Template talk:WoW Icons Filename Directory

New format
Even though i dislike this page period, i've given it a reformat so it's easier to manage both horizontally and vertically, and can handle different resolutions better.

User:Zeal/Sandbox/WoWWiki:Directory (Icons)

Let me know what you think, just wanted to bring it up and get feedback before i change it. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 11:11, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * I can understand where you're coming from with a format in terms of expandability, but this version doesn't come across as very easy on the eyes or easy to find what you're looking for, which would be the idea for a "directory" such as this. For me, at least, it especially becomes very busy in the Inventory section. Also, what exactly do you "dislike" about this page? There should be an easy way to browse through of all the various icon categories without having to click through them one by one, don't you think? --Tusva 11:30, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * I don't agree about the clicking about. in this day and age, a single click for something you want is expected and simplistic. I don't like seeing info repeated on pages, when i could click a one link to see it anyways.
 * Anyways, back to the format. I disagree, i think it's easier to read personally, though i know that's probably not the majority opinion. But i beleive that takes second place to the fact that it is not easily managable in its current form, looks horrible with cosntnatly trying to balance column hieghts, and it does not degrade well at lower resolutions. Plus it's all in a table, which is it's first crime (same layout we have can be done with correct markup, it's just no better for the rest of the stuff). -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 11:54, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * "in this day and age, a single click for something you want is expected and simplistic." Exactly, which is why we need a directory like this, as I said before. Not sure what you're debating here. Perhaps you misunderstood my previous point?
 * "I don't like seeing info repeated on pages, when i could click a one link to see it anyways." Where is the entire category structure of the icons repeated anywhere? Again, I'm not following you.
 * I can understand your points about it being manageable, and would certainly agree with any formatting to address that. However, going about it in the manner that you presented is, at least in my opinion, not very useful as a directory, despite being manageable. Perhaps there is a middle ground somewhere. I'd be happy to try a different approach that's easier to maintain and update. --Tusva 12:54, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * Category Vs. Static list. That's what i'm debating. If i want a lsit of all icons, i use Category:WoW Icons. I can dig down, browsing for what i want and view the structure as i go. If i know what i want, then i can simply type it in or search. I don't beleieve a static list such as this is really needed. A place where it might make sense, is on the top most level of the category itself (Category:WoW Icons).


 * I still feel the format i've designed works just as well as a directory, and is more presentable. It's either that, or it becomes a scrollable layout really. It's the same issues i ran into with working on a vendor sheet. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 13:12, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * "I can dig down, browsing for what i want and view the structure as i go." But then right there you're already going against the idea that we both agree on, having everything available in one click. The problem with depending on the Categories is the inablity to see the entire structure at once. Also, considering the quirks in Blizzard's naming system, it's beneficial to see everything at once, in case something might be in a category one would not expect it. If the user knows what they want, then certainly they can search or use the Master list and have no need for this. However, I feel it's important to make available to someone who might not know the filename or simply wants to browse what's available in an organized fashion, a method of which to do so.


 * If there's a method of presenting a structured directory of all the categories in a more dynamic fashion (versus static editing), I'd completely support it. --Tusva 13:25, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * Lol, well i didn't agree with you on the one-click thing, crossed wirsed there. Digging down is always a series of clicks, but i'm learning the structure as i go, which i feel is beneficial. I don't want to jump straight to an icon unless i know what it is already, i'f i'm looking for a certain icon, i would rather browse (especially with the poor naming on blizz's part) and the structure overview wouldn't really be useful to me.
 * I hate that in making mediwiki they were very short-sighted with categories. Sticking them in their own namespaces, and removing any good use of them, what were they thinking?. Categories should be useable in and part of all pages (placement done similar to a toc). Sadly that's not going to happen... : /
 * How about, though, sticking such a directoy list on Category:WoW Icons and then transcluding it from there (thats another thing, this shouldn't be in the template namespace). That way people can quickly jump down to lower levels, and still see the structure prior to browsing. I still dislike it, but it's a good compramise imo. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 13:38, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * So, is there a method of dynamically displaying categories (in terms of the entire structure) somehow or are we stuck with a static list regardless of if it's vertical, horizontal, table or CSS? And I had it as a Template because when I first threw it together, the idea was to include it (or a smaller version of it) at the top of every Icon category so as they click through (as you say) they would always see the structure. I would definitely like to have it shown in the Category:WoW Icons category, but I also think it has a place on the main WoW Icons article as well.


 * Regardless, I take your point about making the directory flexible, and will work on something that is both easy on the eye, easy to browse, but can expand and retract easily without too much fiddling. --Tusva 17:53, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * Sadly, stuck with a static structure overview along side a dynamic structure with no overview. : /
 * Give it a go, but i'm fairly confident, it's this, or a scrollable list :( -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 18:09, 23 January 2007 (EST)