Details of template usage and location can be found on Wowpedia:Manual of Style#Article message boxes.

"We're not wikipedia"

And on that note, this template is not used in the same way as wikipedia and does not need to meet the same requirements. So, i've rewritten it to meet WoWWiki's needs here, comments and abuse plx.

Main changes:

  • Converted to a <div/> based design and in the process fixed poor styling pratices (if i see another border/padding/margin definition on a percentage width container i'll kill someone).
  • Changed to 95% width as after reading the background of this template on wikipedia, the reasoning for the width was to create an illusion of fixing a problem that we will never have (based on existing usage guidelines).
  • Removal of orange colour in the transition of changing types instead of colours as it's under used and had no clear usage (seriously though, the current abuse and confusion over what colour to use is creating some nasty and inconsistant templates *glares at Kirkburn*).
  • Forced images to always be 48px x 48px. Get some consistancy going here plx, we can make new icons if we need them, it's about time they were standardised properly.


  11:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look right at all. EDIT: Ah, you should probably mention that it requires ambox.css here too. --Pcj (TC) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if that design is a joke, but from what I can see ... it's bad. Edit 1: Need to add the CSS I guess. Edit 2: Nope, still don't like it. Icon not vertically centered, lack of border doesn't separate out content well, and lack of colour doesn't show important/intention of the template at a glance.
  • What is wrong with border/padding/margin? If it's consistent within a single browser, who the hell cares?
  • Amboxes are not article content. Headings are bad.
  • They are not supposed to be huge. Looking at your design on monobook and Fx2, it takes up over a third of my page on a 1280x1024 monitor!
  • Colour purposes are defined both on here and on WP:MOS. I don't know what planet you're on, but I converted all the ambox templates, so I know what colour was used where. Orange is default just because it's common. Blue might be a good idea to switch to now, as it's the most likely to be used.
  • Forcing images as square is needless and the MoS already states 60px as a max width.
We're not Wikipedia, yes. Stop using that to say "we shouldn't do this". We have an ability to make up our own minds, not let Wikipedia's choices determine what we shouldn't do. How is it 'not used in the same way'? Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Do i sense anger, from you? :o
  • Don't know what planet you are on, but there the border is there. The only things display wise that differe from the old one is margin and padding differences around the elements inside it, which i believe are more consistant and appealing now (the off center and lack of collapsble margins looked rather ugly imo).
  • Once again, don't know what planet you are on, but there is borders, margins and padding on it that display consistantly with all browsers. If that was in response to my complaint about poor styling practices, then you missed the point entirely. Ambox atm is 80%+border+padding+margin, not 80%, you should know that. Thus it will cause issues once you go below a certain size. That's why a decent designer would never put them on the same element (no, i'm not trying to insult you here, but i am disapointed that you left that issue in).
  • I can vertically center the icon if you wish, but doing so would create an Ambox that degrades as poorly as a table does. It's not a needed feature worth sacrificing for, so i went with the more accessible design.
  • Looking back on it, the choice of

