Template talk:Subpages

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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


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
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)


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)


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)

OK, the cannonical list is done. Page names, button names and whether the button is default or not can be controlled at Template:Subpage_list. Further discussion to fine tune this option is occuring at Template_talk:Subpage_list. Chris Day (talk) 16:30, 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)
That full conversation begins at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,904.0.html  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:15, 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)

{{Spacetaker}} can be put in the toolbox, available for drafting stuff.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 11:51, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Y'know...we need an annotated list of templates... --Larry Sanger 14:40, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, I just quickly looked over the proposal on the forum, and I see little consideration of the consequences of the proposal. ... I'll finish this on the forum itself. --Larry Sanger 14:48, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I would like to note moreover that even if we do move our articles to Draft subpages, it does not follow that we must also do anything less than elegant and subtle in labelling them. After all, all article titles will now look like this at the top of the page:

Philosophy | Draft

That makes it pretty clear that the reader's looking at a draft, doesn't it? Maybe I'm just tired and in a curmudgeonly mood.  :-) --Larry Sanger 14:55, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I think the point of the template was to label the article not the draft article. The idea was that it explained why there was no article present there. So you're thinking of using a redirect from the article to the draft? i agree the draft is obviously a draft. (Or just tired ;) ) Chris Day (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh, OK. In that case, I'm pretty sure that, if we want to have all nonapproved articles in the draft namespace, we must redirect the main namespace pages, for unapproved articles, to the draft pages. Otherwise, well, we have loads of people landing on blank pages when we have articles. That's just silly. --Larry Sanger 00:34, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I think redirects would be good. People will soon notice that the approved ones have a green banner and the others have Draft in the title. I think this was discussed in the thread a bit but was never really developed to a mature conclusion. Chris Day (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Float in left side bar

Using absolute position (see this edit) I managed to float this subpage template nicely over the side bar (see this screen shot). All we have to do now is clear out the side bar. Note that using absolute position gets rid of the white space issue. last time I used relative position. Chris Day (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Excellent! We might just do this. It depends on whether we can help ourselves to a more elegant solution. --Larry Sanger 00:27, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Timeline not default

Timeline is now marked as default. We really need to write some documentation for the new system. Thanks for making this work, Chris! --Larry Sanger 06:20, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I set the Timeline button to default as a demo/test. It highlights the fact that using the template:Subpage list alone it is possible to control the buttons with respect to default status, order and name. I think this is now finished especially since Derek has some wiki-skins in the pipeline, I think in the end such skins will be a far better solution, however, I do think the subpages tempalte concept will be useful for adding the headers and categories to each subpage. The advantage of this solution is that the same template is used on every article and subpage. This should make things a little less confusing rather than trying to manage all the different header templates. Chris Day (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I just added categories to the three default headers Template:Links header, Template:Related header and Template:Bibliography header as well as to the Template:Gallery header. Categories will be placed depending on which work groups are designated to an article (up to three now) and whether the article is approved or not (or subpage, depending on whether approval of an article automatically makes a subpage approved). Interested to hear comments. I'll write up more documentation to tie all this together into a logical proposal. Chris Day (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Roger that. I'm thinking about it. It means the same keystrokes for each. Isn't there a way to record the workgroups in one central location? Think a bit about that please :-) --Larry Sanger 11:54, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I was already thinking about it since it would make placing the subpage templates so much easier. Possibly it could be read off the checklist? Also to consider, do we need to categorise the subpages or not? Chris Day (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
See the comments below (One_universal_template) re: the one central location idea. Chris Day (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Link to instructions

Hi Chris, can we link to the instruction pages (see CZ:Subpage Pilot) for each of the subpages types from the subpage template itself? I'm thinking something like this: Bibliography ¤ Some little widget like that, somewhere, that allows us to refer to the instructions. This will be important to actually constructing the items.

Similar widgets ought to be on the unused subpages page, too. --Larry Sanger 11:55, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I expect that will be easy to incorporate. Chris Day (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

One universal template

The idea is that only one simple template is placed on ALL subpages as well as the article, talk pages etc. In this case the concept is being tested using the template {{Subpages4}}.

Anyone wanting to check out this idea see Anthropology and its subpages. It is far from finished and has plenty of bugs, however, the concept can be seen. Particularly note the following features.

