PesachZ wrote:I see you removed the reference to the nugget, which explains why it is being transclued from a subpage in the first place.

IMO, there are many things that work behind the scenes of the wiki like that and we don't explain them today. Help me understand why that one in particular needs to be explained? The wiki is full of subpages that get transcluded and stand on their own too. We don't have similar links explaining they are transcluded.

I finally have a working draft in my user space.

deeploz wrote:

PesachZ wrote:I finally have a working draft in my user space.

Your link above is pointing to this thread
I guess you wanted to link to your actual user page.

Not sure how that happened but thanks, I updated it.

bummerdude69 wrote:

PesachZ wrote:I finally have a esachZ/Scripts]working draft in my user space.

Would we want download links that might change, rather than pointing to the forum post for the link? I'm split on this, so more for discussion then a complaint/ suggestion.

Most download links point to a repository and are not expected to change often, the same link works with new versions. But at the end of the day its the script authors choice. Most I imagine would choose to keep the link there. And if the link does one day fail, there also the forum link which can still be used as a backup.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android

I have now started the live conversion process. I will proceed in bits and pieces, and hopefully finish soon. anyone who wants to help please chime in.

I have finished moving and styling all the script content on the new scripts page.
I moved the geocaching bookmarklet to the Bookmarklets page.

Anyone who wants to help with removing double redirects is more than welcome to.

kentsmith9 wrote:This page looks great. Nice work. I really like the condensed feeling and flow of the scripts page with the new expand/collapse templates.

After looking at the new layout I had the following thoughts:

1. The first section on Browser requirements takes the form of the individual scripts because it uses the same expand template format. Personally I think it would look less confusing to either not collapse that section (my recommendation), or use a different format for the collapsed box.

I made the outline orange, indicating this is more of setup instructions.

kentsmith9 wrote:2. The Browser requirements section heading is the first section on the page, but it is included in the expand box, where all the other first level section headings are outside the expand box. IMO it looks inconsistent. I would suggest considering following the recommendation in point 1 above, or remove the first level header from the box and put a second level header inside.

I moved the top level header above the box, and created a new level header inside, then adjested the rest to H4.

kentsmith9 wrote:3. The info box on adding a new script has a very limited audience and would only apply to someone in edit more trying to add a script. Currently there is comment text at the top of the page describing what to do, so this info box seems unnecessary and confusing to the general audience.

The decision was made at the ehest of the wiki masters and moderators group after discussion to include this information here. The box is geared at scrip authors, who are not necessarily proficient wiki editors, and may not know where to find this info in the wiki-text.
This entire page is handled slightly differently from the rest of the wiki in deference to the script authors. As I'll explain below on some of your other points, there are several items on this page which are only the way they are to make it easier on the script authors, or to honor their wishes.

kentsmith9 wrote:4. The collapsed boxes feel a little too compressed and run together. Have we considered putting a white space break between the boxes to give a single line gap between each box?

Here is a test with a white space between each script in the first section. Do you think it looks better?, I liked the existing design, it kind of reminds me of flipping through a hanging file drawer, then opening the one I need when I see the right tab.

kentsmith9 wrote:5. When the individual scripts use section headers they display in the TOC and create some level of confusion for users who click those lower levels and end up in a collapsed section that does not match. I don't think we need the TOC to display the section headers in the individual tools, so I propose we use {{TOC limit|3}}.

I'm not sure I follow here, where is the confusion. If they click a subsection, and are taken to header of that section instead if to that spot in the section?
I'm not sure how confusing that would be to a user. But I dont mind restricting the TOC. Basically the only scripts this will effect are Toolbox, and URComments (with the coming update).

kentsmith9 wrote:6. Each section header is inconsistent with respect to use of initial caps and sentence caps. I propose we use all initial caps for consistency.

This is one of those items left alone in deference to the script authors. They wrote the script, they own it, and should be able to dictate its name. Many of the authors feel how it is displayed affects how people will refer to it in communication, and want to control the 'brand recognition' so-to-speak. As this is their work, we allow them to choose the title. Take a script like URComments for example, using the first letter rule would make it be named Urcomments, which isn't what the author wants.

kentsmith9 wrote:7. I see there is a template in each box indicating the content is transcluded from a nugget source. I recognize it provides a quick link for editors to pass to other editors the link to the subpage. The current description does not say that. Can we consider changing the text for this use to be something like "Quicklink to section subpage" or similar to be more clear why we have the link? I am not proposing changing the text for the default nugget link itself, although we may want to review that separately.

I understand what that means to a wiki editor, but why are we displaying that to the user? Is this part of some larger project to use that indicator on all pages with nuggets?

This link again only appears for nuggets used for scripts, not when the template is used on other pages. It was put here again to simplify things for script authors who are novice wiki writers. The mouseover on the link icon does say "link to nugget subpage". I'm trying to keep it subtle and not too obtrusive. Can you suggest where else you'd like to see this text?

The template describing the nugget is designed to give another clue to script authors, but the link to the subpage will not be displayed on other pages, except for these script pages.

kentsmith9 wrote:Thanks for the great responses.
...

PesachZ wrote:

kentsmith9 wrote:3. The info box on adding a new script has a very limited audience and would only apply to someone in edit more trying to add a script. Currently there is comment text at the top of the page describing what to do, so this info box seems unnecessary and confusing to the general audience.

