Anonymous user
Template talk:Task heading: Difference between revisions
m
added more comments.
m (→Whether to use this template: added a bunch of comments (and one yearning).) |
m (added more comments.) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 11:
:: Yes, I'm sure. A slightly larger font doesn't help me that much when I'm perusing the preamble. But bold headers do help. Having a bold section header makes it "stand out" and much easier to find. I never had trouble looking for a bold '''Task''' (in the left side), any boldface text elsewhere in the text doesn't get skimming by my eyeballs -- I concentrated on the left margins for bold text when looking for important ... er, "headings". -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
::: Understood. I've updated the template to make them bold now. I'll try to mess around with the TOC heading style later. --[[User:Smls|Smls]] ([[User talk:Smls|talk]]) 10:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
: I suppose we could make them bold ''in addition'' to being larger and have more spacing than normal text, but I quite like them having the same style as the "Contents" heading of the table of contents. I think I'll put in a request to have the site CSS adapted to make the TOC heading bold, and if it is accepted, adapt this template accordingly.
:: Yes, making them bold in addition would solve the problem. I don't see how making it look the same as the table-of-contents helps anything as far as peruseability. The TOC (contents box) used to be shaded a very light blue (before the changes that were implemented in December of 2015), which made it stand out as a "light-blue" box (a list of computer programming entries) and it was very very easy to find the (presumptive) end of the task's preamble --- you'd have to be half blind to miss it. Now that the TOC box is the same color background as everything else (poo-bah!), it's harder to find when perusing, so that is why I've been including a <big> <nowiki> <br><br> </nowiki> </big> after the "end" of most Rosetta Code preambles --- to make the TOC box easier to find and click on a particular computer programming entry. Sometimes, the "improvements" ··· aren't. I yearn for the old (better) light-blue shaded table-of-contents box. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
::: Do you know if those particular style changes were made on purpose, or if the site was just upgraded to a newer MediaWiki version and/or theme and those things happened to get worse as a by-product? Because in the latter case, we may be able to convince the admins to add some custom CSS rules to re-add a TOC background color and make the edit links float right. --[[User:Smls|Smls]] ([[User talk:Smls|talk]]) 10:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: Michael Mol (as I understand it) upgraded Rosetta Code to a newer/updated MediaWiki (and most likely, other changes were made as well, but I don't know this for a fact), but a number of changes were implemented (or happened) all at once around December, 2015. The updating was, I assume, purposeful, but possibly some side affects were unknown or unforeseen. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
: In any case, using a dedicated template for these headings makes it easy to change things about them (without having to update all task pages each time). So that's another advantage. The <code>;bold:</code> syntax was never meant for section headings, nor is it specific to them - it is actually part of the wiki syntax for definition lists.
Line 20 ⟶ 26:
:: Being that is what it may, bold '''Task''' "headings" is what the majority of Rosetta Code tasks (and draft tasks) have now. I used to use <big> '''Task''' </big> for all the Rosetta Code (draft) tasks that I entered, but somebody (an administrator, I believe) changed all those to ''';Task:''' --- so that's what I used since then (if anything, to make it consistent to all the other Rosetta Code tasks. ''I didn't want to start an edit war with people who buy ink by the barrel.'' -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
::: Heh, it should be easy enough to write a bot to change them en masse... ;) --[[User:Smls|Smls]] ([[User talk:Smls|talk]]) 10:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
{{quote
Line 37 ⟶ 46:
:: Can the '''See also''' be reverted back to '''Related tasks''' (where appropriate)? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
::: Oh? I think both are fine when there's just links to other Rosetta Code tasks. But when there are also links to useful external resources (like Wikipedia), it makes sense to use "See also". I thought it's safer to always name it that way, so that if someone wants to add an external resource link to a task that previously didn't have one, they known where to put it - but I don't feel strongly about it. Feel free to change <code><nowiki>{{task heading|See also}}</nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>{{task heading|Related tasks}}</nowiki></code> where you think it makes sense. --[[User:Smls|Smls]] ([[User talk:Smls|talk]]) 10:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: I agree with you in that when using the ''';See also''' thingy, it refers to links to "other" references. However, I like ''';Related tasks''' to refer to links to Rosetta Code tasks that are related; it clearly indicates what those other links are ··· Rosetta Code tasks that are similar or related in some way --- and not reference links to help with the Rosetta Code task at hand. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
{{quote
| |||