The current design is as follows:
| ||||||||||||||||||||
I proposed a new look for it and A'noob approved -- but others did not:
-- (M o r p h | C | T) 
05:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- Moved from Template talk:Patches
- I like it, clearer to see the global patch and its sub-patches.
- Checked and Approved!
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 18:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I liked the old one - I really dislike huge templates. I think the names are aesthetically nice but not very useful and terribly space consuming. People always refer to patches by their number so that made the other template really easy to use, without being forced to click "show".
- I liked the old one - I really dislike huge templates.
I'm gonna roll back the change, and maybe we should have a vote or at least a forum. 
Howbizr(t·c) 5:00 PM, 24 Jul 2009 (EDT)
I am okay with this version or the version I made, but try it with Tables inside template too if it work out.
So I changed the template before, because it is kind of obvious that the template isn't really well navigated. The boded number itself seems to blend into the background too easily, making it way harder to connect minor stories in Warcraft:Cinematic stories and short stories/lores in the Blizzard ?Merchandising, especially making people have little experience with wikis very hard to understand. (cf — I think the amount of articles in Help Category and Verification in regards to lores clearly shows that)
Forgot to mention, merge Client Patch, since they are in Chronological Order coincidentally, it look more neater. --Ramu50 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the condensed version myself. 
(Sssss/Slithered) 05:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I just think we should use the accordion style sparingly, mostly because it's auto-folding. Internet users are scanners, and hidden material disrupts scanning. The current design isn't broken - it's neatly organized, it's not really running out of space, and adding all the patch names really is overkill. Almost no one refers to patches by name - they refer to them by number. Howbizr(t·c) 8:17 AM, 25 Jul 2009 (EDT)
| ||||||||||||||||||||
- Perhaps we could have the patch name in the tooltip, like 3.1.0? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:16 AM PST 26 Jul 2009
- Ya I tried to do that but couldn't figure out how (I know it's the "title" attribute). Glad you knew something I didn't.
- As a side note, do you think it would be possible in the preferences section to set the autofolding Javascript off, so these kinds of templates were always in "open" mode? I don't know how configurable the prefs are. Or is there someway I could do that with a custom skin that had Javascript in it? Howbizr(t·c) 9:53 PM, 26 Jul 2009 (EDT)
- I thought the "collapsible" class made it collapsible, but the "autocollapse" class was what made it collapse itself when first rendered. I guess {{navbox}} needs to be reworked to make it easier to turn off autocollapse by default. From what I can tell you could do {{navbox|<state=nocollapse>|<...>}} to make it not autocollapse. Not exactly sure what to put in
state=but "nocollapse" or "noauto" should probably work. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:57 AM PST 27 Jul 2009
- I thought the "collapsible" class made it collapsible, but the "autocollapse" class was what made it collapse itself when first rendered. I guess {{navbox}} needs to be reworked to make it easier to turn off autocollapse by default. From what I can tell you could do {{navbox|<state=nocollapse>|<...>}} to make it not autocollapse. Not exactly sure what to put in
- I still prefer Morph's template. If find 3.1.0 a bit "messy" when placed in a middle of a line.
- Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is it any better without the highlighting?
| ||||||||||||||||||||
So what do people like?
- Bars (|), dashes (–), or hidden groupings? Just wondering if there's some agreement on any of these items, so we could move forward.
- Icons, no icons?
- Explicit names, mouseover names (Fandy's idea), or none (patch number only)?
- Current formatting, or highlighting major revisions, or underlining major revisions?
I'm only opinionated against (1) hidden groupings. I have a leaning towards (1) bars, (2) icons, (3) mouseover names, (4) current formatting. ( Howbizr(t·c) 6:42 PM, 29 Jul 2009 (EDT)
- Morph will rule the wolrd! (collapsed template n°1)
- Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The version right at the top, I have to agree is just too large and spread out. But, for the version directly above this comment, I'm with Howbizr on the idea of bars, icons and mouseover names. Kirkburn talk contr 16:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)