Template:Fmbox is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit protected}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
I created this template since we now have a number of system messages that have this look. Keeping them up to date and in a unified look will be easier if they all use this meta-template. For instance, up until recently they had slight differences in their margins and padding which looked somewhat messy. Fixing that meant editing a number of MediaWiki messages. (And we haven't even fixed all of them yet.) Also, the system messages need to use full XHTML code since MediaWiki does not parse and convert HTML in system messages the same way as it does for normal pages. Thus having a central meta-template makes it easier to keep things correct and well documented.
Also, we now have the brand new editnotice system. Editnotices are header message boxes that are shown above the edit window when you edit a page. People are now making a lot of editnotices for a lot of pages. Currently there is a new template named {{ editnotice}} for making such header message boxes. However I think that box should use the same margins and padding and perhaps even the same colours as the other system messages. Thus I think that box should perhaps in turn call this box.
And this template uses the same parameters as the other mboxes such as {{ ambox}} and {{ ombox}}, which is an interface that now is well known to many users.
Some of the system messages that could use this template are MediaWiki:Sharedupload, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon and MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext.
Here is how some of them look when they use the {{ fmbox}}:
This is a file from the
Wikimedia Commons. The description on its
description page there is shown below. Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help. |
$1: Subpages · Edit and action count · Interiot · Edit summary usage · Images uploaded · Articles created · SUL accounts · Global contribs |
This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical
IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This template is for system messages that are either header or footer message boxes. Some users also have similar headers or footers on their user pages. Thus I called this box the "header and footer message box". The "correct" short name for this box then perhaps would be {{hfmbox}} or {{hmbox}}. But both those names are not very readable and hard to pronounce, so I choose the name {{fmbox}} as in "footer message box" or if you will "footer and header message box". Remember, many languages don't even have an "h" thus people from those parts of the world can not even pronounce an "h". And the boxes we make here at the English Wikipedia tend to be transwikied to many other languages.
I would like to hear any points of view on the name of this template.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We are still discussing the colours for the editnotices, but if we decide they should be transparent then I am thinking we should perhaps add a "type" parameter to this template so it easily can be used for editnotices. Just like the other mboxes do have different types that produce different colours. I am thinking of naming it like this:
{{fmbox | type = system / editnotice }}
That is, "type=editnotice" means transparent and "type=system" means the default system message colours. This is a slight breach with the tradition for the other mboxes to name the default style "type=notice". But I think in this case "type=system" is probably more clear. And besides, if anyone uses "type=notice" out of habit then the template will automatically fall back to the default "system" colours, which is the colours the user wanted.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the MediaWiki messages that use the {{ fmbox}}. That reminded me that fmbox needs an "id" parameter that can take a CSS id. Since CSS ids are often used in MediaWiki messages to tag them with the message's own name, to make it easy to detect the presence of the message from javascript. Since for javascript it is more efficient and simpler to detect a CSS id than to detect a CSS class. (But to allow individual skinning of a box it is better to use the "class" parameter.)
Since we refused to add such "id" and "class" parameters to the other mboxes I wanted to explain here before I do the addition.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Following on from this discussion, I think we should add a 'serious' type for important messages such as MediaWiki:Editingold and MediaWiki:Revision-info. These should use a standardised style to set a unified background colour and border. I recommend background:#FEE; border:2px solid #b22222;, the same styles as for the mbox 'speedy' series. However since this box doesn't seem to be following the conventions of the other xmbox type names, I don't feel any need to call the type 'speedy', etc. Thoughts? Happy‑ melon 08:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Example 1: "background: #FEE; border: 2px solid #b22222;", currently used in the "speedy" type for most mboxes. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 2: "background: #FFBDBD;", currently used in MediaWiki:Revision-info, MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and MediaWiki:Editingold. |
Example 3: "background: #FFD8D8;", currently used in MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning and MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning. |
Example 4: "background: #FFDBDB;", currently used for the "delete" and "speedy" background in the {{ cmbox}}. |
Example 5: "background: #FEE;", currently used for the "speedy" background in most mboxes. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 6: This is the {{ ombox}} delete style. |
Example 7: This is the {{ ombox}} delete border but with transparent background like the other editnotices. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 4: "background: #FFDBDB;", currently used for the "delete" and "speedy" background in the {{ cmbox}}. |
Example 8: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #B22222;", |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 9: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #BB7979;", "delete" and "speedy" background from the {{ cmbox}}, grey-red border from MediaWiki:Revision-info, MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and MediaWiki:Editingold. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 10: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #BB6060;", "delete" and "speedy" background from the {{ cmbox}}, slightly-lighter grey-red border. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 11: "background: #FFBDBD; border: 1px solid #BB7979;" already used in MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, MediaWiki:Revision-info, and MediaWiki:Editingold |
.mw-textarea-protected {background:#FFEEEE;}
applied, and that #FFEEEE may be something to consider. It might, however, be acceptable to make that an exception as the edit box colouring has to be particularly light for usability purposes. I myself override this setting anyway. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}} 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Example 11: "background: #FFBDBD; border: 1px solid #BB7979;" already used in MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, MediaWiki:Revision-info, and MediaWiki:Editingold |
Example 10: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #BB6060;", "delete" and "speedy" background from the {{ cmbox}}, slightly-lighter grey-red border. |
Example 9: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #BB7979;", "delete" and "speedy" background from the {{ cmbox}}, grey-red border from MediaWiki:Revision-info, MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and MediaWiki:Editingold. |
Example 4: "background: #FFDBDB;", currently used for the "delete" and "speedy" background in the {{ cmbox}}. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Note: This page has been
semi-protected so that only established users can edit it.
|
WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it. Please ensure that you are following the protection policy. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
<hr style="color:#BB7070; background-color:#BB7070;">
if we really want an hr. I don't really mind either way; without might be simpler, though. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}} 00:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)I have taken a closer look at the warning messages that remains to be updated to use the fmbox warning style: MediaWiki:Revision-info, MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and MediaWiki:Editingold. I have come to some slightly unconventional conclusions how to handle them, so I want to explain here before I go ahead.
