Forum:Subpage tabs
Opening post[[edit source]]
With the conclusion of Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0, subpages are now allowed to exist on this wiki and, while they are still a little thin on the ground, I expect that more and more will be created as time progresses. A problem, however, is that there is currently no easy way to navigate between subpages. {{Main}} and {{gallerylink}} both work well enough, creating links in the relevant sections, but I feel that it would be nicer to have some centralised way to navigate between these pages, and for that I suggest some form of tab system. This is pretty common across other wikis. Starting with a well-known example, Wookieepedia uses subpages to separate "canon" content from "legends" content and uses a basic tab system to switch between them, for example on w:c:Wookieepedia:Luke Skywalker. A better example I know of is the RWBY Wiki. See w:c:RWBY:Ruby Rose for an example. In general, tabs are a common and easy to understand system for navigation and I feel work well with subpages.
Therefore, I have put together {{subpage tabs}}. It looks like this:
It automatically includes any of the "default" subpages (any approved for general use on the wiki) that exist for the page it is used on (or, in this case, the page specified). Additional, custom tabs can also be specified:
It also displays on mobile. It doesn't look great, but it functions and could be updated to look better there later on.
One problem that this introduces is that it adds to the general clutter that currently exists at the top of pages: {{cleanup}}, {{update}}, {{rename}}, {{speedy}}, {{delete}}, {{conjecture}}, {{NCMaterial}} and so on. I have a potential solution for this as well in the form of {{pullout}}. The idea is that templates that only matter to editors can be placed inside this template, creating a box that is hidden by default but can be "pulled out" from the right of the page. See the example below and to the right.
I feel that this is an acceptable compromise because, lets be honest, not many readers actually care about the conclusion of Thread:264489 or similar things that are noted in these templates just for editors. These templates are just more clutter that they have to scroll past to get to the content that they want to read. Tabs are, in my opion, a much more useful thing to place there instead.
The overall result is something like this:
text taken from Davros
- You may wish to consult
Davros (disambiguation)for other, similarly-named pages.
Davros, often referred to by his creations as the Creator and also known as the Dark Lord of Skaro, was originally the head of the Kaled Scientific Elite on the planet Skaro, but he became better known as the creator of the Daleks. The results of his attempts to bring the war on Skaro to an end were not as he envisioned, because the Daleks wiped out both the Thal and Kaled races, save for himself. Davros survived the centuries, using whatever medical assistance was available to sustain his life.
For a time, he sought to create a race of Daleks loyal to him, which led to the Imperial-Renegade Civil War, where he served as Emperor of the loyal Daleks, and later of the Dalek race as a whole. But his relationship with them was always a tense one. He was frequently hunted, maligned, or otherwise denigrated by one portion or other of the Daleks.
Davros had a brilliant scientific mind, and was constantly devising ways to give his creations greatness; often overlooking the fact they saw him as beneath them, and would often keep him imprisoned, either because he was a threat or for his genius. The only time they showed respect for him was when Davros neared death; Davros was kept alive by a machine that siphoned life energy off the Daleks. This let them trick the Doctor into donating regenerative energy, which renewed Davros and the Daleks.
Through his creations, many came to consider him responsible for trillions of deaths and innumerable wars across the universe. Despite the fact that he was not unquestionably the ruler of the Daleks, he was one of the Doctor's greatest enemies, rivalling the Master in both intellect and madness. Despite this, both Davros and the Doctor called each other friends on separate occasions. Davros considered the Doctor the closest thing that the scientist had to a familiar, even as they served as foes.
The Twelfth Doctor described Davros as "an insane, paranoid genius who [had] survived amongst several billion trigger-happy mini-tanks for centuries".
Thoughts? Bongo50 ☎ 21:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion[[edit source]]
Bongo, I love this! I love this so much. I've actively wanted this for a long time, having seen similar tabbing systems used on other Wikis. It's clean, tidy, and striking too (current/recent links to Gallery pages, for example, just feel lost and tacked on to the top of the page IMO).
