Template talk:Cast listing

Is there a way to "flex" the cast list?

I am not quite sure how to articulate this. There are certain pages where where you have the cast list side by side with a multiple image template box. However, when you decrease the size of your browser, the image box size remains the same, but the cast listing section gets smaller. Eventually, it is just squeezed to a very small portion of the browser screen and is virtually unreadable. Look at the "Cast" sections for El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie or Interstellar (film) as examples. Make your browser half the size horizontally to replicate the problem I am talking about.

These sections are fine on mobile, the cast listing seems to be "flexed" below the multiple image box. Is there a way to fix these on the browsers? — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Flowerkiller1692: Maybe try asking WP:VPT. Nardog (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog: left a comment on that page. Hopefully it works. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog: well, I left a comment but it got sent to the archive since no one looked at it. Is there anyone else who can help? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

See Template:Cast listing/testcases and let me know if it solves your problem. The problem is not limited to {{multiple image}} but applies to the standard [[File:...|thumb]], or to any floated element for that matter, by the way. The solution is not entirely satisfactory. It doesn't work on IE (which probably isn't a big deal nowadays as many things don't), but particularly, I don't like how a floated element makes the entire list wrap at the same position as the first item, thus taking up more space vertically, which doesn't happen when not using the template. It may be reasonable to discourage the use of the template (or anything similar) in tandem with a floated element in the first place. Nardog (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog: It works for now. Thanks for this workaround. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it hadn't been deployed yet. It is now. Nardog (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Same problem - cont'd

@Nardog: I was pointed to this discussion by Flowerkiller1692 as I'm also seeing an issue with the cast list section on El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie. I removed the multiple images template and placed the images in the next section as normal thumbs which worked for on my device, but was immediately reverted so that "cast memebers aren't elevated above one another", by Masem. I started a discussion here, before being directed here. Is there a solution that won't automatically be reverted for... reasons? Thanks - wolf 16:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What is the use of unnamed param 2?

I don't see any use for it as it just fallbacks to param 1 in case it's not set and will override 1 if set. — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Where are you seeing this param? I checked the Template page and didn't see a second param. Thanks for clarifying! DonIago (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

<includeonly>{{#if:{{{2|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{div col
 | colwidth = 25em
 | gap = {{{gap|}}}
 | rules = {{{rules|}}}
 | small = {{{small|}}}
 | style = min-width: min(25em, 100%); {{{style|}}}
 | content = {{{2|{{{1|}}}}}}
 }}
}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

Isn't this what you see, with a {{{2| in the #if and content? (excluding the colons at the beginning, not sure how to format the code block) — DaxServer (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Unfortunately I can't really speak to that. Perhaps it's "legacy" code that could be removed to simply the template? But it may have also been added to solve problems. This may be a case of WP:NOTBROKEN. But, in any case, sorry, I have no idea what that does. DonIago (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it's always been there and effectively is legacy code from the original template I 'borrowed' to create this one originally. If someone familiar with coding wants to make the changes to clean that up, I have no objection. DonIago (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the lookup ;) I've added TemplateData in the documentation and will show up in a few hours. I've deprecated the 2, I'll later verify the usages of the template to confirm it's not used and then remove the param. — DaxServer (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional categories

Suggest adding the following category: Category:Film templates

• Deanlaw (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It's also used on television articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Broken!

This does not work at all on Firefox/Android, font is far too small to read. Please fix it! --91.5.107.77 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Please name an example of an article where you see the problem. Nardog (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Mad Max: Fury Road

Can't be that rare: I don't remember the movie where I noticed it yesterday, but it took me 20 seconds of random browsing to find another one. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for Firefox, but it's showing up fine to me in the Android Wikipedia app and Chrome on my Samsung tablet. The font size is maybe a little small, but I don't see that as a Wikipedia issue. DonIago (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The template is close to useless anyway, at least it shouldn't make things worse don't you think?

IPs are treated like shit usually, but I guess I have to find the issue for you anyway.

(Nothing personal, just a general and accurate observation.) --91.5.107.77 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I was only commenting on what I observed while I was trying to reproduce the issue, as I don't use Firefox. As my response was apparently unhelpful to you, I'll drop out of this thread now. DonIago (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's totally bonkers. Have a look at here, where there are now three different font sizes, apparently dependent on the number or width of preceeding pictures.

Fixing this is not possible for an IP editor. Your choice, not mine.

Fix it, or better yet, delete it, it breaks things and has no apparent advantage.

Fixit, it's broken. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you're assuming it's in any way my choice or within my power to fix. DonIago (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not; I wasn't talking to you specifically. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems you're talking about font sizes on the desktop site viewed on mobile. Websites have no control over such font sizes; the browser determines them. I suggest you use the mobile site (click "Mobile view" at the bottom) or enable "Desktop site" in Firefox menu. Nardog (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"No control" as in "they directly control it"? Sorry, but what you say is evidently not true, please rephrase. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What you're seeing is the result of you viewing a desktop site on mobile and Firefox trying to fit it into the tiny display. The obvious solution is to simply view the mobile site or use the desktop mode. If you insist that we have any control over that you must be trolling. Nardog (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)