Template talk:Shortcut/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Use of shortcut template 2 Link 3 Text overlapping the div box 4 Tableless rewrite 5 Redirect link 6 Guideline 7 Request to administrators 8 Template:Shortcut/ 8.1 Please stop forking 9 Fix the html 10 Edit protected request 11 Obvious printing issue 12 Interwiki 13 Positioning 14 'Borrowing' this template 15 Add this IW 16 Make template more convenient 17 Add sk: 18 color, css, id 19 Plural 20 New design proposal

Use of shortcut template

I asked this question at Wikipedia talk:WP, but I thought I'd ask it here as well in case anyone is watching this page. I was just wondering if there has been any discussion on the use of this shortcut template. I see it on some of the [[WP:]] pages, but not all. Should I (or someone else) go around and stick this on every single one, or is there a reason why it's only on a few now? Thanks.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 20:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and start adding these, since I don't see any reason why that would be a bad thing. If I'm missing something, feel free to revert.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 16:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There should be one piece of data stored that does these things:

• Update Wikipedia:WP to include that page
• Cause "WP:(page name)" to redirect to "Wikipedia:(page name)"
• Cause "Wikipedia:(page name)" to contain the shortcut template.

There are other places where some standardisation like this would be useful too.

Brianjd 05:01, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I actually did find a few instances where it seemed the template was distracting or not necessary (at least in my opinion), but other than those cases I agree that's a good idea.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 02:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What would those instances be? I have not seen any and Wikipedia should be consistent!

Brianjd 09:10, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember the specific cases now, but there were a few of the pages where it seemed to be cluttering or distracting on a certain page. For example, when new users come to the sandbox, they should be able to experiment with editing easily without being distracted by excess information. I feel that putting the template on that page would cause many of those newcomers to click on the shortcut links and perhaps get overwhelmed with information about templates and redirects that they don't understand yet. That's one of the situations where I feel it shouldn't be included.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 04:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Shortcut page says that this template is for Wikipedia project reference pages, but I was wondering if I can use this for normal articles as well. For example, there was a note at the beginning of the List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles mentioning a shortcut, UrSWIT, which I replaced with the template. Chiphead 21:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There have been a few edits to that page since, and the shortcut template is still there, so I'm going to assume there are no objections. Chiphead 20:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Link

Why is the shortcut linked in all uses of this template? It's not very useful to have a link to a redirect that goes to the page you're already on. Goplat 01:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's useful, since most people using pages in the Wikipedia: namespace are active Wiki users, and therefore usually find it useful to be able to visit a page by its name directly. For example, I use WP:RD all the time to access Wikipedia:Reference desk. You can also use it in intra-wiki links like this (goes to the reference desk), and if you're like me and have a Firefox or Opera plugin set up for Wikipedia articles, it's handy. (I have Opera set up to replace "wiki <something>" with "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<something>". :-)) splintax ^(talk) 09:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Text overlapping the div box

Now that portals are becoming more common, this template is being placed within one of the portal's information boxes, usually in the introduction box. The problem that arises then is that the first line of text in the intro box will often overlap the divbox for {{Shortcut}}. I've tried a few different strategies on the trains portal, but nothing short of a much shorter first line of text in the intro box seems to work reliably. Is there a CSS guru who can sort this out? AdThanksVance. slambo 15:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tableless rewrite

This is a tableless rewrite of the current template. Source:

<div class="noprint" id="shortcut" style="border:1px solid #999; background:#fff; margin:0 0 .5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:5px; clear:right; font-size:smaller;float:right;">
'''[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut]]''':<br />
'''{{{1}}}'''
</div>

– TTD Bark! (pawprints) 23:33:01, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

I tried using this rewrite on Portal:Trains, but the text still overlaps the box for me (Firefox on both WinXP and SuSE Linux 9.0). This code reduces the overlap, but doesn't completely solve the issue. Complicating the problem is that the box on the portal is used within another div box for the portal intro. slambo 10:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect link

I'm thinking that rather than having the link to the redirect page be a regular internal link, it should be an external link that removes the redirecting function (i.e. in the shortcut box for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, rather than having the link be to WP:CSD, have it be to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:CSD&redirect=no (so it would read: WP:CSD)). That way, if one clicks on the link, they don't automatically get redirected right back to where they started, they get to actually see the redirect, which is presumable why they clicked the link to begin with. They can, of course, click on WP:CSD and then once they're redirected click it again (where it says "Redirected from WP:CSD") and get there, but this eliminates the unnecessary interim bit. Granted, it doesn't look as nice, but I'd think it'd work better. Any thoughts? --Blackcap | talk 04:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups? Alphax ^τεχ 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Guideline

