Protected Template:Tnavbar has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an administrator to make the edit for you.

May 2006[edit source]

Greetings my fellow editors, I've created this new template to allow the average Wikipedian to have quick and easy access to primarily Navigational Guide Template space (ie: Template:Islam, Template:Christianity, Template:Judaism, Template:Terrorism, etc.). It is my belief that without this sort of functionality, ad hoc (or otherwise) navigational (etc.) Template cabals can form who covet the template space in this regard and can show signs of owernship relative to it. With this new functionality more Wikipedians are likely to come to bear upon a given Nav (etc.) Template and provide a wider range of views ensuring a greater chance for neutrality in this regard as well. Please don't hesitate to drop me some talk here for any questions, or need for collaboration on this or related ideas. Netscott 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Something of note: On some templates (ie: Template:JewishLifeCycle) there is a small edit link that actually dumps an editor straight into editing. I've purposely opted to not do the same for this template as I find that an immediate page code view is a bit daunting to an editor not familiar with editing on the somewhat technical navigational templates. The way that this template now stands, once the edit link is clicked, an editor is brought to the actual template for viewing (much like the following: Edit this box). I realize that there may be editors who disagree with this principal but I would kindly request that if such a change is made that at minimum some talk is added here explaining the full advantages of doing so (vs. how I've set it up) and perhaps drop me a note at the same time. Thanks! Netscott 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've updated this template since I made the above entry and now it's possible to view | edit | talk for any template that has this template added to it. Netscott 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think having an edit link is great, and a must. I've seen them more and more, and they are very helpful. The current navbar temmplate works well for vertical (high) templates, but not so good on templates that are wide, since it adds a lot of extra height. Maybe we can have two navbar templates? -- Jeff3000 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Jeff3000, welcome to the discussion. Yes indeed... there's probably a need for a couple more templates. I've already made another that is more vertical see Template:Tnavbarv. Can you provide me with a link to a specific template that you have concerns on so that I might be able to evaluate the situationn and see what I can come up with? Thanks. Netscott 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The more vertical one looks good, but for example in Template:Bahá'í-2 the template adds a significant amount of whitespace at the bottom of the box. Something that would maybe fit in the top right corner I think would be more appropriate. It probably needs a relatively positioned div from the top right, so that it doesn't affect the flow of all other elements within the box. -- Jeff3000 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to mention that I don't like having this on navigational templates. I have worked on a lot of templates and put a much effort into keeping them small, pleasant to the eyes, and with as few links as possible. But I also don't want to rain on your parade, so I'll leave it as a comment and I won't go around removing it. Cuñado 20px - Talk 04:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuñado, thanks for joining the conversation. It seems you follow the logic for this new template. The amount of time other editors have put into making templates is not to be discounted but without this new generalized functionality, the less experienced Wikipedians are hard pressed to be able alter them. This template has been made small and discreet so as to not in fact be the focus of a given Nav guide. The way that this new functionality has so far been added to the Navigation guides is a bit generic and all Navigation guides have been treated equally with it. If you feel that something could be done to better incorporate this template into any particular Navigational guide then by all means be bold and make some changes. Netscott 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Test Template:Edi (edit talk links history) for a very small edit link. Nav boxes without any link at all to themselves are dubious, but {{tnavbar}} is only one of several existing solutions. -- Omniplex 06:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Propose to remove the parameter[edit source]

