Template talk:Tnavbar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 May 2006 2 Propose to remove the parameter 3 Template:Edi 4 Spacing 5 This template 6 When should this be used? 7 Long and short of it in one parameter 8 id's 9 Tnavbar getting too complicated? 10 Red links 11 Adding a fontcolor attribute

[edit] May 2006

Greetings my fellow editors, I've created this new template to allow the average Wikipedian to have quick and easy access to primarily Navigational Guide Template space (ie: Template:Islam, Template:Christianity, Template:Judaism, Template:Terrorism, etc.). It is my belief that without this sort of functionality, ad hoc (or otherwise) navigational (etc.) Template cabals can form who covet the template space in this regard and can show signs of owernship relative to it. With this new functionality more Wikipedians are likely to come to bear upon a given Nav (etc.) Template and provide a wider range of views ensuring a greater chance for neutrality in this regard as well. Please don't hesitate to drop me some talk here for any questions, or need for collaboration on this or related ideas. Netscott 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Something of note: On some templates (ie: Template:JewishLifeCycle) there is a small edit link that actually dumps an editor straight into editing. I've purposely opted to not do the same for this template as I find that an immediate page code view is a bit daunting to an editor not familiar with editing on the somewhat technical navigational templates. The way that this template now stands, once the edit link is clicked, an editor is brought to the actual template for viewing (much like the following: Edit this box). I realize that there may be editors who disagree with this principal but I would kindly request that if such a change is made that at minimum some talk is added here explaining the full advantages of doing so (vs. how I've set it up) and perhaps drop me a note at the same time. Thanks! Netscott 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've updated this template since I made the above entry and now it's possible to view | edit | talk for any template that has this template added to it. Netscott 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think having an edit link is great, and a must. I've seen them more and more, and they are very helpful. The current navbar temmplate works well for vertical (high) templates, but not so good on templates that are wide, since it adds a lot of extra height. Maybe we can have two navbar templates? -- Jeff3000 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Jeff3000, welcome to the discussion. Yes indeed... there's probably a need for a couple more templates. I've already made another that is more vertical see Template:Tnavbarv. Can you provide me with a link to a specific template that you have concerns on so that I might be able to evaluate the situationn and see what I can come up with? Thanks. Netscott 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The more vertical one looks good, but for example in Template:Bahá'í-2 the template adds a significant amount of whitespace at the bottom of the box. Something that would maybe fit in the top right corner I think would be more appropriate. It probably needs a relatively positioned div from the top right, so that it doesn't affect the flow of all other elements within the box. -- Jeff3000 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to mention that I don't like having this on navigational templates. I have worked on a lot of templates and put a much effort into keeping them small, pleasant to the eyes, and with as few links as possible. But I also don't want to rain on your parade, so I'll leave it as a comment and I won't go around removing it. Cuñado - Talk 04:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuñado, thanks for joining the conversation. It seems you follow the logic for this new template. The amount of time other editors have put into making templates is not to be discounted but without this new generalized functionality, the less experienced Wikipedians are hard pressed to be able alter them. This template has been made small and discreet so as to not in fact be the focus of a given Nav guide. The way that this new functionality has so far been added to the Navigation guides is a bit generic and all Navigation guides have been treated equally with it. If you feel that something could be done to better incorporate this template into any particular Navigational guide then by all means be bold and make some changes. Netscott 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Test Template:Edi (edit talk links history) for a very small edit link. Nav boxes without any link at all to themselves are dubious, but {{Tnavbar}} is only one of several existing solutions. -- Omniplex 06:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose to remove the parameter

I am proposing to change the template syntax (of this template) such that it doesnt require editors to pass template name when used in templates. This can be achieved by using {{PAGENAME}} instead of {{{1}}}. After changing, one can simply insert {{Tnavbar}}, without passing any parameter, to other templates. --Oblivious 15:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oblivious, thanks for contributing to the talk page but please don't feel obligated to do so, the old "be bold" applies in template space too no? That actually might make sense and I considered doing that myself but I was concerned that the Tnavbar would be taken from a particular article's page name. Give it a try by all means. :-) Netscott 17:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It does yeah! but if I change it now, the templates using this (Tnavbar) will cease to work. So either we use condition-based parameters OR remove the parameters from existing templates manually (oh god, there are MANY) after bringing the changes. Bright ideas, anyone? --Oblivious 17:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've accidentially added unecessary parameters on previous templates with no ill effects...so I'm not sure that this would be a problem... what about just attempting your change and see what happens (in an extremely briefly way!)? Netscott 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah... it works :) --Oblivious 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It did seem like it worked... but I just did some checking and it didn't... I'm thinking that the parameter is going to be the best way to go unless some decent logic can be included to make the necessary distinction. I wonder if something like {{TEMPLATE}} exists? :-) Netscott 18:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can come up with something using Qif_conditionals. --Oblivious 18:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine... let's experiment with the new template I've just created though for now: Template:Tnavbar-mini as this template is now displaying on nearly 20,000 pages. Netscott 18:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I did check it with few times and it appeared to work, then. Lets define the breaking you experienced in more detail? --Oblivious 18:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

