Template talk:Done/See also

Re-organization of the /See also page

I have spent time today trying to re-organize this page, and it has been reverted. I changed the columns from three to two, since three was going off the page to the right (it was too wide). I also corrected the code on several of the templates, and removed unnecessary whitespaces. The templates are grouped by color and type of mark. Then, they are alphabetized within their groups. I think that the template should be changed back to my last edit, and if anyone can improve upon this "See also" documentation, then please do. As of right now, it is more of a mess than what I left it in. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

We can certainly have a compromise on several of your points there, but before we start, it definitely isn't "more of a mess than what I left it in". If anything, it is exactly in the same "mess", no more no less. I am not saying this to nitpick; but establishing a compromise needs being realistic, isn't it? Here is what I offer:

• About the columns, we can apply the dynamic column sizing with {{Div col}}. Static column sizing is deprecated anyway; one of the reasons behind its deprecation is that it always leaves a lot of people unhappy. Like now. We just have to have a compromise on the minimum width of the columns.
• Alphabetical sorting is the worst form of sorting and one that is not helping at all. It is meant to help searching easier when the name is known but that only applies to print material. Nowadays, web browsers are all equipped with search functions. In addition, remember the name of templates is almost impossible. Sorting them by color and size (current state of affairs) is much better.
• About the rest, I concede my point of view. I don't mind about whitespace or whether there is comma or em dash after a link.

What do you think?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using "div col" instead of "multicol", in fact, I think it's easier to work with. Sorting by color and size is okay with me too, but there are a few tweaks in reordering that need to be done yet, even when sorting by color and size. I'm not real clear about the difference between static and dynamic columns, as my coding knowledge is limited on that point. But, certainly, you would want to use the template which would work for the majority of browsers. I still think that two columns would be better than three because of the width going off the page (at least in the browser I'm using--Firefox), because if there are three columns, then the font size will be smaller, and I have problems reading smaller font (see WP:ACCESS). I have no qualms about establishing a compromise, I just don't like the way it is now, because it's too wide for my screen. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again.

Please the result of my edit, if you haven't: I applied Div Col. It works like a charm on 800×600 screen. (I use Firesizer in Firefox.) I checked using Firefox developer tool and I see that font size remains the same. Perhaps the smallness of font is how it feels to you. (Or perhaps I am missing something. If you can reproduce, please let me know.)

Now, I'm not against tweaking colwidth or the order of items until we find the sweet spot. If you have anything in mind, or just want to test stuff, please go right ahead. It seem we have an agreement on the majority of stuff right now.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks better already! There are also a few templates that need to be updated to their current page names, so that it "blacks out" the template name on each /doc pg. On hold, Administrator note and Bureaucrat note are 3 that I can see, right now. I'll take a look tomorrow too, as it's getting late here. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative use

I've thought of another use for this: User talk:SMcCandlish/Editnotice Template:Editnotices/Group/User_talk:SMcCandlish (moved it so it would be available on my archive pages, too).. While I wouldn't build this into every talk page, it's handy to add in collapsed form to the Editnotice of one's user talk page, if one makes frequent use of such tags for one's own discussion/task management purposes, especially with {{Resbox}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:List of discussion templates

There is a separate list of the same templates. May be it worth to join them? DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 18:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, these are clearly duplicating the same idea, but the formats are radically different. Template talk:Done/See also is more flexible and more space-saving, and could be expanded to include the "Specific-use" stuff as separate sections, but doing this – in a way that retains the purpose of using this page as a collapsed page-bottom transclusion in template documentation – would come at the cost of getting rid of the other page's "Opposite Tag" columns. That doesn't seem like a real loss, since it's just kind of someone's opinion and very incomplete.

Someone more clever and patient than I am could probably figure a way to extract this data into some data sets in the background that were then used on-the-fly to populate both pages in different formats, but this would be a big job and it would make maintenance more difficult.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)