Template talk:RAScroller
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Requests: |
|
Balakadri- Gertrude Crampton - Cecelia Dougherty - Enriched limit - Valie Export - Ayo Matsuura - Modekngei - L. Nickel - Mab Segrest - Semiregular space - Krystal Wakem - IO economics - NY Womens Detention - Resolvins - Ritz process - Norte del Valle cartel - Mahenge - Rosemary Nelson - Fried dough foods - Spaghetti stack - Terror management - LHRH - Athymhormia - All-pairs testing - Zwischengoldglaser - EAASY SABRE - Peaucellier-Lipkin linkage - Astrograph - c-decay - Dual power supply - Electronics industries association - Film resistor - hole mobility - DAAA Collective - Kelvin electrostatic generator (or Kelvin water dropper) - negative ion generator - power resistor - supermagnets - tachyon waves - saturation current - ethnozoology - American Council of the Blind - Trinh Minh-ha - Tara Foundation - Yassamanoot najadahadish (Suck?) |
Based on Template:Scroller
- Format
-
- {{Scroller | 70 | RA | Queue }}
Where 70 is the height of the scroller in pixels (dont use "px"), RA is Requested articles link, and Queue is the manually added list of Requested articles at Template:RAScroller/Queue -SV|t|add 14:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why?
Why is this better than what we have? I can think of several arguments why it's worse, not the least important of which is that it's too fancy. RC shouldn't be burdened with transclusion. And, of course, in-page scrolling is evil.
"Requested articles" isn't supposed to be exhaustive, it's just supposed to give people a quick incentive of doing new articles. Adding scrolling to squeeze more in is pointless and ugly. JRM · Talk 08:02, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
-
- "In page scrolling is evil." I would reserve "evil" for other things, myself. Seems like such a strong word to waste on such a trivial thing. Ill admit that RC isnt the ideal place for it, but if theres going to be any RA's there, the list might get more action if it were more comprehensive. I dont know anything about the four particular things on the RC currently, but I might know one out of thirty or fifty things listed in a scroller. The only reasonable argument against this (other than "its evil") is that people might get the horizontal scrollbar, which if not exactly evil is definately ugly. It should look like this shot here. -SV|t 22:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, example of cultural bias. I'm using evil strictly in the hacker sense: "This usage is more an esthetic and engineering judgment than a moral one in the mainstream sense." [1], not as in "morally repulsive". It is not at all a strong word in this sense. In-page scrolling is a poor use of screen real estate, it makes content less accessible, and personally I think it looks ugly—and though I have no polls on this, I think I'm not alone. To me, it's a trade-off between having a scroller to squeeze in more RAs or requiring that people spend an extra click going to Wikipedia:Requested articles, which has it all, in neat categories to boot. My money is on the latter, but of course one can't argue about taste.
- Incidentally, horizontal scrolling has been called evil by multiple people: [2] :-) JRM · Talk 22:45, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
- Well going to RA doesnt really get you anywhere - all you might be looking for are links that may or may not be something you can deal with. First of all, RC is just a list of categories, with an unnecessarily detailed list of subtopics. Im not sure it works, is what Im saying. Maybe seeing more links would help. Im not even sure if RC gets used much anymore, considering how fast it goes by. -SV|t 03:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "In page scrolling is evil." I would reserve "evil" for other things, myself. Seems like such a strong word to waste on such a trivial thing. Ill admit that RC isnt the ideal place for it, but if theres going to be any RA's there, the list might get more action if it were more comprehensive. I dont know anything about the four particular things on the RC currently, but I might know one out of thirty or fifty things listed in a scroller. The only reasonable argument against this (other than "its evil") is that people might get the horizontal scrollbar, which if not exactly evil is definately ugly. It should look like this shot here. -SV|t 22:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Minor Correction
I'd do this myself, but it's protected: it ought to be queue and not cue. android↔talk 17:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- LOL. Thanks. Actually thats all separate from the template - the RCSCroller/Cue page can be moved, and the above can be edited. -SV|t 22:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, my correction was to the fact that it says Add to request cue at the bottom of the little box, and I can't figure out how to change that. <pedant>Besides, I just realized that this is not in fact a queue, at all; it would be better described as a list or a set. People who want to write featured articles don't have to pick them out of the set of articles on a FIFO basis.</pedant> android↔talk 22:17, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
