Talk:Main Page/archive2

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Anatomical Injury Pages are BROKEN

  • Whenever I attempt to click on a link that says a body part name it gives me an error. Looking at the link it seems to be pointing to the incorrect address. Figured I should bring this to your attention....--SomeStranger 20:17, 9 March 2006 (CST)

Any reason?

Any reason why the K is capitalized in "The KoL WiKi" on the main page? Seems sort of weird to me.-Someone Else

  • Because I like it that way. --jin 13:17, 21 March 2006 (CST)
    • I agree. Looks weird. --acdr 14:17, 1 June 2006 (CST)

Wouldn't it be simplier...

...if the <collection> tags were added directly to {{itemheader}}? --Gika (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2006 (CST)

  • Nope. Because not EVERY item is collectable. There are many quest items and whatnot. Also, the item name going in through a template did not work when I tested it. If someone finds a fix for that, I'll re-edit the 800 items I've already done.... or something. --jin 11:40, 27 March 2006 (CST)

Am I the only person who feels collection data takes away from the Wiki?

  • The tables seem poorly placed, the information is not at all notworthy, and it screws up the pages in some browsers.--Linkman95 18:49, 29 March 2006 (CST)
  • I agree that the tables could use some reformatting, but I think that the information is rather interesting. If instead people were given a toggle option with which to turn it on and off I think the situation might improve.--SomeStranger 19:00, 29 March 2006 (CST)
Or put them not on the top of the page. Lotusduck 19:12, 29 March 2006 (CST)
I agree that they are poorly placed and make the pages look bad. I also agree, though, that the information they provide is interesting to see. It would be nice to find a better way of displaying it such that it doesn't break up the flow of the page so much. Another thing to consider is what happens when the collection website goes away. When the owner of the site stops maintaining it, or moves on from playing KoL, what then? If you thought it was painful watching all the collections being added to each and every item page, imagine how painful it will be to go through those pages and remove the collection tags from them. --markm 21:35, 29 March 2006 (CST)
I suppose removing them wouldn't be so difficult with a SQL query or two. --Gika (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2006 (CST)
  • Removing them is easy. All I have to do is stick a display:none; into the css I wrote for them. The RSS feeds are hosted on, so that won't be going away. However, if ePete decides to take down his database, they won't be able to update. But I seriously doubt that will happen any time soon.

In other news, everyone here is complaining they don't like where they ARE, but are not suggesting any other options. I think their current placement is the best location for them, however it screws up IE users. And it probably screws up for people using low resolutions or narrow windows or something absurd. Please give suggestions, or play around with moving them on one specific page and link me to it. I can adjust their appearance by changing the CSS for the tables, but I tried to go with a familiar look. Although I've also gotten complaints about the blue... Go figure. If I don't get any good suggestions on where to move them to with some examples or something, I'm just going to assume I can't please all of the people ALL of the time, and leave them as they are. --jin 12:02, 30 March 2006 (CST)

How about putting the collection info in its own section? e.g. Item, Description, When Used, Collection Info. Make it always the last thing on the page, so people who want to see it can scroll down (if needed) but it won't throw off the centering or the placement of the sectional edit tags. --Hellion 12:31, 30 March 2006 (CST)
Having a separate section isn't a bad idea, but it would make the page longer. Another option would be to have a link that pops up a window with the info. A third option would be to have a floating <div> which the link toggles the visibility of. That way it doesn't affect the page layout at all. --markm 12:51, 30 March 2006 (CST)
  • Having toggled visibility is a great idea, but I haven't yet found a way to work javascript into a wiki extension. I tried last night with no luck. If anyone has found a way to do it, or is willing to do it themselves, I'm open to that idea. Right now it seems the majority opinion is to give it its own section farther down the page..... --jin 13:35, 30 March 2006 (CST)
You can add the php extension (see and then enclose the javascript inside <php> tags. --markm 14:16, 30 March 2006 (CST)
echo '<script type="text/javascript"><!--
alert("Behold, javascript!");
  • I think that until a better solution can be found (toggle link at the top of the page), collections should be housed at the very bottom of the page like a weapons type template (for example polearms). The window for collections should also be streched across the area to make it more aesthetically pleasing.--SomeStranger 13:45, 30 March 2006 (CST)
  • I'd much prefer the collection info to stay on the bottom, toggled visibility or not. I like having the information handy, I'm not using IE, but I hate the way the floating box breaks up the flow. I always liked the fact that the top of an item page looked a lot like what you'd get if you clicked on the item in-game. --TheArchivist 11:07, 1 April 2006 (CST)
  • Once RL lets up a bit, I'll get to work on moving them all down towards the bottom, and maybe after they're all moved, work on a more horizontal format, with less of that familiar blue, and more boring gray. In the meantime, if anyone wants to help move them downwards and stuck in their own section like on seal-clubbing club it would be greatly appreciated.--jin 13:01, 1 April 2006 (CST)
  • I will do a few here and then when I can (most likely starting from the back of the number list), it is rather tedious though....--SomeStranger 13:24, 1 April 2006 (CST)