I like the 'pull out' tab too. So many pages (and frequently visited ones at that) have clutter at the top, and I get tired of seeing "this page needs a clean up" (or whatever) before any actual information. Being able to still have these boxes for mods/admins is of course necessary, but I like the 'pull out' tab because it means they're hidden by default and I think the pages would just feel cleaner. If we implimented both of the suggestions from this thread, the tops of pages would be so much cleaner and tidier, and I vote yes to both ideas. Seeing it in action with the Davros example has very much sold me on it. Fractal Doctor 🚀 21:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- I support the idea of subpage tabs. My only note is that I wish the Talk pages were as visible as this. Getting to talk pages is so convoluted these days, and since some wikis don't have them anymore I've found there a bit of a wasteland for discussions.
- On that note, I generally suppose every part of this. Based on this layout, as we forgoing linking the /Appearances subpage due to it already being in the infobox? Also, what the tab system looks like when it gets "full" per se? Would it drop down to a second row, get scrunched up, or become something you can scroll to the right on? OS25🤙☎️ 03:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Linking Fandom's comments on tabs since they're somewhat topical here. I don't think they're disqualifying, but we should at the very least consider them. We're not actually using tabs, we're using subpages that are linked in a way that make it look like we're using tabs. This is directly counter to Fandom's guidance on tabs, but, quite frankly, I think the names we have are probably sufficient for people to understand the issue? We might want to slightly modify the subpages so they always keep the infobox of the main page so as to preserve some sense of continuity, I can understand that view. I also agree that talk pages might want to be represented on this tabbed list, even if they're technically a different namespace and their own thing. Encourages people to get involved in wiki editing and be informed about the bts disagreements. But this is a might, there are reasons against it too, it might confuse readers.
- I could definitely see about adding talk pages to the tabs. When they get full, it looks like this:
- I don't think that this behaviour is ideal so I'll see about making it wrap onto 2 lines. This also highlights a small feature that I wasn't able to demonstrate in the examples in the opening post: the text for the current tab is boldened. Fandom recommends using Tabber. I am deliberately not using Tabber because Tabber doesn't work on mobile but my solution does.
- Regarding pullouts, I've written a gadget that will allow users with an account to optionally set all pullouts as open by default. I'm just waiting for the JavaScript to be reviewed (every piece of wiki-wide JavaScript on Fandom has to be reviewed to ensure that it's safe) which I expect will occur on Monday at the earliest. Would this help alleviate your "out of sight/out of mind" issue, Najawin? If not, how else would you suggest alleviating top of page clutter? Bongo50 ☎ 08:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm alone in this but I think these banners being clutter is a good thing! They show us that there's something on the page that needs addressing. Allowing people to opt-in isn't a solution - people should be forced to see these banners. Having this pullout is simply antithetical, imo, to the entire point of these banners. If we're turning them into pullouts, why not just make a note on a talk page? They're banners because we should see them. Najawin ☎ 08:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- (Let it be noted the last two responses were added while I typed this.) I strongly support the subpage navigation template Bongo made. It's exactly what I envisioned to help facilitate subpages, and it looks great too. I don't really have much more to say on that.