  1. "{{Subpages4}}" ONLY is placed at the top of every page, no fields are required to specifiy workgroups etc. All the variables collected by the header templates (as well as checklist and approval templates) come directly from one central location (See Template:Anthropology/Info).
  2. All the header templates are placed automatically (see Anthropology/Gallery).
  3. Checklist table is placed on talk page ( Talk:Anthropology), as before, but all the categories can be placed at the bottom of the Draft page (see Anthropology/Draft). This is one of the advantages of reading information from a central location. Prior to this, all the checklist info was on the talk page and could only be used on the talk page. With this format the pages listed in the categories that classify the status of all the articles will not all begin with "Talk:".
  4. There is one location that can be used to documents the approving editors and the status of the article (Template:Anthropology/Info).

In the long run I think this will make things simpler since changes in the article status are only made on one page ( Template:Anthropology/Info). This will help the constables since they only have to monitor one page to know what is happening to an articles status. I think this will be more user friendly to those who just want to edit too as when new pages are started there is no confusion about which template should be placed at the top of the page. Chris Day (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

This discussion is continuing at Template_talk:Subpages4#Complicated.3F Chris Day (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Getting the article name right in the template

See Online_community/Invited_articles/Rennie_and_Keppell -- weren't we passing an article name as an optional parameter in order to solve this problem? --Larry Sanger 00:16, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I just fixed it to demostrate what can be done.
The subpages4 tempalte has solved this problem. There is an explanaition here. Template_talk:Subpages4#Complicated? See examples of it working at Life/Signed_articles/A_test_signed_article and Anthropology/Signed_articles/A_test_signed_article. Chris Day (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Groovy, thanks Chris. --Larry Sanger 08:49, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Bells and whistles

I having been using the template Template:Approved2 to test the {{subpages4}} template and took the opportunity to add some bells and whistles to the approved template (see example at Life). There is a link to printer friendly version of the article. There is a link that allows an author to compare the updates to the Draft version with the current approved version. Finally there is a link to the approval notes subpage. Some of these, the print button particularly might be useful buttons to incoporate into the template (note none of the header templates show up in the print version!).Chris Day (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

For those following at home

I just made a whole bunch of tweeks to the {{subpages9}} template. It is now almost comparable to the {{subpages4}} template in that they get all their parameters from the Template Article> Info page. See Chiropractic and New York City, what do you think?

Short version. I'ved added some permanent buttons (possible media wiki could do this now?) See old/new button particularly. It allows comparisons between the most recent draft version and approved in chiropractic. Also can be used to compare the subpages with the subpage talk pages, in case we decide to have a working version of subpages in the talk page of approved article. Sounds a bit strange I know, but if the article is approved and all the subpages are potected it is that or a new draft page for every subpage. Either is not great. Chris Day (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Flexability of categories

With the {{subpages4}} it is now possible to control where the categories are placed depending on the status of the article. It is currently set to place categories on the main article when it is approved (Life). Otherwise the categories go on the draft version (Anthropology/Draft). Before all the checklist categories went on to the talk page. This is more of a demo rather than how it has to be, we can do as we please. Chris Day (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Supplementary Text

Chris (I assume you're looking at this--we really should be putting subpage additions and change requests here, not on your page),

After talking things over with Anthony Sebastian, we've settled on having a "Supplementary text" subpage. This raises two issues. One is that we need to have a "Supplementary Text" subpage. The other is that we need to track approximately how wide to make each tab, in pixels. We don't want all the tabs to be as wide as the widest, and "Supplementary Text" is going to going to push the current limit.

I would be open to a name that means the same but is shorter than "Supplementary Text." Consider "Appendix(es)" nixed. "Supplement" is too vague (it could be an image supplement).

As I proposed to Anthony, we would define "supplementary text" subpages as essentially continuations or appendixes of the encyclopedia article. They are to be carefully distinguished from other kinds of subpages in that it is specifically contextualized by, and is a continuation of, the encyclopedia article. In other words, it would and could be included in a longer version of the article, but in order to keep the main article brief, we have simply moved this text to a different page.

I'll move the latter to CZ:Supplementary Text once the functionality is in place.

