Template talk:Subpages

For discussion about Subpages, see http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1059.0.html. For discussion about the workings of this template, use below.

Subpages error

Help!

How can I get rid of the hyphens? Stupid script uses '|' as punctuation and then (apparently?) doesn't give me a way to escape it...? --Larry Sanger 21:26, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

You need to replace all the table |s with {{{!}} - I'll do it for you. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 21:48, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Or not, seeing as you're moving it to a different template Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 21:50, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Oops, too late! But thanks.

It was a kluge anyway, but maybe not. I think we want to keep the table stuff separate from the canonical list of subpages. Now to move the logic to a subpage, too... --Larry Sanger 21:52, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Doesn't seem to work on my test page, doesn't seem to recognise that it's in a table. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 21:59, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Very strange. I don't know why it isn't working identically on our different sets of test pages. --Larry Sanger 22:16, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I think I know why now. It's fine with the catalogs one, until after it. The first catalogs link should be deleted anyway, as there is already one at the bottom. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 22:25, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Good job Ryan, looks like you fixed it. --Larry Sanger 22:34, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

It was with the HTML comments, MediaWiki didn't recognise them as a line break. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 22:42, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

We're back to having unnecessary extra spaces at the bottom of the table... --Larry Sanger 22:40, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I noticed that afterwards. I'll see if I can get that fixed. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 22:47, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, I'll let you bang at it, I really am going to bed now. --Larry Sanger 22:51, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Et viola! I have finished. There is one caveat. The "Canonical list on pages" HTML comment had to be noincluded, as it was causing a linebreak. Other than that, it should now work perfectly. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 23:24, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Drop-down box used to create new subpages?

OK, if you can pull this off, it would be very cool. I think MediaWiki will let you do it. Make a drop-down box that is put at the bottom cell of the Subpages table, with the options of all unused subpage types. If the user selects an option, it opens up a blank page with the correct name. Bonus if {{subpage}} appears at the top of this blank page automatically.

Is this possible? --Larry Sanger 22:39, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm done for the day! Feel free to tweak it until it's completely right. --Larry Sanger 22:40, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I'll take a look, but I don't know if I will be able to do it. I should be able to though Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 22:47, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I think that it may require a specialised extension, as MediaWiki won't let me input raw HTML code. You could just use the Inputbox extension if that will do, as that should be fairly easy, with a template on the top of the talk pages. However, I can write the dropdown box as an extension if you'd like. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 00:01, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

I can probably figure it out.--Robert W King 00:10, 6 July 2007 (CDT)Beyond my scope. I'll let Ryan handle it. ;) --Robert W King 09:36, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Obvious issue

This template displays in the same spot lead images do! It should be across the top instead.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:46, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, that should be easy to fix, just get rid of the |- parts to make them all in a row. I'll let Larry decide what to do though. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 21:09, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, of course we have two choices: have a horizontal template, or simply move the lead images. I'd certainly entertain using a horizontal template (maybe it would look all right), but I am pretty sure a vertical one would look better. So...why not just move the images? --Larry Sanger 06:47, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Two other issues

See Onslow Beach and note the line that is struck through the template's table. This is an example of an article with a short intro and __NOTOC__ added to suppress the table of contents. Note also how the template interferes with the placement of the image in relation to the text. I seriously think this needs to go along the top of the page, not on the right.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:46, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Moved my reply to the forums: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1059.0.html --Larry Sanger 07:12, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Chris

For fixing that pesky line-through-the-table problem. --Larry Sanger 12:03, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Looking sweet! --Larry Sanger 14:03, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Just kicking ideas around here. With respect to colours and borders we can finalise them in the future. It's very easy to change it all. One problem with the article name being in a button is that a long name will wreck the infobox. It might be good to go with the generic type "Main Article" nomenclature, as used in the subpages 7 template. Chris Day (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't think I like having "Biology" as a separate button. And by the way, if that's a button, the draft page has to be one, too. Both the article and its draft are different kinds of things from the other subpages, namely, they're the "parent" pages and they are labelled simply after the topic. It would make sense to make them into buttons if they lived on subpages. Mainly, I just think it will look better and be clearer if the topic of the Infoset is not made another button, but made part of the "header" of the template. --Larry Sanger 14:22, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes I did make the draft page a seperate button too. It did not show up on the template here since there is no draft for this page. I had coded the draft button to be dependant on the existance of a draft page.

I think we should avoid having the article name in the template. This may sound like an odd thing to say but we have some monster article names and those can never be accommodated into such a small template without looking lopsided/unbalanced (See Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People's Army with the subpages template). Besides the Main Article name should be obvious by looking at the top of the page. Chris Day (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Occupying a whole column

I'm thinking that perhaps it would be better aesthetically if the subpage template occupied a column that extended the entire length of the article. Let's see how that looks.

Hmm, is there a way to do that?? --Larry Sanger 14:24, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I really think this is a bad idea for two reasons: 1.) you're going to screw up the placement of infoboxes that accompany articles. 2.) No one wants to scroll halfway down the article page to view something that they're working on, or to get more information. (assuming the theory of infinite number of subpages)--Robert W King 14:29, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

1: Perhaps there won't be infoboxes if there are subpages. Said infoboxes might occur on the "Tables" subpage.

