Template talk:File

I've very hesitantly included the line break... on one hand it does seem (to me) to make the page layout seem clearer, but on the other hand, it is not the best looking thing in the world... so feel free to argue here about alternatives, or just to take out the line break (i.e. tell me how you feel about it). --Feldmahler 00:07, 4 November 2006 (EST)

Seems to look fine --A Witt 01:31, 4 November 2006 (EST)

Incase you ever need it... <br clear="all" /> is clear all or basically a page break, works for floating windows and div's of course. --A Witt


I think that there *must* be a better (nicer looking) way of showing whether the file is a typeset or scan... but I haven't found it yet. Anyone is welcome to try, or give suggestions :) --Feldmahler 03:55, 31 December 2006 (EST)

You could use two different templates. I'm not sure how much that would complicate file uploading or other things though. What do you think looks bad about it by the way? Horndude77 18:19, 31 December 2006 (EST)
I guess it is not *that* ugly... just that I thought it might look better if scans and typesets are indicated with pics and not text. Guess it's not a major problem :) --Feldmahler 17:37, 2 January 2007 (EST)
Yeah, It looks like it's not on the right place, but I can't think of much better. Maybe "Download Scanned PDF / Download Typeset PDF?"
By the way, I was thinking about thumbnails, see Test page. Thumbnail would only be displayed if a thumbnail-filename-field is not empty, thanks to your interesting Parserfunctions. Problem would be the resizing if the dimensions don't fit. --Peter 18:19, 2 January 2007 (EST)
I can't really take credit for writing that nice ParserFunctions extension ;) But yes, it seems like a nice idea to include a thumbnail field, though I don't know how many will use it... maybe people wanting to upload thumbnails can just manually edit the file entry to include that field (with support in the template of course)? --Feldmahler 02:21, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Hi, I experimented a little for improving that ugly first line. You can view the results on Test page, it's using Template:File test. I have some problems aligning the width of the first bar with the big box. Please tell me what you think, or make improvements as you like.
Another addition might be the possibility to view a sample detail of the score, i.e. the first bars. This is to have an idea if those 20mb might be useful to download. Tell me your opinion!--Peter 05:02, 4 January 2007 (EST)
I like the idea! The main problem that I think will make this quite hard to actually implement is the fact that people have to manually upload these thumbnails/previews. Theoretically, I should be able to make the wiki generate (and manage) the thumbnails or previews automatically with ImageMagick, but to do that with PDF files I would need not only ImageMagick (which is present on the server), but also PDFtk (which is not). Otherwise, it would be quite impossible, as I cannot upload executable files onto the site :/ And so even though I like the idea, I'm unable to implement it :( --Feldmahler 05:26, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Template width

I changed the template to use percentages for width instead of a fixed size because I thought that was the only way to make the two boxes line up across all browsers, and because it looked pretty good on my 1024x768 screen... but I don't know about other screen resolutions, so please advise if there are problems (or if it looks ugly) :) --Feldmahler 15:44, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Hello there! I got into an edit conflict since i was already typing the following comment :)

Since your latest change, the second table width didn't change in Firefox, but in IE the table is now occupying 100% of the screen width. I think 100% is not very good for design. For example, on my widescreen monitor this is difficult to read (all images end up to the far right edge). The difference between IE and Firefox seems to be caused by a different interpretation of the per cent values in the second table rows. Firefox calculates them as the % of the parent which is the table, whereas IE makes it a % of the screen width. Or something :)

I've managed to align them by replacing the 2 tabs ("::", which caused the trouble) by a margin-left value of 5%, and I've changed the total width to 75%. The alignation can also be done by pixel values. See Template:File test and Test page for the result.

In the real template I've added valign values to other fields as well, for vertical alignation of the cells with more than one line of text.

--Peter 15:57, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Nice idea for avoiding the tabbing business. Actually I think now that making it fixed pixel width might not be a bad idea (I did a test of this on the test page, you can check and see whether you think it is acceptable or not).
The original problem I had with it was that it seemed fairly cramped on my screen (since my screen is so low resolution), which is why I made it 100% width, which also made it the same across different browsers.
Funny thing is that it seemed fine to me on Firefox maybe it's different on your end because of screen resolution? But anyway that shouldn't be a problem with fixed pixels :)
Also, for some reason, not using a fixed pixel width (except for width=100%) will break the template on Konqueror, and by inference Safari too (both use KHTML), which is not a terrible large share of the browser pie but still somewhat significant (and on the rise). But apparently using a fixed pixel width fixes this also :)
Anyway, if you think the test template I edited is acceptable you can merge it into the main File template :) --Feldmahler 16:25, 20 January 2007 (EST)
Hey, you're the admin ;) I merged it, plus narrowed the first box with the IMSLP#.--Peter 18:40, 20 January 2007 (EST)
Hahaha... but this is a wiki ;) Anyway, the funny thing is that now the IMSLP number breaks into two lines (first line with "* IMSLP" and second line with the actual number) here, very possibly due to slight font size differences (I *am* using Linux after all)... so I'll probably have to increase the size of that field again lol. I think I now know why website design is so hard ;) --Feldmahler 18:48, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Hmm... very strange now. The width is ok, but now I get dark borders on the right edge which weren't there before. And the space between the file boxes seems uncontrollable (usually, I removed the extra space between different files of the same edition in order to create some coherence but that's not working anymore)--Peter 08:49, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Preview sample link

Is there a particular reason why the Preview Sample link is made with [[:Image: rather than [[Media:? Drawback is that like this all preview sample files are listed as unused (because the description page is linked rather than the file itself). --Leonard Vertighel 08:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I have no idea why that uses [[:Image:... I'll switch it to [[Media:. --Feldmahler 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Absolutely not :°) It's just my knowledge of wiki limited to everyday use. --Peter 11:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Well this reply was meant for the former :D --Peter 11:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Hehe... me too. That's why we need someone from Wikipedia :) --Feldmahler 11:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)