good idea, but I am not suggesting it's any reason to stop, it's not, just thinking if you can catch the editors who are adding the tags into articles and survey them a little, you may get a lovely little CONSIDERED consensus, rather that the creme of the crap hit and run 'idontlikeanythingatallexcepttellingyouidon'tlikeit' sort of comments that go nowhere (ask them why is like asking why does the parrot want a cracker).

In short this is a good idea, and should be trialled a bit wider, and I love the sound of my own voice. Penyulap ☏ 00:38, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)

can the text wrap around as default too ? Penyulap ☏ 00:39, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)

My biggest problem with this proposal (as I stated in an earlier discussion about this issue) is that the date of the tag is not present. That, up until now (recently?), was always there. For me, when editing an article with this tag, I can then see at a glance how long the lack of sourcing has been tagged to decide whether I should remove unsourced material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A date should be there. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)