Forum:Template:Navbox

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Template:Navbox
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 December 2008 by Dtm142.

There are many uncategorised templates in Special:UncategorizedTemplates (about 500+ templates; excluding signatures).

As this wiki contains lots of navigation box templates (Navbox templates), I would like to propose the use of Template:Navbox to all existing navbox templates, similar to the way most Userboxes use Template:Userbox.

The purpose of this template is "to standardise certain attributes of all navigation boxes, for example, their colours and other CSS attributes." Certain features, such as Javascript collapsing, will be added in the future. (Javascript collapsing is available in Wikipedia's Navbox templates.) By using this template, these features can be implemented much quicker and easier than editing each template separately. In addition to that, we would be able to add the navbox templates to Category:Navigational templates automatically.

This template project was started by Skill in April 2008, but was never implemented. So, should we proceed with it? I've added some examples of its usage in the documentation page. If this project gets the go-ahead, then users who are familiar with templates may use this template for future navbox templates, and edit the existing templates.   az talk   17:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be cool; I just changed the "toccolours" class to "navbox" and changed the width option.--Richardtalk 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Shall I proceed with this? It is really frustrating when a user always reverts all the changes I make to a template using the Navbox template.   az talk   15:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I too have noticed the same and don't really know how to proceed with regards to the recurring uncommented reversions. It's possible that template nesting is just a little more abstract than some might be comfortable with, however I really feel that this is the way to go to get a consistent look and feel across the wiki. ~kytti khat 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, i am biased towards auto widths, however i recognise that that for auto to be the default width there needs to be a way to make multiple navbox templates on a single article size consistently up to the largest ones size (javascript?). ~kytti khat 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for 100% widths as it is in Wikipedia. Auto-widths will make the templates inconsistent (across the wiki) if you ask me. Some templates have 40% and 70%, while others will require close to 100% width. Even if we choose to make the templates follow the largest width for the particular page (i.e. the Prayer article) using JavaScript and whatnot, the template width will be different for other articles. If we're going to standardise the templates, why not standardise the widths as well? Just an opinion.   az talk   15:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "collapsible" function to the template. This function adds the "show/hide" link to a template. The default is currently set to "show". When you try "hiding" an auto-width template, the template "shrinks" too much. =O Try it (in the documentation page)... Which is why I think Wikipedia uses 100% width.   az talk   16:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well if following Wikipedia's style is so important then we have a lot to change. for instance using pipe characters as separator's (which forces us to use the ! template). But more important would be putting group titles on the side rather than top and centred (which is quite a waste of vertical space. Vertical space as you know is the more scare of any screen's dimensions (regardless if its a 4x3 aspect ratio or 16x9). Additionally the ability for subgroups would be very helpful for larger navigations boxes. here's an example of the sort of navbox that i think could suit us well: [[File:example navbox1.png|thumb|center]]

Even better would be the ability to have multi levels of title nesting. Imagine a nav box that was called "armour" the three main groups are of course melee, range, and magic, and under each of those three would be chest armour, leg armour, head armour, specific to the armour type (e.g., coif). that would look like this:

[[File:example navbox2.png|thumb|center]]

At the very least i feel that putting titles on the left with the list of links immediately to the right of the title is the way to go for 100% width nav templates. As it is now small templates have slews of white space on both sides, if we at least contain the white space on one side it will give a lot more consistent look and feel if 100% is to be defacto. As for inconsistent sizes with auto i think those would matter little if the text were on the left like wikipedia (which you've mentioned numerous times as the justification for 100% width). ~kytti khat 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think auto-widths is better than 100% width, 100% width makes the template look too long. Naikiw 11:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Improved version

This is how the navigation template will look if it is left-aligned with 100% width. I haven't looked into sub-grouping yet, but I think this will cover most templates...   az talk   19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sign me up for this version, looks great. ~kytti khat 05:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the navboxes. But why does {{talk page}} have to be put on all the navbox talk pages? I thought we could make the "d" only show up if the talk page existed. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that has been corrected now. ~kytti khat 03:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)