Collections Changes

I've worked up a new/better/less offensive display for the collections, since there's been so much backlash against the current format. However, before it gets implemented, the collection stuff needs to be moved into its own section on each item page. If I implement the new horizontal format while it is still floated up top, it will be rather messed up. Although, only for the people who previously hadn't complained.  :P Help would be appreciated in editing the item pages (yes, again) to speed things along. An example of the new format can be found on our old copy of the wiki. --jin 14:53, 2 April 2006 (CDT)

  • I've been trying to fix as many as I can find, but the Search function (when given strings such as "collection", "float", or "style") is failing to reveal a vast majority of the collection pages that have yet to be converted. Is there a more reliable way to locate pages which need converting, short of manually checking every single page in the index? --Quietust 16:13, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
  • I've settled with the method of checking every page in the items-by-number index. I've covered everything from 1300 and up - it would probably be a good idea to handle a large chunk at a time and drop a message here when they're fixed. --Quietust 17:09, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
  • I did everything from 1400 and up but I guess that is pointless now.--SomeStranger 17:43, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
  • I just did 1259-1300. As I go along I try to standardize each page with various item templates..etc. There are SO many pages without the correct templates or with misordered sections, that will have to be the next project after these collections.--SomeStranger 18:54, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 1-299 are all done (most of them had been fixed already). --Quietust 19:51, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
  • Ah, that explains why trying to pick up where I left off confused me.... I guess I'll pick up at another spot.... I'll do the 500s.... --jin 21:31, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 300-399 are now done. --Quietust 21:42, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 500-599 are done too. --jin 23:18, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 400-499 done. --Quietust 21:55, 5 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 600-699 done. --jin 03:10, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 700-799 done. --Quietust 19:40, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
  • Ever thought of creating a bot? Ukikatzi 11:36, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 1200-1299 are now finished. This means that only 800-1199 are left to do.--SomeStranger 20:15, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 800-899 done. --Quietust 21:12, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 900-999 done. --Quietust 03:03, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 1000-1099 done. Just a hundred left to go! --Quietust 14:59, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
  • 1100-1199 done! (though Somestranger grabbed the last few before I could get to them) --Quietust 16:57, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
  • Just helping out =) Congrats on finishing though, the almost every item on the wiki is standardized now (There might be a few more that escaped standardization). Now Alpaca doesn't have to do it anymore! --SomeStranger 17:01, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

There seems to be something wrong with the template, it's displaying two instances of Displaycase.gif instead of just one.--Atlantima 13:31, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

  • Yeah, sorry about that. I was moving the files that generate and store the RSS feeds onto a coldfront server earlier today, and when I updated the extension, apparently it was an old version from testing on my local server where I couldn't get images going right. Anyways, I noticed it a few minutes after it was in, and asked for the offending line to be removed, which took a few hours, but got done. If any pages are still displaying that extra display case, shift-refresh them and it should go away. --jin 18:25, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
  • How often are the Top Ten collectors updated? Are they updated manually? -- 12:05, 18 May 2006

Wiki Coding

How did you guys make this wiki? Can I have the code? Please? --Steventrouble 13:41, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

There's a nifty little linky in the bottom right of every page. Try clicking THAT. or, for your convenience, here is the address: [1] --jin 13:46, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

Coldfont RSS feed

  • I am not really sure how I feel about this, personally I think it does not belong on the front page, considering most people who go to this site also check coldfront pretty frequently. If we do choose to keep it then I would suggest giving it less space as when very busy dates start coming up again there will not be room in the section for what happened today in the kingdom, which in my mind takes presedence over the coldfront feed. --SomeStranger (Talk | Contribs) 05:54, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
    • I think it's a fine addition, but agree that Today in KoL History: should probably have a higher priority - perhaps swap the two sections? --Gymnosophist 14:10, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
      • I agree with the above. Swapping them would be the way to go without removing one. -Carados 20:38, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
        • Part of the move to Coldfront hosting was to slowly integrate the two sites more. Since we never have CURRENT "featured articles" on our front page, I feel the Coldfront RSS and linking off to where they actually get discussed is a good idea. I've considered replacing/swapping the Featured Articles spot with the CF RSS, but didn't figure many folks would appreciate that. I also feel Today in History might be more important than the RSS, but didn't want to drop CF off to the bottom of the page, because I am trying to meet the requests of the hosting-powers-that-be.... What would opinion be on putting TODAY IN HISTORY at the top left, and the CF RSS on the bottom left, and abandoning FEATURED ARTICLES? The featured articles would be useful if they were ever relevant to what was currently going on in the kingdom..... but they never have been. Like a featured article right now on either KWE or Riff's Puzzle contest winners would be current and relevant, but we don't have anyone around who's volunteered for taking up writing CURRENT articles. --jin 23:04, 22 April 2006 (CDT)
          • Shouldn't users of the wiki also be able to subscribe to a kol wiki RSS feed? --Jz 14:41, 24 May 2006 (CDT)

Front Page Minor Makeover?

