mod, Administrators
3,660
edits
Changes
→Succession box mk.2: - things get complex...
Yay or nay? [[User:Sheepdean|sheepdean]] [[User_talk:Sheepdean|Try to speak as clearly as you can]] 04:32, 4 June 2009 (PDT)
:tbh, i prefer the info boxes on Wikipedia (for albums, admittedly). augmenting the ones we have now to include successions and album art would look way better than separate boxes, imo. i think they're pretty barren without album art, and to make a comprehensive songbox including its title, album, album or song art, length, remixes, and succession patterns seems like a superior idea to me - if it works with the song page layouts (i.e. doesn't introduce vast whitespace). - [[User:Seasonsinthesky|Seasonsinthesky]] 07:57, 4 June 2009 (PDT)
::problems with using a modified version of wikipedia's box are - we'd have to manually alter every song page to add the extra details, and there's a LOT of them - using the album on art on each page would be a big waste of server space, so just generally a bad idea, but creating a template with room for an image and not using it every time would mean white space - there's already a lot of information in those song boxes, and colour-coding them, simple as it looks on page view, is not - wikipedia use a separate template for the colours because different colours have different meaning.
::However, what we ''could'' do is have the box at top and bottom, one being part of the song template, one as the normal box. I don't like pinching things from wiki, and something as code-intensive as that infernal thing is pointless. The succession box would work best at top and bottom, but my variety of wiki-knowing people have all confirmed that it is impossible, without javascripting the page or raping it epically with some DIV codes, to hack a template into two. So shall I:
::*get to work redesigning the song box and leave succession as is
::*post this redesign and redesign song box
::*this redesign only, no song box
::*leave both