The first two of them probably can not call the {{
fmbox}} since it seems from their code that they are the kind of messages that MediaWiki doesn't parse properly. And all three of them currently use a <div> instead of a table to create their border. Since they are just simple 100% wide boxes (thus no box flow problems) and have no images (thus no padding problems), then they don't really need a table, they work just as well with a simple div.
And we have already added all the colours and padding needed to the "mw-warning-with-logexcerpt" class in
MediaWiki:Common.css to accommodate the div based
MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning,
MediaWiki:Semiprotectedpagewarning,
MediaWiki:Recreate-deleted-warn and
MediaWiki:Upload-wasdeleted. So I figured out that all we have to do is to add for instance "div.fmbox-warning,
" to the existing declaration of "mw-warning-with-logexcerpt", to turn it into this:
/* Pink fmbox warning style for div based warning notices. */
div.fmbox-warning,
div.mw-warning-with-logexcerpt {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
border: 1px solid #BB7070;
background: #FFDBDB;
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
}
That I prefix the "fmbox-warning" class name with "div" means that the declaration above will not interfere with the usage of the "table.fmbox-warning" class in tables. Since the div and table based warnings have the same looks and purpose I think we should use the same class name, even though that is a bit unconventional.
Then we can simply add class="fmbox-warning"
to the div tags in
MediaWiki:Revision-info,
MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and
MediaWiki:Editingold.
This only leaves the
MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning which currently uses {{fmbox|type=warning}}
. But like the rest of them we can just as well let that one use <div class="fmbox-warning">
instead. This perhaps means that we don't need the "type=warning" in the fmbox anymore, but let's leave the warning type in fmbox for now.
There are other ways to do this, but this seems to be the simplest and most efficient way to do it.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
fmbox-warning in Common.css
Re
this, I'm a little confused. Why would we have divs with the fmbox-warning class? We have messages created using {{
fmbox}}
, which uses a table, and we have messages that are already wrapped inside divs, which we explicitly name and style. I'm not aware of any messages that are wrapped in divs that we can assign classes to, without being able to use fmbox; can you give examples? Even if div.fmbox-warning is needed, is there any reason not to have table.fmbox-warning too? I'm not really sure why all the mbox styles have the table.
prefix anyway: is there a reason for that high specificity?
Happy‑
melon 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
fmbox}}
, isn't actually used in {{
fmbox}}
: even though the two classes have the same name, they don't correspond. That to me is Wrong. Either the styles in common.css should also apply to the table produced by {{
fmbox}}
(which you say is not possible), or the two classes shoudn't have the same name. But then we're creating a completely different structure, when we don't even need it (since we can just use {{
fmbox}}
on such system messages). Throw in the complication with finding such boxes - your search example isn't actually picking up the instances we know to be there, and regardless it's not pretty to have to look in two separate places to find all uses - and it becomes rather difficult to argue for its retention, IMO.{{
fmbox}}
, we have no need for that line in common.css. Although as you note, we need the styles anyway for the other things we style the same way, I don't see a particular problem with having the styles both in common.css and fmbox, as long as they are obviously different. Right now, it looks like {{
fmbox}}
should be using the common.css styles like all the other mboxes, but isn't by accident, so you get silly admins trying to fix it so it does :D. If we have to have some warnings produced by hardcoded styles in {{
fmbox}}
, and some warnings styled by code in common.css, which we do, it saves much confusion all round if they at least look like different structures.{{
fmbox}}
, and remove it from common.css to avoid confusion.
Happy‑
melon 15:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC){{
fmbox}}
and be happy and content. It's the people who know what they're seeing, and know the difference, that are the problem, they're the ones who are confident enough in their own knowledge to "know" when something is broken and try to fix it. A little knowledge is dangerous. Yes, I now know what's going on, but there are plenty of other admins who know just enough about the mbox system to spot a deviation ("error") and be tempted to fix it. Having exactly one mbox declaration not only different to all the others, but fulfilling a completely different purpose that actually has nothing to do with the mbox templates, is just asking for trouble. On the other hand, while we have indeed had our fair share of Twinkle users fixing system messages that use fmbox, we have exactly no edits to
Template:Fmbox itself for that purpose, despite it being significantly more widely used than the div format. While you're right about the bull-in-a-china-shop approach that's often employed, I don't think that admins being rash with {{
fmbox}}
is a legitimate concern. It would be sensible to document the fact that correct XHTML should be used in system messages, perhaps in the namespace editnotice, and the particular bug with wikilists that affects fmbox should be documented on fmbox/doc. But I think moving system messages to use fmbox rather than div.fmbox-warning is a step to remove a point of confusion, not to create one.I just noticed that the devs have now added a thing I waited for in the MediaWiki page rendering. I can now make the MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning work the same as our MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning message. That is, I can now surround both the cascadeprotectedwarning message and the list of links below it with a single pink box, with a horizontal line between. Instead of as now that the list of links below ending up outside the pink box.
To see what I mean: If you are an admin click the edit tab on for instance {{ cmbox}} and see the two pink warning messages you get at the top of the editing page. (If you are not an admin: Well, these messages are only visible for admins anyway, to remind us to be careful when we edit protected pages.)
To fix this I will add one line of code to MediaWiki:Common.css. I will change this code:
/* Pink fmbox warning style for div based warning notices. */
div.fmbox-warning,
div.mw-warning-with-logexcerpt {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
border: 1px solid #BB7070;
background: #FFDBDB;
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
}
To this:
/* Pink fmbox warning style for div based warning notices. */
div.fmbox-warning,
div.mw-warning-with-logexcerpt,
div.mw-cascadeprotectedwarning {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
border: 1px solid #BB7070;
background: #FFDBDB;
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
}
And I will remove the pink box from within the MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning message and add a pink horizontal ruler instead.
