Template talk:NHSC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Canada (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Historic sites (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Horizontal list formatting[edit]

There are many benefits from switching to horizontal list formatting (see WP:HLIST). These include:

  • better accessibility for visually-impaired users, who have to rely on screen reader software, enabling such software to recognise the "list" nature of the content
  • reduced server load from the elimination of costly subtemplates such as {{nowrap}} and the various dot templates
  • much easier editing
  • the formatting code is obvious to editors (no need to worry about clunky templates such as nowrap)
  • separation of style from content. This is good practice, and is a standard, elementary principle of web design; it makes website maintainance much, much easier.
  • see the documentation at WP:NAV re the template transclusion limits

There are no disbenefits that I can see. Not one.

An editor has complained in an edit summary that "the formatting is screwed up far outweighs any perecievd "benefits" - please figure out a way to address concerns and have regard to WP:CON and WP:BRD". But the forrmatting is not "screwed up"; it is almost identical between the two versions, the only difference being the substitution of a list separator for commas in the sublists. The new formatting is, in fact, the consensus version, having been decided when the "hlist" CSS class was introduced. If a user dislikes this style then he or she can argue for the style to be changed, or a new CSS class to be introduced to provide an alternative. Meanwhile, I am restoring the horizontal list formatting.

BTW, thanks to the efforts of a few hard-working editors, Category:Navigational boxes without horizontal lists is now down to less than 2,800 templates, having been over 60,000 when I first started taking a look at this subject.

--NSH001 (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You have not yet addressed the problem. Seriously - these bullying/bulldozer tactics are unebelievable. It would so helpful instead of forcing changes and lecturing editors if you actually addressed the probolems raised in the edit summaries. How do we address the problem of the misplaced brackets and commas now that the nowrap template is unavailable? The formatting is both different and worse. This is not an improvement - you are placing the preferences of the small pool of Wikipedia editors ahead of the larger pool of Wikipedia users. There is no consensus for this change (point me to the policy or guideline), so please tell me how to address/solve the problem that has been created. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The main problem here is that you are using an old browser which doesn't satisfy current web standards. As a result, you and I are seeing different presentations of the template; the version I see is identical to the previous version, apart from the list separator character. So my recommendation is that you upgrade your browser to the latest version, or switch to a standards-compliant browser such as Firefox. Meanwhile, here is a list of some discussions leading up to the implementation of horizontal lists:
If you would like to see a change in how nested lists are presented, you could always post a request at WP:VPT, but do read the discussions linked to above first. My own view is that it is not worth spending much effort trying to cater for obsolete browsers.
Sorry for the delay in replying; I don't have much time for Wikipedia for now, and wasn't expecting to have to spend so much time on such a trivial change. Regards, --NSH001 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
First, no need to apologize for the delay. I appreciate that real life can take priority. Second, if someone has raised an issue which they feel is important, please don't call it "trivial". However, I do appreciate that you probably did not mean it in that sense, but nonetheless I feel (felt) this was an important issue. Third, and more to the point, I *am* using an old browser, and will check the template out tonight on Firefox and Explorer. I agree with your comment about obsolete browsers and not wasting time formatting for them. The browser issue had never even occurred to me. Sorry to have put you through this, based on nothing but an out-of-date browser. In the future, all of this would have been avoided had someone simply at the beginning addressed the problem I raised in the edit summaries - even if it was only a "what the heck are you talking about? It looks fine to me" comment on the talk page. Having said that, I could also have better articulated the problem. Thank you for your help. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This whole process has involved a very few editors forcing their way on everyone else. I'm sick of seeing thousands of pages put in a format that nobody else has used, especially since those very few editors have used as their rationale a page that makes absolutely no demands on anyone or anything. It's quite disruptive to impose your will on everyone else. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, this has been thoroughly discussed - see the links I gave above (please note, I was not a party to those discussions). If you wish these changes to be reversed, then you need to give a convincing reason why. The only such reason I can think of at the moment is that some editors might dislike the default style of WP:HLIST formatting - in that case, they should gain consensus for a new default style, or for the provision of an alternative. The editors making these changes are a "minority" because, in order to do so, they need both technical skills and the (significant) time to do the job. I don't think you can conclude they are "forcing their way on everyone else", otherwise we would have seen more objections by now. --NSH002 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)