User talk:Flightmare

Add Video/Photo placeholder
Hey Flight. Is there a way to remove the Add Video and Add Photo templates that are automatically added when selecting Standard Layout when adding a new page? It gives users the false impression that we allow videos to be posted in articles. I tried finding it in MediaWiki, but I'm not sure I'm searching for the right wording. The last time it was fixed the page MediaWiki:Newpagelayout was edited, but that doesn't seem to be the page that is loading these new add video/add photo placeholders. — TombRaiser  SPEAK!  20:22, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried before. Haven't found it yet. Maybe the w:c:Community is the only place that can help us out. ~ Flightmare (talk) 23:38, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll ask over there. — TombRaiser  SPEAK!  00:34, January 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * I got a quick answer! It's here MediaWiki:Createpage-with-video. Fixed! :) — TombRaiser  SPEAK!  01:08, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Spoiler Template
Hi, Flightmare! I'm trying to add a Spoiler template to another wiki, and no matter what I've tried, the "show" button doesn't show, and the text is not hidden. Is there any chance that you could take a look and see what I've done wrong? The pages in question are here, here, and here. Please let me know if I've asked the wrong person (I was just looking through the edit history for the template)! MontagnaMagica|Talk 05:48, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * We are using a modified script for the collapse. It should be imported or copied from MediaWiki:Common.js/collapse.js. You can see how it is imported on MediaWiki:Common.js. You can use it as is, but the current version we are using can break pages if no template is present. A new spoiler is on our to-do-list. ~ Flightmare (talk) 13:54, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Weapons, armor, items
Flightmare. At no point was anything said about a weapon and armor template redesign. The old design worked fine and the style used on NPC pages does not work at all. I have reverted them as a redesign this big was not discussed.

I'll implement the standardized css for these template myself if that is the problem.

Jimeee (talk) 21:21, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * It was discussed, I referred you to this discussion before: Forum:CT:Infobox_Revamp. The template itself is very outdated. ~ Flightmare (talk) 21:24, January 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * No it was not. Standardized css is fine - "This standard will become a CSS-class, with several game-specific subclasses (for the colour schemes)".


 * But not all infoboxes are required to follow the NPC design. I will continue to undo your changes until this is discussed further as a complete redesign was not the outcome.
 * Jimeee (talk) 21:30, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * How was this not the outcome? Five to none: A decision was reached, infoboxes were in big need of an upgrade. One style had to be picked: This was about creating a general style, not as much about picking a style. It appears you are overzealous, trying to protect as much as you can. But this is a community project and we can't just ignore the fact some parts of this wiki need major attention. The wiki is in dire need of simplifications. Merging styles would be a major contributor. ~ Flightmare (talk) 21:41, January 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the five to one had nothing to do with an arbitrary redesign - Where on that page did the discussion take place that talked about:


 * The white gradient you added at the top.
 * The change in text size.
 * The removal of basic info header.
 * The complete redesign of items templates.


 * I didn't mention these before, but it seems you took 5 votes of support as a passport to change what you think is "outdated". Without discussing the finer points with any other user - and you call me overzealous and say this is a community project? Come on...


 * Lets not forget the ignored comment from Energy X at the bottom: "Just hold on a minute - why isn't there some disussion which model we should use?". Yes - why wasn't there some discussion?


 * Removing the hardcoded style and adding classes isn't a problem because the final product would have looked the same - that is what we guessed you would be doing. I saw the CT when you posted it - don't you think I would have said something if I knew this is what you had in mind? This is the problem - a complete lack of communication.


 * Who says one style needs to be picked? We have 2 styles of infobox - NPC style and Items style. Two. Often, the style of an infobox is suitable for one type of article, but not another. Both old styles work for their respective articles well. Not broke - don't fix. The actual design of the infoboxes were not insane mess that you made it out to be. The hardcoding, yes - but not the design.