I will do this some day from now, when I am not as tired as now. (Don't edit system files when you are sleepy...)
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Should
these templates be covered by the {{
fmbox}}? They look pretty much the same and are placed at the bottom of articles. The smaller size could be achieved with something similar to {{
tmbox}}'s small parameter. --
Blooper
(Talk)
21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
{{ombox|small=yes}}
. Yes, the {{
ombox}} already has the code for that! Of course, we must first check if the sister project boxes have some special needs. If so, then we can perhaps add support for those needs in the ombox. This might end up being a little odd, since that would mean we would be using the "other pages message box meta-template" (ombox) in article space. But if the ombox already has the styles and code for it, then why should we upgrade the {{
ambox}} to do it? Besides, some sister project boxes are used on category and other pages.--
Blooper
(Talk)
00:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)I'd actually oppose even using the ombox for those boxes, for one reason: semantic purity. One of the best parts of our regime of standardization is that each style is well-defined. All amboxes are for temporary messages on articles, whether for cleanup, deletion warnings, dispute tags, or mere notices. All tmboxes are designed for messages on talk pages, and all cmboxes are designed for messages on category pages. If we start using omboxes, which are for "other" namespaces, in the main namespace, we lose that semantic benefit. I'd advocate instead making a new meta-template for those boxes on a lower level than the main message boxes, particularly as those boxes aren't the typical messages that the *mbox series of meta-templates is meant to handle. {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
--
Blooper
(Talk)
15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
!important
" keyword to style the boxes if they want. As I see it we only need to move styles to MediaWiki:Common.css when a box should be styled in other skins, or if we need to use the classes to hand-build special boxes instead of calling the meta-template.--
Blooper
(Talk)
05:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)--
Blooper
(Talk)
06:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)I notice that these two declarations in
MediaWiki:Common.css are in fact identical. Should we perhaps unify them? The background is that I am considering how to update templates like {{
commons}}
, which currently use a rather awkward set of nested divs. I was tempted to use the ombox-small classes as the appearance is very similar but I would prefer to avoid using styles in the mainspace that are really intended for use outside. However, the "ombox-small" class declaration actually only contains positioning information, so if we renamed this to "mbox-small" it becomes namespace-independent and hence acceptable to use in any namespace for a clean right-floating small box, to be manually styled as necessary. I don't think we need feel obliged to implement the complicated |small=yes
functionality in other mbox templates as a result. Thoughts?
Also, although I do have reservations, do you think a symmetrical "mbox-small-left" style would be a good idea? Happy‑ melon 11:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
table.tmbox-small,
table.ombox-small { /* For the "small=yes" option */
clear: right;
float: right;
margin: 4px 0 4px 1em;
width: 238px;
font-size: 88%;
line-height: 1.25em;
}
table.mbox-small { /* For the "small=yes" option */
clear: right;
float: right;
margin: 4px 0 4px 1em;
width: 238px;
font-size: 88%;
line-height: 1.25em;
}
table.ombox{}
and table.tmbox{}
declarations in MediaWiki:Common.css, since the small class overrides them. (Unless we increase their specificity, which usually is messy and causes problems in the future.) But if they have the name "mbox-small" it will be tempting for less CSS skilled admins to "clean up" the code in MediaWiki:Common.css by moving the "mbox-small" class to the top section where the other "mbox-*" classes are, which will break things. And I think it will be hard for those admins to figure out why things broke.table.ombox{}
declaration, since the "mbox-small" class does not contain all things a box needs. But as I wrote in the previous section above: "It seems the sister project boxes perhaps don't need CSS code in
MediaWiki:Common.css, since they only have one style and as far as I know they are not being styled in the other skins. So if we do as we have learnt now to just add the class names in the template code, together with hard-coded styles, then users can simply use the "!important
" keyword to style the boxes if they want.".mediawiki table.tmbox-small {...}
be sufficient to make the -small declaration 'win' over "tmbox"/"ombox"? The "mediawiki" class is present in all namespaces, skins, and installations, so should be fully portable to all sites using standard MediaWiki, and of course, it's not possible to put tables outside the "mediawiki" declaration on each page, since it's applied to the HTML body. That would enable us to place it wherever we like in the Common.css without its location being important. Am I incorrect in that thought?{{
commons}}
. As the "mbox-small" declaration posesses only positioning attributes, you're right, DG, that the 'presentation' attributes (background, border, text styles, etc) would have to be applied separately. "sisterproject" is actually already styled in Common.css, so we could maybe justify expanding that (it would only be a couple of lines) but a meta-template would probably be more defensible, as noted above. The important point from this particular thread is that having a generic class for "make a small right-floating box that doesn't make a mess of everything" would have innumerable uses in all namespaces..mediawiki table.tmbox-small,
.mediawiki table.ombox-small,
.mediawiki table.mbox-small { /* For the "small=yes" option (also used elsewhere). */
clear: right; /* The "mediawiki" class ensures that this declaration */
float: right; /* overrides styles set in "tmbox"/"ombox"/etc below */
margin: 4px 0 4px 1em;
width: 238px;
font-size: 88%;
line-height: 1.25em;
}
Currently the only class in fmbox that is styled with CSS is the fmbox-warning class. Should we, in the interests of consistency with the other mbox templates (and code clarity in fmbox itself) put the other bits of styling from this template into Common.css? Happy‑ melon 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
!important
keyword./* For div based pink warning notices, like the fmbox warning style.
