Template talk:Topicsin

• I suggest adding an optional parameter for depth, default 0, this allows choice of expansion useful on Travel Topics main page. Also either remove the border or make it optional. I think TT main page looks better without the borders. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The expanded out one level I think is a good idea, does look better.--Traveler100 (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Template name is a bit odd. Might look better and more consistent with our other templates by either splitting to 'Topics in' or camelcase 'TopicsIn' • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably a good suggestion too. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Spoilsport! At my age, I like a bit of sin - especially if it's "On topic". Seriously though, do you really think the country page for New Zealand is a low visibility article? - not that, I'm moaning, just that I preferred the previous template from an aesthetical stance. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We didn't want to get your hopes up by fraudulent advertising ;D • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

was not looking for a low visibility page. Feedback is what is needed. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I also liked the "Edit" link on this one: Travel topics/InNewZealand --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 17:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

From one point of view I agree the other format looks better. This method however has the advantage that it updates automatically (based on parameter on the article page). See discussion at Talk:Travel topics#Proposed solution.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that trumps aesthetics. One wee point: it might be better to write more explanatory edit summaries/explain on the article discussion page when you affix experimental templates to high visibility mainspace articles; I nearly reverted both your edits to New Zealand as not conforming to our usual country skeleton for no obvious reason - the reason I let the first one stay, is that it was obviously in the travellers' interests. In its current incarnation, this second one is so ugly un-pretty and unintuitive, I'm not sure it should survive. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Tastes differ, I prefer the look of the boxless category tree, though I think it would look better with the little triangular arrowheads, and prefer not to use 'See also' as the header, as it invites all sorts of undesirable additional material. 'Related topics' is more specific and may avoid that problem. I also like the right floating tree as it is less intrusive when expanded, though it is more intrusive when collapsed in the present format. If a right floating box is to be used, maybe it should just go at the bottom of the infobox. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)