This isn't working as it should and I have no idea why: The ISBN (ISBN-10) and MSRP fields fail to show their content even when someting is entered (see article Succession Wars (Board Game). Help by someone more skilled at this than I would be appreciated.
Also, I don't know how to make the ISBN line disappear when it isn't given ("if" structure). Frabby 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I think I got it figured out. Nevermind. Frabby 10:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- If possible, I have included a day-month-year format. Also, I admit the infobox isn't tailored to deal with PDF and hardcopy releases. My suggestion would be to include two dates where applicable. Frabby 09:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The CGL format for publications has been including contributors to products who aren't currently reflected in a lot of the publication articles here on Sarna; the one that caught my eye earlier was that staff credited as being responsible for Layout don't tend to get mentioned, and it's hit and miss as to whether editors/production editors get included. I think it may be worth reviewing a half dozen of the more recent publications with coherent indices and adding some more conditional fields to this template. BrokenMnemonic 00:34, 20 August 2012 (PDT)
- I certainly won't stop you from adding the fields in question to the template and updating articles. However, in my opinion, production editors and layouters don't really fall under BTW's purview. I do respect and value their work, but keep in mind that they don't produce actual content for the BattleTech universe like the writers and artists do. Sarna is a BattleTech wiki, not a Catalyst wiki, after all. Frabby 03:00, 20 August 2012 (PDT)
I've been considering a detail to be added to these pages. As a researcher, I often rely on the in-universe approximate date of release to determine chronological order of events (with other sources). historical bias/basis, etc. I determine the date of the in-universe 'document' by the fiction that often accompanies the preface of the product. I'm proceeding with adapting the template accordingly (along with hiding blank fields), but please let me know if it is considered inappropriate (and why you think that). I also don't mind if someone things the field can be better titled.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 06:39, 22 September 2013 (PDT)