24,589
edits
Template talk:Armor infobox: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::::Eh, I don't know about leaving out the "Testing site" field. On one hand it doesn't apply to most of the non-UNSC armors, but then we do know it for most of the variants in ''Halo 3'', ''Reach'' and ''4'' and that's still a few dozen articles. I'd prefer the miscellaneous fields were left to ''very'' specific information (i.e. more specific than something that applies to a few dozen articles) since they really aren't very user-friendly. The "Manufacturer" and "Development location" fields could definitely be represented by a single field. What's the rationale for adding a "Weight" field, though? We know the weight of perhaps one or two armor types so the field wouldn't even be applicable to most articles. If anything that's something to be relegated to the "miscellaneous" fields. The "Role" field is, to me, titled appropriately enough. As for "Type", it is still relevant to most armor articles, UNSC and Covenant so I wouldn't left it out. Key information at a glance and all. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 09:19, 22 June 2014 (EDT) | ::::Eh, I don't know about leaving out the "Testing site" field. On one hand it doesn't apply to most of the non-UNSC armors, but then we do know it for most of the variants in ''Halo 3'', ''Reach'' and ''4'' and that's still a few dozen articles. I'd prefer the miscellaneous fields were left to ''very'' specific information (i.e. more specific than something that applies to a few dozen articles) since they really aren't very user-friendly. The "Manufacturer" and "Development location" fields could definitely be represented by a single field. What's the rationale for adding a "Weight" field, though? We know the weight of perhaps one or two armor types so the field wouldn't even be applicable to most articles. If anything that's something to be relegated to the "miscellaneous" fields. The "Role" field is, to me, titled appropriately enough. As for "Type", it is still relevant to most armor articles, UNSC and Covenant so I wouldn't left it out. Key information at a glance and all. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 09:19, 22 June 2014 (EDT) | ||
:::::Well, realistically speaking, "testing site" doesn't really serve much purpose since armours can be tested anywhere and will eventually be field-tested in the frontlines, thus covering almost... well... everywhere. I'm leaning towards "Manufacturer" and ignoring "Development location" since "Development location" might not represent the location of the manufacturer. Also, similar reason to "testing site" applies as well to "development location". Weight is somewhat useful information for armour from a realworld military perspective; I figured this would apply as well in-universe. The field does no harm when the weight of the armour remains unknown; then again, we would want to avoid having a "Weight = no" in the infobox. "Type" feels redundant to me: we already know that the infobox will be applied to "armour" articles. Most, if not all articles will list it as "Type= Body armor" or "Type= Combat armor", which is fundamentally the same thing. I'll amend the infobox and see if it works out. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 17:19, 23 June 2014 (EDT) | |||