Template talk:Navbox Incarnate System: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Thirty7 m (+reply) |
imported>Felderburg m (Proper Praetorian Enemy Group links) |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Suggestion == | == Suggestion == | ||
{{Navbox | {{Navbox | ||
|navbar=plain | |||
|state=uncollapsed | |||
|name = Navbox Incarnate System | |name = Navbox Incarnate System | ||
|title = [[Incarnate System]] | |title = [[Incarnate System]] | ||
| Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
{{Navbox | {{Navbox | ||
|navbar=plain | |||
|state=uncollapsed | |||
|name = Navbox Incarnate System | |name = Navbox Incarnate System | ||
|title = [[Incarnate System]] | |title = [[Incarnate System]] | ||
| Line 61: | Line 65: | ||
Based on Thirty7's, this would be something approaching my suggestion. More could be done with the Lore list as desired (the documentation of Incarnate lore itself is a bit of a mess as is though), and we could potentially also include an Enemy Groups group, but I didn't feel like looking them all up before finding out if anyone else liked that idea. -[[User:Draeth Darkstar|Draeth Darkstar]] | Based on Thirty7's, this would be something approaching my suggestion. More could be done with the Lore list as desired (the documentation of Incarnate lore itself is a bit of a mess as is though), and we could potentially also include an Enemy Groups group, but I didn't feel like looking them all up before finding out if anyone else liked that idea. -[[User:Draeth Darkstar|Draeth Darkstar]] | ||
The more I think about it, the more I think including an Enemy Groups entry would make the table too large; I will leave the idea here, though, to spark discussion. -[[User:Draeth Darkstar|Draeth Darkstar]] 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | The more I think about it, the more I think including an Enemy Groups entry would make the table too large; I will leave the idea here, though, to spark discussion. -[[User:Draeth Darkstar|Draeth Darkstar]] 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Yes! I like that a lot, Draeth! {{User:Thirty7/Sig}} 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | :Yes! I like that a lot, Draeth! {{User:Thirty7/Sig}} 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
:And yes, the Enemy Group section would get kinda lengthy: [[Talons of Vengeance]], [[Knives of Vengeance]], [[Circle of Thorns]], [[IDF]], [[ISF]], [[Nightmare]], [[Banished Pantheon]], [[Praetorians (Enemy Groups)]], [[Devouring Earth (Praetorian)]], [[The Infested]], [[WarWorks]], etc. {{User:Thirty7/Sig}} 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
: I recommend we leave the Trials as just "Trials" until we actually have non-Praetorian trials. There's no reason to confuse things now when we can easily change it later, since Templates are very easy to update. I'm not too big a fan of having the Content section grouped off like that, I think it looked better without it, but I'm not opposed enough to push hard over it. (I'd be more inclined to go with it if there were other things that benefited from grouping.) For Enemy Groups, I think we'd be better off having an article for that and then just linking to that article, probably in Lore. Also, feel free to apply your changes to the actual template rather than making up mock versions here... there's no reason not to! | |||
: And I should add, I like the other changes made. :) -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 17:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I've edited the main page with an attempt at incorporating the suggestions everyone has made. Thoughts? -[[User:Draeth Darkstar|Draeth Darkstar]] 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::The only reason I didn't make them directly to the template was because I like to be able to look at them in full... and not just compare revisions with History. I have to agree Sekoia on not grouping them... at least not yet. I like the version in the template now, Draeth. {{User:Thirty7/Sig}} 01:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::: Looks great to me! -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 01:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::: Agree, nice layout and makes navigating the topic easy. I added it to a few of the included pages, but when I stumbled upon the shorter <nowiki>{{Navbox Incarnate Slots}}</nowiki> I wasn't sure which one should be used where or if this one should just replace that one.<small> — [[User:MrDolomite|MrDolomite]] • [[User talk:MrDolomite|Talk]]</small> 11:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Yeah, we weren't quite ready to put it on pages yet... but it was meant to supersede the other Incarnate Navboxes. {{User:Thirty7/Sig}} 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::But, since it looks like folks are fine with what we have... I will go ahead and implement it in the rest of the places. {{User:Thirty7/Sig}} 17:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:55, 21 February 2014
Suggestion
User:Thirty7/Sig 08:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Based on Thirty7's, this would be something approaching my suggestion. More could be done with the Lore list as desired (the documentation of Incarnate lore itself is a bit of a mess as is though), and we could potentially also include an Enemy Groups group, but I didn't feel like looking them all up before finding out if anyone else liked that idea. -Draeth Darkstar
The more I think about it, the more I think including an Enemy Groups entry would make the table too large; I will leave the idea here, though, to spark discussion. -Draeth Darkstar 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes! I like that a lot, Draeth! User:Thirty7/Sig 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- And yes, the Enemy Group section would get kinda lengthy: Talons of Vengeance, Knives of Vengeance, Circle of Thorns, IDF, ISF, Nightmare, Banished Pantheon, Praetorians (Enemy Groups), Devouring Earth (Praetorian), The Infested, WarWorks, etc. User:Thirty7/Sig 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I recommend we leave the Trials as just "Trials" until we actually have non-Praetorian trials. There's no reason to confuse things now when we can easily change it later, since Templates are very easy to update. I'm not too big a fan of having the Content section grouped off like that, I think it looked better without it, but I'm not opposed enough to push hard over it. (I'd be more inclined to go with it if there were other things that benefited from grouping.) For Enemy Groups, I think we'd be better off having an article for that and then just linking to that article, probably in Lore. Also, feel free to apply your changes to the actual template rather than making up mock versions here... there's no reason not to!
- And I should add, I like the other changes made. :) -- Sekoia 17:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've edited the main page with an attempt at incorporating the suggestions everyone has made. Thoughts? -Draeth Darkstar 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- The only reason I didn't make them directly to the template was because I like to be able to look at them in full... and not just compare revisions with History. I have to agree Sekoia on not grouping them... at least not yet. I like the version in the template now, Draeth. User:Thirty7/Sig 01:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looks great to me! -- Sekoia 01:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, nice layout and makes navigating the topic easy. I added it to a few of the included pages, but when I stumbled upon the shorter {{Navbox Incarnate Slots}} I wasn't sure which one should be used where or if this one should just replace that one. — MrDolomite • Talk 11:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, we weren't quite ready to put it on pages yet... but it was meant to supersede the other Incarnate Navboxes. User:Thirty7/Sig 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- But, since it looks like folks are fine with what we have... I will go ahead and implement it in the rest of the places. User:Thirty7/Sig 17:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)