Template talk:Nav-movie
This nav-template is way too busy. It shouldn't link to every single part of the franchise. The navs for other franchises don't. Only the big stuff. Which would be... uh... the movie. Maybe the Sector 7 ARG. I wouldn't be opposed to having a centralized movie-tie-in-websites article that the nav template could link to. But, like, the card games don't belong here. The video games... probably don't either. I think the largest this list should be is "toyline, film, books, comics, websites, games". And that's already too long. --Steve-o 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The nav-template badly disfigures the pages it appears on. Those pages should have pretty pictures at the top, but they CAN'T because there's a giant nav box there. A nav template should be laid out horizontally at the bottom of a page, like Wikipedia does it. -Rotty 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Full agreement with the "horizontal at the bottom" part. (You mom is also often horizontal on her bottom.) It's real easy to hit the "end" key. This also helps alleviate the "length" issue. --M Sipher 23:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I wish to point out at this point that Steve-o designed the thing, not me.
- *ducks out of the way* -Derik 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I too agree with the Wikipedia-style navigation. Alternatively, I propose that, for the purpose of shortening this list, the comic books can fall under "books". This is moot if we do the Wikipedia-style navigation, because lengthening the nav-template wouldn't push down anything but itself and the overall page length. --Sntint 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can anyone link to an example of wiki-style navigation? -Derik 15:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is fond of absurdly huge ones, generally. But I think something like this is in line with what people here were suggesting. But it's also completely possible to have one that has the same insane amount of information that our current one has, sectioned off into segments, that isn't too unwieldly. --Suki Brits 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I guess that works, but even the mario example is kinda... listy.
- Not that I should talk, when I took a pass at the concept it was an unholy mess. I jsut wish we could find a format compadct enough to keep it on the top without intruding, visually on the article, similar to the way the Disambig boxes are.-Derik 17:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- There's a reason other Wikis don't do such a thing, and we really should hurry up and follow suit before the movie hitting theatres increases our page hits. -Rotty 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is fond of absurdly huge ones, generally. But I think something like this is in line with what people here were suggesting. But it's also completely possible to have one that has the same insane amount of information that our current one has, sectioned off into segments, that isn't too unwieldly. --Suki Brits 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can anyone link to an example of wiki-style navigation? -Derik 15:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I mocked up a couple new navbox types that can be put at a page bottom, and they are in my sandbox. I don't like large Wikipedia-type boxes. I tried to make one, but ran into a lot of "should I link to this or not?" questions, so I also made a small one that I vastly prefer. I invite everyone to try their own ideas so we can come up with something more popular than the current boxes. --Steve-o 00:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The next movie will be it's own franchise? Really? (He didnt' edit it right, but I assumed it went here.) -Derik 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
