Portal talk:Box-header

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may have been redirected to this page from another template page. This is normal. all related template talk pages should redirect here.

Note: This page contains NOEDITSECTION and NOTOC, and is therefore in general not suitable for use in articles. (See #Fixes below for an explanation on how to circumnavigate this and other problems.)

For an explanation on how to use this template, please see Wikipedia:Portal.

Please add a

#REDIRECT [[Portal talk:Box-header]] 

to the talk pages of both newly created templates.

[edit] If defined call2

Is it used so the edit template doesn't produce a redlink? Anything else? Is that useful? --MarSch 2 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

I can't remember if I tested it the other way, I was concerned that it may spit out the ed template code if no variable was passed. You could try it the other way and use &action=purge to see the changes. Slike2 2 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

That would probably be a good thing. Error messages are good. Otherwise people might never know that an argument should be passed. I'll eliminate them. --MarSch 3 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)

It seems not to break anything :) Now what about the excessive use of padding and margins. I really hate all those small adjustments. It makes it difficult to change anything. Specifically I noticed that the vertical spacing is different from the horizontal spacing between boxes. I would like to fix this, but perhaps you can clean this up? --MarSch 3 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

The spacings are due to the differences between % and em - the two divs which cause both sides to float are set to some arbitrary percentages adding up to between 95 and 99%, which means there's a 5-1% gap between the boxes. This means that the actual difference changes based on browser size. The vertical spacing is defined by the box margins, and it's in em. Basically, it's not the box's fault :) (or so I believe). You could try setting the divs to equal 100%, or 99.9%, and add a padding-left:???em; to the div which is floated right, to make it more consistent. Slike2 3 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

The ed2 does break some things, (Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Computer_and_video_games - note the edit in the main box showing "{..."), but that may not matter because you may want to enforce the each box has a subpage thing. Slike2 3 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)

Trevor fixed it by creating that page. --MarSch 4 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

[edit] Recent formatting changes

I like that the edit link is now located on the header bar. However, the recent formating changes have had an odd consequence: wherever an image is present in a box, no matter its formating, the text is forced lower. I'm not sure why this is, and I have closely checked it. I'm tempted to revert it now, but I'm hoping Go For It!'s about to check it out. Aside from that, the new edit link is sometimes hard to see, depending on the box header's background colour (cf. Portal:Art).--cj | talk 10:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm checking it. Go for it! 13:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't even see any image formatting glitch. But I did notice that some text was getting forced lower, especially in category and list boxes. It seems to have been caused by the extraneous comment left at the bottom of the page. I've fixed that. Let me know if you still get the glitch. Go for it! 14:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes but inconsistently. On main portals like Portal:History the text is lower against the image, instead of being flush at the top as previously. That same fault appears on this page with example box above. However, on Portal:Australia I see no such glitch and the formatting is the same (I did both). I'm not sure what's causing it, but I dislike it. Perhaps it might be caused by the "text justify" user preference I use, but that doesn't explain why it didn't occur before nor why P:AU is fine.--cj | talk 01:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually scratch that. It occurs on every portal. The reason it didn't happen on Portal:Australia was because I had subst'd its box-header a while ago (for a reason I forget). Do you not notice it? I can upload screenshots if necessary.--cj | talk 12:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I know what you are talking about now. It looks like the text starts half a line from the top of the image rather than at the very top. However, Mathematics has the same thing, and it's constructed using a different template. Philosophy uses still another markup method. I don't think the templates nor sourcepages are causing it. However the top margin looks the same for text in boxes with images as for the text in boxes with no images. It must be the way the program places pictures. I can't find it in any page source. There is one problem I noticed we're no longer having -- the text no longer overlaps into the image, which used to happen at the top of an image a lot. Go for it! 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I only noticed image-related faults where thumbs were used. I have been discouraging their use, and left hidden comments on several portals warning against them. As for this present fault, it is to wide-spread to let be, so I intend on restoring the previous formatting. Additionally, I've noticed that the edit link being more prominent has resulted in a rise in vandalism; so much so that I've semi-protected some sub-pages. --cj | talk 05:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in, but that last revert you made seems to have screwed up the top of some images. Many of them now seem to overlap an image over half a line of text. It's particularly noticeable on the Portal:Weather Portal I made the other day, but I can also see it on Portal:Mathematics and Portal:London. It doesn't happen on every portal or on every image... hmm... perhaps it is a firefox thing. I can't see the same problem in IE. nick 14:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor can I (I use IE). Perhaps you can create some screenshots? As I said above, the only image-related faults I've noticed have occured when thumbnails are used.--cj | talk 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, here you go : Image:Firefox-weather-portal-screenshot.gif. I notice you put a div around the top image and that fixed that one, but surely it defeats the purpose of the template system to do that on every image? nick 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just installed Firefox, so I ended up not needing the screenshot (thanks anyway!). Using divs doesn't defeat the purpose of the software if it prevents the fault; in fact, their use is advisable given they ensure against it.--cj | talk 16:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I not sure I understand your last comment cj. The new placement of the editlink is causing a formatting glitch on Portal:Mathematics (the image overlaps the text; at least under Firefox). Are you suggesting a fix, or do we need to go back to the old editlink location? BTW, I think the editlink looked better in the header bar anyway. -- Fropuff 17:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Mathematics is now fixed. This is not a new placement; it is the location used up until a week ago. Where you see this fault, ensure "|right" markup is replaced with "div" markup for stability. It is for this reason templates used on the Main Page use "div". Having the edit link in the header was logical, yes. However, it was imperfect: aside a glitch, it off-set the heading and (ostensibly) increased vandalism.--cj | talk 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be a way of getting it up there without offsetting the heading; see Portal:War. I don't know whether the vandalism claim is true, though. —Kirill Lokshin 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That does seem to work, and without consequence too. About the vandalism: this is just a personal observation; it might well have to do with the new prominence of portals. Whatever the reason, I've had to revert vandalism on sub-pages of several portals daily. --cj | talk 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Are they the portals linked from the Main Page, by any chance? That would be a rather more obvious explanation than the position of the edit link. —Kirill Lokshin 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Gitch fix? I think I fixed the glitch. I suspect it was being caused by a difference between the way the program places images and how it places text. I've restored the edit button into the header, and have added a slight margin below it to fill the space the text seems to be sneaking into. I've checked all the Top 10 portals, and weather, and it seems to work. Let me know if the glitch shows up on your screen/browser, and if it does I'll take a closer look. Go for it! 13:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to know, cj has put padded divs round all the images I mentioned, and I'm not of a mind to either revert his changes or go looking for more. nick 15:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Go for it! is referring to a separate glitch which forces the text lower when alongside an image, no matter its formatting. It doesn't appear in Firefox, but does in IE - which is used by the majority of users.--cj | talk 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the text overlap problem, where the top line of text tries to sneak above an image at the top of a section. I thought I had it licked. I'm changing the edit button back, so that we can track that glitch down. Go for it! 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curved-edges?

