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

Difference between revisions of "Template talk:ImpShips"

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search
(Modified to parametrize the hiding: new section)
m (reply)
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
Now it's possible to decide wheter it should be collapsed or not in every page. I suggest to collapse it everywhere except in the pages depicting the single ships, in which case it would look better if initially expanded. --[[User:Madness|Madness]] 15:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 
Now it's possible to decide wheter it should be collapsed or not in every page. I suggest to collapse it everywhere except in the pages depicting the single ships, in which case it would look better if initially expanded. --[[User:Madness|Madness]] 15:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 +
:Hate to point it out but it isn't collapsing, and the collapse option has gone.--[[User:Jonru|Jonru]] 15:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:52, 26 June 2009

First let me tell you that I'm very impressed by the more recent work done in the articles about the ships of Imperial Navy. Merging articles thereby creating good articles, instead of too many and too small stubs (that's what they were before - some stubs where about individual ships!) is IMHO the way to go. Also this way someone can easily compare the subclasses with each other.

Perhaps some of the links could be changed? How about providing links to the Classes (e.g. Battleships) and subclasses (e.g. Light Cruiser )? Currently every single ship-class has its own individual link but in reality the shipclass is many times a paragraph inside of the bigger article. It is just an idea.

The Escorts article could (and should?) also be merged into a single good article (named Frigate class? something like that) in the same fashion as the Battleship article. Irulan 18:53, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

I'd say go for Escort Class, there aren't enough to make a frigate class and a destroyer class and then an escort class. As for the template, i'll see what I can do...--Jonru 19:10, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
Update:How does this look to you? Can remove more links when more is done etc.--Jonru 19:26, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
Bloody hell, that was a quick response (I was just proposing it, was expecting more of an answer and not such a quick action)! I think that it is a step in the right direction, but it still needs further improvements. Perhaps a few more division/box/dividing lines which start at/below a sub-class (e.g. Grand Cruisers) then carries on into the next box including the respective ship-classes (in this case:Avenger Class • Exorcist Class • Governor Class • Vengeance Class). Basicly this creates "sub-boxes". Irulan 19:58, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
Ok, further revisions done. Have fun at your party!--Jonru 20:30, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

I had to make it wider just so it fit on my screen (it was about the screen height from it being too condensed. SanchiTachi 21:05, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Was fine on mine, but then I do use a stupidly small screen resolution... As for thunderhawks, I guess that sort of thing should go on there really.--Jonru 21:07, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
Well, theres a problem. The Imperial Navy includes the fighters and bombers (lightnings, marauders, etc), and the transport/fighters. However, unlike them, the Thunderhawks are actually used for attack in space (I don't think the others really are, but they could be). Maybe we could have a second chart for the smaller classes, i.e. one for capitals (which these are) and one for the others? I don't know. My brain hurts. :) SanchiTachi 04:13, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

Modified to parametrize the hiding

Now it's possible to decide wheter it should be collapsed or not in every page. I suggest to collapse it everywhere except in the pages depicting the single ships, in which case it would look better if initially expanded. --Madness 15:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hate to point it out but it isn't collapsing, and the collapse option has gone.--Jonru 15:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)