- But much as I admire the technical and visual aspect of it, I'm hesitant on the pull out tab as well. I actually do think it's valuable for both editors and readers to know if a change is proposed to an article. Additionally, it's not immediately clear what the tab actually is. That said, the issue of large notices and extremely specific rationales cluttering the tops of pages is also something that has irked me for quite some time. I think for these type of notices, it'd be better to a) make them smaller and less obtrusive, but still noticeable and b) note what the suggested change is, but leave the rationale hidden or even simply relegate it to the talk page. Wikipedia does both of these quite well, see for example the current suggested rename for Ptolemy. Even as a reader I find it notable that an article has a suggested rename, or may need references or updating in some area, but it doesn't take up a significant portion of the screen; anyone further interested can see the talk page. Chubby Potato ☎ 08:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, my biggest bugbear with the current 'notices' is that they appear on /so many/ pages (and have done for months, even years now, and might be there for years to come since so much tidying up will take time) and they take up too much space (IMO). I don't think the pull-out tabs are a case of "out of sight, out of mind" personally, but I can see the opposing argument to that. Maybe instead there could be a way to simply "collapse" these notice boxes? That way, a user can see the relevant notices but easily and quickly 'collapse' them if they find them obtrusive? (Or invert the original idea - have said "pull out" boxes open by default, and users can hide them if they find them obtrusive.) Fractal Doctor 🚀 11:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- What about if the pullout is expanded by default for logged in users (the majority of editors) while collapsed by default for logged out users (the majority of readers)? I just remain unconvinced that the majoroty of readers will care about the content of these notices. Bongo50 ☎ 11:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I feel that would be a good compromise. Or just have them all expanded by default, so people can hide them if they choose to? (Would there be a way for people to choose between "open all pull outs by default" and "close all pull outs by default" in this instance?) And I feel that even if this can't be agreed upon, Chubby Potato makes valid points about simplifying the notice boxes and putting large swathes of rationale into talk pages (which would be more clearly shown if they were incorporated into Bongo's "tab" concept.) Fractal Doctor 🚀 11:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sidenote: if it were up to me, I'd also have the font used in the 'tabs' be "Rubik" rather than "BioRhyme". I just feel it's more aesthetically pleasing and, for me anyway, easier to read - especially if there ends up being multiple tabs on a page. — Fractal Doctor @ 12:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I love the subpage link proposal, and support it. On the clutter issue, would it be possible to have the pull-outs open by default for autoconfirmed users, and closed by default for everyone else? That could be a useful compromise? That is, readers wouldn't have to scroll through all that, but editors could see them easily. Aquanafrahudy 📢 12:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- At the very least we need some kind of 'notice' reform. I'd say 60% of these notices are not needed but it's frowned upon to remove them. If a notice is there because some short story isn't covered on the page, that's a bad use of the template. But either way, these are templates that clog up articles and are only useful for registered users. OS25🤙☎️ 17:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Open for editors or wikipedia style might work. I'd prefer the second though, ideally even people who aren't logged in would see them and have thoughts on renaming things, or might be able to add content, etc. Najawin ☎ 17:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that you overestimate the number of logged out readers that actually edit. From Special:Analytics, I can see that the peak for logged out edits in one day is 51. The peak for logged in editors is 556. In my opinion, logged out users with an interest in editing just don't exist in a meaningful enough manner to justify potentially harming logged out users with only an interest reading's experience to cater for them. Bongo50 ☎ 19:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm very much aware that the chance of logged out editors editing based on a banner is marginal. But, you know, still exists. Moreover, see the above comments about how a discussion about renaming a page might be edifying to a user, as would a discussion about deleting or moving it. (We've also had comments about changing some of the graphics used in these banners which would be difficult if these banners were hidden from people who weren't logged in.) Najawin ☎ 20:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's the same scenario with renames, moves and deletions: logged out editors, for the most part, just aren't interested, and if they are the type to get involved in these types of discussions, then I feel that they're likely curious enough to click on the pullout. Why would chaning some of the graphics used in these banners be difficult if they were hidden from logged out users? Bongo50 ☎ 20:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
See Talk:Telepathy and Template talk:Too listy for what I'm referring to. Rename discussions can often generate quite a lot of conversation as well. Najawin ☎ 22:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Having read through the discussion, in particular Bongo's comments about numbers of editors, I agree that 'notices' would be best "expanded for editors/logged in members" and "collapsed for logged out/readers". Anyone that is logged out but is curious enough to consider contributing will expand the notice tab and read through it anyway, and then log in/create an account. — Fractal Doctor @ 08:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I support this idea and I agree with Fractal Doctor's comment above in that notices should appear "expanded for editors/logged in members" and "collapsed for logged out/readers". Most logged out users will simply be there to read the article. I don't think the number of logged out editors is high enough for us to warrant cluttering the experience of casual users, who will have no interest in such banners and me even be put off by them. 66 Seconds ☎ 15:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The gadget to automaitcally expand pullouts has been reviewed and is now fully functional. It is currently opt-in (it can be made default if the thread concludes that way) and can be enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It only works for the first pullout on any given page (as pullouts are only designed to be one per page) so can be tested at Forum:Subpage tabs/example. Bongo50 ☎ 17:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Late to the party, but I like this idea a lot – I'm kind of ehhh on the subpage thing as a whole really, but I think the tabbed layout is a good idea for organising them. (In fact I cited Wookieepedia as a model over at Forum:Temporary forums/Subpage policy#Comments_and_concerns!) Najawin's point about Fandom's official guidelines is a good one, but reading the Fandom post itself I found myself disagreeing with some of its assertions as to how people intuitively interpret tabs: what they're describing/advising (in my reading) actually looks tailor-made for subpages, whereas I think my own default interpretation is one shaped by reading Wookieepedia, which uses tabs for what I would describe as "structurally equivalent and equal-status alternative pages". Possibly the takeaway from this is that interpretation is informed primarily by experience and any relatively simple, internally-consistent system is easy enough to get used to?