I really don't think we should impose this rather new (to en: at least) format on each and every portal using this template. At the very least, a proposal should be made to WT:P. Perhaps an alternative template could be created, one exactly like this but with rounded edges.--cj | talk 17:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks rather crude, in my opinion, particularly given that the curves aren't very smooth. Also, on portals where there's an outer (angled) box—Portal:London, for instance—the rounded boxes look very strange. —Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I liked the overall look, but feel that curved edges simply don't fit with the rest of Wikipedia's layout. I also agree that dramatic formatting changes such as this ought to be discussed prior to implementation. 72.131.44.247 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to test the round corners for a few days by changing the template, since it takes a page refresh (purge) in order to see the changes on each portal. Because of this, only a fraction of the portals see the change. We can then see what the typical user reaction is on the talk-pages of the portals purged. But we can't get such feedback if you panic and revert in a knee-jerk reaction. You seem to "be bold" whenever it suits you, and to use the "discuss it first argument" when someone else's being bold doesn't suit you. I'm going to change it again, and if there is more than a few complaints (out of the hundreds of users assumed to be looking at the portals), I'll change it back in five days. In the meantime, I'll accomodate any portal maintainers who want their square edges back. Just give me five days, and remember the 3-revert rule. Go for it! 13:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That was awfully flippant and I take exception to your accusation. I'm not the only one to have objected, nor were my reversions panic-driven “knee-jerk” reactions. I’m not opposed to portals using rounded-edges, but I object to it being imposed on all without the slightest attempt to inform maintainers. A better approach would have been to make a proposal on WT:P and to achieve some sort of consensus. I’m also concerned that you haven’t acknowledged the feedback already received (which is fortuitous, given it hadn’t been sought). It’s doubtful that many editors will even know where to comment, so I’m not sure how you intend to gather further feedback. Your argument about the changes not being visible is not accurate, either. If you wish to trial this format, why not use the alternate template you've created on a few portals rather than charging ahead against opposition? And I'm perfectly aware of the 3RR given I've enforced it on several occasions. --cj | talk 14:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never been called "flippant" before! "Defensive", occasionally. But don't worry, if there's feedback, I'll find it. Most portal editors are probably smarter than me, and therefore will be able to figure out where to post, or at least will post somewhere (like on their portal's talk page). Plus, I might learn something while looking around. But since we're on the subject of feedback, I have a feedback question for you: are there any tools for counting the number of hits on Wikipedia pages? Are visits to articles recorded anywhere? This would at least be interesting, if not useful data. Go for it! 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Change back - Is my vote... it just doesn't fit with the rest of Wikipedia's look. I doubt many others will know to come here, or that maintainers will voice an opinion on their own the portal talk pages. Sulfur 20:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (IP 72.131.44.247 above)

