Forum:Deceased Status In Templates

Lately, I've noticed the "Deceased" (and, to a less extent, "non-canon" and "former") word in gallery and navigation box templates next to character names. Isn't that too cluttered? I propose two alternative methods: For suggestion 2, try comparing from the gallery below.
 * 1) Just don't put that there.
 * 2) Add a † next to their names instead, with a legend below the template.


 * † = Deceased
 * x = Former
 * * = Non-canon

As for "non-canon" and "former", we could use other symbols if these don't look right. What does everyone think? 02:14, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Side note

 * As a side note: I've noticed Gasu Gasu no Mi, Yuki Yuki no Mi, and the two Mushi Mushi no Mi are all not following the unique color schemes for each Devil Fruit. Just a reminder, as it seems too farfetched to create another forum just for a reminder. 02:14, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
No. Original way is 100% better. SeaTerror (talk) 02:31, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

That's always how you look at it. 02:35, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Because it is the truth. It also doesn't clutter the templates like you claim. SeaTerror (talk) 02:36, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Try this:

First one is expanding to 3 lines second one is just 2. 02:38, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

It may take up more room on the template, but at least it keeps it on the template. No need to take up more space on the whole page. At least the template isolates it. 03:06, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

But the words make it look partially like it's part of the character's name, like Saint Charloss. 03:17, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. It's sometimes bothered me when there's little text in a giant block because it happens to be in the same row as one that covers three lines. 03:21, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I honesty doubt that the readers will be able to understand what those symblos mean. 04:15, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

That's why we put a symbol legend on the bottom (or wherever seems nice). 04:21, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Or a third idea: we place "non-canon", "deceased" and "former" into a separate section of the template, like "Former World Nobles" etc. We do that for many templates, but some we just add the parenthesis instead. Now, we can actually separate them, even if there is just one non-canon or whatnot. As in: Blackbeard defected from the Whitebeard Pirates, so he goes under a section titled "Former Members". Likewise, all deceased members of the crew goes under "Deceased Members". 04:25, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Meaning, we get rid of all the parenthesis inside the template. I mean, the Marines Template has the Former Marines with parenthesis of "Defected", "Deceased", "Promoted". Is that all necessary? They are already under "Former Marines" section, no need to be so detailed inside. 04:29, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason for the extra detail in the "former" section is so the reader will be able to know why they're no longer a Marine. It's quick information rather than forcing the reader to search through their pages.

Also, I don't think having "non-canon" and such into a separate is a very good idea because sometimes there are only one or two characters that would be in that section. It's too much space.

As for the Legend, I think an effective way is to have it on the bottom AND have it tell you what it is if you hover over it with the mouse. I know a lot Wikis do this, I think we do but I don't know a page with an example. 04:53, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

"That's why we put a symbol legend on the bottom (or wherever seems nice)" You don't see the irony of wanting to remove the parentheses while cluttering up the templates with more useless crap like that? As Nada said it would be useless space for only one or two members. The detail is also good because it gives the reader detail as to why something happened. SeaTerror (talk) 05:58, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to be too detailed in the templates. That's why we have links, so readers can enter the pages to read about who died and why. "Former", "Defected", "Retired". Why do we have all those cluttering? Just have the name, no more, no less. 07:14, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nada. I've seen other wikis use this as well. 07:27, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Sometime they are just looking at an idea of the members. They don't want to go to the pages in that case. The best thing to do is leave it how we have it currently. There is absolutely no real reason to get rid of it. SeaTerror (talk) 08:06, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

The reason we try these new things is to see if they improve the wiki's appearance. Apparently, having 3-4 lines in a template does NOT. Adding things to everything is not always a good thing. 08:11, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

You would definitely not be improving anything by removing something that is valid. Besides you're the only one that thinks that they ruin templates. SeaTerror (talk) 08:52, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I just think they add too much lines into the names. The name lines are almost as large as the portraits. Galleries and Naviboxes only serve to show us who's in the organization, not what happened to them. It's getting late on my side now, so I'll be taking my leave for a little while. 09:12, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's cool as it is. I remember the info in the parenthesis worked really fine for me when I first started visiting this wiki as an AWC.


