Template talk:Marines-Official
Would you good folks mind adding new pages to this template when you write the articles about various Chapters? Thanks in advance. Biggus Berrus 07:20, 14 September 2012 (BST)
Adding All the Chapters[edit]
I feel a disturbance in the force, as if millions of redlinks were created at once...we were below 700, you know!
In all seriousness, what was wrong with the old model of adding Marines to the template as their pages got created? --Not LongPoster Again 15:55, 16 September 2012 (BST)
So that people know which pages are yet to be made. And I can't spell Astartes for shit. Thanks for fixing that. Biggus Berrus 19:37, 16 September 2012 (BST)
You know what? Screw that noise. I stripped the bullshit chapter s from the list, they are found below. Please add as written. Biggus Berrus 13:57, 22 September 2012 (BST)
- I'm still not sold on us needing these links in the first place (though part of that is just my natural aversion to redlinks and my desire to see the list of Wanted Pages shrink...we were below 700 *sob*); some of these chapters have barely enough fluff to fill a paragraph, let alone make a decent wiki page. Some anon pointed out in an edit reason that we're not Lexicanum; we don't have to be an exhaustive fluff repository. I don't have a problem with cataloging Space Marine chapters, but I just don't see these articles getting created anytime soon (or ever), and I'd rather not bloat the maintenance reports.
- Bah. Maybe this is just the rambling of a no-fun-allowed neckbeard. --Not LongPoster Again 03:38, 26 September 2012 (BST)
Sizing the template down[edit]
As is the template is way too big, which is not helped by the fact that the layout used for the links is an absolute mess. Any votes to making it more in line with other templates? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of the current arrangement, as it can be difficult to tell where foundings begin as the bullet points just roll in to each other (see Ultima Founding > Unknown Foundings for example). I appreciate the work that someone did to sort out the founding "groups" we used to have, but now we've got sections with only one chapter alongside enormous sections, making the whole template look cluttered. Actual lines/boxes separating them would be better, either that or tighter groupings --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- To get an idea of what tighter groupings would look like:
- Another option is to turn the names of the foundings into numbers, which makes it look like this:
- This makes the bold dark text stand out less, which is an eye-catcher on the white and blue background. However, referrring to Foundings by numbers rather than writing the numbers out is something I don't see an awful lot of in official works, so that might be an issue as well. A few of the numbers could be combined as well: the 4th to 12th Foundings and 22nd to 26th, with only the ones we know the daste for sure of remaining their seperate things. Any other thoughts? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement that using founding numbers (1st, 2nd etc) is probably not the right way to go about it, "First" and "Second" just feel right. I'd also agree that less significant foundings with fewer known chapters should just be combined for tidiness; The actual founding number can be found within their pages anyway. I feel the template should just be a convenient navigation tool, not an actual list. But that's my opinion, and I wouldn't argue if people want it "by the exact number" -Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, if we were to compact the non-critical Foundings we'd get something like this:
- I'm in agreement that using founding numbers (1st, 2nd etc) is probably not the right way to go about it, "First" and "Second" just feel right. I'd also agree that less significant foundings with fewer known chapters should just be combined for tidiness; The actual founding number can be found within their pages anyway. I feel the template should just be a convenient navigation tool, not an actual list. But that's my opinion, and I wouldn't argue if people want it "by the exact number" -Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- This makes the bold dark text stand out less, which is an eye-catcher on the white and blue background. However, referrring to Foundings by numbers rather than writing the numbers out is something I don't see an awful lot of in official works, so that might be an issue as well. A few of the numbers could be combined as well: the 4th to 12th Foundings and 22nd to 26th, with only the ones we know the daste for sure of remaining their seperate things. Any other thoughts? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is one other option we haven't considered yet: make it more like the template for Chaos Marine forces. Have a horizontal row with the nine First Founding Chapters, with each having a column of successor Chapters. There can be regular intervals for the special cases (2nd, 13th, 21st), a non-sorted list of the unknown foundings and all other fringe cases. Anyone be up for that? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Final Version Revision[edit]
Everyone okay with this one?
Personally I think it looks good, but I'm not sure what to make of the doubles that appear in the Astates Praeses header. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
There. Every Chapter now has a page. Although like Not LongPoster Again said, there isn't really enough fluff to justify some of these chapters having a page. - FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
