Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Blog"

Revision as of 08:55, 25 February 2007

As a database designer, the Blog3 template always struck me as having very poor design in the one fact that it was limited in the number of cast members that could be displayed. In my mind, the number of cast members that could be listed should not be limited, and should not have to be coded in such an odd manner anyway. So now, instead of character1, actor1, character2, actor2, etc., one simply uses Template:VidChar. The plus side of this that may not be so obvious is that in editing things like our new categorizations of various filmographies for the actors, instead of having to edit six or seven lines of code, we only edit one, and it cascades to all video pages for all cast memebers. --Brucker 12:09, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Even though the old template had that awkward reverse numbering, I think it's otherwise more intuitive than using this nested template. I guess I would have a mild preference for retaining the Blog3 template and if there are ever 8 characters in a video (which strikes me as fairly unlikely) we could just add another slot when the moment arises, which I think would be less work than getting used to this new template within a template system. --JayHenry 21:36, 21 February 2007 (CST)

What if the template were simplified, so that rather than

{{VidChar
character = Bree
actor     = Jessica Lee Rose
}}

we could use a simplified format of

{{VidChar|Bree|Jessica Lee Rose}}

would that be better? It just seems so much more efficient to me. --Brucker 12:32, 22 February 2007 (CST)

YouTube tags

Would there be a way to make all of the YouTube tags link to their respective pages without having to add square brackets around each one. It's a small thing, but if it's not that hard to do, it would save some time.--Jonpro 14:49, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Not only do I not know of a good way to do that, but I'm not 100% sure it's a good idea, since some pages have unique formatting issues, such as Thanksgiving, which has a tag pointing to itself. --Brucker 19:00, 21 February 2007 (CST)

General question about blog templates

It occurred to me that most if not all videos have a discussion thread in the forum. It might be nice to add a link to that thread from the info box. --Brucker 12:56, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah, doesn't the Op template have that already? It's a nice feature and I'm guessing it wouldn't be that hard to include it here also. But what the heck do I know? Where did you and Jay learn all this templature stuff? I'm so behind. =( OwenIsCool 14:08, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Believe it or not, I learned it here; I'm a fast learner. --Brucker 15:10, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Malfunction?

I tried this template out for the first time today when I started the page for Cracked The File. I tried using the fields for "PreviousC" and "NextC" and it looks like they're backwards. When I put Men Are From Mars as "PreviousC" is came up as "Directly after" (and vice-versa when I tried putting it as "NextC"). I'd fix it, but since you can't really tell if it works until you save, I don't want to start making lots of edits trying to figure it out.
Another thing is that when I use the "PreviousC" and "NextC", the plain "Previous" and "Next" items come up on the article even though there's nothing filled in for them. I feel obligated to use the old plain "Previous" because if I use "PreviousC" they'll both come up, whereas if I use "Previous", at least "PreviousC" disappears. I know what I just said might sound kind of weird... if I need to clarify anything, let me know.
OwenIsCool 20:04, 24 February 2007 (CST)

Ecch, it's not malfunctioning, the wording is confusing, I didn't realize it. "Directly after" as in "This video is directly after the video listed." Can I get a suggestion for better wording? As for "Previous" and "Next", those are set to be there always. If the previous video chronologically is also the previous in the series, then you shouldn't use "PreviousC". It's really supposed to be only for canon videos that are not part of the series, such as early Gemma and Jonas videos, and perhaps OpAphid/Tachyon ones, although the status of those is far from clear to me. --Brucker 02:55, 25 February 2007 (CST)