 * Why not just use symbol with a tooltip like † ? ~ Ultimate  Supreme  10:00, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's ok for the "deceased" state but it would be a real drag to come up with symbols for all other states and still remember which is which afterwards. There is "deceased", "defected", "resigned", "revoked", "retired", "promoted" and who knows how many more.
 * A template can handle it easily. ~ Ultimate  Supreme  10:19, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Supreme,a symbol with a tool tip ( † (hover over the symbol) and also the legend should be on the top IMO--

I like that. Why not? 17:15, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Nobody sees the irony about complaining about cluttering yet a legend would clutter it up even more? SeaTerror (talk) 19:16, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

The legend will be outside the template, SeaTerror. I'm all for replacing "deceased", "non-canon", "former" etc. with a symbol. The only thing I'm against is the reason-of-former being removed from the Marine template. Without it, the information can be a bit harder to find on the character's page. 19:21, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

So clutter up articles with useless crap then? The way we do it now is far better. This is just a plain non-issue. We have our detail and we don't clutter up anything anywhere. SeaTerror (talk) 19:23, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Just because you and some don't think the extra lines are unsightly, doesn't mean others would follow your thinking. We add a symbol tooltip function (maybe an extra template for that), problem solved. 19:38, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem anywhere. You would be cluttering up articles regardless of which way you do it when the way it is now is perfectly fine. SeaTerror (talk) 19:42, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

You always reject changes, why? 22:42, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I reject bad changes. SeaTerror (talk) 23:33, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Really. Do give us your definition of "bad". 23:37, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I already did. SeaTerror (talk) 23:46, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

The current way is good enough, and less confusing than this proposition. 23:55, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's say for Jaguar D. Saul, he is a Marine defector and is now deceased. Try adding "Defected" and "Deceased". That creates, what, like 4 lines? Compared to the others of 2 lines (3 at best), jeez. 00:43, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

I am just trying to make the wiki look nicer. And about the DF color schemes, are we gonna fix that later? For Donquixote Pirates' crew members... 01:00, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

To SeaTerror's credit, this sort of is a non-issue. But doing this doesn't create any problems. It's basically an improvement. Nothing wrong with it. As for the Saul example, in my opinion, the reasoning for it should only be when they left, Not when they died AFTER they left.

Or here's a better idea: Use the symbols and when the user hovers over it with their mouth, they get the reason for their leaving. This way, it saves room, but the reasons are still clearly there. We can have asterisk (*) as "miscellaneous", and the others (deceased, former, non-canon) will have their own unique symbols.

About the DF color schemes, ya might wanna bring that up in the talk pages or something. 02:22, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that, Nada, would be when someone is making a new template, or adding in an old one, he will have to remember all those symbols and their meaning, in order to choose the appropriate. That sounds disfunctional.

Nope Vaz,we wont have the template name as ,but the template name would be something like  but it would display the symbol†.--

Yup. And at ST, you just marked Princesses Gallery for deletion without giving a proper reason other than "We don't need this". Doesn't that prove you are just adamant against changes because you don't like it yourself, disregarding what others say? As for that, what gives you the right to just mark down a useful looking gallery template without a sufficient reason? "We don't need this" is NOT enough. 05:15, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, Devil Fruit color scheme is at another place now. 06:06, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Saul is an extremely bad example since he was still a Marine so he can't be listed as defected. You claim that you're trying to make this wiki look nicer when all this would do is make the wiki look much, much worst. Also that template is completely unneeded because we have royalty templates already. We don't need one for each individual member of royalty. Besides it was created today and by somebody who usually creates useless ones like that all the time before they get deleted. There is no reason at all to change this and it seems there is a majority so far that says they don't want it. SeaTerror (talk) 07:08, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Majority? Some say they want it. Why not just vote? Of course, you probably want me to sign all the forms first, and say it's a waste of time. As for templates, if there is already a template for the princesses, then why didn't anyone put it up there? It was a viable one, and some Supernova crews have them, despite only their captains being named while a bunch of ?????? things. 08:29, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Figures, though. Someone comes up with a new idea or image, and you ALWAYS have to argue against it. Anime over manga, you say. A majority wants manga, and you say anime. Bad example? Yeah right. 08:32, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope Vaz,we wont have the template name as ,but the template name would be something like  but it would display the symbol†
 * No, that would be very inefficient and you would end up having atleast half a dozen templates essentially doing the same thing that a single template could using a small


 * 1)  maybe, so that you could use either (  or, , etc... ) ~  Ultimate  Supreme  10:10, October 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yata, is it too much of a drag to make a beta with the legend, so that we can see which one looks better?

