Template talk:Navigation bar

message: ...these are easier to type (see for example template:cite web). However, I seem to be too late already (sigh). --Ligulem 08:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it boldily. Usage seems to be low enough to do it using the brute force method. Was mainly used in two other templates. --Ligulem 08:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I iterated trough all calls using m:MWB. All calls are converted to lowercase params now. --Ligulem 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest to use lowercase paramater names only 

message: I've changed the name of the template from "NavigationBar" to "navigation bar". I suggest not to use CamelCase for template names nor parameters. --Ligulem 09:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name and parameter names were chosen to mirror template:NavigationBox.  This template might still be merged into that one (by adding a new parameter, like "Scroll=yes" or something).  I'd prefer keeping at least the parameter names consistent between these two templates, and don't really care which way it goes (but suspect it would be tremendously easier to change these back). -- Rick Block (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. Standard on templates for parameter names is lowercase. Don't create a new template using upper case params. I've never heard of the concept of template "merging". --Ligulem 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW why not migrate the calls to template:NavigationBox to this template here? ("merging" the other way round?). I could do that with MWB and my bot account. I know, this would be 19,049 pages to edit but upper case params are really ugly. --Ligulem 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean make all references to template:NavigationBox scrollbar enabled?  I think we might want to think about this on a case by case basis, but I don't think it would be appropriate to do it globally.  In addition, there isn't universal acceptance of this format (see last thread on this page) and this template isn't exactly ready for prime time yet (still need to resolve the JAWS traversal issue).  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: This template is a usability horror, mostly due to the horizontal scrollbar, and the fact that you can only see a tiny fraction of the content of the navbox at once.
Therefore I will replace it with:
Caption
Lorem ipsum, quia dolor sit, amet, consectetur, adipisci uelit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt, ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat uoluptatem. Ut enim ad minima ueniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem uel eum iure reprehenderit, qui in ea uoluptate uelit esse, quam nihil molestiae consequatur, uel illum, qui dolorem eum fugiat, quo uoluptas nulla pariatur?
Maybe that has its issues too, but it's way more practical than any horizontal scrollbar solution can ever hope to be. Shinobu 13:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're suggesting is already available as template:NavigationBox.  This is meant to be an alternative.  If the consensus is that we should not use horizontal scrollbars (ever, under any circumstances) this template should be deleted.  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: see Template talk:Navigation bar/examples#Navigation
I guess support for an image like in  can be added, if it's decided we want images in navboxes. Shinobu 18:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will replace this 

message: The demo on pump works for me but I hate it; it's poor ergonomics. 
Not only that, ha ha, I can't even load this talk page. It breaks my browser. John Reid ° 10:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not use 

message: That above issue is now fixed; all the demos and weird mutant snakes have been moved to a subpage -- one I'll never stick my hand into. I always could see the demo on Pump; I'm not claiming a technical issue against the template. I just want it dead. 
Now, I hate to bite the hand that didn't feed me to the snakes but yetchh. That's my professional opinion. As somebody points out above, the template only fails Nielsen on one out of five essential usability guidelines: it's a side-scroller. But boy, what a failure! 
*"We know from user testing that users hate horizontal scrolling and always comment negatively when they encounter it." 
* "...this abomination." 
* "...one of the top-ten Web design mistakes of 2002." 
Isn't that enough to sink a battleship? Wikipedia is here for one reason only: for our readers. This isn't SourceForge any more than it's YooToob. We aren't here to amuse ourselves. Everyone's worked hard and been very clever. Congratulations on making it work. Now go stick it on your user page. Okay? 
This is not a solution to a problem but an encapsulation of a problem: Huge nav templates. 
There is a burning desire that beats within some breasts to collect. It is, at root, a neurotic disorder; I sympathize because I share it. I want to have all the state quarters, all the stuffed animals, all the rare music, all the arcade tokens, all the obsolete computer gear, all the hand tools, all the eletronic components, all the stuff. And ideally, I'd like to live at San Simeon, where I'd have enough room to store it all and display it. But even Hearst could not build fast enough to house his collection. 
I see the most jackassed stuff. There are templates for newspaper chains. These are constantly being obsoleted as individual papers and even whole chains are bought, merged, renamed, and sold. Most such templates are bigger than the stubby articles they emblazon. What's the point? A simple link from paper to chain is correct; a list of papers in the chain belongs on the chain's page (or list page)
and nowhere else. It is not conceivable to me that a reader of the Akron Beacon Journal needs or wants a direct link on that page to the Hilton Head (S.C.) Island Packet. Yes, he should be able to get from one to the other -- and he can do so in two clicks, without the obtrusive Template:Knight Ridder Newspapers. 
Burn the huge nav templates. If a nav template has more than about a dozen main entries, it's probably wrong for articlespace; more than about 24 and it's not useful to most editors, either. The only virtue of existing huge nav templates is that they look huge; we can take aim on the slow-moving beasts and drop them. I'm not fooled by a side-scrolling Yellow Pages, though. 
* If a reader can get from A to B in two clicks and there's no clear expectation that many readers will want to make the same trip (the same specific trip, not the general case), then leave B out of any template put on A. 
Hmm, good rule. I'll have to work on that. John Reid ° 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Burn the huge nav templates?  Fine with me, but are you going to nominate them for TfD?  There are lots and lots and lots of them (I'd guess thousands if not tens of thousands).  Even if they're nominated at the rate of 3 a day I'm not sure we could keep up with the creation rate.  My thought is that it would be a whole lot easier to show folks how to create a template that isn't a monstrous eyesore than to go out and pick a thousand fights.  And, do you have any solution for a very large category TOC?  I agree horizontal scrolling a window is evil, especially when there is also vertical scrolling but that's not what we're doing here.  My professional opinion is that a horizontal scrolling navigation bar is the most practical path to the most benefit.  Let them have their huge nav templates - just don't let the nav templates overwhlem articles.  If you don't want to use it, no one is forcing you to.  If you don't even want to see them we could create a CSS style so you could make them invisible in your monobook.css.  -- Rick Block (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not a fan of the huge nav templates but I find  to be very useful and I love the scrolling panorama pictures.  If nothing else, I'd like to keep it around for the panoramas.  Hopefully, the software will be upgraded at some point to have intelligent TOCs, automatically generated.  Until that happens, LargeCategoryTOC is the best tool we have.  If we want to discourage the use of this template for use in nav templates, I wouldn't object.  I'd strongly object to deleting it entirely. -- Samuel Wantman 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two clicks