--Larry Sanger 18:54, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

I have been keeping half on eye on it (I noticed it came up on David Goodmans talk page). Mainly I was not really sure what to do with it. The name his huge, which as you not above wil be a pain with respect to the tab size. How about "Extra text"? I know that sounds bad but at least its short ;) Another reason I did not act fast is that the concept still seems a little fuzzy but obviously you have given this some thought now and find it acceptable enough to move forward.
With respect to my page being the catch all for subpages we will have to ween ourselves off that avenue. It will be bad for CZ if the project becomes so dependant on one person for such things. Not that I mind doing it for now but the more people that get their hands dirty the better with respect to understanding how the subpages function. Chris Day (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm thinking "Addendum." Wordnet's definition is most apt for what we have in mind: "textual matter that is added onto a publication; usually at the end." And I would prefer to use the singular. To contemplate several addenda (like, a whole list of appendixes) is basically to misunderstand the function of the whole subpage/article schema. Let's see how Anthony likes that. --Larry Sanger 19:33, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

New image

Chris, what's the purpose of the new image on the left of the template?

Also, where can I fiddle with the width of the cell that contains the image? It has once again made the template too tall. --Larry Sanger 20:53, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

I was experimenting with the possible status image for the articles. It's either there or a long image up the whole left side. See the approval thread in the editorial forum. The template that controls the width is {{button off25}}. The advantage of the whole left side is the image can be more clear. At present the 22px sq is too small unless we go with small dots for better resolution, like a dice. Chris Day (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
Actually, I'm surprised that there is a height problem. The image is only 22px square, whereas the designated size of the tab is 25px square. Chris Day (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

It's very weird. It is taking forever for the image to load on Biology, and it takes longer for that tab and the talk tab to load on life. I am worried that someday, having overcomplicated, heavily used templates is going to come and bite us in an unpleasant place. I hope that day is not today.  ;-) I switched to 30px and it didn't make any difference. In fact, now, the image on the Biology template isn't loading at all. Life has looked fine all along.

Well, I don't in fact know whether it's that new image that's making the template fat again. Sigh --Larry Sanger 21:16, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

By fat do you mean "Wide" or "Tall" ? --Robert W King 23:38, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Adding British American usage

See the checklist on the talk page. i have changed it to accomodate the designated Englsih variant. Chris Day (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Addition to all unapproved articles

Please let's add this to the template on all unapproved articles. I'd do this myself, but finding out where to add it would give me a headache.  :-)

Draft article, under development. Unapproved articles are subject to a disclaimer.

Then people won't be confused about the status of our articles, as they frequently are, and I can remove the global disclaimer from the top of the page. --Larry Sanger 11:11, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Add talk page?

I just added a talk page to the top of Italo Calvino, because I wanted to get rid of that "create talk page" prompt. I have mixed feelings about that. It's useful to the contributor (if he/she is paying attention!) but not to the reader who is very confused about the presence of the input box if it isn't used immediately. --Larry Sanger 11:27, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

I can deactivate it easily. It was more to address the issue that people are finding it hard to follow the intructions for creating the subpages. This makes it more transparent. Do you want something more subtle or just remove it? Chris Day (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
I've thought of a better way to do this. First, look at any unused subpage and click on biblography (if available; try Hat/Unused). This type of link can be used to automatically create the correct pagename and preload any template with one mouse click (OK, two since the page has to be saved too). We should be able to use part of this functionality (i.e. add "&preload=Template%3ASubpages_name") to the mediawiki create new page links so all new articles automatically start with the subpages template. Now, once the article is created, we can have a prominent link/prompt to create the metadata template; it's better than the mess we currently get when a new page is created with a subpage template. Once the metadata page is created, we can have a new linkappear on that page to create the talk page, and so on to create the approval subpage and then the unused page. Finally, an author can create any subpage they wish from the choices on Unsed subpage. Advantages of this sequence are that the article name never has to be cut and pasted into the dialog box and the back button is not required. Literally two clicks to create a new page with the correct name and preloaded text. To create the whole cluster is only eight mouse clicks (no pasting or back pages required). It's about as good and discrete as we can do (nothing will be on the article except for the prompt to start the metadata page) unless we can dedicate a bot to monitor new pages and do this automatically. Chris Day (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

It's all completely automatizable, though, you know. What we need to do is to get somebody to code up a mini-bot, which will take an article title and output the whole cluster at once. We also need a new "cluster move" bot, which moves all existing subpages... I wish I had time to wrangle these things together myself... --Larry Sanger 10:03, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

i do know it can be automated but due to practical limitations it might be a while. This is more of a stop gap proposal. Chris Day (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

Print icon

Can someone (not necessarily Chris, who has taken on a lot already!) find and upload a more "obvious" sort of print icon--an icon of a printer? --Larry Sanger 11:36, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Is this OK? --Eddie Ortiz Nieves 12:19, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

If it's known to be free! Thanks! --Larry Sanger 19:15, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

It's an icon from the Gnome desktop for Linux. It's good. Stephen Ewen 15:22, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Weird side-effect of template

