Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Artifact"

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Portable photon generator — weird layout on mobile: Late response.)
(Portable photon generator — weird layout on mobile: update)
Line 54: Line 54:
  
 
::::::: It's a shame devs don't want to address the CSS bugs. I'm gonna submit it anyway, maybe if enough people annoy them with it they do something. --[[User:Terezka|Terezka]] ([[User talk:Terezka|talk]]) 10:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 
::::::: It's a shame devs don't want to address the CSS bugs. I'm gonna submit it anyway, maybe if enough people annoy them with it they do something. --[[User:Terezka|Terezka]] ([[User talk:Terezka|talk]]) 10:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::::::: Yeah, I wouldn't have expected much to change, especially after I sussed out the issue with the disappearing headings and got a better handle on what's going on here. Please do report the problem, like you said the more complaints they get... my biggest worry, though, is that it's not an ''easy'' thing to fix "just like that", meaning without working '''with''' us to come up with the right solutions, and coordinating changes on both ends to implement them. Still, anything they can come up with that moves things in the right direction would be good.
 +
 +
:::::::: In the meantime, I've got some ideas for new templates that can help us work around the current problems, even though these kind of band-aid fixes make me nervous. (And could potentially complicate the ''proper'' fixes down the road.) -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 08:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:36, 16 January 2019

Wanted artifacts?

I just noticed that |wanted= is documented and supported in this template... though since it talks about "the monster", I think that's a mistake left over from when Benjamaster1 originally created it by cut-and-paste from Template:Monster. Artifacts do sort of have "wanted" dates, when traders are explicitly looking for them... but even if that's going to be supported, at least the documentation needs to be updated to properly reflect the type of template. Really, I'm not sure how much use that gets or whether it's worth bothering. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I would honestly not bother. Nobody is that assiduous in updating the wiki when something is featured in the Godville Times, and to be honest I just don't think it adds anything to a monster or artifact page to know if it ever was. You almost never see a template using the parameter, and when you do, it's always very old data.
If anyone truly wanted to keep track of it, making te edits every day, they already would be. I think we can safely scratch it from the infobox templates. -- Djonni (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Surprisingly enough, {{Monster|wanted=}} still gets some use; there are new Wanted entries that are less than a year old — though you're right, it's not used much. (Of course, part of that may be due to the fact that many Wanted monsters don't have existing wiki articles to add the data to.)
{{Artifact|wanted=}} does not appear to be used anywhere, though, so yeah. I'll pull it out of the documentation for now, and try to remember to actually pull it out of the implementation (it is, in fact, implemented) as well. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean there's no harm in having the parameter available in {{Monster}} for those who do wish to use it, sporadic though it is. But if {{Artifact|wanted=}} hasn't ever been used then yeah, pruning it is a good idea.
The only set of players to whom I could image {{Artifact|wanted=}} being of interest is hero-traders, and that's still a real small group. -- Djonni (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Tick.png Done — Or, un-done, really. |wanted= is no longer implemented in the template. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Default "Type"?

I just noticed that the documentation for |type= conflicts with the code.

The docs say it's optional and defaults to "Normal", but very clearly (from the rendered all-defaults template) it's actually required and defaults to Unknown.

What I can't decide is whether it should default to Unknown, and force everyone to explicitly type "Normal" every time they document a normal artifact, or if "Normal" should just be the default unless set to something else. Thoughts? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I kinda think we should leave it as Unknown if unspecified. Because it occurs to me that defaulting to Normal will create needless inaccuracies, and Unknown is a good prompt to editors to actually check. Sure, far more artifacts are normal than not, but non-normal artifacts are more interesting and more likely to have new artifacts created (I suspect), so Normal isn't that suitable as a default. -- Djonni (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
*nod* Reluctant concurrence. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Portable photon generator — weird layout on mobile

Sooo, I'm not sure why, but after adding {{artifact}} to the Portable photon generator it's messed up on mobile.

It looks fine in the preview, but when I hit save this is what I see as a result. I checked if I added any unnecessary whitespace or something like that, but I can't see anything I might have done wrong. --Terezka (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Did some try, it seems, the first headlight (aka == text == ) always somehow hide under the infobox. Need someone more competent than me to look at it! Seems to be a mobile issue only. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
That's probably going to depend on the mobile device. On mine it actually looks fine in both portrait and landscape. (screenshots) But I know the issue you're talking about. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
There used to be CSS in the old mobile skin (Minerva) that managed the placement of images correctly for different-sized devices, and the infoboxes used to take advantage of that CSS for their own placement as well. But that CSS went away when the Minerva skin was disabled (an unexpected change by the devs that I've still never seen any explanation for).
As I told S624, unfortunately the devs have shown an unwillingness to even address CSS bugs, never mind add new features, and without access to modify the site CSS there isn't really anything that can be done about that. Fixes that make things look better on some devices will look worse on other devices. The correct solution is to have responsive CSS defined with media queries so that things lay out differently on different-sized devices. But that requires that the person working on these issues have access to alter the wiki CSS. Nobody has been granted that access.
The only thing I can do is return the left margin on the infoboxes to their previous excessive levels. Maybe that will be enough to push the body content out from alongside them, on the devices where they're currently overlapping. But I'm very worried that will just cause some other issue for other devices. There is no way to correctly solve this issue without stylesheet modifications, and those are not available to us. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I just tripled the left margin on all the infoboxes to 1.5rem, see how that looks. Not much change on my own devices (which is good), except that in landscape the flashlight image no longer fits alongside the infobox. But that's fine. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Just pining GodTerezka  and/or GodWardPhoenix  on whether the infobox margin changes made any difference on this? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope, same issue. WardPhoenix (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been very busy with exams the last couple of days... The issue is still there for me as well. When I tried looking for other examples, it looks like articles with too short first paragraph have this template problem, but others are fine.
It's a shame devs don't want to address the CSS bugs. I'm gonna submit it anyway, maybe if enough people annoy them with it they do something. --Terezka (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't have expected much to change, especially after I sussed out the issue with the disappearing headings and got a better handle on what's going on here. Please do report the problem, like you said the more complaints they get... my biggest worry, though, is that it's not an easy thing to fix "just like that", meaning without working with us to come up with the right solutions, and coordinating changes on both ends to implement them. Still, anything they can come up with that moves things in the right direction would be good.
In the meantime, I've got some ideas for new templates that can help us work around the current problems, even though these kind of band-aid fixes make me nervous. (And could potentially complicate the proper fixes down the road.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)