No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 236: | Line 236: | ||
|Looks like I accidentally deleted the services parameter somehow. It's fixed now. |
|Looks like I accidentally deleted the services parameter somehow. It's fixed now. |
||
|'''[[User:Cronje|Cronje]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Cronje|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Cronje|contribs]])</sup> 02:19, March 9, 2012 (UTC)}} |
|'''[[User:Cronje|Cronje]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Cronje|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Cronje|contribs]])</sup> 02:19, March 9, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | {{Forum post |
||
+ | |Regarding "start table" wiki code needing to be on its own line, can you, in this instance, use standard HTML table elements? |
||
+ | |[[User:Fw190a8|Fw190a8]] 14:53, March 10, 2012 (UTC) |
||
+ | }} |
||
+ | |||
+ | {{Forum post |
||
+ | |After taking that suggestion and getting ready to test it, it occurred to me that I could place the cell table that contains all of the sub-table within IF statements would probably work. After testing ''that'' idea, it seems to work. There should be no more whitespace. |
||
+ | |'''[[User:Cronje|Cronje]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Cronje|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Cronje|contribs]])</sup> 19:46, March 10, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | |||
+ | {{Forum post |
||
+ | |I've just added a '''true name''' parameter to {{tl|Person}}, for when the person's [[true name]] is known. I know for that the [[Seven Sisters]]' true names are in [[The Seven Sisters (sourcebook)|The Seven Sisters sourcebook]] and will be adding them to their articles, but don't know of any others; if anyone can recall any, please add them to the appropriate articles. |
||
+ | |'''[[User:Cronje|Cronje]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Cronje|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Cronje|contribs]])</sup> 16:06, May 17, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | |||
+ | {{forum post|Great idea with he '''true name''' parameter. I do however think that the spacing between ''name'' and ''true name'' should be less obvious. Maybe even, no spacing at all. Just my thoughts!!|-[[User:Thomaslove92|Thomas Love]] [http://jackass.wikia.com/wiki/User%3AThomaslove92 http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/jackass/images/5/5f/Star_tiny.png] <small><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Thomaslove92|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 21:24, May 17, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | |||
+ | {{Forum post |
||
+ | |Do you mean a single line break (as opposed to the two used now) or something else? I've tweaked my [[User:Cronje/Sandbox|sandbox]] to show what it would look like with only one. I think that ''does'' look better, but only when there's no citation next to it. Considering that (I think) we're moving toward individual citations for infobox parameters, as opposed to the one source parameter, there will always be a citation next to the true name. |
||
+ | |'''[[User:Cronje|Cronje]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Cronje|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Cronje|contribs]])</sup> 21:32, May 17, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | {{Forum post|Going back a bit... I've noticed (working on [[Halarglautha]]) that on a number of dragons, the old age parameter was used to show age categories: e.g., [[Imvaernarhro]], [[Skuthosiin]]. That line's been removed, so this [[dragon aging]] information has been hidden. I was wondering if this line could be restored. Age categories are important to a number of monsters, such as [[dragon]]s. We could also use it to show ages of characters, as before, at least at a certain time. To remove from the timeline, this should be accompanied by a date, so "Age: 23 in 1372 DR" or "Age: Great wyrm in 13th century DR". Does this sound okay? Thanks.|[[User:BadCatMan|BadCatMan]] ([[User talk:BadCatMan|talk]]) 00:49, July 16, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | |||
+ | {{Forum post |
||
+ | |I've added it back, per your request. I should point out that the use of the '''age''' parameter to show something like "Age 23 in 1372 DR" should not be used. If we know the character is 23 in 1372, then we know he was born in 1349 or 1350 (based on the month) and can put that information in the '''born''' parameter. |
||
+ | |'''[[User:Cronje|Cronje]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Cronje|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Cronje|contribs]])</sup> 01:01, July 16, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | |||
+ | {{Forum post|Cool, thanks! |
||
+ | Well, unless we have a time traveller or something... :) Or preservation or stasis. Birth-date and age aren't always clear. Say a character who appears 23 is in fact 123. Or in cases like Drizzt where his age and time-line are regularly adjusted, but that's a matter for an appendix discussion, with most recent information accepted, etc. That shouldn't be a common problem anyway. |