The "div.fmbox-warning" is for hardcoded messages using <div> tags. */
div.fmbox-warning,
div.mw-warning-with-logexcerpt,
div.mw-cascadeprotectedwarning {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
border: 1px solid #bb7070;
background: #ffdbdb;
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
color: #000; /* Fixes the text color in some messages. */
}
/* Footer and header message box styles */
table.fmbox {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #aaa;
background: #f9f9f9; /* Default "system" gray */
}
table.fmbox-system {
background: #f9f9f9;
}
table.fmbox-warning {
border: 1px solid #bb7070; /* Dark pink */
background: #ffdbdb; /* Pink */
}
table.fmbox-editnotice {
background: transparent;
}
{{
Editprotected}}
Click here to see my requested edit. I am requesting that this edit be made to allow a custom box type to be used. -- IRP ☎ 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have undone this edit. There is no need to specify a custom class, as you can use the |style=
parameter equally well to set a custom appearance with the 'standard' fmbox-system
class. There are actually no CSS style rules associated with that class, so it is completely identical to the proposed fmbox-custom
in all but name. The addition was completely unnecessary.
Happy‑
melon 09:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
!important
keyword since fmbox still uses hard coded styles. See
WP:DECACHE for more about how to use the !important
keyword.I made this request in order for this other request to work, and here's why. -- IRP ☎ 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
{{fmbox |id = talkpagetext |type = editnotice |image = none |style = background:#F8EABA; border:1px solid darkyellow; |text = This is a '''[[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk page]]'''. Please respect the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page guidelines]], and remember to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] by typing four tildes (<code>~~~~</code>). }}
| style = background: #F8EABA; border: 1px solid #C0C090;
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
Warning: You are editing a MediaWiki page, which is used to provide interface text for the software. Changes to this page will affect the appearance of the user interface for other users. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page and/or Wikipedia:Village pump. Any pages or images transcluded here should be protected. |
&action=edit
rather than by going to some
Special:EditPage/Foo, like
Special:MovePage/Foo. Perhaps at some point that transition will be made, it makes things much easier for a whole host of reasons (search engine indexing, for instance, and caching). My point is that it's confusing and not entirely semantically correct to think of the edit screen as being 'part of' the page itself; it is a distinctly separate interface. For instance, you can edit an old version of a page through the same interface; if it was a version from before the page was moved, you could even be looking at a page 'from' a different namespace. If there's been a history merge, it gets even more confusing. The edit screen is distinctly separate from the page itself; while we see notices and information on the edit screen about the page we're editing, we are not actually in that page. As such, I think it is important to have a completely distinct set of styles for system messages that could be shown on the edit screen. The 'arms race' argument that DG raises is also valid; by keeping a simple set of unobtrusive colours, we avoid people taking more drastic measures: if editors find the fmbox styles glaring and intrusive, they might be tempted to simply hide all fmboxes in their personal CSS, which would be completely counterproductive.That's just it. The more you standardize the medium, the more likely people are to ignore the message. I know my mind has been tuning out everything that looks like this for a very long time now. — CharlotteWebb 18:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
{{tmbox|type=content}}
, which looks like this:Attention
Talk pages in this
namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the
Help desk or the
village pump for a more prompt response. |
{{fmbox|type=warning|image=none}}
, which looks like this:Attention
Talk pages in this
namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the
Help desk or the
village pump for a more prompt response. |
Attention: Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the Help desk or the village pump for a more prompt response. |
I am requesting that the notice box on regular talk pages should look like:
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
Who supports or opposes this change? -- IRP ☎ 04:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
How about using:
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
Who supports or opposes this change? -- IRP ☎ 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
In the style part, just wondering if background: #f9f9f9;
needs to be in there twice? Should the first one be removed? --
WOSlinker (
talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
<table class="fmbox">
<tr><td class="mbox-image">
<td class="mbox-text">
</table>
<table class="fmbox fmbox-system">
<tr><td class="mbox-image">
<td class="mbox-text">
</table>
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 47#Message box categories. Thanks. Dragons flight ( talk) 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
When making changes to this template please be sure to update its documentation. |
__NOINDEX__
or the expensive parserfunction limits, are also polluted from editnotices.
Happy‑
melon 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
If |id=
is not defined, then it renders as id=""
, which is invalid. For example: {{
editnotice}} uses {{
fmbox}}, therefore {{
editnotice central}} fails validation; see W3C markup validation for
Template:Editnotice central.
I made the id optional in {{ fmbox/sandbox}}, with testcase in Template:Fmbox/testcases; see W3C markup validation for Template:Fmbox/testcases.
The validation error for <ul>
is a known MediaWiki problem that has been fixed but not deployed. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Done -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to place this template to the right of my table of contents on a different wiki. Ombox can wrap to the right of the {{TOC_left}} table of contents, but Fmbox does not. How can I cause Fmbox to wrap around and appear on the right of it? Thanks! 99.138.128.2 ( talk) 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone change it to something like this?
This page has been protected to prevent editing.
Tariqmudallal ( talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made a request over at Template talk:Mbox about switching all of the {{ mbox}} family templates, plus the {{ category handler}} template, to use Lua modules. These templates have millions of transclusions, so I would appreciate comments and some more eyes on the code. Please let me know what you think over at the request page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I found that a template using class "fmbox" had bad word wrapping—breaks within a single word. (That template is {{ editnotice}}; browser any live edit notice for good examples.) I see that I can replicate this effect with the examples in the documentation here (by narrowing my browser window enough; and also by finding a random transclusion such as German proverbs—again, narrowing the window). As well as with my old monobook skin, it also occurs logged out in a different browser. This seems like a pretty big problem? Outriggr ( talk) 03:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
/* break words if they will overflow the content box */ .fmbox > tbody > tr > .mbox-text { word-break: break-all; /* break all, because it's a table-cell, that can grow if we use break-word */ }
Template:Fmbox is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit protected}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
I created this template since we now have a number of system messages that have this look. Keeping them up to date and in a unified look will be easier if they all use this meta-template. For instance, up until recently they had slight differences in their margins and padding which looked somewhat messy. Fixing that meant editing a number of MediaWiki messages. (And we haven't even fixed all of them yet.) Also, the system messages need to use full XHTML code since MediaWiki does not parse and convert HTML in system messages the same way as it does for normal pages. Thus having a central meta-template makes it easier to keep things correct and well documented.
