Template talk:Navbox Issues

Expanding

Do you think it might be worthwhile to replace this template with something like the above (expanded to include all issues/patch notes, though)? It seems like it would be valuable to keep the patch notes and issue releases intertwined for navigation. The only problem with the above approach is that it would only have space for 18 total issues (only 20 groups in the navbox template), though if we need to I can potentially change the navbox template to accommodate more. Maybe there'd be a better approach though than the above. The above might be info overload. I dunno, just musing. -- Sekoia 06:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wayyyy too much information for just a section to slap at the bottom of the "overview" "Issue #" pages. Make a separate template {{Patch Notes}} for the Patch Notes/etc pages. -- Agge (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but it seems like there should be some form of navigation linking the issues and the game updates. I'm just not sure what's a good way to do it. And even on the patch notes pages, dumping all the dates seems as though it'd be a bit much. That'd be a darned huge navbox. :/ I dunno, I don't really see a way to achieve what I'd like to see really but maybe someone else will. (If I'm even making any sense...) -- Sekoia 07:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

19.5 and other mid-issue Issues

From the official web site: "The Issue 19: Strike Pack continues the new game updates introduced with Issue 19: Alpha Strike!"

This mini-issue was obviously considered by the Devs to be a follow-up or a part II of Issue 19. It's been colloquially referred to as Issue 19.5. There are several ways to indicate this:

1. Issue 18 · Issue 19 · Issue 19.5 · Issue 20
2. Issue 18 · Issue 19 / 19.5 · Issue 20
3. Issue 18 · Issue 19 · Issue 19: Strike Pack · Issue 20
4. Issue 18 · Issue 19 part I· Issue 19 part II · Issue 20

piemanmoo had changed #1 to #2 and I reverted it til we had consensus. I think the first is fine, especially since the Devs don't have a problem calling it an Issue. I don't see a need to change this.

I have no particular preference either way on this one. They both seem acceptable. --Eabrace 16:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The first and second are fine to me. Third and fourth are too long. ~ User:Aggelakis/Sig1 16:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Years

I notice that years got added to the template recently. I really don't like that change so I reverted it out. This is a navigation template. There is no need to put extra information like that in, and I think it makes the template more cluttered and visually confusing. The release date information is very easily accessible at Issues, which is linked to by the navigation template. If we really must have some sort of "timeline" added to the issue articles, I suggest coming up with a different style of template that actually looks like a timeline so that the information is more cleanly presented. -- Sekoia 22:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Sekoia. Further, why is it organized by Studio with the somewhat oddly placed message in the center row? Should it not just be the Issues (perhaps also with their name)? —Thirty7 23:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is interesting from a historical perspective to see what changes happened to the game under each studio, though I don't know that the center row is absolutely necessary. Playing around with the template, I do think it looks better without it. -- Blondeshell 00:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the center row. I've always thought it was weird to include in a navigation template and felt it looked pretty odd, so seeing others feel the same way? I see no reason to keep it in. That info is available in the articles. -- Sekoia 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)