We may need a standard portable infobox for our profile pages

[The_Impress]

Yeah... seeing how it's gonna look... I don't really think that key gallery is la good idea, frankly unneeded.

@Damage there are quite a few exceptions to this however, as such it'll look inconsistent. Anyhow I don't particularly care for this matter, it's trivial, I just it specified that it is entirely optional to limit a profile's images to the infobox, alongside restoration of the classification section back onto the page. I only brought up removing the images from the infobox so that there is a clear standard for the format, but oh well, I suppose it's for the majority to decide.

 

[NoGround]

The issue is not the aesthetics of the page, though. I understand Zark's opinion but we're not discussing aesthetics. The entire conversation is about SEO. Infoboxes are one of the biggest and most important aspects to increasing SEO on Fandom. The conversation is about how to make the infoboxes work, not whether or not they should be implemented.

Yeah... seeing how it's gonna look... I don't really think that key gallery is la good idea, frankly unneeded.

Me neither, I don't like how it looks or how it is implemented onto the page. Just testing things.

 

[The_Impress]

Also fellas just wanna make clear this is still a staff discussion board and not "spam thread" board, any bluenames you see here are an ex-staff and a wiki manager, so if you want to get across a point, ask a staff member to post it for you to avoid clutter

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The issue is not the aesthetics of the page, though. I understand Zark's opinion but we're not discussing aesthetics. The entire conversation is about SEO. Infoboxes are one of the biggest and most important aspects to increasing SEO on Fandom. The conversation is about how to make the infoboxes work, not whether or not they should be implemented.

I'm aware that its about SEO, but the issue with it is how it doesn't really lend itself to pages with multiple quotes, and how it crams the page (zark's specific point was concerning P&A sections, I believe). so it can be about SEO, sure, but it is simultaneously an issue of keeping profiles looking half decent to the average user, something which I suspect falls under SEO.

I'll probably just let zark point out the issues with this, I'm largely just agreeing on a few of her points.

 

[NoGround]

Yeah, I did notice the issues with tabber stacking if the infobox reaches the P&A section. Basically, it would look ok only on pages with longer summaries.

There is also another solution, and that is to lower the width of the infobox. Basic infoboxes are set to 320px on the nose. I've reduced widths of infoboxes on some wikis to reduce page clutter, such as on Arifureta wiki. I've also adjusted the tabs so that they are even.

I can also reduce the height of each individual section in order to reduce the overall height of the infobox.

The issue with actually testing these things is that I would need to write them into the code for everyone to see them... for everything that gets implemented. Basically, I have to edit all the infoboxes at the same time. Currently, not many infoboxes are on the wiki, so if we want to mess with CSS, now would be the time.

 

[The_Impress]

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

My proposal would look like this

 

[NoGround]

Probably better to use a draft page. Tabber doesn't seem to work in forums, but I get the picture.

e: Here is my proposed CSS code: MediaWiki:EuropaCustom.css

 

[The_Impress]

Ah sorry, I converted it into a blog

 

[NoGround]

That actually looks really good and is the best of both worlds. Seeing it implemented.

Personally I want to get rid of the border for tabbers, but that's another issue entirely lol.

 

[Agnaa]

Quotes are another thing entirely. It's not as important as Infoboxes, but using quotes as a header is advised against, which is also entirely different from even losing quotes-per-image. Keeping in mind the main goal of the infobox changes is to increase portability in order to maintain high SEO, another issue are Tab Navigation elements.

One minor thing, it seems like quotes are advised against since they'd appear in lede snippets in search results, but from my experience lede snippets either ignore the quote entirely or only include it if there's no summary.

E: Kumoko/draft Usage of different gallery techniques. Please check source code for comments.

This does not look good at all to me. It can barely handle 11 words of a quote well, and putting this at the top shoves the actual character stats wayyyy down.

@Zark Hidden content isn't that relevant in play in my opinion, a few microseconds of extra scrolling isn't killing anyone, and I doubt whether it'll be made better with the infoboxes which take approximately as much time.

The issue isn't that hidden content ruins people's experience, the issue is that Google knows when there's hidden content and punishes pages in their search ranking for it.

My proposal would look like this

That looks pretty dang nice, but what did you mean by removing the classification field?

 

[Antvasima]

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.

 

[The_Impress]

Well mainly the classification section has been used as an elaboration section for a characters job, occupation, status, condition and more. So I think the species field should be removed and tha classification section should be restored in profiles.

 

[Agnaa]

Well mainly the classification section has been used as an elaboration section for a characters job, occupation, status, condition and more. So I think the species field should be removed and tha classification section should be restored in profiles.

