Template talk:Mouse

Template design

Just a note that I am absolutely NOT committed to the current color scheme and was simply going for something different than already exists in other infoboxes and other templates. If you change the colors, please avoid any shades of red and orange as it is preferred to save those for warning or other notice boxes. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've left an idea in the history for approval. Before somebody says "ewww, brown", I've based the scheme on the mice button from MH. I'd figured brown could be a nice break from the pastel shades. Of course, it'd be best to get some feedback first. Revengeance 04:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't think of any nice way to say that that was friggin' hideous. Sorry. Looked like someone barfed up a mint Oreo regardless of where the color idea came from. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Can't say I was expecting you to agree with it. Serves me right for trying to break away from the puerile pastels. Revengeance 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, c'mon now. Did you seriously think that looked even marginally good? Honest to god, seafoam green and turd brown? Really? Maybe you didn't expect me to like it, but can you find ANYONE who would, except maybe someone hungry for a mint chocolate Dilly Bar? The "pastels" (really, just a lighter shade to compliment the darker border) are unobstrusive, but more importantly they make it easy to read the text without being the focal point. I can't spend all night typing up a lesson in aesthetics, but if you can find a majority of people who prefer that trainwreck to the previous version, I'm open to new ideas. Maybe everything I was taught in my graphic design coursework in college, along with everything I've read, seen, and taught others in countless web design workshops and seminars, was wrong. *shrug* -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 06:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
        • And besides, the idea behind any good design (web, print, or any other medium) is consistency within a theme, not a jarring departure for "a nice break." -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
          • As a fellow graphic designer, I'm surprised you're so close-minded to it. If people aren't open to new combinations and just agree with the opinions of others who consider them "barf", we may as well go back to painting on caves. Revengeance 06:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mouse Description

Thinking of moving the description off the template and back onto the main mouse page because: 1) Looks pretty cramped squeezing all that text into the small box, when 2) The rest of the page looks empty Comments? -- Grexx 16:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm strongly against it. It was put there to parallel the other infobox templates (e.g. Weapon and Base). Instead of moving it out, why not consider trying to flesh out the mouse pages instead with actual information? They are bare, but that doesn't necessitate mucking up the template to make up for a lack of info. New sections such as "Hunting tips" and "Best place to find this mouse" would be great additions and wouldn't be change for the sake of change. IIRC, Peter888 has some templates for such pages that he's playing with in his sandbox. Might check with him to see what he's up to. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah I didn't connect the standardization in the templates together. Ok then lets see what we can do to make the pages more lively then. -- Grexx 16:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I've been thinking about consulting the timeline to add History sections with release dates, as well as brief mentions of any other mice released with them. Seems like a good start! Revengeance 16:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and written ones up for the first three "A" mice (Abominable Snow, Archer and Assassin) as examples of what I mean. Revengeance 06:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Noticed that -- looks great! -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 06:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

URL vs. ID

Instead of using the URI each time, why don't we just specify an ID parameter and have the URI link automatic? That would make it easier if MouseHunt suddenly changes how the Mouse Profile page works (instead of having to change every Mouse page.) --Navarr 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• In Addition to this, I've created a script that could very easily grab the Mouse images from my server in a standardized way using the id field if it is added; if this system wishes to be used. I try to maintain all high-res graphics of the mice on my site. --Navarr 00:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Both look like solutions in need of a problem, IMHO. I'm not expecting any sudden changes from MH anytime soon. And along those lines, I think the chances of them changing the numeric ID to something else are the same as the chances of them making drastic changes that break all the image links. And perhaps most importantly, if anything DOES change in a uniform manner, I can have every mouse page updated in under a minute using the wiki editing software in my arsenal. Having said that, if you want to change it go ahead. As for the links to images on your server, it's nothing personal when I say I don't think that's a good idea. To be honest, the chances of YOU changing something are probably greater than HitGrab doing it. It's good to know the images are there, and you can even link them with the full URL, but doctoring the template such that it's dependent on a private individual's site is A Bad Idea™. Nothing wrong with using the full URL for both the info pages and the images, IMHO. They're already there -- it would be more work to change things than to leave it alone. If it breaks, then worry about. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 03:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • In addition, in the event that you don't have a particular mouse image on your server, that leaves no recourse within the template for adding an alternate link. Or in the event that something happens to you, to your server, etc. I just think that unless and until the devs decide to allow uploads to the wiki, the best idea is linking to well-established image hosting sites (e.g. Photobucket) as is currently the case. Again, it's nothing personal at all. Just speaking from hard personal experience. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
      • That makes perfect sense, I just find the different image sites and different qualities of high-res pictures (JPGs used to be linked, not sure anymore) to be.. hmm, not sure what the word is. Maybe I'm just a little OCD about URIs, lol. --Navarr 18:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
        • AFAIK, all of the mouse images are now linked to full-res PNGs on Photobucket taken directly from MouseHunt. (I know because I did it myself.) The only exceptions are three (I think) rare/prize mice that I have asked Dave Vanderburg (a HitGrab dev) to provide ... without response: Mobster, Leprechaun, and Master Burglar (IIRC). If you've got those on your site, a direct link to those full-res images would be terrific! -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Also meant to add that having the template dependent on your server effectively prevents anyone else from contributing images to the wiki. Also A Bad Idea™. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
            • While we're on the subject of images, the current "Image" header doesn't leave room for special event portraits, so any other versions have been left in an "External links" section. Would it be better to change it to something like "Image(s)" and put them all together ("Current" or "Original", "Halloween", "New Year's", etc)? Revengeance 11:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Are you talking about moving the image link out of the infobox altogether? That I would vote against. The vast majority of the mice do not have special event images and altering the infoxbox because of a handful of "bonus" images would be A Bad Thing™. But I'd be very much in favor of adding a section heading "Images" just for the purpose you described. In this limited situation, I don't see any problem whatsoever with having the link to the original image duplicated twice on the same page. We must remember that first and foremost the site is about easy reference, not strictly adhering to an imagined "only one link per site or page PER page" rule. Go for it! -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
                • No, I was talking about putting all the links together in the infobox instead of having extra ones by themselves in an "External links" section. Although, thinking about your suggestion, changing the sections to "Images" and adding the originals probably would be better, considering we should avoid taking information out of the already-lackluster articles and moving it to the infoboxes. I'll get started on it. Revengeance 10:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)