Any views on this ? I thought that for big lists for certain articles we could start doing lists like that instead of one after the other.
Fox
Alternative ways For The last Three, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 1-8-2008 @ 03:27 PM by Optimist
I bring up here in the general tinWiki forum a post by Fox:
Optimist
Howdy Fox here. Now i don't know about you but the last three things i always do are See Also, Relevant Topics On AboveTopSecret,Com and External Links. Now we do have a current way of doing then which is the == == way which is good, but what about instead of that we use the column coding ? Its simple enough it turns the bog standard list into this...
Now does that look better ? What are your thoughts about this change ? Fox 13:58, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
Optimist
reply posted on 2-8-2008 @ 05:52 PM by Optimist
This method is a great layout 'trick', I do agree. If, for example, a list is really long, and each list item isn't a very long line, making
columns looks much more sensible in the page, in my opinion. Plus, if there's still a lot of text there and it takes up much space, reducing the font
size helps, too. Perhaps especially if the list is footnotes or such, and more a reference list than actual article text. The much more experienced,
so to say, wiki called Wikipedia uses this in many articles, I've seen.
I tried doing this type of thing in the ATS article, where there was a fairly long list of staff members. By arranging the in three columns, it got much more compact and took what looked like a more reasonable amount of space in the article. So I definitely support this suggestion as far as long lists are concerned. The "See also" list, however, maybe doesn't necessarily belong together with "External links" list, as I see it. Leaving the site and staying in the site is somwhat difference. Maybe it's also good to try and 'brag' a bit about the internal content? Something like that is how I think about it. About the discussion threads, I could however agree. I would claim I've thought to myself that those might belong as a sub section under "External links", and I actually have seen someone list them as just that. (I think I thought of it before I saw that, but I can't prove it... :-)
Anyway, making a table is still a little bit complicated for those who have no experience with wiki code, so if the lists are fairly short, I think it could be alright to just keep one column. If the list starts to look 'unreasonably' long, columns should definitely be used. Actually, I think I did that some place, not sure where though.
Optimist
P.S. How I personally list the last sections of lists is totally 'stolen' from Wikipedia. They seem to use this order:
See also
Notes (a.k.a. Footnotes)
References
Further reading (a.k.a. Bibliography)
External links
edit: maybe this is what I thought about...
[edit on 2-8-2008 by Optimist]
I tried doing this type of thing in the ATS article, where there was a fairly long list of staff members. By arranging the in three columns, it got much more compact and took what looked like a more reasonable amount of space in the article. So I definitely support this suggestion as far as long lists are concerned. The "See also" list, however, maybe doesn't necessarily belong together with "External links" list, as I see it. Leaving the site and staying in the site is somwhat difference. Maybe it's also good to try and 'brag' a bit about the internal content? Something like that is how I think about it. About the discussion threads, I could however agree. I would claim I've thought to myself that those might belong as a sub section under "External links", and I actually have seen someone list them as just that. (I think I thought of it before I saw that, but I can't prove it... :-)
Anyway, making a table is still a little bit complicated for those who have no experience with wiki code, so if the lists are fairly short, I think it could be alright to just keep one column. If the list starts to look 'unreasonably' long, columns should definitely be used. Actually, I think I did that some place, not sure where though.
Optimist
P.S. How I personally list the last sections of lists is totally 'stolen' from Wikipedia. They seem to use this order:
See also
Notes (a.k.a. Footnotes)
References
Further reading (a.k.a. Bibliography)
External links
edit: maybe this is what I thought about...
[edit on 2-8-2008 by Optimist]
Pages: ^^TOP^^