Couldn't we simply add classification to the infobox, so no information is lost?

 

[Ogbunabali]

I agree with Zark on classification replacing species and occupation. It does the same thing and more.

 

[The_Impress]

In my opinion classifications tend to be too elaborate, and actually somewhat more relevant to VS Debating that it should be outside the infobox

 

[Antvasima]

I don't mind if we move the classification term to outside of the infobox and let it replace species and occupation.

 

[Ogbunabali]

It doesn't have to leave the infobox, just replace the species and occupation in the infobox with classification.

 

[The_Impress]

btw slightly derailing but i found a kewl little trick you can do with my arrangement, by adding an image in the title, so if you were to recheck my blog, that's pretty radical, right people?

 

[Antvasima]

@Ogbunabali

Okay. That is probably fine, but as Zark said, classification is recurrently very elaborate/takes a lot of room, and may use several sections that are unsuitable for an infobox format.

@Zark

I prefer to not repeat the character name over and over. It was fine earlier.

 

[Ogbunabali]

@Ogbunabali

Okay. That is probably fine, but as Zark said, classification is recurrently very elaborate/takes a lot of room, and may use several sections that are unsuitable for an infobox format.

Does it? Character's titles/aliases usually take much more room than that from my experience.

 

[The_Impress]

I mean, the alternative is just a plaintext "The Hulk", since we need to title it regardless so it's cohesive. Might as well get slightly appealing with it if we can, infact I'd argue it breaks the monotony with a splash of colour. But oh well, it's just a trivial little spice someone can put in their profiles if they are able to anyhow

 

[Antvasima]

@Ogbunabali

In my experience, yes, but I may be mistaken.

 

[The_Impress]

Some classifications tend to get expansive if the character is overly complex. It's not a big point of contention for me, but I'd still rather prefer if it's kept outside

 

[Antvasima]

@Zark

My apologies, but I prefer ordered standardisation in this case.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Some classifications tend to get expansive if the character is overly complex. It's not a big point of contention for me, but I'd still rather prefer if it's kept outside

Some character's titles can get extensive as well. Talos. But I don't see why we would take it out because of exceptions. Classification usually has one to three or so things in it from everything I've seen (even spammed the random page button for a while).

 

[Promestein]

I don't particularly see an issue with Zark wanting that for a few pages. Our pages already aren't uniformly, perfectly standardized. We can standardize some things but it's not like any deviation should be discouraged

I don't care either way though

 

[The_Impress]

Well I suppose my proposition is agreeable enough to apply, hopefully?

 

[Overlord775]

yes, it should be doable imo since it would leave the page's quality uneffected and add the info box at the same time, that is unless it messes with the search algorythm

 

[Damage3245]

What is left to decide on exactly?

 

[The_Impress]

I formatted a draft for my pitch, that is what is to be agreed upon ig so it may be finalized.

It's linked above iirc

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we need a confirmation from NoGround that Zark's compromise solution will improve our Google search results.

 

[Damage3245]

What exactly is the compromise? Because I am still not in favor of removing images entirely from the infoboxes. I think that for profiles where it is more suitable, it is best to keep them in there.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that Zark's version with images and quotes outside of the infoboxes looks much better. The issue is if it would actually benefit our Google search results rankings.

 

[Damage3245]

@Antvasima; couldn't we only use that compromised version for pages that specifically require multiple images and quotes?

It's not like every profile with multiple images has quotes on it. Or has images that can't easily fit in an infobox.

 

[Agnaa]

@Damage I think if we did that we'd need two different Infobox setups, which could make things more confusing for editors.

 

[Damage3245]

@Damage I think if we did that we'd need two different Infobox setups, which could make things more confusing for editors.

We don't actually. Just the one infobox would work in both scenarios.

 

[Antvasima]

I prefer to use the same structure if possible. Let's wait and see if NoGround has any information about Google for us.

 

[NoGround]

Regarding the hybrid usage, it is something I will need to discuss further with other staff to see, as well as further research on my end. May take a couple days so I will see if I can get back to you on Monday/Tuesday if I can get a meeting. (also I'm aware that Kumoko/draft looks awful. I disliked it too, but it was worth trying out to actually see it.)

My personal, gut feeling is that it should be okay for good SEO mobile scraping.

 

[KLOL506]

I still think there should be a Classification part in the infobox where info about what the character does for a living is mentioned.

 

[Agnaa]

@KLOl506 Just to remind you, Ant and Zark are against that and would rather leave it in the Powers and Stats section, since some profiles have exceedingly long Classifications.