![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 29 January 2010. The result of the discussion was "redirect". |
Please put discussion in the organized Discussion section, below. Edits are, of course, welcome, expected, and requested. But please don't delete the template without at least discussing it on this Talk page.
<nowiki>|</nowiki>
that have to be inserted between items in the List. This is extremely inelegant and makes this entire template (
Template:SuccessorSeries) virtually unhelpful. Can anyone devise an elegant solution? --
Markles
18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
<nowiki>|</nowiki>
with |
. I don't think he knows it (yet), but it's applicable in this template. Can anyone improve on this? --
Markles
19:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC).
|
characters for separators.—
Markles
01:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Would it be possible to allow the templates which use this template to change the color, leaving the current blue as the default. Some successions should be of this style but are not good in blue. savidan (talk) (e@) 22:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about using commas instead of | in the lists? It looks "cleaner" to me.— Markles 10:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that you have chosen the rather fat bullets for your examples in the documentation. Most other navigation boxes now use the bold middot instead. It can easily be used by using the template {{
·}} and it also handles proper line breaking etc. I added a bold middot example below. --
David Göthberg
13:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
...but on a somewhat unrelated issue, wouldn't a navigation box be more easily navigated if the contents were in alphabetical order. I know everyone is used to chronological order, and for those familliar with the subject matter it is satisfying to see it that way, but for the unfamiliar- most of the world- they have to hunt forever to find what they are looking for. I think the chronology belongs on a list not a device intended to help readers find things. stilltim 12:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm working on the Wikipedia:Accessibility project, and one of the requirements for accessible tables used only for layout is not to use the syntax for table headers, but style syntax (structural syntax shouldn't be used for presentational purposes). In this case, instead of the header:
{| class=toccolours style="margin:0.5em 2em; clear:both" width=94% ! style="padding:1px 20px 1px 20px; background:#ccccff; {{ #if: {{{Color}}} | background:{{{Color}}} | background:#ccccff}} " | {{{Title}}} {{#if:{{{Image|}}}| <td align=center rowspan=2 width=1> {{{Image}}} </td>}} |- | style="font-size:90%; padding:5px 20px 5px 20px" align=center | {{{List}}} |}
use the equivalent wikicode (font-weight: bold;
is added, and the header cell is replaced by a data cell):
{| class=toccolours style="margin:0.5em 2em; clear:both" width=94% | style="padding:1px 20px 1px 20px; font-weight: bold; background:#ccccff; {{ #if: {{{Color}}} | background:{{{Color}}} | background:#ccccff}} " | {{{Title}}} {{#if:{{{Image|}}}| <td align=center rowspan=2 width=1> {{{Image}}} </td>}} |- | style="font-size:90%; padding:5px 20px 5px 20px" align=center | {{{List}}} |}
I also propose to make another change to remove the additional background: #ccccff
: put the template code into a <includeonly> block, remove the additional background: #ccccff
changing the if expression, and finaly add an example at the end (for documentation purposes):
<includeonly><center> {| class="toccolours" style="margin:0.5em 2em; clear:both" width="94%" | style="padding:1px 20px 1px 20px; font-weight: bold; background: {{ #if: {{{Color}}} | {{{Color}}} | #ccccff}} " | {{{Title}}} {{#if:{{{Image|}}}| <td align="center" rowspan="2" width="1"> {{{Image}}} </td>}} |- | style="font-size:90%; padding:5px 20px 5px 20px" align="center" | {{{List}}} |}</center>{{{Category|}}}</includeonly><noinclude> {{NavigationBox | Title = {{{Title}}} | List = {{{List}}} }}
This second change is only a proposal, but the first change is important for accessibility reasons. HTH -- surueña 11:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- 1) It's OK with me.
- 2) However, I'm not sure about moving the additional
background: #ccccff
. I put it there because that makes it the default color. If there is another color provided in{{{Color}}}
, then it overrides the background color. : If you can still make that happen, then it's OK.- 3) Finally, I'd get rid of the superfluous quotes, such as:
align="center" rowspan="2" width="1"
would becomealign=center rowspan=2 width=1
— Markles 12:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very good!
