Template talk:Longitem

Merge code into Navbox template
Shouldn't navbox just do this automatically? This should therefore be merged into the default code at Navbox. Rgrds. --64.85.217.93 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Live template broken?
Since thanked me for creating them (*hattip* Guv'na.), I figure I should actually bring up why I've created both testcases for this template, and a sandbox version for which one of those two testcases fails.

AFAICT, 's most recent edit to the live template source broke its inclusion of default style parameters. You can see, in fact, that the default style parameters  are currently appearing in the template's output @ Template:longitem. When transcluded, they're simply absent, so the template is currently applying no styling when used without a style parameter except for  (See the testcases, which use yes to display the resultant HTML from the transclusions.)

I will be perfectly honest, I could not make heads or tails of the conditional used in the most recent edit, so I am unable to say whether my sandbox version is equivalent to its intent. I haven't the foggiest clue what its intent was, as the code is completely beyond me.

IF the intent was that the template apply the complete set of styles,  unless a style parameter is passed, in which case   is combined with the arguments to the style parameter, then my sandbox version accomplishes that. (Again, see testcases.) If there was some additional / more complex goal beyond that, then my version is probably lacking due to me not understanding the assignment.

, do you think you could look at again, and either apply my sandbox version or some other fix? The last edit definitely didn't go as planned, given that the template is currently almost completely non-functional. AdvThanksance! FeRDNYC (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the inconvenience, I made the change to fix another issue described at . I'm going to troubleshoot the problem now and should be able to fix it in a short while. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the issue should be fixed now, I've checked the testcases (thanks for creating them). &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good to me! I've added a link to the tracking category in the documentation. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 May 2023 (Simplify the template)
Currently the way we are implementing this template is very (very) complicated and requires un-necessary comparisms between the same variables For example:  is compared with   multiple times. We could probably slim the template down to the following. I've made the changes to the sandbox in case we need to check specific situations/edge cases where there may be issues. Lmk if there are any issues. Sohom Datta (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

might be able to explain how/why the current code works the way it does. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ping @MJL since this came up on their stream :) Sohom Datta (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't test this out, but assuming it's not breaking anything then we should probably accept the change.
 * I did play around with some testcases right now and the only difference is the behaviour with a missing  parameter. In case that specific example is important, we can do the following:
 * parameter}}}    and still have a similar simplified version. :) Sohom Datta (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I'm afraid the  is necessary to prevent issues arising in Infobox legislature. Also, there is no need to include   parameter inside   as the template is used without parameters to provide styling for item_style in unbulleted list. I'll see if I can implement some of the other changes after testing in the sandbox. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)