Also, we now have the brand new editnotice system. Editnotices are header message boxes that are shown above the edit window when you edit a page. People are now making a lot of editnotices for a lot of pages. Currently there is a new template named {{ editnotice}} for making such header message boxes. However I think that box should use the same margins and padding and perhaps even the same colours as the other system messages. Thus I think that box should perhaps in turn call this box.
And this template uses the same parameters as the other mboxes such as {{ ambox}} and {{ ombox}}, which is an interface that now is well known to many users.
Some of the system messages that could use this template are MediaWiki:Sharedupload, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon and MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext.
Here is how some of them look when they use the {{ fmbox}}:
This is a file from the
Wikimedia Commons. The description on its
description page there is shown below. Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help. |
$1: Subpages · Edit and action count · Interiot · Edit summary usage · Images uploaded · Articles created · SUL accounts · Global contribs |
This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical
IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This template is for system messages that are either header or footer message boxes. Some users also have similar headers or footers on their user pages. Thus I called this box the "header and footer message box". The "correct" short name for this box then perhaps would be {{hfmbox}} or {{hmbox}}. But both those names are not very readable and hard to pronounce, so I choose the name {{fmbox}} as in "footer message box" or if you will "footer and header message box". Remember, many languages don't even have an "h" thus people from those parts of the world can not even pronounce an "h". And the boxes we make here at the English Wikipedia tend to be transwikied to many other languages.
I would like to hear any points of view on the name of this template.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We are still discussing the colours for the editnotices, but if we decide they should be transparent then I am thinking we should perhaps add a "type" parameter to this template so it easily can be used for editnotices. Just like the other mboxes do have different types that produce different colours. I am thinking of naming it like this:
{{fmbox | type = system / editnotice }}
That is, "type=editnotice" means transparent and "type=system" means the default system message colours. This is a slight breach with the tradition for the other mboxes to name the default style "type=notice". But I think in this case "type=system" is probably more clear. And besides, if anyone uses "type=notice" out of habit then the template will automatically fall back to the default "system" colours, which is the colours the user wanted.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the MediaWiki messages that use the {{ fmbox}}. That reminded me that fmbox needs an "id" parameter that can take a CSS id. Since CSS ids are often used in MediaWiki messages to tag them with the message's own name, to make it easy to detect the presence of the message from javascript. Since for javascript it is more efficient and simpler to detect a CSS id than to detect a CSS class. (But to allow individual skinning of a box it is better to use the "class" parameter.)
Since we refused to add such "id" and "class" parameters to the other mboxes I wanted to explain here before I do the addition.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Following on from this discussion, I think we should add a 'serious' type for important messages such as MediaWiki:Editingold and MediaWiki:Revision-info. These should use a standardised style to set a unified background colour and border. I recommend background:#FEE; border:2px solid #b22222;, the same styles as for the mbox 'speedy' series. However since this box doesn't seem to be following the conventions of the other xmbox type names, I don't feel any need to call the type 'speedy', etc. Thoughts? Happy‑ melon 08:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Example 1: "background: #FEE; border: 2px solid #b22222;", currently used in the "speedy" type for most mboxes. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 2: "background: #FFBDBD;", currently used in MediaWiki:Revision-info, MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and MediaWiki:Editingold. |
Example 3: "background: #FFD8D8;", currently used in MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning and MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning. |
Example 4: "background: #FFDBDB;", currently used for the "delete" and "speedy" background in the {{ cmbox}}. |
Example 5: "background: #FEE;", currently used for the "speedy" background in most mboxes. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 6: This is the {{ ombox}} delete style. |
Example 7: This is the {{ ombox}} delete border but with transparent background like the other editnotices. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 4: "background: #FFDBDB;", currently used for the "delete" and "speedy" background in the {{ cmbox}}. |
Example 8: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #B22222;", |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 9: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #BB7979;", "delete" and "speedy" background from the {{ cmbox}}, grey-red border from MediaWiki:Revision-info, MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and MediaWiki:Editingold. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 10: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #BB6060;", "delete" and "speedy" background from the {{ cmbox}}, slightly-lighter grey-red border. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Example 11: "background: #FFBDBD; border: 1px solid #BB7979;" already used in MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, MediaWiki:Revision-info, and MediaWiki:Editingold |
.mw-textarea-protected {background:#FFEEEE;}
applied, and that #FFEEEE may be something to consider. It might, however, be acceptable to make that an exception as the edit box colouring has to be particularly light for usability purposes. I myself override this setting anyway. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}} 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Example 11: "background: #FFBDBD; border: 1px solid #BB7979;" already used in MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, MediaWiki:Revision-info, and MediaWiki:Editingold |
Example 10: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #BB6060;", "delete" and "speedy" background from the {{ cmbox}}, slightly-lighter grey-red border. |
Example 9: "background: #FFDBDB; border: 1px solid #BB7979;", "delete" and "speedy" background from the {{ cmbox}}, grey-red border from MediaWiki:Revision-info, MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and MediaWiki:Editingold. |
Example 4: "background: #FFDBDB;", currently used for the "delete" and "speedy" background in the {{ cmbox}}. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
Note: This page has been
semi-protected so that only established users can edit it.
|
WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it. Please ensure that you are following the protection policy. |
For comparison, here is a plain editnotice that might appear under a warning notice. |
<hr style="color:#BB7070; background-color:#BB7070;">
if we really want an hr. I don't really mind either way; without might be simpler, though. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
log}} 00:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)I have taken a closer look at the warning messages that remains to be updated to use the fmbox warning style: MediaWiki:Revision-info, MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and MediaWiki:Editingold. I have come to some slightly unconventional conclusions how to handle them, so I want to explain here before I go ahead.
