In what way is this better than what we currently use? I don't understand the point at all. --Suki Brits 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The current format just looks ugly and mismanaged to me. If it's only me that likes this, I won't cry over deletion. Interrobang 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see it in use.Oh, you have it here...
- ...that's not bad. All the contribuiter fields are plural, it's canted for covering stories, not issues (we do sometimes have articles for ulti-part stories folded into one article, can you think of a way to rephrase the 'issue number' so that say, 32-36 would make sense as a possible value? Also, '1991 Annual' needs to make sense as a value.
- Also, we need a series field. I want this box to say 'Panni Armada Comic' on it somewhere, not just the publisher. If Dreamwave hadn't subtitled its G1 minis we'd have to do 'Dreamwave Generation 1 v2', as is we need to do Dreamwave's Generation 1: War and Peace. We need a series field because 'Dreamwave #5' is clearly inadequate. It should support that functionality.
- If we're integrating that, might it make sense to integrate comicvav in some less verbose fashion? We have publisher, issue, how about previous and next as << and >>? (the only problem is that the logical place to put those controls is above the title, which is kinda obnoxious.) -Derik 19:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll iron out the details once the concept is accepted. No point working on something that nobody else cares for. Interrobang 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Caption field is pretty inadequate - it feels liek it's part of the list of information below, not connected with the image above. (A probablm people have always havd with infoboxes because we like the captions.)
- I think you could unify then a bit more with background color and padding-bottom though, so that could work. -19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeeeah. I don't think I'll be able to get around that. My lack of knowledge doesn't help much. Interrobang 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I... really don't like how this looks. I mean, the idea of a template for this info is alright, I guess, but... it just LOOKS ugly on the page. I'd rather keep the manually-typed-in stuff that at least looks alright. --M Sipher 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Interrobang 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- What about this? or this? You could do that with a template- two separate visual elements declared through the template structure. (In this cae much easier through the template structure, because the breathing room between the two elements shown there has to be manually set to be slightly less than just two floated elements, or it looks funny.)
- Things that are bad about this template: It pushes the vital statistics below the fold on small browser windows, and move them off to the side, essentially marginalizing things like the publication history, writers etc as the least important elements of the article.
- Things that are good about this template: It pushes the vital statistics below the fold on small browser windows. Seriously- the vital statists aren't that vital. These articles are supposed to focus on the story, and that's mostly what people are going to use them to look up. Right now the vital statistics are on top (since they're like the story's metadata header) and are pushing the actual story synopsis and character info (the least important part of the story) down to a less prominent/important position.
- If Interrobang is willing to keep working on the template without knowing if it'll be accepted or not, I'd like to see him do so. Unlike the character profilebox which seems stalled in development, this feels like it's actually iterating towards something that might end up useful/usable, and I'd like to see where it ends up. -Derik 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer the first one. If we're going to have the image as a separate element, we might as well make it so completely. We probably won't need the title, since we already have the main title to tell the reader that. Comes down to either formatting the majority think looks better, I guess. Interrobang 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Compatablility check- (Mac user needed!)
Can someone who runs mac (and linux I guess) please confirm that the (→) character renders properly on them? (as a right-arrow?) I know there are sometimes problems with extended character sets.
As a private note- I hate those arrow-characters, they look too whispy to read as proper links. I prefer » (»), which is a HTML entity (thus rendering properly on all systems,) and is what we use on the franchise navigation. (I didn't realize we were actually using ">>" on this template before- but I suppose it explains why those links looked so weird.) -Derik 05:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I like the arrows. =( I'll go with your alternative, anyway, because they take up less space than the arrows. —Interrobang 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
was there a version of this template for episodes somewhere? (I know it's still in testing- but I thought we had a version for episodes...) -Derik 05:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)