Template talk:Storylink

Oh... wait a second, now that I made a change I finally realized why it was written the way it was in the first place. I didn't understand that "result in a simple tab" thing. I guess... I can sort of see that point of that. If somebody doesn't want any text to appear, but just have a little marker off to the side.

My preference would be for it to defailt to the name of the article being referenced, which is how I just set it up. I can see the potential appeal of a textless link (to some people, at least, just not to me) though. I think the mess of characters that was there, though, wasn't good. I mean... it was this, right? "([|" Plus those things appeared around the text if you did choose to include link text. If we're going to do it textless, I think a simple asterisk would be fine.

I'm also inclined to say that giving the template a background color might help to make it obvious that it's something of interest and not just random floating text.

(My *most* preferred preference, of course, is to explicitly cite sources within the text of the article, but I feel like that is never going to become the majority opinion.)

Anybody else have any opinions?

--Steve-o 22:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I like making the article title the default. You can get a 'blank' tag with an extra pipe if you want.

However- I think changing the right-bracket to a right-parentheses makes the underlining look dorky. (Or at least dorkier.) The purpose behind the underlining was to make the link appear more structural, less text-y, so the eye could skip over it if it wasn't interested in the margin-notes-- basicly tryign to overcome the natural human inclination to cet caught on readable text.

What do you think of the 'attached to the right side' version on the wipe-out talk page? (the one with the outline/background) -Derik 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The one that just looks like a little doohickey in a grey box? It's unobtrusive and small, which is good, but it's also totally obtuse: seeing that, I would have no idea what it was. I could hover over it and see that it's a link to another article, but even then, I'm not going to be sure why it's there. Something that is more clearly a reference link would be more to my liking. --Steve-o 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

([ MF ep 6 ] Like adding a note in it? The one problem with a note like this? It doesn't 'stack' well. (more than 1 note per line) I guess my question is- how much of a problem is that? Do we really expect story-refs to be so dense that they're stacking? ([ WotD ] ([ MtMtE ] I always assumed they'd be used less like, well, Ratchet's, which has a story ref to every damn story he's in, and more like 'here's a semi-lengthy chunk, like a paragraph + that's all lifted from one source, this is the provenance of that source.' (and here's an example of them stacking impolitely.) -Derik 00:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the instruction text and example. I also increased the size of the link text because it was a little too small to read comfortably. I think that in its current form, the template is okay for use. I am still dissatisfied with some aspects of it, and personally prefer the footnote system (which we didn't know existed when you -- Derik -- made this template), but I think both are acceptable. Thoughts? --Steve-o 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I think they need to be in a colored box or something, to make it more apparent that they're not part of the paragraphs they jut out into. --ItsWalky 16:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do some experimenting. -Derik 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's better. I'll hafta work with the positioning on Optimus Prime's page to see if this is all the fixing we need. --ItsWalky 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I could give it a rounded edge, with the words 'story link' above it, reaaaly small. -Derik

Derik, do you have your web browser set to show everything in really big fonts or something? Because you're always making things with little fonts that are like, totally impossible to read for me. You reduced the font size on this template from 90% to 70%. And... look at this image of what that looks like on my screen: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb/misc/tinyfont.jpg Granted, it is technically still legible, but only because I can extrapolate to figure out what the jammed-up letters are supposed to be. The font can't scale down that far without parts of the letters appearing to be of the wrong thickness, or the kerning getting messed up, etc.. Am I the only one with this problem? Or, is Derik the only one without it? --Steve-o 00:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I can read them fine. How big is your resolution? http://www.shortpacked.com/transformers/storylinkscreencap.jpg --ItsWalky 01:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

1280x1024, which isn't especially big as far as I know. I see now that Opera seems to be showing smaller fonts than Firefox and MSIE do... which is... strange. There could always be different default font sizes from browser to browser, but when viewing a styled page like this I'd think they would all have the same size. Regardless, it appears as if... Opera is using Arial 9pt and the others use 10pt. So, since it's a thing about Opera, I can confidently say that yes, I am the only one with this problem. Good to know. --Steve-o 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a question fo visual hierarchy. (Plus, iw anted ot see if I could get the storylinks to not bump the line under them over too.) I thinkt hart these storylinks are not, as a rule, a thing someone attempts to read (thus my reasons for often using abreviations- if you mouse over them you get the full title.)

And yes,t here si signifigant browser variation on layout here- my MIE doesnt' even reach the right-edge of the frame, and Safari goes one pixel too far IIRC. There's... really very little you can do to control that. (I may end us moving the whoel affair a few more pixels left just to clear it of the edge, and thus make it mroe visually consistent across browsers.)

This is 80%, is that legible Steve-o?-Derik 03:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Steve-o 04:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing useful to add, but I like the use of "lorem ipsum". Good old print shop gibberish that. -Autobus Prime 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

New style

I think the new style storylinks would look better if the link wasn't bolded. --KilMichaelMcC 15:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How's that look, ever'body? --ItsWalky 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Much better. --KilMichaelMcC 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How about if it were reduced in size, and the parentheses were the same color as the text? ((Marvel US #27)) I think that looks a lot more unobtrusive. - Jackpot 17:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh. Personally, I prefer the black parentheses. --Steve-o 17:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the big, bold parentheses because they call too much attention to themselves. I see storylinks as something small and incidental, a quiet suggestion. But with the current format, they look too much like article-text, so my eye wants to read them as such, and the parentheses are heavy and dominating. I liked the old boxes because they put a visual separation between themselves and the regular text. That's the effect I think the reduced size and uniform coloration achieve. - Jackpot 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jackpot on the look, but don't know sufficient coding to pull it off. Bolding and italicizing are about my limit. So, uh, maybe Derik can do it. --ItsWalky 17:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Small and incidental, like footnotes...

