|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Template talk:Useful Links
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Fonts[edit]
Couldn't we make them a little bit smaller? I guess you must have a high pixel count monitor Human as it looks fine to me but the current box is too big - almost CPish. 
Genghis Marauding 02:20, 7 January 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, I'm running like a billion by a billion screen size, I guess (1280 by something?) But I can read RW jes' fine on it, but any "smaller" size type turns into flypoop. I think legibility rules over smallability? IE, we could make things tiny, tiny, tiny, but why? Just as we remember small screen sizes, we gotta 'member old fogies and our damn glasses! human
06:32, 7 January 2008 (EST)
- I am an old fogey too (probably older than you) but on my 1280 the Useful Links box is rather dominating. I like legibility but appreciate clarity of layout as well. That's one reason I hate CP's main page, it's just so ugly, contains too much stuff, is poorly laid out (too much old junk) and has a crap set of colors. Of course it has been designed largely by kids so what can you expect? In contrast, RW's main page is easy on the eye and not too cluttered (and apart from on odd tweak nothing to do with me). I also don't like the double border on our Links box, it's rather old fashioned now and reminds me of the web stuff I used to do when hand coding HTML back in the mid-nineties.
Genghis Wanting a nicely designed wiki 15:32, 21 November 2024 (EST) (more like 7 January I think)
- Can you email me (or post here) a screen shot of how it looks so bad? I'm running a bit under 1280 by X, and it's only, say, the top quarter of the screen (including other junk) before changes start getting listed. And it's "wicked" easy to scroll down a bit with my mouse wheel. As far as the box, I think it's just an html table with "border=1", which, as you say, results in that web 1.0 clunky look. I think if it was set up using "div" tags the border could be prettier. By the way, that's a really bizarre way to timestamp your post(s)! Since, it, um, doesn't timestamp them. But I think you already fixed it by now. human 02:12, 10 January 2008 (EST)
- Can you email me (or post here) a screen shot of how it looks so bad? I'm running a bit under 1280 by X, and it's only, say, the top quarter of the screen (including other junk) before changes start getting listed. And it's "wicked" easy to scroll down a bit with my mouse wheel. As far as the box, I think it's just an html table with "border=1", which, as you say, results in that web 1.0 clunky look. I think if it was set up using "div" tags the border could be prettier. By the way, that's a really bizarre way to timestamp your post(s)! Since, it, um, doesn't timestamp them. But I think you already fixed it by now. human
- I am an old fogey too (probably older than you) but on my 1280 the Useful Links box is rather dominating. I like legibility but appreciate clarity of layout as well. That's one reason I hate CP's main page, it's just so ugly, contains too much stuff, is poorly laid out (too much old junk) and has a crap set of colors. Of course it has been designed largely by kids so what can you expect? In contrast, RW's main page is easy on the eye and not too cluttered (and apart from on odd tweak nothing to do with me). I also don't like the double border on our Links box, it's rather old fashioned now and reminds me of the web stuff I used to do when hand coding HTML back in the mid-nineties.
To-do list[edit]
Should we add the to-do list to this? Perhaps replace "wanted pages" with it? ħuman 23:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes.
gnostic 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, it is on there. I must be having a special. gnostic 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, it is on there. I must be having a special.
?[edit]
lonely pages - 1 (Creative commons) remove?
dead ends - 2 (1. Main Page 2. Page That Will Never Be Written) remove?
Doesn't matter on a PC/laptop but on a phone it takes up the whole screen.
This message brought to you by: 
respondand honey 07:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- So don't try it on a phone? ħuman 07:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Make this collapsible?[edit]
It would save space above RC and WL, sometimes the holydazes pile up and the whole top of the screen is just various headers. Sure, I could keep it scrolled down, but then I wouldn't see those cherished orange boxes when they pop up.