- Yes, it doesn't work
- I like that quotes (you know, in XML are required), but I can live with that (anyway, they are finally added by the MediaWiki).
-- surueña 13:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, I think we should decide if the documentation belongs to the template page or the talk page. Briefly, there are reasons for both choices. The former is preferable for locality of reference. The latter is preferable because of a MediaWiki deficiency: even if you only change a noinclude section it will treat the edit as a normal edit and will update the cache for all pages including the template; thus a change which only affects documentation will cause a regeneration of all dependent pages. But I see this as something which will be fixed in the future, so I'm still for keeping the documentation in the noinclude section, unless we'll begin to hear shrieks from the servers ;) In case the docs are kept in the template page, however, we should scale down all level of headings in this page, as it doesn't make sense to have a Discussion section. In case we'll put the docs here instead, the following template, to be put on the template page, may be of help {{ Usage instructions cross-reference}}. — Gennaro Prota •Talk 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we simplify things here by putting the template width to 100% ? Most page-bottom templates (that use this one) are 100%, and having this one line up with these would give a page bottom a much cleaner look. Also, it would be nice to see the box width line up with the edges of the rest of the page. Are there any arguments against? If not, I'd like to give it a go as it is but a slight style modification. THEPROMENADER 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the whole point of my making my post was the fact that 94% isn't the standard on the pages I'm involved with, and in fact this one is the only one that is 94%. How about setting a site-wide standard? THEPROMENADER 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to make this template have a default show/hide option without messing it up too badly? I'm not very experienced in WikiMarkup, so I wouldn't know. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Though Template:NavigationBox is great for smaller, simpler templates, it doesn't work as well with larger, more complex templates, such as Template:Mario series and Template:Censorship. Should this be mentioned under the Use or Purpose sections? -- TBCΦ talk? 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This edit [1] (the latest) removed the ability to supply your own color(s) to the template. I request that it be reverted to add this functionality back. -- MECU≈ talk 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I asked R. Koot, the reverter to answer this request. NCurs e work 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the default color has been taken away. While it's good to be able to choose a color, it would be nice if the template provided a default. There are thousands of pages that use this template, almost all of which are now using the template with a white title (which does not distinguish the template from the rest of the page). Look at Henry Waxman, Trenton, Michigan, and Zeno of Elea as examples. — Chris ( t c ) — 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
We have way too many nav templates as collected at Template:Navigational templates. Merge! -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You guys shouldn't propose, and especially not execute such merges without attempting to get a historic understanding of why the different templates were there in the first place, and contacting the editors concerned. You may find that I undo some of your efforts as a result. Regards, Samsara ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Test to see if the picture keep on the right
If you watch this template, you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates#Style guideline for footer templates. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have made a template and some CSS code that prevents word wraps inside links and only allows word wraps between the links and in normal text. This is useful for instance for long link lists. I am pretty sure this will be used in navigation boxes like {{ NavigationBox}}. If any of you are interested I have brought my template and CSS code up for discussion at the village pump. See also {{ nowraplinks}} itself and its talk page. -- David Göthberg 15:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The {{ nowraplinks}} template has now been fully deployed and the CSS code added to common.css. I and other editors have tested it in several ways in several browsers. There for I suggest that the CSS class is used here (in Template:NavigationBox) to save users of this navigation box from using lots and lots of or {{ nowrap}}. I have tested it with the template's current code in my own testpages/sandboxes.
I suggest that the first line should be changed to:
{| {{#if: {{{Summary|}}} | summary="Navigation box - {{{Summary}}}" }} class="navbox nowraplinks"
While I am at it I suggest that the last few lines be changed to:
|}{{{Category|}}}<noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{template doc}} <!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude>
The change of the last few lines is to get the documentation look and feel recommended in Wikipedia:Template documentation with a green box around the documentation. (The two empty lines between the "pp-template" and the "template doc" is to prevent the green documentation box to come too close to the template, just to make the template page more readable.)