Please replace WP:V / Wikipedia:Verifiability by WP:SHORT / Wikipedia:Shortcut in the <noinclude>...</noinclude> part. As example WP:SHORT is as good as WP:V, additionally it offers the relevant guideline with links to related information. Omniplex 10:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Stifle 15:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Shortcut (edit discuss links history) is fine now. Omniplex  17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Request to administrators

I suggest the box read: Shortcut(s) —Markles 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

More than one shortcut is often a dubious idea, see some IMO bad examples on WP:WP, better don't encourage it. Check out Template:Editprotected (edit talk links history) for similar proposals, the admins might miss it otherwise.

Unrelated point keeping Markles' fitting header, please add...

[[Category:Wikipedia header templates]]

...near the end of Template:Shortcut (edit talk links history) in its <noinclude> section. Omniplex 18:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

added cat. Gflores^Talk 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention category sort key ...|{{PAGENAME}}]] - not so important, thanks. -- Omniplex 13:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Shortcut/

TfD nomination of Template:Shortcut/

Template:Shortcut/ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Next section copied from User talk:Omniplex in conjunction with the pending TfD. -- Omniplex 10:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop forking

Look, I understand you're using an older OS and browser and some things don't look right to you, but forking is not the answer. Please stop forking templates (such as {{ifdef}} and {{shortcut/}}), it adds far more complexity to a system that's already accused of being too complicated. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if {{Shortcut}} would be not protected I couldn't add the funtion of {{Shortcut/}} into it, they use different sizes, the latter creates an optional table cell, the former is standalone, it would be like two very different templates in one with at least two #if:. Maybe the code could share the WP:Short link, big deal.

On the other hand as they are they use no if at all, and by their name it's clear that they are related but different. I've taken exactly the CSS as developed for {{Villagepumppages}} weeks ago, nobody said that this is bad. I've added the "optional shortcut" feature to {{Villagepumppages}} as you proposed it weeks ago. I've added your new <noinclude>|</noinclude> trick.

It is exactly the look and feel as all those weeks, and nothing was wrong with that. And if you suddenly don't like it there is now one place to change it. -- Omniplex 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with #if (or even {{qif}}), both are practically free (the resulting pages are cached, they are not evaluated every time). Ergo, there's no reason to avoid them if it cuts down on the number of templates in use (and especially if it cuts down on the number of forks). Things were fine how they were; things were even fine when I integrated {{shortcut}} directly into (for example) {{historical}}. Things stopped being fine when you forked shortcut to shortcut/ just because it wasn't visually appealing to you.

We had this same problem yesterday with {{ifdef}}, so I get the impression it's not something you plan on stopping (hence my request: please stop forking). If you think you need to fork a template, get outside opinion first, there may very well be a solution (or you may find that people don't agree with the changes you're proposing). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no fork, repeating that can't make it true. It uses precisely the same number of templates (= one) as your proposal. But no if. It's so far the best solution, tune it as you like. We'll use #if: or ifndef when we really need them, which isn't the case anymore for shortcuts. -- Omniplex 10:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying it's not also doesn't make it not a fork. Your method uses {{shortcut/}} a fork of {{shortcut}}. My method uses a pre-existing template ({{shortcut}}), your method uses a new template because you (seemingly) have an issue with how it appears. And again, there is no reason to avoid #if or {{qif}}. WP:AUM was rejected, and #if is, as I explained, basically free. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fix the html

The html in this box is missing the </th> currently. -The DJ 15:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Please add the sort key to the category by changing

[[Category:Wikipedia header templates]]

to

[[Category:Wikipedia header templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Done. --CBDunkerson 11:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Obvious printing issue

Hi guys, I would just like to use class="noprint" for the whole table, so that one doesn't get the borders (and only them) when printing. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now after you've said it it's obvious. I've fixed it for Template:Shortcut (edit talk links history) on Meta, here an admin will do it. AFAIK it's also better to start the table on line one like this:

{{{1{{{1|}}}|<table style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .5em .5em .5em 1em; padding: 5px; float: right" class="noprint">
<th id="shortcut" align="center" valign="top"><small>[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut]]:<br />{{{1|}}}</small>
</table>}}}<noinclude> etc.

