Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Template talk:Loyalist Chapters

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Layout issues

Anybody an idea why this template looks shit, i.e. why there are empty space above and below the info parts? Thx. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe it has to do with the fact that the info parts may expand it there’s too many characters for one line. As a result the amount of space needed for the info lines doesn’t always match up with the size of the images to the sides. For a chapter with not much info available like the Aquiloan Brotherhood it leaves a space, for chapters with some info on most of the lines like Relictors it matches fairly nicely or see Ultramarines for a particularly bad example - all those successor chapters bloat the template. KazilDarkeye (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
So empty lines have less height than filled lines despite having a descriptive header in the column in front? That is indeed not that easy to wrap my head around :| --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Space Marines chapter templates

I don't like it... It looks like a crumpled something on my PC. At least in the Chapters where there are no Content part (see image): Darkelf77 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

you should have looked at the previous template on a mobile to see real true horror. Altho is was also an assault on the eyes on Desktop. You can still check it with the internet archive if you're not afraid ! Joke aside, it will soon be converted to the current Loyal/Traitors founding chapters template, applying the right-side infobox-style of wikipedia example : Dark Angels. i'm just slow doing it.--Siegfriedfr (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The mobile view for this site (and every site in my opinion) sucks. It was definitely not "an assault on the eyes" in the slightest on desktop. KazilDarkeye (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
i don't know how you could find this dark grey blurb pretty but to each his own. Now about the mobile version, wether we like it or not, most people use mobile when looking for info, so it's our responsability as editors to make sure the templates we use are compatible with both versions. And i assure you, the "Chapters" template simply didn't work on mobile. I took screens shots and i'll post them if i have to, or you could accept that wikipedia infoxboxes exists for a reason.--Siegfriedfr (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a little abrupt of me. I actually do have a proposal for a solution - we had a similar thing a while back for the templates for Knight Houses and Titan Legions. Basically the idea was that for minor Houses/Legions there would just be an infobox (e.g. House Black or Legio Adamantus), while for those that had actual images, they would get a full table (e.g. House Terryn, House Raven, Legio Honorum or Legio Fureans). Perhaps something similar could be done here (only the other way round)? KazilDarkeye (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
read my answer above to Kazil, the problem is some people create templates for Desktop, and forget that full-width templates are destroyed on mobile--Siegfriedfr (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
First: I'd like to appeal to everybody to be polite and civilized. And to remind everybody that for many of us English actually isn't the first language, so some things might come across more harshly then intended, thank you.
Second: I'd like to explicitly thank the people who put in the work to make templates for their efforts. I already love that we seem to get rid of "unknown" entries.
Third: This does not exclude that maybe some fine-tuning and compromises will be needed. That is why a civilized discussion is in order.
Fourth: I was told that one of the problems with this template is that in short articles it tends to look weird on desktop because you have a big broad info box on the right. On Mobile it seems to get automatically centered. So one question to discuss would indeed be if for Desktop a center alignment (as it was before) would be better. Or if there is something else that can be done about it.
Fifth: Some personal random thoughts I had in between: Would it be feasible and useful to maybe include the portal template into the infobox? In order to have sth that looks a bit more orderly. Another question I have is if it is necessary to have the three images in the infobox side-by-side. Maybe a vertical alignment could be tried. Or a "2 at the top, 1 at the bottom" (or vice versa). Thoughts? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

My responses:

  1. Firstly, I do apologise if I came off as rude. As you pointed out in that other thread, I’m not a fan of change to something that has been the same for ages.
  2. The current version of your template is definitely better than the previous one. There are still some issues to work through - as Inquisitor S said, centring the template would be good (I think that would fix most of my problems with it). However, if you look at a page like Sons of Dorn there is something weird going on with the chapter symbol.
  3. I didn’t realise things were that bad on mobile view because whenever I look at a website, I recognise that the mobile view is inherently inferior and immediately switch to the desktop view mode. So the “believed” image above is actually what I was seeing even on my phone and I do this for Wikipedia as well because the mobile view doesn’t let you use certain features and obfuscates others. I certainly didn’t think that compromising the desktop view was worth improving the mobile view because I thought that mobile view was a lost cause and that anyone using this site would use the button at the bottom of the page to switch to desktop view mode.

KazilDarkeye (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well. If it is so bad on mobile - I am not against of changes. Basically a lot of interesting sites looking as shit on the mobile.--Darkelf77 (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

For better or worse *ignoring* Mobile I don't think is an option. Fundamental question: Is it (im)possible to include a kind of switch within the template to adapt it to either Mobile or Desktop mode? Or is it always one template that has to do for both? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Tablet

That's how looks the article 'Sons of Malice' on my tablet now... And zooming (+/-) doesn't change anything. Good on mobile = bad on Tablet and so on. It will be never good for absolutely everyone, you know?--Darkelf77 (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I tweaked the code, on the 23th of May, which has solved this problem specific to mobile-mode. I'm pretty satisfied to how it behaves now wether it be on Desktop, or mobile landscape/portrait modes. It looks and behaves more like a flexible wikipedia sidebar. I'm learning to tame HTML' behaviour to look ok on desktop and mobile as i go, really sorry for the time it took me to find a solution, i should have proofed it before applying it --Siegfriedfr (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
In any case your work is appreciated!--Darkelf77 (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Again... this... (PC, Windows, Opera). Lol I added 'See below' in article but technically now it looks like 'See on the left' and I don't know how it will look like on other platforms.--Darkelf77 (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Clip 202.jpg
  • Sidenote because I am confused: Sons of Malice doesn't use the Loyalist Chapters template but the Chaos Space Marine Warbands one. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)