Forum:CT:Appearances/sources: scroll boxes vs hidable boxes

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Appearances/sources: scroll boxes vs hidable boxes

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was superseded by CT Archive/Full implementation of scrollboxes. jSarek 03:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think scroll boxes look ugly, and some time ago, I implemented a different way of dealing with long lists of appearances/sources; Revan is an example.

Should we replace scroll boxes with this system, or keep them? - Sikon 12:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the scroll boxes being ugly. But I do like the method you used in Revan's article. However, I think it was unwarranted in that article. Scroll boxes are really only supposed to be used when there is a relatively long list of sources and/or appearances. When there are only a handful, like in the Revan article, sometimes that small amount of space can be utilized to fit a picture to the right of the list that otherwise wouldn't fit with your method. - JMAS 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I also disagree about the scroll boxes being ugly, and if someone wants to go through the sources/appearances, they have to make the article just as big as it would already be when using the collapsing box method. jSarek 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Per both above. It's nice to look at from a programming perspective, but functionally, the scroll boxes look better. In fact, not only do I disagree that they are ugly, I think they look quite nice. Wildyoda 20:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I despise scroll boxes, but I like the collapsible ones Sikon used. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Scrollboxes. Havac 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)