I am proposing to change the template syntax (of this template) such that it doesnt require editors to pass template name when used in templates. This can be achieved by using {{PAGENAME}} instead of {{{1}}}. After changing, one can simply insert {{Tnavbar}}, without passing any parameter, to other templates. --Oblivious 15:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oblivious, thanks for contributing to the talk page but please don't feel obligated to do so, the old "be bold" applies in template space too no? That actually might make sense and I considered doing that myself but I was concerned that the Tnavbar would be taken from a particular article's page name. Give it a try by all means. :-) Netscott 17:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It does yeah! but if I change it now, the templates using this (Tnavbar) will cease to work. So either we use condition-based parameters OR remove the parameters from existing templates manually (oh god, there are MANY) after bringing the changes. Bright ideas, anyone? --Oblivious 17:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I've accidentially added unecessary parameters on previous templates with no ill I'm not sure that this would be a problem... what about just attempting your change and see what happens (in an extremely briefly way!)? Netscott 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah... it works :) --Oblivious 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It did seem like it worked... but I just did some checking and it didn't... I'm thinking that the parameter is going to be the best way to go unless some decent logic can be included to make the necessary distinction. I wonder if something like {{TEMPLATE}} exists? :-) Netscott 18:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we can come up with something using Qif_conditionals. --Oblivious 18:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine... let's experiment with the new template I've just created though for now: Template:Tnavbar-mini as this template is now displaying on nearly 20,000 pages. Netscott 18:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I did check it with few times and it appeared to work, then. Lets define the breaking you experienced in more detail? --Oblivious 18:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

 :) Fair enough, I went to a couple of articles and found that when I'd go and edit the template on that article the article's title would come up. Unfortunately you probably did your initial test on Template:Islam (and probably looked at Islam for confirmation) well in that instance it worked. I checked Abhidhamma and found that when I went to edit the template I was directed to Template:Abhidhamma... very wrong.. :-). Netscott 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through Templates, Advanced templates and Variables and I dont think we can do achieve this with what we have now (MediaWiki limitations). There is no way to eliminate the parameter. --Oblivious 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Aiee, that's unfortunate as it would be ultimately cool to be able to just slap in a {{Tnavbar}} and be done with it. I've just made some changes to both Template:Tnavbar and Template:Tnavbar-mini that allow surfers to hover their mice over the link and have some explanatory "title" text pop-up. Maybe you can take a look at that on a given article page and tell me what you think of the wording? Netscott 19:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks nice that way... however I think it'd be more user-friendly to use Edit this box, instead of Edit this navigational template ? Basically replace the word template with the word box --Oblivious 19:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right but my thinking was to use Wikipedia terminology to better educate editors... but the difference is virtually a non-issue for me so feel free to make the changes. Netscott 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should make the text more like that which pops up when hovering one's mouse over the "edit this page" link (for example). Netscott 20:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Three quick hints:
  1. If a parameter isn't needed anymore just ignore it, updating all pages using a redundant parameter would be a PITA.
  2. Using {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}}|Template|do something}} is possible, see m:ParserFunctions, but not what you want here.
  3. AFAIK you can't get rid of the parameter unless you restrict the template to must be subst'ed, see also m:Help:Substitution. -- Omniplex 23:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Not too keen on the Subst idea to be honest... Tnavbar's still evolving a bit (as is Template:Tnavbar-mini). I don't see big problem with adding one parameter myself. Netscott 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've checked "subst"-magic for a different purpose (timestamps) now, it works only if the template itself is subst'ed. The best you can get without subst (where required) is a "missing subst" warning. -- Omniplex 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Edi[edit source]

