User talk:XAM2175/2023/06

Commons category box

Hi, please don't make edits like this. The documentation for Template:Commons category#Location says do not place this template in a section containing columns without floating left. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LAYOUTEL makes no mention of this aspect, and WP:MOSSIS (as linked from the template docs) only says [when] box-type templates are not aesthetically pleasing ... consider using "inline" templates (my emphasis), and I don't feel that the result of using the box-type template there is "not aesthetically pleasing". By contrast, using |position=left as suggested by the template docs looks very wrong, with the box sitting atop the references. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You forgot the crucial part about columns in WP:MOSSIS: Sometimes box-type templates are not aesthetically pleasing, ... because they result in an odd layout, such as ... excessive white space when the section is laid out in columns. In such cases, consider using "inline" templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrose64 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it seemed unnecessary to include the full quote and I assumed it would be obvious that I'd read it because my quote included material from either side of the excessive white space portion. Nevertheless, I have considered the use of inline templates as suggested by the guideline, and decided against them because I feel that it's to our readers' benefit to place the Commons link prominently.

Is there perhaps any way of setting {{reflist}} to not not treat the box as a hard right margin in these circumstances, but rather wrapping the text in the same way that a right-aligned image thumbnail would? That would achieve the MOS-compliant positioning at the top of the last section but without introducing polarising amounts of white space. Otherwise the only option that respects both the MOS and the Commons box template docs is going to be having a lot of articles that have "External links" sections containing only an inline Commons link.

Also, @10mmsocket, would you be willing to chip in here? It was only on Saturday that we were (briefly) discussing this. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be easy shouldn't it, but I can't get my head around the box taking up column-space from references. I lean towards the box over the inline link, but in the case where the last section is references (as opposed to further reading, or similar, where I strongly support the box) then I'm going to sit firmly on the fence w.r.t. inline link vs. box. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

To be more succinct

• If the last section is references then I don't have strong feelings either way on box in references section vs inline link after it.
• If the last section is anything else (including further reading, bibliography, etc) then I fully support using the box.

Hope that clears it. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

BR Class 175

Thanks for catching that - I didn't notice the alteration, so was simply assisting @Mattdaviesfsic and @Maurice Oly as they were making the same reverts. Methinks I need to stop wikipedia-ing when I'm caffeine deprived! Danners430 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That's okay, neither of them noticed either! You just happened to have the bad luck of being the person to make the revert that made me think "okay, why is the IP so insistent on making this change?" XAM2175 ^(T) 12:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Lapworth railway station

Didn't know if you had any thoughts about this website which was today added to the above article...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)