Template talk:Democracy sidebar | width

Width

The reason I changed the width to 25% is that for those reading from a tablet, like me, the template can get as wide as the text to the left. Frankly, I can't see why the template should be larger than the text it containes, but I said to myself, "25% is decent, if someone has that space why not let it strech up to that". I am glad to see someone is watching, In my opinion it is much better to set some width than leave it empty. So, if you prefer some other width, just set it. I'll answer here how it looks on my end. Yaniv256 (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support a maximum width of 25%, but otherwise it's going to be really big on large screens. the default set by {{sidebar}} is 22em, which is the same as about a hundred thousand other infobox/sidebar templates on WP. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think 25% might be too big ... The smaller the better as far as I am concerned. What would be the best size on your end? Yaniv256 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from as I tend to get on Wikipedia using handhelds myself, but stretching the width of only this template (and the other you recently edited) will create an inconsistency with the default template size used by the vast majority of templates on Wikipedia (as Frietjes pointed out). You have a commendable interest in improving the Democracy-related pages on Wikipedia where this template is likely to be seen (and have done a really good job!), but what of the other templates on Wikipedia that use the 22em width default? They will cause the same problem when you view them on your tablet. Rather than changing the template width of only the Wikipedia templates that you personally come across, I would suggest leaving the template width the default size for now but sparking a discussion to change the default settings on Help_talk:Template or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates to take into consideration tablet viewing restraints. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(Side note... the 20% width looks much better than the 25% you originally set it at. On my end, setting it to 25% actually stretched the template size, which given your previous comment I don't think was your intention.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I agree in principal that this should be addressed on a higher level, however, I have little interest to push big projects like that. Wikipedia is also bottom up ... If you feel strongly about this, well, I guess it is not very important to me anyway. Yaniv256 (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't particularly feel that strongly about it, especially now that the width is at 20% and looks great on my own screen, but I haven't a clue what it'll look like on other people's screens, so they may complain and want it changed (in which case, the default template size would probably be the best comprise, since it favors no particular individual user's screen size... but then again, this 20% may not bother anyone, and no one would complain.) Just to clarify, when you set the width at 25% originally, did it actually shrink the size of the template on your end? It stretched it on mine, and given Frietjes' comment, I think it stretched it on their end too. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. For me the infobox shrinks for anything between 50% and 30%. At about 30% it hits the size of the text and stops shrinking. Anything below that looks exactly the same. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 03:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I added a max-width:22em to prevent it from consuming the screen on a wide display. by the way, if you set width to "auto" it will shrink the box to the width of the longest line, which is probably what you are after. however, this will cause an inconsistency between stacked boxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)