||
+ | Would you like to put a note in the documentation about putting age categories in Age: too? I could write it, but I'm not sure I'm allowed too. |
||
+ | |[[User:BadCatMan|BadCatMan]] ([[User talk:BadCatMan|talk]]) 05:39, July 16, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | |||
+ | {{Forum post |
||
+ | |What do you mean by age categories? You mean the things in [[dragon aging]]? And of course you're allowed to make changes! |
||
+ | |'''[[User:Cronje|Cronje]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Cronje|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Cronje|contribs]])</sup> 14:01, July 16, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
+ | |||
+ | {{Forum post|Yes, to say that Age can be used for monster age categories as well. |
||
+ | Okay, I've made some slight adjustments to [[Template:Person/doc]]. I added the Age parameter back to the example template, and added a line about monster age categories. I also removed the bit about the current year, understanding that to no longer be valid. Let me know if that's all right and good, thanks. |
||
+ | I think exact ages would be appropriate here as well. In the example you give of a character aged 23 in 1372, implying a birth year of 1349 or 1350, working back from that date implies an age of 22 or 23 in 1372, which adds uncertainty to the measurement.|[[User:BadCatMan|BadCatMan]] ([[User talk:BadCatMan|talk]]) 00:54, July 19, 2012 (UTC)}} |
Revision as of 00:54, 19 July 2012
Use the following template for a nicely presented post:
{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}
For anyone familiar with CSS, I could use some help choosing which sections could be standardized. I would include:
- A "table.infobox" class, which would make it so the table floats to the right of the text, sets the border-width and default border-color, margin, etc.
- A "table.infobox > img" for defining the dimensions of images in the infobox. This could really help with the problem of over-large images by setting max-width to 250px.
- A "table.infobox > .header" for the name/title parameters of the box. This would set the line-height and boldness, mostly. The background-color would still have to be set manually.
- A "table.infobox > .subheader". I like the way some of our templates have sub-sections ({{Location}} has subsections for Geographic, Societal, Political, and Historical information). It breaks up the information to make it more easily readable. This would be very similar or even the same as the .header section, defining line-height and such.
If you don't know CSS, that's fine too. Assuming I get approval to update the templates, I'd like input on HOW exactly the infoboxes should look. Should the text be the same size as that in {{Location}}? Should the parameter title (for example, the phrase 'Caster level' in the example shown in {{Magic item}}) be bolded? Should the second column's text be left-aligned or right?
I'd like to hear some more of our members, particularly some of the admins (Fw1908a, in particular, as I'm not sure who has the power to edit the wiki's CSS rules).
I think Cronje has done an awesome job at creating the default infobox template to which I think, as others have mentioned, all infoboxes should conform.
There isn't actually a title or a subtitle on the infobox as it currently stands, so it would be good to add that in there too.
One thing to check would be if the 'parameter' text was very long, or the 'data' text was very long, and it wrapped onto multiple lines, would this still look okay, or would there be issues?
Finally one thing to bear in mind is that we have over 10,000 articles, so this new format must work universally with all the old articles. If we have to change several thousand articles (except very minor changes) I think we would be in for a difficult time.
Just let me know what CSS you would like to be added to the main wiki stylesheets and I can make this happen.
table.infobox { background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 1px solid #A9A78A; color: #000000; float: right; font-size: 88%; max-width: 350px; vertical-align: top; } table.infobox > tr {vertical-align: top;} table.infobox td.infoboximage {text-align: center;} table.infobox td.infoboximage > img {max-width: 300px;} table.infobox td.title, table.infobox td.subtitle { background-color: #BDBCAD; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.2em; padding: 0.25em 0.33em 0.33em; text-align: center; } table.infobox td.title {font-size: larger;} table.infobox td.subtitle {background-color: #DFDECF;} table.infobox tr td:first-child { min-width: 150px; text-align: left; } table.infobox tr td:last-child {text-align: right;} table.infobox td.categories {text-align: right;}
I am looking forward to seeing the new standardised format in action!
I removed the input parameter from {{Computer game}}, as there was no documentation on what it's supposed to represent on either this wiki or the one it's based off of.
