From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Restored discussion from who knows where originally 1.1 Stopping the revert warring to discuss the changes individually 1.1.1 Header issues 1.1.2 Variable color 1.1.3 hiddenStructure 1.1.4 A second image 1.1.5 Trivia 1.2 Removed fields

[edit] Restored discussion from who knows where originally

I'm restoring this discussion so it can continue and can be easily referred to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stopping the revert warring to discuss the changes individually

I reverted to the last working version (since the color and image2 parameters aren't in the articles any more) so we can stop and talk about changing this template further. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Header issues

Why aren't we using the "infobox bordered" class? It's there to give the infoboxes a uniform appearance. I'm indifferent to fiddling with the spacing/padding, but please don't add a fixed width since it can lead to scrunched text or an overlarge infobox on some screens. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No one but you desires a uniform appearence. I think this being a encyclopedia endowed with wiki capabilities allows the creators to make original and different designs. If the editors desired a drab CVG cut and paste, it would have been implemented long ago. These articles are original and not simply box CD-ROMs released monthly. An original template (similar to the pattern seen on list of templates is acceptable). -Zero^Talk 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a color thing; the class doesn't set the colors. (It sets a number of other style parameters, and allows users to customize the way infoboxes appear on their browser.) It worries me that you're revert warring over changes whose effects you aren't even aware of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• When did say I anything about colors? I am aware of what class does. -Zero^Talk 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, you didn't, did you. Laa, laa, go reading comprehension for me. (Struck idiotic comments above.) Anyway, I maintain that the that the point of templates is to have uniform appearance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• The template design is menat to be attractive to draw editors to the article. -Zero^Talk 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought an infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject, not something to draw editors to an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with not using the original design? We use the same infobox to document data on the main videogame articles and that's great. Its something different now. If what you argue is true, then a extrusion across the Tekken, SF, and thousands of other articles would be warrented and you are fully aware that won't be accepted. The common concensus is to make a original template for each series of characters. And without editors, there are no article improvements. Fairly simple stuff I shold have thought. -Zero^Talk 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• So far, you're the only editor that's complained about it.-Zero^Talk 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A red herring. You're the only one who's complained about me using the standard class, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite. You just implemented it after the previous design was in use for a year. Of course I'm going to be surprised. You at first complained it was the messiness and inclusion of hiddenstructure. That's fixed and I made a proper merge. So there's no problem.-Zero^Talk 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I made it a month ago, and thought you were aware of it and were planning to use it as you revised character articles. I haven't done much to most of the KoF character articles since I made it. However, when I saw that you were making an inferior template that served the same purpose, I immediately interceded to prevent useless duplication of effort. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm fairly bold editor, so when its time to make mass changes across articles, I do so almost immediately in a short timeframe (my impossible-to-ignore edittting habbits should have clued you in). I forsaw the only reason that my template was inferior was its ineptitude to be extruded and other stuff. I assumed your template was for use in the list articles (where its uniform format is more appropriate) since that was the subject we spoke of at the time of our meeting. And I apologize for that. I certainly think your work should not go to waste, so I'd like it if we could merge and revert to my previous version. If you agree, the brief timeframe of the article fuck-ups should be no problem, as I'm a fairly hard worker and I can fix them all promptly. -Zero^Talk 06:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, that's not what "ineptitude" or "extruded" means.

I absolutely don't think we should move to a different-appearance-for-every-article style, not at all. I'm not really willing to compromise on this point; I've already conceded variable image sizes, including all the inane trivia (Favorite food? Measurements? How is this enyclopedic?), I've conceded for the time being standalone article about minor characters like Angel and Heavy D!. There are points I'm willing to concede, but a different appearance for this infobox in every article tears it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then let's inquire for a third opinion. As of roughly three pharagraphs you still have not disclosed to me how the template design harms the site or any other negative values. I'm really sorry about that. I didn't mean to offend you when I reverted. I just don't agree with your interpretation and cannot understand, from what you have written, how my edits, as you described them, were in anyway negative. Its some common view of "Well all the related templates should be the same becasue of I think that's what policy dictates". I'll just leave it that my template has been in full use and that is the common practice associated with this brand of articles. I'm honestly neutral on the matter. But that is what has transpired over the timeframe of the creation of them, and that's what works. Mty edits certainly aren't considered vandalism and I see no reason to consider so here. Zero^Talk 06:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Variable color

Why is this useful or necessary? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Allows the template some varible qualities. See the comic character template for my inspiration on this. Why are we using the CVG template design..? These are characters in a creative video game. If the wiki didn't allow this, then it wouldn't be possible. -Zero^Talk 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The comic templates use color-coding for heros/villains/bystandards/teams, not for aesthetic reasons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• We use it for elements, alignments and gender. Ethier way, its implementation isn't anyway harmful.-Zero^Talk 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's needlessly complex, and it isn't in any way useful, especially given that there's no guide to using or interpreting ithe colors, and because many of these aspects are subjective. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Editors that have used it had no problem at all. How is color1 = complex..? -Zero^Talk 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not a great deal of complexity; I'm more annoyed by making the infoboxes different for difference's sake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
        • So? Its a wiki. There's nothing wrong with creativity. If it simply annoys you, then that's hardly a reason to become vexed. I recall no one touched these articles proir to the template. And now busines is booming. If there's a serious problem that interferes with the editting process, then I would remove it. As it is, its lovely and I've already reviewed this before I created it with several editors. -Zero^Talk 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
          • "Nobody fixed this problem" doesn't mean it isn't a problem; it just means that nobody had gotten around to fixing the problem yet. Plus, the problem with configurable images colors isn't immediately apparent, and easily could have been overlooked. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you speaking of? You say its a problem. Well I'm certianly willing to listen. What is the problem? And what do images have to do with the relevancy of this? -Zero^Talk 05:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not uniform. It messes up people using custom style sheets. It's design complexity that serves little purpose. The precedent is largely meaningless, since it was originally implemented without discussion.

