Template talk:Subpage tabs

Mobile Theming
Hi, there are no mobile styles for this template so it currently just show up as a row of ugly boxes, and it's not immediately obvious they're even buttons. Now that this template is going up on lots of pages I think this should be a pretty big priority, is anyone working on it? guyus24 (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll create some styles for it soon. Sorry about not having any initially. Bongo50   ☎  07:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added some styling. Does it look alright? Bongo50   ☎  09:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That's done it! And just a question on implementation, if I may: is there any reason why it's a table under the hood and not just something like CSS grid or flexbox? Don't suppose it really matters but it just stood out to me a bit, as if there's a reason for it. guyus24 (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a table because that was easy at the time. I've since learnt more about HTML and CSS design and have plans to redesign it using flexbox, although it's not currently an immediate priority. Bongo50   ☎  16:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional standard tabs
Would it be at all possible to just make this template link to all subpages? Because it's a bit of a hassle piping all the custom ones every time. If not, can "/covers" at least be added to the list of standard subpages? Aquanafrahudy  📢   🖊️  15:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not possible to make the template link to all subpages, but I am very happy to add in additional standard subpages. I will add "/covers" now. Bongo50   ☎  12:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing "Talk"
I missed the initial discussion which led to this template, but I've been mulling over whether "Talk" belongs.

My current thoughts are that the template is meant to connect the main page for a character/concept to other pages that provide useful information about that character/concept, and it feels like the Talk page doesn't exactly fit in that category? By the same logic as our hiding of technical categories, the second link on, say, Adric shouldn't be to the page where we argue about infobox images and … uhh … whether the story Seb exists? At minimum it's redundant the existing way to get to a talk page from the top of the article: just hover over the three dots!

Curious to hear what others think. – n8 (☎) 21:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's really convenient when you're on mobile, though; otherwise you have to manually add "Talk:" to the web address. Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  22:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict.)
 * Good points @n8. In my opinion, talk pages can get very nasty and/or Wiki brained so to outsiders are easily mockable, so I kinda don't want a big blazing link to these pages. 22:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)