Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Area Quick-Links"

From AvatarWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 35: Line 35:
  
 
--[[User:DaveGarber1975|Dave Garber]] 15:46, 13 February 2007 (CST)
 
--[[User:DaveGarber1975|Dave Garber]] 15:46, 13 February 2007 (CST)
 +
 +
:IMHO, that's too wide. Not everyone uses a high res as we probably do. We should leave it as it is now. --[[User:MooNFisH|Llanor]] 07:33, 15 February 2007 (CST)
 +
 +
::Ah, okay then.  :D  --[[User:DaveGarber1975|Dave Garber]] 14:33, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Latest revision as of 15:33, 15 February 2007

Cleanup! Now using the small one.

I've been contemplating a 'tabbed' version of a template. Where the top row has links to Areas, Mobs, Rooms, Gear, or whatever (the tabs), and below that it displays the information of any one of those that is relative to this page. It'd need a template for every different 'tab'. It'd be like this:

Page A (area page):
|------------------------------------|
| Areas | Gear | Maps | Mobs | Rooms | 
|       '----------------------------|
|          (area links)              |
|------------------------------------|
Page B (gear page): |------------------------------------| | Areas | Gear | Maps | Mobs | Rooms | |-------' '---------------------| | (gear links) | |------------------------------------|

And so on. It'd require a revamp of all templates, but it might be something to consider. I won't put much effort in this since it's probably not the best option, anyway. So far I like the slim one best. --Llanor 12:25, 12 February 2007 (CST)

I like the current one best, myself. The only think that I might change about it is adding the Gear, Mobs, and Rooms category links, something like this...

Area Quick-Links Table
Areas: 01-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Hero Maps Mobs Objects Rooms

--Dave Garber 15:46, 13 February 2007 (CST)

IMHO, that's too wide. Not everyone uses a high res as we probably do. We should leave it as it is now. --Llanor 07:33, 15 February 2007 (CST)
Ah, okay then. :D --Dave Garber 14:33, 15 February 2007 (CST)