    is a bad one, i miss understood the intent of that part. You're right, and i'll be changing that, though "not article content" has nothing to do with it, so no idea why you brought that up.
  • The Ambox is designed to sit on line by itself on, both on WW and WP. Thus width makes no difference, and as i said, the reason they went lower was because they planned to allow other things to sit to the right of it, which we do not, as stated by yourself (This is where it is "not used in the same way" came from). If readability is your concern, then fair enough, but in that case limiting the content div's width is the key here, to ensure line length are always readable (right now even the existing template fails to meet this need). Sadly because Monobook is flawed, as i pointed out plenty of times before, this will also break the wiki's layout. This is why i asked for feedback. I'm not trying to force what i want here, this is open to discussion. If you want 80% for whatever reason, then do it.
  • I stand by my choices of colour, the intent is not clear, and i looked through the ones you have done and they may as well be rainbow coloured as their meaning has been lost and has too much crossover. Confused as to what you meant by "Orange is default just because it's common" though :S
  • Needless? So apparently you don't want consistancy, which is what the point of the template was.. nice. I'll add knowing the size would also be a requirement for vertical alignment of the image outside the context of a table.
I was not using it to say we shouldn't do something, i'm using it to say we should take a look at changing it to suit our needs. Yes we can make up our own minds, yes WP's decisions shouldn't dicate ours. So this is why i'm providing an alternate which has gone through changes to meet WW's needs only. Right now, we have a template pulled directly from WP, which you've not had feedback on, so the chance to make up our own minds wasn't there, and you've not considered changes to it and let WP's needs dictate it's design, just because it works for WP. So why are you being defense about a push to inact your own rule?
Since when did proposal for a change turn into such a bashing from admins? Or do you seem to think because it's me i won't compramise? I suggest what i think is best, do with that what you will, i have no expectations or illusions of being dictator for WW. -_- --   06:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is how you present ideas. Starting off by misrepresenting one of my quotes is hardly a good start...
borders: seriously though, the current abuse and confusion over what colour to use is creating some nasty and inconsistant templates *glares at Kirkburn*
This is why I mentioned border colours. That's plainly not true, and quite accusational. That is also the only reason I mentioned planet of residence.
h2: "not article content" has nothing to do with it
Yes it does. If you used h2 headings, it would appear in the table of contents, which shows article content.
margin, etc: there is borders, margins and padding on it that display consistantly with all browsers
And my comment was not a dig at your design, it was saying that so long as it displays consistently within each browser, there is very little to worry about. I also tested these templates at many resolutions when designing them, and found no problems. I also requested them checked in IE6, and again, no problems. In any case, the only inconsistency I know of it that IE does not respect border collapse.
As for the lack of borders, I have one section in User:Kirkburn/monobook.css, repeated in User:Kirkburn/wowwiki.css, and one in User:Kirkburn/common.css, and am viewing this on Fx2 on both skins - it doesn't seem to work. Perhaps showing a test case with inline CSS will help for those who really don't want to spend time setting up various CSS files?
Bashing from admins
I'm the only admin here, and I'm expressing my displeasure with how the template looks at the moment. You did say comments and abuse plx. :)
Monobook won't be changing to accommodate any problems, so it has to work within how the wiki looks right now. Kirkburn  talk  contr 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't misrepresented, you simply assumed.
  • I still stand by what i said about the colours, though i'm sorry if the glare was taken the wrong way, was honestly only in jest.
  • I knew you'd come back with that, and i should have clarified in reply. <h2>'s can avoid being picked up by the ToC if needed, though mroe to the point it's a flaw in the wiki's design with including all headers in the toc by default, instead of only those with a certain class, and would have been right to use if a header was the intended result (which it wasn't).
  • I'd think you'd you realise by now i test things far more vigoriously than most. The WP's design does have it's problems, and solved those that could be.
  • As to the issue with css, i'll test it out tomorrow, but i highly doubt it's something wrong with the css i provided. more likely a rouge class in your user css or in the wiki's css (i can't stress enough the importance of ensuring all selectors for classes are kept in context, eg. div.ambox div.image instead of .ambox or .image which could be anywhere and conflict with other uses. There are tons of these in the css files atm, and i had to avoid using certain class names because of it or redefine a second time.)
  • When i used admins in the plural, i was simply generalizing, even though you are the admin i was refering to ;) It honestly seemed you were being rather defensive, dismissive and holding some sort of resentment towards me beyond simply expressing your opinions for feedback.
Anyway, i'm not asking monobook to change (though i think it should ofc), just pointing out how the current template and if i made the changes i pointed out to mine so that it behaved the same way, would break the monobook skin (as oh so many things can, far too easily). --   19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Misunderstandings are fun :) Using headers would still place the notifications as article content. Imagine how it looks with CSS disabled - they would show as article headings. I still don't understand the colour problem. Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A header does not = article content, where are you getting that idea from? A header is simply a header, as much as a table is a table. It's context is not implied. Without CSS they will be above the article and exclusion from the toc is done without CSS, it's attribute based. If you want a clearer indication it's not part of the artlce (which even the current one doesn't have) then you need to consider default styling, something like a <hr/> perhaps. Anyway, getting off topic here.
WP's design simply had too many, and from looking over all the templates using ambox, their meaning becomes lost because there is alot of cross over and exceptions. Orange was the biggest culprit, as it's been turned into a "special case" rather than fitting in with meanings of the rest. I removed it and redefined them (i've added some explanation for each now if it helps), in hope the meanings aren't as lost anymore and are consistant with current and future templates using it so you're not left guessing what colour something should be. --   06:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed CSS. There was a missing semi-colon in the version i provided. --   07:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambox colors and their meaning

Hi there. It doesn't seem good to me that stub tags are orange-colored (attention, attention!) while other info tags (e.g. {{Removedfromgame}}) are simply blue and just vanish among the hyperlinks.



Other proposals are welcome.

Please comment, I'd like to know your opinion. --Петър Петров (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think they are just fine as they are. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)