Template:Chart top is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chart top template.
<center> is obsolete in HTML5.[1] Proper centering of tables is described at HELP:TABLECENTER.
But, if |width=100%, then centering the table has no visible effect. A full width table has no margins.
But, the temple is already centered since it uses the navbox class.
Thus <center> is not needed.
Family of Chart top
Woof
Meow
I added |align= to the sandbox, but since the table is already centered, it is only needed if you want to float left or right, so it may not be needed. (I did not immediately realize that navbox would center the table)
Ah I see the misunderstanding the <center> is not being added to centre the outer table (as you point out it is centred -- I now understand you first comment which had baffled me up to now), it is being added to centre the the content inside the table. I have renamed the three examples I created before, see the difference between Chart 2 and Chart 3 and where the chart boxes appear. It can be added by using align=center
The align attribute is also obsolete. The proper markup would be margin: 1em auto;. Again if |width=100% then center is redundant. --Gadget850talk19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You use align when modifying the script in the sandbox, and I took the |align="center"| from Help:template. I do not understand why you keep stating "if |width=100% then center is redundant." when one can clearly see that there is a difference in appearance between Chart 2 and Chart 3 when they are opened. -- PBS (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to alter the {{chart top}} code to do the same thing automagically, as I can not think of an example where one would not want the "inner element" to be centred. The example I gave (Chart 4) does that, and it is easy to add that code to the {{chart top}} template. You say that |align="center"| in that example is obsolete, so what would you suggest in its place? -- PBS (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you want the chart centered in {{chart top}}, so use {{chart/start|style=margin: 1em auto;}}
This cannot auto-collapse by default, per MOS:DONTHIDE. It should never be auto-collapsed on purpose in mainspace with this parameter, either, for the same reason. Collapsing stuff is potentially less objectionable in other namespaces. See also MOS:ACCESS for usability and accessibility issues. And use Template:Yesno-no, to interpret values like "Y", "false", etc. Also permit "collapse" not just "collapsed".
The don't hide argument has been around for many years and has been agreed as the best solution for things like the appendix sections. Ie everyone should have unimpeded access to the references section.
However I do not think that you should have changed this template without discussing it first. The reason for collapse by default is that many editors do not think that ancestry charts belong in Wikipedia articles. Collapsing them by default was agreed as a compromise. By expanding them unilaterally you are taking sides in a dispute that has rumbled on for years. I understand the reason for you doing it, but it can be argued that forcing both sighted and sighted challenge readers to have to wade through this trivia to get to more pertinent facts lower down the page is not in the interests of anyone. -- PBS (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a backwards argument. If "many editors do not think that ancestry charts belong in Wikipedia articles", then we should have an RfC about deprecating the practice and removing them from articles; we should not cause accessibility problems for entire classes of users as some kind of half-assed "meta-hint" to readers that editors are having an internal squabble. That's like kicking your dog because you're mad at your neighbor. A handful of editors in a particular topic area squabbling amongst each other for years cannot, for "their" topic, magically undo a site-wide accessibility guideline. This kind of crap is why WP:CONLEVEL policy exists and why ArbCom has reinforced in case after case that wikiprojects and other little knots of editors cannot make up their own pseudo-rules that conflict with the site-wide ones. If you think MOS:DONTHIDE is wrong, you're welcome to take up a proposal to change it at WT:MOSACCESS or WT:MOS. Finally, absolutely no one needs prior permission from you or anyone else to bring a template into compliance with policies and guidelines; there would have to be a massive and site-wide showing that consensus had changed on that matter and that the guideline or policy was to be rewritten, to prevent that. And even then it would be post hoc; by default, ever template that is not complying with extant policies and guidelines should be corrected to comply with them, unless and until the applicable P&G changed. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Hildeoc: looked at your link [here] and see no white space below the template, and it seems the white space above the template can be erased just by erasing the blank line in the code above the template. Like this:
The Hafizi branch, inextricably bound to the Fatimid regime, survived in Egypt until the [[fall of the Fatimid Caliphate]] in 1171, but it disappeared quickly after, unlike its two rivals, which survive to the present day. The last holdout of Hafizi Isma'ilism was Yemen, where significant communities survived into the 13th century.
{{Nizari-Hafizi-Tayyibi schism}}
When that blank line is removed, it looks like the following:
The Hafizi branch, inextricably bound to the Fatimid regime, survived in Egypt until the fall of the Fatimid Caliphate in 1171, but it disappeared quickly after, unlike its two rivals, which survive to the present day. The last holdout of Hafizi Isma'ilism was Yemen, where significant communities survived into the 13th century.
A blank line before a table shouldn't give as much whitespace as it does at Al-Hafiz#Rise to the throne and the Hafizi–Tayyibi schism. The problem is that if the first thing a transclusion returns is table start code {| then MediaWiki sometimes inserts a newline before {|, probably to ensure it ends up at the start of a line as required by the syntax. If there was already a blank line before the transclusion then you can get two blank lines and that gives extra whitespace. I don't know the precise circumstances where MediaWiki adds a newline. Maybe it happens here because the table start is transcluded through two templates, first from {{Chart top}} to {{Nizari-Hafizi-Tayyibi schism}} and then to the article. Maybe that means MediaWiki doesn't discover it's already after a blank line and doesn't need an inserted newline. If the call of {{Nizari-Hafizi-Tayyibi schism}} is replaced with the entire source text of {{Nizari-Hafizi-Tayyibi schism}} then it doesn't happen. That is not a suggested solution, merely an observation. The simple solution in specific cases is to just avoid blank lines before such calls. I don't know a good general solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty cool! and you're right – must have something to do with transcluding through the second template. Disabling this edit request because the solution is to simply remove the blank line between the text and the template as shown above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there01:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth and PrimeHunter: Thanks a lot for your interest and efforts! However, I would like to point out that this is not a real solution for the actual reason of the formatting issue in question but rather merely a "quick and dirty" workaround. No offence though. Warm regards, --Hildeoc (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None taken, editor Hildeoc. When one of the best template editors on WP doesn't know a good general solution, then the "quick and dirty" kind is all we can muster. There are only a handful of articles that use the {{Nizari-Hafizi-Tayyibi schism}} template, and the ones that needed fixing have been done (some already had been fixed). Feel free to open a bug report if you think it's needed, but the devs seem to be working their butts off against a large backlog. Best to you!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there21:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hildeoc:{{Edit template-protected}} is about getting somebody with rights to make the edit. When there is no clear way to achieve the goal and the problem is not critical, it seems suitable to not leave the edit request open. You could try Wikipedia:Requested templates if you want others to look for a good general solution but I'm not sure it exists. Some table-generating templates avoid the issue by using HTML per Help:Table#Other table syntax. But {{Chart top}} only makes part of a table and interacts with other templates in a way that would be problematic here. It doesn't work to just start a table with <table> and continue with wikicode syntax. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In this case, I certainly won't make a fuss here. So thank you both very much indeed, once again, for taking the time and trouble to look into this. Have a nice Sunday! Hildeoc (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)