Template talk:Skip to bottom

It's best to include the TOC link in the same floating box rather than create another template, which would take up more space along with an unsightly separation. Besides which, this is generally only placed on pages with long headers, so the TOC link will be useful. I created this template recently; ie. this wasn't placed by people who would consider the new effect unintended. I've re-added the TOC link, but this time with a parameter to switch it off. Should be sufficient to address concerns, but welcome input. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This really screws up Classic Skin, as the box appears over the user/talk links, preferences, etc, in the top right. I'll upload a screenshot when I get the chance. Is it possible to move it elsewhere?  An

File:WP Screenshot - Skip to bottom skin problem.png

Screenshot on the right.  An

I took the template from absolute positioning to relative float, which should fix this in theory. There was some fallout in two headers that use this template and I tried to address that too. Let me know if you see any problems.

wind _roads 23:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've undone this as there are more than 500 existing transclusions which need to be checked first (not to mention all of the {{

skip to toc}} redirects that you pointed here at the same time). I've moved your code to {{skip to bottom/sandbox}} if you want to carry on testing it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

While I'll admit that the redirect was a mistake, in my opinon no template should be allowed to position in absolute terms, as taking it out of flaw is just an invitation for truble. I've tried to fix the main fallout, and might have been willing to work on more if it was pointed out, but non-constructive reverts like the above just make me lose all interest. I am not going to contribute my time here any more than I already have.

wind _roads 13:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This template rather annoyingly obscures a major part of the top search bar on Minivera. Can class="nomobile" be added to the template to prevent it from messing up the mobile interface ? — fr ⁺ 15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Lacking any opposition  — fr ⁺ 15:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

@Rfc1394: Also mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Box on top of box. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bug with

I think that's how it is supposed to work. It stays locked at the top of the page for me, overlapping nothing, but the template's documentation says: A small floating box with "skip to bottom/skip to TOC" links will appear in the upper-right corner. If you're still having trouble, a screen shot might help. Also let us know what browser, version, and operating system you are using. (BTW for other troubleshooters: the template is transcluded via {{Noticeboard links}}.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Please see screenshot to the right. I use Firefox 72.0.2 and Windows 10 Home. I tried it on Chrome. I get the same results. Interstellarity (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it matches the description in the template's documentation. You might need to follow up at Template talk:Skip to bottom if you think that the placement of the floating box could be improved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from

WP:VPT

.

{{help me}}

Can anyone figure out a solution to this problem? Interstellarity (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:VPT. Interstellarity (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't if it's related, but see #Recent edits with new force parameter just above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathglot, thank you for the revert. It seems that the problem with my edit comes from converting {{{notoc}}} to {{{notoc|}}} in the first of the places where it is used. Unfortunately, I don't have bandwidth to investigate this further. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and same here; hopefully one of us (or someone) will get the bandwidth later to make the desirable improvement to the template you intended. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure best way to address this, seems like the TOC link is fairly useless with vector-2022's new TOC's - any way to autosuppress on skin? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux To suppress and hide «Skip to TOC» in Vector 2022, "skin state"(new or old) should be sent backward from skin to this template, and then we hide that for Vector 2022. This feed-back data passing will violate modularity and encapsulation rules.

The better solution may be placing these actions by the "old Vector" or "Vector 2022" by itself and not by this template. And this template can be removed totally. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: see next section below, and T317818. Your thoughts at the ticket would be appreciated. My main concern is not so much the technical workarounds that may be possible here (although I'm concerned about that, too; see next section) but rather the negative effect that this is having on the collaborative editing environment at Wikipedia, setting good-faith editors who favor one skin against good-faith editors who favor another, where neither bears any responsibility for the situation causing the frustration on all sides. Kicking the can down the road (moved from "current FY" to "not ready to estimate", and prio reduced) means no general solution is in the offing any time soon, and the situation at Wikipedia will likely simmer for the foreseeable future, or get worse. Mathglot (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging! I'm not sure why this is a template, however? I'm curious how this works on apps, if at all or for content rendered outside our own wikis. Since the control itself appears outside the article content, it feels like it would be more appropriate to use a gadget (perhaps default on) for this use case. According to the template documentation it:

Adds a small floating box in the upper-right corner of the page, with "skip to bottom" and "skip to TOC" links . May be placed on Talk pages (or other non-article pages) when appropriate. This usually means pages in the "Talk:", Wikipedia:" and "Help:" namespaces."

It seems odd to me that this would be an editorial decision and this wouldn't be consistent across all talk pages. Could "where's appropriate" be determined by code in a gadget (e.g. the box is always shown on talk pages) ?

