22:
81:
719:, and hope this isn't taken that way. Something doesn't have to have been poorly-done or ill-conceived to simply grow outdated. Technologies change, communities shift, and standards evolve; that's just the nature of the web. To capriciously chase every shiny, new trend is foolish and disruptive, and I'd certainly hate to see Knowledge go down that road. (That's why I'm suggesting the simple elimination of the table,
71:
53:
617:
The point of template transclusion is to standardize the formatting and handling of the data passed in, for repeatability and simpler article coding, and so that changes and enhancements (whether to layout, formatting, or processing) can be made centrally and apply to all transclusions. All of that
550:
longer on desktop, but not excessively so. (My browser renders the table at 450px tall, whereas the list version is 600px tall. The table structure itself takes up more height than you'd think, and you lose any savings from the shorter length of "Set details" compared to "Special features".) The
642:
has based this on raw code that exists/existed at many articles. On a desktop browser I much prefer the table layout to the text only layout. It's much easier to get the information you are after as it hits you in the face instead of having to scroll through everything. I didn't realise that it
727:
trickery that'll magically lay itself out to fit any device.) I guess just don't understand how "layout tables, however attractive in certain scenarios, are growing and will continue to grow increasingly problematic in
Knowledge content" can be at all controversial as a statement. --
590:
have valuable structure worth preserving. But in this case, the table really adds as little to the desktop rendering as it does to the mobile rendering, so why preserve it at all? Also, if a CSS solution to this issue was likely to come around, it would've
685:
more... ... ... "pleasant" (though I can't honestly argue that it's significantly more readable or clear), but given that well over half of
Knowledge pageviews these days originates from mobile browsers, and given how much
247:
If you've ever looked at a page that uses this template on a small-screen device like a phone, you know that the formatting is... well, IMHO, not great. (If you haven't, here's how the template transclusion in the
703:
of
Knowledge's content was. That made sense 15 years ago, when our cultural/editorial norms (table-based layout) took root. But those norms are now quite a few years out of date, to the detriment of mobile
606:
There's a sense in which that applies to literally every template transclusion on
Knowledge, if you really think about it. (In fact, until a few hours ago the article I took my screenshots from,
192:
Given the fact that different "volumes" would have different release dates, this would mean everything in the table would be different, so the easiest method would be to just have two tables.
699:
content was created (I'm fairly comfortable assuming, because statistics are very much on my side) by editors both using and targeting desktop browsers, primarily or even exclusively.
586:
That's the far thornier question, isn't it? I agree that would be another possible solution to the mobile-formatting problem, and makes a lot of sense for more complex tables that
594:
A magical, wiki-wide CSS solution is unlikely anyway. Responsive table layouts would likely have to be coded on a case-by-case basis, even if they were to become an option.
546:
There's room for some debate about the heading structure, and the levels should probably be made adjustable for maximum flexibility, but that's the basic idea. It's
754:
614:
manually building its own table of information. I'm the one who made the edit to move that information into a standardized template transclusion instead.)
759:
692:
clear and readable the table version is on phone screens (or even smaller tablets), it feels to me like reader priorities have shifted out from under us.
764:
275:
formatted, even in desktop browsers — as simple wikitext/wikilists. (Also, it's only used on 54 articles, so it's not a major impact to change it.)
555:
more readable on a narrow-screen device. And it loses none of the information from the table except for the outdated, purely decorative background
103:
602:
Without the table, what's the point of using the template at all? Why can't users just enter this information into the article themselves?
94:
58:
107:
33:
240:
I'm going to suggest something pretty radical for this template: completely removing the table structure, for better
618:
still holds as true. There's really no reason at all that the standardized formatting/layout has to involve a table.
467:
333:
695:
I completely understand and appreciate that the template is based on commonly-encountered existing content, but
241:
643:
existed. Had I, I could have converted many articles. It's 2019, not 1990 and a table seems appropriate. --
655:
39:
677:
I guess that's kind of my argument, as well: It's 2019, not 2009, and using tables for layout is just
569:
Obviously that's something to consider on a case-by-case basis, but I think we should when possible.
