Template talk:Documentation

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this really better than Talkpagedoc?

I'll admit that this looks nice, but I'm wondering if it's better than {{Talkpagedoc}} on a technical basis. Is MediaWiki smart enough to recognise when changes are inside/outside <noinclude> or <onlyinclude>? If job queue creation for template updates is based on any modification, including transclusions, then a change to {{{{PAGENAME}}/doc}} is going to generate a potentially large job queue where it's not really necessary. --User:WoWWiki-Murph/Sig 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Update. I've not tested, but I think my fear was unfounded, assuming the job queue creation is equivalent to Special:WhatLinksHere. Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox/doc as an example, it certainly doesn't have the huge list found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox. --User:WoWWiki-Murph/Sig 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm generally annoyed at how this template looks on the wowwiki (and I would imagine any other dark-background) skin. The almost-white boxes used for its header and footer invert the skin color scheme for no apparent reason. I'm also not convinced that the documentation needs to be enclosed in a padded, bordered box.

A slightly more functional complaint: "how this works" is irrelevant, and the editing link should really be at the *top* of the documentation rather than at the bottom. This revision is my preferred version, addressing all of those complaints. Unless there are coherent arguments against this, I plan on making the linked revision live in a couple of days. -- foxlit (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To me the template makes it obvious to show that the documentation is inside the box, and it looks better to me. The case with the "Template documentation" title, together with the line and "Visit <template>/doc to alter this text", makes it look ugly - not everything is good to make it look like "normal" text (I hope you understand what I mean). I'm open to that there could be a vote to change how the template looks; your version or the original one. --g0urra[T҂C] 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Most template pages that use this template contain no content other than documentation -- so, to me, having a documentation box within an "article" box is somewhat redundant; eyesore color inversions don't do much to help. The "Visit... to alter" line could be removed; its purpose is already duplicated by the section edit links. The "Template documentation" header could possibly be removed by changing the corresponding [edit] link to a [edit documentation] link anchored somewhere close to the template's title, but I'm not sure whether that would be elegant.
You are, of course, correct in saying that not everything has to be formatted as "normal" text; complementarily, formatting should not be contrived. Let's see if we can find a variation that would appeal to both of our aesthetic senses before deciding one way or the other. -- foxlit (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"Eyesore color inversions"... I noticed you happen to use Safari, and on that it looked terrible. You're right about the edit link - an [edit] link could be on the far right, but I'm still of the opinion that the box should stay. I know that you don't want it how it looked from the beginning, but I've seen no complaints other than from you. The previous version will stay until there a general consensus has been made. --g0urra[T҂C] 07:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with fox on this one. There's no need for a box (especially since it's designed for a light skin and not the dark ones) if all we see on the template page itself is the documentation. --k_d3 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Safari has anything to do with how style="background: #ddd; color:#111; ..." looks against a dark background. The upper part of this image shows what the template looks like for me; the lower version is how I think the template should look. -- foxlit (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm fine with that solution - it looked ugly with an unnecessary big heading. Change away. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Have we settled on a look yet? --Gengar orange 22x22.pngBeware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:27 PM PST 30 Apr 2009

This discussion is past, I'm sure, but... On other wikis I've seen the documentation template provide the link to the actual documentation page, and I found that useful. (There really are times I want to talk about the documentation, which is why I pushed for the change from {{talkpagedoc}}.) I see that discussed above, and do not see it implemented on the "old wowwiki" skin under firefox. Was it removed?

I am surprised as well that people are talking about color problems on particular skins. I thought a template like this would use colors determined by css, to keep it useful on the various skins. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)