Template talk:Documentation/layout

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Superfluous </div>[edit]


Template {{Documentation/layout}} seems to contain a superfluous </div> at the end (just before the <noinclude>).
Wlgrin 07:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  •  Not done I don't think so. I didn't parse the whole thing, but my count shows there are four <div> and four </div>, which is as it should be.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for giving it a look. It's easy to miss but the last <div> (to clear the floats) is a complete element (i.e., a <div />); so there are in total 3 <div> tags, 1 <div/> element and 4 </div> tags. Try this code to see the extra </div> in action:
<div style="width:25em; padding:2em; border-style:solid; background-color:LightBlue;">
<div style="width:20em; padding:2em; border-style:solid; background-color:Pink;">
Notice, in the result, that the last “Pink” is in the light blue box, and the last “LightBlue” is completely outside. If you now add a balancing <div> between lines 4 and 5 (i.e. between the first Pink and {{Documentation/layout|ForeverMissingPage}}), everything is displayed correctly. The problem was caused by the extra </div> in {{Documentation/layout}}.
Wlgrin 07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Aha. Apologies, right you are. It's been a couple of years since I wrote a template of this general complexity and I'm out of practice.
✓ Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Jim!
Wlgrin 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:editsection-brackets removed[edit]

Can brackets or any other spacer be please restored/ installed? Having the words edit view ... sticking together makes them hard to recognize as single links. Thank you! -- Rillke(q?) 01:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Simply removing the brackets-message worked here and on meta, you could simply revert this. But the messages don't exist on m: or mw:. The link on action=view is broken (no docu on mw:). Fixing the erroneous link requires admin rights, and could be a major headache if this is at the moment the same notice for all messages, global/default and really documented vs. homebrewn/local and undocumented. Documented+working beats undocumented+pretty—a variant of your law. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Simply removing has the disadvantage that one cannot easily distinguish single links. I don't want to revert; I'd like to have something between the View Edit History purge that indicates that these are single links not one big one. One does not need MediaWiki messages for that -- I've inserted bullet points now; feel free to replace them with whatever you prefer. -- Rillke(q?) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there should be something visible that's not a link between otherwise adjacent links for a BIENE-award, copied to meta. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)