Template talk:Small

The current usage is non-intuitive. It should be like other templates where the affected text is the template parameter. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 13:16, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want a template like that. If you feel the current style is unacceptable, delete the template and I'll make do without. -- ◄mendel► 21:38, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? I sorta agree with Ish that having to combine two differently formatted tags is less than intuitive. Why do you feel the template benefits from this way? --JonTheMon 04:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted a shortcut to an adapted &lt;small> tag, saving me typing the style out by hand, and being easier to read and less disruptive to the wikitext. If that's not intuitive enough for you, just delete it. I did think about a Template:/small, but that'd just be the &lt;/small> tag with another name, so kinda pointless.
 * Maybe we could solve my original problem better by adding .css for the small tag to set the line height to 130%, if you feel this would be ok to apply everywhere on the wiki. (If it works correctly, then the comparison on the template docs here should look identical.) -- ◄mendel► 10:17, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, small is most often used within comments to indicate something that is somewhat tangential to the main point. I went to a Rock Band Party on Saturday, and I totally rocked the drums on expert!  But none of you really wanted to know that, so... I'm just gonna stretch this out to make sure it's at least 1 full line long at 1280x1024.  And I did always think that it looked odd for the "small" text to still take up the same vertical space.  Let's see if I can't get this to wrap over 4 lines to show the reduced line-height in action.  Without resorting to boilerplate.  Or repeating myself.  Almost there...  Oh hey, look, a squirrel!  The concern there would be how the small's line-height interacts with the normal-sized text around it, and it looks like it works just fine.    I would support adding this to Common.css.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 13:00, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * The first and last line kinda space differently, but that's likely due to having different text sizes on different lines. It seems to get even around 170%, but I don't know if we want to make it even in this case. And I don't really mind if this is added to the css. --JonTheMon 14:04, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * 170% is the same as not specifying line-height at all, because that matches the standard text. &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 15:02, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it won't break anything horribly, so we could just try it and see if we see problems. I think 150% might be a compromise that is a reduction, but makes the anomalies on the first and last line less pronounced. -- ◄mendel► 22:33, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Should I add it now or wait for more feedback?  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 22:40, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, add it now, wait for feedback to arrive later. ;) If Jon is right, we're reducing line height for the small tag by only (20/170) = 12%, a small enough change to not warrant much ado, and it's uncontroversial here. -- ◄mendel► 00:08, September 28, 2010 (UTC)