Template talk:American Civil War/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:American Civil War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
First version, now obsolete
Archived talk about this older version
Updates starting in July 06
Here's my rough draft changes. I think it's a tiny bit padded, but items from each row must be removed to balance shape. The theaters and campaigns column is very difficult to pare down further, so in its current configuration, we're down to tweaking what fits and what doesn't, IMHO. BusterD 04:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
update
Looks good. I wonder if people with stingy screen sizes will be happy with its larger scope. The reason I overused Key in the titles was to provide an argument against numerous arbitrary additions, particularly to the Leaders column. I think a degree of discipline is needed here (or perhaps a detailed explanation of criteria in this Talk page) so that it doesn't explode with names such as Shaw, Chamberlain, and someone's favorite ancestor. Hal Jespersen 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good point on word key. Have corrected. When I look at this box, I see everything a secondary school student should need to access as a basic reference. That seems a reasonable standard. BusterD 01:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
draft? what draft?
Isn't it true that anyone makes changes on the template page, that the change is placed in effect immediately throughout Wikipedia. Where would a 'draft' be placed for review? Thanks Hmains 00:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Buster misspoke when he said 'draft'. He edited the live copy, although it is placed in so few articles so far that I doubt anyone noticed. Hal Jespersen 01:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Poor usage of the term draft. Box is too big. I wish we could have three boxes: one that focuses on pre-war, one that focuses on wartime, and one that focuses on post war. There's too much material for one. I wish someone would trim it a bit; I'm too loyal to my entries at this moment.
- Marginally peripheral question amongst a small crowd: Should there be an ACW Portal? BusterD 01:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
usage guidelines
how about keeping at the top of the talk page, prior to usual talk items, a section called something like 'usage guidelines' where a few sentences would help editors to know in which categories/ articles they should place this template and where they should place it in the article. Should this template go at the bottom of every article that is in the 'American Civil War' Category and its subcategories, for example? Thanks Hmains 02:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very sensible. I'm ill experienced to make such placement recomendations, but I'd think the kind of modest, gradual deployment Hal has so far executed seems right. The more pages on which this menu appears, the more difficult it might be to make structural changes. I think this definitely belongs on Theater and major campaign pages. I'd think that until an article achieves a certain page length, the navbox is too large even in its leaner configuration. BusterD 02:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
alternative format
One idea to consider if the format proves excessive for pixel-deprived readers is a horizontal one, such as I've seen at {{Template:California}}. In this format, giving full names of generals would be possible. I'd go with blue and gray row colors. What do you think? Hal Jespersen 04:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
another idea
how about making the columns named 'Key USA leaders' and 'Key CSA leaders' to instead be 4 rows across the bottom of the template. This will leave the columns for info that is common to north and south and let the rows be for north/south unique info. Leaving more left/right space. Thanks Hmains 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)