Template talk:Year sections

What Sections?

Hey all. Here's the first draft of the year section template. You can see it in work here: 2103.

The template works like this:

{{year sections | battles }}

where the options are "battles", "events", "characters", and "technology". Anything else will create the template but with a white background and black border. I'm curious whether these are the categories and color schemes we want. Opinions? Thanks. --Ebakunin ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Simplified things. So it looks good. As for colors, the green seems a bit brighter that the rest, but it's nothing I would waste time on. --Neufeld 07:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, i changed it because the grey did not show on IE6 (yeah, some of us are stuck with that at work; you can tell, because my spelling errors increase.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job, Ebakunin.Doneve 09:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just got on this morning, but it is far cleaner a code to use. If it hasn't been done already, I'll change the policy code to match.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Events

I don't think they should be used unless the year has more than couple events in each category, it just makes it cluttered if color templates are being used. Example, Year 2000, only 1 thing happened, rest of it is subject headings. It look cleaner without them. If there whole number of events other related year topics, it would look better. -- Wrangler 11:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In order to cut down on confusion for new and first-time Editors (who may not be aware of the Year pages policy), we'd want to show all available options. If the code is already in there, then a new entry should be rather easy to categorize. Otherwise, we'll either get entries placed under the only category currently emplaced or attempts to add their own sections (which will lead to non-consistent categories like 'Minor', 'Davion battles', 'BattleMechs', etc.).

And, to be honest, this article is about the code to be used: the old, mish-mash code that I put forth with the policy or Ebakunin's cleaner, fool-proof kind. Concerns about when to include categories would have been best suited during the policy crafting discussion of the last few weeks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit problem

One problem. The edit link on the right side of the heading doesn't work correctly. --Neufeld 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Not a deal breaker by any means, but confusing, unless you go thru the edit tab. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can clean that up tonight. Thanks for noticing, Neufeld. --Ebakunin ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I solved the problem. It required a CSS trick, and I've found no problems with FF, Opera, Chrome, and IE8. I'd appreciate if a few people could verify that they're no problems with IE6 and IE7, plus any other weird browsers. Here's the template in use: 2103. Thanks for the help. --Ebakunin ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I works very well, hook up . UUUppsss.--Doneve

Wasn't at work today, but will test IE6 tomorrow. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)