Template talk:Ch2

This is a DRAFT, and I'd ask everybody to review and comment. I think we should have something like this, otherwise we have a big mess soon, with all the Ch2 info to be released over the next few weeks. --Fisherman's Friend 11:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me. Maybe put in there that unconfirmed entries or posting of copyrighted stuff will be reverted and that repeated posting of such info by the same user could (not will, but could) result in a temp ban.  --Rainith 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest naming it Template:Ch2. For a full minute I was confused: how can we have a template on entities before knowing what properties they would have, aside from their names? o_O"""""
 * I agree "Factions" is not a very good name for the template. I suggest to rename it "Chapter Two". And I think we should keep the text brief, otherwise nobody reads it. -- 12:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's just a template, I personally think the shorter name the merrier, if it conveys the same meaning. -PanSola 12:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Short template names are nice, especially if they are being used a lot. But the name should also be self-explanary. Personally, I think "Ch2" is a bit too generic. I'd prefer it spelled out: "Chapter Two". But the name is really a minor thing and we shouldn't waste too much time with it. More important is that we start using the template. I'll go ahead now, move the template to "Ch2" and add it to the applicable articles. If a majority decides later that the name should be changed, I'll fix it. -- 03:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Me like. --Karlos 07:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why Ch2 and not Chapter two? =S 195.137.4.228 09:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just shorthand. It's only the template's name. If we are looking for readability then Chapter 2 is not very readable since that's what most people will figure Ch2 means. A more readable name would be "Chapter 2 Warning" but I think that's overkill. --Karlos 09:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Skuld, will you ever learn to log in before you start talking? :p -- 10:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Colors
Me like the old background more. The red will also show more on a less bright background. --Karlos 10:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to test different colors. As long as it's obtrusive enough to catch the eyes of ignorant users it's fine for me. -- 10:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, the original colors seem obtrusive enough. Since the article pages are mostly white, anything with color stands out no matter the color.  In my opinion, the current color is too bright and crosses the line from obtrusive to obnoxious.  If another color than the original is wanted, I would prefer a more muted version like fff0f0 (red), or f0fff0 (green), or f0f0ff (blue), or fffff3 (yellow). --Barek 10:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this (pale red)? -- 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. It's obtrusive enough, but not overly bright like the prior color.  --Barek 10:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I really don't like the current blue . I'd rather go back to the pale red, or the original brownish, or try something else. -- 17:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost 6 hrs later ... changing it to a pale blue with red warnings, although I'd prefer pale red background. It is meant to be kind of a warning, after all, so red seems like an appropriate color to me. -- 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am specifcally against the color red. Red in publications and interface design is for danger/bad/handle with care. This is not what this note is. No need for Red and the bright red in the bolded words is too much. This is my rationale for going anti-red. Whatever color we choose should be soft. This is an informative box, not a warning message or a scare box. I am against the bright red in the words specifically, much less the pink background. But we did that background for something else, the spoiler warning I think. Wanted to have a different color for this. --Karlos 00:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, the disclaimer is more than just an information box. It is meant to be a warning: A warning that content is to be considered preliminary, a warning not to add unconfirmed rumors, and a warning not to add copyrighted stuff. And hence red as the warning color for danger/bad/handle with care is justified.


 * Frankly, the disclaimer targets the small percentage of ignorant users on GuildWiki. (Anybody with a bit of common sense is aware of the three warnings anyway, and would act accordingly even without any disclaimer.) And, sad but true, if you want to hammer an important point into the heads of ignorant users, you have to be obtrusive, to the point of being obnoxious. Use bold. Use red . If anything else fails, USE ALL CAPS!!!!11 ;) -- 10:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Both the blue and the red are fine to me. As long as it's the pale version of the color.  I don't see this issue with 'warning red' myself.  To me, both the pale red and the pale blue are equally good at grabbing attention. --Barek 10:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The original pale brown also works fine for me. We've used that one before for notice boxes, could that be an acceptable compromise for everyone on this? --Barek 10:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Barek: I think the focus has shifted from the background more towards the bold red font. I can live with other background colors, but I'd really like to stick to the red bold red text. -- 11:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bold red text works for me. It is something of a warning, so I think it is appropriate.
 * Even better would be bold red on a  blue  background to make it look 3-D. :P  --Rainith 11:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer targets actually most users who would be keen to ad in this bit of gossip and a scan of that article. We're explaining to them why we can't have that stuff in there. At least that's what I thought it was. Then again, you (Tetris) wrote it, so I don't know what you had in mind. I do not care about this any more than typing this pragraph. It will be removed in a month or two. --Karlos 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorization is incorrect
The categorization in this template is marking some articles incorrectly. For example, Profession is now in Category:Chapter Two, which is incorrect. &mdash;Tanaric 19:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is that categorization there? --Karlos 01:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like the category is embedded in the template, and someone put the template in the Profession article above the two chapter 2 professions. Either we remove that category from the template, or remove the chapter 2 stuff from Profession (and any other articles that have both chapters), and make new articles for chapter 2 stuff there.  I'm indifferent as to which is done.  --Rainith 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather the former. Starting a new article for Ch2 professions now (and many others) will lead to huge pains later, when we will have to deal with dublicate articles. Rather remove the category from the template. --Xeeron 14:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Crap! I thought I posted here last night after I removed that category.  Anyway, I removed the category from the template as a temporary (if not) permanant fix.  We really won't need this template after Factions comes out I guess.  --Rainith 15:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was me who added that category to the template in the first place, but I agree that was a bad idea. Good riddance! We should add the category manually where applicable. -- 17:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)