RationalWiki talk:Collapsible Comment System

Jeeves, can you put instructiions on the individual templates - makes 'em easier to find.   ^Contribs_Talk 07:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Sure, I was just going to link all the templates to this page, but whatever is easier. --JeevesMkII 07:47, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

It's just that it's quicker, for someone unfamiliar with the system or in a hurry, to just look @ the actual template page. I love them all!   ^Contribs_Talk 07:50, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

It's a bit obtrusive as it stands. might be better with a less obvious background colour & probably inline on the right side of the page?   ^Contribs_Talk 09:22, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Lovely thing. The colour could be a tad more subtle I think. Not sure about moving to the right though. Would it be a good idea to make the "show" link more prominent? --Bob^{bing up} 09:46, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Might it be better as a box with text wrapping around it?--Bob^{bing up} 09:47, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

What he said! :-)   ^Contribs_Talk 09:49, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

The more I see it in action, the more I think it's too OBTRUSIVE Conservapedia:World History Lecture One.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:58, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

A box that's aligned to the right of the screen should be fine. I think it's a bigger problem to decide where to put them. At the moment it looks pretty arbitrary -- perhaps they could be collected at the end like references? Or permenantly open so that they can be read all the time? ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 10:02, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Me too, any improvements greatly appreciated. --JeevesMkII 10:02, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

What I want to do is make the link to the boxes the from the text the main show hide button, as noted in the TODO section. I'll write the javascript to do that part soon and have someone paste it in to the common.js. That should solve any issues with showing hiding the text, positioning and colours and suchlike suggestions gratefully received. --JeevesMkII 10:08, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually I'm too dim to really follow that - or maybe it's the couple of beers I've just had. Anyway, how about a quite discreet box (with a graphic), which, if you run the cursor over it tells you where to to click for the comment? Or is that asking too much?--Bob^{bing up} 10:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

A smiley like this or this ?--Bob^{bing up} 10:42, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

How does this style of kidney look to people? distinctly less obtrusive in my humble opinion. --JeevesMkII 11:22, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm

How come the strikelink example is red? ħuman 15:21, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Cos he made it that way.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:23, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Is he going to fix it? The other such example works fine... ħuman 17:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

It's a feature, not a bug. I like egregiously wrong text to be red :D --JeevesMkII 17:54, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I guess I sort of see your point, but it just looks really wrong, since it looks like the exact opposite of a link. ħuman 18:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

How about blue like normal links, but with three bright red asterisks before and after the text? ħuman 18:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

That's just bizarre. I think it looks okay as a quasi-redlink. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 18:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Back in the day, all hyperlinks were red. Stupid new fangled human interaction paradigms. --JeevesMkII 18:07, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, chaos, but it looks wrong. If I saw a link like that, I wouldn't click on it, in fact, I'd probably click "edit" to remove it. If it was blue (whether tagged "special" or not) I might click on it. Asterisks aren't bizarre, they conventionally lead to footnotes. How about if the text were bold, and just black, and there was a ^{Read this} linked to the collapsed comment? ħuman 18:19, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate your candour, Human, but three bright red asterisks on either side would look just as wrong as it is now. How about a thick red strikethrough with normal black text behind it? ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 18:27, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

That sounds good to me. ħuman 20:41, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

To be more specific, I'm not against you changing it to something that looks more like a link (though I'm not totally sold on the asterisks idea, and I don't tend to like the look of things that are both underlined and struck through) but if you can come up with something that both looks good, and looks like a link then just do it. --JeevesMkII 18:26, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

This is only for commenting on quotes from idiots, right? So we want to make it really highlighty? See KAOS' idea above, although I still think blue text for anything clickable sorta makes sense in wikiworld, a red strikethrough would make it "obvious" what sort of link it is. Otherwise we'll have to explain what the hell is going on with the links on every page they are used on. You know what I'd like to see, is a "real world" sandbox example - like take a chunk of one of CP's history lectures, a screen or two, and use this cool template to mark it up, so we can see how well it is working, what it looks like, etc.? ħuman 20:41, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I got rid of the red at least for the time being, cos it broke the javascript. The event source was the font tag, rather than the anchor tag. I'll have to fix that in the javascript when I get a minute, just traverse up the tree until I find the anchor (or the top of the document, or we hit some predefined search limit.) Oh, and see also Conservapedia:World History Lecture One, I started writing a few comments on that. --JeevesMkII 11:37, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Jeeves, this is a really neat feature. My own views on this. A border separates the box text from the surrounding text much better. Can the image be moved up a bit so the top aligns with the show/hide just to make it smaller? Can we have an option for different images, either by specifying an image name or a number to choose from a fixed list (like message boxes in VBA). Can the header text be higher - like dividing the header box into three with an image left, text middle and show/hide right? Also could the initial state be set to show or hide? I think this could be used in a much wider context than snark. For example sometimes there is a need for a definition or explanation and an adjacent link like this would be more convenient than scrolling to the references or jumping to a new page. Please don't think of this as criticism just a few suggestions to make it better. I will probably plagiarise it to use at work! Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

It was I who removed the border :-( Alternate images are a nice idea - much work for Jeeves. Other uses are in't pipeline, I'm sure.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:17, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey, there's no rush. Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:02, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Jeeves, I checked out the example - very nice! A bit "jumpy" when one clicks (on the link), of course, but there's probably no way around that. Idea: Can they be (optionally) numbered like normal footnotes are (or tagged with a word... one, two, three, etc.) so instead of clicking the link, one simply knows which box to expand to read the comment? ħuman 16:14, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Zer javascript, it might well be ready

I wrote some javascript to complement this stuff, which you can find here. I suspect you have to be a bureaucrat to do this, but if someone with the powah of sysophood wants to try bunging it in to MediaWiki:Common.js (after all the rest of the content, please) then, thanks. I promise it doesn't attempt to hack your routers (yes, you can do that with javascript now. Change your default passwords, kids!) --JeevesMkII 16:38, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I could do it, but I'd prefer someone with more wikisavvy to. Don't wanna blow anything up! 07:29, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Nice!   ^Contribs_Talk 11:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

In-line collapsible super text?

Is this the method used to make notes like this: ( Example^[Note] ) that can be opened up? I can't for the life of me find an article with one again, though I swear I saw one just today. RETheUgly (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't used anywhere. It may have been used when it was written seven years ago, but if so it didn't last long. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)