-- David Göthberg 23:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 29 January 2010. The result of the discussion was "redirect". |
Please put discussion in the organized Discussion section, below. Edits are, of course, welcome, expected, and requested. But please don't delete the template without at least discussing it on this Talk page.
<nowiki>|</nowiki>
that have to be inserted between items in the List. This is extremely inelegant and makes this entire template (
Template:SuccessorSeries) virtually unhelpful. Can anyone devise an elegant solution? --
Markles
18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
<nowiki>|</nowiki>
with |
. I don't think he knows it (yet), but it's applicable in this template. Can anyone improve on this? --
Markles
19:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC).
|
characters for separators.—
Markles
01:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Would it be possible to allow the templates which use this template to change the color, leaving the current blue as the default. Some successions should be of this style but are not good in blue. savidan (talk) (e@) 22:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about using commas instead of | in the lists? It looks "cleaner" to me.— Markles 10:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that you have chosen the rather fat bullets for your examples in the documentation. Most other navigation boxes now use the bold middot instead. It can easily be used by using the template {{
·}} and it also handles proper line breaking etc. I added a bold middot example below. --
David Göthberg
13:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
...but on a somewhat unrelated issue, wouldn't a navigation box be more easily navigated if the contents were in alphabetical order. I know everyone is used to chronological order, and for those familliar with the subject matter it is satisfying to see it that way, but for the unfamiliar- most of the world- they have to hunt forever to find what they are looking for. I think the chronology belongs on a list not a device intended to help readers find things. stilltim 12:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm working on the Wikipedia:Accessibility project, and one of the requirements for accessible tables used only for layout is not to use the syntax for table headers, but style syntax (structural syntax shouldn't be used for presentational purposes). In this case, instead of the header:
{| class=toccolours style="margin:0.5em 2em; clear:both" width=94% ! style="padding:1px 20px 1px 20px; background:#ccccff; {{ #if: {{{Color}}} | background:{{{Color}}} | background:#ccccff}} " | {{{Title}}} {{#if:{{{Image|}}}| <td align=center rowspan=2 width=1> {{{Image}}} </td>}} |- | style="font-size:90%; padding:5px 20px 5px 20px" align=center | {{{List}}} |}
use the equivalent wikicode (font-weight: bold;
is added, and the header cell is replaced by a data cell):
{| class=toccolours style="margin:0.5em 2em; clear:both" width=94% | style="padding:1px 20px 1px 20px; font-weight: bold; background:#ccccff; {{ #if: {{{Color}}} | background:{{{Color}}} | background:#ccccff}} " | {{{Title}}} {{#if:{{{Image|}}}| <td align=center rowspan=2 width=1> {{{Image}}} </td>}} |- | style="font-size:90%; padding:5px 20px 5px 20px" align=center | {{{List}}} |}
I also propose to make another change to remove the additional background: #ccccff
: put the template code into a <includeonly> block, remove the additional background: #ccccff
changing the if expression, and finaly add an example at the end (for documentation purposes):
<includeonly><center> {| class="toccolours" style="margin:0.5em 2em; clear:both" width="94%" | style="padding:1px 20px 1px 20px; font-weight: bold; background: {{ #if: {{{Color}}} | {{{Color}}} | #ccccff}} " | {{{Title}}} {{#if:{{{Image|}}}| <td align="center" rowspan="2" width="1"> {{{Image}}} </td>}} |- | style="font-size:90%; padding:5px 20px 5px 20px" align="center" | {{{List}}} |}</center>{{{Category|}}}</includeonly><noinclude> {{NavigationBox | Title = {{{Title}}} | List = {{{List}}} }}
This second change is only a proposal, but the first change is important for accessibility reasons. HTH -- surueña 11:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- 1) It's OK with me.
- 2) However, I'm not sure about moving the additional
background: #ccccff
. I put it there because that makes it the default color. If there is another color provided in{{{Color}}}
, then it overrides the background color. : If you can still make that happen, then it's OK.- 3) Finally, I'd get rid of the superfluous quotes, such as:
align="center" rowspan="2" width="1"
would becomealign=center rowspan=2 width=1
— Markles 12:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very good!