The first two of them probably can not call the {{
fmbox}} since it seems from their code that they are the kind of messages that MediaWiki doesn't parse properly. And all three of them currently use a <div> instead of a table to create their border. Since they are just simple 100% wide boxes (thus no box flow problems) and have no images (thus no padding problems), then they don't really need a table, they work just as well with a simple div.
And we have already added all the colours and padding needed to the "mw-warning-with-logexcerpt" class in
MediaWiki:Common.css to accommodate the div based
MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning,
MediaWiki:Semiprotectedpagewarning,
MediaWiki:Recreate-deleted-warn and
MediaWiki:Upload-wasdeleted. So I figured out that all we have to do is to add for instance "div.fmbox-warning,
" to the existing declaration of "mw-warning-with-logexcerpt", to turn it into this:
/* Pink fmbox warning style for div based warning notices. */
div.fmbox-warning,
div.mw-warning-with-logexcerpt {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
border: 1px solid #BB7070;
background: #FFDBDB;
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
}
That I prefix the "fmbox-warning" class name with "div" means that the declaration above will not interfere with the usage of the "table.fmbox-warning" class in tables. Since the div and table based warnings have the same looks and purpose I think we should use the same class name, even though that is a bit unconventional.
Then we can simply add class="fmbox-warning"
to the div tags in
MediaWiki:Revision-info,
MediaWiki:Revision-info-current and
MediaWiki:Editingold.
This only leaves the
MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning which currently uses {{fmbox|type=warning}}
. But like the rest of them we can just as well let that one use <div class="fmbox-warning">
instead. This perhaps means that we don't need the "type=warning" in the fmbox anymore, but let's leave the warning type in fmbox for now.
There are other ways to do this, but this seems to be the simplest and most efficient way to do it.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
fmbox-warning in Common.css
Re
this, I'm a little confused. Why would we have divs with the fmbox-warning class? We have messages created using {{
fmbox}}
, which uses a table, and we have messages that are already wrapped inside divs, which we explicitly name and style. I'm not aware of any messages that are wrapped in divs that we can assign classes to, without being able to use fmbox; can you give examples? Even if div.fmbox-warning is needed, is there any reason not to have table.fmbox-warning too? I'm not really sure why all the mbox styles have the table.
prefix anyway: is there a reason for that high specificity?
Happy‑
melon 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
fmbox}}
, isn't actually used in {{
fmbox}}
: even though the two classes have the same name, they don't correspond. That to me is Wrong. Either the styles in common.css should also apply to the table produced by {{
fmbox}}
(which you say is not possible), or the two classes shoudn't have the same name. But then we're creating a completely different structure, when we don't even need it (since we can just use {{
fmbox}}
on such system messages). Throw in the complication with finding such boxes - your search example isn't actually picking up the instances we know to be there, and regardless it's not pretty to have to look in two separate places to find all uses - and it becomes rather difficult to argue for its retention, IMO.{{
fmbox}}
, we have no need for that line in common.css. Although as you note, we need the styles anyway for the other things we style the same way, I don't see a particular problem with having the styles both in common.css and fmbox, as long as they are obviously different. Right now, it looks like {{
fmbox}}
should be using the common.css styles like all the other mboxes, but isn't by accident, so you get silly admins trying to fix it so it does :D. If we have to have some warnings produced by hardcoded styles in {{
fmbox}}
, and some warnings styled by code in common.css, which we do, it saves much confusion all round if they at least look like different structures.{{
fmbox}}
, and remove it from common.css to avoid confusion.
Happy‑
melon 15:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC){{
fmbox}}
and be happy and content. It's the people who know what they're seeing, and know the difference, that are the problem, they're the ones who are confident enough in their own knowledge to "know" when something is broken and try to fix it. A little knowledge is dangerous. Yes, I now know what's going on, but there are plenty of other admins who know just enough about the mbox system to spot a deviation ("error") and be tempted to fix it. Having exactly one mbox declaration not only different to all the others, but fulfilling a completely different purpose that actually has nothing to do with the mbox templates, is just asking for trouble. On the other hand, while we have indeed had our fair share of Twinkle users fixing system messages that use fmbox, we have exactly no edits to
Template:Fmbox itself for that purpose, despite it being significantly more widely used than the div format. While you're right about the bull-in-a-china-shop approach that's often employed, I don't think that admins being rash with {{
fmbox}}
is a legitimate concern. It would be sensible to document the fact that correct XHTML should be used in system messages, perhaps in the namespace editnotice, and the particular bug with wikilists that affects fmbox should be documented on fmbox/doc. But I think moving system messages to use fmbox rather than div.fmbox-warning is a step to remove a point of confusion, not to create one.I just noticed that the devs have now added a thing I waited for in the MediaWiki page rendering. I can now make the MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning work the same as our MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning message. That is, I can now surround both the cascadeprotectedwarning message and the list of links below it with a single pink box, with a horizontal line between. Instead of as now that the list of links below ending up outside the pink box.
To see what I mean: If you are an admin click the edit tab on for instance {{ cmbox}} and see the two pink warning messages you get at the top of the editing page. (If you are not an admin: Well, these messages are only visible for admins anyway, to remind us to be careful when we edit protected pages.)
To fix this I will add one line of code to MediaWiki:Common.css. I will change this code:
/* Pink fmbox warning style for div based warning notices. */
div.fmbox-warning,
div.mw-warning-with-logexcerpt {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
border: 1px solid #BB7070;
background: #FFDBDB;
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
}
To this:
/* Pink fmbox warning style for div based warning notices. */
div.fmbox-warning,
div.mw-warning-with-logexcerpt,
div.mw-cascadeprotectedwarning {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
border: 1px solid #BB7070;
background: #FFDBDB;
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
}
And I will remove the pink box from within the MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning message and add a pink horizontal ruler instead.
