Template talk:Signpost/Research quote

Regarding this edit: note it isn't the friendliest of approaches for those using screen readers, since each item will break down into two lists being started and ended. A paragraph break inserted before the block quote might be better. isaacl (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once we have template styles enabled for the template, that shouldn't be an issue anymore.

b} 19:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

After the latest edits, the underlying emitted HTML closes the list after each citation and then has a blockquote element. If possible, it would be nice to nest the blockquote element within the list item, and for there to be just one list when there are consecutive research quotes. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

b} 21:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Indenting looks good; each citation is still a separate list with a following blockquote. It's better than having two lists for each research quote, at least. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got some HTML-fu to bring them into one list, I'm all ears.

b} 21:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, perhaps I was looking at an older cached version of the Recent research page. With the latest refresh of the page, the blockquotes are being nested in the list items and there is one list. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

b} 21:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for continuing to work on this, Headbomb! As mentioned in the earlier discussion, each entry should be a separate section, with the title forming the section heading, also so that we get an anchor link pointing directly to the paper's section (example). How would one do this using the template?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (T. Bayer)[reply]

@

b} 01:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Headbomb: I had checked the HTML source of [1], but didn't see any corresponding anchors / IDs. I believe it's possible to add them based on the template parameter. But using MediaWiki's standard sections instead of bespoke formatting and IDs has other advantages too, e.g. less testing in different contexts like mobile web, or that they are automatically included in a TOC if one generates one. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

b} 03:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, this looks fine to me. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]