Template talk:Infobox Smasher/Archive 1
Discussion from Smasher
Moving Beta Over?
Anyone else agree Template:Smasherbeta is now good enough to be moved here? - Ashran111 (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
What are we supposed to put for "Skill"? Schweppes 21:47, January 10, 2007 (GMT)
- Pro, amateur, beginner and so on. I'm not vey "smashy" so I don't really know what to put in a template like this. – Smiddle / talk 15:46, January 11, 2007 (GMT)
Skill level?
As well as main, I believe secondary, or alternate, should be in there as well. Also, I disagree with using a "skill" rating/ranking. Certainly there should be panel rankings, but not a skill level. It's so easy to tamper with and "blow up" one's skill. Oddeven2002 01:30, January 11, 2007 (GMT)
- I see now that second and third mains are in there already, just not on the template example, my bad. Oddeven2002 02:22, January 11, 2007 (GMT)
- And when can we get to applying these to player pages? Oddeven2002 01:39, January 11, 2007 (GMT)
- If I can't possibly be more annoying as it is, I have a problem with the "skill" ranking idea. There isn't a standardization on skill level, so we can't compare it to anything. I completely disagree with it as it stands now. We shouldn't apply these JUST yet, not untill we can all agree on "skill" level. Oddeven2002 13:04, January 11, 2007 (GMT)
- Stop! Stop applying these untill we have a standard code and level! What does everyone have to compare to? We can NOT start applying these untill we have something decided on. How easy would it would it be for someone who was unskilled to label themselves as highly skilled?
- If there is any way to make "skill" optional, that would be best for now. --MaskedMarth 04:14, January 14, 2007 (GMT)
- Stop! Stop applying these untill we have a standard code and level! What does everyone have to compare to? We can NOT start applying these untill we have something decided on. How easy would it would it be for someone who was unskilled to label themselves as highly skilled?
- If I can't possibly be more annoying as it is, I have a problem with the "skill" ranking idea. There isn't a standardization on skill level, so we can't compare it to anything. I completely disagree with it as it stands now. We shouldn't apply these JUST yet, not untill we can all agree on "skill" level. Oddeven2002 13:04, January 11, 2007 (GMT)
- Yeah, just omit it for a while, at least until we can figure out what to do with it.--Respawn 04:55, January 14, 2007 (GMT)
- Untill something that really allows smashers to play together without prior meditation, such as playing online, if that ever happens, we can't really refine nor define skill sharp enough to make a scale or rating system of anysort. I appologise if I sounded a little bit upset up there when I requested to stop. It could have gotten out of hand VERY quickly if it didn't stop soon. My final point is: Leave the skill level alone, perhaps even the entire template, untill we can really nail something solid down. Oddeven2002 04:59, January 14, 2007 (GMT)
Designs/Future designs
I think it should have a border. It fits in a bit messy as it is, and I think a border would help define it and make it stand out better. And maybe a different color for the headline too, but I don't know what color would be better. Bean 07:29, January 11, 2007 (GMT)
- I agree. For the border, a standard gray border like the one for the characters would fit nicely, 1-2px. For the headline color, I think a dark blue would work, something around #1874cd. Or perhaps just black. But I'm just speaking my opinion.--Respawn 14:50, January 11, 2007 (GMT)
- I changed it to #1b3f8b, I think it fits the SmashWiki color scheme. Looking back at #1874cd, it was too light. I also added a 1px border, I think that it works well. If not, you can just change it.--Respawn 13:51, January 12, 2007 (GMT)
- A line for the Smasher's photo would be helpful too. --MaskedMarth 00:33, January 14, 2007 (GMT)
Why were several categories removed? They do no harm, and players can include more information about themselves if they'd like. I see no reason why they were deleting. -- Bean 03:12, January 14, 2007 (GMT)
- Because they weren't smash related, and can be put in the rest of the page. Should we put 'em back? – Smiddle / talk 09:32, January 14, 2007 (GMT)
- "Age" is one that we should have for sure. -- Randall00 17:26, February 7, 2007 (GMT)
- I don't see a reason for that. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 17:49, February 7, 2007 (GMT)
- Well, these are all pseudo-biographies of Smashers. Obviously it wouldn't be a mandatory field, but it's the kind of information that people will want to know. Suppressing desire for knowledge is very anti-encyclopedic in general. Even if there wasn't a good reason, I'd be questioning why not beforehand. -- Randall00 17:54, February 7, 2007 (GMT)
- We cannot do major changes to this since it is used widely, and it would be too much to change. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 20:25, February 8, 2007 (GMT)
- I can. :^) Of course, I would prefer to be doing it with community approval rather than discouragement, but I suppose you can't win them all. -- Randall00 17:52, February 12, 2007 (GMT)
- We cannot do major changes to this since it is used widely, and it would be too much to change. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 20:25, February 8, 2007 (GMT)
