Template talk:Float right

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for x and y values[edit]

There has been a request for x & y values as per {{float left}}. Seems a reasonable request where works alternate for odds and evens. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

added 3 top and bottom margin and 4 for left margin. Retains offset for right margin. So 2em buffer {{float right|text text text|2em|2em|2em}}billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
As with drop initial, unnamed parameters are fiddly: I have to read the template in edit mode to discover how to manipulate it, and I'm not certain I understand what is going on with the render of margins in any case. I'm also wary of these overlapping functions of these sidenote, inset, and overfloating blocks; I've tried to keep up with dev on this, but I"m utterly confused now. The functionality of separate template seems to become extended and so converge, some become forks with different approaches. I think we need to take a step back, and merge or separate the templates to their purpose, then document it. Like the ref system, there may be merit in electing the most stable and accessible method of displaying these notes/labels/subheadings. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
That I can understand, and I don't disagree. I based the change made on Template:Float left rather than to differ from it. I would have used an X and Y parameter, however at the other template, the X is the vertical and the Y is the horizontal, which was contraindicating. Adding named parameters is not a big issue and can be done retrospectively (once), and happy to have suggestions of what to call them, and I will add them to both templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Of more concern to me is that, judging by the examples in the documentation, the template is now broken: use of the offset parameter does not produce an offset. Hesperian 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Fairly certain the parameter in the documentation should now be |offset=3 instead of |offset=3em (the em measurement became the default scale for the template at some point and no longer needs to be added manually nor is recognized as part of the default value[s]). George Orwell III (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Added units of measures back in, and fixing existing recent uses. My error after testing. :-/ Thanks Hesperian. Now if I had a wish it would be better alignment of the use or (un)use of units of measure, or a simple means to test for existence and add if necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I'm opposed to hardcoding units (what George calls a "default scale"). It takes away flexibility for no gain. The big problem here is that "float left" and "float right" were once mirrors of one another, as they should be. To "float right" I added a right margin offset, allowing us to prevent things from floating all the way to the right. In accordance with principles explained by Cygnis above, which I share, I used a named parameter and didn't hardcode units. Meanwhile Spangineer had added float margins to "float left", using unnamed parameters and hardcoded units. Thus a pair of templates that ought to be mirror images of each other have diverged, and there seems no way to bring them back together without breaking stuff. Hesperian 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree; hard-coding what I call "the scale of measurement" into the default or null values of any template only winds up hindering the template's flexibility down the road. Still, the assumption that the other 3 possible margins were not "worth setting up" at the same time offset= was added or that text would be the only type of content/input for use with this template made for more possible divergences than there probably should have been to begin with in this case as well. George Orwell III (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I will admit that it is the issue at hand, I will no way see that it is the cause of the problem.
  • The discussion about units and parameters and their use is a global issue, and with no guiding principle, or no guidance and people supporting improvement in lines with a principle, people will all do what they think/want and in a vacuum
  • If we create a pair of templates, then we need to connect them so that people know that changes in one place are changes in another, and ensure that people are doing that
  • As always start the discussion. Being bold is fine, though it is not in isolation of consideration and discussion. Then when people do have the discussion, and we have the opportunity, then when people do something
  • Maintenance and cleaning. Horrible tasks, though with a continuous improvement cycle it becomes a necessity; and sometimes we need to stop other tasks and have an organised clean-up. WS is no different. So bringing things back together is often about the work needed to do so, rather than the impossibility of the task.
In this situation we can all be right (or at least think that we are) and think that at least we can be working to some solutions, rather than continue to be stuck within the problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)