Copied / moved from my userpage because I won't tolerate {{tnavbar}} on the affected pages. -- Omniplex 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, I see you are going around and swapping out examples of {{Tnavbar}} for the template you created {{Edi}}. Would you kindly refrain from doing that? The Tnavbar templates are more comprehensive than Edi as Edi only allows for access to edit a given template rather than allowing for a more complete access (viewing, discussion) also the template that Edi is based upon was originally developed with the (+/-) for cross-language portability on the international Mediawiki, not the English Wikipedia. I'm reverting your edits that counter my edits to include Tnavbar templates. If you had concerns that {{Tnavbar}} was too big, I've allayed those concerns by creating Template:Tnavbar-mini. Thanks. Netscott 11:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to inform you, myself and a few other editors have produced some additional classes of Tnavbar since I left the above message which you might want to peruse at Template:Tnavbar. Thanks. Netscott 22:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
NAK, for various reasons {{tnavbar}} is completely unsuited for the affected project templates - it's too big, not only the output, also the code with weird colours unrelated to any colour scheme on these project templates, it introduces unnecessary Unicode on pure ASCII pages, and for some cases like "policylist" I seriously doubt that a very visible edit link is a good idea. I fixed various things on those templates, also the width, broken <br/>, the height by eliminating unnecessary empty lines, and the floating align=right for old browsers, and I added a category for templates using the style (mainly colour scheme) chosen by Gareth Aus. Thanks for the credits for {{ed}} and family, but they were not my idea, I only tuned them to use "fullurl:" like I did with {{tnavbar}}. -- Omniplex 23:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Omniplex thanks for sharing your concerns here. If you properly follow my wording, I in fact demonstrate my awareness of {{Edi}}'s orgins. I'm not really following your logic about the color scheme as Template:Edi just looks odd with the unclear (+/-) scheme and the arrow making it look as if it's an external link. The only part of your arguments that seem to make any sense is the bit about unecessary Unicode on pure ASCII pages... but are there really that many affected users? Seems a bit like much ado about nothing. I realize that the Tnavbar's are new but with the exception of yourself there has only been one or two other voices of discontent (with other editor's concerns with the original Tnavbar having been addressed with the new classes). Is there anyone else who's sharing your concerns? Netscott 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Spacing[edit source]

I'm not digging this template. It's ruining the arrangment on some articles like Hinduism in China.--Dangerous-Boy 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please fix the spacing of the navbar or I will remove it from the template:Hinduism small. It's screwing up the spacing in articles with pics such as Hinduism in China.--Dangerous-Boy 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
problem solved.--Dangerous-Boy 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This template[edit source]

I would really suggest one use this template very very rarely. Most of the time putting links to "edit, talk and view" are not necessary and they are highly distracting. This template has its uses, but please do not use it unless you really feel it must be there.

This is a thing which happens a lot on Wikipedia. Somebody comes with a good idea, and then that idea gets abused, and then one wishes this idea did not come to start with. So please, use this template sparingly. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. Cuñado 20px - Talk 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for full disclosure here. User:Oleg Alexandrov posted here after responding to a series of ill-advised Tnavbar placements by User: So in light of that, such commentary as above is entirely understandable. ←Netscott→ 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just reverted the edits of this user that didn't correspond correctly to the utilization of Tnavbar. ←Netscott→ 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for very much. I'm sorry for screwing things up: I wasn't aware that the Tnavbar should only be used for certain templates, nor did I intend to disrupt other people's work. I was just working under the impression that templates should have a link to editing them, and that the Tnavbar was optimal for that purpose. 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When should this be used?[edit source]

One thing I'm unclear on, having seen these "view, talk, edit" buttons pop up on lots of templates recently, is when to use this and when to use Template:Edit (and its related templates). I prefer to have just the one "edit" link, or even just a "view" link. I find sometimes this particular template gives an excessive air of self-referentiality. Can the page be updated to give guidance on when and where it can be used, and where it shouldn't be used, with examples? And what the pros and cons are of the different styles of "edit buttons" that are available. Thanks. Carcharoth 02:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Long and short of it in one parameter[edit source]

I like this template and would like to see what people think of some ideas I have.

I would like to change this

This box: [{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="View this template.">view</span>] • [{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">talk</span>] • [{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.">edit</span>]</div>

To this


This box: [{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="View this template.">view</span>]


<nowiki>[{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">talk</span>]


[{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.">edit</span>]</div>


[{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">d</span>]</nowiki>


[{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.">e</span>]</div>

Basically include a long parameter and then start to combine some of the templates. Would if be possible to have a div or nodiv parameter as well? As this is a big change I though I would be bold in suggesting it and cautious in applying it. Rex the first talk | contribs 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So the idea is to use one template, but control its behaviour/appearance by parameters? I like the idea. --Oblivious

