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)
 * Yes, when a big red notice shouts at none-logged in editors =P 195.137.4.228 09:21, 22 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)


 * Ah, I missed that we migrated to text vs. background. I think the bold red on light blue stands out quite well.  For text, I think something that contrasts to the background works best.  For green or blue backgrounds, red stands out nicely.  For red or brown backgrounds, blue stands out well. --Barek 00:14, 17 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)

Formatting Problems
Using double newlining will not separating paragraphs if they are right under the template. However, opening a new section will solve the problem. What's causing this?

Example:

This is line number x.

This is line number x+2.

This is line number x+4.

Sub-Section for example's sake
This is line number y.

This is line number y+2.

This is line number y+4.

--PanSola 22:50, 15 February 2006 (CST)

for closure, I think Gravewit fixed the problem. -PanSola 20:19, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Proposal for a redesign of this infobox
User:Stabber/factions, which looks like: [removed] It's mostly a simplification of the current infobox, and hopefully less in-your-face. 20:11, 16 March 2006 (CST)
 * Um, I like it, but we might have different interpretations of "in-you-face". To me, the hand sign makes it more "in-your-face", which to me is a good thing.  It stops people, by throwing a easily recognized graphic in their face.  The simplified bulleted text makes users more likely to take the time and read it, instead of skipping over.  Thus I fully support the proposed design. -PanSola 20:17, 16 March 2006 (CST)
 * OK, perhaps that was a poor choice of words. What I meant is that it this new design doesn't hog the browser screen and display text in garish colors, though I suppose the icon is pretty garish. Anyway, if no one objects to it by today afternoon (i.e., in about 8 hours from bow), I'll change the template to this design. 23:04, 16 March 2006 (CST)
 * While I do not object to the shortened sentences, I dislike the icon a lot. Being the stop symbol, at the first look, it conveyes a sense of "do not read here" or "do not edit here". Maybe an exclamation mark would be better (or no icon at all). --Xeeron 23:44, 16 March 2006 (CST)
 * Thinking about something along the lines of this. --Xeeron 23:46, 16 March 2006 (CST)
 * Could you make it shorter and full screen width 03:20, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * I like it, I suggest changing the stop hand to an exclamation mark, but my bias for excalamtion marks is well documented. :) --Karlos 10:48, 17 March 2006 (CST)

OK, how about now? 19:18, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * My thoughts:
 * The disclaimer was meant to be "in your face" in the first place. Hence the red bold font. See discussion above. If we make it too "mild" we might as well leave it away alltogether. However, the new design clearly looks better than the old one. More like the Wikipedia standard box.
 * We might as well reword the disclaimer so that it is generic, for all future campaign releases. Campaign Three isn't far down the road.
 * I'd rather put in a little more text, but write it in small font.
 * Exclamation mark looks better than stop sign. :)
 * -- 19:34, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * Since it appears that, once again, we are in bureaucratic deadlock, I'm simply withdrawing my proposal. 00:52, 19 March 2006 (CST)


 * I don't see that this is deadlocked. It had lain fallow for a little more than a day at the time of your post (~29.5 hours), but each comment was (from what I can see) intended to move the conversation towards its goal of a warning redesign.
 * My personal thoughts are that this version is better than the current version, but it is not perfect. I agree with Tetris in this case that the warning was meant to "jump out and grab your attention."  Toward that I thought the hand graphic was okay, but I can live with the exclamation mark.  I also think that the  red bold text  was meant to get your attention and serve as a warning (see one of the above conversations).  Towards that end, I would suggest coloring and bolding "officially confirmed" and "copyrighted."  --Rainith 07:58, 19 March 2006 (CST)


 * You are essentially saying that the status quo is preferable to my proposed redesign. So be it. 12:17, 19 March 2006 (CST)
 * Eh, NO . Rainith is saying YOUR proposed redesign is superior than the status quo, however there are design elements from the status quo that had their merits and can be incorporated into your superior design to make it even more superior. -24.7.179.183 12:48, 19 March 2006 (CST)

BTW, while Stabber withdrew her proposal, this being a wiki, anyone can take her proposal and modify it to replace the current warning box. For all the ones who cared enough to comment on Stabber's original proposition. I'm personally directing my concentration elsewhere though. I liked the simplification of the new proposition, but I could live with the inferior current version. -24.7.179.183 12:51, 19 March 2006 (CST)


 * Already done, I didn't think it warrented posting anything here as Stabber seemed rather upset about whatever, so I made a couple changes and then replaced the template. People are welcome to make changes as they seem fit.  --Rainith 12:55, 19 March 2006 (CST)

Exclaimation mark
It looks a little pathetic, don't you think? I mean if it went to grammar school all the other punctuation marks would pick on it and steal it's lunch money. what happened to that exclaimation mark stabber used? I'm sorry if I haven't read any of the prior conversations, if it could be used i'd recommend it. Give me a kick if it was already mentioned --Jamie 21:28, 22 March 2006 (CST)


 * Um, if you click on the mark, you'll see that Stabber is the one who uploaded this one. I'm not sure what other mark she uploaded.  --Rainith 00:08, 23 March 2006 (CST)


 * This icon is just the | icon blown up and recolored. It was a 5 minute hack job. I continue to prefer [[Image:Stop Hand.png|36px]], but that didn't have a lot of favor. 02:10, 23 March 2006 (CST)


 * How is this? --Karlos 04:35, 23 March 2006 (CST)
 * [[image:Exclamation2.png]] [[image:Exclamation.png]]


 * The one i see to remember was rather large, angular looking thing, very rectangular --Jamie 23:07, 23 March 2006 (CST)


 * This one [[image:Exclamation.png]] is perfect --Jamie 18:44, 24 March 2006 (CST)

FPE
Should we add something about getting info from the FPE? 22:05, 24 March 2006 (CST)

Time to get rid of these
We are 10 days away from release. This template has served its purpose, and it's now time to get rid of it, methinks. Please post objections quickly, as I will do it in a day or so otherwise. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the EXACT opposite... There will be numerous inconsistencies adn inaccuracies in our information. The tag serves to distinguish which were pre-release info only, and which one has been verified to be correct post-release.  Perhaps modify the text in the box, but keep it. -PanSola 04:27, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm thinking this tag's text needs to be changed to:
 * "The Following article has been based on Pre-release Factions information, this tag remains here until it can confirm this articles status with the post-release version of Factions"
 * Simple there to confirm that the information is not 100% correct with the retail version of factions --Jamie 04:32, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the standard general disclaimer suffices for noting that the information can be possible wrong. My understanding is that this tag was always intended as a warning to editors, not readers. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I would support changing the role of the tag then. The release of a campaign is a sufficiently unique event that IMHO we should get specific disclaimers as opposed to using the general one.  In general, GuildWiki can be wrong and is not responsible and stuff, but in this particular case I believe it is good to mark which info were based on pre-release previews and which one have been confirmed.  In general, GuildWiki will be mostly correct, but with occasional inaccuracies here and there.  In this specific event, I expect a LOT of information to be incorrect, and without a way to easily notice which one has been confirmed the value of GuildWiki as a community resource will drop greatly.  Of course ppl can alway check the history and stuff, but I am expecting a lot of errors on the wiki based on pre-release info, AND a huge influx of players (either new or those who have dropped GW for a few months) who are relatively inexperienced with all the features of GuildWiki (even one so clearly marked as History). -PanSola 04:55, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * In that case, for consistency, we should add this tag to all Factions-related articles that lack them. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Agree. I was kinda pushing for that a few months ago but didn't get anywhere )-:. -PanSola 05:21, 18 April 2006 (CDT)