Template talk:Categorybrowsebar

message: This template was previously nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 11#Template:Browsebar. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

message: small caps isn't an ideal font-variant, since it renders differently on different systems.  In particular, bolding it does weird things to the first letter of each word on my Win + Mozilla.  Can we find a better font, even a proportional one?  That would also make it easier to fit more cats on a line on small screens.  +sj+
:Agreed – looks silly being a different font, imo. Can we not keep to the standard font as having numerous type-faces is quite bad? violet/riga (t) 18:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a lot better in Firefox than it does in IE, but it still looks pretty awful. Personally I think there are rarely situations in which small caps in general don't look awful, must we have small caps be the first thing anybody sees? I'm inclined to say that all-caps would look better (howabout... all caps, size -2, bold, Verdana?). --Fastfission 19:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: +1 AaronSw 01:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  font choice 

message: I did this for a few reasons.  First off, :Category:Natural sciences is not the most fundamental category.  :Category:Nature includes natural science, but also what the common person thinks of when they think of "nature", which isn't easily accessed from natural science.  Also, changing from Natural science to nature opens up space to add :Category:Abstraction. This is important because mathematics and philosophy are very fundamental to thought, and Mathematics does not belong under Natural science. In fact Logic, and the more theoretical aspects of computer science fit better stemming from abstraction as well.  So even if Abstraction is qunatity wise a smaller fundamental category in wikipedia, its equally important to include in on the main page.   I really think this helps accomplish the puropse of this template much better than the previous way, without taking up much more horizontal space, since thats also important to people.  —siroχo 03:53, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
::Category:Abstraction is horrible, and of little use to the casual visitor --Henrygb 00:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural science --> Nature , Abstraction 

message: I seem to get yelled at every time I try to edit a template on the main page—as in “What the @$%# is ‘Regis Philbining’?!!”—so I'll post a proposal here.  If there are no objections, I'll have it implemented soon.  I await your input.  — Tuesday Teen 14:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proposal 

message: :Category:Religion is listed on :Category:Main page but not here. I have left a note for the user responsible with a link here. Brianjd 06:01, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
:To any admin: Since it is such a big issue on its own, shouldn't religion be one of the main categories listed? Brisvegas 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I've created a page titled Wikipedia:Wikiportal Browse and I think it should be linked to. How about:
 
Culture | Geography | History | 
Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology
Browse Wikipedia · Portals · Article overviews · Alphabetical index · Other indexes
I'd do it myself but the template is protected. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 01:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added your link, and updated the template a bit, too. -- Beland 04:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals link 

message: ...the "Ask Wikipedia a Question" link to point to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead? --HappyCamper 04:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh... go for it Happy. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I change... 

message: This menu has three basically parallel browse pages:  Wikipedia:Browse, Portal:Browse, and Wikipedia:Browse by overview.  Their distinguishing browse objects are categories, portals, and articles, respectively.  I propose Categorybrowsebar directly reflects these distinctions in its wording. On their discussion pages, I also proposed Wikipedia:Browse be renamed to "Wikipedia:Browse by category, and Wikipedia:Browse by overview be renamed to "Wikipedia:Browse by article." Here are some possible revisions.  — RDF talk 05:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the last one. One minor improvement might be to alphabeticise the links on the bottom row. --HappyCamper 20:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three parallel browse pages 

message: Here's an apha sample (minus "Other").  — RDF talk 20:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would if I could! Unfortunately, I can't seem to convince (or get the attention of?) anyone who actually could make the change.  I'm stumped. :-)   — RDF talk 21:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Change done. Let's see the reaction. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 22:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah-ha!!!  Now I know who has the keys to the back room! Thanks! ;-)  — RDF talk 23:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! --HappyCamper 23:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, I'm the culprit for having an old version of "Ask Wikipedia a Question" on the template!!! >;-o)  Could someone replace what's currently there with this? Ask Wikipedia a Question Thanks!  — RDF talk 19:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask and ye shall recieve. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 20:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and ye shall deliver! Thanks! :-)  — RDF talk 22:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabeticised version of last proposal above 

message: Please add to discussion on the usefulness of the browsebar/catbar headers, at Template talk:Browsebar#Is this bar useful?. thanks. --Quiddity 21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browsebar 

message: Is there a particular reason this template uses the former over the latter?  Even Wiktionary (see, for example, at wikt:indexes) suggests that indices is the preferred and more common usage for those who speak British English and not uncommon in American English, and I think it's fair to say that indices is more common amongst native English speakers (the results of a relevant Googlefight notwithstanding).  68.248.231.124 00:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indexes/Indices

message: {editprotected}
Please add this line. Thanks. --Quiddity·(talk) 09:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Commander Keane 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category