Template talk:Endorsements box

Modifying Template

I have tried to search for this template usage outside of Local / State / Federal elections, but I don't really see it anywhere else; therefore, I think it would be nice to modify this template to better suit these use cases.

- Add an attribute to declare the campaign status (Active, Suspended, etc...)

I have noticed that inside a good amount of these Boxes, there is usually text indicating if the campaign is suspended, but you have to "show" the content first. If the campaign is suspended, then the Box should be collapsed by default, but if it is active, then it should be shown by default (maybe). Also, this could change the color of the Box (i.e. grey for suspended). Lastly, it could automatically append text to the Title if the campaign is suspended it could show "XYZ (campaign suspended)" instead of just "XYZ"

If you look at this page, you can see how it is used, but it is hard to see who is still active and who is suspended. All that information is hidden in the Box, and it doesn't make sense to have to repeat information above the box. This one attribute, along with the needed programming, would be more robust than any other method.Ciscorucinski (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse

Would love it if this could collapse — they get so huge, really awful on mobile. DemonDays64 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can someone please add back the option for collapsability (but expanded by default per MOS)? I'm not sure how to add it since it no longer has table formatting. 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia, for example, is awful since these massive boxes just duplicate a bunch of the same names for the primary and general. Izno? Reywas92^Talk 05:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS isn't "expanded by default", it's "don't do it". I see in the history this page has gone back and forth a few times on the point; if this is really necessary (rather than, y'know, not having endorsements pages, not having endorsements that will be essentially irrelevant after the cycle, or similar), then I think there should be a positive, RFC'd, community-wide, consensus on the matter. Columns on by default would probably help in a much more accessible way.

Readding mw-collapsible is not particularly hard if you know the relevant place to look.

The other thing that should be rethought if "it's repetitive" is to not repeat yourself. I don't really know the best way to do that in context.

What I don't really understand is why DD64 had a complaint in September when this template has only been this way since December and the last time this went the other way was in November of 2019 --Izno (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current page I suspect of interest, 2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia, would probably be fine were columns on by default. --Izno (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: It's an edit war on your part once you've decided you are not going to participate on the talk page. Please come along and have a chat. --Izno (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did participate in the talk page, and you told me "Readding mw-collapsible is not particularly hard if you know the relevant place to look." I figured out the relevant place to look and readded it when you had no articulated objection. MOS:PRECOLLAPSE clearly states only that "elements such as tables can be made collapsible at the reader's option", so long as it is not hidden by default, so I see no reason why these boxes should not give readers that option. Reywas92^Talk 01:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it goes. Once a discussion starts, you finish the discussion. If you believed I did not object strenuously in the form of my comment, then you should have said so. It should have been clear with "RFC" comment.

Secondly, that is not the correct place.

Thirdly, tables in context is largely a carveout for navboxes, not for arbitrary tables to be collapsible.

Fourth, I provided at least one other compromise edit which you seem to have ignored (to wit, columns by default).

Lastly, I remain skeptical of the value of endorsements.

Regardless, if you do not want to budget on this, I will simply walk to WP:TFD and see if they would prefer to delete the template instead. If its only utility is because it can collapse the content, then it does not need to exist. Multiple other templates (particularly {{collapse}}) have been banned from the mainspace because of MOS:COLLAPSE, and where a general template has been banned, a specific template is going to fall in line as being removed from there as well. --Izno (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Please do that. I also question the value of endorsements lists, that's why they were collapsed by default for years and I want to be able to collapse them now. The previous default of being collapsed was the long-term position and likely the consensus until you changed it without notice so I doubt you'll find a consensus making it impossible to collapse them. I would certainly support having columns by default...in addition to being collapsible. Reywas92^Talk 04:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, MoS has nothing against collapsible containers, as long as they are not auto-collapsed by default (an exception is made for navboxes because they are not integral to the article content). The reason for this is that the content when collapsed will be hidden from screen readers, anyone running without JavaScript, and various mobile browsers, generally without any way to un-collapse it. However, if you are not subject to one of those conditions, and you see and can use the collapse/uncollapse toggle, then it will work for you, both to collapse what you don't want to see, and to show it again after all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]