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)