I will do this some day from now, when I am not as tired as now. (Don't edit system files when you are sleepy...)
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Should
these templates be covered by the {{
fmbox}}? They look pretty much the same and are placed at the bottom of articles. The smaller size could be achieved with something similar to {{
tmbox}}'s small parameter. --
Blooper
(Talk)
21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
{{ombox|small=yes}}
. Yes, the {{
ombox}} already has the code for that! Of course, we must first check if the sister project boxes have some special needs. If so, then we can perhaps add support for those needs in the ombox. This might end up being a little odd, since that would mean we would be using the "other pages message box meta-template" (ombox) in article space. But if the ombox already has the styles and code for it, then why should we upgrade the {{
ambox}} to do it? Besides, some sister project boxes are used on category and other pages.--
Blooper
(Talk)
00:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)I'd actually oppose even using the ombox for those boxes, for one reason: semantic purity. One of the best parts of our regime of standardization is that each style is well-defined. All amboxes are for temporary messages on articles, whether for cleanup, deletion warnings, dispute tags, or mere notices. All tmboxes are designed for messages on talk pages, and all cmboxes are designed for messages on category pages. If we start using omboxes, which are for "other" namespaces, in the main namespace, we lose that semantic benefit. I'd advocate instead making a new meta-template for those boxes on a lower level than the main message boxes, particularly as those boxes aren't the typical messages that the *mbox series of meta-templates is meant to handle. {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
--
Blooper
(Talk)
15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
!important
" keyword to style the boxes if they want. As I see it we only need to move styles to MediaWiki:Common.css when a box should be styled in other skins, or if we need to use the classes to hand-build special boxes instead of calling the meta-template.--
Blooper
(Talk)
05:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)--
Blooper
(Talk)
06:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)I notice that these two declarations in
MediaWiki:Common.css are in fact identical. Should we perhaps unify them? The background is that I am considering how to update templates like {{
commons}}
, which currently use a rather awkward set of nested divs. I was tempted to use the ombox-small classes as the appearance is very similar but I would prefer to avoid using styles in the mainspace that are really intended for use outside. However, the "ombox-small" class declaration actually only contains positioning information, so if we renamed this to "mbox-small" it becomes namespace-independent and hence acceptable to use in any namespace for a clean right-floating small box, to be manually styled as necessary. I don't think we need feel obliged to implement the complicated |small=yes
functionality in other mbox templates as a result. Thoughts?
Also, although I do have reservations, do you think a symmetrical "mbox-small-left" style would be a good idea? Happy‑ melon 11:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
table.tmbox-small,
table.ombox-small { /* For the "small=yes" option */
clear: right;
float: right;
margin: 4px 0 4px 1em;
width: 238px;
font-size: 88%;
line-height: 1.25em;
}
table.mbox-small { /* For the "small=yes" option */
clear: right;
float: right;
margin: 4px 0 4px 1em;
width: 238px;
font-size: 88%;
line-height: 1.25em;
}
table.ombox{}
and table.tmbox{}
declarations in MediaWiki:Common.css, since the small class overrides them. (Unless we increase their specificity, which usually is messy and causes problems in the future.) But if they have the name "mbox-small" it will be tempting for less CSS skilled admins to "clean up" the code in MediaWiki:Common.css by moving the "mbox-small" class to the top section where the other "mbox-*" classes are, which will break things. And I think it will be hard for those admins to figure out why things broke.table.ombox{}
declaration, since the "mbox-small" class does not contain all things a box needs. But as I wrote in the previous section above: "It seems the sister project boxes perhaps don't need CSS code in
MediaWiki:Common.css, since they only have one style and as far as I know they are not being styled in the other skins. So if we do as we have learnt now to just add the class names in the template code, together with hard-coded styles, then users can simply use the "!important
" keyword to style the boxes if they want.".mediawiki table.tmbox-small {...}
be sufficient to make the -small declaration 'win' over "tmbox"/"ombox"? The "mediawiki" class is present in all namespaces, skins, and installations, so should be fully portable to all sites using standard MediaWiki, and of course, it's not possible to put tables outside the "mediawiki" declaration on each page, since it's applied to the HTML body. That would enable us to place it wherever we like in the Common.css without its location being important. Am I incorrect in that thought?{{
commons}}
. As the "mbox-small" declaration posesses only positioning attributes, you're right, DG, that the 'presentation' attributes (background, border, text styles, etc) would have to be applied separately. "sisterproject" is actually already styled in Common.css, so we could maybe justify expanding that (it would only be a couple of lines) but a meta-template would probably be more defensible, as noted above. The important point from this particular thread is that having a generic class for "make a small right-floating box that doesn't make a mess of everything" would have innumerable uses in all namespaces..mediawiki table.tmbox-small,
.mediawiki table.ombox-small,
.mediawiki table.mbox-small { /* For the "small=yes" option (also used elsewhere). */
clear: right; /* The "mediawiki" class ensures that this declaration */
float: right; /* overrides styles set in "tmbox"/"ombox"/etc below */
margin: 4px 0 4px 1em;
width: 238px;
font-size: 88%;
line-height: 1.25em;
}
Currently the only class in fmbox that is styled with CSS is the fmbox-warning class. Should we, in the interests of consistency with the other mbox templates (and code clarity in fmbox itself) put the other bits of styling from this template into Common.css? Happy‑ melon 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
!important
keyword./* For div based pink warning notices, like the fmbox warning style.
