Forum:Why the difference in layout...

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Why the difference in layout...

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6256 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

...between the way contents are displayed in Uncyclopedia and Wikipedia? for example,

Uncyclopedia displays "contents" in India (my screen capture) as:

while Wikipedia displays the "contents in India (my screen capture) as:

why this difference (in the "*" indent/bullet)? any particular reason? or is/was it plain inadvertence? i highlight it because it actually unnerves me. -- mowgli 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Their article simply doesn't have any subheads in it (i.e., three equal-signs for headings instead of just two) - they've "broken out" everything into separate "sub-articles," and only a short overview of each section remains. I don't believe there's any way to avoid the indented bullets in the TOC for subheadings, other than to "spoof" the subheadings with <div>> tags, like so:

Hi! I am a fake subhead!

---

...Or something along those lines.  c • > • cunwapquc? 23:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

making real subheadings is easy though, as seen bellow:

Main Topic

Sub Main Topic

Sub Sub Main Topic

Namor the Sub-Mariner

--The Zombiebaron 00:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Right, but I think he wanted to have subheads without the indented TOC entries — am I right, Mowgli? Of course, that's not the sort of thing you'd want to start some sort of "clean-up campaign" around, if you know what I mean!  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• right! i want to have articles without the indented TOC entries -- simply because Wikipedia doesn't have them. it's not true that wikipedia articles with subheadings have indents. for example, see the "contents" of iron (my screen capture):

or joke (my screen capture)

-- mowgli 04:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it (hopefully)

So you're just trying to get rid of the bullets, as opposed to the indent spacing? That's one of those uncyclopedia.css things, isn't it?
Removing the bullets from TOC boxes would affect every page that has a TOC, but I guess if Wikipedia does it that way, then maybe we should too - if only to increase the potential for having people confuse the two sites?  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, you got it right! (some users understand me.) i did mean the bulleting (and not the "indenting"). But i buy your uncyclopedia.css thing 'cos it sounds very technical and sophisticated and i really don't want anyone to mess with it. it's not something we cannot live without. it's really a minor eyesore and, frankly, unimportant. but yes, if someone noticed, all wikis, maybe, ought to look the same -- especially when wikiversity's

welcome page looks un-bulleted,

(my screen capture)

while our university (i may or may not be poor at speeling; i'm not sure) about page looks like this:

(my screen capture)

i'm not sure but i have a feeling that this might adversely influence wikiversity's "enquiries to applications" conversion ratio while overwhelming us with a deluge of mail that we simply aren't equipped to deal with. there is no doubt that the bulleted page looks prettier, doesn't it? -- mowgli 19:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think WP's TOC layout looks a lot better as well. —rc (t) 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

i believe in consistency. frankly, the "wiki" template is rather ugly but it's overshadowed by the fact that "consistency" is prettier. -- mowgli 19:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a potential either-or situation, eh? I'd suggest another use of the new <Poll> feature, but I think it would actually be funnier if we allowed User:Tom mayfair to make the decision.  c • > • cunwapquc? 23:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's simple enough to do, and I think it'd be a good idea. I'll start a new forum topic for discussing its removal though, as people might not check down here then complain when it gets changed. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)