Template talk:Div
extended discussion regarding revision 18757 |
---|
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.</span> |
This is turning into a maintenance nightmare. If you can't decide whether it should be svp or svpc or vpc or vpcs, then perhaps it's not ready for live use. The objective isn't to give you or me or other editors three or four different shorthands for the exact same div. We're already ending up with different live articles that use different abbreviations, depending on what the favorite spelling was at the time, and that's just not reasonable. While backward compatibility might be reasonable for 1.x to 2.x, after a template was in live use for an extended time, I don't see the point of supporting the earlier string ideas that transpired in the last day or so, from 0.1x to 0.4x. Perhaps a good place to start is to look at the different class names in MediaWiki:Common.css. The object-game-qualifier style you see there isn't just a CSS naming convention, but one that is meant to be consistent across the wiki too, such as with templates and images:
Since it appears that you're trying to compress classes into a 3-4 character string, you might want to look at some questions to consider:
I was willing to adopt this and give it a shot, but it looks like this is still in development, and you haven't finalized your values yet. It would be helpful, please, if you'd clean up any other live articles that have various iterations of svp or whatever, and switch them back to the original div markup, for now. In the future, let's try things like this out on Mousezilla or some other sandbox, first, until it's ready for adoption. I'm going to catch up with whatever else is going on, then get back to my plant articles, and just use our longer conventional names. Once you feel this is robust and stable, Jim or I would be happy to take another look at this and see if it's ready for actual use. --FeralKitty (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.</span> |
div & divclear
OK, the new and improved {{div}} & {{divclear}} should help people create tabs on the fly a lot easier and are inline with the css names. divclear will clear all text and close a tab. I suppose it can be subst'ed, do you think it will be heavy on the processor if we leave it transcluded? how about the new div, which passed the paramaters directly rather than through a switch? –xenocidic (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)