The "div.fmbox-warning" is for hardcoded messages using <div> tags. */
div.fmbox-warning,
div.mw-warning-with-logexcerpt,
div.mw-cascadeprotectedwarning {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
border: 1px solid #bb7070;
background: #ffdbdb;
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
color: #000; /* Fixes the text color in some messages. */
}
/* Footer and header message box styles */
table.fmbox {
clear: both;
margin: 0.2em 0;
width: 100%;
border: 1px solid #aaa;
background: #f9f9f9; /* Default "system" gray */
}
table.fmbox-system {
background: #f9f9f9;
}
table.fmbox-warning {
border: 1px solid #bb7070; /* Dark pink */
background: #ffdbdb; /* Pink */
}
table.fmbox-editnotice {
background: transparent;
}
{{
Editprotected}}
Click here to see my requested edit. I am requesting that this edit be made to allow a custom box type to be used. -- IRP ☎ 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have undone this edit. There is no need to specify a custom class, as you can use the |style=
parameter equally well to set a custom appearance with the 'standard' fmbox-system
class. There are actually no CSS style rules associated with that class, so it is completely identical to the proposed fmbox-custom
in all but name. The addition was completely unnecessary.
Happy‑
melon 09:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
!important
keyword since fmbox still uses hard coded styles. See
WP:DECACHE for more about how to use the !important
keyword.I made this request in order for this other request to work, and here's why. -- IRP ☎ 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
{{fmbox |id = talkpagetext |type = editnotice |image = none |style = background:#F8EABA; border:1px solid darkyellow; |text = This is a '''[[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk page]]'''. Please respect the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page guidelines]], and remember to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] by typing four tildes (<code>~~~~</code>). }}
| style = background: #F8EABA; border: 1px solid #C0C090;
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
Warning: You are editing a MediaWiki page, which is used to provide interface text for the software. Changes to this page will affect the appearance of the user interface for other users. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page and/or Wikipedia:Village pump. Any pages or images transcluded here should be protected. |
&action=edit
rather than by going to some
Special:EditPage/Foo, like
Special:MovePage/Foo. Perhaps at some point that transition will be made, it makes things much easier for a whole host of reasons (search engine indexing, for instance, and caching). My point is that it's confusing and not entirely semantically correct to think of the edit screen as being 'part of' the page itself; it is a distinctly separate interface. For instance, you can edit an old version of a page through the same interface; if it was a version from before the page was moved, you could even be looking at a page 'from' a different namespace. If there's been a history merge, it gets even more confusing. The edit screen is distinctly separate from the page itself; while we see notices and information on the edit screen about the page we're editing, we are not actually in that page. As such, I think it is important to have a completely distinct set of styles for system messages that could be shown on the edit screen. The 'arms race' argument that DG raises is also valid; by keeping a simple set of unobtrusive colours, we avoid people taking more drastic measures: if editors find the fmbox styles glaring and intrusive, they might be tempted to simply hide all fmboxes in their personal CSS, which would be completely counterproductive.That's just it. The more you standardize the medium, the more likely people are to ignore the message. I know my mind has been tuning out everything that looks like this for a very long time now. — CharlotteWebb 18:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
{{tmbox|type=content}}
, which looks like this:Attention
Talk pages in this
namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the
Help desk or the
village pump for a more prompt response. |
{{fmbox|type=warning|image=none}}
, which looks like this:Attention
Talk pages in this
namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the
Help desk or the
village pump for a more prompt response. |
Attention: Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the Help desk or the village pump for a more prompt response. |
I am requesting that the notice box on regular talk pages should look like:
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
Who supports or opposes this change? -- IRP ☎ 04:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
How about using:
This is a
talk page. Please respect the
talk page guidelines, and remember to
sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~ ). |
Who supports or opposes this change? -- IRP ☎ 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
In the style part, just wondering if background: #f9f9f9;
needs to be in there twice? Should the first one be removed? --
WOSlinker (
talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
<table class="fmbox">
<tr><td class="mbox-image">
<td class="mbox-text">
</table>
<table class="fmbox fmbox-system">
<tr><td class="mbox-image">
<td class="mbox-text">
</table>
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 47#Message box categories. Thanks. Dragons flight ( talk) 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
When making changes to this template please be sure to update its documentation. |
__NOINDEX__
or the expensive parserfunction limits, are also polluted from editnotices.
Happy‑
melon 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
If |id=
is not defined, then it renders as id=""
, which is invalid. For example: {{
editnotice}} uses {{
fmbox}}, therefore {{
editnotice central}} fails validation; see W3C markup validation for
Template:Editnotice central.
I made the id optional in {{ fmbox/sandbox}}, with testcase in Template:Fmbox/testcases; see W3C markup validation for Template:Fmbox/testcases.
The validation error for <ul>
is a known MediaWiki problem that has been fixed but not deployed. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Done -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to place this template to the right of my table of contents on a different wiki. Ombox can wrap to the right of the {{TOC_left}} table of contents, but Fmbox does not. How can I cause Fmbox to wrap around and appear on the right of it? Thanks! 99.138.128.2 ( talk) 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone change it to something like this?
This page has been protected to prevent editing.
Tariqmudallal ( talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made a request over at Template talk:Mbox about switching all of the {{ mbox}} family templates, plus the {{ category handler}} template, to use Lua modules. These templates have millions of transclusions, so I would appreciate comments and some more eyes on the code. Please let me know what you think over at the request page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I found that a template using class "fmbox" had bad word wrapping—breaks within a single word. (That template is {{ editnotice}}; browser any live edit notice for good examples.) I see that I can replicate this effect with the examples in the documentation here (by narrowing my browser window enough; and also by finding a random transclusion such as German proverbs—again, narrowing the window). As well as with my old monobook skin, it also occurs logged out in a different browser. This seems like a pretty big problem? Outriggr ( talk) 03:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
/* break words if they will overflow the content box */ .fmbox > tbody > tr > .mbox-text { word-break: break-all; /* break all, because it's a table-cell, that can grow if we use break-word */ }