Template talk:Subpages7: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Stephen Ewen
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 107: Line 107:
:One of my problems with this format is the fading out (or blanking) of unused tabs gives a lot of dead space. The extensible format is far superior in this sense. Nevertheless, a fading out option might be useful on the talk page as an indicator to authors for which subpages might be started and developed. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 11:10, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
:One of my problems with this format is the fading out (or blanking) of unused tabs gives a lot of dead space. The extensible format is far superior in this sense. Nevertheless, a fading out option might be useful on the talk page as an indicator to authors for which subpages might be started and developed. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 11:10, 10 July 2007 (CDT)


::Do I need help?  Sure, [[Template:Subpages]] could be slickified too!  :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:19, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
:::Sure, I can do that, I actually thought it looked pretty good.  I'll try and work in some improvements, incorporating some of the ideas developed here. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 12:22, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Larry, the forums very clearly indicate lack of support for the right-side model, and the tabs in this instance are certainly extensible. Also, the link for "What are subpages?" is not really needed.  What each tab leads to is self-explanatory.  —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 11:44, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Larry, the forums very clearly indicate lack of support for the right-side model, and the tabs in this instance are certainly extensible. Also, the link for "What are subpages?" is not really needed.  What each tab leads to is self-explanatory.  —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 11:44, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Stephen, I disagree: on the forums, I see mere interest in pursuing both ideas, particularly because you've been spending so much time developing your idea.  Since I've already made it clear on what grounds I've put my template on the right side, and the template itself is functionally (if not aesthetically) more or less finished, there isn't that much more to say about it.  A few people have supported your idea.  Others support mine, or haven't made up their minds.  I still strongly support the right side version, for the reasons I've stated.  I just don't see anything wrong with having pictures on the upper left, and I think it's important that we balance links that are already extremely dense both on the left and on the top of the page--an important point you have not yet addressed, as far as I can tell.  Besides, forums don't represent the community's opinion, because only a relative minority of participants contribute to any one discussion there. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:19, 10 July 2007 (CDT)


:Would an RFC be appropriate?--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:48, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
:Would an RFC be appropriate?--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:48, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
We have no RFCs--[[CZ:we aren't Wikipedia|we aren't Wikipedia]].  This is more of an aesthetic issue, and so we might take a general community vote on the wiki.  But probably the "official" way to make a decision is to put it to a vote of the Editorial Council. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:19, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
:Just out of interest, what are the maximum number of tabs that are likely to be required for any infoset? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 12:20, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Likely?  I don't know.  It's hard to tell at this point.  All I can tell is that it will be variable, from three or four up to perhaps a few dozen (for "Biology," for example).  This is another powerful argument for the right-side feature.  Arraying *very many* subpage links vertically makes them a lot more readable than if they're in several horizontal rows.  The latter is just going to look, I don't know, amateurish.  See [http://www.eol.org/vision/mushroom_expert.html]  I'm OK with that: picture in upper left.  But lists of links don't belong horizontally, unless they're a few "tabs." --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
:Oh man, if we looked like that!--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:46, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
::Oh, I have to agree.  Is that based on Mediawiki?  Simplicity in presentation does not have to mean plainness.  The EOL example is simply ''very'' sharp.  It does away with the links on every page along the left.  The tabs do look nice.  Another idea I have is to make them scrollable, left to right--just like you can set your browser to display.  Site layout is very probably the easiest task to get volunteer coders for--it is very intrinsically rewarding and fun.   —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 12:57, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Also, to clarify my point about extensibility: we will have an indefinite number of subpage types.  Since some might be unique to relatively narrow subfields, there might be potentially hundreds of different types.  We aren't going to list them all, on the mistaken assumption that they'll all eventually be filled in.  They won't, because some subpage types are inappropriate for certain topics.  (I'm not sure there will ever be a gallery for "a priori knowledge.")  The four--count 'em, exactly four, right now--subpage types that are displayed by default are types that I think ''all'' articles could have.
So, the point is, any template should ideally do two things:
# Expand and contract with the actual subpages associated with a page.
# Give users an easy way to add new subpages.  This should probably be a drop-down box of all unused subpages, or with used subpages greyed out.
I'm sure there's a way to do #1 horizontally--well, I know there is.  Simply make the links to the subpages graphics (which are displayed only if a subpage exists), and then line 'em up in a single cell in a single table.  If the graphics are all the same size, the result should look all right (modulo the above difficulties however). --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:59, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
P.S. further on #2: if we had that "expand-a-table" feature set up, we could hide unused subpage links there.  Re getting the "expand-a-table" feature set up, I would be very happy if someone were to take that ball and run with it. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:02, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
== Removing definition subpages ==
I've removed the link to definition subpages from [[Template:Subpages]].  See http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1073.0.html --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:38, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 21:38, 10 July 2007

