Forum:Subpage tabs

Opening post
With the conclusion of Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0, subpages are now allowed to exist on this wiki and, while they are still a little thin on the ground, I expect that more and more will be created as time progresses. A problem, however, is that there is currently no easy way to navigate between subpages. and both work well enough, creating links in the relevant sections, but I feel that it would be nicer to have some centralised way to navigate between these pages, and for that I suggest some form of tab system. This is pretty common across other wikis. Starting with a well-known example, Wookieepedia uses subpages to separate "canon" content from "legends" content and uses a basic tab system to switch between them, for example on w:c:Wookieepedia:Luke Skywalker. A better example I know of is the RWBY Wiki. See w:c:RWBY:Ruby Rose for an example. In general, tabs are a common and easy to understand system for navigation and I feel work well with subpages.

Therefore, I have put together. It looks like this:

It automatically includes any of the "default" subpages (any approved for general use on the wiki) that exist for the page it is used on (or, in this case, the page specified). Additional, custom tabs can also be specified:

It also displays on mobile. It doesn't look great, but it functions and could be updated to look better there later on.

One problem that this introduces is that it adds to the general clutter that currently exists at the top of pages:, , , , , , and so on. I have a potential solution for this as well in the form of. The idea is that templates that only matter to editors can be placed inside this template, creating a box that is hidden by default but can be "pulled out" from the right of the page. See the example below and to the right.

I feel that this is an acceptable compromise because, lets be honest, not many readers actually care about the conclusion of Thread:264489 or similar things that are noted in these templates just for editors. These templates are just more clutter that they have to scroll past to get to the content that they want to read. Tabs are, in my opion, a much more useful thing to place there instead.

The overall result is something like this:

Thoughts? Bongo50  ☎  21:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Bongo, I love this! I love this so much. I've actively wanted this for a long time, having seen similar tabbing systems used on other Wikis. It's clean, tidy, and striking too (current/recent links to Gallery pages, for example, just feel lost and tacked on to the top of the page IMO).

I like the 'pull out' tab too. So many pages (and frequently visited ones at that) have clutter at the top, and I get tired of seeing "this page needs a clean up" (or whatever) before any actual information. Being able to still have these boxes for mods/admins is of course necessary, but I like the 'pull out' tab because it means they're hidden by default and I think the pages would just feel cleaner. If we implimented both of the suggestions from this thread, the tops of pages would be so much cleaner and tidier, and I vote yes to both ideas. Seeing it in action with the Davros example has very much sold me on it. Fractal Doctor 🚀  21:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the idea of subpage tabs. My only note is that I wish the Talk pages were as visible as this. Getting to talk pages is so convoluted these days, and since some wikis don't have them anymore I've found there a bit of a wasteland for discussions.


 * On that note, I generally suppose every part of this. Based on this layout, as we forgoing linking the /Appearances subpage due to it already being in the infobox? Also, what the tab system looks like when it gets "full" per se? Would it drop down to a second row, get scrunched up, or become something you can scroll to the right on? OS25🤙☎️ 03:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Linking Fandom's comments on tabs since they're somewhat topical here. I don't think they're disqualifying, but we should at the very least consider them. We're not actually using tabs, we're using subpages that are linked in a way that make it look like we're using tabs. This is directly counter to Fandom's guidance on tabs, but, quite frankly, I think the names we have are probably sufficient for people to understand the issue? We might want to slightly modify the subpages so they always keep the infobox of the main page so as to preserve some sense of continuity, I can understand that view. I also agree that talk pages might want to be represented on this tabbed list, even if they're technically a different namespace and their own thing. Encourages people to get involved in wiki editing and be informed about the bts disagreements. But this is a might, there are reasons against it too, it might confuse readers.


 * I'm against the 'pull out' tab. It's very much an out of sight / out of mind situation for me, having seen it. I think it will lead to people being less likely to fix problems. Najawin ☎  03:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I could definitely see about adding talk pages to the tabs. When they get full, it looks like this:


 * I don't think that this behaviour is ideal so I'll see about making it wrap onto 2 lines. This also highlights a small feature that I wasn't able to demonstrate in the examples in the opening post: the text for the current tab is boldened. Fandom recommends using Tabber. I am deliberately not using Tabber because Tabber doesn't work on mobile but my solution does.


