Forum:Race factions templates

So we're having a discussion here: Template talk:Humans & Template talk:Orcs about how to set up race factions templates.

First of all, what are "race factions templates"? they're navigation templates that list all the organizations of members of the same race. Naga tribes, worgen packs, vrykul clans, magnataur herds... Though sometimes they are located on "Template:RACE+S" mainspace, they're not to be confused with race navigation templates.

Most of these templates don't have any section dividing the listed organizations, but others do, and that's where we're seeing different versions. Until now, most of them were organized by parent factions (orc clans were under each different Horde, for example). I think it's the best model, but there's others, like active/defunct. The objective of this vote is to see if we stick with the old model or we get to make a new one and apply it to each of these templates.

To make things easier, I'm categorizing all of these templates under Category:Faction navigation templates.

Example for the old models: Humans & Orcs.

Vote: Keep the old model, or make a new one?
✅

Votes

 * Old Model :


 * New Model :

Comments
If active/defunct is deemed important, we could always represent it with a "†" next to each faction.--Lon-ami (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does this even exist. People just love to make pointless votes. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 23:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's pointless, unless you mean we should revert it seeing the majority on the talk page preferred the old model, without making any vote. I'm just making sure we settle this, covering all the templates at once, so the styles of the templates stop changing back and forth.--Lon-ami (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like you want it your way instead of just having them in a way that's not controversial. Looking at any other templates they don't have this type of template. It's just listing the organizations which is what it should be.[[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 23:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you have against discussing things constructively? looks like you're the one wanting it your way, with no one being able to complain. By the way, you should try to stop making changes until we make a decision.--Lon-ami (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Dude, you're acting like a troll. Some major changes need to be discussed, specially if affects to popular templates like orcs and humans ones. Get over it.
 * Returning to the main issue, I note differences between both templates. I like how looks the human template but I have some doubts about the orcs' main fields. I mean, some orc clans are contained in variuos rows like Bleeding Hollow, Dragonmaw or Frostwolf. I bet there is a better way to manage the information. --Petrovic (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know, some clans have different versions of themselves, that got separated from each other or just had internal divisions (normal orcs, fel orcs, mag'har...). I think it worked well anyway.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A clan is a clan. [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 03:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So far, I agree with Moneygruber. Discussion is good, but these templates are overhauled every now and then for no reason. Edit: Since it is being overhauled for no reason, the old one was better.-- 03:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I put in two icons and merged one part.... Whats the big deal? [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 03:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Same as this one, to me, the old one is better. My attempt to solve the arguement was far less helpful than I initially realized.-- 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I prefered this one. As for both of the current options, I would prefer this. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can people start making actual sense? [[Image:inv_helmet_44.png|22px]]  (talk contribs) 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the "dagger option" the new model?-- 17:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. -- 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)