User talk:Pretzels/Signpost/Article

Cryptic C62

Hrm, my initial reaction is that there's a little too much space between the title and the byline. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ragesoss

This is pretty messy. I don't like the full box reproduced at the bottom, or the empty space on the left.--ragesoss (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the bottom looking different from how it should because of the basepage and subpage code and the fact that the article isn't in its usual place? Anyhow, I think the full header is too heavyweight. Maybe just the title and byline parts and [properly working] footer, along with the current right-hand vertical banner?--ragesoss (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the titles should probably use the same font as the title font from User:Pretzels/Signpost.--ragesoss (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the bottom part should be fine once used back in the normal article structure. I've moved the old right-hand-side logo to the top, for continuity, and because the old format made it impossible to right-align images until near the end of an article. The header also now includes the feature's short name, and a link back to the current issue, but feel free to remove it entirely if it's too huuuge.

Also just now, I moved the messy code into templates for easy setup. After we've perfected the formatting I'll get all the CSS moved into common.css or somewhere that's not inline, for even cleaner code. Adjusted the titles as asked. Pretzels^Talk! 00:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just too much. Half of the screen is taken up by the header and the title, compared to just a few lines in the old format, and the padding on the right pushes even more of the article past the fold. I liked the way you had it before, with the titles smaller and right-aligned with a thin line beneath.--ragesoss (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could the title be incorporated into the header in place of the current issue link and the unhelpful "Article"? Or if not that, maybe make the header as thin as possible?--ragesoss (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)