Help talk:Style/Migration to new Code formatting templates

From ArchWiki
< Help talk:Style
Revision as of 13:41, 25 September 2012 by Kynikos (Talk | contribs) (Darker background?: close)

Jump to: navigation, search

Darker background?

Use a slightly darker background for code templates to increase its visibility? Compare current color with
darker color
. -- Kynikos 16:35, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
<opinion>I would prefer to defer to the underlying style sheet and our web designer (i.e. match <pre>). Consider filing a bug report/feature request to fix the style, instead.</opinion> -- pointone 18:47, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
True, it will be much cleaner. However I'll do it when we'll have started using the new templates, so he can better judge the effects of the new style. -- Kynikos 19:08, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
We may also ask to add overflow:auto directly in <pre>'s style. -- Kynikos 11:20, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
I agree that a darker background for code templates would be nice (apparently the viewing angle on my laptop sucks). -- Jstjohn 15:46, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
To add a more legitimate reason to my previous message, I wanted to note that Template:ic is completely ineffective inside the block code formatting (when a line is prefixed with a space). See the last box on this page: Mkinitcpio#Using_net -- Jstjohn 22:59, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
The background color would be made darker for both block and inline code templates. The problem in mkinitcpio you're reporting is due to the fact that those lines shouldn't be prefixed with a space in the first place: code formatting templates (including space-prefixed lines) shouldn't be used to highlight normal text, we have Template:Note for that. -- Kynikos 11:02, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
I've noticed that on some screens the code background color can result even too dark and contrasting with the outer white background, so it's likely that the current color can be thought as an acceptable compromise (and my eyes are getting used to it after all :P ). -- Kynikos 07:53, 5 January 2012 (EST)
I confirm my last post. We'd need a bug report for changing the colour anyway, but I don't think it'd be worth the effort, I'm closing this discussion. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Keypress

What are we doing with Template:Keypress? Would you agree with deprecating it in favour of Template:Ic? -- Kynikos 13:32, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Note that a simple redirection to Template:Ic may break some instances of the template, since Keypress accepts an optional "background" parameter. -- Kynikos 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

I think it's actually nicer than just using the inline code template for showing keypress combinations, but it could definitely use a makeover. thestinger
I know somebody who would disagree with you, see [1] :) What about, as a compromise, making Template:Keypress use Template:Ic with bold automatically added? Like CTRL+c. -- Kynikos 13:59, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
I like the idea of using a bolded version of Template:Ic. Another issue regarding Template:Keypress (and consequently whatever replaces it) is the use of letter case which is often inconsistent between articles. For example, on the Vim page, there are a lot of various keys to perform various functions and the functionality of j is completely different from J (Vim#Basic_Editing), but on some other articles, there is little distinction made between case (e.g. Shift+j and J). Hopefully my example is clear enough, but if not, I'll try to elaborate further.
What I would like to see is a standardized way of using Template:Keypress (or whatever replaces it) so that there is one way of using the template (e.g. requiring Shift+j instead of J, or vice versa).
It would also be nice to standardize the capitalization and spelling use of the non-letter keys (e.g. requiring Ctrl+c instead of CTRL+c or Control+c, or vice versa). Some of the keys that have the most variation that I have seen are Ctrl, Esc, Enter/Return, Backspace, Super/Windows/Mod, and Print Screen.
I would love to see a template for displaying some of the troublesome UTF-8 symbols (e.g. , , , and ) too. See here for an example.
While migrating some old formatting code from the Vim article, I noticed a variation in the use of + and - for key combinations. It would probably be a good idea to have a "recommended" style for +/- simply for uniformity.
Also, wow, this got way longer than I initially anticipated! -- Jstjohn 15:39, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
Using bold text with Template:Ic looks great, and I've decided I don't really like the Template:Keypress after all - it's too clunky and big. thestinger 08:27, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
Ok, I'm going to restyle it later, while putting also #Migration strategy into practice. First I'll update Help:Style trying to answer Jstjohn's requests. -- Kynikos 11:16, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
Eheh I can't update Help:Style before editing Template:Keypress of course, so here's the draft:
[draft removed, implemented in Help:Style#Keyboard keys]
This way I can also get some feedback before making it official. -- Kynikos 12:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
(Just reminding that the discussion about making 4 arrow templates is still open). -- Kynikos 12:29, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
Template:Keypress is restyled now: [2]. -- Kynikos 13:10, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
Is the new Template:Keypress considered official enough to add it to articles like Vim and for articles of some other very keyboard-centric programs? -- Jstjohn 00:12, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
Definitely, you can use it in Vim and all the other articles, you may also want to fix discrepancies with Help:Style#Keyboard keys. -- Kynikos 16:36, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
Also, if the templates for the arrows might actually happen, I would suggest simple and easy to remember names like {{uparrow}} or {{up}} -- Jstjohn 00:12, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
While editing some html docs I've thought: would using &uarr;, &rarr;, &darr; and &larr; be easy enough instead of creating new templates for arrow keys? If yes, do we want to list these entities somewhere in the wiki? -- Kynikos 19:02, 4 January 2012 (EST)