Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → Cramped reference templates (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.

The article at the top of this list would be Starfleet casualties. I have a few ideas about how to clear them up:

1- Use of slender images in the Rank and Division boxes, much like the Affiliation box on the Mirror universe casualties page, which no one has complained about yet, but wanted to get a clear consensus before flooding the server with these. (Also the reason this isn't posted on the talk page, more eyes look here)

2- Creating several pages by show (including films for TOS and TNG). With this option the year box can be dropped altogether, and used as headings. Though this means that the Enterprise 1701 and A will share a page and the C and D will as well.

3- Moving the larger ships off the page. The original Enterprise list is huge.

4- Remove the position box, Rank and Division are enough on the list, and further information is only one link away.

5- Remove the picture box, as the name box is right next to it.

6- Rework the revivals table, as this is the worst offender.

7- Some other option/combination, most likely requiring a long debate, some more/less pages, and the intervention of the Prophets.

Creating a smaller page would allow for longer tables, but there are style issues there, Any thoughts? - Archduk3 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding - an article is considered to have a "cramped reference template" if and only if it contains at least one reference template (like {{TOS}}) with more than five episodes listed. On this page, this is the case for the "Kathrin Janeway" entry of the alternate universe USS Voyager section, which has 8 entries. I don't think this is a severe problem in this case - and all of the suggestions here would not change this fact, anyway. Besides, next time you're suggesting changes for an individual article, please use the talk page of that article. Thanks :) -- Cid Highwind 10:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally did misunderstand that, though anyone who's had to view that page on a lower resolution screen would agree that the tables are a bit cramped. I posted this here since my first suggestion would, it seems, involve a change in the style of the site, at least from the way it is now. I, at least, would like to find a better way to covey the information on that page, and don't want to step on too many toes as I do it; and I really don't want to do all that work and have it reverted. I was also planing I use whatever was decided on similar tables, which involves more than one page. - Archduk3 22:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)