Template talk:Small

From GuildWiki
Revision as of 00:08, 28 September 2010 by Mendel17257@legacy41699584 (talk | contribs) (If you ask me, add it now)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

The current usage ({{small}}Some text</small>) is non-intuitive. It should be like other templates where the affected text is the template parameter ({{small|Some text}}). —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 13:16, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

I don't want a template like that. If you feel the current style is unacceptable, delete the template and I'll make do without. --◄mendel► 21:38, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Uh, what? I sorta agree with Ish that having to combine two differently formatted tags is less than intuitive. Why do you feel the template benefits from this way? --JonTheMon 04:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
I wanted a shortcut to an adapted <small> tag, saving me typing the style out by hand, and being easier to read and less disruptive to the wikitext. If that's not intuitive enough for you, just delete it. I did think about a Template:/small , but that'd just be the </small> tag with another name, so kinda pointless.
Maybe we could solve my original problem better by adding .css for the small tag to set the line height to 130%, if you feel this would be ok to apply everywhere on the wiki. (If it works correctly, then the comparison on the template docs here should look identical.) --◄mendel► 10:17, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well, small is most often used within comments to indicate something that is somewhat tangential to the main point. I went to a Rock Band Party on Saturday, and I totally rocked the drums on expert! But none of you really wanted to know that, so... I'm just gonna stretch this out to make sure it's at least 1 full line long at 1280x1024. And I did always think that it looked odd for the "small" text to still take up the same vertical space. Let's see if I can't get this to wrap over 4 lines to show the reduced line-height in action. Without resorting to boilerplate. Or repeating myself. Almost there... Oh hey, look, a squirrel! The concern there would be how the small's line-height interacts with the normal-sized text around it, and it looks like it works just fine. I would support adding this to Common.css. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 13:00, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
The first and last line kinda space differently, but that's likely due to having different text sizes on different lines. It seems to get even around 170%, but I don't know if we want to make it even in this case. And I don't really mind if this is added to the css. --JonTheMon 14:04, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
170% is the same as not specifying line-height at all, because that matches the standard text. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:02, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it won't break anything horribly, so we could just try it and see if we see problems. I think 150% might be a compromise that is a reduction, but makes the anomalies on the first and last line less pronounced. --◄mendel► 22:33, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Should I add it now or wait for more feedback? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 22:40, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
If you ask me, add it now, wait for feedback to arrive later. ;) If Jon is right, we're reducing line height for the small tag by only (20/170) = 12%, a small enough change to not warrant much ado, and it's uncontroversial here. --◄mendel► 00:08, September 28, 2010 (UTC)