Template talk:Underworld (film series)

Horror Template‑class

	This template is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Film: American Template‑class

	Film portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Lets get rid of the colors, shall we?[edit]

While the black coloring of the template is pretty, it isn't encyclopedic. Please remove it, or I will be forced to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. back to encyclopedicality (is that even a word? lol) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the color-scheme. No reason to alter it at all. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given to deviate from the standard. –Pomte 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New format[edit]

I've re-designed the template. i was inspired from The Matrix & Back to the Future film templates. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I resorted the set-up the way I had it. Ifwikipedia had not intended for us to use override color codes, they wouldn't have allowed that in the site's coding to begin with. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 10:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The ability to set colour coding is a legacy from when templates were hacked-up randomly with no thought to consistency. The current version is non-standard, hard to read, considerably taller and with more large gaps and uses colours even though these are discouraged by the {{navbox}} documentation. This should be reverted again unless there's a better reason to keep the current layout, which there isn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it hard to read? And there isn't a good reason(at least not one good enough) to not keep it in the format it is in it's current state.FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 13:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to read because the colours have been randomly overridden. For users who have their browsers set never to override link colours (for accessibility reasons), several links are very difficult to see against the black background. Navbox templates are supposed to be simple navigational tools to get users to related articles - they are not baubles to be decorated as their creators see fit. The standard layout is compact and accessible and the code is easy to understand. The current format is inaccessible, misuses the attributes provided by the template and wastes space by having so many nearly-empty lines. This shouldn't be a difficult call. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no further input from the original editor, I'm ready to restore the navbox defaults. Navbox templates are not baubles to be decorated - they are intended as simple navigational aids, and the template documentation discourages overriding the default styles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um no. The template stays.FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it means taking this discussion to a wider forum then so be it, but there's no executive veto here. I'll take it to the Film WikiProject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to the last edit by User:Thumperward (Chris Cunningham) per linked discussion at WT:FILM. The colours made it an absolute eyesore, and there's really no need for it. Concensus is clear; no one but the original author is arguing against this change. PC78 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back. This needs to end now. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only user edit waring here is you. The templates are an eyesore and difficult for some users to read, and you have provided no justification whatsoever for this kind of styling. A clear concensus of opinion disagrees with you. PC78 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then I'll just have to nominate the Cruel Intentions one for deletion. There isn't enough articles to warrant one anyway. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template was difficult to get to (bad links)[edit]

Was anyone aware that this template isn't linked to from its intended links? The links in the upper left lead to the Underworld band template. And is there any reason that Races of Underworld universe doesn't appear within the template? If I knew more about editing templates (The code is a bit cryptic), I'd make the corrections & additions myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.206 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full title?[edit]

Thoughts on changing it to reflect that the movies after the original 'Underworld' aren't merely titled "Evolution" or "Rise of the Lycans" but rather have the Underworld title in them (i.e. "Underworld: Evolution")? It's somewhat confusing as it stands; someone seeing the table and then searching for "Evolution" would not find the correct movie. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 06:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]