-- Omniplex 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made the noprint change, but not the all-on-one-line one - perhaps someone else can chime in on that... RN 08:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks RN. Though it doesn't hurt, class="noprint" on the th is now superflous (I meant to move that one from the table header to the whole table). Thanks again for the fix. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 09:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Can you please add interwiki links to:

• he:תבנית:קיצור דרך
• de:Vorlage:Shortcut
• als:Vorlage:Shortcut
• eo:Ŝablono:Mallongigo

and possibly more languages? --Amir E. Aharoni 13:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• sl:Predloga:Bližnjica --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 00:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also hu:Sablon:Rövidítés --Tgr 11:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Slambo (Speak) 15:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And also nl:Sjabloon:Verwijzing - Ronaldvd 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Slambo (Speak) 15:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Positioning

Is there a way to position this template on the left/center of a page? If not, could an optional option be added so that, by default (option is not entered) the template appears on the right side, but if an option ("left", "center", "right") is entered, the template is positioned there? 24.126.199.129 07:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Try {{shortcut-r}}. 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

'Borrowing' this template

I was thinking of importing this template to another project I work on, so I went to view the source and noticed something that I don't understand. Why is the table surrounded by → {{{1{{{1|}}}|}}} ← that mess? –Xoid 07:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? –Xoid 02:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Add this IW

add this pls [[mk:Шаблон:Скратенпат]] Guitardemon666

Done. Slambo (Speak) 15:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Make template more convenient

Right now, this template requires its parameter, {{{1}}}, to be [[WP:WP]] for one shortcut, or the complicated [[WP:WP]]<br />[[WP:CUTS]]<br />[[WP:]] for multiple shortcuts. Would it be possible to automate this? I would not mind switching the formatting for instances of this template. The current version goes:

{{{1{{{1|}}}| <table style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; float: right" class="noprint"> <th id="shortcut" class="noprint" align="center" valign="top"><small>[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut]]:<br />{{{1|}}}</small> </th></table>}}}

An intermediate version might go this way, for three shortcuts <and adding the somehow missing closing th tag:

<table style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; float: right" class="noprint"> <th id="shortcut" class="noprint" align="center" valign="top"><small>[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut]]:<br />{{#ifexist:{{{1|}}}|[[{{{1}}}]]|{{{1|}}} }}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<br />[[{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<br />[[{{{3}}}]]}}</small> </th></table>

This would not affect current versions of the template. Or for four shortcuts:

<table style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; float: right" class="noprint"> <th id="shortcut" class="noprint" align="center" valign="top"><small>[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut]]:<br />{{#ifexist:{{{1|}}}|[[{{{1}}}]]|{{{1|}}} }}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<br />[[{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<br />[[{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|<br />[[{{{4}}}]]}}</small> </th></table>

Another intermediate version below would use "redirect=no" to go to the shortcut page, rather than back to the target.

<table>style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; float: right" class="noprint plainlinks"> <th id="shortcut" class="noprint" align="center" valign="top"><small>[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut]]:<br />{{#ifexist:{{{1|}}}|[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{1}}}|redirect=no}} {{{1}}}]|{{{1|}}} }}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<br />[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{2}}}|redirect=no}} {{{2}}}]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<br />[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{3}}}|redirect=no}} {{{3}}}]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|<br />[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{4}}}|redirect=no}} {{{4}}}]}}</small> </th></table>

And when everything is converted (if this change is supported), the following version can be implemented:

<table style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; float: right" class="noprint"> <th id="shortcut" class="noprint" align="center" valign="top"><small>[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut]]:<br />{{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[{{{1}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<br />[[{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<br />[[{{{3}}}]]}}</small> </th></table>

And for "redirect=no":

<table style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; float: right" class="noprint plainlinks"> <th id="shortcut" class="noprint" align="center" valign="top"><small>[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut]]:<br />{{#if:{{{1|}}}|[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{1}}}|redirect=no}} {{{1}}}]}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}|<br />[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{2}}}|redirect=no}} {{{2}}}]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<br />[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{3}}}|redirect=no}} {{{3}}}]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|<br />[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{4}}}|redirect=no}} {{{4}}}]}}</small> </th></table>

