Wikipedia talk:Category message boxes

The following are some examples of the current styles in use:

Content moved to Wikipedia:Category message boxes/Pre-standardization. It was taking up too much room. - Rocket000 09:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::-Rocket000 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Oh good lord. I knew it was bad, but I hadn't realized it was this bad. Ok..... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

First thing we need to figure out is what this stuff is going to look like. It needs to be general, with everything falling into a singular design. We shouldn't need to worry about the fancy stacking thing that {{tl|ambox}} does, since we're generally using only one per page. Rocket000, you mentioned that it should look different from the amboxes to differentiate, which I agree with, but the design should probably be similar. Another form of color coding should greatly help. Any ideas on how this should look? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:To start things off, I rather like the look of this style, which was originally suggested at the ambox debate page here:

:It hasn't been decided on yet over there, and in fact they still seem to be debating whether or not they're dealing with those sorts of templates at all, so I say steal the design before they lay claim. We can use the border to distinguish the type of template, and the rest of the box is set up similar to the amboxes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not sure yet; I'm testing some stuff out in my sandbox. Personally, I like the classic Wikimedia look (a muted color boarder with a lighter background shading - think main page), but I also like the ambox design. A fusion of those two, is what I'm thinking.

::And I think what you just suggested captures that perfectly. Now for the colors...

::Let's first list all the types of messages we're dealing with, like we did with the article messages (serious, content, style, etc.). See the following section for some questions about this. Rocket000 06:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh, the pmbox style I had proposed is being stolen to create cmbox! :P FunPika 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's one option so far. The blue "info" box might look out of place, but there's a reason. Unlike the blue "notice" article message boxes, these are permanent and I don't think they should stand out as much as the rest. The redirect one and the second category-size ones are also permanent, but I think they still should stand out (especially the redirect).

This isn't a proposal or anything, I'm not even saying this is what I want to go with (as of now anyway). I just thought I'd throw it out there. Also, I was only focusing on the colors; things like padding, icon use, width, etc. aren't being suggested here. (Well, maybe width (80%) as it's the same as the ambox.) Rocket000 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

For the most part it's obvious what falls in the scope of this project - any message template that is used on category pages. However, what about about the following:

• Templates that are currently not in box form, e.g. {{tl|SCD}} and {{tl|Stub Category}}. (This excludes disambiguation header templates (hatnotes) like {{tl|catmain}}.)

• Table-of-contents/category navigation boxes, e.g. {{tl|categoryTOC}} and {{tl|Bookdecade}}. Lots of variations.

• Category headers like {{tl|Category:Prefectures of Japan}} (see: :Category:Ehime Prefecture for an example).

There's probably some more questionable types out there, but these are what I came across so far. Rocket000 06:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:The Japanese header you pointed out is more like a navigational box - since those can be used in both articles and categories, are you sure we want to mess with them? I know AMBOX specifically veered away from them in their discussions.

:This is a separate topic, but what exactly is the point of {{tl|SCD}} when we've got the template I used as an example above? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Oops, I didn't realize that was a article navigational box (I thought used as a category nav. box). Yeah, let's stay away from those.

::About {{tl|SCD}} - I was wondering that too, but looking at how it's used, it looks like it's a more permanent message for the readers, whereas {{tl|Categorisation of people disputed}} is a more temporary "this category needs help" message to editors. I don't think we need it though. I know it's not used on articles but it kinda goes against WP:NDT. After this standardization, when we're converting templates, we'll run across a lot of unnecessary templates. I suggest that would be a good time to discuss issues like this. Rocket000 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the full border for these.

Also, there is a difference between those educating the reader ("This category is for.." or "TO use this category...") and notices (disputed, deletion, and cat redirects). But then, maybe those are your 5 types.

I also wouldn't mind discussing merging/deleting as many as possible. I presume that categories shouldn't need as many such boxes as articles. - jc37 06:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:See Template:Namespace category for more. - jc37 06:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Well, I came up with eight possible types.

::Proposed types

::* Speedy - Speedy deletion (includes speedy rename?)

::* Deletion - All other deletion notices that aren't speedy

::* Redirect - Soft redirects; provides information about where the appropriate category is.

::* Content - Inclusion disputes ({{tl|Categorisation of people disputed}}).

::* Maintenance - For clean up of categories ({{tl|verylarge}}).

::* ??? - For expansion requests, like {{tl|popcat}}, and permanent maintenance messages like {{tl|CatDiffuse}}.