- Yes, it doesn't work
- I like that quotes (you know, in XML are required), but I can live with that (anyway, they are finally added by the MediaWiki).
-- surueña 13:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, I think we should decide if the documentation belongs to the template page or the talk page. Briefly, there are reasons for both choices. The former is preferable for locality of reference. The latter is preferable because of a MediaWiki deficiency: even if you only change a noinclude section it will treat the edit as a normal edit and will update the cache for all pages including the template; thus a change which only affects documentation will cause a regeneration of all dependent pages. But I see this as something which will be fixed in the future, so I'm still for keeping the documentation in the noinclude section, unless we'll begin to hear shrieks from the servers ;) In case the docs are kept in the template page, however, we should scale down all level of headings in this page, as it doesn't make sense to have a Discussion section. In case we'll put the docs here instead, the following template, to be put on the template page, may be of help {{ Usage instructions cross-reference}}. — Gennaro Prota •Talk 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we simplify things here by putting the template width to 100% ? Most page-bottom templates (that use this one) are 100%, and having this one line up with these would give a page bottom a much cleaner look. Also, it would be nice to see the box width line up with the edges of the rest of the page. Are there any arguments against? If not, I'd like to give it a go as it is but a slight style modification. THEPROMENADER 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the whole point of my making my post was the fact that 94% isn't the standard on the pages I'm involved with, and in fact this one is the only one that is 94%. How about setting a site-wide standard? THEPROMENADER 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to make this template have a default show/hide option without messing it up too badly? I'm not very experienced in WikiMarkup, so I wouldn't know. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Though Template:NavigationBox is great for smaller, simpler templates, it doesn't work as well with larger, more complex templates, such as Template:Mario series and Template:Censorship. Should this be mentioned under the Use or Purpose sections? -- TBCΦ talk? 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This edit [1] (the latest) removed the ability to supply your own color(s) to the template. I request that it be reverted to add this functionality back. -- MECU≈ talk 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I asked R. Koot, the reverter to answer this request. NCurs e work 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the default color has been taken away. While it's good to be able to choose a color, it would be nice if the template provided a default. There are thousands of pages that use this template, almost all of which are now using the template with a white title (which does not distinguish the template from the rest of the page). Look at Henry Waxman, Trenton, Michigan, and Zeno of Elea as examples. — Chris ( t c ) — 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
We have way too many nav templates as collected at Template:Navigational templates. Merge! -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You guys shouldn't propose, and especially not execute such merges without attempting to get a historic understanding of why the different templates were there in the first place, and contacting the editors concerned. You may find that I undo some of your efforts as a result. Regards, Samsara ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Test to see if the picture keep on the right
If you watch this template, you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates#Style guideline for footer templates. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have made a template and some CSS code that prevents word wraps inside links and only allows word wraps between the links and in normal text. This is useful for instance for long link lists. I am pretty sure this will be used in navigation boxes like {{ NavigationBox}}. If any of you are interested I have brought my template and CSS code up for discussion at the village pump. See also {{ nowraplinks}} itself and its talk page. -- David Göthberg 15:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The {{ nowraplinks}} template has now been fully deployed and the CSS code added to common.css. I and other editors have tested it in several ways in several browsers. There for I suggest that the CSS class is used here (in Template:NavigationBox) to save users of this navigation box from using lots and lots of or {{ nowrap}}. I have tested it with the template's current code in my own testpages/sandboxes.
I suggest that the first line should be changed to:
{| {{#if: {{{Summary|}}} | summary="Navigation box - {{{Summary}}}" }} class="navbox nowraplinks"
While I am at it I suggest that the last few lines be changed to:
|}{{{Category|}}}<noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{template doc}} <!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude>
The change of the last few lines is to get the documentation look and feel recommended in Wikipedia:Template documentation with a green box around the documentation. (The two empty lines between the "pp-template" and the "template doc" is to prevent the green documentation box to come too close to the template, just to make the template page more readable.)
-- David Göthberg 23:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)