We may need a standard portable infobox for our profile pages

[Sera_EX]

Come to think of it, what should we do about verse galleries? Verse pages are essential to our site but in their current state, they are not mobile friendly. I feel they play a role in this mess because of that. Maybe we need to use different code.

 

[The_Impress]

Personally speaking I think it is entirely unnecessary and unneeded to have a quote gallery, much rather just have no quotes altogether, considering a gallery for them is unnecessary for the purposes of the site and doesn't correlate to our objectives, and at the end of the day, quotes aren't half as important to warrant their own section within pages. But oh well.

@Damage I meant NoGround, just a typo lol

 

[Sera_EX]

I'll just remain neutral on it as well. I'm more worried about the point of all this if it doesn't change a thing, rather than the minute details. The goal here is supposed to be working towards making an aesthetically pleasing format for mobile, that way our google search potential increases.

 

[Elizhaa]

Well I for one truly believe that they shouldn't have the image and classification field inbuilt.

My proposal would look like this

I think that this seems very good. As long as the Google search visibility is improved by us simply using some form of infoboxes, it is probably a good idea.

I agree.

 

[Elizhaa]

From what I read, I am also neutral on a quote gallery.

 

[Damage3245]

I think that having the image field built into the infobox by default makes sense - but the option should be allowed for profiles which have large landscape images or a large number of images such as the Hulk example given up above, to have the images be displaying just above the infobox.

I think we so long as we allow the option to look best for whichever page, then we'd get the best of both worlds.

 

[Antvasima]

Sera makes a good point in that it would be good if we can we can make mobile viewing more aesthetically pleasing, given that we likely have higher, and increasing, numbers of mobile visitors.

However, part of the poor compatibility issue may be due to that Fandom has been using an outdated source code for running the wikis, and are planning to replace it in the coming months. For example, our image gallery links currently do not work on via the mobile layout.

As such, would it be a good idea to wait several months with applying this change until we know more about how it would work best with the new system? Perhaps NoGround is able to help in that regard, especially as the Wiki Managers have been testing the new system together with the main Fandom staff? He has signed an NDA though, so I doubt that he can give us information yet, but later on it should probably be alright.

https://community.fandom.com/wiki/U...ty_Platform:_The_Vision,_Purpose,_and_Process

 

[Zaratthustra]

The Player (Grim Dawn) has a long classification.

 

[Damage3245]

@Zaratthurstra; okay. Thanks for the example.

 

[The_Impress]

I don't think I'd agree in the slightest as to what Damage said, it would look so inconsistent and nutsy, but oh well, I don't think that topic is going anywhere if there's just back and forth between two stone walls.

 

[Antvasima]

For what it is worth, I agree with Zark, but Sera also makes a good point about that even if we increase the Google visibility, it would be good if we can figure out some way to optimise the aesthetic layout for both desktop and mobile phones at the same time. NoGround is much better informed than I am about that though.

 

[Crzer07]

There are just three aspects of classification if we were to classify classification: species, occupation and group/affiliation. And probably there's a fourth one where people with special powers get ascribed to some specific epithet (ex. Newtype/Coordinator [Gundam], Pretty Cure [Pretty Cure], Sailor Senshi [Sailor Moon], Duelist [YGO!]) but that can also arguably be part of group/affiliation, but other than that, that's about it at least based on what most profiles used so far. It's not so complicated.

But if they are all to be under "classification" perhaps affiliation can be left out because what is better, just having the name of the organization/group/faction/whatever or typing out "Member of... (name of organization/group/faction/whatever)?

(uhh this is all assuming if they'll be in the infobox)

 

[Damage3245]

@Czer07; I do think it would be very simple to split up classification for for the large majority of profiles.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it is simpler to use mostly the same sections as currently.

 

[Zaratthustra]

I've remade the profile for The Player (just its infobox) to show how lengthy it can be. Species should be Classification but I can't seem to be able to change its name.

The Player - Infobox

 

[Damage3245]

Here is a counterpoint; does "classifying" the Player as all of those things actually serve any purpose?

Listing out Commando, Witchblade, Blademaster, Battlemage, etc... Is it necessary?

If restrict the classification to just a few standardized things like species, occupation, affiliation, etc. then I can see it, but frankly I think the current classification system is a bit vague and descriptions that fall outside the standard list shouldn't be included.

 

[Promestein]

Personally I always hated the vague classification thing

 

[Zaratthustra]

In the verse is important since 95% of his powers/skill comes from these "Commando, Witchblade, Blademaster, Battlemage, etc". Half of them are even his Keys while the other half is a combination of them, example: Soldier + Occultist = Witchblade.

