Template talk:Skill types nav/Archive 1

Perhaps its just me, but I don't think there is a need for this nav. Also it's slightly large and makes the pages look silly. Then again, it could just be me. Venom20 15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this nav is entirely unnecessary, but maybe, since it's rather large, it could be hidden by default. Anyway, I think it should be reworked a bit; here are some of my suggestions:

09:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We can also just move the Exclusive cell and have a simple nav.

But I don't know if it can be done even simpler. Also note that I am not a fan of centering anything but the label cells, so tangos instead of the background colours would need proper alignment, taking up a lot of code. - Infinite - talk 19:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really a fan of the nav. It looks pretty appealing, but like Venom said, it is rather large. I just don't think that it's useful. I mean, if someone is looking for a particular skill, they'll go and search for that skill, and if they want to see skills of the same type, well, the links are there. --Xu Davella 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys! I removed the expandable part. I'm actively navigating on this, and to expand it every time makes me a bit itchy.... You don't have to scroll down to watch it on the page so please leave it like this. Thank you! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.36.133.13 (talk).

Hello IP, while it is exciting that you are using this nav, as you can see from the short discussion above, I am not alone in thinking that this nav is just annoying. I won't revert your reversion as I do not want to enter an edit war, but although small, there is a mild consensus above eluding to the fact that something needs to be done about this. Perhaps it is best if we all revisit this discussion. Venom20 14:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I believe it was Tane who decided on his own to introduce the new nav prior to discussion, so said discussion was still going on at that time. - Infinite - talk 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Though a good amount of time has passed since that. Personally I like the current navi, though it should remain expandable. Not everyone wants to find information about all possible skill types when they're just going to compare minions or look for how spirit weapon mechanics work. Mediggo 09:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty terrible tbh... I prefer the old version (without the show/hide, and with the profession labels left-aligned) - it might be thinner, but it's not that much longer and it's much, much more easily navigable. The new format requires studying to actually make sense of it, whereas the old one is simple and clean. pling 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

To explain my edit the other month: I simply cannot abide hidden navs. It defeats their entire purpose of convenient navigation; if you're going to stick expandable on a nav, you might as well not have it at all. Looking at the talk page to see why this was added, I noted the concern of length of the navbox, so rather than do a straight revert, I implemented what I felt was the least terrible option (without expandable). This was not intended to supercede discussion (which had been quiet for a week at the time), but I was unwilling to leave a hidden nav up while waiting on the resolution of discussion and believed the use of one of the shorter versions offered was more considerate to the protest regarding length than a flat revert would have been.

tl;dr: expandable navs over my dead body. Don't really care about the other details personally. - Tanetris 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The expandable option was (at least for my design) in effect solely to save visual space on the talk page, whilst more designs roll in and get discussed. The actual nav would not be expandable. I also preferred the old nav Pling pointed out, but I'd go the extra mile to align the tango icons or not use the tangos at all. - Infinite - talk 00:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Personally I'm not a fan of tall navs at the bottom of the page, especially when combined with other navs (as is happening with minions etc) and also a large remnant amount of white space in other parts of the page. However, the current nav as is to me isn't using the space efficiently, either, so I do prefer the old one given the choices. I know the skill pages are being revamped at the moment and that screen sizes differ, but I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to move the nav over to the right instead of keeping it buried (I thoroughly cop to trying to nav-right everything). At any rate, folks can see a mock-up of the nav-right in my sandbox here and for Infi here's a tweaked version attempting to set those tangos up (table collapsed only for this page's consideration, and also note that I've simplified the kits to simply 'Backpack' and 'Weapon'):

That's my two cents. Redshift 02:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I like Redshift's newest design. It's compact and easy to read. Aqua (T|C) 02:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO, a nav should be wider than it is tall. Tall navs are what makes the page look silly while simultaneously abusing white space. Also IMO a nav shouldn't be the entire width (nor close to) of a page. Venom20 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, hence;

Is that better? - Infinite - talk 16:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Venom: Yeah, same here, and ooh, Infi beat me to it. Here's a wider (but not as wide as the existing) and more compact second version as well:

Oh tables. Redshift 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to left-align the profession names as well as the icons, instead of just moving the icons to cells of their own. pling 16:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I also don't like the icons being separated, but I also think we should still include the profession mechanics: 17:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the profession mechanics, but if we think it should enter the table... at any rate, the non-separate icon version:

I think that's what you mean? Redshift 17:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) What about something like this:

Aqua (T|C) 01:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I like what Aqua did. Glastium | talk 00:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Glastium. Infinite has also expressed a liking of this one, so I guess now we just need comments from pling and Tanetris. Aqua (T|C) 02:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually we don't need. Either empirically or theoretically(There's a page talking about editing approach on the wiki but I just cannot find it now) shows you can do it once no one objects in period. Glastium | talk 19:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)