We may need a standard portable infobox for our profile pages

[KLOL506]

How about writing it off as Occupation? Like, being a businessman is not a power.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean, include it under the same Classification heading as is already on profiles.

 

[KLOL506]

oh wait, so the Classification section will stay alongside the infobox? That could work.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, and species/affiliation would be removed from the infobox.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

The infobox might look good on mobile, but I am definitely not a big fan of it. It simply doesn't look good on desktop.

 

[Damage3245]

Yeah, and species/affiliation would be removed from the infobox.

Why? There is no need for then to be removed from the infobox.

 

[Agnaa]

Why? There is no need for then to be removed from the infobox.

Because Classification covers what they cover without leaving out other information.

Only including them loses a bunch of information, and keeping them is redundant.

 

[The_Impress]

Having things like Affiliations and Occupation and a billion other such categories are useless, Classification is an umbrella term which covers all and more.

Actually one of the things I think would be useful is listing the heights and weights whenever possible on these profiles. It may be useful for calculating purposes if I may.

Also legitimately, having the images outside the box for some and inside for others would look irregular and frankly ugly, I don't see a reason for using it if we do agree upon it.

 

[Damage3245]

@Zark2099; height is already included in the infobox.

Nobody is arguing for adding a "billion other categories" to the infobox.

Species and affiliation are worth keeping in there; if you have some other information that doesn't belong as their alias, species or affiliation, then that information can go in classificiation. I don't see any issue in separating those pieces of information from classification (if we even need classification).

And I completely disagree that having images inside the infoboxes would look ugly. It looks far better when appropriate images are used for it.

 

[Agnaa]

We do need classification.

I don't think it's really necessary to split one category of information (classification) into three (species, affiliation, classification).

I don't think Zark's complaint is that pictures in infoboxes look ugly; just that having pictures in infoboxes on some profiles and not on others would look irregular and ugly.

 

[Damage3245]

There is always going to be some degree of irregularity across profiles. Some have references and some don't. Some will have infoboxes and some won't. Some have notable techniques sections and some don't.

I don't think trying to force profiles into an inferior format for regularity is going to improve things. We should be doing what looks best for the profile, which is why we're even considering this alternative prosposal of some profiles having images separate from the infobox.

And I don't think it is necessary to split one vague, broad category of information into specific structured information.

 

[Agnaa]

But we're not splitting it into specific structured information, we're creating redundancy and confusing irregularity. We're not splitting since classification would still need to be there.

Confusing irregularity would come from non-infobox profiles having species in the classification section, and infobox profiles separating the former.

On a related note, I'm not sure how I feel about splitting Name and Alias, since there are characters who essentially only have aliases, and have many of them, like The Darkness (Monogatari Series).

 

[The_Impress]

Yes there is, but not in the fundamental things like pictures where there clearly doesn't need to be. The standard should be attempted to be held as best as possible anyhow.

I think the images inside the infoboxes look inferior and ugly, it's a matter of perspective, and thus if it is breaking a standard anyhow we shouldn't add them nonetheless.

Specifically structured information isn't available for all profiles, there's a reason we added Classification to the Standard Format and not 20 other fields like "Race" "Species" "Occupation" "Alignment" and more. The point is to remain objective, this a VS indexing site, not any old indexing site where to can have a bajillion irrelevant fields on the profile.

 

[KLOL506]

Height and weight should only be given if it is mentioned explicitly in the verse.

Otherwise, just leave it blank.

 

[Damage3245]

But we're not splitting it into specific structured information, we're creating redundancy and confusing irregularity. We're not splitting since classification would still need to be there.
Confusing irregularity would come from non-infobox profiles having species in the classification section, and infobox profiles separating the former.

On a related note, I'm not sure how I feel about splitting Name and Alias, since there are characters who essentially only have aliases, and have many of them, like The Darkness (Monogatari Series).

You'd only be creating redundancy if you listed the same information in the classification section when there is no need.

Take Spiderman for example, his only classification is "Human with mutated genes". That can just be moved to the infobox and the classification line deleted from his profile.

No field in the infobox is mandatory; if you listed a character with just their alias, then it will display just their alias and not their name.

@Zark2099; I keep noticing that you use ridiculous terms like "billion other categories" and "20 other fields". As far as I can tell no one is arguing in favor of those, so what are you actually arguing against?

 

[The_Impress]

Damage firstly I don't think you know what's going on.

We're arguing that having other fields is unnecessary because the Classification field already covers them, and thus all the other fields like "Affiliations" and "Species" are unneeded. The proposal is getting rid of these fields and put Classification instead to simplify the process, because many characters don't have such specifics. We're not going to have redundancy because we're eliminating other factors which were causing it.

Having that many fields is annoying and confusing. It just leads to poor standard more than anything else and would just look ugly.

I'm sorry if slight exaggeration confuse you, but I don't think I'm being unclear here in the slightest.

 

[Damage3245]

I'm sorry if you're annoyed and confused, but I think that separating out the classification section into structured information makes far more sense and is far more readable for anyone visiting the profiles.

 

[The_Impress]

I am not annoyed or confused, well maybe the latter because I frankly can't see your persistence to these things, but I think they're entirely unnecessary when Classification is a better and more objective approach nonetheless, but I supoose majority can decide such.

 

[Damage3245]

Structuring the information in a clear way makes it a lot more readable than just listing classifications in a random manner in the Powers & Stats section.

 

[Agnaa]

We could have Classification in the infobox, but some people don't want it there since some characters have really large Classification sections.

But that isn't really relevant to the argument, since we'd still need a Classifications section somewhere even with your proposal, and it would probably get put in the Power & Stats section anyway. Moving the species/affiliation to the infobox but leaving everything else out seems like a particularly bad form of irregularity.