Thoughts on this? Is there a way to make it a user preference, perhaps? ħuman 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- As a user preference would be good if possible. Alternatively the box could be fully visible to BoNs but collapsed for established users; I think these links are aimed at noobs more than regulars. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like your second idea as a default; user pref to keep it expanded would be a nice option, I'm sure someone uses them frequently, somewhere. How easy would that "visible to BONs" feature be to implement? ħuman 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I implemented the simple (always collapsed) version. I suppose I will now see a lot of feedback ;) ħuman 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Feedback: I like it. Saves a
lotbit of scrolling.& marmitechat 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Glad you do. Now, shall we stick the holydaze in a box and collapse them, too? Hmmmmm... ħuman 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am actually finding that very annoying, can we at least fix the width so it is the same size folded as unfolded? - π 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno, where is the collapsible-thingy span style stored? Ok, one way would be a string of nbsps as wide as the box in the header line. I shall try to break it anon. ħuman 01:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have mad it 70% of the page width. Do you like? - π 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I made it 700 pixels (got EC'd, looked at the 70% thing, preferred the fixed width). I don't really like % widths, since they end up huge on a wide monitor. I note you also got rid of the pretty box within a box :( Oh well. ħuman 01:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- It cause overlap problems on small monitor though. If you think Toast was having problems on her phone before, she is going to have more on a fixed width. - π 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have made it 725 so no words fall onto a new line. - π 01:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Very nice. ħuman 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- On your computer maybe, but not on mine. Fixed width is a bad thing, since it doesn't allow the box to shrink. I've replaced it with a percentage width and max-width of 800px, that allows it to shrink and prevents it from becoming too large (on decent browsers at least) -- Nx / talk 12:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Very nice. ħuman
- I have made it 725 so no words fall onto a new line. - π 01:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- It cause overlap problems on small monitor though. If you think Toast was having problems on her phone before, she is going to have more on a fixed width. - π 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I made it 700 pixels (got EC'd, looked at the 70% thing, preferred the fixed width). I don't really like % widths, since they end up huge on a wide monitor. I note you also got rid of the pretty box within a box :( Oh well. ħuman
- I have mad it 70% of the page width. Do you like? - π 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno, where is the collapsible-thingy span style stored? Ok, one way would be a string of nbsps as wide as the box in the header line. I shall try to break it anon. ħuman
- I am actually finding that very annoying, can we at least fix the width so it is the same size folded as unfolded? - π 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Glad you do. Now, shall we stick the holydaze in a box and collapse them, too? Hmmmmm... ħuman
- Feedback: I like it. Saves a
- OK, I implemented the simple (always collapsed) version. I suppose I will now see a lot of feedback ;) ħuman
- I like your second idea as a default; user pref to keep it expanded would be a nice option, I'm sure someone uses them frequently, somewhere. How easy would that "visible to BONs" feature be to implement? ħuman
too many useless links[edit]
Instead of hiding the problem by making this collapsible, how about we solve it properly. These are the current links:
- This doesn't need to be on recent changes.
- RW's "to do" list - Current projects.
- This one should be kept
- This is on MediaWiki:Newarticletext, where it's more useful
- Vandalism - How to handle.
- This one belongs on the sysop guide.
- Categories - To add to articles.
- This one is more useful on MediaWiki:edittools, so I added it there.
- Best of RW & Cover Stories- Find and add the best RationalWiki articles.
- Short articles - These probably need expanding (or deleting?)
- Lonely pages - No articles link to these. 'De-orphanise' them.
- Dead ends - Articles with no links to other pages.
- Entry points - Articles people come directly to. Quality control!
- These should all be on RW:TODO (some are)
So only RW:TODO is really needed.
I also don't think we need "Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!" (that should be on the welcome template perhaps?) and the random slogan. All that text is more easily ignored, and the holydaze template already has a lot of text. -- Nx / talk 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would support movig "Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!" to the welcome template, but not getting rid of the "useful links". The point of them is "one click" shopping to places people use to help improve the site. OK, two clicks, one to expand... Getting rid of the random slogan would be heresy! How about a gadget that allows one to choose that none of these things shows up at all? Or whichever ones one wants? ħuman 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- They aren't very useful if they are collapsed and buried in a sea of words. We have a quite a few "stuff that needs improvement" links on RW:TODO (unfortunately it's buried at the bottom of the page, so I've placed a small TOC at the top, hopefully that will help). Too much to list them all on Recent changes, that's why I think a single link to RW:TODO would be best. As for the rest, there are better places for them. -- Nx / talk 23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Prototype[edit]
here. Discuss. -- Nx / talk 04:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Could you have a second row with the how you found RationalWiki on it? - π 04:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Prototypes are good. I think "how you found" needs to be moved to the welcome template. I think all three of us agree on this, at least. ħuman 04:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that one also went by with zero discussion. Nice example of how to just do whatever you want, just because you can. In absentia 04:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I put a note up, but after a few days nobody commented, I liked, Nx liked it, you seemed to like it (at least at my first reading of your comments). - π 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that one also went by with zero discussion. Nice example of how to just do whatever you want, just because you can. In absentia 04:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Prototypes are good. I think "how you found" needs to be moved to the welcome template. I think all three of us agree on this, at least. ħuman
consistency[edit]
Why doesn't this use [[::template:messagebox]]? Also, those HRs are really tacky. Can we do better? ħuman 02:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)