Template talk:Req sub: Difference between revisions
imported>Thirty7 (historical) m (→A Thought) |
imported>Aggelakis (historical) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Just spitballing ideas here based on what I have seen. ~ '''[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]]''' [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] [[File:Contrib-Icon.jpg|link=Contributions:Thirty7]] 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | Just spitballing ideas here based on what I have seen. ~ '''[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]]''' [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] [[File:Contrib-Icon.jpg|link=Contributions:Thirty7]] 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
:The flag is the size and shape it is because a) it's a very short statement and thus doesn't need to be big, b) it's meant to be used in-line when the whole page doesn't require a subscription, and c) it's placed directly below the Overview or within the Infobox of pages that the entire contents requires a subscription (or GR, or SSA purchase, or zone pack, whatever). One template to do the work of two. The IOFlags are used ONLY on pages where the entire contents are applicable (individual IO pieces), and often have extended descriptions, thus the large flags. I am 100% against making the VIP flag so big. Take a look, for example, at [[Behavioral Adjustment Facility Trial|BAF]] - how much better that little notice looks in the infobox, rather than a giant banner across the top? ~ {{:User:Aggelakis/Sig1}} 22:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:44, 30 November 2011
A Thought
I have noticed that this handy little template is getting thrown around quite a bit, and wonder if it is really necessary in all of those places... one recent change was removing it from the WST Page due to the way it clipped into the text and the idea that moving it above or below the relevant bullet-point may make it unclear what aspect of the list it was referring to, somehting a simple in-text mention of the requirement wouldn't do. Is there a "style guide" of sorts to when and how this template should be used?
While I am thinking about it, I further wonder why it is that this template is the size and shape that it is... should it maybe be formatted in a page-wide divbox similar to the different IOFlags for consistency sake? In my mind, it gives the same type of information, and should therefore be formatted similarly. This would also make it easier to "rule-out" illogical placements: if a page-wide divbox wouldn't look right, then it would be a good clue to use a simple in-text mention of the requirement. Or is the ability to make it really obvious important? Perhaps a seperate template could be made like: (
This activity requires an active subscription.) could be used?
And then, for pages like the BAF and other things in which the entire page is gated by a VIP subscription, something more like:
In order to make use of this content an active subscription is required!could be used across the top?
Just spitballing ideas here based on what I have seen. ~ Thirty7 
File:Contrib-Icon.jpg 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The flag is the size and shape it is because a) it's a very short statement and thus doesn't need to be big, b) it's meant to be used in-line when the whole page doesn't require a subscription, and c) it's placed directly below the Overview or within the Infobox of pages that the entire contents requires a subscription (or GR, or SSA purchase, or zone pack, whatever). One template to do the work of two. The IOFlags are used ONLY on pages where the entire contents are applicable (individual IO pieces), and often have extended descriptions, thus the large flags. I am 100% against making the VIP flag so big. Take a look, for example, at BAF - how much better that little notice looks in the infobox, rather than a giant banner across the top? ~ User:Aggelakis/Sig1 22:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)