 

[Damage3245]

> We could have Classification in the infobox, but some people don't want it there since some characters have really large Classification sections.

Do you have an example of page with a really long classification section? Because it may that we have a problem in the first place with listing unnecessary information in there.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't have any examples. Zark and Ant made that argument, they should be able to provide some.

 

[Antvasima]

I strongly agree with Agnaa and Zark about that we definitely should not split up the classification sections. It would be redundant and cause unnecessary extra work and confusion.

Also, thank you to NoGround for helping out with checking up if our compromise solution would work for improved Google search results.

 

[Damage3245]

@Antvasima; I don't think there would be any redundant information or more work than what is already involved in moving the information to the infobox.

Do you have any examples of profiles that would not work in the current infobox template?

I think that the suggested compromise should only be used for profiles which have multiple images with their own quotes. Which would not be the majority of profiles.

 

[Antvasima]

1) It is much simpler to not have to split up already existing sections into several ones, including with uncertainty regarding what would go where. I will not accept your suggested change. Our current system is working fine in this regard. My apologies.

2) Not off the top of my head, and I am far too busy to go and search for them, but I definitely prefer to mostly keep our current page structures in terms of the information within them.

3) Zark's version also usually looks aesthetically better, as the current images generally have better formatted sizes than an infobox would afford them, so I disagree here as well, but it depends on what information NoGround is able to find for us.

 

[The_Impress]

You will be VERY incorrect there considering most of our popular profiles have that AND Landscape images are destroyed by imageboxes too. Having an all applicable standard such as mine is fine, considering it works for ALL profiles unlike your standards, which only works for some.

And from our conversations on Discord you yourself have admitted you're not willing to adjust to my compromise in the slightest, so I don't see a point in you arguing further considering you have already given your stance on the matter and are now just repeating points which I very well do believe have been addressed, you just refuse to accept them as such.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Zark. Sorry.

 

[Agnaa]

@Zark Do you at least have an example of a long Classification section on a profile for future reference?

 

[Damage3245]

> 1) It is much simpler to not have to split up already existing sections into several ones, including with uncertainty regarding what would go where. I will not accept your suggested change. Our current system is working fine in this regard. My apologies.

I don't understand? You were agreeing with it earlier when I first proposed the infobox format.

Shouldn't the other Bureaucrats and Admins have input on this?

 

[The_Impress]

@Agnaa Not off the top of my head, no, but I do recall folks putting sentences there in some cases. Frankly I don't particularly care for it being in the infobox or not, my point of contention is the Classification section existing in the first place, instead of occupation and species and other fields that'll just add on and on

@Damage Does it matter? New points were brought into light that helped him better understand the situation, this kind of manipulation is cheapish for you to do, Damage

 

[Agnaa]

Other bueaucrats and admins of course should provide input, feel free to contact them.

 

[Sera_EX]

We might need a "quotes" section akin to the gallery section anyway to be frank, since characters never needed to have so many quotes at the top (as it looks abysmal on mobile) in the first place.

 

[Damage3245]

@Sera EX; I think that's a good idea.

We could have a single quote at the top of the page per profile, plus any additional quotes being put in a separate section.

 

[KLOL506]

I agree.

 

[Sera_EX]

Yes. Since this is mostly about mobile when you look at it, we should use whatever looks the most aesthetically pleasing on mobile (use "?useskin=mercury" at the end of a fandom URL for mobile view). That said, some elements of our current format will unfortunately have to change, otherwise this entire thing (if not most of it) is a waste of time and we'll just have to accept our losses.

 

[The_Impress]

Do you think anyone can even properly use mobile in the first place?

It wouldn't work nonetheless given the verse gallery **** up that exists making the mobile version unusable nonetheless, the wiki isn't formatted to run on mobile in the slightest, and thinking that quotes and tabbers are the thing plaguing that experience is ridiculous, and minor at best.

Quotes gallery looks straight up ugly on desktop, and unless someone can come up with a more pretty and manageable variant that'll not happen. Much better to remove quotes altogether in that scenario.

 

[Sera_EX]

I'm a mobile-only staff member and have been since I joined this site. So, yes, people can properly use mobile. I've done so for years.

Also I didn't mean a literal quotes gallery (I should have made that clear). I mean how some pages have a gallery section, there can be a quotes section for characters with many notable quotes.

 

[The_Impress]

So you do know about how the verse galleries don't link and that infoboxes take up approximately as much space as tabbers and that Tab2 takes up massive space on pages if it's linked, and that redirecting to forums is an annoying process and frankly put, despite all that the quotes thing is the thing plaguing you? I have been mobile user myself and I found that the least annoying part of the experience. It legitimately isn't optimized in the slightest for mobile unless folks useskin or enable desktop mode on mobile.

Mhmm, NoDamage showed us an example of that listed above which looks poor frankly, and add to that it's ripe for bulking up pages as folks keep adding more and more alongisde gigantic textwalls to the pages because there won't be a limit then. It's a poor idea given this is a VS indexing site, not a quotes indexing site

 

[Sera_EX]

There seems to be a misunderstanding. I was responding to the notion of "our current format works fine the way it is", which if true we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Our pages look like crap on mobile, especially those with multiple quotes (they look near-perfect on desktop though due to the implementation of tabbers, but tabbers don't show up on mobile for whatever reason).

I wasn't saying all of Damage's ideas were good, and I actually like some of your ideas better. I just think a quote section wouldn't hurt, plenty of anime sites for examples list quotes in their own sections and they look just as good on mobile as they do on desktop. Personally I feel a character only needs one quote anyway but that's just me.

And yes I know verse galleries don't link and the like, which is annoying as hell but that's a different topic.

I hope that clears it up.

 

[Damage3245]

@Zark2099; who is NoDamage?