If so, this avoids tensions between skin users as gadgets can vary between skins (or easily be restricted to certain skins) unlike templates which are expected to work across all skins. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting that this would be something that could be worked on in this script itself, not upstream. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Hi, The name of template is "Skip to bottom", so its functionality should be only skipping to bottom and "Skip to TOC" is redundant, unless we change the name of this template to "Skip to main parts".

Additionally, "Skip to TOC" has the link "#toc" and this link is totally useless in the Vector 2022. Therefore, we can remove that in this Vector. Do you agree? Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Vector 2022 isn't the only one in use, and that change was a breaking change. Normally, changes to templates should be backward-compatible, so that they do not alter the behavior of existing uses of it. I sympathize with you, because the name of the template that someone chose is perhaps not the best, but that's what it is now, and it does what it does. We can't just change the functionality without breaking a lot of stuff. Perhaps it's not ideal, but you can use {{Skip to bottom|notoc=yes}} for what you want. Mathglot (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere, I made a request for a new magic word, or some other way to detect skin, so we could do something like {{#if: Vector2022 | do this | else do that}}, but it might take a while before that happens, if it ever does. Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Yes, the correct behavior is:

"Show SkipToTOC for old vector and hide that for Voctor 2022"

Implementing such scenario is impossible, because the "Vector state" data should be sent backward from Vector to this template. This feed-backward data violates modularity and encapsulation. Because the convention of modularity is: all data should be passed forward from template to Vector.

I think no implementation is possible, unless we require programmers of Vectors (old and 2022) to place such links in a correct place, and then we remove this template.

See, the link "Skip to TOC" is optional for this template and totally wrong for Vector 2022. But for the old vector is not wrong but is redundant! I really think the best solution would be removing that link totally. What is the importance of this "Skip to TOC" in the old Vector? Without this link, is got anything wrong? I think this link is totally optional for this template in the old Vector, and we can remove that without any problem. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of pages go bad if you remove it. Not backwards-compatible. To a large extent, I blame the designers of Vector-2022 who did not prepare for this, and it has come back to bite them (well, not them, but us, so they don't give a FF). This is not even close to the only problem that has been directly or indirectly caused by the introduction of a design for Vector-2022 that didn't foresee this issue. Mathglot (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps any (and probably not enough) I wouldn't oppose a rename of the template, retaining the existing name as a redirect. Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I propose to rename this template to "Skipping items", that is by default empty, but is filled automatically later by the Vector that represents it (old, or 2022). Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the rename, you'd have to go through the

WP:RM procedure for that (and at first blush, that name sounds like something for a bullet list). Regarding the functionality you propose, I'm fine with it in theory, but I don't believe there's any way to actually implement it currently, that's why I mentioned a request for a magic word. I'll go try and find that request, because I think this one depends on that one. Mathglot (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, you asked what's wrong with removing the 'Toc' link, and the answer is, that would change existing functionality on hundreds of pages; currently, if you click that link, it jumps past all the banners at the top of the page and skips to the table of contents. Mathglot (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can offer a solution that would work for you when you are logged in: we can add a CSS class to the toc link, and then you will be able to suppress it on all pages in Wikipedia by an adjustment to your common.css file. That would be backwards-compatible, and won't break anything for anybody, but would fix the problem for you. Mathglot (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found the discussion; it's here: mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Archive9#Magic word, built-in, or testable property needed. A phab ticket was raised for this: T317818 but it's on the back burner, so it looks like we'll have to find our own solution for now. Are you interested in the css workaround? Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TemplateStyles can target skins, so it is possible to remove a template from one skin and not another. I generally advise against it, but here might be a reasonable use given how the TOC is done in Vector 22. A stylesheet for such might look like this:

.skip-to-bottom {
	border: 1px solid #a9a9a9;
	background:#fff;
	padding:1px 4px 0;
	font-size:90%;
}

.skip-to-bottom-noindicator {
	font-size:85%; /* likely due to different sizes in the rest of the UI */
	float:right;
	margin:0.8em 9em 0.5em 0;
}

body.skin-vector-2022 .skip-to-bottom {
	display: none;
}

Izno (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great feedback, thanks! @Hooman Mallahzadeh:, this looks like a much better approach, as it will solve the issue for everyone, not just opt-in by user. I don't have time right now to work on it, but if you do, be my guest. Mathglot (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hooman, note that Izno's solution above removes the link entirely from Vector2022; if you wanted to remove just the Toc link but keep the other link, that's doable, too, using the same approach, with appropriate tweaks to the template styles code above, and one tweak to add a class to the toc element in the template, so you'd have to sandbox it. Mathglot (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: similar situation obtains at Template talk:Compact TOC#Configurability options for table of contents and Vector 2022 issues. Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made an edit to fix this. SilverLocust 💬 08:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]