Template talk:C3


 * Template talk:Ch2 - discussion on the previous version

Section 0
Shouldn't this be Ch3 instead of C3? --161.88.255.140 12:15, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * No 'h' in 'campaign'. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 12:19, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I just hate inconsistency. We have templates Ch2 and C3. --161.88.255.140 12:22, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * So what? The ch2 template dates from before the "chapter" to "campaign" change in all of Anet's propaganda. The template was not renamed because it's a lot of work with no tangible benefit. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 12:23, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Recent reversion
OK, since we are in stage 2, please explain which parts of my edit you found questionable enough to revert? gr3g 01:26, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The border style of the original is more consistent in style with the other tags of this style. The information is "based on information gathered before the game's release", it's a factual statement that can reduce confusion for anyone less familiar with the GW campaigns.  The full product name is "Guild Wars Nightfall", not Nightfall. The phrase "may be obsolete on the release date" is awkward - although the existing wording for that section should be improved as well.  The last change "Only add " does read better than the original, it just got caught in the revert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:46, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * OK, so I'll add back the uncontroversial parts. I don't believe I changed the border, though. Will respond to the rest presently. gr3g 01:48, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * (seems you were faster) gr3g
 * Actually, I'm wondering if the existing bullet point "Information herein is preliminary and is subject to change" should just be replaced with some variant of the phrase "based on information gathered before the game's release" then remove that phrase from the initial line. The latter phrase reads better, and they are basically redundant messages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:00, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree. There is no element in a wiki that is not subject to change. What the message really should be saying is that information here might be inaccurate because all the details are not known. Can you explain why you changed the 60% width back to 43 em? On my screen every single line wraps, and it looks extremely ugly. The template takes up 2/3 of the page! gr3g 02:10, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Odd - which browser are you using? On my screen, the width and wrapping are almost identical.  But, the main thing I was reverting in the header info was actually related to the background color of the body - "inherit" vs "transparent".  On my screen, the inherit tag is visually more consistent with other block temaplate tags on the site (although there is some variety - not all are the same). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:58, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Firefox. When I wrote the above comment, I was using my laptop which doesn't go above 800x600. Now I see from work that there is no major difference between 60% and 43em on a large enough resolution. As the former looks considerably better on smaller screens I recommend it be left alone. Regarding background: transparent vs. inherit, you should note that inherit is buggy in Internet Explorer. I generally don't like to use inherit for this reason, even though it often makes more sense semantically than transparent. gr3g 09:19, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * That would explain it - I hadn't seen a machine using less than 1024x768 in a long time, and several use even larger. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:29, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

Size
I'm not really sure that 80% is the right size for this template. I use 1280x1024, and the template looks a little ridiculous this wide with so much space on the right. Does anyone have any suggestions?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:25, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I've used the min-width attribute to try and solve this.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:28, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * On 1024 x 768 (which is still a very common resolution on smaller monitors like the one I use in the office) with 60% width all the lines wrap . It looks horrible!! Please swich it back to at least 80%, to avoid the line breaks. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 11:18, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm working at 1024 x 768 here at work and none of the lines wrap for me at 60%. Is it a browser issue maybe?  IE vs. Firefox?  --Rainith 14:34, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Should the background color be transparent instead? I thought inherit didn't work in IE.  --Fyren 15:28, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, looks like it is a browser issue. I just checked it out in IE6 and stuff wraps, the box is considerably smaller than it is in Firefox.  Edit - I'll check it out in IE7 when I get home.   --Rainith 16:05, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Tested in IE7 (RC1) and the wrapping doesn't look to be an issue at 1024x768. There is still an issue with the blue background not filling in behind the text, but I guess Microsoft taking babysteps is better than no steps.  --Rainith 20:27, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Whatever the reason is, there are quite a few people still using IE6, and quite a few browsing on 1024x768. So, can we please set the width back to 80%?! That fixes the horrible line wrapping for the IE6/1024 users, but causes only minior problems for others. Seems like an acceptable compromise to me. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:53, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * While I agree that the lines wrap in IE6, I disagree that it is horrible looking. --Rainith 11:06, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Let me clarify as that sounds like I don't want it to change. What I would like is for a change somewhere between the two, so that it doesn't look bad on either setup.  (Sorry Tetris, didn't mean to make it look like I was just ignoring your concerns.)  --Rainith 14:54, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by middle ground here ... use 70%? ;-P
 * Fixed width would work, except on lower res monitors where it would force a scroll bar on the page - which to me would be a bad design choice. We could look at re-wording the entries to make them less wordy, and therefore less likely to wrap - but that would likely re-insert large blank space again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 13 September 2006 (CDT)