But, above all else, an infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I've no complaints with leaving the color syntax out since you seem to believe it is very determental, and I accept your explanation with gracious thanks. -Zero^Talk 06:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hiddenStructure

Don't use hiddenStructure to make the caption disappear. That was a really retarded thing for me to do, when you can just use instead of {{{caption}}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I resigned to not using it and implemented your structure with my original design. -Zero^Talk 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is unnecessary, and can possibly interfere unnecessarily with custom style sheets. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

These are consistant character articles that won't have any more data to include anyway. The last game of the series is (presumebly) KOF 2006. There is no need for this restriction since its a specialty template. -Zero^Talk 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

...what? What does that have to do with what I said above? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Since when do the custom sheets come into play...? -Zero^Talk 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're setting valign="top" when that's the default in the default style sheet anyway. There's no need to force it; if someone wants to make a personal SS without valign="top" in their infobox class, let them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I implemented that to retain the design (or so I believed). If it is unnecessary, then I've no complaints with it being removed. -Zero^Talk 05:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A second image

Why? Why do we have to place the second image in the infobox, instead of simply in the body of the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

On many browsers, mixing the second images in even long articles interferes with the subsections. The template restricts all that to one side. I've no idea how it conveys on your monitor, but I recieved many negative extrusions before the implementation of the template.-Zero^Talk 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, if the box and the images are colliding, it means the box is too large, the images are too large, or the article is too short. Shrinking the images fixes the first two problems, and in the case of the latter, the article doesn't need two images (Angel comes to mind). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I got rid of angel's and other short articles. And I didn't note anything about the template colliding. I noted that it interfered with the subsections. -Zero^Talk 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh. In that case, usually what you need to do is left-align the secondary image. (See Raiden (Metal Gear) for an example.) Easy peasy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I just would like the images to remain in one place. I'd rather not bother swithing crap around and leaving big spaces on some monitors while being fine on others. doing this in the template keeps everything neat I should think. -Zero^Talk 05:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It bloats an already-far-too-large template, and borders on making the template into an ad-hoc image gallery. That's far from neat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's something I can bend on. Certainly. But this is why I made the code pertaining to this section able to be unuseable. We can discuss this in a seperate vein; leave images out in some articles, inclusion of others. I'm quite certain you know I am fully aware of policy and am vehemomently opposed to galleries on an encyclopedia. As a long-time contributor, I'll ask that you assume good faith and note that when I make more than one image in a template it is for a good and productive reasoning, always for the benefit of the site. -Zero^Talk 05:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Faith, schmaith. I don't think it's vandalism, I think it's a bad idea. If you need a second image, put it in the body with the relevant prose just like every single other article on Wikipedia. Why are KoF articles special? Why not put the pictures with the relevant prose? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Its that bloody "form" thing. Its not as if I'm advocating allowing this on the mass number of articles like previously. Merely only a few that I believe would be appropriate. I see no trouble with leaving the syntax able to be unused as I implemented and if a user insists on it, we revert and provide an explanation to compenstate. Been there, done that. -Zero^Talk 06:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In what article do you want to put an alternate image in the infobox? Let's talk about examples; there's the possibility that you don't understand my point, or that you're suggestion a situation I've overlooked. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The few it works best is with Iori Yagami, Kyo Kusangai, Leona, Athena. We can discard all the others and distribute them the way you see fit later. -Zero^Talk 06:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Kyo different from, say, Benimaru or Terry? Why do Kyo, Iori, and Leona need two images in the infobox? (I assume Athena is because of the regular girl/magical girl transformation, but even that should probably go with the prose explaining that she can transform.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can she transform..? I'm not quite positive. I believed it to be more of "random" short of thing.

I'm a neat freak I suppose, and like keeping the pics to the side. This is the first time someone has suggested that it was a problem (how, I'm not quite sure). I wish it wasn't. -Zero^Talk 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the transforming is a standard magical girl thing.

That aside, I really think any images beyond the single identifying one need to be put with prose to lend context. This is good for copyright reasons (you need to have context to make a decent fair use claim), to prevent decorative-only images, and to keep articles from being crammed full of fansite-like image galleries. One image is easy to explain, but once you have two, why not three or four or more? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. With respect, I think the problem, which is what transpired after having taken up with Johnny2x4 was that a large number were certainly unnecessary, as was his unnecessarily updated edits over the construction period. Such negelligible content make for bad editing environments. I shall be debating over this aspect and I'll get back on it. -Zero^Talk 07:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's 2 AM here. Can you repeat that, using single-syllable words so my tired brain can parse it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Some of the trrivia sections are wayyyy too big!

[edit] Removed fields

I've removed the "likes" and "dislikes" fields because they are:

• a) Unimportant and crufty.
• b) Inconsistant. This type of information can change with each game (and does).
• c) Is better worked into the article...or not.--SeizureDog 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)