::* Info/Type - Displays information about what pages (in what namespace) should be placed in the category. Defines the type of category (tracking, templates-only, administrative, top-level, etc).

::* Merge - Suggested merges and related.

::...and their corresponding colors

::* Speedy = Red with pink background

::* Deletion = Red

::* Content = Orange?

::* Maintenance = Yellow?

::* ??? = Same as "maintenance"?

::* Info = Blue

::* Merge = Purple

::* Redirect = ?

::Now, redirect messages are not something we had to deal with in the article namespace because those are hard redirects. I would place them right after deletion in terms of severity, since it serves as a warning that the category should be empty. I would like to keep it orange, but I don't want to mess up the color scheme set by the ambox. I think it also should have a background shading, not unlike its current form. Rocket000 07:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, categories are different than articles. To merge or rename means to delete. (main templates are cfd, cfm, cfr, and cfr-speedy) Some of the db- templates apply as well.

:::Since the background of these pages are blue, we can do complete borders in colour, and the borders don't have to be very thick at all.

:::So if we're going to assign border colours, I would suggest:

:::*Red - Speedy, CFD, CFR, CFM, Redirect

:::*Orange - disputed, and other warnings

:::*Yellow - I don't think that this will be distinct enough from white to use as a colour

:::*Green - Requests for help (verylarge, popcat, catdiffuse, etc)

:::*Blue - Since this will be the same colour as the background, I suggest that these be content informative: What should be in a category, what type of category is it.

:::This doesn't look that different than your suggestions, now that I look at it as a whole : ) - jc37 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Yellow can be made distinct enough, especially if we have a fairly thick border. The sample box a couple sections up originally had yellow, and it looked fine. Perhaps use yellow for redirects, since they're not assigned yet? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a question (because I'm a perfectionist on a LCD monitor). What background color are we using?

• {{colorsample|#F9F9F9}} F9F9F9 - category links box on the bottom, TOC boxes
• {{colorsample|#F8FCFF}} F8FCFF - category page background (very light blue)
• {{colorsample|#FBFBFB}} FBFBFB - background color of amboxes
• {{colorsample|#FCFCFC}} FCFCFC - background color on main page
• {{colorsample|#FFFFFF}} FFFFFF - and of course, white

- Rocket000 09:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:I was presuming white, or some version of white, except for the red bordered ones. However, you make a good point. I think that the current blue background of most of the informative boxes (like parent) looks better than a white background. Maybe we should step back from the border idea, and just go with backgrounds with a black/grey border. And keep white (or whatever shade of white) just for the non-speedy/non-redirect red bordered ones? - jc37 09:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::That could work. If we do use the backgrounds for the color coding, we've got to make sure it's really light so it doesn't overwhelm or force us to change the text color. Perhaps:

::* {{colorsample|#FFAAAA}} #FFAAAA for light red sample text

::* {{colorsample|#FFCCAA}} #FFCCAA for light orange sample text

::* {{colorsample|#FFFFAA}} #FFFFAA for light yellow sample text

::* {{colorsample|#AAFFAA}} #AAFFAA for light green sample text

::* {{colorsample|#BBCCFF}} #BBCCFF for light blue sample text

::* {{colorsample|#CC99CC}} #CC99CC for light purple sample text

::* {{colorsample|#CCCCCC}} #CCCCCC for light gray sample text

::* {{colorsample|#000000}} #000000 for the borders

::These are intentionally very simple hex values, but they should work out fairly well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Just a quick comment: please remember that the background color on anything outside the main namespace is not white, it's a blue tint (#F8FCFF). --MZMcBride 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::True, so what background color are we going to use? :) Rocket000 21:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Instead of black for the boarders, I think we should go with the standard #aaa {{colorsample|#AAAAAA}} or maybe a darker shade of the respective background hue (ambox colors?). Rocket000 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::I like the idea of the ambox colors for the borders. So each type of template would have a dark border and a light background, both in the color appropriate to that class of template. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here I went with Hersfold's suggestion. I'm not really happy with the colors, so feel free to tweak them. I'm also posting some alternate "info" type boxes, which we might want to treat differently. There pretty similar to what we have now. Rocket000 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:I just ran across this page → :Category:Underpopulated categories. So far, this is the best looking category page I've come across that has more than two boxes. It's similar to the style above, and I think this is the direction we should go in. I'm undecided about the saturation, though. Pastels are definitely the most in-line with Mediawiki's style in general, yet sticking with them doesn't accomplish the goal of merging the two styles (ambox and everything else). Rocket000 02:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