Notice on Analytic Hierarchy Process. This text

#ifeq: Analytic Hierarchy Process

Appears there at the top. I'm sure this is generated by the template, mistakenly... --Larry Sanger 19:15, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

We were trying to trouble shoot the problem the other day. It is on wheat too and interferes with the taxobox. I have no idea where the bug is at present. I was hoping it would just disappear on its own (my Ostrich technique for trouble shooting). I can tell you that the new improved subpages template is almost ready and does not have the same problem. Another reason not to spend time fixing it since it will be replaced soon with a leaner and better documented template. Chris Day (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2007 (CDT)
What is most confusing is that I cannot replicate it, it is irratic, sometimes you see it sometimes you don't (at least on wheat that was true) and it seems to happen on very few pages. Chris Day (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

This is becoming a major problem. i just noticed that someone had to comment out a template on the UK article. Will work on trying to update this template this week when I have time. Chris Day (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Also on History of economic thought, now. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:59, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
I commented out the 'UK' infobox on United Kingdom, as I thought that's what was causing the #ifeq problem - but it looks like they're unrelated? Or is it that the problem only appears on pages which have some sort of infobox template? Anton Sweeney 06:01, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
It's erratic so its hard to tell. But one thing is for sure it must be due the subpages template. Chris Day (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
Based on it being erratic, its possible the error is in the Metadata templates for the affected pages. An invalid input or bug would trickle down and affect only the related sites, but appear to be a subpages issue. --ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 21:49, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
That's possible but I checked a few of them and there seems to be nothing obvious amiss. Chris Day (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
I'm also noticing a related issue at Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal. It's spewing the ifeq, and also disabling two templates: Note_label and Ref_label. It's not disabling all templates though. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 21:49, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Chris Day commented (on his talk page) that "One possible issue is that it is just so big that it shuts down prematurely on some pages. Is that at all possible? It sounds crazy but froma few tests this seems to be the case. For example if I remove code from the templates (stuff not used on a particular page) i can often restore function without any obvious reason." - I have heard nothing about a maximum page length.-- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 22:22, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Looking at the affected pages, they're all over 25k, and removing a lot of data from AHP to a draft page solved the issue. I still have found no info suggesting a maximum page size (and we had pages without subpages get to way higher lengths without issues). --ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 22:30, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
I mean the template size is big and when i remove stuff from the subpages template, or similar, it can somtimes resolve the issue. i think we are at cross purposes here since i think you thought i meant remove stuff from the article that has the problem? Chris Day (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
Well, if you check out [Analytic Hierarchy Process]], that page had the problem until someone moved most of the content over to a subpage. Now the subpage has the problem and the real page doesn't. Also, all 3 pages people have complained about are on the big side. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 22:54, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

What we need is a list of pages affected, so that we can figure out what unites them. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 22:22, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Affected Pages

#if Bug?

I tried {{cite book}} at Software engineering/Bibliography. The last entry is rendered as:

#if: Brooks#if:. #if:#if: Pearson Education#if: 0201835959.
(can be viewed here)

I removed {{subpages}} from that page, and previewed the changes -- the {{cite book}} worked fine. So, I think there's some problem with {{subpages}}. Utkarshraj Atmaram 04:33, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

HTML clue

Ok, on a page with a non-expressed taxobox, this showed up:

<!-- WARNING: template omitted, pre-expand include size too large -->


So, it might be that we are overasking the webserver!Kim van der Linde 05:30, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

And cleaning up the metadata page solved the issue. That was an interesting example as the size of the page was trivial. Could it be that the hidden comments set off some infinite loop that gets cut off explaining the unbracketed expressions? Chris Day (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2007 (CDT)
I think it is due to settings in mediawiki, so maybe get the develppers involved.... Kim van der Linde 05:53, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I think we can get Eric to raise the pre-include limit. Once we figure out HOW. In the short term, we can limit pointless transclusion by following the steps on this WP page -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 06:25, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

To reply to myself, the default pre-expand limit is 2 MB. While the page is always smaller post-expand (when it's actually sent to the user), it's definitely worth it to consider putting the pages on a diet if possible - 2 MB is pretty freaking big! We need to implement procedures now to contain this, and then consider raising if necessary. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 06:37, 24 October 2007 (CDT)
I've created a test page for the purpose of testing getting the pre-include size down. It can be transcluded onto test pages with {{Subpages/test}}. I haven't had a chance to work on it, and I need to get dressed and wake up and stuff, as I have a 9 AM class. --ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 06:58, 24 October 2007 (CDT)
I've found on several articles that the issue goes after removing the checklist explanation. Perhaps this could be replaced with something shorter, such as "For an explanation, please visit the CZ:The Article Checklist page". Oliver Smith 05:38, 11 November 2007 (CST)
I've reduced the size a bit and added a link as you suggest.. May be that will help. Chris Day (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Duplicate category