2: I don't understand. You wouldn't have to scroll any more than you have to now. --Larry Sanger 14:32, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Let's assume you have 30 subpages. Or let's say 20. 15. 10. However many. You're going to have to skip (potentially) large sections of the article in order to "get to" the subpage selector you want.

Also, from my view, it becomes really inconvenient to flip back and forth between pages to view an infobox or a table on a page that is referenced by the text itself within the article, causing you to pause where you're at to click another link. In theory, popovers/hover links are supposed to remedy that. --Robert W King 14:35, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Font size

Also, I think we ought to make the font one size smaller--same as the left-column links. Then we can keep it narrow. --Larry Sanger 14:32, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Larry, are you testing these in both IE and Mozilla? Could be just my one PC, but looks quite different.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:31, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I made the font smaller and reduced the size to 100px with 10px padding to the left. On an unrelated note, the nowiki code was causing a problem with the template aligning at the top of the page. I have removed it so the navigation box is right at the top now. Obviously the code is a little messy now but I can fix that. Chris Day (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I figured we do not have the mediawiki plugin that allows the strings function [1]. Is this something that will be useful? To me, it makes sense that the really long titles do not appear in the navigation box, although it would be desirable to have the shorter titles show up. Chris Day (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

I just had a look at the template in IE 7, Safari for Windows, and the latest Firefox, and looks great in all of them. --Larry Sanger 07:09, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

It doesn't appear right on IE 6. The div is floating over the top border of the article boundary. --Robert W King 14:08, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Displaced up

Any reason why we cannot push this navigation tool up as high as possible? See the new <div> i just added. Not sure if it works well with other browsers or not? (last good version here in case this is messed up or no one likes it) Chris Day (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Better! Still, this really needs to be tested with a more extensive scenario rather than only a best case one. My tabs-across-the-top example at Bonnie Hicks has 15 entries, four more than is in the current canon.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:28, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Remember the draft page and it protrudes to the right of my browser window, otherwise it's looking good over there. I agree these need to be tested, especially in various browsers and operating systems. The more complex the code the greater the chance it will collapse in some browsers. Chris Day (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

"Definitions" is obsolete, so I am counting that as space for "Draft".  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:49, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Chris, with the fontsize at 80%, does Bonnie Hicks still protrude right on your screen?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:54, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Just saw this note. Yes that helps a lot, it does not protrude anymore. Chris Day (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Very cool, why didn't I think of that?  ;-) Yes I too am worried about very long article names. --Larry Sanger 06:40, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

I've removed this feature--sorry. The trouble was that the template still used all the same whitespace that it would use even if it weren't "displaced up." And if it's not displaced, at least it's top-flush, which is a little more aesthetically appealing to me. --Larry Sanger 00:33, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Additional Issue

Here is a major issue with the column template, in it's current form. The sheer amount of whitespace forced down by the navigation I believe is visually unacceptable, and is an example of what will happen with current articles that have short introductions, coupled with photographs.

The only way to solve this is to make the entire article about 20% thinner, which requires a retooling of the article template, or limiting the size of pictures that can be placed on articles.

There is also a technical issue which needs to be remedied (on IE6 the div floats over the top line of the article space), but that can be fixed. Also the div overlaps the gallery template.

--Robert W King 14:35, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Screenshot showing two issues as mentioned below

Screenshot

I remedied the issue of it floating over the top gray line, by lowering it by 8px.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:11, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

There are browser issues here since in my browser the text and pictures wrap around the infoset box fine. I'm not sure what is required to make this code universally acceptable. Chris Day (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

What browser(s) and OS(s) you using, Robert?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 18:13, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

There's certainly no point to "displacing the template up" if doing so adds the displaced amount of whitespace below the template... --Larry Sanger 08:24, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree it saves us nothing if there is a white space below. I assume this can be solved with a tweek to the code. If not lets put it on hold. Chris Day (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

ifexist

I added Discography as an ifexist. I think everything should be an ifexist. See Jefferson Airplane for an example of why, where Discography should take the place of Bibliography.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:17, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, not take place, because for the band there is a bibliography to list all the books about the band, while a discography is used for listing the albums of that band. Yi Zhe Wu 13:34, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Good--and there are no doubt other possibilities. I think in terms of placement it should be after Bibliography. Thanks for keeping this template updated.

Another necessary "former endmatter" item is "Works" or some such, for articles like Rene Descartes. --Larry Sanger 00:30, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice

Subpages are useful. Tom Kelly 23:28, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

And the way its been implemented is very nice indeed. Well done, folks. Anton Sweeney 14:48, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks gents --Larry Sanger 01:20, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Some suggestions for next steps

Chris or whoever else might want to work on this: here are some things I think we ought to do.