Now I have added it this code (but aslo included nodiv) should I deprecate the other templates, e.g. {{Tnavbar-mini}}, {{Tnavbar-nodiv}}, {{Tnavbar-mini-nodiv}}? If it works I might include plain as a parameter! Rex the first talk | contribs 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just a touch busy.... which is why I haven't responded here first glance these changes make sense but I've reverted them as I'd prefer to see the changes made on a sandbox version first and applied to some test templates prior to actually going online to work out any bugs. Tnavbar is actually integrated in a number of various kinds of templates (ie: it has been massaged to work with) and making such changes is likely breaking these massaged instances. Forgive me if I seem clueless but I don't see where these changes were done in a sandbox fashion previously. (Netscott) 08:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, I did 'extensive' sandbox tests in {{User:Rex_the_first/test}}. Here you can see these tests working:

Optional parameter Produces...
Divides into a separate section: {{User:Rex the first/test|Tnavbar|short=1}} like so. Divides into a separate section: User:Rex the first/test like so.
{{User:Rex the first/test|Tnavbar|nodiv=1}} Good for "blending" into text. User:Rex the first/test Good for "blending" into text.
{{User:Rex the first/test|Tnavbar|short=1|nodiv=1}} Good for "blending" into text. User:Rex the first/test Good for "blending" into text.

If you are happy with them I will implment them again. If not then we can talk about it here. The most important test is this, is it backwards compatable (will all the pages that use it without the optinal parameters of nodiv and short still work)? Test here.

Template This... Produces...
This template Divides into a separate section: {{User:Rex the first/test|Tnavbar}} like so. Divides into a separate section: User:Rex the first/test like so.

It would not damage any pages, I had checked some pages it was transcluded on and it appeared fine. Rex the first talk | contribs 09:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the other valid concern is taxing the servers. One of the advantages to having a suite of Tnavbar templates has to do with the fact that they tend to be represented across several thousand pages. What that means is that each time one of those thousands of pages is pulled up... in addition to calculating the necessary bit for the template with this addtional parsing going on the servers have to do additional work. I'm not sure to what extent the gravity of this is a factor in how one should be coding a template but it merits investigation. (Netscott) 09:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that a template call merits the same server load if it to template (a) or template (b) the only difference is that if template (a) is called 10 times then it will be in the browser cache and will cause less server load than a call to ten separate templates. On the issue of the parser functions load on the servers, I think it would be better raised in parser functions than on templates that use them (as all the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} .... ect use them). The problem was disscussed on before they were implemented and they have not caused major problems (as far as I know). Rex the first talk | contribs 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As per Meta Cache page, I don't think server load would be an issue here. --Oblivious 13:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I have implemented the code do you think we should add a note to the other templates about this? Rex the first talk | contribs 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Something is not right yet. When I used {{Tnavbar|WWIIGermanShips|mini=1|nodiv=1}} on {{WWIIGermanShips}}, a line break was added. That wasnt suppose to happen with nodiv version. --Oblivious 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I have fixed it. The code had a return or two it wasn't meant too. Rex the first talk | contribs 23:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

id's[edit source]

id="Tnavbar-nodiv" style="white-space: nowrap; font-size:xx-small;">|<div class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" id="Tnavbar"

Do these id's serve a purpose? ¦ Reisio 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tnavbar getting too complicated?[edit source]

Greetings fellow editors. In the past day or so there's been some significant editing with one editor adding a link to history, another adding a template for spacing and · and another who added a style code to be able to insert CSS code. All of this strikes me as over-complication. I suggest we just return to this 21:18, 16 October 2006 version. Thoughts? (Netscott) 09:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep it as simple as possible and as minimal as possible. Agree with you --Oblivious 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Red links[edit source]