These options are very nice. --Eliyak T·C 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks :) I've been waiting for some input on my two suggestions, so I know which direction to go in. Rocket000 22:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen any argument as to why category pages shouldn't use {{tl|ambox}}. The color scheme could be changed, I imagine, but the ambox style is crisp and seems suited to any kind of message box.--Father Goose 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Because, IMO it's best for each namespace to have a distinct style. For a couple of reasons. One, it makes it obvious where a template should go based on looks alone. This helps avoid confusion in where to place a template (more of an issue with talk vs. article pages) Two, depending on the namespace, there are different types of messages. The ambox standard does not cover all these namespace-specific types. Also, most categories have or should have a permanent header, where an ambox-style template would stick out too much and wouldn't be appropriate. Rocket000 20:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Instinctively, I agree with a different style for talk pages, since they're for "discussion" and not "content". But category pages are a type of content (content indexes, specifically), so I don't see a problem with using amboxes on them. Can you give me an example of the permanent header you speak of? I haven't seen this yet. I have however seen a number of "cleanup"/"content" messages on category pages, which seem to be a good candidate for reusing the ambox style.--Father Goose 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Another thing, we could use the ambox for templates that already work with it (like {{tl|cleancat}}), but then they wouldn't be consistent with the rest. Rocket000 20:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::My understanding was that we were going to use ambox. Here's the deal though, you can change the border like this | style = border: 2px solid #e00; for example. Take a look at the speedy deletion templates for examples. So we can use ambox without the boxes having the same colour scheme as the article message boxes. And I presume icons can be changed (or not used) as well. - jc37 20:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Some of the permanent headers in use are these:

:::*{{tl|category redirect}}

:::*{{tl|Wikipedia category}} and similar

:::*{{tl|image template notice}} and similar

:::*{{tl|CatDiffuse}} and similar

:::*{{tl|Parent category}}

:::*{{tl|Tracking category}}

:::*{{tl|Recent changes category}}

:::...among many others, I'm sure. Since those aren't likely to be changed, they should probably have a different appearance from the more "temporary" ambox style. I greatly like the idea of having a template's appearance immediately identify the namespace it is to be used in. We've got the cream colored talk templates, the minimalistic ambox templates, the sectioned infoboxes, the short stub templates, and the collapsible nav boxes. Categories should be differentiated from all of those with yet another style to make usage even simpler. If we only change the border, the cat boxes are still going to appear mostly like the amboxes, leading to some confusion, no doubt. It's gotta be new. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Hmm, I see some sense in having a non-ambox style for "permanent" headers. Then again, using a blue "notice" ambox for permanent headers is not out of the question, at least in my mind. I have serious doubts about how much "confusion" would result from using amboxes in category space. Has there been much confusion like that to date?

::::I think using ambox for headers that duplicate the role of their articlespace counterparts (content/cleanup/delete/etc.) makes the most sense. Category pages work in concert with article pages to present content and while I agree there should be some aesthetic differences between the two (the category list itself is a big difference), if we're going to post the same type of message on each, we should use the same style.--Father Goose 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Just to avoid confusion, when I talk about "ambox", I'm talking about the template itself, which is customisable, I'm not necessarily talking about the default "style" of the article clean up templates, which was built into ambox.

:::::Perhaps we should discuss (somewhere) a more generic version of ambox called something else (mbox?), since in general the template is useful for page headers. Especially since there are templates which see use in more than one namespace. The left border colour, the background colour, and icon usage is all that's really specific to article usage of ambox, I presume? And those are even customisable in the current version of ambox. - jc37 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::An "mbox" discussion is not a bad idea, although we should first see if there's any agreement over using ambox-derived template styles outside of article space.--Father Goose 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Well, I'm currently against the idea of using the ambox for permanent headers. All ambox use should be temporary, since they're so different from Mediawiki's global style. Everytime I see an ambox I think there's a problem with the article. If we start applying the ambox-style to non-issue boxes, the intent of the ambox will diminish. The following is another reason why I against it:

{{ambox

| type = notice

| image = none

| text = This category is used for administration of the Wikipedia project. It is not part of the encyclopedia.
It contains pages which are not articles, or lists articles by status, rather than content. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|
{{{ALTTEXT|Description:}}} {{{1|}}}