Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Blog"

Revision as of 05:40, 28 March 2007

As a database designer, the Blog3 template always struck me as having very poor design in the one fact that it was limited in the number of cast members that could be displayed. In my mind, the number of cast members that could be listed should not be limited, and should not have to be coded in such an odd manner anyway. So now, instead of character1, actor1, character2, actor2, etc., one simply uses Template:VidChar. The plus side of this that may not be so obvious is that in editing things like our new categorizations of various filmographies for the actors, instead of having to edit six or seven lines of code, we only edit one, and it cascades to all video pages for all cast memebers. --Brucker 12:09, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Even though the old template had that awkward reverse numbering, I think it's otherwise more intuitive than using this nested template. I guess I would have a mild preference for retaining the Blog3 template and if there are ever 8 characters in a video (which strikes me as fairly unlikely) we could just add another slot when the moment arises, which I think would be less work than getting used to this new template within a template system. --JayHenry 21:36, 21 February 2007 (CST)

What if the template were simplified, so that rather than

{{VidChar
character = Bree
actor     = Jessica Lee Rose
}}

we could use a simplified format of

{{VidChar|Bree|Jessica Lee Rose}}

would that be better? It just seems so much more efficient to me. --Brucker 12:32, 22 February 2007 (CST)

YouTube tags

Would there be a way to make all of the YouTube tags link to their respective pages without having to add square brackets around each one. It's a small thing, but if it's not that hard to do, it would save some time.--Jonpro 14:49, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Not only do I not know of a good way to do that, but I'm not 100% sure it's a good idea, since some pages have unique formatting issues, such as Thanksgiving, which has a tag pointing to itself. --Brucker 19:00, 21 February 2007 (CST)

General question about blog templates

It occurred to me that most if not all videos have a discussion thread in the forum. It might be nice to add a link to that thread from the info box. --Brucker 12:56, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah, doesn't the Op template have that already? It's a nice feature and I'm guessing it wouldn't be that hard to include it here also. But what the heck do I know? Where did you and Jay learn all this templature stuff? I'm so behind. =( OwenIsCool 14:08, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Believe it or not, I learned it here; I'm a fast learner. --Brucker 15:10, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Malfunction?

I tried this template out for the first time today when I started the page for Cracked The File. I tried using the fields for "PreviousC" and "NextC" and it looks like they're backwards. When I put Men Are From Mars as "PreviousC" is came up as "Directly after" (and vice-versa when I tried putting it as "NextC"). I'd fix it, but since you can't really tell if it works until you save, I don't want to start making lots of edits trying to figure it out.
Another thing is that when I use the "PreviousC" and "NextC", the plain "Previous" and "Next" items come up on the article even though there's nothing filled in for them. I feel obligated to use the old plain "Previous" because if I use "PreviousC" they'll both come up, whereas if I use "Previous", at least "PreviousC" disappears. I know what I just said might sound kind of weird... if I need to clarify anything, let me know.
OwenIsCool 20:04, 24 February 2007 (CST)

Ecch, it's not malfunctioning, the wording is confusing, I didn't realize it. "Directly after" as in "This video is directly after the video listed." Can I get a suggestion for better wording? As for "Previous" and "Next", those are set to be there always. If the previous video chronologically is also the previous in the series, then you shouldn't use "PreviousC". It's really supposed to be only for canon videos that are not part of the series, such as early Gemma and Jonas videos, and perhaps OpAphid/Tachyon ones, although the status of those is far from clear to me. --Brucker 02:55, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Ohh, you're right. I remember having this discussion before when we were talking about how to merge the OpAphid videos (I think). Maybe we should switch them? We're conditioned to think that the video labeled "Previous" is a video prior to the one whose article were reading, so when we (ok, maybe just me) look at the video labeled "Directly after" we (I) think its directly after the one the article is about. I think what I'm trying to say is that "previous", "next", "previous by", "next by" all describe the vid that they are linking to, whereas "directly before/after" is describing the video of the current page, not the one it links to.

I'm sorry that I'm bringing this up just now, because like I said, I do remember talking about this before, it's just that it never struck me. I guess I just didn't realize it confused me until I went and tried to make one for Cracked The File. It'd be helpful if others commented here on what works and doesn't work for them (Hear that, everybody?). After all, it could just be silly me.

OwenIsCool 11:30, 25 February 2007 (CST)

I don't think it's just you, I don't like it either. Perhaps "Directly follows"? --Brucker 12:18, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Status?

Given the fact that we now have to deal with this mind-boggling cr-- ...err...this wonderful new presentation technique by The Creators, I vote for adding a Status: field between Description and YouTube Tags. If it defaults to "Public", all 160+ previous videos are automagically fine, and the status of future videos can easily be recognized without having to scan the description.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 08:19, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Should we make the "Status" field appear in the older videos, or should we only add it to videos that were released with the designation? Since it wasn't a distinction previously, I'm not sure that we should retromagically apply it to the older vids. Either way we should definitely add it to the template for current use. --JayHenry 14:02, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Retromagically, that's a great term! I would also favor making it an optional field though, so that if the videos don't have a Status the field should just not show up. I think that the status of the older videos was purposefully ambiguous. At first, Bree thought her parents didn't know she blogged. Then OpAphid starts watching her vids. Then we find out Gemma does. Then apparently her father knows about them too. They're public in the sense that they're not protected, but they were not necessarily intended for Op's, dad's and Gemma's viewing.

The status field should be kept simple. "Private" if it's like a diary entry; "Private transmission" and "Recipient" if it's a message for someone; "Public" if it's, well, public.

OwenIsCool 00:40, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

i think everyu video should have a field, and that it should who the video was sent to and what kind of video, not just if its public or private. some examples would be Public YouTube VLog (all the videos that in the breeniverse were uploaded to YouTube initially, regardless of where they appeard first in the real world), Private MySpace Vlog, Encrypted Email Message, Secure uploud to OpAphid Server, for groups with Level 7 clearence, whatever. - Misty 14:41, 27 March 2007 (CDT)