Template talk:Peer review/Archive 1

Archive 1

div vs. table

I made an edit to change this to using div's, rather than table layout (see source):

Using tables

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed.

Using divs

(17:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC) version)

Peer review

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed.

To me this looks perfectly fine. It also works better for text-only browsers. Does this look right on everyone's browsers? -- Netoholic @ 17:08, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Looks pretty nasty on Firefox: the image "leaks" beyond the borders of the box. – ClockworkSoul 17:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the quality... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I think we should tweak the CSS to make it work with divs, rather than tables. -- Netoholic @ 17:13, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

I've made a change, how does the above comparison look now? -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

No different. Could you clarify why divs are better? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Tables are for presenting data, not for describing page layout. Accessible browsers, like for the blind, assume that a table contains data elements and may barf and not read the notice. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

There is still the problem of the vertical alignment between the text and the image. Currently, the toplines are aligned in the div box, as opposed to vertical centering in the table. --MarkSweep 17:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

To me, that doesn't really matter - looks fine either way. I'm sure it can be fixed, though. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

I think that the text would autocorrect so long as the div could be made large enough to accomodate the image. – ClockworkSoul 18:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've shortened the text of the notices to illustrate the problem, which is that the div surrounding the image does not know about the height of the image. We should be working on the layout of the img element directly instead of enclosing it in a div. I don't know how to do this in wikitext, though. --MarkSweep 18:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Where I have got to

Peer review

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed.

I don't know how this looks to people, but it works for me. What I have done is:

1. Given the top-level div a line height of 50px
2. Given the right-hand div a height of "inherit"

How does this look? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I am guessing that it looks crap to anyone with a screen resolution of less than 1024x768. It can only cope with one line of text. Tables will have to do for now. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Pessimist :) - give me 24 hours. I just need to get to a machine with Firefox on it to work this out. -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

By nature :). Can you not download Firefox onto your current machine? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There is also the question of simplicity. Of course everything can in theory be done using div and span in conjunction with CSS attributes like "display: table-cell" (?) etc. The solution will likely be very complex compared with the simplicity of using tables. Let's face it: tables are a useful layout tool in current practice and were deliberately left in XHTML even though their functionality has been duplicated in CSS. In the future, one could think of coding everything in XML to mark up content semantically and to clearly distinguish between tabular material vs. non-tabular material that is nevertheless supposed to be formatted like a table (which could be achieved by using an XSLT style sheet). I'm all for that, but I don't think it's realistic at the moment. --MarkSweep 00:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That's basically what I was trying to say. --Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Issue with template

Resolved

 – Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a problem with this template. Today I moved a page whilst it was at peer review. The corresponding talk page was also moved, and I could find no parameter for bypassing the automatic link to Wikipedia:Peer review/Peer review/Archive 1/archive system. When a talk page is moved like this the already open peer review becomes delinked again (like this). I have had to add in a template manually (here and would like the introduction of a parameter that allows you to specify the full path of the PR for scenarios like this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is page parameter that can be used to specify the new name of the page. Ruslik (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. I've added something to the documentation to help other plebs like me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

Moved from Template talk:Peer review/header

 – * Pppery * _survives 11:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please replace with the current version of the sandbox (diff). This transcludes the new /doc page, so that non-template-editors can develop documentation for this template. I have copied over the current category. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Another one

Moved from Template talk:Peer review/heading

 – * Pppery * _survives 11:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please replace with the current version of the sandbox (diff). This transcludes the new /doc page, so that non-template-editors can develop documentation for this template. I have copied over the current category. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: is it really desirable for every subtemplate to have its own documentation? Would it not be better to maintain one central version? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: if not, then it should use the documentation of the central one - either way, it should have some documentation --DannyS712 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Both  Done and both doc pages redirected to the main template's doc at Template:Peer review/doc. Please update the documentation. Cabayi (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 August 2019

• Template:Peer review/header: add {{subst:tfm|Peer review/heading|heading=Template:Peer review/header|help=off}}
• Template:Peer review/heading: add {{subst:tfm|Peer review/header|heading=Template:Peer review/header|help=off}}

Both templates should be tagged with {{tfm}}, as they have been nominated for merging at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Template:Peer review/header. The date in the discussion link would have to be corrected to August 24 after the substitution. –Sonicwave ^talk 19:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Followup request

In both pages, the link to the discussion (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 27) should be changed to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 24 (the 7 changed to 4, since that is the page where the above templates are being discussed). –Sonicwave ^talk 04:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Izno (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

Please redirect {{Peer review/header}} to {{Peer review/heading}} per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Template:Peer review/header. According to Hellknowz at WT:AALERTS this shouldn't affect the bot. --Trialpears (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done StevenJ81 (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)