You can say it doesn't help with anything in a match (fight), but since its indexing a character, its more correct and precise to put them. Adding them makes the profile more accurate.

I'm in for a more expanded infobox since it will make it more precise.

 

[Damage3245]

@Zaratthustra; my suggestion then would be that they belong more in the "Notable Techniques" section than being listed as his classification, especially if they're important.

 

[Zaratthustra]

They are already in Notable Technique, but he is classified as these things since they are the "classes" within the game.

I think a more complex Infobox could help, like the one on FC/OC wiki for example.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't want us to start editing out information from thousands of pages. The conversion process should be as simple as possible for the sake of convenience.

 

[Damage3245]

I would prefer for this to be kept simple, but this is also a chance to improve the format of pages going forwards.

I think there is a compromise which would keep it simple and help structure things for the future;

1) When profiles are converted into the infobox format, the information that's already in their Classification section that can be moved to the Infobox such as their species, will be moved there. (This is straightforward since we'll already be moving info such as their Gender, Origin, etc.)

2) Anything that doesn't belong in the infobox will be left in the Classification section as is. (This way, we aren't removing information from thousands of pages).

3) In the future when the time is appropriate, we will review what do with the Classification section.

This way we keep the Classification section for now, for the profiles that need it, and we display the rest of the information is a straightforward readable format in the infobox.

 

[Antvasima]

I still think that mass-editing several thousands of pages in this manner is going to cause lots of confusion and errors. Sorry.

 

[Zaratthustra]

We would still mass-edit several thousands of pages in the end with applying the "Infobox", what's adding several more lines? This way we would do it just once, in the future if we do, it will be again editing several thousands of pages to apply the rest.

Shouldn't we do it just once and not twice? I understand that you want to make it more simple but since this will take a long time to edit all pages, why not let the supporters and those who want to help, to do the changes overtime. This way the loadwork will be mitigated over a long period of time than a short one, and such it will not be so exhausting or confusing.

 

[Damage3245]

@Zaratthustra; agreed. So long as we're clear about what the process is, there should be minimal confusion.

 

[Agnaa]

@Crzer Those are far from enough for the profiles I'm familiar with. Those epithets are in no way arguable to be put under affiliation.

@Damage I still think that'd be misleading, since there'd be some profiles which we've agreed can't have infoboxes that would have their species under Classification, while profiles with infoboxes wouldn't have their species there. This seems like it'd be confusing for people.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I am also concerned that this would recurrently be confusing and cause lots of mistakes.

 

[Damage3245]

@Agnaa; eventually all profiles should have infoboxes though, right? So I don't see that being a significant issue.

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa; eventually all profiles should have infoboxes though, right? So I don't see that being a significant issue.

Wrong. Infoboxes look bad on profiles with landscape images, whether they're in the infobox or outside of it. The best solution we had was to not implement infoboxes on these profiles.

 

[Damage3245]

@Agnaa; I thought the proposed solution for that was either 1) not include the images in the infobox itself, or 2) use alternative suitable images instead.

 

[GyroNutz]

The images look bad outside of the infobox imo

 

[Damage3245]

@GyroNutz; I mostly agree, which is why I don't want that to be the standard. But for examples that were offered up to me like the Hulk's page, I think it could work.

 

[Agnaa]

The hulk's pages pictures are portrait, not landscape. You're conflating two different issues.

The issue I'm talking about: Landscape pictures looking bad inside infobox or outside infobox. And only looking good when made inconsistent with other infobox pages.

The issue you're talking about: Profiles having multiple quotes with multiple images, which doesn't functionally work inside infoboxes. The solution being the Hulk draft you linked.

 

[Damage3245]

@Agnaa; I see. In that case the next solution would be to put in alternative images that aren't landscape.

 

[Antvasima]

Let's wait for new relevant information from the Wiki Manager, so we do not run out of posts before that.

 

[Agnaa]

@Damage Sometimes portrait images aren't available, aren't good enough, or don't actually represent the character.

@Ant I feel like we'll probably need another thread regardless.

 

[Sera_EX]

There are far more profiles with portraits than landscapes anyway.

 

[Agnaa]

There are far more profiles with portraits than landscapes anyway.

Yes, and? I'm not sure what that has to do with my point.

 

[The_Impress]

Okay so for curiosity's sake, I applied the system proposed by Damage to Daredevil (2003 Movie Version) and Daredevil (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and like, seriously, look at them and tell me they're even from the same wiki...

 

[Agnaa]

Ahh why'd you apply the image titles on actual pages...