Template talk:AlumniStart

Sortable references column
Is there any reason why this template has a sort button for the references column? I mean, is anyone going to sort by reference number? The reference number is fairly arbitrary to begin with (it's just based on the order in the code), so it doesn't really have much relevance to anything in my opinion. Drewcifer 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After consulting m:Help:Sorting, I seem to have discovered a way to disable sorting by reference. However, I'm not entirely sure I want to implement it. Having all of the columns sortable seems like a good stylistic/graphical choice. Relevant code:  —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I went ahead and put the code in. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How to request Deletion?
This template includes a column for references. Really? In a list? Totally not WMoS, especially the style part. I don't deal too often with templates, so can someone steer me to the best place and/or method to remove or change it? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which part of the MoS is in violation? What style? --  Gadget850talk 12:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A column for references in a list is not MOS. The name of the person (Alum) and why they're notable (Nota) in the table are all that are needed as the reference is just appended after the notability text.  A list of alumni should be just that, a list.  A table is overkill unless there is some justification for an additional column, but I don't know what that content would be, in regards to alumni.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 03:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there is consistent consensus for providing some sort of citation that that person attended that university, and some hint as to their notability. I created this template based on the feedback I received at Featured List Nomination, who would know a thing or two about this. Disavian (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Width
The documentation says that the table width "defaults to 80%", but the code was changed in December 2018 to have a default of 100% with the edit summary reading "unnecessary". This has undesired results on pages where the table conflicts with other elements, e.g. an Infobox. Is there any opposition to reverting to an 80% defaults width? -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some specific examples where a width of 80% would be an improvement? And is forcing all instances of this template to only use part of the available space the best way to handle that? ElKevbo (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What led me here was seeing the prior state of the Academy of Richmond County article. When you made this change, did you ever ask yourself, "Is forcing all instances of this template to use all of the available space the best way to handle this?" Why did you make the change that you did? What made the default of 80% "unnecessary", or the default of 100% necessary? -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would we not want to use all of the available space to display content? We shouldn't add white space to every article that uses this template to account for a handful of special cases. Is there a way to do that? ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Why enforce any default widths, for the table or its columns? Without default widths, the table and columns will display as wide as necessary and adjust for other layout elements as needed. -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)