User talk:Dispenser/Navbox

Please copyedit/reword the opening paragraph as I'm sure you're not attempting to make drastic changes to the layout.

Are you altering templates using NavFrame divs as well, or only those with (collapsible) tables?

Do you have any opinion on using Navbox generic or some other template, which may make for even better maintenance and cleaner code? –Pomte 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the introduction. However, the changes are rather drastic since the script performs a destructive operation on the font-size and the width (if it is unset).  This is intentional as using the font-size property prevents the user or administer from setting it globally.


 * I am currently working on the all the template that are using id=”toc”, probably those with class=”toccolours” will be the next to be processed. Many of the templates will not translate directly to navbox generic, and even if I did convert them I’d likely get more wrath for changing the navbox so much.  Also, the code produced by the script can sometimes be rather close to the navbox templates. —Dispenser 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Auto margins
Great work, though we disagree on one detail: You tell people to add  if less than 100% width is wanted. I'd recommend adding  instead, as it leaves the possibility of changing top and bottom margins of all navboxes through the stylesheet. Yes, I know, it's a detail :-) ––Fred Bradstadt 08:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ If a width is set the following will be added: .  Any other recommendations?—Dispenser 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch, you're fast :-) I have no other recommendations, except for maybe updating User:Dispenser/Navbox conform according to the change. ––Fred Bradstadt 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Useful styles"
You're doing a good work on this template issue, it is certainly necessary.

I've been tinkering with footer templates lately, and I used some recommendations from Useful styles. These are not that widely implemented, vertical spacing with 1em in particular, so there are still many templates either "glued" to each other or separated with  , and I think neither is a good solution.

Useful styles recommends setting width to 90% (and I happen to like it better than 100%), so this may well be the next major inconsistency, as there are many templates in the 85-95% width range and these do not look good stacked on top of those with 100% width (and vice versa).

I think that recommendations in Useful styles should be somehow merged with this Navbox conform initiative, as they are not entirely compatible now. GregorB 11:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Useful styles seems to be out of date as it recommends using toccolours for navboxes. If we are using navboxes we shouldn't be setting these properties unnecessarily as they override the site wide css.  If you think some of these recommendation should change site wide, I'd recommend bring it up over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css.  —Dispenser 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, "Useful styles" is out of date, and this is precisely the problem here: when I went looking for a "template Manual of Style" (of sorts), Useful styles is what I've found. I'm not a big fan of one particular solution over the others, but I'd like to see more conformity. I'll take a look at MediaWiki talk, looks interesting... GregorB 17:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Help offered
What can I do to help? I believe that Navbox generic supersedes most other meta nav box templates. What about the css class? What is the direction of change? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made the script available at User:Dispenser/AWB Navbox.xml, although right now its still buggy since I’m working towards a generic implementation. The CSS that the script attempts converts to is navbox class.  The direction of change is to reduce & clean the code while keeping a similar appearance. —Dispenser 05:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolution statistics
Hi, I have some concern over the resolution statistics. Because of my real life job, I know that 800 × 600 should be much higher, around 8%. 1024 × 768 should be close to half, and 1280 and higher should be lower. is a stat closer to reality, but keep in mind that that is a stat of their visitors, who are mostly interested in web development. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest I was rather surprised when I first saw that data, but now that you bring up a different source it makes sense. Since the typical usage of low resolution displays are libraries and other public computing which are excluded in Valve's surveys.  I'm not sure what to do, maybe I should put them both up?  —Dispenser 03:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)