Template talk:Storylink
Oh... wait a second, now that I made a change I finally realized why it was written the way it was in the first place. I didn't understand that "result in a simple tab" thing. I guess... I can sort of see that point of that. If somebody doesn't want any text to appear, but just have a little marker off to the side.
My preference would be for it to defailt to the name of the article being referenced, which is how I just set it up. I can see the potential appeal of a textless link (to some people, at least, just not to me) though. I think the mess of characters that was there, though, wasn't good. I mean... it was this, right? "([|" Plus those things appeared around the text if you did choose to include link text. If we're going to do it textless, I think a simple asterisk would be fine.
I'm also inclined to say that giving the template a background color might help to make it obvious that it's something of interest and not just random floating text.
(My *most* preferred preference, of course, is to explicitly cite sources within the text of the article, but I feel like that is never going to become the majority opinion.)
Anybody else have any opinions?
--Steve-o 22:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, I like making the article title the default. You can get a 'blank' tag with an extra pipe if you want.
However- I think changing the right-bracket to a right-parentheses makes the underlining look dorky. (Or at least dorkier.) The purpose behind the underlining was to make the link appear more structural, less text-y, so the eye could skip over it if it wasn't interested in the margin-notes-- basicly tryign to overcome the natural human inclination to cet caught on readable text.
What do you think of the 'attached to the right side' version on the wipe-out talk page? (the one with the outline/background) -Derik 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The one that just looks like a little doohickey in a grey box? It's unobtrusive and small, which is good, but it's also totally obtuse: seeing that, I would have no idea what it was. I could hover over it and see that it's a link to another article, but even then, I'm not going to be sure why it's there. Something that is more clearly a reference link would be more to my liking. --Steve-o 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