A beta of the legend? It's pretty much going to look like this:

Deceased: †

Non-canon: *

Former: x

What else do you expect? 15:28, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

The things is that we aren't even using those codes for the galleris anymore but instead we use Portrait Gallery. 15:32, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Actually the people who said they "want it" said that the legend MIGHT be a good idea not that it is a good idea. Those template examples are all bad and ugly and will just clutter up articles. Leaving it the way it is is actually perfect. There is no cluttering on articles and there is only one personal opinion that it clutters up the templates. SeaTerror (talk) 20:43, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Three personal opinions, Terror. Yata, DP, and I don't seem to reject this. I'm all for this. The only thing I DON'T support is removing the reasoning of leaving in the Marines template UNLESS we can use another symbol for "miscellaneous", and hovering over it with your mouse informs the reader what they left for. But that can be discussed after the basic thing has been implemented. 21:17, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you actually read what DP said. Either way there is no reason to actually do the legend thing when the current way is 100% better. SeaTerror (talk) 21:19, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

It makes it easier to read, shorter to list out, and nicer to look at. Try this: a guy with a very long name defects from the crew, and then dies, that would leave like, what, 4-5 lines. 21:40, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

All of that is a personal opinion. SeaTerror (talk) 22:00, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Just like it's your personal opinion that these are bad. Not a fact, just your opinion. 22:22, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one who used the word fact in this entire forum. SeaTerror (talk) 22:57, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So far, the only fact is that we are ALL projecting our personal opinion on what's good and what's bad for the template business. So if you say it's bad, do give some concrete evidence that transcends a personal opinion. 03:30, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Like how you opinionated that the Princesses Gallery template is "unnecessary". 03:32, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I support this change. Note that we don't even need a legend if there's a tooltip. The "non-canon", "deceased", and "former" statuses are only secondary information anyway. The gallery is primarily for identification purposes. All info is on the characters' pages. Anyway, here is a draft template, following UltimateSupreme's and Nada's ideas: Template:Status.

Looks incredibly bad. SeaTerror (talk) 22:56, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Says you, but not everyone else. 23:23, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

There is no "everyone else". SeaTerror (talk) 00:51, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

I support Sff's template. Still, MAYBE we could put up a legend just in case, or have "hover over symbols for more information" somewhere on the gallery template. 03:01, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Being one of the "everyone else", I have to say I don't really like this change, but I'm not too hot against it either. If it comes to vote I'll be against it since the current system works fine for me. Nevertheless, the new system looks functional enough.

Sff's template looks great and I say we should still've a legend in the gallery template.--

"No 'everyone else'"? That means you think you alone have all the rights here? Not. 04:33, November 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * ^Yata -_-' ... it's trivial stuff like this that turns into a huge shitstorm,just ignore him(ST)--


 * Yeah, I never seem to get through to him. Thanks. 06:29, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

That's ironic Rora. Yata was the one claiming that "everyone else" wanted the template. SeaTerror (talk) 07:59, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

You said "no 'everyone else'", meaning you don't care for the opinions of anyone else yourself. 08:19, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

@Nada, right, as it is currently it's kinda impossible to guess that it's "hoverable". Aside from a legend, solutions include changing the symbol's color or style, but it's kinda ugly. Maybe put it in boldface? Anyway, if we include a legend, it's also possible to hide it by default. Remember that this kind of information is not the primary goal of the gallery. Examples of changing the style to indicate that the symbol is "hoverable": boldface†, dotted frame† , dotted underline† , link color†. None is really satisfying in my opinion.

The template looks nice, let's use it. 14:31, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Dotted underline is the most common, and I like it's look. Let's go for that one, if I'd say. 15:56, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the dotted ones are usually the ones to be used. From then, the only reason a reader wouldn't know to hover it is because they've probably never even been on a Wiki very often. 18:12, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Aah-greed. 18:36, November 1, 2013 (UTC)