Colors

Fixed to gray, wiki doesn't like #xxx shorthand. User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Strange it does not like the shorthand, it works fine in my browser (here we go again!) Chris Day (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Also, what I couldn't figure out is how to change the background color of the tab if that particular subpage doesn't exist, and disable the wikilink.--Robert W King 16:19, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
If you use the code used in the other subpages the text will disappear. That might be enough. Will think about if the colours can be changed using an if statement, it should be possible. Chris Day (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

This looks very sharp!  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:28, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Not sure if there is a reason to make the background light gray (#f9f9f9) bit I made it plain white (#ffffff) to make it invisible. Not sure if there was a reason for making it gray I don't know about, though.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:03, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
It depends on the skin that is used. And I borrowed the template but had not bothered to fine tune until i had the tabs in place. Is this the sort of thing you are interested in? Chris Day (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
I agree with Stephen. This is A-Class work!--Robert W King 23:56, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Active tabs

If you want to see where i am heading with the recent edits go to Anthropology/Links and toggle between Related articles/Bibliography/External Links. Chris Day (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

That is very sharp! Meanwhile, I am trying to figure out where/how in Mediawiki it might be placed as in this example, for all articles by default, i.e., just below the title and above the line. I am again in over my head, of course, but I think the thing that controls the placement of the title into the article is in includes\Article.php.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:07, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
You're on your own there I do not know how to solve that problem. I just figured out how to have the optional tabs a much lighter shade than the active tags. This will be helpful so as not to distract readers to non existant subpages. On the other hand it may encourage people to create the missing subpages. Obviously we can work out the shape, size and colour of these elements once we have the guts of the template worked out. Chris Day (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
He-he, of course, I may find the thing that controls it only to find templates don't work there. :-|  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
It would not surprise me, that's life.
Alright, i'm done here for now. You and Robert can play with it some more. I have not really trouble shot this thing at all so there may be problems. For example it will probably not work on the draft pages. The definition button in anthropology does not get darker, could be due to the transclusion of the template on that page? Have fun. Chris Day (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I did find a template that changes the title, and it works; I found it on the French Wikipedia so did a very brief test there. Problem is, table templates did not work inside the template, text-only templates did. It may just be a template issue, the French template is here, a somewhat similar English one here. The "guts" I could decipher are at {{Selfref}} and {{Title}}.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:43, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Wait, are you saying that the tab table template we created can't go in the title? Isn't the title in a div or an existing table? --Robert W King 09:13, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I know it can go up there, I just have not yet figured out how.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 10:14, 10 July 2007 (CDT) 

</head>
<body  class="mediawiki ns-0 ltr">
   <div id="globalWrapper">
   <div id="column-content">
   <div id="content">
   <a name="top" id="top"></a>
  <div id="siteNotice"><!-- Bad Behavior 2.0.10 run time: 19.201 ms -->
  <p><b>The world needs a better free encyclopedia.  
...(removed header stuff)...</p></div>
	<h1 class="firstHeading">Anthropology</h1>
	<div id="bodyContent">
	<h3 id="siteSub">From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium</h3>
	<div id="contentSub"></div>

The "h1 class="firstHeading" is the title. where the div id="bodyContent"/div id="contentSub" starts, that's where the article begins. 

<div id="jump-to-nav">Jump to: 
<a href="#column-one">navigation</a>, 
<a href="#searchInput">search</a></div>
		<!-- start content -->

So somewhere in this script has to go the tabbed header, maybe not as a template but as the actual code. --Robert W King 09:53, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

This might be an incompatability with CZ similar to the collapsible boxes not working. Stephen's {{Title}} template should work as the appropriate scripts do appear to be in the MediaWiki:Common.js. Possibly get Zach on to it? Chris Day (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Ignore

The following code block is a style sheet implementation for boxes with rounded corners without javascript or graphic/images. I just don't know how to implement it on the wiki. --Robert W King 10:35, 10 July 2007 (CDT) 

<style type="text/css">
body{padding: 20px;background-color: #FFF;}
p{margin: 0 10px}
p{padding-bottom:1em}
div#nifty{ margin: 0 10%;background: #9BD1FA}
b.rtop, b.rbottom{display:block;background: #FFF}
b.rtop b, b.rbottom b{display:block;height: 1px;
    overflow: hidden; background: #9BD1FA}
b.r1{margin: 0 5px}
b.r2{margin: 0 3px}
b.r3{margin: 0 2px}
b.rtop b.r4, b.rbottom b.r4{margin: 0 1px;height: 2px}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="nifty">
<b class="rtop">
<b class="r1"></b>
<b class="r2"></b>
<b class="r3"></b>
<b class="r4"></b>
</b>
Nifty Corners
Rounded corners without images
<b class="rbottom">
<b class="r4"></b>
<b class="r3"></b>
<b class="r2"></b>
<b class="r1"></b>
</b>
</div>

Expanding list of subpage types

Please bear in mind that it is very likely that we will have an expanding list of subpage types. In short, whatever template we use must be extensible.