See Category:Biology Workgroup Draft. Notice we're placing that category on both the draft page and the talk page. It should go only on the talk page. (Greg has set the software so that if you try to categorize Talk:Foo, only Foo will be categorized.) --Larry Sanger 11:13, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

The reason for that category is so we can use recent changes to create and ad hoc watchlist of changes to approved articles. We have the link on the workgroup pages (below the approved articles in the workgroups headers). Whether we wish to keep this feature or not I'm not sure. Do people use it? I don't really use it. Chris Day (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Don't know if this means anything

I noticed that after Eddie placed the {{subpages}} on Talk:Harry S. Truman, the #ifeq occurred and it did not ask to create the Approval page?? Could it be the spinning PLEASE? --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:37, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Misplaced approval text

Check out the approval notice on Jane Addams--very strange, no? --Larry Sanger 08:54, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

Something occurred to me

I think on the article creation page, it really should be so that instead of going through the process four times (and perhaps consequently forgetting to create a page), it might be better to have a "Cluster creation" page where you get however many panes on a single page that has that many edit boxes. For example, if we want to create the "Article", "Talk:Article", "Article/Metadata", and "Article/Approval" pages, there should be four editboxes and a single "Create me!" button, and some javascript that asks if you completed all pages required. Then the widget should create all the pages at once, to make it as pain free as possible.

Also for the metadata page, instead of having to edit the template code, it should just be a cgi form of checkboxes, textfields, and drop-downs.

Comments? Suggestions? Questions? Objections? --Robert W King 17:27, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Yes. I think this was mentioned before by Larry, but there is no one who has time to do it. That was why Larry created the page with the four separate create buttons. Chris Day (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Works Subpages

The category should be Category:Works Subpages, not Category:Written Works Subpages, right? I thought we were going to use "Works" for not just writing, but musical scores, paintings, and other things too. Not that I pretend this has been perfectly thought through... We have "Discography" and "Filmography" for types of works that wouldn't go on Works pages...

Cf. Pierre Molinier/Works. --Larry Sanger 22:21, 17 November 2007 (CST)

Exactly, that update was missed. Originally i had moved to written works, but then realised that drawing and other art was included, so moved it back. Certainly one could make the argument to fold discography and filmography into works, however, discography is far more descriptive and a better name for a subpage associated with singers and bands. Chris Day (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2007 (CST)
I noticed the description at the top of the works page still said "written works," so I removed "written". However it seems to me (as I mentioned at CZ_Talk:Works) the phrase "works relating to the topic of [subject]" could just as easily describe a bibliography or 'further reading' section. The Works section should specify that these are the works of the subject, shouldn't it? Maybe something like "A list of works created by [subject]." —Eric Winesett 10:33, 18 November 2007 (CST)
Check the change to the header. Is that working OK? Chris Day (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2007 (CST)
Yup. Thanks! —Eric Winesett 10:47, 18 November 2007 (CST)
This always confused me on the Bibliography subpage; is it a bibliography for references made in the article (to reference what we wrote) or is it a bibliography by the subject of the article (to referernce what they wrote)? --Robert W King 10:35, 18 November 2007 (CST)
Bibliography should be about the topic. Works should be by the subject. At least that is my interpretation. Chris Day (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2007 (CST)

Status instructions

Can you please add the values for the status field in the instructions as you have done for the variations of English (eg 3 for stub, 2 for developing, 1 for very developed). This will help folks who do not have these values in their heads. Thanks - Robert Badgett 02:05, 25 January 2008 (CST)

Bizarre problem

Posted to my user talk page:

Hi Larry, Trinity College Dublin has an 'unexpected' problem. Thought you should take a look :-( Denis Cavanagh 08:25, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Any chance of this being fixed soon?--Larry Sanger 08:47, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Fixed the problem. (Pagename in metadata was blank.) --Larry Sanger 08:50, 1 February 2008 (CST)

feature request

I also have a "feature request": I'd like the width of the tables to conform to the length of the word in the tab. The way it looks now, too much blank space is being used in the tables, and the nice effect of having tabs at all is (partly) ruined.

