Template talk:ZAP tgen

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Zapping Template Shrinking

We have discussed the issue of too many templates on pages. Reducing the size of the zapping template might be a viable solution. Here are some proposed ideas. --SomeStranger (Talk | Contribs) 16:03, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

  • I like #3, but with the grey box. Or #4, unbolded. Either way, these compact ones look better. --cor_nocae 21:53, 28 May 2006 (CDT)
    • I don't think that is even possible? Or maybe I am just not good at making tables. Regardless, I can't seem to get it to not have bold text.--SomeStranger (Talk | Contribs) 07:56, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

Idea One

This is the original layout.

Slash.gif Zapping {{{name}}}
{{{list}}}

Idea Two

This is a one line layout that may look a little bit awkward, but still keeps the Zapping link and Group title.

Slash.gif Zapping {{{name}}} -- {{{list}}}

Idea Three

This is the most compact version, it has only the image (which by using the click template also acts as a link)

Slash.gif {{{list}}}

Idea Four

This is the compact version with gray shading.

Slash.gif {{{list}}}



The zapping template is more like the box template and less like the recipe template, so it would follow that it should be centered. Besides, it looks odd uncentered, especially on a high-res monitor. Thoughts from those who disagree are encouraged. --Cor nocae 21:47, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

I wrote the zap template to fit the same role as the such templates as the original version of the templates like 'Template:Polearms' (look at the historical version). These 'groups of' type of templates are more navigational aides than recepies and such. --Shagie 22:15, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
The centered version looks awful. The normal version looks awful, but better. In theory this should look better, but even I (I have my monitor running at 1280 by 1024 think that it looks better aligned to the left side. It may have been intended as a navigational template, but since it has its own section it is far more than that. The collections are cented because they are at the bottom and look fine that way. The section that is second to last does not good look with a centered template. --SomeStranger (Talk | Contribs) 20:41, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Hm... I think it looks awful uncentered. Well... not awful, per se, but unpolished. It looks strange and broken to have the "group of" box centered, but to have the "zapping" box uncentered, especially if they are going to have the exact same layout. Besides which, I (personally) think a left-aligned box with centered contents looks goofy. Maybe if it was presented in a different manner, this could be alleviated. Perhaps do it like the "Categories:" line at the bottom of the pages: 100% width, left-aligned. --Cor nocae 22:46, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Revert it

Now that the wiki has gone from looking okay to looking awful, this click template no longer works. Revert it to when it had the full text, I always found it useful to link to the Zapping page.--Someone Else 04:58, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

Soo many templates

The only practical way to keep track of all the zap group templates is through "what links here" or going to the T's in the special template page. I'm just saying maybe new ones should get a category? and maybe others will join them at some point in time?--Dehstil 20:34, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Auto categorizing

So, I'm going through the zap templates and outside it was coolcleaning things up, and I notice that almost all of them have a "name" parameter which is never used. Looking at this talk, I see it used to be used in the template. I'd like to use it for the purpose of auto-cat'ing and sorting the templates. Simply putting in <includeonly>[[Category:Zap Group Templates|{{{name}}}]]</includeonly> unfortunately causes all of the items to get categorized in Zap Group Templates. Would <includeonly><includeonly>... fix this double-inclusion issue? I'm pretty sure I could change all of the particular zap group templates to be includeonly, but I'm not sure if this is preferable. It would elminate the usefulness of previews when making/changing zap group templates. --Flargen 03:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Arg, headache. A <includeonce> tag would be nice, ;-). {{Item/data}} includes so many <includeonly>s, <noinclude}}>s and subst:s, that it is nearly unreadable. Maybe you can nest an <noinclude> inside an <includeonly> somehow like {{Item/data}} includes {{Item/meta}} near the end of it. I think Quietust started those crazy things. The {{item}} and all the item data page preload templates are bonkos, I mean look at this line </{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>includeonly}}><noinclude>{{item/meta}}</noinclude> Arg! --JRSiebz (|§|) 04:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Wow, no kidding. It's going to take me a few minutes just to figure out how those things are parsed. Sounds fun! I think that nesting idea might work, though. Think I'll try that with the Test templates. --Flargen 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Aha, I figured it out I think. I don't think just doing <includeonly><includeonly>... works, but apparently if you do like I've done in {{Test}} and then subst that template into a subsequent example, as was done at {{Test2}}, then you will get what I want to happen. But it doesn't work if you don't subst, as then it seems to interpret what should be noinclude tags as string literals. Well, I haven't quite tried passing in parameters yet, but I don't think that'll cause any problems other than figuring out how to code the auto-cat in a way with a nice default case. --Flargen 07:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)