I left {{Discipline}}, {{Evocation}}, {{Exploit}}, {{Hex}}, {{Prayer}}, and their individual sub-templates alone, as the only difference between them and {{Spell}} is their coloring. All of them are pretty much different names for their class's abilities; hex for warlock, prayer for divine spellcasters, etc.. I know User:Niirf-sa put a lot of work into them, but they don't really add much to the wiki and I vote to get rid of them. If you prefer, I can easily add a new parameter to {{Spell}} for changing the background-color of the title parameter and have each of the other templates call on the Spell template.
For the same reason as above, I did not modify {{Primordial}}, as it's just a differently-colored {{Deity}}.
I also left {{Help}} alone, since it doesn't really fit with the other infoboxes and should have its own sort of style, in my opinion.
For {{Magic item}}, I added several new parameters for sentient items. Communication is for how the item communicates, languages for the item's known languages, and alignment for if the item has an alignment.
For {{Organization}}, I've removed the reckoning, formedday, formedmonth, formednotes, disbandedday, disbandedmonth, and disbandednotes parameters, as they're unnecessary. The template doesn't do any calculations between the time of forming/disbanding the organization (as {{Person}} does for birth/death/destruction), so editors can put everything in the formed and disbanded parameters. As for reckoning, I've never seen anything dated using another calendar besides Dalereckoning. I'll go through each page that uses the template to make sure nothing got broken. I've similarly removed the page parameter, though I've made this backwards-compatible so it doesn't throw anything off.
Finally, I had to edit {{Alignment grid}}, as it didn't agree with the new infobox for some reason. Now it's fixed width.
I still need to fiddle with {{Conflict}}. It's going to take a bit more work, since it has four columns instead of two. Then I need to back and see which articles use {{Organization}} to make sure I didn't break anything by removing the reckoning parameter. Please let me know if you see anything that looks wrong.
I'm afraid I still think the template is too wide though. I do think we should fix the width at 275px, and have every infobox at this width, to provide further uniformity. At the moment, there is no left margin on the infobox, so some text looks a bit scrunched against its edge. If you were to add a left margin on a 350px infobox, call that 360px, the width of the text area on the default skin is only 680px, so there is less than half of the room left for the article text, which does make it look scrunched up.
There's also a weird display bug happening for certain articles in some browsers. For example, if I go to the Harpers article in Chrome, the infobox takes up the entire available space, and in Internet Explorer it takes up about 95% of the available space. However, in Firefox, SeaMonkey, Flock, and Opera, it appears as intended. I'm still trying to track down why this is.
There is a min-width set on the first td element, which means that on, for example, Harpers, despite none of the labels being that long, the "Enemies" of the Harpers wrap more than I think is necessary. I think it might be better to lose the min-width and perhaps replace it with some right margin on the first td element? What do you think?
I could never find the problem, and as far as I can see I have done everything exactly the same as the {{Person}} template. See Bell Market to see what I mean.
Can anyone help, urgently, to get rid of the whitespace from where it shouldn't be?
<td colspan="2" class="title"> Bell Market </td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="subtitle"> Geographical information <p><br> </p><p><br> </p> </td></tr> <tr> <td> Area </td>
The reason {{Location}} wasn't updated was that it wasn't categorized, and so I overlooked it. Sorry about that!
- Cronje, I wish I could help... but you have gone light ages past my understanding and the boxes are looking great... I have notice one thing under the Building template... services does not seem to show... have a look at the Elfsong Tavern... I seem to have figured out how to have the Category link with "the" places as well, but if you can think of something better, please do... just have look and great job!!! Darkwynters 01:43, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
Well, unless we have a time traveller or something... :) Or preservation or stasis. Birth-date and age aren't always clear. Say a character who appears 23 is in fact 123. Or in cases like Drizzt where his age and time-line are regularly adjusted, but that's a matter for an appendix discussion, with most recent information accepted, etc. That shouldn't be a common problem anyway. Would you like to put a note in the documentation about putting age categories in Age: too? I could write it, but I'm not sure I'm allowed too.
Okay, I've made some slight adjustments to Template:Person/doc. I added the Age parameter back to the example template, and added a line about monster age categories. I also removed the bit about the current year, understanding that to no longer be valid. Let me know if that's all right and good, thanks.
I think exact ages would be appropriate here as well. In the example you give of a character aged 23 in 1372, implying a birth year of 1349 or 1350, working back from that date implies an age of 22 or 23 in 1372, which adds uncertainty to the measurement.