Template talk:Metadata2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Chris Day No edit summary |
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (3 tabs ought to be fine; number of cats, jargon) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I see there's a #if on the subgroup fields display. Interesting idea, but why only on those fields? Or, put it the other way, if no other fields have it, why should these? Why not always print all fields, or only print non-blank fields? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:27, 22 April 2008 (CDT) | I see there's a #if on the subgroup fields display. Interesting idea, but why only on those fields? Or, put it the other way, if no other fields have it, why should these? Why not always print all fields, or only print non-blank fields? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:27, 22 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
:I did that at the time since there was no solid consensus on the status of subworkgroups. I'd say they are going ahead so we can have them as default. An #if on the new tab fields might be useful though or should we just have everything transparent? By the way how many tab fields should we add? I added three to start with but maybe more? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:31, 22 April 2008 (CDT) | :I did that at the time since there was no solid consensus on the status of subworkgroups. I'd say they are going ahead so we can have them as default. An #if on the new tab fields might be useful though or should we just have everything transparent? By the way how many tab fields should we add? I added three to start with but maybe more? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:31, 22 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
:: I think three is fine; hard to imagine a use for more than three custom ones at the same time. Besides, we don't want to get the navigation header ''too'' wide.... | |||
:: BTW, what about the number of categories? There is some groundswell (seen in several places) to support more than three. How much extra code will it add to the subpages templates? | |||
:: Oh, BTW, what's the official jargon term (if any :-) for subgroups; is it "sub-workgroups", "subgroups", "subworkgroups", or what? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 22:07, 22 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 21:07, 22 April 2008
Displaying subgroup fields
I see there's a #if on the subgroup fields display. Interesting idea, but why only on those fields? Or, put it the other way, if no other fields have it, why should these? Why not always print all fields, or only print non-blank fields? J. Noel Chiappa 12:27, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
- I did that at the time since there was no solid consensus on the status of subworkgroups. I'd say they are going ahead so we can have them as default. An #if on the new tab fields might be useful though or should we just have everything transparent? By the way how many tab fields should we add? I added three to start with but maybe more? Chris Day 12:31, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
- I think three is fine; hard to imagine a use for more than three custom ones at the same time. Besides, we don't want to get the navigation header too wide....
- BTW, what about the number of categories? There is some groundswell (seen in several places) to support more than three. How much extra code will it add to the subpages templates?
- Oh, BTW, what's the official jargon term (if any :-) for subgroups; is it "sub-workgroups", "subgroups", "subworkgroups", or what? J. Noel Chiappa 22:07, 22 April 2008 (CDT)