Thread:Unok/@comment-1430822-20160415034923/@comment-1430822-20160416011219

Just to preface I'm not trying to push any of this on you. My favorite part of wiki's isn't editing content but instead organizing and presenting the content. So when I see a chance to help in that aspect I do :)

> Yes, its using the old infoboxes, because the new ones look lame and you have to put lots of efforts to change the new into something close to the current.

This is a personal choice as I like the portable infoboxes, much cleaner imo. However, this is your wiki so I understand if you want a custom style. If the portable infoboxes could be styled to look like the current infoboxes (which they can) would that change your mind? Should only be a few lines of css. (I'll add a link to an update demo version in a bit.)

I updated the infobox with styles

Edit: I'm an idiot and forgot that I was using personal css, you would need to duplicate the css here into your own namespace here to see the styling. here is a picture of what it looks like, very similar imo.

Also that css should style any other episode/song/voice actor/etc... infobox the exact same way if you are using portable infobox with the "koutetsujou-no-kabaneri" theme. So if you want to update the colors, width, size, etc.. you can apply it immediately to all infoboxes with a few lines.

> The current one is also mobile friendly.

This is somewhat true, however, tables are inherently not mobile friendly. They occasionally don't respond well to large amount of content when squished to 320px. That was the main reason the portable infoboxes were created, they are inherently portable. They also offer wikia more control then traditional table-based infoboxes as wikia know exactly what is a label/content/image/navigation/etc.. While they don't directly say it, it helps boost seo and offers more control when people use their api.

'''> Avoiding style? Why?'''

It's easier to change 1 line of css to update the color theme of an entire site then implement custom styles in every infobox and update it later. When I say avoid styles I mean avoid inline styles, I should have been more clear.

'''> 1. I'm aware of that possibility, but as I have been on multiple wikis too, I noticed that people rarely categorize their images. Especially in not so active wikis, which don't have regular editors.'''

I have noticed that as well which is a shame as categories still remains the best way to manage content, as that is their purpose. This wiki is young and you can always try enforcing it. I understand preferring the page method if you want simplicity, I just prefer the category method and seen it work well.

'''> 2. Also aware of that, but that can create some rare cases, which we wouldn't need as category. Like: "Human (former), Kabane (current)" or "Half-Kabane/Half-Human". At least I had a issue with that on another wiki, so I'm fine with manual categorization, especially when there isn't infinity number of characters that are added here.'''

For some wiki's it's definitely a good method, but I was not aware you plan on having varying values for those fields. If that's the case then it's also probably not good to use that method. Once again, just another suggestion. You could also create an if statement that only adds categories if the value in the field is equal to Human, Kabane, etc..

Just throwing ideas out there.

Also sorry for that wall of text.