Last modified: 2012-10-23 08:06:16 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 6729 - Feature Request for improved header/footer management
Feature Request for improved header/footer management
Status: NEW
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Templates (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-07-18 13:54 UTC by Tom Holden
Modified: 2012-10-23 08:06 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Tom Holden 2006-07-18 13:54:30 UTC
Hi,

Someone on IRC suggested I posted this suggestion here.

My idea is to have the following new tags: <header> (and </header>) and <footer>
(and </footer>).

Anything enclosed within <header> tags would automatically be positioned before
any text not enclosed in <header> tags. Similarly anything enclosed in <footer>
tags would be positioned after any text not enclosed in <footer> tags.

The chief advantage of this would be for templates. For example, with these tags
you could easily construct a template that included both a top-right infobox and
a bottom navigation bar.

Thanks,

cfp ([[wikipedia:en:User:cfp]])
Comment 1 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-07-18 23:22:55 UTC
What makes this superior to just putting the template at the top?  That's where
people will expect to find it in the wikitext anyway; people will get confused
if they try to change the infobox and the code is actually at the bottom of the
page.
Comment 2 Tom Holden 2006-07-18 23:44:58 UTC
Well often there are multiple templates that always go together, one element of
which goes at the top and another element of which goes at the bottom, so one of
the principal merits is just in saving editing time / making it harder to forget
to add the second half = a more uniform style within a category =  a good thing.

Also it would make it a lot harder to make layout errors. For example, when
adding navigation boxes / stub templates / etc. to the bottom, you want to put
the template text after the last real text, but before the category links and
the interwiki links (this seems to be the convention anyway). However when
you're trying to be quick, lists of see also links look a lot like lists of
category links, so it's quite easy to end up sticking your box in the middle of
the article. Even if you're not as dozy as me and you do always put it in the
place you intended, it's still often quite hard to find, trapped between two
sets of links towards the bottom (and this is assuming everyone's following the
same location convention, it could be anywhere in the interwiki and category links).

With my system almost all templates could be clearly placed at the top of the
file, where they are easily findable, and do not get in the way of the main
article body. Of course this is just another convention that people could choose
to ignore, but to me at least it seems like it has a lot greater chance of being
followed. Plus if you really wanted to you could enforce the convention quite
easily with my system. E.g. if a template only contains text in <header> and/or
<noinclude> then put it at the top of the file.

I'm not sure how convincingly I'm presenting this case, I just know from my own
experience that I could have saved myself a lot of time (or refactored more
pages) if we had this system, both in adding templates, and in finding the
template I needed.

Maybe I'm crazy/too lazy/odd.
Comment 3 Purodha Blissenbach 2006-07-21 15:54:14 UTC
Sample: An article in the KSH WP about year looks approx. like this:

----------------------------------
{{Navvi_Joohr_Kopp|||1|9|3|3|...}}

Em '''Joohr 1933''' ...
....

{{Navvi_Joohr_Fooß|||1|9|3|3|...}}
----------------------------------

Parameter lists are identical. It could be replaced by:

----------------------------------
Em {{Joohr|||1|9|3|3|...}} ...
....
----------------------------------

2/3 less chances for mistakes, souce more readable, 550,000 keystrokes saved for the 
4500~5000 Year-Articles to have, that is 76.4 hour of labour for an experienced average 
user. On this sample issue alone.
Comment 4 Platonides 2006-10-01 19:02:35 UTC
How would you separe on which levels should be done?

If {{Template1}} is "a <header>b</header> {{template2}} <footer>c</footer>"
And {{Template2}} is "<footer>d</footer> e <header>f</header>"

What output is the correct one?
* a b d e f c  (a not affected, header b closed by footer c)
* b a d e f c  (a affected, header b closed by footer c)
* b a f e d c  (each template orders by itself)
* b f a e d c  (headers and footers are absolute)
* b f a e d c  (footers on parent blocks have priority)
* b a e c      (only one header & footer per page)
Comment 5 Tom Holden 2006-10-01 21:38:44 UTC
Interesting point, I'm not sure it's a problem though, as long as you understand
that if multiple header blocks are found, they are all placed in the header, and
the order is given by th e order of the blocks. Likewise if multiple footers are
found, the first footer goes to the bottom, the second to the second from bottom
etc. Thus in this particular case the correct options is:

b f a e c d

(b f a e d c might also make sense, but I like the idea that the outermost
header and footer tags will always "get their own way".)

I can't imagine this case would occur too often though, and when it does occur,
normally the order of the headers and footers wouldn't matter too much.

Tom
Comment 6 Purodha Blissenbach 2006-10-04 10:46:59 UTC
How about leaving the choice to the editor, where these:

<footer add="before"> ... </footer> 
<header add="behind"> ... </header> 

are the defaults, and those:

<header add="before"> ... </header> 
<footer add="behind"> ... </footer> 

could as be specified?

One might even think of an extension that allows local handling inside a <div> ... </div> bracket:

<header add="before-in-div"> ... </header> 
<footer add="behind-in-div"> ... </footer> 

Purodha
Comment 7 Purodha Blissenbach 2006-10-08 13:58:25 UTC
Another esthetically nice application could be to put special content *behind* all lists 
in category pages.
See this one: http://ksh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saachjropp:Bier
Comment 8 Sam Reed (reedy) 2011-05-15 01:14:29 UTC
Is this still relevant/do we care?
Comment 9 Purodha Blissenbach 2011-05-16 13:15:18 UTC
Yeah, it's not solved.
Comment 10 Daniel Friesen 2012-10-23 08:06:16 UTC
I'm not sure I like this idea. It breaks out of the expected bounds of the template system and doesn't seem to have a balance in favour of the idea.

Most of the header / footer template use cases I see IMHO should in fact be handled using a new type of extension to add things, like nav to the header and footer.

In the current example given we don't even need a special extension. Practically all of the information being inserted into said template is actually within the title and follows a near strict pattern.
In other words a simple basic header and footer powered by lua taking no parameters could handle their entire use case. And if we felt like it a simple extension could even automatically prepend/append the template output to the pages following said pattern.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links