The decision was made at the ehest of the wiki masters and moderators group after discussion to include this information here. The box is geared at scrip authors, who are not necessarily proficient wiki editors, and may not know where to find this info in the wiki-text.
This entire page is handled slightly differently from the rest of the wiki in deference to the script authors. As I'll explain below on some of your other points, there are several items on this page which are only the way they are to make it easier on the script authors, or to honor their wishes.

I am fine if the consensus was to include it here. What about where it is in the flow? The majority of readers don't need to see it. Would it make sense to create a section at the end down by "Developing scripts" called "Adding a script to this page" and putting it in a collapse box? It seems strange looking like it is part of the "Browser requirements" section. If the idea was to have it at the top, then how about the same proposed heading and a collapsed box?

That sounds like a good idea (to move it to bottom), I would support that if others are agreeable.

(If its just going be you and I talking in here I guess we can do it, but lets give a few days for others to comment).

kentsmith9 wrote:

PesachZ wrote:

kentsmith9 wrote:4. The collapsed boxes feel a little too compressed and run together. Have we considered putting a white space break between the boxes to give a single line gap between each box?

Here is a test with a white space between each script in the first section. Do you think it looks better?, I liked the existing design, it kind of reminds me of flipping through a hanging file drawer, then opening the one I need when I see the right tab.

I really like having the separation in your example, but I'd be fine with a smaller gap. What about incorporating a smaller white space gap at the end of the template? Then you just need to have editors remove all gaps from the basepage code to get consistent formatting?

I can look at making the gap smaller, but I'm not sure the best way to do that.

kentsmith9 wrote:

PesachZ wrote:

kentsmith9 wrote:5. When the individual scripts use section headers they display in the TOC and create some level of confusion for users who click those lower levels and end up in a collapsed section that does not match. I don't think we need the TOC to display the section headers in the individual tools, so I propose we use {{TOC limit|3}}.

I'm not sure I follow here, where is the confusion. If they click a subsection, and are taken to header of that section instead if to that spot in the section?
I'm not sure how confusing that would be to a user. But I dont mind restricting the TOC. Basically the only scripts this will effect are Toolbox, and URComments (with the coming update).

I personally think the TOC on this page should only drill down to the script titles. Helps further simplify a somewhat complex page that you have already greatly improved. Yes I believe the confusion is you don't get to where the TOC said. Therefore I think it would be better to hide the level you cannot immediately see.

I have no issue with limiting the TOC to 3, anyone object?

kentsmith9 wrote:...

PesachZ wrote:

kentsmith9 wrote:7. I see there is a template in each box indicating the content is transcluded from a nugget source. I recognize it provides a quick link for editors to pass to other editors the link to the subpage. The current description does not say that. Can we consider changing the text for this use to be something like "Quicklink to section subpage" or similar to be more clear why we have the link? I am not proposing changing the text for the default nugget link itself, although we may want to review that separately.

I understand what that means to a wiki editor, but why are we displaying that to the user? Is this part of some larger project to use that indicator on all pages with nuggets?

This link again only appears for nuggets used for scripts, not when the template is used on other pages. It was put here again to simplify things for script authors who are novice wiki writers. The mouseover on the link icon does say "link to nugget subpage". I'm trying to keep it subtle and not too obtrusive. Can you suggest where else you'd like to see this text?

The template describing the nugget is designed to give another clue to script authors, but the link to the subpage will not be displayed on other pages, except for these script pages.

I like that this look and feel is only on this script page for the benefit of the script authors on this page. Can we also ensure the script users who likely know even less about Wiki operation don't get further confused? I don't think I saw in your answer the reason we cannot change that current message to "Quicklink to section subpage." Maybe that is what you meant by "not being too obtrusive." In this case as a user or script author, I have no idea why I see a message that "this content is transcluded from a nugget source."

Also can we put it in a right-aligned box and wrap the text around it so it is more likely to be skipped if you don't know why its there? Or do we think the script authors won't understand that?

I appreciate that we are trying to make it easier for the script authors and I think you have done an awesome job with the script template. Maybe we need one more section that is a pictorial of an example section and how to use it?

The answer was "the text is already in the mouseover", and I was trying to keep it subtle. That said I'm definitely open to improvements. Would you be willing to mock up a sample that you think will work better so I can see it (and the code)?

kentsmith9 wrote:New Thought
After clicking the TOC entry for a section, the screen is located with the heading at the top of the page and the [Collapse] entry is half covered by the top of the screen. I presume it is because the template has the collapse code before the header, but maybe there is a way to put the collapse text in a box and push it down a half line so it is closer in line with the header. That way it is not half covered by the top of the screen. If you want I can play around with some code to see if I can build a solution and present it to you.

Again, great work on this page and all these templates.

I don't know the best way to fix this, it is a limitation of the current {{Collapsible section}}. I'd be delighted if you could find a fix.
Thanks for your comments and valuable feedback.

kentsmith9 wrote:Here is my test page and section with the shifted link.

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:Kentsmi ... Highlights

Changes made to {{Expand}} (I copied to ExpandTest)

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/index.php?ti ... did=121297

I'll look at the Expand positioning over the next few days.

I see you removed the reference to the nugget, which explains why it is being transclued from a subpage in the first place.

seb-d59 wrote:Hi all!

Can I add a section on these two script?
"Search In PM" and "Split WME POI" available in my signature.

If you need any technical assistance setting up the user page draft, writing the description posting of the request in the forum, or with adding the actual page to the wiki scripts page once approved, feel free to ask, and we will be happy to help.

Sent from Android using Tapatalk