As for specifics, I'm not sure about including talk pages in the subpage tabs; they feel like a different kind of thing to me, I don't quite know why. And I agree strongly with Chubby Potato that at least some types of issue banner are quite important to inform reading as well as editing, so I wouldn't support hiding them by default – while from my own personal experience, I would fear that having an option for logged-out users to expand or collapse pullboxes might be an exercise in futility, as I regularly forget most of the onscreen option toolbar thingies exist at all, let alone what to use them for. Maybe that's just me though. Starkidsoph ☎ 13:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Conclusion[[edit source]]
Another month, another bit of brilliant innovation! These are exciting times. But, of course, as ever with brilliant new inventions, just because we found out that we can, doesn't mean we necessarily should, etc. etc.
The subpage directory[[edit source]]
The primary topic of this thread was the subpage tabs. There is clear consensus in favour of implementing subpage tabs as proposed, with barely any dissent. The only real concern was that they do not correspond to Fandom's guidelines for 'tabs', but then, we're not technically using tabs in that sense at all, even if that's the term that comes naturally; this is a navigation tool between subpages, and under the circumstances, it's preferable to conventional 'tabs' because it's more accessible to mobile users.
Regarding the specifics, they can be tinkered with at Template talk:Subpage tabs if necessary, but for the time being: there was brief discussion of the exclusion of /Appearances subpages from the template, but I checked with User:Bongolium500 and this turned out to be an accidental oversight which he has now corrected. In fact, a list of a given character or species' appearances seems to be one of the things casual readers might want to find most easily when they Google a character and find their Wiki page. The somewhat discreet way they have historically been linked in infoboxes was never entirely satisfactory to that end, and this is just the sort of thing the new template helps to alleviate.
I am also resolving in favour of including the talk page even if it's not a conventional subpage. I don't think readers will be more than momentarily confused — honestly, the difference between Talk:Dalek and Dalek/Talk is something rather more salient to long-term Wiki editors than the not-wes; with different software talk pages could hypothetically have always been actual subpages, and this would change precisely zilch about how the Wiki operates in practice. At any rate, any such concerns about confusion are, I think, outweighed by the clear benefit in encouraging curious readers to get involved with editing and discussion.
Which brings us to…
Pull-out notices[[edit source]]
Despite (or perhaps due to) not being the stated topic of this thread, we also saw significant discussion of another exciting invention: {{pullout}}, meant to make the transition to subpage tabs easier on the eyes by simultaneously de-cluttering another unrelated type of template which takes up room at the top of pages.
This is praiseworthy, and I do think it's the case that notices like rename tags are too bulky; my personal proposal would probably be to do away with the thumbnail image, and make them less tall. However, it is also the clear consensus of this thread that hiding the notices by default would go against the very purpose such templates serve. I think the issue will bear discussing in a thread of its own later, weighing alternative solutions, but in the meantime, I resolve this in favour of the proposed compromise: setting {{pullout}} so that it shows the notice by default to all users, but makes them "dismissable", like a pop-up ad.
Conclusion[[edit source]]
As always, thanks to everyone who participated, and I look forward to seeing this implemented! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
