Template talk:Navbox Issues
Expanding
Do you think it might be worthwhile to replace this template with something like the above (expanded to include all issues/patch notes, though)? It seems like it would be valuable to keep the patch notes and issue releases intertwined for navigation. The only problem with the above approach is that it would only have space for 18 total issues (only 20 groups in the navbox template), though if we need to I can potentially change the navbox template to accommodate more. Maybe there'd be a better approach though than the above. The above might be info overload. I dunno, just musing. -- Sekoia 06:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wayyyy too much information for just a section to slap at the bottom of the "overview" "Issue #" pages. Make a separate template {{Patch Notes}} for the Patch Notes/etc pages. -- Agge (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree, but it seems like there should be some form of navigation linking the issues and the game updates. I'm just not sure what's a good way to do it. And even on the patch notes pages, dumping all the dates seems as though it'd be a bit much. That'd be a darned huge navbox. :/ I dunno, I don't really see a way to achieve what I'd like to see really but maybe someone else will. (If I'm even making any sense...) -- Sekoia 07:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
19.5 and other mid-issue Issues
From the official web site: "The Issue 19: Strike Pack continues the new game updates introduced with Issue 19: Alpha Strike!"
This mini-issue was obviously considered by the Devs to be a follow-up or a part II of Issue 19. It's been colloquially referred to as Issue 19.5. There are several ways to indicate this:
- Issue 18 · Issue 19 · Issue 19.5 · Issue 20
- Issue 18 · Issue 19 / 19.5 · Issue 20
- Issue 18 · Issue 19 · Issue 19: Strike Pack · Issue 20
- Issue 18 · Issue 19 part I· Issue 19 part II · Issue 20
piemanmoo had changed #1 to #2 and I reverted it til we had consensus. I think the first is fine, especially since the Devs don't have a problem calling it an Issue. I don't see a need to change this.
- I have no particular preference either way on this one. They both seem acceptable. --Eabrace
16:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The first and second are fine to me. Third and fourth are too long. ~ User:Aggelakis/Sig1 16:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)