Template talk:5X5 infobox

From SGUTranscripts
Jump to navigation Jump to search

image & title/content[edit]

Thanks for the input, but I can't say I like including the 5X5 image, it would be the same for all of them, and not very pretty.
Regarding the title, most of the episodes have a short entry in the 'contents' section in the 5X5 archive that would make a good title. The longer ones can be shortened easily to a few words.
What do people think? --Teleuteskitty (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If the image was prettier would you mind including one (even though it would be used across all the 5x5 transcripts)? I'm a fan of having an image in the infobox and wouldn't mind working on an image that was more satisfying (perhaps 5 'people icons' around a clock or something - just the first thing that popped into my head). If you really don't like the idea of the same image being repeated across all of the 5x5 transcripts feel free to take it out now - no objections here.
Regarding the title/contents I don't know why you want a 'title' - perhaps you could explain it and that might help me see things in a different way. For me, I don't see the benefit of making up a title for the episode by shortening the contents when it's just as easy to include all of the contents. Thejmii (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Image – Personally, I don't think the image adds anything, and that one kinda dominates on such small pages, but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise if that's the consensus, just giving my opinion.
Title – I like having an easily identifiable topic for the pages, like the podcast archive has adopted since ~2009. If this is clear from the page headers, then it doesn't need to be included in the infobox, but as the infobox is a kind of summary of important points, I think it helps clarity. From a quick look at the 5X5 archive, around 70% have short 'contents' that are effectively keyword titles. The others - especially the first 30 or so - have a full sentence in their 'contents', but contain easily identifiable keywords. I like the idea of keyword-based 'titles' to improve clarity and uniformity, based on the current format of the 5X5 podcast notes, not the original one. I think adding the longer contents to infoboxes is too cluttered, and unnecessary, and should be left to the page itself. In this way, I think we need to leave the 'contents' in the main page, as page titles (i.e. episode numbers) aren't informative (see ep.1).
Thanks for the discussion, it's been difficult to get feedback on stuff thus far.
--Teleuteskitty (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Image - While I still disagree, I'll take out the image as I don't think it's too important and I don't want to take up any more of our time than is necessary. You can run a vote for this if you'd like but I'm okay with just dropping it.
Quick note, I think we can leave the discussion as to the episode list contents on the main page as a separate issue and I'm not fussed by what's included there (full or shortened).
Title - I guess I'll start with the points we agree on. There is a benefit to having an easily identifiable topic for the pages. Also, we agree that having the content information in both the page as well as the infobox is unecessary. Finally we agree that there is an issue of clarity and cluttering, we just have different takes on these issues.
Now we just need to see if we can find a way to do this that satisfies all parties concerned. ☺
My understanding is that you would like to include the contents (or a shortened version thereof) as a title in the infobox, the full contents (or the remaining part) as an introductory sentence and the shortened contents as a section header before the transcript. Essentially this (if the template was slightly modified). You think this is clearer and including the contents in the infobox is too cluttered. Based on your comments I think that by 'too cluttered' you mean that for around 30% of the time there would be too much information included in the infobox, please let me know if that's not accurate. If you could explain in what way you find this option to have better clarity it may help us move towards a solution.
For me I would like the full contents in the infobox and the page only to include the transcript. I think doing it this way decreases clutter as it is not repeating essentially the same information 2 or 3 times on the page, it just appears once. Also I think that including an introductory sentence actually decreases clarity as it's not immediately obvious that the introductory sentence is not actually part of the transcript.
So considering all of this I have an idea for a solution, it's not without it's downsides but hopefully it will satisfy the main requirements. I propose that we do not include any contents section in the infobox (so more like the main SGU episode infobox) or in the main text, instead we make a 'content box' template to include at the start of the article that is immediately distinguishable as not being part of the transcript.
What do you think?
Thejmii (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Infobox – To clarify: Copying 'contents' verbatim will mean around 80 entries will be longer than one line in the infobox with no meaningful increase in the information conveyed (compared to use of keywords), and the structure will vary across episodes. The 'contents' for the 5X5 episodes have essentially become topic titles in recent years, replacing the note-like sentences of the first year or so with keywords. I'm simply suggesting this is an informative, concise format that we could easily employ throughout to keep things clear and uniform. However, we can leave this out of the infobox altogether if people think this might be problematic.
Page – I'm afraid I think adding more boxes for between one word and a sentence won't improve clarity or simplicity. I don't understand the opposition to headers, as used for the full episodes, which inherently inform a reader of the topic of subsequent text. As for the notes, the text is not attributed to a speaker (e.g. "S:"), so I don't see this as being particularly difficult for readers to distinguish from the actual podcast, or problematic. Also, this will only be present for a minority of cases.
I'm sorry if I appear combative, I do want to be cooperative, and if you want to reinstate/change the image, please go ahead. I'm just having problems understanding how your suggestions lead to a clearer presentation of the relevant information.
I guess we really need other people to weigh in on this.
--Teleuteskitty (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)