Template talk:Step

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2006 December 28. The result of the discussion was no consensus.


Contents

[edit] Step which way?

I find this template to be very confusing when transcluded. Which comes first, up or down? The way it appears in articles it isn't clear.

I'd suggest something like

{{{1}}} -> {{{PAGENAME}}} -> {{{2}}}

instead. --Swift 22:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Up is preceding articles; down is subsequent articles. The idea is to link together articles in a way that categories cannot: usually by order of evolution or sequence of events. Cwolfsheep 11:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Err, I know. It says so clearly on the template page. Where it isn't clear is on the pages where it is transcluded. You see, sometimes people decend stairs, sometimes they ascend. --Swift 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
When I came up with this, I was also thinking step on a ladder too. The whole idea is to create a "top-down" branching of events. I apologize for the confusion. Cwolfsheep 20:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean you're open to changing the template? Can I just be bold? --Swift 07:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What did ya have in mind? :) Cwolfsheep 12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Also consider where I've deployed it, and to not duplicate sucession
Something like the box above. We might have to arrange this in a table (which I'd like to avoid) to ensure that the variables can be text on multiple lines with line breaks, lists etc. --Swift 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want it to be another Template:Succession, nor that big: the idea is to be minimal, yet effective. I also want to retain the ability to reference multiple articles. Cwolfsheep 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Why can't it be similar? Multiple entries are possible:
Preceded by
This came first, then this, finally that		 Step
{{{years}}}		 Succeeded by
Daughter
Son
Grandchild
It would be easy to squeeze it better together and prettyfy. How's this:
This came first,

then this, finally that

 -> Step ->
--Swift 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template idea should be a new one

How about making that a separate template? My solution is far more optimal for single or some step solutions: your template is more comprehensive. Cwolfsheep 20:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My critisism on {{Step}} wasn't that there was a need for a template with the form of my suggestions, but that the current form of this template isn't intuitive. A user seeing it has no way of being sure whether the the articles at the top of the staircase precede (going down) or succeed (going up) the current one (without explicitly going to the template page and checking the usage). --Swift 20:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your current idea is that it basically replicates any of the other templates I made that link a subject together. (shrugs) This one needs to stay at two variables, but there's gotta be a way to code a multi-variable one of your liking. Cwolfsheep 23:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm not saying the template should look a certain way, simply that it shouldn't be ambiguous.
"it basically replicates any of the other templates". There is nothing that says templates can't look similar to others. No-one will draw browny points off you for unoriginality.
{{Succession}} looks similar, but it neither is nor will be the same (doesn't have "preceded by" or "Succeeded by", could be made smaller, could be made a float, etc.).
My "liking" has a simple criteria: It must be intuitive. If users won't understand what it means immediately, the template doesn't work. --Swift 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[1] Have a look at the first version. Maybe it would please you to replace the arrows with terms for clarity. Cwolfsheep 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration I updated this today too. Maybe you can get an idea of what I'm trying to accomplish. Cwolfsheep 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Both the "text" version and the [ before -> this -> after ] setup achieve the clarity. You can also give the table two columns to make that earlier version lower if that was what you were after, e.g.:
Predecessor(s): {{{1}}}
Successor(s): {{{2}}}
Thanks for being open-minded to my views on this.
Your project seems like a great idea. I wish you all the best! --Swift 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've implemented a combination of our ideas. Thanks! Cwolfsheep 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! --Swift 03:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bright

This template is quite visually loud for what essentially amounts to navigation. It can't possibly be the most important thing on Alice programming language, for an example, but its colors, border and typographic emphasis make it seem that way. 12:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Got any better color suggestions? Cwolfsheep 01:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

I've seen this template at the bottom of Treaty of Versailles and found it confusing. I don't think I understand what it is exactly used for even now...

-- nyenyec ☎ 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to review WP:INT regarding my push to better integrate Wikipedia content. If you're curious, the longest series of steps goes from the Fourteen Points to the United Nations Cwolfsheep 07:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

I, too, saw this box at the bottom of Vector Markup Language, where it points to SVG as "Subsequent", and was confused. All right, I understand the idea that SVG is the "successor" of VML, but I thing the template should also carry a descriptive title, like "This article is part of a series on such-and-such." This would perhaps make it clearer that there's a logical chain of articles that one can explore... 131.111.8.99 17:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, how 'bout changing it to something more like this:

Preceding: {{{1}}}
Subsequent: {{{2}}}
  • change border from 2px to 1px
  • reduce padding and therefore size of the whole thing
  • don't make words "Preceding" and "Subsequent" in boldface
  • slightly lighter, more neutral colour

-- 131.111.8.102 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't like this template at all

This template is very opaque in its reasoning, because it doesn't say why one thing comes after another, like a succession box does, only providing a couple of links without context or a place for context. I see absolutely no value provided by the template over simple see also links. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Step makes sense for two reasons
  • Articles can be linked together, without messy "See Also" lists, and without creating obtuse templates for all articles involved that would get out of hand. If they are all a common subject, a common template would make sense, and that is still encouraged (I've done about 10-20 myself).
  • With the right bots and tools, a series of step-linked articles can be found and listed in a tree format, showing a whole body of ideas that would not all fall on the same page or set of subject matter per se.

Cwolfsheep 23:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is messier than a See Also list, because it adds a box, icon, and meaningless "preceding/subsequent" that take up space while telling nothing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Look at its use (by guess-who) on Standard ML: it's in addition to a "see also" list, and gives the spurious impression that SML has only one "successor" (actually just one of many dialects thereof), while failing to link in the other related languages. The phrase "obtuse template" would certainly seem to me to apply here. If things have a well-defined "predecessor/successor" relationship, a more specific template would make more clear what that relationship is. If they don't, making a hand-wavey template for a hand-wavey relationship isn't a useful addition. Alai 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I found this template at the Civilization article, and it said "predecissor: megalopolis." I had no idea what that meant, and I had to come here to figure out the author's intentions. Fishal 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I came here to voice my dissatisfaction with this template was that I came across it on World Wide Web and could not for the life of me figure out what this was supposed to be a series of. Preceding what? Subsequent what? If there is not a header of some kind on this template it is practically useless. I'm sure I could have figured out the intent eventually by browsing the articles so connected, but isn't the whole point of templates to make it easier for people to find the information they need? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 21:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Template:step

  • Header to clarify what the relationship is of.
  • Possible clarification of language.
  • Revisit existing use of the template via looking up existing uses on w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Step

Cwolfsheep 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a provisional change to include a basic header with the addition of a third parameter. The idea being to update the tag as relationships are determined for existing usages. Feel free to add something better. I could not for life of me get the header to display in the infobox without having the icon shift to single row mode. Phatom87 05:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/Template_talk%7EStep_0b37.html"