Is there a reason why the View & Talk links on the template are coded to never be red? --Dispenser 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The blue color is for uniformity with normal Wikipedia link color. (Netscott) 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You miss understood my question. I was asking why if the talk page is non-existent, the talk link is blue where else it is normally red. It would seem to me that what's preventing it is [{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">talk</span>] and use something like [[Template_talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] instead. So is there any reason why this template isn't using this? --Dispenser 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps so... Tnavbar wasn't really meant to call attention to missing [red link] talk pages. I'm inclined to think that red links appearing on templates would just be distracting from the rest of the links on the template. No? (Netscott) 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well we could at least do it on the view link. It would reduce the amount of code and help users if they miss type the template name. --Dispenser 03:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right... I've implemented this change. As I recall when originally formulating Tnavbar I was shooting for a uniformity of link appearance. This is the main reason that I gave the links color attributes (particularly the edit link...which is a light blue if not given a color attribute)... so I just did it for them all... but relative to your logic that really doesn't make sense. (Netscott) 11:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


This box: view  talk  edit
v  d  e
view  talk  edit

On my browser the discussion links above show up as blue with a red underline (which looks a bit odd). Anyone else seeing that? (Netscott) 12:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It was because you forgot to remove the style="color:#002bb8;" tag for the talk links. --Dispenser 14:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually that was my intention for the talk links to show up blue... but strangely the underline part of the links shows up as red on my browser. (Netscott) 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering why I'm so quick to not support red talk pages appearing it is because unlike needed articles about uncovered subject links that appear in a given article, talk page links are not really "needing" to be filled when they appear smack dab in the middle of a given article via a template (as opposed to a standard red talk page link above a given article with no talk page). Does that make sense? (Netscott) 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a bug, it's a feature!!!!111oneone It's showing up red due to the :hover element which underlines it acting on the outside element thus causing it come up red. Of course HTML/CSS has all sort quirks. --Dispenser 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It shows with a red underline when transcluded into pages that don't exist (I know, it can't happen unless you're previewing a page you haven't yet hit the "save" key on since you created it) ot on discussion pages that don't exist (again, only when discussion of the template hasn't yet begun, which is the most likely thing to happen). the reason the link shows this way ISN'T because of Wikipedia's standard linking, but in fact is due to all transcluded links operate in this way.
--lincalinca 08:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding a fontcolor attribute[edit source]

I'm thinking that much like Template:Tnavbar-header there should be an option for folks to be able to specify a font color for the links with a default being blue. Opinions on this? (Netscott) 15:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Support per previous discussion on Template talk:Tnavbar-rugby --Bob 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So has this been incorporated or not? And if yes, then can someone pls tell me how its done? --Bluerain talk 06:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC) This hasn't been done, but I would like it done so that I can move a bunch of templates over to the Navbar generic template. --Bob 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now. I should have the changes ready to go shortly. User:Netscott/s1.js 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Netscott's amended code now in place. David Kernow (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

v·d·e or v?[edit source]