1. Notice Logic/Signed articles/Graham Priest...ugh, the template is broken because it references not Logic but instead Logic/Signed articles. That's because "BASEPAGENAME" does not actually give the base namepage, but instead the parent pagename. Can you fix this??? I think we might need to work with the technical crew to make this happen. I worked on this for hours before I left on my recent trip, but wasn't able to figure it out.
2. For topic T, we create T/Unused and, on that page, simply place {{unused subpages}}. The latter template compiles and presents a list of all unused templates.
3. If it exists, we link to T/Unused from the {{subpages}} template with a small-font link like "unused subpages".
4. Alternatively, we might include the list of unused subpages on {{subpages}} itself, but [hide] it. This requires that we figure out why [show] and [hide] are not working on CZ, and work with our tech guys in getting this functionality turned on. I'd be deeply grateful to anyone who does this... This alternative, by the way, might not be better than the first suggestion. That's because we can use a separate page to explain to people what the function of different (unused) subpages is, on a separate page, and that is probably an important thing to do.
5. If we do use another template to compile the list of unused subpages, then to avoid double-entry errors, we badly need to move the canonical lists of (1) default subpage types and of (2) all other subpage types to (a) "pretty" subtemplate(s), such as {{subpage list}} (or, split into two, {{default subpages}} and {{other subpages}}). (Whether we would use one or two subtemplates depends on the optimum logic of {{subpages}} and {{unused subpages}}--which I can't foresee right now.)
6. Then we need to completely redo the logic of {{subpages}}...we'd like to load an array and cycle through it, but MediaWiki's advance template functions don't let us do programming stuff like that. Well, we can do it; one way to do it is, on {{subpage list}}, assign each template type an ID number, then cycle through some finite set of numbers on {{subpages}}. So, where {{subpages}} now has "Gallery", for example, a rewritten version (which moves the list of templates to a more easily maintained sub-template list) would instead have {{subpage list|6}}. -- Of course, if anybody ''does'' know how to make templates load an array and cycle through it, without doing this sort of gerry-rigged thing, that would be great. # Create options as follows: if I type <nowiki>{{subpages|Bibliography=off}} then the link to the bibliography subpage, which displays by default (since we want most articles to have bibliographies and we want to encourage people to create them), does not appear.

--Larry Sanger 01:22, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I have to question the use of a template here. Shouldn't this really be hard coded into the wiki software using php rather than messing with complex wikicode templates. Doing so would probably be easier, more stable, faster in use, and more adaptable. Derek Harkness 01:43, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree. But let's first implement it in a way that doesn't depend on a scarce quantity (motivated coders) and a way that's relatively easy to undo. Unless it would be easy to code up and to remove the code if we decide not to do it after all... --Larry Sanger 03:26, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I personally think there has been an exceptionally high level of buy-in among all vocal CZ contributors to the basic idea of subpages.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:32, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I have sort of fixed number 1. It requires a special signed article template (currently at {{Subpages2}}) that needs to use a pagename field. As used in the logic signed article, it is written as {{subpages2|pagename=logic}}. Obviously not very elegant but it works. Chris Day (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Larry, the code for number 2 and 3 points on your list is already part of the {{subpages9}} template. See the draft pages for Life/Draft and Anthropology/Draft for an example of its usage in the tab environment. Note that in the template below the tabs ALL the unused templates are listed and hyperlinked, so editors can see and start the relevant subpages if they are interested. This can easily be modified from the {{Draft header}} template to create an unused subpage template. Chris Day (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, I just did this for the Biology and Federal Reserve System articles that are cuurently using the subpages template (Biology/Unused and Federal Reserve System/Unused ). Chris Day (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Chris, thanks loads for adding "Unused templates" to {{subpages}}. The #1 item is an acceptable kludge--good idea.

I think the next high priority...which is going to take some doing...is putting the canonical list of subpages on a single, easy-to-edit page. --Larry Sanger 04:54, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Record of implementations

For developmental history, see Template:Subpages/Versions --Robert W King 12:52, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

"This article is being drafted!"

Ixnay on that, please. Getting in people's faces and shouting, "This is a draft!" is going to be off-putting the first time, and annoying in the long run. Can someone point me to a discussion where it was argued that this was a good idea? If the purpose of this is to include a disclaimer, I'm all for that. We had a disclaimer during the first month or so, and then took it down for reasons I won't go into now...stupid technical reasons. We then replaced that with the (inadequate) notice at the top of every page, "All unapproved articles are subject to a disclaimer; please read." But, basically, humans shouldn't place a template that will have to go atop 98% of our articles. A computer program should do that. Anyway, though, am I wrong about what the purpose of the "This article is being drafted" notice is? --Larry Sanger 11:15, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

We can change the text on the {{construction}} template. I believe it was made in response to the idea of starting all articles on the draft page. Consequently each unapproved articles page would either be a redirect to the draft or have a template directing the reader to the draft version. I don't remember where the discussion occured but in repsonse to that discussion Stephen Ewen drafted the contruction template. I'll try and hunt down the discussion. Chris Day (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

First discussed in the following forum thread. http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,904.15.html Chris Day (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

For further discussion, see the subpage pilot talk page too. CZ_Talk:Subpage_Pilot#Page_headers Chris Day (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2007 (CDT)