- Well, these are all pseudo-biographies of Smashers. Obviously it wouldn't be a mandatory field, but it's the kind of information that people will want to know. Suppressing desire for knowledge is very anti-encyclopedic in general. Even if there wasn't a good reason, I'd be questioning why not beforehand. -- Randall00 17:54, February 7, 2007 (GMT)
- I don't see a reason for that. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 17:49, February 7, 2007 (GMT)
Old stuff
I think it would be better to discuss the smasher template rather than creating new ones. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 19:00, February 7, 2007 (GMT)
- This is why nothing's getting done on SmashWiki--everyone's so hung up on discussing things before implementing them that nothing is getting done. Everyone's been "discussing" ideas for policies and standardization across the whole wiki for a long time now. I've decided to skip the bureaucracy and take action for a change. --Randall00 17:56, February 8, 2007 (GMT)
- In an infobox there should only be facts related to the subject as a smasher. Age, nationality, and other stuff doesn't quite define that. Also, I think that not all the info should be in a box, some can be in the article. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 20:18, February 8, 2007 (GMT)
- I'm not sure how that became the standard criteria. This is the Community section of SmashWiki after all. The demographics of the community and geographical locations of the various hubs that keep it alive are both pieces of information that people will want to know (and need to know if they want to participate as well). As with most stylistic elements of articles, the info can be presented both in the infobox and then, in greater detail, in the body of the article itself without too much community dissent. -- Randall00 17:50, February 12, 2007 (GMT)
- In an infobox there should only be facts related to the subject as a smasher. Age, nationality, and other stuff doesn't quite define that. Also, I think that not all the info should be in a box, some can be in the article. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 20:18, February 8, 2007 (GMT)
PNG > GIF
I think we should have PNGs rather than GIFs because PNGs hav ethe possibility to carry more colours, and it's a lot easier to convert GIFs/JPGs to PNGs than converting PNGs/JPGs to GIFs for people without the correct software. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 18:26, February 12, 2007 (GMT)
- You're referring to the flags? Hmm, it might be a good idea, I just figured that GIFs were fairly standardized across the board now and for such a small incidental graphic, I just picked the first flags I could find regardless of format or colour compatibility. I'll do a bit of hunting for flags in PNG format and maybe come up with the initiative to convert the existing ones, et al. :^) -- Randall00 20:53, February 12, 2007 (GMT)
Appearance
I don't know how it appears on other browsers, but on Firefox at least, the background on which the name appears has very little contrast with the font color itself. I have a lot of trouble reading Jeff "Sgt. Saturn" without highlighting the text. I'm not sure where to change the colors to fix this problem. – MaskedMarth (t c) 18:11, February 15, 2007 (GMT)
- The font color works just fine in IE, but remains dark in Firefox. I'll reverse the bg and the font colors (if I can find which ones work). – MaskedMarth (t c) 18:13, February 15, 2007 (GMT)
- That is bizarre. I noticed that when I got home from work and opened up FireFox to find the colours a little wonky. hrmm...I guess I'll toy with that at home. --Randall00 18:50, February 15, 2007 (GMT)
Text recolouring doesn't seem to work well in FireFox. My sig, for example, is ugly in MFF but looks great in IE. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 15:31, February 16, 2007 (GMT)
A small problem
Is there any way that a second alias box could be created which would add another box to the template, in addition to the one that would add them to the title? -- Bean 00:18, February 19, 2007 (GMT)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean. You mean moving the alias field into a new box or copying it into a new box? -- Randall00 15:15, February 22, 2007 (GMT)
Suggestion
Might I suggest a Past Crews box? Many notable players and others who have been in the community a long time have been in several crews. This would help people get a glimpse of someone's crew history. -- Bean 01:15, February 27, 2007 (GMT)
- Consider this a bump ^_^. I would really like to see this implemented. Also, what is the general trend on editing templates which aren't your own? -- Bean 22:10, April 4, 2007 (GMT)
- Ah ok. I'll probably get around to it tomorrow, provided I remember. ^_^ -- Bean 05:51, April 5, 2007 (GMT)
Characters
Could you unlink the main characters? They often link to disambig pages (like Captain Falcon instead of Captain Falcon (SSBM)) and it's troublesome to say "miscellaneous" or "every other character" (in Azen Zagenite's case). – MaskedMarth (t c) 14:44, March 2, 2007 (GMT)
Former crews
Why can't this just go into the 'crews' field? – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 22:00, April 5, 2007 (GMT)
- It can, and I don't really see a problem with it. That's why it says "crew(s)". -- Randall00 Talk 00:13, April 6, 2007 (GMT)
This things cool
Just wanted to give you props for making this. It's really nice how it makes all the pages look neat and professional. -ToXn- 17:02, May 6, 2007 (GMT)
- Haha, it's not much, but you're right, I think the flag really sells it. :^) -- Randall00 Talk 17:06, May 6, 2007 (GMT)
Unordered Lists...not working?