 :) Fair enough, I went to a couple of articles and found that when I'd go and edit the template on that article the article's title would come up. Unfortunately you probably did your initial test on Template:Islam (and probably looked at Islam for confirmation) well in that instance it worked. I checked Abhidhamma and found that when I went to edit the template I was directed to Template:Abhidhamma... very wrong.. :-). Netscott 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through Templates, Advanced templates and Variables and I dont think we can do achieve this with what we have now (MediaWiki limitations). There is no way to eliminate the parameter. --Oblivious 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiee, that's unfortunate as it would be ultimately cool to be able to just slap in a {{Tnavbar}} and be done with it. I've just made some changes to both Template:Tnavbar and Template:Tnavbar-mini that allow surfers to hover their mice over the link and have some explanatory "title" text pop-up. Maybe you can take a look at that on a given article page and tell me what you think of the wording? Netscott 19:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks nice that way... however I think it'd be more user-friendly to use Edit this box, instead of Edit this navigational template ? Basically replace the word template with the word box --Oblivious 19:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right but my thinking was to use Wikipedia terminology to better educate editors... but the difference is virtually a non-issue for me so feel free to make the changes. Netscott 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should make the text more like that which pops up when hovering one's mouse over the "edit this page" link (for example). Netscott 20:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Three quick hints:

1. If a parameter isn't needed anymore just ignore it, updating all pages using a redundant parameter would be a PITA.
2. Using {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}}|Template|do something}} is possible, see m:ParserFunctions, but not what you want here.
3. AFAIK you can't get rid of the parameter unless you restrict the template to must be subst'ed, see also m:Help:Substitution. -- Omniplex 23:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not too keen on the Subst idea to be honest... Tnavbar's still evolving a bit (as is Template:Tnavbar-mini). I don't see big problem with adding one parameter myself. Netscott 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've checked "subst"-magic for a different purpose (timestamps) now, it works only if the template itself is subst'ed. The best you can get without subst (where required) is a "missing subst" warning. -- Omniplex 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Edi

Copied / moved from my userpage because I won't tolerate {{tnavbar}} on the affected pages. -- Omniplex 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, I see you are going around and swapping out examples of {{Tnavbar}} for the template you created {{Edi}}. Would you kindly refrain from doing that? The Tnavbar templates are more comprehensive than Edi as Edi only allows for access to edit a given template rather than allowing for a more complete access (viewing, discussion) also the template that Edi is based upon was originally developed with the (+/-) for cross-language portability on the international Mediawiki, not the English Wikipedia. I'm reverting your edits that counter my edits to include Tnavbar templates. If you had concerns that {{Tnavbar}} was too big, I've allayed those concerns by creating Template:Tnavbar-mini. Thanks. Netscott 11:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to inform you, myself and a few other editors have produced some additional classes of Tnavbar since I left the above message which you might want to peruse at Template:Tnavbar. Thanks. Netscott 22:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NAK, for various reasons {{Tnavbar}} is completely unsuited for the affected project templates - it's too big, not only the output, also the code with weird colours unrelated to any colour scheme on these project templates, it introduces unnecessary Unicode on pure ASCII pages, and for some cases like "policylist" I seriously doubt that a very visible edit link is a good idea. I fixed various things on those templates, also the width, broken <br/>, the height by eliminating unnecessary empty lines, and the floating align=right for old browsers, and I added a category for templates using the style (mainly colour scheme) chosen by Gareth Aus. Thanks for the credits for {{ed}} and family, but they were not my idea, I only tuned them to use "fullurl:" like I did with {{tnavbar}}. -- Omniplex 23:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Omniplex thanks for sharing your concerns here. If you properly follow my wording, I in fact demonstrate my awareness of {{Edi}}'s orgins. I'm not really following your logic about the color scheme as +/- just looks odd with the unclear (+/-) scheme and the arrow making it look as if it's an external link. The only part of your arguments that seem to make any sense is the bit about unecessary Unicode on pure ASCII pages... but are there really that many affected users? Seems a bit like much ado about nothing. I realize that the Tnavbar's are new but with the exception of yourself there has only been one or two other voices of discontent (with other editor's concerns with the original Tnavbar having been addressed with the new classes). Is there anyone else who's sharing your concerns? Netscott 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spacing