 * Regarding pullouts, I've written a gadget that will allow users with an account to optionally set all pullouts as open by default. I'm just waiting for the JavaScript to be reviewed (every piece of wiki-wide JavaScript on Fandom has to be reviewed to ensure that it's safe) which I expect will occur on Monday at the earliest. Would this help alleviate your "out of sight/out of mind" issue, Najawin? If not, how else would you suggest alleviating top of page clutter? Bongo50   ☎  08:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm alone in this but I think these banners being clutter is a good thing! They show us that there's something on the page that needs addressing. Allowing people to opt-in isn't a solution - people should be forced to see these banners. Having this pullout is simply antithetical, imo, to the entire point of these banners. If we're turning them into pullouts, why not just make a note on a talk page? They're banners because we should see them. Najawin ☎  08:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * (Let it be noted the last two responses were added while I typed this.) I strongly support the subpage navigation template Bongo made. It's exactly what I envisioned to help facilitate subpages, and it looks great too. I don't really have much more to say on that.
 * But much as I admire the technical and visual aspect of it, I'm hesitant on the pull out tab as well. I actually do think it's valuable for both editors and readers to know if a change is proposed to an article. Additionally, it's not immediately clear what the tab actually is. That said, the issue of large notices and extremely specific rationales cluttering the tops of pages is also something that has irked me for quite some time. I think for these type of notices, it'd be better to a) make them smaller and less obtrusive, but still noticeable and b) note what the suggested change is, but leave the rationale hidden or even simply relegate it to the talk page. Wikipedia does both of these quite well, see for example the current suggested rename for Ptolemy. Even as a reader I find it notable that an article has a suggested rename, or may need references or updating in some area, but it doesn't take up a significant portion of the screen; anyone further interested can see the talk page. Chubby Potato ☎  08:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, my biggest bugbear with the current 'notices' is that they appear on /so many/ pages (and have done for months, even years now, and might be there for years to come since so much tidying up will take time) and they take up too much space (IMO). I don't think the pull-out tabs are a case of "out of sight, out of mind" personally, but I can see the opposing argument to that. Maybe instead there could be a way to simply "collapse" these notice boxes? That way, a user can see the relevant notices but easily and quickly 'collapse' them if they find them obtrusive? (Or invert the original idea - have said "pull out" boxes open by default, and users can hide them if they find them obtrusive.) Fractal Doctor 🚀  11:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What about if the pullout is expanded by default for logged in users (the majority of editors) while collapsed by default for logged out users (the majority of readers)? I just remain unconvinced that the majoroty of readers will care about the content of these notices. Bongo50   ☎  11:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I feel that would be a good compromise. Or just have them all expanded by default, so people can hide them if they choose to? (Would there be a way for people to choose between "open all pull outs by default" and "close all pull outs by default" in this instance?) And I feel that even if this can't be agreed upon, Chubby Potato makes valid points about simplifying the notice boxes and putting large swathes of rationale into talk pages (which would be more clearly shown if they were incorporated into Bongo's "tab" concept.) Fractal Doctor 🚀  11:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Sidenote: if it were up to me, I'd also have the font used in the 'tabs' be "Rubik" rather than "BioRhyme". I just feel it's more aesthetically pleasing and, for me anyway, easier to read - especially if there ends up being multiple tabs on a page. — Fractal Doctor @  12:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I love the subpage link proposal, and support it. On the clutter issue, would it be possible to have the pull-outs open by default for autoconfirmed users, and closed by default for everyone else? That could be a useful compromise? That is, readers wouldn't have to scroll through all that, but editors could see them easily. Aquanafrahudy  📢  12:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * At the very least we need some kind of 'notice' reform. I'd say 60% of these notices are not needed but it's frowned upon to remove them. If a notice is there because some short story isn't covered on the page, that's a bad use of the template. But either way, these are templates that clog up articles and are only useful for registered users. OS25🤙☎️ 17:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Open for editors or wikipedia style might work. I'd prefer the second though, ideally even people who aren't logged in would see them and have thoughts on renaming things, or might be able to add content, etc. Najawin ☎  17:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that you overestimate the number of logged out readers that actually edit. From Special:Analytics, I can see that the peak for logged out edits in one day is 51. The peak for logged in editors is 556. In my opinion, logged out users with an interest in editing just don't exist in a meaningful enough manner to justify potentially harming logged out users with only an interest reading's experience to cater for them. Bongo50   ☎  19:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * On another note, I've added a tab for the talk page. Bongo50   ☎  19:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm very much aware that the chance of logged out editors editing based on a banner is marginal. But, you know, still exists. Moreover, see the above comments about how a discussion about renaming a page might be edifying to a user, as would a discussion about deleting or moving it. (We've also had comments about changing some of the graphics used in these banners which would be difficult if these banners were hidden from people who weren't logged in.) Najawin ☎  20:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's the same scenario with renames, moves and deletions: logged out editors, for the most part, just aren't interested, and if they are the type to get involved in these types of discussions, then I feel that they're likely curious enough to click on the pullout. Why would chaning some of the graphics used in these banners be difficult if they were hidden from logged out users? Bongo50   ☎  20:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)