| abstract
| - What do you folks think, is there anyone who agrees that templates like {{BC}} and {{TCGlore}} should go? In my honest opinion, these templates just clutter up the pages and, subsequently, make them uglier. Just a handwritten small note ("this is TCG-Lore" or "This item is not obtainable if the player does not own the Burning Crusade") in the lead section of the article would do. Why do we need big templates like that that screw the pages' layout immensely? I don't see the point in this overdone fanciness. Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gifAPΘLLΘ(ZEUS) 15:45, 17 January 2007 (EST) I don't mind the TCG-lore one (maybe the picture could be a little smaller, though), but I definately think the BC one gets a little annoying, especially since so many pages that have it also have a BC-stub template AND another stub template, meaning you have to scroll down quite a bit just to see the first line of the article. However, I don't think removing it is an option. Just make it smaller, or better yet, move it up by the title of the page, like the links to Wikipedia or the non-english pages. --Mikaka 15:50, 17 January 2007 (EST) Oh, Mikaka, such a sound voice of reason, exactly the sentiment I was planning to express. There's nothing wrong with the templates (or "badges" as I like to refer to them as) if they convey the necessary information. But there is something to be said of ones that just look ugly and take up space and what not. Although I haven't figured it out yet, I was thinking maybe pages could have actual badges or miniature icons linked to pages that explain what the icon means. Sort of like a key or legend. This is lore. This is Burning Crusade. This needs a screenshot. Something still visual, but infinitely more ninja than what we have now.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 17:22, 17 January 2007 (EST) They do take up a bit too much real estate. Personally, I'd like all the stub templates shrunk too, but have the icon replaced with a bright red, cringe-inducing, stubbed toe. However, I'm no good with graphics. --Beep2 17:34, 17 January 2007 (EST) Ideas to steal from Wikipedia: Wikipedia stub tags are placed on the bottom of the page instead of top of the page. In addition, Wikipedia stubs are all 1-line of text with a small icon. See Wikipedia:Template:Warcraft-stub. --Voidvector 21:54, 17 January 2007 (EST) Categories would probably work as well. if needed. but i agree the BIG tags at the top of each page need to go 02:43, 18 January 2007 (EST) They need to go, they were always a bad idea. These things are what references are for, and that should have been the practice all along. Source headings and notes are never needed. Under my own proposal, this would be handled by categories and references, but for now references are certainly the better option --Zealtalkcontrweb 02:51, 18 January 2007 (EST). I agree that stub tags should be placed at the bottom of the page, especially since stubs will never be too long and the tag will be visible anyway. Things that warn users about text in the upcoming article (BC tag, TCG tag, etc.) belong at the top of the page; things that explain the attributes of the article itself belong at the bottom of the page. --qhiiyr | (talk / contr) 11:09, 30 January 2007 (EST) I vote for single-line with an icon, placed relative to importance (stubs are not important, at the bottom... TBC is important, at the top). For example, TBC could look like this: 03:10, 18 January 2007 (EST) {| class="darktable" |- | This content may not be available to players without The Burning Crusade installed. |} I like it! Can we do that to all the templates (stub and notes)?! :D --Sky 03:24, 18 January 2007 (EST) IMO, that works perfect. I'm all for using that in place of the old one. --qhiiyr | (talk / contr) 11:09, 30 January 2007 (EST) Switch to a div and i like it :P Also try this.. --Zealtalkcontrweb 03:47, 18 January 2007 (EST) I like the first design - nice and clear. Stubs can't really be reduced as we need to be specific about their purpose and use for the general users. I think I agree that the stub tag should be at the bottom of a page, however. 09:56, 18 January 2007 (EST) Or what about simply making a ? Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gifAPΘLLΘ(ZEUS) 10:01, 18 January 2007 (EST) If the stub tag gets moved to the bottom, then section-stubbing needs to be adjusted. Otherwise, it won't be clear if the tag was intended for the whole article, or just the final section. You might get: "section1 stub/A section2 stub/B" Does stub/B apply to the whole article or just section2? --Beep2 10:09, 18 January 2007 (EST) Beep raises a really good point to consider before making any changes. Sometimes you want to stub/BC the while article, sometimes you just want to mark a section of it. If we change the templates to automatically put themselves on the top/bottom of the page, then we lose the ability to mark individual sections. If we move them to the bottom of the page, it may be unclear if the final section has a stub, or if it applies to the whole page. I'd personally prefer to keep stub notes near the top of the page, but I wouldn't object to making them smaller and/or making some combined stub template which can compact the space needed. One graphic, one grey bar for the whole thing, text which says something like "This article has been marked as a BC stub and a quest stub. Here's info on BC, here's info on quests." Alternatively, we can make it policy to only put one stub (the most applicable) on any given page. After all, anything that's an item stub won't be a NPC stub, a Quest stub, or a location stub, but it may end up with an accuracy stub (Why? It's already a stub in need of revision) or a BC stub (Why? We already know it's a stub, and it should already be marked as BC with whatever indicator we're using for that), etc. Really, I'd suggest taking anything which is not truly a Stub (At the moment, that's just T:Stub/Accuracy and {{Stub/BC}}) and moving it out of the stub group. Then there won't be any question of which single stub is applicable to the page. --Bobson 10:27, 18 January 2007 (EST) No inline template should ever categorize, stubs and pratically everything else already do that, screwing things up as you've described. Why i'm trying to push the use of correctly implemented inline and article templates, so they not only appear different for users, but follow some sensible guidelines --Zealtalkcontrweb 10:22, 18 January 2007 (EST) As I recall, on Wikipedia, stub strictly refers to articles. If a sections needs to be expanded, there is the . Obviously, we need stub tags to encourage visitors to edit the article. But the stub tags we have now are larger than many of the article themselves. On some of the longer articles, we have issue w/"template real estate". We can only stack so many templates together before ruining the page layout. The whole issue is balancing between having good layout and asking people to contribute. --Voidvector 11:08, 18 January 2007 (EST) Good layout.. lol that gave me a chuckle. Long way away from that sadly (Seriously, kill off WoWBox ¬_¬) Oh, and yeah.. Stub and Expand co-existing together, as article and inline templates respecitvely makes good sense. --Zealtalkcontrweb 11:11, 18 January 2007 (EST) The problem with a single expand template is that it's nice to specify what kind of expansion is needed. Does it need info on quests? Does it need info on loot? Does it need info on NPCs in the area? Sure, it's usually obvious from context, but when you're browsing the stuff-to-do pages, it won't be. Of course, we could then just come up with Expand/Quest, Expand/Item, Expand/NPC... --Bobson 20:09, 21 January 2007 (EST) I prefer the first one, also. And I'm definitely for making it a div for better quality code. 23:52, 21 January 2007 (EST) So does someone want to go ahead and make the above template replacement? --Voidvector 16:14, 25 January 2007 (EST) Already being arranged. BC Template Talk->New templates --Zealtalkcontrweb 16:22, 25 January 2007 (EST) I'm not a fan of the new BC tag - it's pretty ugly and ruins formatting on a few pages. I also think there sould be some sort of white space between the bottom of the tag and the page content. Kiltek 08:19, 14 February 2007 (EST) Doesn't ruin formatting (if there are any issues, it's with the fact the wowbox is god damn awful and that is what ruins formatting, or it just hasn't been used correctly) at all. It's not ugly in any way shape or form, it's perhaps the best looking banner template in use. White space shouldn't be needed when used correctly (one again, the lack of it is probably from how crap WoWbox is), but can be arranged if more than default line spacing is needed. --Zealtalkcontrweb 08:25, 14 February 2007 (EST) {{bc}} should be used before WoWBox.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)