We may need a standard portable infobox for our profile pages

[Skalt711]

Wouldn't the <pre></pre> code block mess up the mobile page? As for the image, I think it'll still be useful for the people, who want some guide in how the source code works + a while/black contrast works pretty nice for the wiki.

 

[NoGround]

Oh wow I didn't even think of that, but yes, it would. Good catch!

 

[Skalt711]

Here's my draft. Looking for opinions.

 

[Antvasima]

I forgot how do I edit a standard layout? I'll update the standard format, sorry for lazying around again

Here it is: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Createpage-with-video

 

[Antvasima]

Here's my draft. Looking for opinions.

Thank you, but you need to update the example image at the top to one that uses Damage's new infobox, and also rewrite various instruction texts below.

 

[Skalt711]

I'll take care of it tomorrow, I'm about to sleep. Will add an additional instruction about the infobox's source code as well.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out. I appreciate it.

 

[Crzer07]

Before we go through the trouble of updating the example image again I wonder if I can propose to add one more thing (not in the infobox) or you may want a new thread about it instead

 

[Damage3245]

What is the additional thing?

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Feel free to tell us.

 

[Crzer07]

Often you'd find descriptions of alternate forms in the attacks/techniques section, then again that may just be a matter of style/preference if you dont feel like it also being its own separate thing.

 

[Damage3245]

I don't think I understand what you mean?

 

[Crzer07]

Something like this

Forms/Power ups: Description of alternate forms and transformations (if any) a character may have

 

[Damage3245]

Ah, I see.

Personally I don't think that needs to be added as its own section; you would just normally add that into the Notable Attacks/Techniques section.

 

[NoGround]

After applying the new infobox to Kumoko, I've realized that you may want to center the gallery tabs on display for pages with multiple images. To do this, you go to MediaWiki:Common.css and apply this code:

 /* Centered tabs in infoboxes */ .pi-europa .pi-image-collection-tabs { text-align: center; }

 

[Skalt711]

Not needed. The human perception will better see the tabs when they are placed at the left side, rather than at the center. Tested by my experience.

 

[NoGround]

This is true, even if it doesn't look that good, though that is a matter of opinion lol.

 

[Skalt711]

Btw my final changes will be done today, I was busy yesterday. Just a bit more patience, please~

 

[Antvasima]

@Skalt711

No problem. Thank you very much for helping out.

 

[Skalt711]

Need an opinion on the new example image.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, preferably is not spelled with two "r".

I would prefer if you write "==Explanations== (Optional)" instead of the current version.

And I am not sure if that shade of blue is the best aesthetical option for the extra instruction box. A somewhat lighter hue might work though.

"An example image" is better than "an example image" in the beginning of a sentence.

Other than that it mostly seems fine to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, the standard size explanation text was mostly written by me previously, and likely needs to be adjusted, as I think that the infobox only allows for much smaller images.

 

[Skalt711]

Ah damn, how I could ignore such silly mistakes , will fix soon

The infobox doesn't even allow to change the image's size.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem. What width do the images get with an infobox?

 

[Antvasima]

Also, we should make clear that the images should only have captions if we give credit to an Internet artist.

We should also make clear which parts of the infobox sections that are mandatory and which ones that are optional.

 

[Skalt711]

There is no defined limit at the image's size as it seemingly depends on the infobox's size. Pixel measurement says that the images get 375px in width.

As for the captions, the ones in the infobox can't have them. Do you suggest the same change to the images in the Gallery section?

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks. Is it possible to adjust the image sizes within the infobox limits? This could turn into a problem otherwise.

One of the options in the infobox says "caption", although I am not sure whether or not this is appropriate to keep.

 

[Damage3245]

> Is it possible to adjust the image sizes within the infobox limits? This could turn into a problem otherwise.

How would it be a problem? Could you make an example showing where this would not work?

 

[Skalt711]

I think it might be problematic with images, who have exclusively album (vertical) look.

 

[Agnaa]

> Is it possible to adjust the image sizes within the infobox limits? This could turn into a problem otherwise.

How would it be a problem? Could you make an example showing where this would not work?

Not all images on profiles work at a size of 375px. I could try drafting a case where it's an issue, but even without that I think it could be a problem.

 

[Skalt711]

Ah, just found the captions within the code. The thing is that they don't work with multiple images.

 

[Agnaa]

Also, we should make clear that the images should only have captions if we give credit to an Internet artist.

Oh, I used captions on one page, since the only time the verse shows that sword they also show another sword, so I used a caption to clarify which sword the profile's talking about. Should I have done something else?

 

[Overlord775]

> Is it possible to adjust the image sizes within the infobox limits? This could turn into a problem otherwise. How would it be a problem? Could you make an example showing where this would not work?

Look at Master Unit: Amaterasu for exemple

 

[Agnaa]

When drafting infobox implementations on a few profiles I noticed an issue. Species and affiliation aren't really enough categories to replace "Classification" from the original profiles. In a verse I'm working o those with supernatural powers are called "Inscribed" and those without are called "Mundies". But these aren't a species or an affiliation, so information gets lost when moving to this format.

But there's also some good news: Photos that are particularly tall aren't stretched out to 375px; it looks like there's a cap on height as well that makes their width and height automatically appropriate for a profile. This may be an issue with pictures that are too short, but I only knew one example of that which I drafted with no issues.

 

[Agnaa]

Look at Master Unit: Amaterasu for exemple

Here's a draft of that, and it does look bad when compressed, yeah.

And knowing that mechs are a thing makes me want to change from "Species/Affiliation" back to the old "Classification".

 

[Damage3245]

@Agnaa; sounds like that could just be mentioned in the initial summary.

Either that, or Classification is added in as a separate row to Species & Affiliation.

 

[Antvasima]

@Damage

I was referring to character images that are far wider than they are tall or far taller than they are wide, so they turn unbalanced with these kind of restricted borders.

@Agnaa

Relevant explanations are probably fine. However, historically captions have usually been pointless or cheeky comments, inappropriately placed quotes, or similar.

 

[Agnaa]

@Ant Understandable on the captions part.

For images in infoboxes, so far it seems like images that are too tall work well as the infobox also has a height cap that keeps things balanced. But images that are too wide look pretty awful. Maybe they should just have a centered image at the top like they usually do, while leaving the infobox without an image?

 

[GyroNutz]

How does the profile look without the image in the infobox?

 

[Agnaa]

Ouch, image not in the infobox still looks pretty bad. Option A Option B. Neither look pretty imo.