I like footnotes too, and in theory I should be exclusive about that. But, to be honest, when I first saw the "boxed" storylinks, I was jazzed about them. It's neat to see exactly where info is coming from without even having to click ANYTHING. And I was sad to find out that they apparently fucked up the page-formatting. However, the current template looks terrible to me, which is why I suggested some changes. When it comes right down to it, if Walky/Derik/whoever can't figure out a way to code it to look better, I'd rather we have no storylinks at ALL - just footnotes. - Jackpot 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How does it look subscripted? Interrobang 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad. -Derik 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I never really understood- how exactly are these screwing up the image layouts? Because they're also right-floating? Was the screw-up always there, or does it date from puttign the gray boxes aroudn them? (Because then they wenbt from taking up only 1 line to taking 2.) Is there a reason the new storylinks could not be right-justified to seperate them fromt he article more?

Also, how does this look? -Derik 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC) King of the Hill Robots on Parade

The problem with subscripts or superscripts -- and this happens with the footnote system too -- is that it causes a discontinuity in the line spacing. Personally I find that nearly as ugly as the jagged margins we got from the right-margin storylinks. I don't think there is any way to make inline text inobtrusive. As I said, I prefer the boldface. I prefer it because, to me, that makes it stand apart from other text and therefore easy to skip when I get to it. That, of course, is exactly the opposite of Jack's reaction. He said the bold made it *hard* for him to skip it. If the whole thing is blue, including the parentheses, it looks more like a normal link to me, and I would *expect* a normal link to be part of the main text rather than an aside. So basically, Jackpot and me are like matter/antimatter and should stay away from each other at the next Transfan gathering. That said, I don't *strongly* object to making the whole thing blue. We can even put it in a colored box while keeping it inline. There are many options. We basically just need to agree on a presentation that we all think makes it easy to skip. --Steve-o 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on subscripts. Bad leading-juju. As for the all-blue-makes-it-look-like-a-normal-link thing, well, that's why I suggested shrinking the text. But I can't figure out how to make it any smaller than that using HTML. Derik might be on to something, but I think his is TOO small - it's gotten all weird and unreadable. But keeping the grey box might be the ticket. - Jackpot 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so- not that small. Or what if it was that small- but was also sll-caps? (The old storylinks where.) Here's onw of both. King of the Hill Robots on Parade

Do they need leading-space to the left?Robots on Parade

The text less eye-catching? (Doesn't work in IE6) King of the Hill

STORY Or maybe it should float right? This version is onyl 1 line high, and is much less disruptive to layouts than it used to be. Or heck, you could give it some sort of custom 'mini' icon that would just mean 'hey, her'es the storylink,' without actually printign the long, layout-disrupting story name. (You could always mouse over it for the story name.) -Derik 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the options, Derik. I do prefer the grey box, rather than parentheses. This is the only one that's clearly readable on the browsers I've used to look at them: King of the Hill I have no strong feelings on its placement (flush right or in-line or whatever). But I like having the title of the story rather than just "STORY". The mouseover thing isn't all that intuitive, plus all the identical "STORY" links in a long article would get confusing. And just out of curiosity, what do people think about putting quotation marks around titles, but not around issue/episode descriptions? "King of the Hill" Marvel US #27 - Jackpot 21:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Re: the Quotes-- you'd have to do it manually with the alt-text, which is a pain, so I disreccomend it.

Should I mention the possibility that this could be set up to either float right or display inline according to your preferences? (I disreccomend that too, a consistent approach woudld be better.) -Derik 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Storylink 3.0+?

We are now on version 3.0 of the reviled storylink template, which persists (largely) because some not-insignifigant portion of the wiki users (myself included) feels that using footnotes for storylinks is wrong, annoying and ugly.

The existing storylinks are kinda a muddle though- version 1.0 was floated-right at the beginning of entries for that sytory, versions 2.0 and 3.0 are inclien at the end of story entries. I want people's feedback on how the old entries look under the new formatting.

I mentioned under the previous section the possibility of optional-floats on these things, a template that would accomodate borh 'looks,'... and got absolutely no replies. Downside would be less consistency, upside would be more flexability, especially as we try to figure out what works best. Unless someone raises hell over the idea, I'll probably implement this with a couple test pages to show what the reuslt looks like.-Derik 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I preferred the parentheses. That said, as long as they are inline (so that they don't screw up other page formatting) I prefer them to footnotes myself because you can read them right away, don't have to click anything, and they don't introduce line-spacing gaps with their exponents. --Steve-o 03:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I prefer footnotes because they don't interrupt the narrative. But, for storylinks, the parantheses for simplicity's sake look best and less intrusive. --Crockalley 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? I happen to think they're enormously ugly and obtrusive. -Derik 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this current set-up looks better than the parantheses. --KilMichaelMcC 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

From Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki, a Wikia wiki.