{{User:Gracenotes/Sandbox|WP:SAND|WP:SB}} An example for the above one, using {{User:Gracenotes/Sandbox|WP:SAND|WP:SB}}, is to the (what else?) right. Removed to change sandbox, 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I haven't screwed up any code. *cough yes the source code gets complicated fast* Any thoughts about this? Gracenotes^T § 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I've always found it a bit silly that there's only one parameter, it seems a bit of a hack to slip in all those line breaks. One the other hand, using multiple parameters opens up two cans of worms: (1) where do we set the limit -- maybe five, for now? (2) to link the params, or not? Currently, they're all manually linked in the parameter, which means that adding hard brackets to the template will probably break every single current transclusion (easy but tedious to fix). Redirect=no seems to be another issue; I can see the rationale for that, but want to see how other people feel about it. They'll count as external links, at that point, which might be a drawback. (Even if we use plainlinks, it's still a distinct CSS class). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The first 3 of 5 suggested modifications won't break a single thing if someone just changed the source code to them right now (because of the #ifexist ParserFunction: the page "WP:SB" exists, but the page "[[WP:SB]]" does not). Gracenotes^T § 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, very clever. I missed that. Will get around to implementing this, soon. Think I'll avoid the redirect=no bit, for now, but feel free to get a second opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Everything seems to check out. If we do want to change the rules for {{{1}}}, it looks like we'll also need to update {{policy}} (and any other templates that might include shortcuts) to match. Haven't looked into this too far, yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's broke. The old code made it so if you didn't pass a parameter, nothing was displayed (see {{Rejected}} for an example of where this change caused issues). This new code displays an empty box if no parameter is provided. Please be more careful in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not broken, since Luna Santin and I implemented condition calls from header templates (that really should have been there from the beginning). I accidentally reverted myself, but self-reverted my reversion. Refreshing a page on which {{rejected}} is transcluded should help. Gracenotes^T § 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Add sk:

Please, add sk:. sk:Šablóna:Skratka —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 16:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

color, css, id

I noticed that the color changed on talk pages, so I came to see how I could override it in my monobook.css. I found that there is no css class for this template; I propose adding class="template-shortcut" to the table. Also, it is not unreasonable to have more than one shortcut template in the same page; see WP:ENGVAR. So the 'id' in the th should be changed. Why is that an id, anyway? It's not used in common.css or monobook.css. CMummert · talk 12:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. The following works:

table.Template-Shortcut { background-color: #fff !important; border-color: #aaa !important; }

CMummert · talk 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How is orange the 'correct' talk page colour? It's awful, and I can't understand what was malfunctioning with an unobtrusive clear box? Splash - tk 21:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is the "correct" color; I didn't make the original change. It is true that the background color of css style 'messagebox-talk' is an orange/brown color, so the change to the shortcut template makes it match other talk page boxes. You can use css like I quote above, in your monobook.css, to either set a fixed background color or turn off the background color. CMummert · talk 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I wouldn't describe it as "orange" (it looks more like a pale shade of brown to me), and please see Wikipedia:Talk page templates.

2. The original design (which remains on non-talk pages) is white, not clear. Perhaps your display is inaccurate. —David Levy 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's possible users thought it was clear if set their content background to always be white (like me). If I had been forced to guess, I would have guessed it was clear, not white. CMummert · talk 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Splash/monobook.css doesn't appear to contain such a setting. —David Levy 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. It's more like the color of egg yolk.

2. Indeed, without a checkered background it's often difficult to tell the difference, but I think we know what he meant to say. The template's background has been white for almost three years. Before that, it was in fact transparent, with a blue dashed border instead of a solid grey one. —freak(talk) 10:28, Apr. 16, 2007 (UTC)

1. It doesn't resemble the color of egg yolk on any display that I've owned. It looks tan to me. It probably would be possible to tweak the settings and arrive at a shade that appears roughly as intended for both of us. (I previously did this with the "messagebox.merge" class, which was supposed to be purple but looked pink on some displays.)

2. Until recently, MediaWiki lacked the conditional syntax through which selective styling (based upon the namespace) is made possible. —David Levy 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1. What's wrong with white?

2. What's wrong with white? —freak(talk) 15:45, Apr. 16, 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the standard talk page template color. —David Levy 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this relates, in the least, to the page you've referred to above. However, I posted some talk about this template on the talk page of the the talk page templates page, if that makes any sense at all, which it probably won't. —freak(talk) 10:28, Apr. 16, 2007 (UTC)

That does make sense, and I've replied to your message. —David Levy 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My previous comment was intended neither to make sense, or solicit a response. —freak(talk) 15:45, Apr. 16, 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. —David Levy 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Plural

{{Editprotected}}

Currently if there is only one short cut the template displays the following.

