Template talk:Marines Gallery

A little help
Anyone any rough ideas for this template? I want to arrange these by rank order, is that a good idea? I think its the best I can do to approach it. One-Winged Hawk 08:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rank would be good. To save space perhaps it could be broken up like "Highest Ranks" would be like:

"Highest Ranks" Fleet Admiral: Sengoku the Buddha

Admirals: Aokiji | Akainu | Yellow Monkey-Admirals linking to the 3 Admirals page

Vice-Admirals: Monkey D Garp, Buster Call Vice Admirals, etc

"Middle Ranks"

etc

etc

etc

etc

Captains: Smoker, etc

"Lower Ranks"

All the ranks below Captain.

That's just my opinion, I think a ton of categories in the template will make it look too big and clattery. Cody2526 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I've started off with the basic ranking layout for now. I'll change it later, I'm just sorting a few things out first. And pondering an idea. One-Winged Hawk 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Had another dig at this... At the mo its:
 * Higher Ranked Officers
 * HG ranked Officers
 * Lower Officers.
 * Marines of no important Rank


 * I will also add: Misc. Marines to it later. One-Winged Hawk 12:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm... Slight problem... Can someone help with the misc. marines... Like create their page? I have no idea who they are and where to get a picture of them from. One-Winged Hawk 13:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Update
Did I get everyone listed here? Aside from Attchan, I still have no idea, many months later, who the other marines listed at the bottom of the template are! One-Winged Hawk 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bogart is the subordinate of Garp in the brown suit that wields a katana.


 * The Disney Marines are supposedly the two Marines that arrest Wapol in Chapter 242 of the manga, Vol.6 of his cover story. I'm not sure if this is what they are really called. However, I think this name was most likely derived from the Marine on the right. He's wearing Mickey Mouse gloves and pants.


 * The last guy, Lines, don't exactly know or remember who he is. Maybe he was on the Marine chart in One Piece Yellow.Mugiwara Franky 07:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Malfunction
There seems to be a malfunction, as Bellmere's caption keeps getting shifted to Jango's no matter how I try to rectify it. Someone please fix it. Yatanogarasu 23:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I fixed it. Yatanogarasu 00:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange Coding
If you noticed I put what seems to be strange coding in random parts of the template, this is because allows me to create a new line. This way the wrapping text looks better. It won't look like "Monkey D. Garp" or "Dr. Vegupunk". Just pointing it out if anybody's confused. 23:34, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Template Spacing
I don't know if one or two people like it like this but it looks awful. C'mon. The empty sells look awful. Nobody prefers empty sells when we can avoid them. Seriously guys..empty sells between images...seriously... 10:54, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Klobis (talk) 13:31, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Only MasterDeva likes them. SeaTerror (talk) 08:55, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

This looks like shit. Why is this locked for?! Genocyber (talk) 12:34, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Because Deva is an admin. 14:01, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

I would have noticed this discussion sooner if there was a proper section title... Anyway, the changes are not perfect but something needs to be done about the unbalanced positions in the templates and the large empty spaces they leave behind. I believe it would be quite difficult to change the Gallery Template code to get around this. Maybe Sff9 or Leviathan 89 should also participate on this talk. MasterDeva (talk) 09:33, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

I renamed this section so it matches the topic. I actually like the idea of making the incomplete rows centered. However, there are a couple problems with how it's being done now: 1) rows of 2 have a space between images, they should just be next to each other in the center. 2) Rows of 4 aren't centered at all. Fix those, and then it will look fine. 13:40, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there is some kind of language barrier because I fail to understand what you mean exactly when you mention "rows of two" and "rows of four" above. Could you please phrase it differently or in greater detail if possible? MasterDeva (talk) 15:29, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

@MasterDeva: it could be possible, but it probably requires a complete revamp of the template, which I'm afraid I won't be able to achieve in the near future…


 * That's what I was afraid you'd say... I glimpsed over the code long enough to understand that it uses a fixed position system. You can move a portrait to position 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 but you cannot place it in a 2.5 position because it is impossible using the current system. Well, that's that I guess. I'm still waiting for JSD's response. MasterDeva (talk) 17:28, June 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, basically what I wanted to achieve is that users only have to give a list of cells to the template, which automagically organizes them in rows. The "empty cell" trick is a simple hack. It works well in this setting, but to make "centered rows" I'd need to change the whole "list of cells" model. I will try and think about this.

