Template talk:Subpages
Subpages error
Help!
How can I get rid of the hyphens? Stupid script uses '|' as punctuation and then (apparently?) doesn't give me a way to escape it...? --Larry Sanger 21:26, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
- You need to replace all the table |s with {{{!}} -
I'll do it for you.Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 21:48, 5 July 2007 (CDT)- Or not, seeing as you're moving it to a different template Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 21:50, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
Oops, too late! But thanks.
It was a kluge anyway, but maybe not. I think we want to keep the table stuff separate from the canonical list of subpages. Now to move the logic to a subpage, too... --Larry Sanger 21:52, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
- Doesn't seem to work on my test page, doesn't seem to recognise that it's in a table. Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 21:59, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
Very strange. I don't know why it isn't working identically on our different sets of test pages. --Larry Sanger 22:16, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
- I think I know why now. It's fine with the catalogs one, until after it. The first catalogs link should be deleted anyway, as there is already one at the bottom. Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 22:25, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
Good job Ryan, looks like you fixed it. --Larry Sanger 22:34, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
- It was with the HTML comments, MediaWiki didn't recognise them as a line break. Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 22:42, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
We're back to having unnecessary extra spaces at the bottom of the table... --Larry Sanger 22:40, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
- Yes, I noticed that afterwards. I'll see if I can get that fixed. Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 22:47, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
OK, I'll let you bang at it, I really am going to bed now. --Larry Sanger 22:51, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
- Et viola! I have finished. There is one caveat. The "Canonical list on pages" HTML comment had to be noincluded, as it was causing a linebreak. Other than that, it should now work perfectly. Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 23:24, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
Drop-down box used to create new subpages?
OK, if you can pull this off, it would be very cool. I think MediaWiki will let you do it. Make a drop-down box that is put at the bottom cell of the Subpages table, with the options of all unused subpage types. If the user selects an option, it opens up a blank page with the correct name. Bonus if {{subpage}} appears at the top of this blank page automatically.
Is this possible? --Larry Sanger 22:39, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm done for the day! Feel free to tweak it until it's completely right. --Larry Sanger 22:40, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
- I'll take a look, but I don't know if I will be able to do it. I should be able to though Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 22:47, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
- I think that it may require a specialised extension, as MediaWiki won't let me input raw HTML code. You could just use the Inputbox extension if that will do, as that should be fairly easy, with a template on the top of the talk pages. However, I can write the dropdown box as an extension if you'd like. Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 00:01, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I can probably figure it out.--Robert W King 00:10, 6 July 2007 (CDT)Beyond my scope. I'll let Ryan handle it. ;) --Robert W King 09:36, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- I think that it may require a specialised extension, as MediaWiki won't let me input raw HTML code. You could just use the Inputbox extension if that will do, as that should be fairly easy, with a template on the top of the talk pages. However, I can write the dropdown box as an extension if you'd like. Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 00:01, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Obvious issue
This template displays in the same spot lead images do! It should be across the top instead. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:46, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- Hmm, that should be easy to fix, just get rid of the |- parts to make them all in a row. I'll let Larry decide what to do though. Ryan McCue Let's have a chat 21:09, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- Well, of course we have two choices: have a horizontal template, or simply move the lead images. I'd certainly entertain using a horizontal template (maybe it would look all right), but I am pretty sure a vertical one would look better. So...why not just move the images? --Larry Sanger 06:47, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
Two other issues
See Onslow Beach and note the line that is struck through the template's table. This is an example of an article with a short intro and __NOTOC__ added to suppress the table of contents. Note also how the template interferes with the placement of the image in relation to the text. I seriously think this needs to go along the top of the page, not on the right. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:46, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
Moved my reply to the forums: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1059.0.html --Larry Sanger 07:12, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
Thanks Chris
For fixing that pesky line-through-the-table problem. --Larry Sanger 12:03, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Looking sweet! --Larry Sanger 14:03, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
- Just kicking ideas around here. With respect to colours and borders we can finalise them in the future. It's very easy to change it all. One problem with the article name being in a button is that a long name will wreck the infobox. It might be good to go with the generic type "Main Article" nomenclature, as used in the subpages 7 template. Chris Day (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
I don't think I like having "Biology" as a separate button. And by the way, if that's a button, the draft page has to be one, too. Both the article and its draft are different kinds of things from the other subpages, namely, they're the "parent" pages and they are labelled simply after the topic. It would make sense to make them into buttons if they lived on subpages. Mainly, I just think it will look better and be clearer if the topic of the Infoset is not made another button, but made part of the "header" of the template. --Larry Sanger 14:22, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
- Yes I did make the draft page a seperate button too. It did not show up on the template here since there is no draft for this page. I had coded the draft button to be dependant on the existance of a draft page.
- I think we should avoid having the article name in the template. This may sound like an odd thing to say but we have some monster article names and those can never be accommodated into such a small template without looking lopsided/unbalanced (See Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People's Army with the subpages template). Besides the Main Article name should be obvious by looking at the top of the page. Chris Day (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Occupying a whole column
I'm thinking that perhaps it would be better aesthetically if the subpage template occupied a column that extended the entire length of the article. Let's see how that looks.
Hmm, is there a way to do that?? --Larry Sanger 14:24, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
- I really think this is a bad idea for two reasons: 1.) you're going to screw up the placement of infoboxes that accompany articles. 2.) No one wants to scroll halfway down the article page to view something that they're working on, or to get more information. (assuming the theory of infinite number of subpages)--Robert W King 14:29, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
- 1: Perhaps there won't be infoboxes if there are subpages. Said infoboxes might occur on the "Tables" subpage.
- 2: I don't understand. You wouldn't have to scroll any more than you have to now. --Larry Sanger 14:32, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
- Let's assume you have 30 subpages. Or let's say 20. 15. 10. However many. You're going to have to skip (potentially) large sections of the article in order to "get to" the subpage selector you want.
- Also, from my view, it becomes really inconvenient to flip back and forth between pages to view an infobox or a table on a page that is referenced by the text itself within the article, causing you to pause where you're at to click another link. In theory, popovers/hover links are supposed to remedy that. --Robert W King 14:35, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Font size
Also, I think we ought to make the font one size smaller--same as the left-column links. Then we can keep it narrow. --Larry Sanger 14:32, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
- Larry, are you testing these in both IE and Mozilla? Could be just my one PC, but looks quite different. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:31, 10 July 2007 (CDT)