• Revert is my vote too. I was undecided at first, but I think I like the square corners better. Its a more consistent look with rest of Wikipedia. There is also a weird effect on Portal:Mathematics in the "Topics in Mathematics" box. It looks like someone is try to shove a square peg into a round hole. -- Fropuff 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the change again. Go for it!, feedback has been forthcoming and it has been resoundingly negative (including at Portal:Philosophy). You may wish to respond to it. --cj | talk 05:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

CJ, you reverted two changes at once: the rounded corners and the editlink in the title bar. This in not cool. Can we discuss these as separate issues? I dislike the rounded corners, but I much prefer the editlinks in the title bar. -- Fropuff 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit link is discussed in the section above this. This was returned despite being previously reverted due to a formatting fault in IE, hence my complete reversion now.--cj | talk 05:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Then we should work on finding a fix for that glitch. -- Fropuff 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to try. Neither I nor Gor for it! have been able to. It may simply be an IE bug.--cj | talk 06:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your statement concerning the default template forcing portals as a group to be round or square, and as per your suggestion have implemented a template for portal creators who want to try out round corners. See Portal:Technology. I've also created a template for square corners so that if new round-corner layouts are to be tested via the default template in the future, editors will have a way to bow out of the test. Your idea to move away from the whole default-template concept was a good one, and having more templates will encourage variety in design, and more experimentation. --Go for it! 21:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

CJ, I don't agree with your use of the term "resounding" to describe the feedback, as 4 votes is hardly a peep considering that hundreds or thousands of users view these pages. I plan to continue expermenting with layouts (as I can find the time), and to test both round-based and square-based format themes, and will come up with a better approach to testing the next time around. Thanks for the feedback, on both the layout and the testing method, it has been helpful. --Go for it! 21:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry I took a while to respond - Wikipedia's getting too big!) All comments on portals about the change were negative, so use of the word "resounding" was justified. Please try not to be dismissive of those who have commented. It appears to me that general opinion has turned against rounded corners now anyway, after users realised it didn't transfer across the browser array. Be sure to discuss any further experiments. --cj | talk 14:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible glitch-fix

Concerning the edit button, I've put it back up into the header so that we can track down the text bleed glitch. I added some padding, which I think might have solved the problem. If you spot the glitch again, let me know exactly where it is, so I can look at it with IE. Go for it! 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The original glitch is still present, and is still the same as I described above. Please don't return the edit link to the header unless remedy has been found. Text bleed can be fixed by using div markup around images, as on the Main Page.--cj | talk 14:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out a page on which the glitch occurs? I was trying to replicate it and couldn't. -- Fropuff 16:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It won't occur any more, as I've removed the edit link. When in place, it occurs on any portal using this page in the circumstances I've described before (that is, where an image is placed alongside text, most notably in "selected article" boxes). --cj | talk 16:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you give a specific page on which you saw the glitch? I realize it won't occur with the edit link where it is now. Also which version of IE are you using? -- Fropuff 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The latest (IE 6 SP2). As I said, it will occur on any page transcluding the box-header. I noted Portal:History as the first page I noticed it on.--cj | talk 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed (I think, at least in WinXP IE) the glitch with the edit button. Most portal page uses I previously fixed by adding a "width" attribute to the

-->color: {{{titleforeground|#000000}}};"><!--
    -->[{{fullurl:{{{editpage|}}}|action=edit}} <span style="color: {{{titleforeground|#000000}}}">edit</span>]{{{top| }}} <!--

-->color: {{{titleforeground|#000000}}};"><!--
    -->[{{fullurl:{{{editpage|}}}|action=edit&section={{{section|}}}}} <span style="color: {{{titleforeground|#000000}}}">edit</span>]{{{top| }}} <!--

-->color: {{{titleforeground|#000000}}};"><!--
    -->[{{fullurl:{{{editpage|}}}|action=edit{{#if:{{{section|}}}|&section={{{section|}}}}}}} <span style="color: {{{titleforeground|#000000}}}">edit</span>]{{{top| }}} <!--