267:
with this one. This particular template is relatively rare in that the table structure really adds
193:
507:
373:
223:
182:
737:
681:
Web 2.0 — and demonstrably sucks on mobile. I agree, on a desktop browser, the table layout is
661:
632:
227:
208:
186:
733:
672:
644:
628:
463:
329:
86:
575:
Such an effort seems worthwhile to me, and IMHO could start here. I don't see any reason to
479:
345:
724:
539:
533:
527:
169:
99:
511:
459:
377:
325:
748:
471:
337:
80:
729:
716:
639:
624:
407:
402:
397:
263:
of templates, not just this one, which I'm acknowledging as all the more reason to
582:
Should the table be reformatted for mobile display instead, using CSS or the like?
213:
Okay. Just wanted to check it with you before updating them. Thank you so much! —
102:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
607:
598:, I genuinely feel the best solution is to do away with the unnecessary table.
249:
76:
271:
to it. The information could just as easily be formatted — in fact, might be
153:). It would be required to have a "more complex" table, with parameters like
98:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge articles about
70:
52:
579:
do this, and instead wait for something that might never come around.
572:
Should this be done as part of a larger, organized, wiki-wide effort?
253:
444:
311:
145:
There are show's seasons with more than one release per season (
15:
278:
So, my proposal is simple. A reformatting such that this:
562:
Some anticipated potential questions, with my responses:
516:"Deep Breath" live pre-show and "After Who Live"
382:"Deep Breath" live pre-show and "After Who Live"
106:. For how to use this banner template, see its
8:
47:
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
280:
49:
566:Should we do this for other templates?
556:
430:Doctor Who: The Complete Eighth Series
288:Doctor Who: The Complete Eighth Series
419:
416:
413:
406:
401:
396:
391:
297:
294:
285:
92:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
259:This is an issue that applies to a
38:It is of interest to the following
755:Template-Class television articles
715:editors, including and especially
488:Doctor Who: The Ultimate Companion
485:Doctor Who: The Ultimate Time Lord
354:Doctor Who: The Ultimate Companion
351:Doctor Who: The Ultimate Time Lord
14:
760:NA-importance television articles
551:advantage, though, is that it's
116:Knowledge:WikiProject Television
79:
69:
51:
20:
765:WikiProject Television articles
252:article looks on my Galaxy S6:
119:Template:WikiProject Television
559:parameter for the title row.
1:
723:replacing it with a bunch of
633:11:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
228:00:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
209:00:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
187:23:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
707:I don't in any way mean to
254:Screenshots hosted at Imgur
781:
738:01:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
494:Doctor Who: Earth Conquest
360:Doctor Who: Earth Conquest
662:05:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
638:I think you'll find that
321:
302:
244:, especially on mobile.
64:
46:
426:becomes, instead, this:
236:Reformat without tables
95:WikiProject Television
491:"Deep Breath" Q&A
357:"Deep Breath" Q&A
141:More than one release
282:
122:television articles
104:join the discussion
100:television programs
542:: 19 November 2014
536:: 24 November 2014
450:Subtitles: English
392:DVD release dates
317:Subtitles: English
281:
34:content assessment
711:the past work of
530:: 9 December 2014
523:DVD release dates
519:
510:" music video by
508:Don't Stop Me Now
464:Robot of Sherwood
458:Commentaries on "
424:
423:
420:19 November 2014
417:24 November 2014
385:
376:" music video by
374:Don't Stop Me Now
330:Robot of Sherwood
324:Commentaries on "
