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)
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)
Portable photon generator — weird layout 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)
- 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)