Jump to content

Module talk:Sidebar/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Module talk:Sidebar
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 31 January 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Template talk:Sidebar) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Edit request on 24 February 2013

I'm reissuing the request from 21 February – to reduce the template's default width from 22.0em to 20.0em for the sake of smaller screens/windows – as I don't believe its first outing was given, so to speak, enough light of day. Screen resolutions of 1024 by 768 or less may be ever more uncommon nowadays, although I know older people who (e.g.) browse using 1024 by 768 on a widescreen as they find it easier on their eyes. Furthermore, though, this template's present default width also seems to assume Wikipedia will be viewed full-screen, which I know is not always the case. I'm therefore suggesting 20.0em as a compromise between the present 22.0em and the 18.0em specified by quite a few Sidebars I've seen (see above).

The change may be made by replacing the line

           -->width:{{#if:{{{width|}}} |{{{width}}} |22.0em}};<!--

near the top of the code with

           -->width:{{#if:{{{width|}}} |{{{width}}} |20.0em<!--this default/fallback width no greater than 20.0em, please, for the sake of smaller screens/windows-->}};<!--

CsDix (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Which makes it not stack properly with {{infobox}}. This is an ill-thought-out request, as evidenced by your fairly ridiculous assertion of censorship the last time it was declined. Rather than coming up with cherry-picked examples ("this group of sidebars sets the width, therefore it'll work for all sidebars") or vague instructions for other people to do lots of work ("{{infobox}} should be updated as well"), come up with a more convincing argument than a vague assertion of crowding on low resolutions (which less than 10% of our desktop PC users are on these days; factor in laptops, which are widescreen, and mobile devices where sidebars don't float, and that's a tiny percentage of the user base). Declining again: please do not reenable unless there is a clear consensus to make this change. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There are two arguments in the initial message that I think you may've missed. As regards consensus, does this mean I need to start asking people to come to here to post some words of support? How about the "Be Bold (i.e. make the change), Revert, Discuss" method I've seen acknowledged in various places..? CsDix (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"Be bold" has its limits. One of those limits is that if you're going to propose a change which is going to affect 66828 pages simultaneously, it's best to ensure that it's not going to have unforeseen consequences first. Put it this way: had this template not been fully protected, A width change would have been reverted immediately: in the WP:BRD cycle, that takes us to "discuss". So, to address your points:
  1. Only a very small number of readers, getting smaller, use low-width displays;
  2. The assertion that a 2em reduction in width will significantly help in that case is disputable anyway;
  3. ... As is the assertion that readers will be inconvenienced when viewing Wikipedia in a non-maximised window
  4. In the 18 months since a default width was added, templates have relied on this width for their presentation, and densely-worded sidebars using hlists will have their output significantly altered by additional line breaks forced by a lower width. In the common case where a sidebar runs alongside the TOC at the top of an article, this will increase the amount of dead whitespace on a reader's display (particularly on less tall displays such as laptops) for no advantage.
  5. {{infobox}} has defaulted to 22em for very nearly five years, and altering the width here will result in sidebars no longer naturally stacking with infoboxes (which is extremely common).
Given all of that, the width should not be changed lightly. Two editors have already declined it. If you'd like to propose the change in a more central location, I'd advise you to start an RFC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your advice. I'm not that invested in the situation, so I'll the inertia of the status quo prevail. I'd've like to've seen, though, if and how any readers rather than administrators would've responded to the change. You dispute whether any assistance would be given to people viewing the encyclopedia in a window rather than full-screen (i.e. this remains moot) but I remain unsure whether you've recognis/zed any value in the other observation – I don't think any of us are getting any younger. CsDix (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2013

Please replace the current "below" line (near the end of the code) ... 

 -->{{#if: {{{below|}}}
     |<tr><td class="{{{belowclass|}}}" style="padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;{{{belowstyle|}}}">
{{{below}}}</td>
     </tr>
    }}<!--

...with the following version, where the top padding has been halved to 0.15em... 

 -->{{#if:{{{below|}}}
     |<tr><td class="{{{belowclass|}}}" style="padding:0.15em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;{{{belowstyle|}}}">
{{{below}}}</td>
     </tr>
    }}<!--

...because when border lines above and below the "below" line have been specified, I keep finding the need to set this padding in order to position the line halfway between them (i.e. in a balanced fashion).

CsDix (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Examples? Have you checked that this doesn't have an adverse effect on other sidebars? Declining for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
...I've provided a link to links that include examples, so please don't deactivate the edit request. CsDix (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
What you've done is link to your contibutions history, which contains a wide assortment of recent sidebar edits, some of which are being openly disputed on your talk. If you're not able to provide concrete examples of the problem, it's unlikely that a passing admin will decide to take you up and make a change that will alter the appearance of up to 66,000 articles. So this will sit in the CAT:EP queue (already backlogged and under-monitored) indefinitely. It's your call. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's one (via looking at template edits whose summaries included "below"). Feels like too small a tweak to bother with now, though. CsDix (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Sidebar/Archive_3&oldid=593203445"