Template talk:NavigationBox

message: Please put discussion in the organized Discussion section, below.  Edits are, of course, welcome, expected, and requested.  But please don't delete the template without at least discussing it on this Talk page.
===Problems, bugs, kinks===
*All of the | that have to be inserted between items in the List.  This is extremely inelegant and makes this entire template (Template:SuccessorSeries) virtually unhelpful.  Can anyone devise an elegant solution? --Markles 18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Eeek!  For a relatively short time, a couple key templates didn't.  I've corrected them, but I can't get the articles which use the templates to get off the category list.  The only thing that works, it seems, is to "touch" each article by editing it (with a blank edit).  Can you come up with a more elegant solution?—Markles 04:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, sorry, I was a bit nervous for edit wars on other articles. Apologies to everyone for being polemic. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 17:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *There were several misunderstandings about this. The "auto" solution is better because it removes the dependency on the width property (94% -> (100-94)/2 = 3% margin) but I thought it broke something, thus I used the latter as a fall back. One other remark I would like to do is that MediaWiki is veeery idiosyncratic especially now that the Parser Functions have been introduced. This template for instance is not "esoteric" in the sense that it uses complicated features. It's just fragile, because of MediaWiki oddities. I'm begin to think that MediaWiki makes simple things simple and all the rest harder. But at least the generated code passes now a first level of validation, a rare property of wikipedia pages :-/ —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, whatever the size is (I'm happy with 94% but I do not object to changes), it shouldn't be hardcoded. Please, let's decide a suitable class for common.css (or choose an existing one, if it exists) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wholeheartedly second this (with a good dose of reason): this template should have a style option, as all articles are not the same. A CSS class is a perfect solution for all cases. For the immediate future, at least add an optional 'extra style' argument in that would default to the existing hard-coded style - this would grant 'style freedom' while not at all affecting this template's existing (widespread) usage. THEPROMENADER 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: When I first created this template, many of the templates that were subsequently brought in were 94%.  But tradition is hardly reason to continue.  So if there's consensus, I'll cave in and agree to 100%.—Markles 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the CSS class idea for this.  I also will go along with any consensus agreed on without any problem. --CapitalR 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I too would like to see Show/Hide added, as in  for example. I think it's achieved using div classes "NavFrame", "NavHead" and "NavContent", but I would rather leave it in the hands of someone more capable than me! --Bruce1ee 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *All of the | that have to be inserted between items in the List.  This is extremely inelegant and makes this entire template (Template:SuccessorSeries) virtually unhelpful.  Can anyone devise an elegant solution? --Markles 18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Eeek!  For a relatively short time, a couple key templates didn't.  I've corrected them, but I can't get the articles which use the templates to get off the category list.  The only thing that works, it seems, is to "touch" each article by editing it (with a blank edit).  Can you come up with a more elegant solution?—Markles 04:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems, bugs, kinks

message: Would it be possible to allow the templates which use this template to change the color, leaving the current blue as the default. Some successions should be of this style but are not good in blue. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template color

message: What do you think about using commas instead of | in the lists? It looks "cleaner" to me.—Markles 10:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commas

message: I see that you have chosen the rather fat bullets for your examples in the documentation. Most other navigation boxes now use the bold middot instead. It can easily be used by using the template  and it also handles proper line breaking etc. I added a bold middot example below. --David Göthberg 13:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons

message: ...but on a somewhat unrelated issue, wouldn't a navigation box be more easily navigated if the contents were in alphabetical order. I know everyone is used to chronological order, and for those familliar with the subject matter it is satisfying to see it that way, but for the unfamiliar- most of the world- they have to hunt forever to find what they are looking for. I think the chronology belongs on a list not a device intended to help readers find things.  stilltim 12:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of content

message: Hello, I'm working on the Wikipedia:Accessibility project, and one of the requirements for accessible tables used only for layout is not to use the syntax for table headers, but style syntax (structural syntax shouldn't be used for presentational purposes). In this case, instead of the header:




use the equivalent wikicode (font-weight: bold; is added, and the header cell is replaced by a data cell):




I also propose to make another change to remove the additional background: #ccccff: put the template code into a  block, remove the additional background: #ccccff changing the if expression, and finaly add an example at the end (for documentation purposes):
<includeonly>



<noinclude>

This second change is only a proposal, but the first change is important for accessibility reasons. HTH --surueña 11:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accessible navigational templates

message: *Now I begin to think someone was kidding at me. The auto margin, which is the standard way to cope with the issues we had here, was exactly what I had introduced in this edit. Soon after someone said to remove it as it didn't work. Now someone else reintroduces it under the summary "cleanup". Please, next time don't make people waste time for what you don't know. Thank you. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, sorry, I was a bit nervous for edit wars on other articles. Apologies to everyone for being polemic. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 17:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There were several misunderstandings about this. The "auto" solution is better because it removes the dependency on the width property (94% -> (100-94)/2 = 3% margin) but I thought it broke something, thus I used the latter as a fall back. One other remark I would like to do is that MediaWiki is veeery idiosyncratic especially now that the Parser Functions have been introduced. This template for instance is not "esoteric" in the sense that it uses complicated features. It's just fragile, because of MediaWiki oddities. I'm begin to think that MediaWiki makes simple things simple and all the rest harder. But at least the generated code passes now a first level of validation, a rare property of wikipedia pages :-/ —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications to NavigationBox 

