Forum:Tabbers and html ruby

As we talked in here, we should use tabbers. If appropriate, we could move the talk here.

That aside, I have a proposal for the kanji/furigana appearance: we should use the html ruby function, which sets the furigana (pronunciation) on top of the kanji (characters) like for jū (pistoru): 銃ピストル.
 * Note: you would need to have the add-on installed to see the difference. See here for more info.

This would make it more apparent which kanji the furigana is referring to, and is how the original RAW does it. Of course, since there's so many, it would be wiser to set a bot to do that. Do tell me what you think. 00:49, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm not against using tabbers in special pages, but I don't really like them on normal articles, because I don't see a problem in not using them and they are also poorly styled.
 * About your second point, can you explain better what the problem is about? But simply because you have to install and addon to view them is pretty much a no in my opinion. The wiki should compatible as much as possible with every kind of viewer and browser. Though if there are no issues with viewing 銃ピストル then it shouldn't be a problem, I don't really understand how it works. Also, it's easy to say "set a bot to do that", but you have to come up with an algorithm to do that.

The second point is having the furigana on top of the kanji, so we know how each kanji is pronounced, as pposed to having the whole phrase (i.e. we know that the furigana refers to "pistol" instead of "Gomu Gomu no Pistol"). This and this wiki utilizes such format, looks nice. 16:28, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

You posted the same wiki twice. It looks alright, although a little hard to read without zooming in on the text (maybe I'm just tired and my eyes are blurring). The Index wiki also did a terrible job of advertising that the ruby extension was needed, so even though I've visited it fairly regularly in the last couple of months, I had no idea that the feature was available, which is something we have to keep in mind - how many people are we going to expect will install the add-on? If it's less than half of everyone who visits the wiki, then it's definitely not worth doing (presumably we'd be removing the katakana from the side to the top and not doubling up, so people without the add-on installed would no longer be able to read it at all). My opinion would be different if the ruby feature was available by default in all major browsers, but as things stand I agree with Levi. 17:00, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to know more about what the furigana is and what we are currently using. As I said, simply because you have to install an external add-on it should be avoided, unless we can come up with a format which will still be correct when viewed without the extension, for example: 銃(ピストル) = 銃(ピストル). We have to assume that the viewer hasn't installed the extension, otherwise we will only cause confusion. Also, I guess that extension won't work on mobile devices (since you can't install it). The wiki must be as much compatible as possible.

I meant the Yu-Gi-Oh wiki as the second example. Furigana is the pronunciation intended, such as "pistoru", while the kanji is simply to make Japanese readers more understanding in case the attack name is written in another language (hence the furigana is necessary to pronounce the original meaning). And didn't the toaru majutsu no index wiki have extra brackets that even without the installed add-on, the brackets would still be visible? Making it both ways? 01:13, July 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, I misremembered. You're right on that point. 06:13, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I think using tabbers are a great idea. 06:22, July 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, tabbers do help organize the page's physical appearance. 06:34, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Majority seems contend with tabbers, right? So what about ruby? Having the pronunciation on top of the respective kanji/phrase seems favorable, to indicate how Oda wanted the term to be pronounced. 04:58, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

About tabbers, is there a particular reason why you suggest them? What's wrong about using normal sections? I don't really like the style... but I suppose we can do something with CSS. About ruby, compatibility is the major flaw... it's nice, but what's the point if only, let's say, 10% install the add-on? A random viewer won't install it, the same goes with mobile users.