Template talk:Infobox card
Are these meant to replace the <c>card tags</c>? Is there going to be a page for every card ever made? WOW --GeoMike 17:26, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
Few things.
- Are we going to do this for ALL cards, or only notable ones (what was the recent politics)?
- I think they should be viewed narrower on actual pages. When the window of the browser isn't of full screen width, these boxes cover text of the article.
MORT (T) 14:38, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
Nothing notable is on this template that can't be viewed using <c>card tags</c>. No other article has used this template. I think we should disband (is that the right word) the use of this template altogether. --GeoMike 03:06, 2 March 2008 (GMT)
Uncertain purpose
I'm not quite sure what this is being aimed at. I don't like the use on Reserved List, because that page really isn't about a specific card, and the infobox loses the explanatory caption. If that article needs an infobox, I imagine it would be {{infobox printing practice}} or something like that, and could be generalized to border colors, specific foil treatments, Masterpiece series, and so on. Some of the things that infobox might apply to only span a single set, so having mandatory start and end dates seems excessive. My biggest concern as far as "does this even need to be an infobox" is simply whether there's enough unifying information to draw out of each such article to fill an infobox with. Right now, this is just start date, end date, Scryfall link, and that barely seems worthwhile. Corveroth (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- The lost information I could have placed in a caption, but is was essentially just a repeat of the first paragraph.
- On the need for it I am not 100% sure myself, but I do feel the entire space is pretty messy at the moment. I do feel there is a printing practice/card treatment/card collection space here that can be properly coaxed out, and I think there is a natural expansion to the Infobox. I hope this makes sense. - Yandere-sliver (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Right now, I feel like this particular infobox has not proven itself, and I align with the disinfoboxes essay. When we publish an article about a set, yes, certainly, there's a lot of statistical information that might be useful at a glance. These are only extracting the time frame under discussion, which I think falls short and makes the article paradoxically look less complete—why is the infobox so empty? Is there so little to be said? The article might in fact have depth, but the infobox is saying otherwise. Corveroth (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am not contesting this. My point is that I think there is more here, which can be better organized and presented in orderly fashion. And honestly your feedback is pretty much appreciated. I am currently sifting through the articles, but I can't lay my finger on this yet. - Yandere-sliver (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Right now, I feel like this particular infobox has not proven itself, and I align with the disinfoboxes essay. When we publish an article about a set, yes, certainly, there's a lot of statistical information that might be useful at a glance. These are only extracting the time frame under discussion, which I think falls short and makes the article paradoxically look less complete—why is the infobox so empty? Is there so little to be said? The article might in fact have depth, but the infobox is saying otherwise. Corveroth (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)