| Revision as of 05:05, 31 October 2008 editBefore My Ken (talk | contribs)42,112 edits →Invisible Stripes layout: restore from archives← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:27, 31 October 2008 edit undoLOL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,315 editsm →Gene Kelly: fix my grammarNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| Regarding : I'm aware that it is a guideline, but I don't see how ignoring it will improve the article. What makes it an occasional exception the Manual of Style, and why wouldn't it apply to all the other articles in general? —<font face="Verdana">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | Regarding : I'm aware that it is a guideline, but I don't see how ignoring it will improve the article. What makes it an occasional exception to the Manual of Style, and why wouldn't it apply to all the other articles in general? —<font face="Verdana">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Invisible Stripes layout== | ==Invisible Stripes layout== | ||
Revision as of 05:27, 31 October 2008
 |
|
- SuggestBot postings
- Archive page 1: 2005 - 2007
- Archive page 2: Jan-Mar 2008
- Archive page 3: April 2008
- Archive page 4: May-Jun 2008
- Archive page 5: July 2008
- Archive page 6: August 2008
- Archive page 7: September 2008
- Archive page 8: October 2008
Metropolis
Can you elaborate on this please? Aside from the obvious effect of more white space (which shouldn't be there, hence my edit), I see no difference in IE without or without the extra lines. Perhaps there is a specific circumstance (IE version, OS, etc) that creates some sort of severe rendering problems? Although, then I would think it would affect more than one page and I've never seen an HTML comment to preserve spacing before. You may respond here or on the article's talk page if you like. I started a thread there a few weeks ago, but received no feedback. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ed, the spacing looks wrong in every other browser. Why should a page be modified so that it displays in a particular version of IE better? Please provide more detail on the issue that you're seeing. davewho2 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've checked the page under both Firefox and Safari, and, while the extra line is certainly not necessary in either of these browsers, the result is also not awful, which is why I proceeded with the add. In Internet Explorer (v.7 under Vista, as well as another installation I checked it under, which I believe was v.6 under Windows XP), without the spacer text is rendered uncomfortably close to the top border of the element below it. At the top of the page, that means that the end of the lede section butts up against the Table of Contents, at the bottom of the page, the end of the article (usually, the Extrenal links) sits right on top of the navboxes below, which is visually crowded and looks terrible.
I can provide screenshots to illustrate this later tonight, if anyone is interested in seeing them. Ed Fitzgerald 17:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I should mention that I'm concerned about this not because it's what I see on the page, but because it's what normal everyday people, the kind of folks who use their computer as it came out of the box, with the browser configured with default settings, will see, Internet Explorer still being the default browser of the predominant platform (PC w/ Windows). These people are the kind who we need to attract and hold onto to ensure WP's success, so making sure the page looks good to them becomes an important part of "Good information, well-presented," which should be our goal. Ed Fitzgerald 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- More on this later - I'm at work at the moment. Ed Fitzgerald 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Without the extra lines, the white space between the lead and the ToC looks the same as every article to me. With the extra lines, it looks too big. If this is not a strange rendering issue which is somehow specific to the Metropolis article then it sounds like your personal layout preferences (or those which you think suit "normal everyday people") conflict with the accepted style guide. You'd be much better off starting a discussion at the Village Pump to see if consensus can be formed for a policy change than trying to enforce non-standard layout on individual articles with HTML comments. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, I have made no changes to my .css file, deliberately so, in order that I see what non-registered people with plain-vanilla set-ups see. Ed Fitzgerald 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- How does MediaWiki render pages differently for registered and non-registered users? I'm still not exactly sure what the problem is here. You mentioned screen shots a few comments back, perhaps that would help? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Registered users can change their settings and alter their CSS file to an extent, making the page render differently. Unregistered users see the default settings, which is why my concern is for how the page renders under default conditions using the most prevalent browser.
Since this question has come up a couple of times, I'm hoping to prepare something which illustrates the problem as I see it, but, unfortunately, I'm being delayed in getting that done as soon as I had planned. I'll post a link here when I've got something for folks to see. Ed Fitzgerald 01:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Registered users can change their settings and alter their CSS file to an extent, making the page render differently. Unregistered users see the default settings, which is why my concern is for how the page renders under default conditions using the most prevalent browser.
- How does MediaWiki render pages differently for registered and non-registered users? I'm still not exactly sure what the problem is here. You mentioned screen shots a few comments back, perhaps that would help? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, I have made no changes to my .css file, deliberately so, in order that I see what non-registered people with plain-vanilla set-ups see. Ed Fitzgerald 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Without the extra lines, the white space between the lead and the ToC looks the same as every article to me. With the extra lines, it looks too big. If this is not a strange rendering issue which is somehow specific to the Metropolis article then it sounds like your personal layout preferences (or those which you think suit "normal everyday people") conflict with the accepted style guide. You'd be much better off starting a discussion at the Village Pump to see if consensus can be formed for a policy change than trying to enforce non-standard layout on individual articles with HTML comments. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- More on this later - I'm at work at the moment. Ed Fitzgerald 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I should mention that I'm concerned about this not because it's what I see on the page, but because it's what normal everyday people, the kind of folks who use their computer as it came out of the box, with the browser configured with default settings, will see, Internet Explorer still being the default browser of the predominant platform (PC w/ Windows). These people are the kind who we need to attract and hold onto to ensure WP's success, so making sure the page looks good to them becomes an important part of "Good information, well-presented," which should be our goal. Ed Fitzgerald 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've checked the page under both Firefox and Safari, and, while the extra line is certainly not necessary in either of these browsers, the result is also not awful, which is why I proceeded with the add. In Internet Explorer (v.7 under Vista, as well as another installation I checked it under, which I believe was v.6 under Windows XP), without the spacer text is rendered uncomfortably close to the top border of the element below it. At the top of the page, that means that the end of the lede section butts up against the Table of Contents, at the bottom of the page, the end of the article (usually, the Extrenal links) sits right on top of the navboxes below, which is visually crowded and looks terrible.
Gene Kelly
Regarding this edit: I'm aware that it is a guideline, but I don't see how ignoring it will improve the article. What makes it an occasional exception to the Manual of Style, and why wouldn't it apply to all the other articles in general? —LOL /C 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Invisible Stripes layout
I don't know, the shot of Raft from the trailer actually obscures part of the Infobox (the words "Starring" and "Music" are covered up), something I've never seen in any Misplaced Pages article. Something should be done about this; if you didn't like the idea of putting the Raft shot above the Infobox, and I didn't think it was ideal myself, I think you should try something else. We should keep the photo in any case, however, since it's a good one from the movie's trailer. Thanks, Ed. --Wastetimer (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, it doesn't do that in my browser -- let me look at it and see if I can fix it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)