 * Perhaps the wiki does need some simplification on a few areas - but guess what, that's not even the biggest problem. Hit random page link and you will see the biggest problem - the actual content of this wiki is mostly poor. Forget the fluff. The fancy gradients and what not. The meat of the wiki is the actual content and that is the thing that needs to most attention.
 * Jimeee (talk) 18:09, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not about prioritizing things, it is about improving what can be improved. You make a big deal out of some topics when people actually try to improve the wiki, but don't consult other people when you are about to duplicate more and more useless templates. This is one of the things that make this wiki hard to learn for new users, especially when thinking the average user will ruin good quality writing. When you don't see anything wrong in templates, does not mean it is flawless. Actual code lines used in those templates are deprecated as of the MediaWiki 1.19 upgrade, which was rolled out last year. One example is the align=center argument that should not be used. Since no two users have the same amount of time to spend on this wiki, saving time by using the same class when correcting deprecated templates seemed like a valid point to me. All the time you spent editing this wiki, you did not seem to care at all. You had your chance for at least half a year. But the moment I try to fix things, you jump in and start wasting valuable time for both of us. This seems like over protective to me, this behaviour echoes all over the wiki. There is no point in claiming the npc template format is unsuited for weapons, as it appears to be working out for shouts. The small decrease in text size and the removal of that completely obvious row, was an answer to your concerns about infoboxes becoming too tall. I think it is strange you want better writing in articles, but are afraid of some better visuals. What is wrong with a very small amount of fancy visuals when we are far behind all other big wikis in terms of visuals. ~ Flightmare (talk) 19:34, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * "but don't consult other people when you are about to duplicate more and more useless templates." - I think you will find I usually run things by Tombs and Kenny at the least - go and ask them. Name some templates that are "useless"? Go on...


 * At no point was I ever against issues relating to the code and MediaWiki 1.19 upgrade. But these are issues that can be solved through the css file, hence redesigning a template for that reason is not even an argument - I know exactly how the css works.


 * I had my chance for half a year? Don't make me laugh - perhaps I didn't deal too much with templates is because I was too busy organizing and filling out huge amounts of content for Dawnguard, Hearthfire and Dragonborn. Not to mention ensuring we had a decent featured article every month - Do you really need examples of what I have done? Where were you or 3/4 of the staff during these busy times? Certainly not helping out. It was all on Tombs, Kenny's and my shoulders. So don't even try to say I don't give a damn about the wiki.


 * You miss the point about the edits you made about fonts etc - it's not that I disagree with them or that I am against fancy visuals, because i'm not. If I had a problem with the gradient etc, I would have said - it's the fact that you are changing things of your own accord without even bothering to ask anyone their opinion. And no, the CT is not asking, for the reasons given in my last post. Isn't this a community? "npc template format is unsuited for weapons, as it appears to be working out for shouts." - The shouts are spells and use a similar format to them - and it works with them. Items templates are different, the NPC style doesnt work for them (did you check a page when you changed the template? It looked terrible) and in fact they are far from the "fancy visuals" you speak of. They are a boring table format.
 * Jimeee (talk) 20:28, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * All changes where thoroughly tested, but I cannot guarantee you clean your caches. Such things normally correct themselves within a small period of time. In what way did the NPC format not work out for you? It is quite ridiculous claiming such minor changes should be discussed thoroughly, especially when the majority of them was agreed upon already. Introducing such rules you speak of would severely hinder future template creations, something you are not unfamiliar with. ~ Flightmare (talk) 20:38, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

On that note, Jimeee, when are we going to see some of these "high traffic" pages unlocked? People have already asked about this on your page and other places, and I'm concerned as well. You claim that this is needed because we have too few patrollers (doubtful, especially due to the recent additions), and that you update and fix them as needed (which doesn't happen - I can usually spot at least 3 problems easily on each). --Shockstorm (talk) 00:46, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * This came to my attention a while ago, our high amount of locked pages is very counter-productive. Reasons like 'vandal protection' are ungrounded in most cases. Locking a page for a very small amount of troll-edits, creates a cat-and-mouse-game where administrators will never win. Vandals can target any other page just as easy. I don't think claiming a page is 'done' is a valid reason for locking. Perhaps it is time to establish a solid locking-policy via a the CT-board. ~ Flightmare (talk) 19:34, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I like turtles. Just saying.

Beta Message
User_blog:Timeoin/The_Elder_Scrolls_Online_-_An_Important_Message_Regarding_Beta - How's that? Did I get everything? Timeoin•Say G'Day•View my work 19:19, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is just fine. But maybe we can strengthen the story by telling them they will get banned from all current and feature Zenimax test products when they leak information. This applies to pretty much every Beta test around, so I think it is safe to assume Zenimax would act the same. I have seen multiple users getting banned from all Microsoft beta products for leaking Age of Empires Online screenshots when I was in that Beta group. ~ Flightmare (talk) 19:39, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oooh yeah. Thanks - I forgot to mention that! Timeoin•Say G'Day•View my work 19:48, February 1, 2013 (UTC)