It still looks awful. Adding empty cells between the images? The templates look really awful like this. 19:11, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Specifically what looks awful and what would be your suggestion on the matter? Keep in mind that nothing has really changed because I'm still waiting JustSomeDude to comment. MasterDeva (talk) 19:35, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you don't reduce the empty cells but instead you center the images, which is really bad. 22:01, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Balancing the template by centering the portraits isn't bad. Your "argument" however is bad. As I said above there are flaws with the current way this is handled but Sff9 is currently working on finding a better way. In order to decrease the amount of empty space we either have to shrink the number of columns or merge some sections together. I don't think that either of these options would do any good. By centering the portraits,the amount of continuous empty space is reduced. MasterDeva (talk) 22:11, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who added a new section above every rank and why but apparently it just causes more problems. I think that we should either remove all the empty cells you added between and next to images or remove all the headings and add the rank of each officer next to their name, like it was a while ago. If we remove the "EMPTYCELLS" you added, there will still be a bunch of empty cells so I prefer option two. 22:28, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Removing the rank sections all together is more troublesome than it is good. The portraits are better organised that way. The way the template is structured right now follows the Marine Rank hierarchy as detailed in the SBS. In addition, it would be redundant to repeatedly state the rank in each portrait instead of having it in the section. From the way I interpreted you message, it looks like we agree that the real issue is the space between portraits and not the centered portraits per se. Is that interpretation of mine correct? MasterDeva (talk) 22:44, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is true, the space between images looks even worse but I don't like the centered images either. Personally, I want to reduce the empty cells and the easiest to achieve that is by doing what I explained above. But if we don't do that and keep the template as it is, I have two conditions. First, we will remove all the empty cells between images and Second we will not center rows with 3 images like the Rear Admirals and the Commanders sections. 23:02, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

What you like and you don't like can be irrelevant but I really like when you are being specific with what you are talking about instead of being vague. ;) Joking aside it's time to talk about possible solutions. Let's see now, there are no problems with the Rear Admirals section that I can notice about. I do understand though what you mean when you refer to the Commanders, Lieutenant Commanders section. We could try to merge that section with the Lieutenants, Lieutenant Junior Grades, Ensigns section to remove any unnecessary empty spaces. Would you be positive in discussing that change? MasterDeva (talk) 23:19, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am. And I also think that we must merge the Rear admirals section with the Vice Admirals section. Just look at the template...it fits perfectly and now the vice admirals section doesn't look good. We could also merge the admirals and the fleet admiral section because of the empty cell between the images. Do you agree? 14:42, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Aha, so that's why you mentioned it above! I understand now. I agree that it could be a good idea to merge the Vice Admirals and Rear Admirals sections together. I do not agree though with the idea of merging together the Fleet Admiral section with the Admirals section. Oda has kept them separate in his rank diagram. Indeed, the individual tasks differ between the two ranks. MasterDeva (talk) 15:29, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Then is there a way to get rid of the empty cell between the images? (I'm talking about the admirals section) 15:35, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

A possible solution would be to reduce the number of columns from five to four. That way we could eliminate the empty cell in-between but it would make the template longer. MasterDeva (talk) 15:49, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the longest gallery template on this wiki. It's way too long to reduce its columns. Isn't there any other way to do it? 15:51, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

If we merge together the sections described above and some others that are occupied only by two or three people we'll be saving some rows. The real issue is the Non-Canon Marines template. In other words, this. MasterDeva (talk) 15:59, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm against reducing the rows. Anything but that. The template will be just too huge. 16:17, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. The empty cells looks very awful. Who even likes this besides Deva? Didn't know admins suddenly could do whatever they wanted...

Only Deva wants likes the empty cells. Can somebody please unlock it? 16:16, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like them either. They look awful, indeed. WU out - 15:50, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

Sooooo, is anybody going to unlock the Page? WU out -  08:37, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

The empty cells are quite ugly actually. I support having it the way it was before. Also, it should be the way it was before unless a decision is made in the talk page, since it was like that before the edit war. 21:55, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

I've merged together some sections to fix issues concerning empty spaces between portraits and nearly empty sections. Specifically, the following sections have been merged together. The Rear Admirals and Vice Admirals are a single section, as well as Lieutenant Commanders with Lieutenants, Lieutenant Junior Grades, Ensigns. MasterDeva (talk) 11:29, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Ranks are not meant to be merged. This is just plain awful. SeaTerror (talk) 17:49, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Erasing empty cells is more easier. --Klobis (talk) 00:59, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Now it's even worse. No empty cells, no merging. 01:05, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yea, great job there just ignoring the problem, ignoring the talk page, keep editing even if it's locked from editing and ignoring us, as an admin. Also, you just made it worse.

These edits were discussed and agreed upon with Staw-Hat Luffy above as you can read. Nobody else was against the specific changes at the time so I went ahead and applied them. Since there are people now who raise objection I'll undo them. MasterDeva (talk) 08:43, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Also, I have yet to see a single argument from the recent participants of this discussion. All I see you doing is throwing opinions without bothering to back them up with arguments. The only people who actually participated to discuss the issues were Staw-Hat Luffy, JustSomeDude and sff9. They are the only ones who proposed possible solutions and made constructive constructive criticism. MasterDeva (talk) 09:02, July 16, 2013 (UTC)