When I first built this template, I did a bunch of tests and came up with a bunch of results. Typically an asterisk (*) will produce an unordered list in the marked-up final product. Previously, I had it set up so that smashers that were in multiple crews would be able to place an asterisk before the crew name and have each crew listed with its own bullet vertically down the table. Now it doesn't work anymore....does anybody know why? Or was I dreaming when I did my initial tests? I'm pretty sure I even HAVE an article that I wrote in this database somewhere that has two crews displayed in that way, but I couldn't find it just speed-reading the contributions page. -- Randall00 Talk 17:41, June 18, 2007 (EDT)
3rd Main
I've been trying to add a third man, but template 3rdmain doesn't work. Is there a way to get it to work=??? [Johnknight1] 11:33 7 October (PCT)
Now supports Brawl chars
| Infobox Smasher/Archive 1 | |
|---|---|
| Character info | |
| Brawl mains | Fox, Falco |
With the parameters of
mainssbb, 2ndmainssbb, otherssbb, 2ndotherssbb.
Also removed the "third other" from the template. I saw little use for people to be able to add 5 characters (might as well add them all, 10 with brawl included).
Sample code: {{Smasherbeta|mainssbb=Fox|main=Fox}} shows the box to the right.
I don't really want to add documentation on this atm, so if someone could see to that? --Sky (t | c | w) 00:33, February 20, 2008 (EST)
- Tempting, though there is some more advanced coding in the works to help curb this issue. --RJM Talk 23:37, February 20, 2008 (EST)
- The issue of using template:if? If so, I'm the one that poked KK about it. :P --Sky (t | c | w) 23:41, February 20, 2008 (EST)
- I don't think so, no, but it will feed off of multiple templates and I wouldn't rule that one out. --RJM Talk 23:49, February 20, 2008 (EST)
- Well, that was ambiguous. Send me a PM about it or something. :) --Sky (t | c | w) 00:25, February 21, 2008 (EST)
- Huh. Obviously the skin was changed, but how did this specific template change colors? :o --Sky (t | c | w) 03:04, February 21, 2008 (EST)
- The wiki pulls style elements from the back end CSS code that can occasionally "out-prioritize" those found in user-submitted modifications when using certain browsers. While I'm at work, Internet Explorer has surprisingly inconsistent colour schemes, but I have never had a problem with Firefox at home. --RJM Talk 16:18, February 21, 2008 (EST)
- I don't think so, no, but it will feed off of multiple templates and I wouldn't rule that one out. --RJM Talk 23:49, February 20, 2008 (EST)
- The issue of using template:if? If so, I'm the one that poked KK about it. :P --Sky (t | c | w) 23:41, February 20, 2008 (EST)
Categories
can we use #ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}} to place all smasher pages in the main namespace to be in "Category:Smasher pages in wrong namespace" or something? Logan - (Talk · Contributions) 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- We can indeed! I'll do that tonight in about an hour and a half. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- What if we add a notable pram along with checking the namespace? If notable=yes then "Category: Notable Smashers, if notable=no or nothing then "Category:Non-notable Smasher pages in wrong namespace", would that work? Then the bot only needs to move the non-notable pages. Logan - (Talk · Contributions) 12:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposed removal of Brawl code
Due to SW:UTPG and SW:NOT, I think it would be beneficial to remove the brawl code section, because less people will approach with "Hey wanna brawl? I already have you in."Smoreking(T) (c) 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is this fully protected?
I was about to put in some new code as discussed on my talk page before discovering that the page is fully protected. The protection reason is given as "saving the job queue". What's that mean? Toomai Glittershine 
The Stats Guy 21:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
O_o
This template as well as the cleanup one (and presumably others) are not displaying properly. Anyone know what caused this and/or how to fix it? Miles (talk) 22:09, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing whatever you're seeing. Toomai Glittershine
The Stats Guy 23:07, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
