Template talk:Infobox Unicode block

Suggestions

Hi Vanisaac. I suggest the next changes.

Do not use background colors. Such "information" is confusing, and nowhere explained. WP:COLOR explains why information-by-color-only is not a good idea. On top of that, coloring based on a version is quite irrelevant, version is just history.
Eh, probably right. I'll zonk it out. Done Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs

Hmm, WP:COLOR only seems to indicate that information should not solely be indicated with color. If the information is available elsewhere, it doesn't really have much to say. It's irrelevant, because I think that a consistent light blue color is probably best anyway. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move the detailed version numbers to the very bottom (right above the note). This is detailed andhistorical information. The overview numbers then show nicely below the range-information. Maybe add a divider line above "range" to make is a group? -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should be easy enought to renumber. Done Any other suggestions or thoughts? Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage what?

Must say, the top 'Usage' section does not mean anything to me. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a little clearer? Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected redlink

For example, page CJK Radicals Supplement. Why does this template, on that page, produce a red link while pure pagename=block name? -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has {{Infobox Unicode block}}, all fine. Then, the template box shows title CJK Radicals Supplement in a red link. -DePiep (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox shows up just fine for me. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See page CJK Radicals Supplement. It has {{Infobox Unicode block}}. Top right of that page, the {{Infobox Unicode block}} title, gives a red wikilink. -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally zero red wikilinks on that page. There is something wrong with your browser/connection. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It is even worse. It uses the darkred color, against WP:COLOR.

This is a (secundary) reason to revert using font-color in the caption. See below: #Caption font color -DePiep (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caption font color

I have undone the coloring of the caption font color. First of all, Unicoded does not have a "script type", so we are entering OR. Secondary, it uses color without meaning. The reader can not see the meaning (it is not even elsewhere, as in a key/legend). Third, one color was red, which suggested a redlink. -DePiep (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]