From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current staff lounge page.

December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010




Need help, with formatting layout for StrategyWiki.

Thank you. --Playstation3owner 23:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pleas see the user guide or let us know what problem you're experiencing specifically. Thanks, — najzereT 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a duplicate image

I have accidentally uploaded an image which has a duplicate and I can't delete it. What should I do? Chalkwriter 20:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag it with {{delete}} with a reason of why, in this case that it's a duplicate and point to the other version. -- Prod (Talk) 20:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Control table styles

First section archived: Part 1
Second section archived: Part 2

Decided to try to revive this discussion since it never really got resolved.

The issue was whether to revise the guidelines regarding control tables to be more in line with web standards and recommendations; in particular, recommending the use of body cells rather than header cells for cells that contain control images and leaving the job of styling to CSS.

Current known options are:

  1. Keep using the current method of using header cells. Nobody seemed to favor this.
  2. Use body cells for the image cells, but don't apply any special formatting, leaving the entire table left-aligned. This may be easier to code, but goes against the current guidelines regarding tables, which recommends centering for images and left-aligning for text because it looks nicer that way.
  3. Use body cells for the image cells, and make the image cells center-aligned and the description cells left-aligned. This way, it fits the table guidelines, it fits web standards, and it looks nice. I made a couple of templates ({{Controlstable}} and {{L}}) to make coding it as simple as possible. See User:Wanderer/Sandbox for an example.
  4. Disregard the whole thing and let people code the tables whichever way they want. As long as they're all functional, why should we care if they're all coded the exact same way?

I think a bot could probably be used to handle most of the conversion to the new format if one is chosen.

So, can we get a ruling on this or not? Wanderer 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the benefit of switching? Can you also please create a simple example? -- Prod (Talk) 07:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Simple example added. And as I explained at the start, the benefit is compliance with Web standards, which helps to improve interoperability. Wanderer 10:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The way I see it, this is more a question of semantics about header cells than standards, since there is no css information being used. It somewhat extends into that kind of discussion since we're using the header markup to impart a certain formatting, but it's more just for it to be different from the description rows. I think making the change simply to be "compliant" is irrelevant, we should be looking at their reasons for making the recommendation and deciding based on that. Maintainability and size are two of the reasons for the recommendation, both of which are satisfied. Can you please elaborate on how this improves interoperability? -- Prod (Talk) 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Why do we use {{Col}} for column layouts, when it might be simpler or easier to use a table? Wanderer 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Because {{col}}'s main direction is vertical while stacking horizontally (e.g. you list a whole bunch of things that go in the one vertical column, and then move on to the next vertical column, etc.), whereas a table's main direction is horizontal while stacking vertically (e.g. you define one table row which spans all columns, and then move on to the next horizontal row, etc.). One of these makes it much easier to display things that need to be aligned vertically (such as table of contents), and the other makes it much easier to display things that need to be aligned horizontally (such as control tables). "Standards" weren't and shouldn't ever be a part of this decision, ease of use for both editors and readers should.--Skizzerz 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a decent reason, but no, it's not the reason I'm referring to. Wanderer 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want ease-of-use, that would be the Colgroup HTML tag. This is filtered out by MediaWiki, and doesn't have a corresponding support under the MediaWiki table markup. Until then, users take the path of least resistance and apply the header tag to the control cells. With the current controls table proposed, I'm sure its not too difficult to copy from another example, and not too difficult to remember to left-align the text (the odd-one out.) Most likely, it would be used. --Sigma 7 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that this had a forum topic about this posted a while back. Can you please bump it by linking to this discussion and suggest it as a topic for the next meeting? I would like to have this resolved at this meeting. -- Prod (Talk) 07:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

StrategyWiki:Collaboration of the Month

It's nearing the end of the month, so everyone please vote. -- Prod (Talk) 05:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)