Also, the words in the tabs should be a bit larger, I think. --Larry Sanger 08:47, 1 February 2008 (CST)

See if these differences are to your liking? Chris Day 00:11, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

Outdated link?

Shouldn't the link to CZ:Subpage Pilot instead be a link to CZ:Subpages? J. Noel Chiappa 11:52, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Discography subpage

I don't think there's a need for separate categories Category:Discographies and Category:Music Discographies. Category:Discographies is a red link anyway. Even if there's a Category:Discographies, it should be the supercategory for Category:Music Discographies and Category:Media Discographies. For example, see Pantera/Discography. --Christian Liem 12:44, 28 February 2008 (CST)

These categories are automatically generated so the Category:Discographies will include all discographies from all workgroups one of which is music. So at present the Category:Discographies is a supercategory of all discographies. Did you get the impression it's not?
I agree that the bulk of discographies will be in the music workgroup but will they all be in it? What of spoken books? Regardless, i could rewrite the header to have a more limited selection of categories in this case if others think it is required. I just commented out the Category:Discographies as a test although i think it is a good idea to have it for consistency, even if it is very similar to the Category:Music Discographies. Chris Day 03:06, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

Table wrapping

Please excuse me if I'm bringing up a known issue, or something that is already being addressed. I use Firefox at 1024x768 screen resolution, and I noticed that the template output meanders off to the right hand side, causing the lower-most scroll bar to appear, in articles such as Led Zeppelin. Is there a way to fix this for various browser/screen rez combinations? I think the resolution I use is still the most common, though many people now have widescreen laptops etc. Perhaps it would be possible to stop the tabs at "Discography", in the case of the Led Zeppelin article (and my screen resolution), and for the remaining three tabs to be displayed underneath the other tabs.. whilst at the same time keeping the CZ:Subpages help icon at the top right?

I know this might cause a bit of a coding headache, mind you! Maybe a limit to the number of tabs in each row could be used. --Mal McKee 10:12, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

There is an alternative. See the vertical version. I will add that that is a very old version and so it does not have the same fnctionality as the current subpages template. Chris Day 10:54, 14 May 2008 (CDT)
A second row of tabs sounds like as good idea, but I'm not sure how feasible (technically) it is; the current stuff is done in a template, and templates have minimal functionality. Maybe having it done in the skin would be more plausible? There's JavaScript there, IIRC, so much more powerful. J. Noel Chiappa 13:41, 14 May 2008 (CDT)
One of my early versions had a second row, anticipating this very problem with the horizontal design. I think they main problem here is being able to count how many of the optional tabs have been selected. I'm not sure if that is possible without the strings functionality. And even then I'm not sure if it would be easy. Chris Day 17:03, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

Definitions and subpages

Two things:

1) I just visited the Abe Lincoln talk page and saw a note that stated:

To do.

A definition needs to be written at Abraham Lincoln/Definition

and it looks to me like the subpages template is the guy putting it there. Now, I do kinda like the idea of /def or {{/Definition}} or however folks want to call the thing, I'm just not sure we can say someone should "define" Honest Abe

I guess what I mean to ask here is: Isn't that what the article is for? Some things are just not that easy to summarize in a few words.

2) Also, in the cases where there should be a definition page, might we not want to say something more like:

Howdy reader! It looks like this term may need a definition but currently does not have one. Could someone please follow this link and write one.

The only reason I mention these is that it looks like CZ readers are going to see rather a lot of this template, so I feel it is important we make it as polished as possible.--David Yamakuchi 23:19, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

Oh, and one more (really really minor) thing: If we do make little info/note boxes for pages, we should include a small but clearly visible text keepout area around the box so they don't appear to have text crammed right up against them. IMHO MediaWiki or the browsers should do this for us...but they don't, and it really makes a difference in the final look and feel of the page.--David Yamakuchi 23:29, 18 May 2008 (CDT)


The template slows the new page process down, especially on a day like today when the server is very slow. Could it be further automated? For example, the template should be able to pick up the page name automatically and the creation of the talk page seems could be automated as well. - Robert Badgett 15:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If only. Unfortunately it's as automated as it can be using templates. We need a programmer to write it all into the mediawiki code so it can be seamless and part of the site rather than an add-on. Chris Day 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Show archives by default?

Would it be possible for the template to show the list of Talk page archives, if any, by default? I've spotted a case of a user not realising that there were archived discussions, because the links are hidden. John Stephenson 19:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)