Template talk:Scrollbox

Ugly or not?

I've created this to show a possibility for something we could do. Personally I think it's a little ugly, but maybe it has its uses. violet/riga (t) 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool! Yet, it's interactive, and I can't really think of a use for it in the article space that would still work when printed? — Matt Crypto 12:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a way to make this template printable without getting admins to make edits to the common css for the site, which seems unlikely to happen. In the meantime, please avoid use of this template in Main namespace, as has apparently been done to this point. MrZaius^talk 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overflow:*

"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: overflowCOLONautoSEMICOLONheightCOLON" - Blocking edits of at least one template, at Template:Scrollbox. Note: I ran into the same blacklist warning when pasting this text here. Common sense would dictate you not allow the blocker to monitor edits to this page. MrZaius^talk 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:This can't be whitelisted because it isn't blacklisted, it's coded in the Mediawiki software. The purpose of doing this was to prevent spam which created a large character or block on the user's screen - typically transparent & covering most of the article - so any click on the page would take you to the remote site. --Versageek 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::Is it possible to somehow allow the change on the template affected? ~~If not, should we put it up for deletion? Doesn't seem to be used, outside of a handful of talk pages.~~ - N/m can redirect to Template:Scroll box if it can't be fixed. Will discuss at the affected template. MrZaius^talk 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is from the spamblock whitelist page. It looks like it is no longer possible to make changes to this template without completely rewriting it. The job's already been done for us, however, at Template:Scroll box. Any objection to just redirecting this template there, or should we leave things as is? MrZaius^talk 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, redirected to maintainable template. MrZaius^talk 06:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]