Issues with formatting?
Since Shadow posted his Objection on the nomination page, I have a question. What issues are there with the formatting on the page?
I won't object to removing the "code" boxes (not entirely sure how else to call them), but before I do I want more opinions. I basically used them as an experiment of sorts. I understand they aren't usually used in this fashion but I think they give a certain clarity and neatness to the article that simple "bullets" don't. Plus, the aim was to make it look as "military" as possible. However if there are problems with some wiki rules, please tell me. --V'yr Vorsa 09:24, 8 January 2014 (MST)
The only thing I can think of, having looked at it (nice article btw) is the table with the images of the equipment. By defining pre-determined widths to the table, when you resize browsers to anything less than 720, the table doesn't shrink and scrolls off the side of the screen. Could also be the Code Boxes. I personally like the usage of them there but I think they are a very non-standard method which he may be referring to.(Yacks) 12:03, 8 January 2014 (MST)
As Yacks stated, it is not standard wiki formatting for regular pages. The 'code boxes' also break when intersecting with images or when the screen is smaller than their fixed width. Frankly, I figured these were just done in error, because you've created many similar pages without using them (like here: Kotahitanga-Unity Defense Force#Jedi Command). Basically, to qualify as a Featured Article, you need to follow standard wiki practices. If you want to keep the style, I would suggest creating actual tables to mimic the style so that the width and image problems don't occur. --Shadow Taldrya 14:44, 8 January 2014 (MST)
Ok, so I fixed the code boxes and added the buttons. Tried to make them into tables but it doesn't appeal to me, tbh. The only problem left is the position of the buttons. They seem to overlay or underlay with the images to the left. Is this fixable?
Also, I reduced the table width. It looks perfectly fine on even 1024x768 res. Is this any better? --V'yr Vorsa 23:53, 8 January 2014 (MST)