Do we actually need all three links? Simply using v for view allows to edit and discuss within two mouse clicks and avoids a lot of headaches, both for designing and using navboxes. ~ trialsanderrors 08:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Greeting Trialsanderrors, welcome to the Tnavbar discussion area. The main reason that there are v·d·e links is primarily to better correspond to standard links found on any given page. Having the three readily available provides for immediacy that having just "v" doesn't allow for. You should know that there's no particular stipulation that a given template needs to have Tnavbar added to it... it's really meant to be optional but obviously has proven fairly popular with template editors. Perhaps there's a template you're working on that either myself or another Tnavbar regular might be able to assist you with? (Netscott) 10:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A thought just came to mind. A "micro" version option could be integrated into the template that would allow for just a "v". Right now to specify that "v·d·e" displays one must add "mini=1" to the template call. Well the same could be done only the magic word would be "micro" so the template call would have "micro=1" which would allow for just a "v" to display. That might be the optimal solution for what you are talking about. (Netscott) 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've been following the discussion at Template talk:Navigation recently . I think the tnavbar is a stroke of genius but it causes some problems with centering the header text, plus it might make editing just a tad bit too easy... Maybe folks should view the template first before they click on the edit button? In any case, just a proposal to keep it as simple as possible (as mentioned above). ~ trialsanderrors 20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to take a look at Template talk:Navigation and see how I might be able to help out over there. Based upon our discussion here I've gone ahead and incorporated a simple  v  option and a simple  view  option. To implement them here's the necessary code: {{Tnavbar|Name of Template|miniv=1|nodiv=1}} for the simple "v" option and {{Tnavbar|Name of Template|viewplain=1|nodiv=1}} for the simple "view" option. Hope that helps. :-) (Netscott) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll put it in where I see fit. I'd say vde makes sense when the template is still work in progress or where information changes frequently. All stable templates should better go with v. ~ trialsanderrors 07:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Seconded, I think... although if a template seems stable, is there any need to include even the "v"...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I tend to revisit even the ones that are stable, and digging out a template name from the source text is quite a bit of a hassle. I guess I should've said semi-stable, like {{Game theory}}, where new links are added infrequently but it's not really under development anymore. ~ trialsanderrors 04:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A major part of the reasoning for why I created this template was to discourage ownership of template space by template editing cabals. I have heard concerns about vandalism before. Perhaps this template has been lucky but since its creation in May of this year there has been essentially no significant reports (off the top of my head I can't even think of one) of Tnavbar related vandalism. I now tend to put Tnavbar on most any navigational template regardless of my earlier concerns of ownership because what I have noticed is that templates that carry Tnavbar attract more editing attention and I can honestly say there are improved from that. This is not to say that I don't think that vandalism concerns are valid but I honestly don't think Tnavbar is doing anything more to facilitate such acts. Just like all pages on wikipedia (and let's face it templates are just special kinds of pages) when vandalism presents itself folks take the necessary measures to reduce its effects though semi-protection/blocking/full protection etc. I really don't fully support the idea of just utilizing "v" or "view" links on templates because I think a big part of Wikipedia is spontaneity and being able to do something right away. The simple "v" and "view" links quash this spontaneity in my view. That said, I do see the usefulness of having that option which is why I integrated it into Tnavbar but I think such an option should only go into effect if a given template has some history of being targetted for vandalism. (Netscott) 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Per your experimentation below, I agree that access to any but the most vulnerable (utility) templates should be open by default and only hindered, restricted or blocked if/when a template becomes a target for vandalism, POV-pushing, strings of reverts, etc – or, I guess, if it has a history of any of these... Regards, David (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think restricting options to "view" only encourages ownership. A lot of templates have noinclude instructions on the project page which editors should consider before making changes. This has nothing to do with ownership, but with consideration. ~ trialsanderrors 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template name[edit source]

Since this template might be used in templates other than navigation templates, suggest it is given a less cryptic name, e.g. {{Titlebar}}. Any thoughts...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually as I recall from formulating it, the name was meant to be an abbreviation for "Template navigation bar"... meaning a bar to navigate templates themselves. That was back when the template was just the longer bar shaped variety:  This box: view  talk  edit . In that light I think the Tnavbar name is still appropriate for any template. (Netscott) 00:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; I've now left an expansion at the top of the /docs for anyone else interested!  Best wishes, David (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

coding question[edit source]

Hello folks... I borrowed some of the code used here for use in this page, but I'm stuck on one part. How the heck do you get rid of that pesky little "outside link" symbol (the one next to the word 'this' above) when using the {{fullnav}} magic word? Thanks! -- Eykanal 05:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia there is a <span> and <div> class type called "plainlinks"...I don't think all Wikis support this class type. This class type is found in this Wikipedia CSS skin. (Netscott) 05:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That worked... thanks! (That's so cool...) -- Eykanal 14:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

id attribute causes bugs[edit source]

The fixed id="Tnavbar" attribute in this template is causing invalid HTML output for pages that use this template more than once. Each id attribute MUST be unique in a HTML document. I suggest that this id attribute be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Seeing as the id tags have been questioned previously I've gone ahead and removed them. Hope that helps. (Netscott) 12:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible new Tnavbar concept[edit source]

Greetings fellow Tnavbar editors, I thought of a simpler way to implement Tnavbar. This idea will allow editors to include whatever Wikipedia options they want on a given template. I've made preliminary templates corresponding to this idea and I wanted to see what folks thought. Check it out:
These are produced by the following code.


