Forum:What about this tab system?

Forums: Helping Hand > What about this tab system?

---

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

---

So I was looking at the Berserk wikia and I noticed that there are tabs for the articles on the top like here.

What do you guys think about something like this? Also sorry if this is old news!

Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated 23:25, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

I am generally not in favor of that style of wiki page. Our pages are already nearly broken on mobile devices and I think adding those tabbers would just make it worse. Also, if the contents of a particular tab gets long, you have to scroll all the way back up to the top in order to switch to the next tab. Personally, I'd rather just keep scrolling down. Those are my 2 copper.

—Moviesign (talk) 00:47, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Wookieepedia also uses it to divide articles by canon and expanded universe, as here.

Eh. It could be useful if articles get extremely long, but even our longest here aren't excessively long. We also don't need to divide up by canon and expanded universe as, for the most part, the FR EU is the canon.

If we were a game-based or rules-focused wiki, then there would be a benefit in splitting a page in two like this: a page for lore and a page for rules and crunch. But we're not and have consistently rejected and limited crunch, so it's not a necessity.

I hate to say it, but this is perfect for what fans opposed to our edition-neutrality have asked for – separate pages for each edition, quarantining away 4th edition or whatever. Tabs for 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e versions of spells, monsters, and classes might be reasonable. Tabs for places before and after the Spellplague are less so. I'm against it for the same reasons I've argued in the past: the changes with edition are tied to the evolving time-line, and they're better presented chronologically down an article than across tabs; and it would still show edition-bias (ironically, 4e and 5e would be default).

I agree with Moviesign, too. It would be too much new code and make things too complicated. We've also developed a lot of new organisational systems that it would bypass, and require a great deal of work splitting pages up in any way.

— BadCatMan (talk) 01:18, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Dear Gond! I don't want to write separate pages for each edition. That would be excruciating.

—Moviesign (talk) 02:03, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Blah... more stuff to confuse new editors... we have our tabs for pics... sort of for different character stats... the creature one still looks messy in the Template:Creature for different appearances... plus, I agree, scrolling down or using "find" is nice on a page... I do not want to have to search each tab for the info I am looking for... +1 vote against.

- Darkwynters (talk) 03:07, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I thought I might have been interesting but judging from the responses so far I have to agree, its unnecessary. Also using it to make one for every edition sounds super frustrating and over bearing work wise.

Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated 11:48, July 5, 2015 (UTC)