I'm not digging this template. It's ruining the arrangment on some articles like Hinduism in China.--Dangerous-Boy 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please fix the spacing of the navbar or I will remove it from the template:Hinduism small. It's screwing up the spacing in articles with pics such as Hinduism in China.--Dangerous-Boy 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

problem solved.--Dangerous-Boy 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This template

I would really suggest one use this template very very rarely. Most of the time putting links to "edit, talk and view" are not necessary and they are highly distracting. This template has its uses, but please do not use it unless you really feel it must be there.

This is a thing which happens a lot on Wikipedia. Somebody comes with a good idea, and then that idea gets abused, and then one wishes this idea did not come to start with. So please, use this template sparingly. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. Cuñado - Talk 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for full disclosure here. User:Oleg Alexandrov posted here after responding to a series of ill-advised Tnavbar placements by User:66.229.182.113. So in light of that, such commentary as above is entirely understandable. ←Netscott→ 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted the edits of this user that didn't correspond correctly to the utilization of Tnavbar. ←Netscott→ 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for very much. I'm sorry for screwing things up: I wasn't aware that the Tnavbar should only be used for certain templates, nor did I intend to disrupt other people's work. I was just working under the impression that templates should have a link to editing them, and that the Tnavbar was optimal for that purpose. 66.229.182.113 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When should this be used?

One thing I'm unclear on, having seen these "view, talk, edit" buttons pop up on lots of templates recently, is when to use this and when to use Template:Edit (and its related templates). I prefer to have just the one "edit" link, or even just a "view" link. I find sometimes this particular template gives an excessive air of self-referentiality. Can the page be updated to give guidance on when and where it can be used, and where it shouldn't be used, with examples? And what the pros and cons are of the different styles of "edit buttons" that are available. Thanks. Carcharoth 02:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long and short of it in one parameter

I like this template and would like to see what people think of some ideas I have.

I would like to change this

This box: [{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="View this template.">view</span>] • [{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">talk</span>] • [{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.">edit</span>]</div>

To this

{{#if:{{{long|}}}|

This box: [{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="View this template.">view</span>]


·

<nowiki>[{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">talk</span>]


·

[{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.">edit</span>]</div>
</nowiki>


| 


[{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">d</span>]</nowiki>

·

[{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.">e</span>]</div>
}}

Basically include a long parameter and then start to combine some of the templates. Would if be possible to have a div or nodiv parameter as well? As this is a big change I though I would be bold in suggesting it and cautious in applying it. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So the idea is to use one template, but control its behaviour/appearance by parameters? I like the idea. --Oblivious

Now I have added it this code (but aslo included nodiv) should I deprecate the other templates, e.g. {{Tnavbar-mini}}, {{Tnavbar-nodiv}}, {{Tnavbar-mini-nodiv}}? If it works I might include plain as a parameter! Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just a touch busy.... which is why I haven't responded here previously...at first glance these changes make sense but I've reverted them as I'd prefer to see the changes made on a sandbox version first and applied to some test templates prior to actually going online to work out any bugs. Tnavbar is actually integrated in a number of various kinds of templates (ie: it has been massaged to work with) and making such changes is likely breaking these massaged instances. Forgive me if I seem clueless but I don't see where these changes were done in a sandbox fashion previously. (→Netscott) 08:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, I did 'extensive' sandbox tests in {{User:Rex_the_first/test}}. Here you can see these tests working:

Optional parameter	Produces...
Divides into a separate section: {{User:Rex the first/test|Tnavbar|short=1}} like so.	→	Divides into a separate section: This box: view • talk • edit like so.
{{User:Rex the first/test|Tnavbar|nodiv=1}} Good for "blending" into text.	→	This box: view • talk • edit Good for "blending" into text.
{{User:Rex the first/test|Tnavbar|short=1|nodiv=1}} Good for "blending" into text.	→	This box: view • talk • edit Good for "blending" into text.

If you are happy with them I will implment them again. If not then we can talk about it here. The most important test is this, is it backwards compatable (will all the pages that use it without the optinal parameters of nodiv and short still work)? Test here.

