Template talk:Edward Zwick
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Smetanahue in topic "There's enough movies and decades"
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
"There's enough movies and decades"
editNo, there is not. There are only 10, surely enough to fit within one list. The html is needlessly bloated to capture four decades. And on top of that, there probably won't be many more to add, based on the rate at which this director produces a movie. --Izno (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bullshit.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Be nice, please. Would you like to discuss it? --Izno (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that there could be a line break somewhere in the middle since it is a long line of ten items. Maybe after The Siege? Like this but with the bullet issue fixed. Would that work as a compromise? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- You can't 'fix' the bullet issue without creating a new list, which defeats the purpose of collapsing the set of lists in the first place. Just because something is wide doesn't mean it needs to be 'shrunken' or broken up. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's no alternative coding that could provide this one line break? The width matters because it is a series of individual films as opposed to a sentence that unfolds across the width of the page. I would be fine with the decade breakdown then. I don't think that the extra code makes a difference. Yet another alternative approach is to have "1980s – 1990s" and "2000s – 2010s", which would be similar in break to what I suggested before, but with a grouping that works. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Series of individual films as opposed to a sentence..." You're right, those aren't the same. But in the html, that's how it works out. Besides, every other (and I mean every) other navbox is done this way, whether film-based, artist-based, song-based, game-based, whatever. I'm not understanding the resistance. You can look to templates that also have years associated with them and see that there's no logical break. This is a list of films, arranged chronologically. I see no reason why we should break the list arbitrarily. And the reason your break matters is because people use different resolutions. I use a resolution which displays all of them on a single line. Some people don't. So we let the browser and resolution decide in most cases. There are also people with accessibility-related conditions, some of which rely on the list being formatted as a list. Were the list longer than 10 elements, I might understand the reason to break it using the groups structure. But this... I don't.... --Izno (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then I would prefer the breakdown by decade over the single line. It is more readable. The template appears at the end of the article and is collapsible, so it is not wasted space. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for stalking, but if the navbox is too wide, then that's a general problem for all navboxes. The discussion should be held at Template:Navbox, so the problem (if there is one) can be solved everywhere. Semi-arbitrary groups like decades can sometimes be motivated to make a navbox more readable, but that's when a group spans many rows vertically. Smetanahue (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then I would prefer the breakdown by decade over the single line. It is more readable. The template appears at the end of the article and is collapsible, so it is not wasted space. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Series of individual films as opposed to a sentence..." You're right, those aren't the same. But in the html, that's how it works out. Besides, every other (and I mean every) other navbox is done this way, whether film-based, artist-based, song-based, game-based, whatever. I'm not understanding the resistance. You can look to templates that also have years associated with them and see that there's no logical break. This is a list of films, arranged chronologically. I see no reason why we should break the list arbitrarily. And the reason your break matters is because people use different resolutions. I use a resolution which displays all of them on a single line. Some people don't. So we let the browser and resolution decide in most cases. There are also people with accessibility-related conditions, some of which rely on the list being formatted as a list. Were the list longer than 10 elements, I might understand the reason to break it using the groups structure. But this... I don't.... --Izno (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's no alternative coding that could provide this one line break? The width matters because it is a series of individual films as opposed to a sentence that unfolds across the width of the page. I would be fine with the decade breakdown then. I don't think that the extra code makes a difference. Yet another alternative approach is to have "1980s – 1990s" and "2000s – 2010s", which would be similar in break to what I suggested before, but with a grouping that works. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- You can't 'fix' the bullet issue without creating a new list, which defeats the purpose of collapsing the set of lists in the first place. Just because something is wide doesn't mean it needs to be 'shrunken' or broken up. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that there could be a line break somewhere in the middle since it is a long line of ten items. Maybe after The Siege? Like this but with the bullet issue fixed. Would that work as a compromise? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Be nice, please. Would you like to discuss it? --Izno (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)