This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
IIRC, I may have suggested removing it in favor of this template (I don't remember if it was me or someone else) since OEL manga is specifically outside of the AM project's scope. If necessary, I can start a discussion there, though. —
Dinoguy100020:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)reply
{{{multigenre}}}
Could we get rid of the whole <br> (line break) after each one and just use commas? The line breaks make it long vertically even with just two or three, and in my opinion it doesn't look that great. Also, I think this template might do better if it were hardcoded instead of using {{Infobox}} - at the very least it would probably be easier to edit. --
Eruhildo (
talk)
00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Issue 1 - The commas
Yes, it is possible, but the layered "If-then-else" statements would make the current setup look short and simplistic. Roughly - replace the 27 one liners with 26 "diminishing" nests (27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, and so on) just so there isn't a hanging or leading comma. And, looking at a number of the placed boxes, that doesn't even begin to address adding additional options. (That is: To add a 28th genre is currently just adding 2 lines, 3 if it has a cat. In the coma setup it's add 2, 3 for a cat, and 26 to redo the nests.)
Issue 2 - Table vs template
No, it won't make the coding easier to edit.
The "If-then-else" statements would be the same. They may even become clunkier since {{!}} will have to be pepper through out to make sure they continue to work. And that's on top of making sure the table formatting is kept straight. And then there's adding the whole new layer of "if-then"s to vanish cells that aren't used - an automatic feature of the template.
The templates that this one is based off of ({{Infobox manhwa}} and {{Infobox manhua}}) were originally hardcoded, but were switched over to use {{Infobox}} for some reason (there's a discussion on it somewhere in the workgroup archives, but I don't feel like digging around for it). Personally, I think it would be better if it were (still) hardcoded, but... meh. —
Dinoguy100017:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Looking back at the code for the old templates (
[1] &
[2]) I would say the code was easier to read than the current code, albeit a bit longer. As for the commas, ugh, I forgot about that stupid hanging end comma problem. Well, given some time though, I think I could come up with a simple solution. --
Eruhildo (
talk)
19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Would you like to throw those together with the current functionality of this 'box? Otherwise it's damn near comparing apples and oranges.
But a closer comparison, just sticking with the infobox, would be:
Having written (or at least copied and adapted) a large portion of the harcoded version, I don't think I can give a completely unbiased opinion. That being said, the programmer in me says that the template version is easier to read, but less flexible (since a metatemplate can't provide for all possible uses). —
Dinoguy100015:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, but the hardcoded version isn't that friendly to change either. The 'box is built with an eye generally on two things: "What does it need to do now?" and "What does what ever is currently in place do?" It's hard to say "And in the near future it will need to do 'this', 'that' and maybe 'the other'" and make sure that it has that functionality incorporated. With both methods, as that new stuff - phased in or out - corps up, the coding needs to be revisited and updated.
And to be honest, some of what can be done inside the template is surprising. The "hidden" table for one thing. I was sure that wouldn't be possible, but the template accepted the coding with minor tweaking.
The only preferential point I see for the hardcoded table version is what's been done with the anime/manga infobox — massive modularization. And that being said, 1) I don't think there is the need for it with any version of this 'box, and 2) an "all-in-one" version based on the template can be done, though it would likely force a consistent order to the "modules".
I disagree with your second point in the last paragraph: attempting an "all-in-one" template for the animanga infobox would be impossible since series can have an arbitrary number of different adaptations of the same type. —
Dinoguy100017:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify (and this is something that I wouldn't suggest doing):
A 'box template can be set up with fields for the manga, the anime, novels, short prose, video games, films, plays, etc. It would be laid out with everything available, but not necessarily used. Even with in that, an arbitrary "upper limit" or even a "folding table" like the "other non-English publishers" here can be set up.
The down sides are "dead space", the unused fields, and that it would always present in the same order, which is counter to how some of the modular ones are used (IIUC, they are placed in loose "production order" so some have Anime first, other Manga, and the other adaptation shuffle). I don't think such a template is ultimately a good thing - with too much optional material for most articles and too big a buck against the established schema - but it can be done.
Certainly it can be, but as you pointed out, the trade-off is too large. In addition to dead space and a fixed order, you're going to have a fixed upper limit of the number of adaptations of a given media type you can cover in the infobox, and inevitably, somewhere, there will be a series which would need more than that upper limit. Also, currently, the ordering for infobox animanga components is by release date in all cases where it is known (and approximated according to whether the month of release is known, etc.). —
Dinoguy100016:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)reply
That's what I thought re the ordering (and I was deliberate, that's how I Understood it, not Recalled it).
As for the "Something will come along to exceed the 'cap'"... Devil's Advocate: There is 1) the option of "bumping" until the operating cap of the template is reached (and there is a max number of field numbers) and/or 2) (and this has been broached with some 'boxes) there's the option of limiting to the "initial, notable few" with a link to the section of the article that fleshes out the rest. Again, I wouldn't push those since the first can and would be hit. And the second... I can easily imagine the harangue in trying to weed down to a "notable few". That alone wouldn't be worth it. -
J Greb (
talk)
22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)reply
This isn't a big issue, y'all. Lets just stick with what we currently have, and if we come across something in the future that requires us to switch to hardcoding, we can do that when it comes up. Really, this template currently has a very limited use - it only is used on articles about non-Japanese, Asian comics (of which there are very few articles). There's not a whole lot that needs to go in the 'box either. --
Eruhildo (
talk)
04:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi. I've noticed that whatever year is put in the "| first =", the template puts the article in "Category: 200X comic debuts". (For example, if "| first = 2006", then "Cat: 2006 comic debuts" appears at the bottom of the article. If "| first = 2008", then "Cat: 2008 comic debuts" appears at the bottom.) While this is true for the majority of the OEL manga, it isn't for some (Nightschool). Is there any way to make "Category: 200X comic debuts" optional? (Sorry if this is confusing, templates are not my thing.)
Kaguya-chan (
talk)
21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
When the "first/"last" was put together, the idea was that it would cover the original run of the manhua, manhwa, or OEL, be it as stand alone books or as a strip in an anthology. In the case of Nightschool, the article
eventually points out that its run in Yen Plus started in August 2008. That is when the series debuted even though the first collected edition didn't show up until 14 months later.
Two things I can see doing:
Tightening up the parameter notes for "first and last" and "volumes".
Setting it up so that if a magazine entry is present, "Volumes" becomes "Collected volumes".
And a last thing, "Year comic debuts" is as close to a neutral term as we can come since the category needs to cover comic books, comic strips (US meaning), comic strips (UK/European meaning), comic magazines, etc. The only thing it doesn't directly cover is manga (as it was explained to me - Japanese comics made primarily for the Japanese market).
Hmm. I didn't realize that. Well, no big deal about the category then. However, I agree with the "volumes" to "collected volumes" if it was serialised idea.
Kaguya-chan (
talk)
22:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes. I might suggest that the pages in their respective categories should have categories added prior to deletion of the feature. You should
request a bot for that. --
Izno (
talk)
12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Maplestrip: I'll take care of this tonight. That said, it looks like there are a lot of other categories--maybe you should request more botting. :) --
Izno (
talk)
19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
IznoMaplestrip Every article using this template should now have all the relevant categories (i.e. everything except the maintenance ones). Note that this template is wrapped by three other Infoboxs. All the best: RichFarmbrough,
22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC).reply