I sure would appreciate your help with the template we will probably use, namely, Template:Subpages! --Larry Sanger 10:58, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Sure, but does it need help? I might add that despite edits to this template I do favor the extensible format (as I have said in the forums). However, it is good to get this template to a point where it can be fairly assessed.
One of my problems with this format is the fading out (or blanking) of unused tabs gives a lot of dead space. The extensible format is far superior in this sense. Nevertheless, a fading out option might be useful on the talk page as an indicator to authors for which subpages might be started and developed. Chris Day (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Do I need help? Sure, Template:Subpages could be slickified too!  :-) --Larry Sanger 12:19, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Sure, I can do that, I actually thought it looked pretty good. I'll try and work in some improvements, incorporating some of the ideas developed here. Chris Day (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Larry, the forums very clearly indicate lack of support for the right-side model, and the tabs in this instance are certainly extensible. Also, the link for "What are subpages?" is not really needed. What each tab leads to is self-explanatory.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 11:44, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Stephen, I disagree: on the forums, I see mere interest in pursuing both ideas, particularly because you've been spending so much time developing your idea. Since I've already made it clear on what grounds I've put my template on the right side, and the template itself is functionally (if not aesthetically) more or less finished, there isn't that much more to say about it. A few people have supported your idea. Others support mine, or haven't made up their minds. I still strongly support the right side version, for the reasons I've stated. I just don't see anything wrong with having pictures on the upper left, and I think it's important that we balance links that are already extremely dense both on the left and on the top of the page--an important point you have not yet addressed, as far as I can tell. Besides, forums don't represent the community's opinion, because only a relative minority of participants contribute to any one discussion there. --Larry Sanger 12:19, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Would an RFC be appropriate?--Robert W King 11:48, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

We have no RFCs--we aren't Wikipedia. This is more of an aesthetic issue, and so we might take a general community vote on the wiki. But probably the "official" way to make a decision is to put it to a vote of the Editorial Council. --Larry Sanger 12:19, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Just out of interest, what are the maximum number of tabs that are likely to be required for any infoset? Chris Day (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Likely? I don't know. It's hard to tell at this point. All I can tell is that it will be variable, from three or four up to perhaps a few dozen (for "Biology," for example). This is another powerful argument for the right-side feature. Arraying *very many* subpage links vertically makes them a lot more readable than if they're in several horizontal rows. The latter is just going to look, I don't know, amateurish. See [1] I'm OK with that: picture in upper left. But lists of links don't belong horizontally, unless they're a few "tabs." --Larry Sanger 12:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh man, if we looked like that!--Robert W King 12:46, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Oh, I have to agree. Is that based on Mediawiki? Simplicity in presentation does not have to mean plainness. The EOL example is simply very sharp. It does away with the links on every page along the left. The tabs do look nice. Another idea I have is to make them scrollable, left to right--just like you can set your browser to display. Site layout is very probably the easiest task to get volunteer coders for--it is very intrinsically rewarding and fun.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:57, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Also, to clarify my point about extensibility: we will have an indefinite number of subpage types. Since some might be unique to relatively narrow subfields, there might be potentially hundreds of different types. We aren't going to list them all, on the mistaken assumption that they'll all eventually be filled in. They won't, because some subpage types are inappropriate for certain topics. (I'm not sure there will ever be a gallery for "a priori knowledge.") The four--count 'em, exactly four, right now--subpage types that are displayed by default are types that I think all articles could have.

So, the point is, any template should ideally do two things:

  1. Expand and contract with the actual subpages associated with a page.
  2. Give users an easy way to add new subpages. This should probably be a drop-down box of all unused subpages, or with used subpages greyed out.

I'm sure there's a way to do #1 horizontally--well, I know there is. Simply make the links to the subpages graphics (which are displayed only if a subpage exists), and then line 'em up in a single cell in a single table. If the graphics are all the same size, the result should look all right (modulo the above difficulties however). --Larry Sanger 12:59, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

P.S. further on #2: if we had that "expand-a-table" feature set up, we could hide unused subpage links there. Re getting the "expand-a-table" feature set up, I would be very happy if someone were to take that ball and run with it. --Larry Sanger 13:02, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Removing definition subpages

I've removed the link to definition subpages from Template:Subpages. See http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1073.0.html --Larry Sanger 22:38, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Template_talk:Subpages7&oldid=29841"