Template talk:Handel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Is it possible to reduce the width of this box? I've tried reducing the size of the picture but the width stays the same. Also we have the words 'this box' appearing. Is that necessary? --Kleinzach 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

width:16em is set by Template:Vertbox, so unless that template is changed this one will always be at least that wide. "This box" is an artifact of Template:Tnavbar (see [1]) and I don't like it either. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, but do we need to use Template:Vertbox then? --Kleinzach 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No, not really. — CharlotteWebb 02:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you understand these boxes better than I do - I worked on the old low-tech version! The new collapsibility is great and can be used on many other opera navboxes (Donizetti, Offenbach, Verdi etc.) Would it be possible to do a new Template:OperaVertbox or whatever to facilitate the conversion? Would this be the right approach? Basically if all the links were in a not-too-obtrusive box that would be great! --Kleinzach 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh anything's possible. Whether it's practical would depend on whether there is something significant that opera infoboxes/navboxes/vertboxes/whatever should in common with each other, but not with similar templates in other subjects. I'm in no position to answer that. — CharlotteWebb 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are 125 of them in Category:Operas by composer templates. Other similar series I've seen are all page footers. --Kleinzach 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ero e Leandro[edit]

If Ero e Leandro is a cantata, why is it included here as an oratorio? Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


There's something funny going on here. The v d e buttons work from the template page but not from the linked pages. Substituting "Template:Handel" for "PAGENAME" doesnt seem desirable as it makes three boxes in the preview... Sparafucil (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because the magic word {{PAGENAME}} resolves to the page name of the work where the template is used; observe the status line when you hover the mouse over the v d e links.
I suspect that changing the template parameter "name" from {{PAGENAME}} to "Handel" will do the trick. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've done that and it seems to work. --Kleinzach 08:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New incarnation: still too wide?[edit]

I see this is now much expanded. Would it be possible to make it narrower? The extra space on either side of the portrait seems redundant, especially if you expand the list below. Thanks. --Kleinzach 07:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any extra space on either side of the portrait, well – verry little, about one space: | |. I think all the opera navigation boxes have the same size for their image: 190px. You can play with the imagesize in "preview" by adding and varying the parameter |imagesize=. As CharlotteWebb observed above, the box width is fixed at 13em, now in {{Sidebar}} insead of {{VertBox}}, although I admit it seems wider than that; maybe it's some magic to with classes which are heavily used in that template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing about four spaces: |     | on either side. It seems that changing image size just increases the blank space. (Zooming out (which makes article text very small anyway) doesn't help as the blank space is still there.) Any ideas? Could it be caused by a few very long work titles?--Kleinzach 10:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The long titles are apparently not the problem. (I split the 3 or 4 longest ones in preview and it had no effect.) --Kleinzach 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried the same thing, reducing every string in the template to two characters, without effect. I should remember, but I don't: which browser do you use? Here, IE8 and FF 3.5 show the same thing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the "book" link[edit]

CFCF, stop edit warring, just because you don't like something. There is no justification in you removing the link as it stands: you have shown no guideline or policy that forces us to do so. The closest guideline we have is from Help:Books: "There is no agreed guideline, but it is suggested that you add it at the top of the See also section"; a suggestion is just that, and we are under no compunction to remove it. – SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)