298:Special features
163:Special features2
138:
137:
134:
133:
130:
129:
87:Television portal
772:
676:
651:
648:
558:
517:
480:Doctor Who Extra
454:Special features
414:9 December 2014
383:
346:Doctor Who Extra
283:
242:WP:ACCESSIBILITY
220:
217:
206:
179:
176:
124:
123:
120:
117:
114:
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
780:
779:
775:
774:
773:
771:
770:
769:
745:
744:
670:
658:
649:
646:
524:
518:(Region 1 only)
497:Cast interviews
477:12 episodes of
455:
435:
432:
384:(Region 1 only)
363:Cast interviews
343:12 episodes of
238:
218:
215:
194:
177:
174:
170:Glee (season 1)
143:
121:
118:
115:
112:
111:
85:
78:
12:
11:
5:
778:
776:
768:
767:
762:
757:
747:
746:
743:
742:
741:
740:
705:
693:
665:
664:
656:
621:
620:
603:
600:
583:
580:
573:
570:
567:
544:
543:
537:
531:
522:
521:
520:
514:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
475:
460:Into the Dalek
453:
452:
451:
448:
442:
439:
433:
428:
422:
421:
418:
415:
411:
410:
405:
400:
394:
393:
389:
388:
387:
386:
380:
370:
367:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
349:
341:
326:Into the Dalek
320:
319:
318:
315:
309:
306:
300:
299:
296:
292:
291:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
172:. Thank you —
142:
139:
136:
135:
132:
131:
128:
127:
125:
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
777:
766:
763:
761:
758:
756:
753:
752:
750:
739:
735:
731:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
690:
684:
680:
674:
669:
668:
667:
666:
663:
659:
653:
652:
641:
637:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
619:
615:
613:
609:
604:
601:
599:
597:
592:
589:
584:
581:
578:
574:
571:
568:
565:
564:
563:
560:
554:
553:significantly
549:
541:
538:
535:
532:
529:
526:
525:
515:
513:
509:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
482:
481:
476:
473:
472:Kill the Moon
469:
468:The Caretaker
465:
461:
457:
456:
449:
446:
443:
440:
437:
436:
431:
427:
412:
409:
404:
399:
395:
390:
381:
379:
375:
371:
368:
365:
362:
359:
356:
353:
350:
348:
347:
342:
339:
338:Kill the Moon
335:
334:The Caretaker
331:
327:
323:
322:
316:
313:
310:
307:
304:
303:
301:
293:
290:
289:
284:
279:
276:
274:
270:
266:
262:
257:
255:
251:
245:
243:
235:
229:
225:
221:
212:
211:
210:
207:
205:
201:
197:
191:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
140:
126:
109:
108:documentation
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
720:
712:
708:
704:readability.
700:
696:
688:
687:
682:
678:
673:AussieLegend
645:
622:
616:
611:
605:
596:In this case
595:
593:
587:
585:
576:
561:
552:
547:
545:
478:
447:aspect ratio
429:
425:
344:
314:aspect ratio
295:Set details
287:
286:
277:
272:
268:
264:
260:
258:
246:
239:
214:
203:
199:
195:
173:
166:
162:
159:Set details2
158:
154:
150:
146:
144:
93:
40:WikiProjects
29:
725:CSS flexbox
500:TARDIS tour
438:12 episodes
434:Set details
366:TARDIS tour
305:12 episodes
749:Categories
608:Clone High
441:5-disc set
308:5-disc set
250:Clone High
151:"Volume 2"
147:"Volume 1"
113:Television
59:Television
709:criticize
683:slightly
591:already.
548:slightly
540:Region 4
534:Region 2
528:Region 1
503:Trailers
408:Region 4
403:Region 2
398:Region 1
369:Trailers
30:template
730:FeRDNYC
717:Alex 21
640:Alex 21
625:FeRDNYC
557:|color=
470:" and "
336:" and "
269:nothing
204:Whovian
650:Legend
647:Aussie
273:better
155:Title2
36:scale.
512:Foxes
378:Foxes
265:start
219:manha
178:manha
167:e.g.:
165:etc.
28:This
734:talk
701:Most
697:that
689:less
629:talk
466:", "
462:", "
445:16:9
332:", "
328:", "
312:16:9
224:talk
196:Alex
183:talk
161:and
149:and
721:not
713:any
623:--
612:was
577:not
261:lot
256:.)
216:Art
200:The
175:Art
751::
736:)
679:so
660:)
631:)
610:,
588:do
226:)
185:)
157:,
732:(
675::
671:@
657:✉
654:(
627:(
506:"
474:"
372:"
340:"
222:(
202:|
198:|
181:(
110:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
