Template talk:Imbox

Namespace detection

Since this template range is designed for Image pages and Image Talk pages, shouldn't it have somesort of namespace detection so if people try to use it on article talk pages it gives a message something like "Stop: this template is designed for Image and Image talk pages only!". Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is designed for Image pages, not for Image talk pages. For templates that could be used on both, use {{mbox}}. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ms2ger: Right, the {{imbox}} should only be used on "Image:" pages and not on "Image talk:" pages. For any kind of talk pages we have the {{tmbox}}. And right, if a message box should be used on two or more kinds of pages then you can use the {{mbox}} that automatically changes style depending on namespace.

Peachey88: I have been thinking about adding such a warning message to the imbox and the other mboxes. But I have hesitated for a number of reasons:

1. It adds some code complexity.
2. The style of the boxes already is a signal to most editors for what type of page they are supposed to be used.
3. Until recently I was not sure how I wanted such a message to look, and I have seen that people have been arguing a lot about the design of such messages.
4. When we build message boxes from the imbox we have been using the {{image other}} template to make the boxes not categorise pages when they are shown/discussed on for instance talk pages and "Wikipedia:" pages. While doing that we often add a message saying: "This template should only be used on image pages." If you want to see examples of how that looks see many of the message boxes listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace. Adding that message enclosed by the {{image other}} template makes it clearer that the categorising will only be done in the other case, when the template actually is on an image page. See for instance the code of {{Cc-by}} to see what I mean. Of course, that is not enough of a reason to not build the message into the {{imbox}} itself.
5. It makes it harder to test and demonstrate the looks of the imbox, since the message will be visible in the template's documentation and on most test pages. That could of course be fixed by adding a parameter that turns off the message, but that adds even more code complexity. And such a parameter probably has to be described in the documentation too, thus adding documentation complexity too. :((
6. We allow users to use any kind of mbox on their user pages. That is, they have great style-freedom on their user pages. (Which I think is a good thing, since then they can experiment and learn there.) And many users do use for instance the ambox or imbox on their user page. If we add such error messages to the mboxes then the users can only use the rather dull {{ombox}} on their user pages. Unless of course we add a parameter to the boxes to suppress the message, and we document it, and the users actually read that part of the documentation. Or we add even more code complexity by making it so the mboxes do not show the error message when on "User:" and "User talk:" pages...

Anyway, now that we have used such messages for a time I have some conclusions about how I want such a message to look. Remember that the message will be visible on the templates' own pages, and when the templates are legitimately demonstrated in discussions on talk pages and when they are listed for instance at Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace. Thus I think the message should not be too strong. Also, too strong messages are rude, and can perhaps even be scary for new users. So I don't want the message to be bold or big or red, or contain words like "error" or "stop". Instead a simple message like this is enough:

This template should only be used on image pages.

Also, I think the message should be placed beneath the message box, not inside it. Because when inside the box it isn't enough visible. If we place it inside then it has to be big and red to be seen, and then it destroys the look of the message box when it is legitimately demonstrated in discussions on talk pages and when listed on "Wikipedia:" pages.

But I still hesitate to add such a message to the {{imbox}} and the other mboxes. Sure, I would like such an error message, but it causes too much problems for too little gain. Instead adding it in the boxes we build causes much less problems, at the same time as we fix the categorising as I described above. (Even though that means that most message boxes probably won't have the error message.) So I think I am somewhere between "weak oppose" and "oppose", provided we make the message the way I explained. If the message is made stronger then I will "strongly oppose" it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I also dislike the idea of prescribing the use of the mboxes in this fashion. As DG says, it is aggressive and possibly scary to have a warning message appear unexpectedly; the issue of it appearing in places where the imbox is legitimately used outside the Image: namespace makes it not particularly useful. It's such a trivial 'mistake' to fix, and there are such tangible downsides to implementing it, that I don't think it's a good idea. Happy‑melon 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Category proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Message box categories. Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Broom image

{{editprotected}} Would it be possible to swap the png broom image File:Imbox style.png File:Imbox style.png to the svg version File:Broom icon.svg File:Broom icon.svg? A local version of File:Broom icon.svg could always be uploaded (like the current png one) if possible vandalism is an issue. /129.215.149.98 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the advantage of the SVG version? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly scalable if the image size is changed. But since there's no option to alter the size without redefining the image, I'm not sure that that's an issue. IIRC there's some compatibility reason why we use pngs; maybe background transparency? Happy‑melon 17:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the idea was that the hand-tweaked png would be better quality/smaller size. (It's just 63 bytes smaller though, so I don't know if that's a good argument.) —Ms2ger (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Technical details" section in the documentation of this template explains it:

The default images for this meta-template are in png format instead of svg format. The main reason is that some older web browsers have trouble with the transparent background that MediaWiki renders for svg images. The png images here have hand optimised transparent background colour so they look good in all browsers.

And the image description page of File:Imbox style.png also explains it:

This PNG version of this image has a special hand optimised transparent background so when used in the English Wikipedia {{imbox}} it looks right, even when viewed with older web browsers. See the talk page for more about that.

I have an old Internet Explorer that I use for compatibility testing, so I see that the PNG looks better. So we should not change to the SVG image, the PNG image is the better choice for the imbox.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding PNG vs. SVG, I would just like to point out that MediaWiki uses librsvg to convert all SVG images to PNG for displaying for all browsers (including IE6). Librsrvg does a pretty good job of creating transpartent PNGs so I have my doubts there is a significant difference, but I don't have an old browser handy. For those intrested, I have created a side by side comparision at: File talk:Imbox style.png. Cheers --Svgalbertian (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not our PNGs, it is the capabilities of IE 6. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the issue that effects IE6? I see absolutly no difference when I render the comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Imbox_style.png in IE6 using http://ipinfo.info/netrenderer/ --Svgalbertian (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a slight difference, the background is rendered as a particular color in IE6, it is not transparent. The modified PNG was tweaked to show the same color as the textbox. The PNG has a background of #FBFBFB. The SVG-rendered-as-PNG has a background of #FFFFFF. That is the only difference. In my opinion, I suggest that we stop explicitly codling the IE6 users. IE6 usage at Wikimedia is down to 7.5% of page loads as of May 2010. [1] --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chris that explains it perfectly. I can see why these images were created, but the difference between      and      is so subtle I didn't notice it in IE6. I do not think going forward we need to impose such backwards compatibility, but for these existing images I have no preference.--Svgalbertian (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected to add alternative attribute

{{editprotect}} Please add blank alt attribute and link attribute, |alt=|link= to all file embedding syntax, such as Image:Imbox speedy deletion.png and Image:Imbox deletion.png, as per WP:ALT# Blank alt text problem for image-disabled browser or screen reader users because those icons are purely decorative. Thx. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done where possible. Two cases were GPL images, of which i'm not sure what the licensing and attribution requirements are, but i'm guessing they will require the link to the description page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Change Style Image

{{editprotected}} Could the style image be changed from

[[Image:Imbox style.png|40x40px]]

to

[[Image:Edit-clear.svg|40x40px|link=|alt=]]

so that it matches the image used in {{ambox/core}}, {{cmbox}}, {{tmbox/core}} and {{ombox/core}}. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC) WOSlinker (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Y Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Classes

Please see centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Article message boxes#Classes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Add 'class' for restriction tags

It would be appreciated if an appropriate class could be added for non copyright restrictions, like those listed in {{ir-Money}}, {{ir-Mughshot}} etc... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please descibe what exactly needs to be edited. — Edokter (talk) — 21:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)