Template	This...		Produces...
This template	→	Divides into a separate section: {{User:Rex the first/test|Tnavbar}} like so.	→	Divides into a separate section: This box: view • talk • edit like so.

It would not damage any pages, I had checked some pages it was transcluded on and it appeared fine. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 09:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the other valid concern is taxing the servers. One of the advantages to having a suite of Tnavbar templates has to do with the fact that they tend to be represented across several thousand pages. What that means is that each time one of those thousands of pages is pulled up... in addition to calculating the necessary bit for the template with this addtional parsing going on the servers have to do additional work. I'm not sure to what extent the gravity of this is a factor in how one should be coding a template but it merits investigation. (→Netscott) 09:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that a template call merits the same server load if it to template (a) or template (b) the only difference is that if template (a) is called 10 times then it will be in the browser cache and will cause less server load than a call to ten separate templates. On the issue of the parser functions load on the servers, I think it would be better raised in parser functions than on templates that use them (as all the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} .... ect use them). The problem was disscussed on before they were implemented and they have not caused major problems (as far as I know). Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As per Meta Cache page, I don't think server load would be an issue here. --Oblivious 13:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I have implemented the code do you think we should add a note to the other templates about this? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Something is not right yet. When I used {{Tnavbar|WWIIGermanShips|mini=1|nodiv=1}} on {{WWIIGermanShips}}, a line break was added. That wasnt suppose to happen with nodiv version. --Oblivious 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it. The code had a return or two it wasn't meant too. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] id's

id="Tnavbar-nodiv" style="white-space: nowrap; font-size:xx-small;">|<div class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" id="Tnavbar"

Do these id's serve a purpose? ¦ Reisio 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tnavbar getting too complicated?

Greetings fellow editors. In the past day or so there's been some significant editing with one editor adding a link to history, another adding a template for spacing and · and another who added a style code to be able to insert CSS code. All of this strikes me as over-complication. I suggest we just return to this 21:18, 16 October 2006 version. Thoughts? (→Netscott) 09:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep it as simple as possible and as minimal as possible. Agree with you --Oblivious 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

Is there a reason why the View & Talk links on the template are coded to never be red? --Dispenser 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The blue color is for uniformity with normal Wikipedia link color. (→Netscott) 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You miss understood my question. I was asking why if the talk page is non-existent, the talk link is blue where else it is normally red. It would seem to me that what's preventing it is [{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">talk</span>] and use something like [[Template_talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] instead. So is there any reason why this template isn't using this? --Dispenser 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so... Tnavbar wasn't really meant to call attention to missing [red link] talk pages. I'm inclined to think that red links appearing on templates would just be distracting from the rest of the links on the template. No? (→Netscott) 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we could at least do it on the view link. It would reduce the amount of code and help users if they miss type the template name. --Dispenser 03:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right... I've implemented this change. As I recall when originally formulating Tnavbar I was shooting for a uniformity of link appearance. This is the main reason that I gave the links color attributes (particularly the edit link...which is a light blue if not given a color attribute)... so I just did it for them all... but relative to your logic that really doesn't make sense. (→Netscott) 11:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Question:

On my browser the discussion links above show up as blue with a red underline (which looks a bit odd). Anyone else seeing that? (→Netscott) 12:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It was because you forgot to remove the style="color:#002bb8;" tag for the talk links. --Dispenser 14:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually that was my intention for the talk links to show up blue... but strangely the underline part of the links shows up as red on my browser. (→Netscott) 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering why I'm so quick to not support red talk pages appearing it is because unlike needed articles about uncovered subject links that appear in a given article, talk page links are not really "needing" to be filled when they appear smack dab in the middle of a given article via a template (as opposed to a standard red talk page link above a given article with no talk page). Does that make sense? (→Netscott) 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bug, it's a feature!!!!111oneone It's showing up red due to the :hover element which underlines it acting on the outside element thus causing it come up red. Of course HTML/CSS has all sort quirks. --Dispenser 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It shows with a red underline when transcluded into pages that don't exist (I know, it can't happen unless you're previewing a page you haven't yet hit the "save" key on since you created it) ot on discussion pages that don't exist (again, only when discussion of the template hasn't yet begun, which is the most likely thing to happen). the reason the link shows this way ISN'T because of Wikipedia's standard linking, but in fact is due to all transcluded links operate in this way.

--lincalinca 08:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a fontcolor attribute

I'm thinking that much like Template:Tnavbar-header there should be an option for folks to be able to specify a font color for the links with a default being blue. Opinions on this? (→Netscott) 15:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)