Template talk:Navboxes

Succession boxes: incorrect border

Does anyone know how to fix the formatting at Template:Navboxes#Succession boxes? Once expanded, the horizontal lines are all coloured white instead of grey.--Nevé–selbert 21:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Neve-selbert means that in the following two examples:

the horizontal border separating the rows is clearly a kind of mid-grey   (actually #a2a9b1) in the first example, whereas in the second it has an unexpected colour, almost (but not quite) white   - being #fdfdfd which is an extremely pale grey (although the border might appear to be absent, it is in fact present). It seems that this CSS rule:

table.wikitable > tr > th,
table.wikitable > tr > td,
table.wikitable > * > tr > th,
table.wikitable > * > tr > td {
  border: 1px solid #a2a9b1;
  padding: 0.2em 0.4em;
}

is being overridden by this rule:

.navbox-spacing-temp.navbox tr + tr > th,
.navbox-spacing-temp.navbox tr + tr > td,
.navbox-spacing-temp.navbox-subgroup tr + tr > th,
.navbox-spacing-temp.navbox-subgroup tr + tr > td {
  border-top: 2px solid #fdfdfd;
}

I am certain that this is a consequence of this proposal, and I have dropped a note there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. The plan was to get rid of .navbox-spacing-temp at some point. That'd be a good time to tighten up the selectors:

.navbox-inner > tbody > tr + tr > th,
.navbox-inner > tbody > tr + tr > td,
.navbox-subgroup > tbody > tr + tr > th,
.navbox-subgroup > tbody > tr + tr > td {
  border-top: 2px solid #fdfdfd;
}

Should stop nested tables from being affected. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Nevé–selbert 15:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I broke it, but I can't take credit for fixing it! User:Ahecht fixed {{S-start}} with an inline style border. I've requested a fix to the site CSS, so with luck that'll go in soon and avoid similar problems in other templates. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Site CSS was updated a few hours ago. It no longer applies the light gray border to tables nested inside navboxes. Should be safe to revert the {{S-start}} fix. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I went ahead and reverted the workaround that I put in place on the succession box templates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Background color

Proposal withdrawn

I would like to go to a slightly different default background color: #e8ddff (prev. #e8e8ff). Feel free to remark here in this discussion, or, if strongly against, to revert to the previous background.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: The new color is too purple-ly... Can you explain your reasoning behind the change? Right now I'm against the change. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 22:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

To editor Corky: Thank You, and I do realize the need for general subtlety in the bg color; however, for a long time now, I've been thinking that the present bg color appears a little too faded and pale. So I thought I'd give it just a little more color. It's not a big deal, of course, as I've been thinking about this for a few years now.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I know it's a bit pale, but personally, I would prefer a more neutral color... like a light grayish color. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 22:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And please set up a demo showing navboxes with the two colors. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

To editor Johnuniq: Thank You for asking! I've set up the sandbox with the comparison.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Any chance of a page somewhere showing two navboxes, one traditional and one proposed? Your link shows a diff which would need quite a lot of confidence to interpret. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what is needed beyond the comparison in the sandbox. The only reason I used the diff template was in case another editor were to edit the sandbox. The diff provides a permanent record of the comparison, and the comparison shows both the traditional navbox bg color and then my proposed bg color just below the traditional one. The two navbars are also seen in the "Sandbox" section of "Test 1" on the test cases page. Please explain in detail exactly what more you need.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, that's my banner blindness. I skipped over the diff and stopped skipping at the first navbox I noticed, which is in the documentation. I'm watching this page due to having done a major refactor of the module and I hope some others will check the rationale for the color. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I've altered the sandbox to place the comparisons closer together and erased the /doc page. Hope that helps.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Please confine Template:Navboxes/sandbox to the proposed version, it should not contain the current version as well. Side-by-side (or one-above-the-other) comparisons may be done at Template:Navboxes/testcases; more at WP:TESTCASES. A benefit of this approach is that you can see what it looks like in articles by going to an article and altering {{Navboxes}} to {{Navboxes/sandbox}} and previewing. Then there are all the links at the bottom of the green documentation box which only work as expected if the sandbox and testcases are set up in the normal manner. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The change in the sandbox has been made.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: As you know, {{Navboxes}} is template protected, and you used your template editor permissions to make this change. Per Wikipedia:Template editor, "slightly tweaking something's color" is listed under "Changes that require at least some discussion, or at least several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal". The opportunity for discussion should've happened before you made the change. Personally, I oppose the change and agree with Corky — it's too purple-ly. If anything, I think the navboxes should be less saturated (something like #EAECF0) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I broke with protocol, Ahecht; however, I just don't see in that quote where the proposal must wait until after discussion. Just didn't think it was that big a deal – an obvious error on my part. Happy Holidays to All!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

V·T·E links?

Any idea if there is a way to add the View/Talk/Edit links to the top left like a normal {{navbox}}? I don't see any option for this in the documentation, but maybe I'm missing something? - Paul^T+/_C 03:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Psantora, at the moment, there is no option. Generally, this template is used directly in articles, so V-T-E links are not needed. If you want to use this as part of a template, there are usually better options. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Plastikspork, thanks for the response. I understand that usually this template is used directly in articles, but I know of at least one example (and I bet there are more) where it is used in a template to include multiple related templates with just one transclusion. In the case of Template:ARM-based chips, it could make sense to have separate V-T-E links since it is a standalone template that includes 3 other templates. In theory this should be possible to do, right? - Paul^T+/_C 17:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Psantora, yes it's possible to modify this template to add V-T-E links to the wrapper template. However, since the content is in the other 3 templates, it's probably better to just have edit links to the other 3 templates. Also, it looks to me that Template:ARM-based chips is being overused, since in most cases only one of the three subtemplates is needed at the foot of the article. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this tool is a great way to analyze this "lack of bidirectionality" by showing places where the navbox is transcluded, but there is no link to that article in the navbox. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is there a closing span tag in list1= ?

Does anyone here know why editors would have put a </span> tag at the beginning of |list1=, as in Victoria's Secret#External links? There are a few hundred instances of this tag, which are causing a "Stripped tag" (closing tag without an opening tag) Linter error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Warning

This template should come with a health warning because if you have so many Navboxes that you need to subgroup and hide them that you almost certainly have too many Navboxes.

Navboxes seems to get away with being included indiscriminately, held to none of the standards we would require of a single link if it was in in WP:SEEALSO or WP:EL -- 109.79.86.113 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm serious, ordinary Navboxes are junk and these Navboxes to contain other Navboxes are another layer of awful and should come with warnings against their usage. We have guidelines against unnecessary links, we warn editors against indiscriminately every genre or category they can think of and we have MOS:DONTHIDE. Yet somehow we have this template which not only encourages editors to add even more unnecessary barely relevant Navboxes it makes it worse by hiding the linkdumpster under another layer of templates and ignores all the principles that seem to apply elsewhere. (The fact that mobile wikipedia doesn't bother with them at all is further evidence of how entirely non-essential they actually are.)

This template should come with a warning discouraging editors from using it, at least gently suggest to editors that maybe if they're hiding and subgrouping Navboxes the answer might be less Navboxes. Please improve the documentation to encourage editors to show some small amount of restraint when using this Navbox subbox in particular. It is bizarre when an article has more content hidden in Navboxes (and sub Navboxes) than it does in the article itself, and maybe there are exceptional articles that really do need more than 10 Navboxes but they should not be added indiscriminately then hidden away. -- 109.79.168.251 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)