message: Hi guys, I think we should decide if the documentation belongs to the template page or the talk page.  Briefly, there are reasons for both choices. The former is preferable for locality of reference. The latter is preferable because of a MediaWiki deficiency: even if you only change a noinclude section it will treat the edit as a normal edit and will update the cache for all pages including the template; thus a change which only affects documentation will cause a regeneration of all dependent pages. But I see this as something which will be fixed in the future, so I'm still for keeping the documentation in the noinclude section, unless we'll begin to hear shrieks from the servers ;) In case the docs are kept in the template page, however, we should scale down all level of headings in this page, as it doesn't make sense to have a Discussion section. In case we'll put the docs here instead, the following template, to be put on the template page, may be of help . —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choosing were to put documentation 

message: Can we simplify things here by putting the template width to 100% ? Most page-bottom templates (that use this one) are 100%, and having this one line up with these would give a page bottom a much cleaner look. Also, it would be nice to see the box width line up with the edges of the rest of the page. Are there any arguments against? If not, I'd like to give it a go as it is but a slight style modification. THEPROMENADER 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, whatever the size is (I'm happy with 94% but I do not object to changes), it shouldn't be hardcoded. Please, let's decide a suitable class for common.css (or choose an existing one, if it exists) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wholeheartedly second this (with a good dose of reason): this template should have a style option, as all articles are not the same. A CSS class is a perfect solution for all cases. For the immediate future, at least add an optional 'extra style' argument in that would default to the existing hard-coded style - this would grant 'style freedom' while not at all affecting this template's existing (widespread) usage. THEPROMENADER 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: When I first created this template, many of the templates that were subsequently brought in were 94%.  But tradition is hardly reason to continue.  So if there's consensus, I'll cave in and agree to 100%.—Markles 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the CSS class idea for this.  I also will go along with any consensus agreed on without any problem. --CapitalR 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  100% Width 

message: Is there any way to make this template have a default show/hide option without messing it up too badly?  I'm not very experienced in WikiMarkup, so I wouldn't know.  --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I too would like to see Show/Hide added, as in  for example. I think it's achieved using div classes "NavFrame", "NavHead" and "NavContent", but I would rather leave it in the hands of someone more capable than me! --Bruce1ee 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show/hide 

message: Though Template:NavigationBox is great for smaller, simpler templates, it doesn't work as well with larger, more complex templates, such as Template:Mario series and Template:Censorship. Should this be mentioned under the Use or Purpose sections? --TBCΦtalk? 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template usage 

message: This edit  (the latest) removed the ability to supply your own color(s) to the template. I request that it be reverted to add this functionality back. --MECU≈talk 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the functionality to change th color of the header, although I don't see how this feature can useful: navigational boxes with fancy colors are highly distracting while adding nothing of value. —Ruud 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but it's still not quite right -- it doesn't look the same as it did before. I've used this color feature using the school colors on the College football coach templates. I think it adds a certain flare. The blah blue on all of them (as the NFL uses) looks... well, blah and boring. The colors help identify the teams and schools quickly to a fan as well. --MECU≈talk 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know it doesn't look exactly the same as it did before (as intended), are there any specific difference you object to? Also see User:R. Koot/navbox for what can happen when everyone tries to add they own flare to their navigation box. Not an improvement in my opinion (and well... encyclopedias are supposed to look a little boring/strict). —Ruud 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks back to normal now. Perhaps it was just a temporary glitch that the outline box and gray-ish background were missing. I don't agree with you example. If you look at the bottom of John L. Smith I think the colors both add information and interest to the article. Why does an encyclopedia have to look boring/strict? Because encyclopedias always have? I would much rather read an article that is both stylistically pretty and informative and accurate. There is no reason to think you cannot achieve all of those and more. Call it the USA Today revolution of newspapers. --MECU≈talk 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to add color functionality back 

message: We have way too many nav templates as collected at Template:Navigational templates. Merge! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe  not the ideal candidate as it seems deprecated...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe  can simply be deleted as it is not linked by any article, and it can be substitued by this . Peterwhy 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, go for it! –Pomte 04:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  ...but don't substitute , please;  (or convert to ) instead!  Regards, David (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you like to share with us your thoughts and the template you reverted and why? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: If you watch this template, you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates#Style guideline for footer templates. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nav box revolution 

message: Hi everyone. I have made a template and some CSS code that prevents word wraps inside links and only allows word wraps between the links and in normal text. This is useful for instance for long link lists. I am pretty sure this will be used in navigation boxes like . If any of you are interested I have brought my template and CSS code up for discussion at the village pump. See also  itself and its talk page. --David Göthberg 15:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks! Oddly enough the "Wikimedia commons box" in the documentation broke the green doc box. So I had to move the "Wikimedia commons box" to the bottom of the doc page to minimise the damage. --David Göthberg 00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template and CSS class nowraplinks