Template talk:Team Roles nav

Reworked

I reworked the template:

• I separated the builds from the roles, so that they're more easily figured out.
• I split the roles into two groups, since some are over-arching general kinds roles whereas others are more specific.
• I removed the links to tactic pages, since there are so many they might as well get their own article, and are not entirely relevant to the roles and builds (tactics are methods of doing things, builds are how one performs a role, and a role is how one acts in a team). Konig/talk 03:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd give the template a fixed width in pixels rather than a percentage, it looks really ugly on a wide monitor (I didn't even think for a second initially that the stuff with the white background was related to the stuff on the left -> so I'd put a border colour in there too. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpgChieftain Alex 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I realised I don't approve of your strange choice of border split between stuff like IMBA and healers. ^Heres my suggestion. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpgChieftain Alex 14:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Those boxes look terrible imo (a single line between them would be better). My "split" choice was to differenciate between builds ("imbagon") and smaller, more specific roles ("healer"). For instance, an imbagon will always be a paragon focused on high damage reduction party shouts, however a healer can be a Healing Prayers monk, Restoration rit, N/Rt, or an E/Mo. Healer is not a build, whereas imbagon is. Criptshot is a build, whereas Control and Shutdown are not. Konig/talk 04:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

tbh I don't care where the split is, the main problem I have with this box is that it looks so ugly on a wide monitor :/ imo it looks better with fixed width 3rd column @ 280 px File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 12:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't care for width so long as everything shows up on one line (since each line is so small) and it's organized in a reasonable way (we can merge the first two columns together, but that doesn't really work much). Konig/talk 13:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Any opinion on latest revision? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 13:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not fond of the section titles (particularly "particular" - ironically enough) as I'd say general should go to the first column (as they're general and overarching terms), and the last row looks weird. Not very liking to the three boxes' look for the title rows (two was bad enough but I couldn't think of a better alternative; if we could have a single box with dividing lines instead...), or how it's hard to see the difference between the columns in the rest of the rows. Konig/talk 14:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'll stop messing with the main one :p

--File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 14:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How about Roles and Builds instead of General/Specific (since that's what they are, anyways). And make the Caller/Toolbox a rowspan="2" set up. Konig/talk 15:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure about the final row tbh (personally I feel that Caller is definitely a "role" and toolbox isn't really a role [but not sure if it is a build] - its more of a term describing extra skills). I prefer it doesn't span the two columns. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 15:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, that final row just completely looks out of place overall. Konig/talk 18:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Tried something else:

Thoughts?

Two Boxes?

With the way this is currently going, I think splitting it into two boxes might be best. Discuss. — Raine Valen 17:54, 18 Dec 2011 (UTC)

It already was - though Falconeye made the second prematurely and under a bad name. I don't think we really need a nav for just builds; we just need to figure out how to format this one. Konig/talk 05:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Move

Since Falconeye insists on moving this template: Tactical roles doesn't fit as much as team roles does because (primarily) 1) current name fits with the primary article, and 2) tactics and team roles are two very different things; tactical roles don't require team participation and would as such be way to large to fit onto a nav if we were to do it accurately (and it may even rival the behemoth of historical and unimplemented navs). Konig/talk 23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Move

Since Falconeye insists on moving this template: Tactical roles doesn't fit as much as team roles does because (primarily) 1) current name fits with the primary article, and 2) tactics and team roles are two very different things; tactical roles don't require team participation and would as such be way to large to fit onto a nav if we were to do it accurately (and it may even rival the behemoth of historical and unimplemented navs), furthermore, it'll create too much smudging with the articles that are about tactics, and less about the roles that use the tactics (as we'll be getting "puller" as a tactical role despite it not being a team role) which will then create a clashing with the already-existing nav on the tactics (and again, merging would create an overly large and complicated nav). Konig/talk 23:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should rename the template or even fiddle too much with it until we've established how we want to present team roles on the wiki. Once we've established what we mean by "role," I think it will be nearly self-evident how to organize any navbars. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)