StrategyWiki:Staff lounge: Difference between revisions

::::[[User:Procyon]], please don't get complacent and think nothing could ever change. Try to keep an open mind and find a compromise to avoid division. You're not the first to tell me this, and I've been responsible for bigger changes on bigger sites. That doesn't mean I'm always right, I get stuff wrong too, but don't discard ideas too easily. And besides.. if you ever want to offer that bottomless scroll as an optional feature (I'd hate it, but I'm all for offering the choice for those who actually like it), you'll probably ''need'' the single-page guides I want to work on so whatever plugin you'd use would have something to work with.

::::[[User:Prod|Prod]] said above "when we tried it before modifications to the base content would sometimes mess up layout on the "merged" page" and you say "in 15 years, you're the first". So which is it? If someone tried it, they were asking for it, weren't they? You couldn't have tried it ''more'' than 15 years ago, because StrategyWiki is a little over 14 years old. And receiving few requests seems logical, if nobody is aware it's possible, why would they? Did anyone ever ''ask'' for a microwave oven before they were available? So how about this: I create {{t|Header Nav2}}, {{t|Footer Nav2}} and {{t|Sidebar2}} that include the regular nav and sidebar on the usual guide pages but do nothing on single-page transclusions. And those can be used for guides that have been polished to allow single-page transclusion, are low on drivel, don't overuse headers and use the sidebar only for optional information. So only those will incorporate the extra switch element. I won't be adding it to Gothic until I've polished that walkthrough. I won't push anyone to use it either. Give it some time, evaluate later. Sounds reasonable? [[User:Lite Grooves|Lite Grooves]] ([[User talk:Lite Grooves|talk]]) 06:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)