Then the same thing only for the "view" style Tnavbar:



I'm thinking this might be the future of Tnavbar... this new system is very universal and easy to understand so it should be easy for editors to adopt. Thoughts?

Please do not start using these templates just yet (if ever) as they are each a work in progess but by all means feel free to edit them. :-) (Netscott) 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Could be nifty – thanks for experimenting, Netscott – anyone else...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One other thing, the order of links can be whatever editor's prefer (except for the "v" or "view"... they'll always be first in the current templates). It's just a matter of which options come first. See: Template:V which corresponds to {{v|m|w|e|d|template=Name of Template}}. The other thing, please don't hesitate to experiment with these templates. I only ask to refrain from implementing them as we reach a consensus about how they should be. Thanks. (Netscott) 06:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hide[edit source]

Is it possible to add the hide option in to this to simplify the hiding of infoboxes? (Emperor 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Hello Emperor, I would recommend you employ {{Navigation}} which has [hide] built into it (as well as Tnavbar). User:Netscott/s1.js 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Editprotected Requests[edit source]

Could we apply font-weight:normal; to the outer div/span of the template. This way the self-links are bold next to non-bold link and it matches the [hide]/[show] in headers which also has this style applied to it. --Dispenser 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Ashibaka (tock) 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

v-d-e link titles[edit source]

Just a minor note... the link titles used in this template shouldn't end in full stops (periods). It looks wrong and goes against the usage of other link titles. BigBlueFish 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no periods in link titles. The link reads v • d • e. Unless I'm misunderstanding what BigBlueFish is saying here I see no need for a change. User:Netscott/s1.js 15:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think BBF is talking about the yellow tags that appear when you hover over a link, e.g. Move this template vs Move this template. ~ trialsanderrors 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah ok thanks for the explanation trialsanderrors. That's a pretty minor point, essentially a non-issue. If that's all it is then such an edit makes sense. User:Netscott/s1.js 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed the 'view' and 'discuss' notes, but left 'edit' as, "You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.", because it uses two complete sentences. --CBD 12:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Perfect :) --BigBlueFish 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
These little letters are confusing, especially when seen before the navbox title (example). They should be positioned to the far right. - dcljr (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately that would cause a conflict with any [show]/[hide] link placed there, otherwise I might agree... When a [show]/[hide] link is in place, I guess it might be possible to place the v-d-e to its left, but not sure (a) how tricky that is to code, or (b) whether I or other folk would be keen on it...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

T = Edit?[edit source]

Why does the T(alk) link automatically make you edit the talk page? Wouldn't one want to loko at it first, even if there were going to edit it? For example, take what I'm doing here. I had a comment on {{tnavbar}}, which I was going to make an edit for–but I looked over the page to see if it had already been addressed. It's rather confusing when one clicks a link for the talk page and ends up editing it. (If you can't tell, I need sleep.) — SheeEttin {T/C} 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This would only happen if a talk page didn't already exist. User:Netscott/s1.js 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Then shouldn't it appear red? — SheeEttin {T/C} 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Tnavbar's not really meant to draw attention to red links. Ordinarily a given red link will appear blue with a red underline on it. The problem with red links is that when Tnavbar appears in a header for a given template the red becomes very distractive. User:Netscott/s1.js 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HELP!!A pure bar without ParserFunctions[edit source]

Please,help me extracting a pure tnavbar without those confusing parser functions. Post them in my user page in <pre></pre>,THXErikkkk 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For what purpose? You can see the version before parsers were added but leaning parser functions would be better! Here is the version before parsers. Rex the first talk | contribs 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You could also use the Expand template function. But it isn't a good idea since it wont be updated, see Wp:subst#Drawbacks of substitutionDispenser 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.