Shortcut: SHORTCUT

This is fine, however, if you've got more than one, here's what you get.

Shortcut: SHORTCUT 1 SHORTCUT 2 SHORTCUT 3

Notice how the word Shortcut is not pluralised. It's a minor point, though, wouldn't be hard to fix , however, of course, the page is protected. Jimp 04:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The following should work.

<noinclude>{{protected template}}</noinclude><table class="noprint Template-Shortcut" style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; float: right"> <th class="noprint" align="center" valign="top"><small>[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s|}}]]:<br />{{#ifexist:{{{1|}}}|[[{{{1}}}]]|{{{1|}}} }}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<br />[[{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<br />[[{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|<br />[[{{{4}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|<br />[[{{{5}}}]]}}</small> </th></table><noinclude>{{/doc}}</noinclude>

I.e. stick an {{#if:{{{2|}}}|s|}} after Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut. Jimp 11&14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, much nicer. Jimp 05:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would even prefer "{{plural:{{{2|1}}}||s}}", because it seems more elegant, but functionality over elegance, perhaps :) Gracenotes^T § 04:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New design proposal

WP:ASDFJKL

WP:SMTH WP:TEST WP:ABC

I want to propose a new design for this template. It is used in ruWiki, and similar ideas are used in several other wikis, e.g. nl:.

The template code would look like this:

<includeonly>{|class="noprint" style="float:right;clear:right;margin-left:0.75em;border:1px solid #AFCFF2;font-size:smaller;" cellspacing=0
 |style="background:#F0F8FF;padding:4px;"|<imagemap>
Image:Gtk-redo-ltr.svg|17px
rect 0 0 100 100 [[Wikipedia:List of shortcuts|Shortcut]]
desc none
</imagemap>
 |style="padding:4px;vertical-align:middle;line-height:1.25em;font-weight:800;"|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<br/>{{{2}}}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<br/>{{{3}}}}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|<br/>{{{4}}}}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|<br/>{{{5}}}}}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|<br/>{{{6}}}}}{{#if:{{{7|}}}|<br/>{{{7}}}}}{{#if:{{{8|}}}|<br/>{{{8}}}}}
 |}</includeonly>

— Kalan 09:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This would be a major change; disabling the editprotected until there's consensus for something like this. Put editprotected back up if a consensus emerges, or if there's been no discussion after a reasonable length of time. --ais523 10:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unsure about using {{editprotected}} too. — Kalan 10:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My only real objection is the text "click to view full list". Let's avoid click here syndrome. Slambo (Speak) 11:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! — Kalan 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. B-) Slambo (Speak) 13:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the proposed design. It sometimes is appropriate to use an imagemap as a supplement to a text-based link, but using one as an outright replacement (and hiding the explanation of the box's nature as alt text) is a nonstandard setup that would only confuse people. —David Levy 11:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to add a small question mark near the arrow. If the user is confused, he/she will be able to click this mark and read the WP:WP. — Kalan 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The current design includes a fully visible "Shortcut" or "Shortcuts" label. What is the advantage of hiding this straightforward explanation behind a nonstandard interface? —David Levy 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The label "Shortcut(s)" is annoying and redundant now, so I propose to make the box smaller and more accurate. If a newbie will meet it, he will move his/her mouse over the arrow (because tooltips are an informal Wikipedia standard) and get the information on it's usage. — Kalan 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how a straightforward explanation of the box's nature is redundant (or annoying), nor do I see how hiding this label behind an icon would make the box "more accurate." The Wikipedia standard is for images to be linked to their description pages (with the rare exceptions usually supplementing text links), so the proposed interface is unintuitive. —David Levy 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut

WP:SHORT

Shortcut

WP:SHORT

I have to agree with David Levy on this. Although the suggested design does look very good it is less accessible. And tooltips doesn't work in several of the browsers I have tested. Ever tried to read tooltips in an older browser or on a touchscreen on a handheld? But I like the colours, it reminds me of the infoboxes we use at Meta. Check out the boxes to the right, I just played around a little. Perhaps the shortcut boxes should be brown on talk pages since that is the standard?

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have changed my mind. Let's keep the boxes plain white everywhere so they are easy to recognise.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)