Computing Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

X, I believe, recognizes a number of other modifiers not listed here: Super and Hyper seem to be omitted. -- Gwern (contribs) 17:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please create articles for these keys? --Michaelas10 23:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't. Just don't know enough about them. I do know that Super and Hyper are descended from New England computer movements, like Hyper and Super were introduced by the space-cadet keyboard for Lisp machines, but that's about it. --Gwern (contribs) 03:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't add non-linked text or redlinks to the template, that's why I created pages about 4 missing keys. Do you have any good source of information about these keys? --Michaelas10 08:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/me nudges Michaelas to the linked pages and their links. --Gwern (contribs) 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super is the Windows key. I added this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.79.178.42 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I don't intend to pursue this with any enthusiasm if there is a dispute, but I have a few comments in reply to the Edit summary by User:Dispenser who reverted my changes.

• While it is true that the style I used is more appropriate for the monobook skin than other skins, monobook is nevertheless the default skin, as seen by those not logged into an account (the vast majority of wikipedia users) and therefore, statistically speaking, it is more appropriate to use styles suited for the monobook skin.
• I appreciate that NavBoxes may have their own style. Although I support standardisation, there is no such policy, so where disputes arise on whether a NavBox looks better or worse, I will not argue.
• I do not understand what you mean by "regression in terms of syntax"

Templationist 10:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much of issue I had was how you did it, not what you did. For instance: If the built in class then the skinning issue wouldn't be a problem. The following are issues I had taken with you edit:

CSS issue:

Hard code styles. You hard coded too much style information when it would be better and easier to use class="navbox" which contains nearly all of the information.

HTML issues:

• Unquote of attributes (Hint: everything needs to be quoted).
• Converting CSS styles to deprecated HTML attributes. BGCOLOR, ALIGN, WIDTH were deprecated in the HTML 4 spec.
• Usage of deprecated elements. (</center> tag)

UI issues:

• Hard coding width.
• Removal of the collapsible feature.
• Removal of the clear:both;
• Removed v-d-e.

Dispenser 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone ahead and used ((navbox generic)); the syntax is much easier to read, and it now uses the same style as most other navboxes around Wikipedia. I shrunk the width to keep it vaguely the same shape as it was previously, but you can pull out "style = width: 75%" to make it span the page width, and add "color = #6CF;" to change back the titlebar color. grendel|khan 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A link to X key was added by Beland in 2009, but the X key article itself was proposed for deletion, and was eventually deleted by Jac16888 in 2013. I'm going to delete the remaining red link from the template. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

all most all the keys may function same kind of options based on the keywoard keys particularly in the shortcutkeys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.193.2 (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A link to Navigation key was added by Timelezz on December 15, but the article it linked to was then deleted by R'n'B on December 20. I'm going to unWikify the remaining red link back to plain text. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This part of the template looks really strange to me.

• Dead key is not a logical title for a topic heading, nothing sensible can be nested under it. It itself should be an item under 'Modifier keys'. It could argued that 'modifier' is ruled out because it is not used simultaneously with another key (as in `+a but it certainly modifies the following letter: `a to prooduce à.

• Compose key is not a dead key any more than Caps Lock is. It is a kind of lock key in that it controls the following inputs until the desired character is produced: unlike the major lock keys it doesn't need to be released.

So I propose (a) to remove group1 = [[Dead key]]s, (b) to add dead key as an ordinary element of the Modifier line and (c) add Compose key to the 'Lock keys' line. Does anyone have a convincing reason why not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the template there is a slash between the Command key and the Windows key. It is a common misconception that they are related, due to modern misuse of modifier keys (esp. the Ctrl key which is used nothing like it's purpose). The Windows Key is mainly a re-branding of the Super key (as is said in the first paragraph of the Super key's article). --GoodClover (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are various standards such as ISO/IEC 9995 which detail keyboard layouts and how some modifier keys are used, such as the Shift key. I think it would be good to have these on this either in a "standards" section or in the current "concepts" section. --GoodClover (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]