Forum:Side-by-side articles

< Index | Site-related discussion

We need to make our side-by-sides consistent because they are out of whack at the moment. On one hand we have some like this -
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
And others like so -
Eternal Productions:101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Instead of changing them myself I thought I might see what everyone thinks is best. Personally I find the former better. Ace^{Liquid Room} 05:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

{{sbs}} is a heck of a lot more maintainable - David Gerard (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So no comment from anyone? Shall I just go ahead with changing them all and have everyone cry at me making big unilateral changes? Ace^{Liquid Room} 20:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way:

1. Changing side-by-side articles to use {{sbs}} is something a lot of people have done on an ad-hoc basis.
2. Having side-by-side articles all use {{sbs}} means they'll all look consistent.
3. If people prefer a given old look, then implementing that look by changing {{sbs}}, rather than each of the individual articles is a lot more convenient.

There might be a reason I haven't thought of that it breaks Human's wiki, in which case someone should please raise it. But otherwise, I can't see a downside - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The biggest challenge is big articles, such as Expelled:Leader's Guide; there are a lot of wiki table formating (or <tr>'s and <td>'s in other articles) which are a challenging to "undo". That, and it depends where you want the edit button.

I'm not saying I'm against it; it just might take whomever does it some time to do it. Šţěŗĭļė zebra 00:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind doing it and will probably, unless someone has any problem, make them all like so -

Some fucking article

RationalWiki's responses

Ace^{Liquid Room} 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The best argument for making them all "the same" is that someone used to the newer sbs ones will be comfortable editing older ones built with, say, html tables. I see no reason not to consistencify them, just be careful to, you know, not break them... Some might be easier to do in a sandbox, then making one complete replacement. ħuman 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have just done a whole bunch. I haven't touched personal essays or any that were very difficult. Someone with a little more wiki-acumen might wanna take a look at some of them. Ace^X-102 00:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I started on a similar thing some weeks back but I got distracted by squirrels and shiny stuff. Thanks for noticing the maintenance mess that was our side by side stuff. I'll try to get in this week to do some more. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No one else seemed to give a damn so I just went ahead and did it. Ace^X-102 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the articles can take a long time to parse, so how about we pop a comment on the talk page of anything we're working on? A quick comment to say that it's being worked on should be enough to prevent conflicts. I'll tag an article or two on Monday. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

When I'm doing a major markup/structure overhaul on an article I usually put a note at the very top of it as my first edit (and remove it my last, of course). People might not look at the talk page. ħuman 22:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll do that. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If I ever get time, I'll try to help out, especially since I'm the source of some of the pre-sbs side-by-sides. Sterile zebra 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)