Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 1 thread from Template talk:Sidebar. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 1 thread from Template talk:Sidebar. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
||
Line 872:
: As loathe as I am to make this any more customisable, this actually helps to reduce the amount of code required to style sidebars in most cases and so I've synced. Thanks. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 10:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
:* Thank ''you'' for making the edit. I don't think it makes the template any more customisable, but, as you say, can streamline it. And, no need, I feel, to loathe customisation – I can see that "one size doesn't fit all", especially given the scope to which Wikipedia aspires. Thanks again, [[User:CsDix|CsDix]] ([[User talk:CsDix|talk]]) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
== Edit request on 21 February 2013 ==
{{edit protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
At present, the default{{\}}fall-back width for this template is 22.0em (line 6). But, on smaller screens{{\}}windows{{\}}resolutions, e.g. 1024 by 768, this is on the large side. Meanwhile, many Sidebars seem to have their widths set at or around 18.0em – see, for instance, those [[:Category:Political ideology templates]] using Sidebar. May, therefore, Sidebar's default width be decreased to a compromise 20.0em, please? (To do so, replace line 6 of the present code with the following:)
<code>{{nbsp|11}}<nowiki>-->width:{{#if:{{{width|}}} |{{{width}}} |20.0em<!--default/fallback width no greater than 20.0em, please, for the sake of smaller screens/windows-->}};<!--</nowiki></code>
<!-- End request -->
[[User:CsDix|CsDix]] ([[User talk:CsDix|talk]]) 01:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:I've deactivated procedurally, since this is a rather innocuous but large change which would need consensus. I personally don't agree that this is an issue; the average screen size today is [http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp larger than] 1024px.[http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/most-popular-screen-resolution-increases-to-1366-x-768-20120411/] --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:That said, I personally do not understand why we are hard-declaring the width here rather than adding that to the CSS using the <code>vertical-navbox</code> class. I would say the same for the cellspacing and cellpadding, which are deprecated attributes on top of that. And why are we providing all these custom parameters style parameters when the simple use of bodystyle would suffice? *sigh* --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:* Why deactivate? Why not make the change, then see if people come running to have it undone or modified – in other words, ''prompt them'' to express a consensus – ? Right now, I must say your action seems to me to smack of something like censorship.
:: As regards width not being an issue, I'm afraid there are plenty of places where 1024 by 768 is the highest decent resolution available. Let's not lose sight of how well-equipped many of us might be. Meanwhile, on the other hand, how about Wikipedia in windows that aren't full-screen?
:: And, as regards custom parameters, who says one size (bodystyle, defaults) should fit all..?
:: [[User:CsDix|CsDix]] ([[User talk:CsDix|talk]]) 03:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::<p>Hardly censorship. The template you used should only be used for uncontroversial changes. This is controversial. Therefore, the template should not have been used. QED.<p>Those places are steadily becoming fewer. Should we limit everyone for the sake of the few (less than 10% now!)? In general though, the pages which use this template [[graceful failure|fail gracefully]].<p>I'm simply saying on the point of the custom parameters that one parameter ''would'' fit all: "style" or "bodystyle" (whichever we want to call it). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::: It ''smacks of'' censorship. Imagine a different point of view for a moment.
:::: I don't know whether or not changing the default width will be controversial. How do you know it will be – beyond yourself and anyone you know who shares your point of view – ?
:::: Why should a reduction of 2.0em be regarded as if only a limitation? Another point of view is that 22.0em rather than 20.0em is a greater limitation on the amount of text that can be displayed beside the sidebar, regardless of resolution etc.
:::: As regards style/bodystyle, then, I'm not sure what point you're making – apologies if I'm missing something obvious.
:::: [[User:CsDix|CsDix]] ([[User talk:CsDix|talk]]) 04:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
| |||