Template talk:Featured schedule
I'm not sure why, but this template is now huge and takes up most of the page on WS:FTC I like the collapsible feature but it looks awful (I'm using chrome). --Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- The width increase seems to have occurred at this edit and be due to the amount of text in the title. So we can abridge that title to bring the widths in, or just set a fixed width.
- Have you a suggestion about the collapsible aspects that look awful? Not being a user of chrome, I know not the issue. Is it the collapsible itself, the nesting of tables, the format or what?
- The table was getting very long, so do we continue with a full very long table, separate out the earlier tables or remove the early data? billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually for me the width increase occurred here. I checked in IE and Firefox and it looks normal there, but in Chrome I'd estimate that it's now about 700 pixels wide; over half the width of my screen. If I hide all years it collapses to its former width, but as soon as any of the years is expanded it becomes huge again. It appears that the width of the second column is approximately 2 or 2.5 times the width as the longest title showing (that is, not collapsed). I'm looking at the table syntax but I don't get why it would be doing this. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 22:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have the same problem. On Chrome it is massive now, and from the same edit as caused Spangineer's problem. However, on my test of other browsers, it only looks right on FF. IE has a massive table just like Chrome. I messed around with the formatting, and removed all instances of "width=20%" and it gave me a normal sized table. The table cells don't align like they did nicely with the "width=20%" values, but the table was appropriately sized. That might give a starting point to look at.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually for me the width increase occurred here. I checked in IE and Firefox and it looks normal there, but in Chrome I'd estimate that it's now about 700 pixels wide; over half the width of my screen. If I hide all years it collapses to its former width, but as soon as any of the years is expanded it becomes huge again. It appears that the width of the second column is approximately 2 or 2.5 times the width as the longest title showing (that is, not collapsed). I'm looking at the table syntax but I don't get why it would be doing this. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 22:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will play with it. Can I get some ideas on how much data that we want to show. Do want to see a full list for all the years? Or do we want to show more recent? It only links to FTC billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind displaying the entire history of FTCs. I actually think that'd be nice. And we wouldn't have to worry about it getting too large until about 2020, anyway.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Resurrected this page. How does it look? billinghurst sDrewth
- Looks fine to me now. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Resurrected this page. How does it look? billinghurst sDrewth
I thought the template was getting a bit too long to be manageable so I've re-added collapsible sections for each year. (By "re-added" I mean I didn't notice it had been attempted before and so reinvented the wheel.) I've checked it in Explorer and Chrome, so I think it will work generally. I found a formatting subtemplate while I was doing this and extended it generally (it was only applied to two rows of the template previously. I think my solution is quite neat (using yet another subtemplate) but, if it causes any sort of problem, feel free to revert. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)