When the KoL Wiki main page was revamped back in August of last year, we chose to emulate Wikipedia's look and feel (although I never understood why we used a darker luminosity than Wikipedia). Since then, Wikipedia's main page has been modified with several changes and improvements. Perhaps we should now make some changes here so as to maintain the standard Wiki "look". In particular, I like the boxed section titles and subtler color scheme of the current Wikipedia main page. --Gymnosophist 14:10, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

  • If someone can produce somewhere on this wiki how they'd like OUR front page to look, I'll see about updating our image. Also, at the time we chose our colors, we were using the same colors as VKoL. However, since we're mostly unassociated with VKoL now, and trying to associate more closely with our hosts at Coldfront, we could go with different colors... The boxed in things look okay... Like I said, show me an example, and I'll go about updating us. --jin 22:59, 22 April 2006 (CDT)
    • I've done up a mockup here. It's basically just a color makeover plus boxing and "highlighting" the section titles, also reordering sections. I kept the Today's Featured Article section, but moved it to the bottom. Things seemed unbalanced without it (the right hand column was very much longer than the left). I lost the edit links for the So You'd Like To and Editors sections because I didn't like the way they turned out. I'm not too worried about that - front page things shouldn't be edited by people who don't know what they're doing, anyhow. If we adopt this style of thont page, the ColdFrontNews extension will have to be tweaked so that we don't have a double section header (BTW, for some reason, the news feed is out of date - it's showing Sundays news instead of Mondays news). Also, perhaps the rainbow ribbon graphic & text should be updated with something a little more "Coldfrontish". Anyone can edit the example, so feel free to jump in with suggestions/changes. --Gymnosophist 00:28, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

I Second the Motion!

the wikipedia mainpage has a section called "Did you know?" which features things from the newest articles. i think we should have something on the front page that list recently added pages. this would make it easier for people looking for the item of the month and what it does.


OK? Olde Link

the text that displays the date (above the moon images) links to the original kol thraeryn page about the moons


  • Yes, because that is the best page on moons to be found.... And no, I'm not even a little bit biased.  :P Ads are still run from VKoL server, Collection RSS feeds too. And we're still administrated/managed by the same person - me. We're not entirely trying to sever ties, if that's what you're suggesting. I was stating above simply that we have moved farther away, and thus don't need to stick to the same color scheme as the old "parent" page since the parent page has changed. Is that more helpful? --jin 14:20, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

Main Page Distortion

Today is a fine example of a day which distorts the main page. Since the Coldfront feed is so space consuming the KoL dates is given very little room. On days where there are more events they can barely fit on the main page. Solutions? I think the coldfront RSS feed should either be removed (we all know where coldfront is) or the entire page should be reformatted as mentioned above. --SomeStranger (Talk | Contribs) 15:34, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

  • I don't see why there are the complaints about the space the RSS takes up. It's generally shorter than anything else on the page. It's just a matter of how the table lines things up there. And like I said, it's going to stay, but I'm inclined to drop the "featured" articles that have been beaten to death for lack of any new ones.... I'd just like a few more opinions before doing that, and mention of an entire frontpage redesign was mentioned.~~----
    • Sure, drop the featured articles section. I have no prejudice against the feed, just against the main page looking distorted. --SomeStranger (Talk | Contribs) 18:23, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
  • Is the complex rowspanning necessary? This seems to stretch out different sections splaying random whitespace (or rainbow-colored space) across a seeming jumble of text across the main page. 2 independent tables may render with less problems.--Dehstil 16:05, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
  • How about this one? (Main Page Makeover Example) --JRSiebz (|§|) 17:05, 6 May 2006 (CDT)

Functioning If Templates

This is a combination public notification and question for functionality: we now have functioning "if" templates. I have constructed two templates, using code from wikipedia in order to simulate two functions from the ParserFunctions package which is not currently in use on this wiki. The two functions and syntax are as follows:


outputs: "then" if "blah" isn't an empty string, and "else" otherwise


outputs: "1" if "first"="second", and an empty string otherwise.

As far as I can tell, there is no way for us to construct a template which tests to see if two strings are equal when they are separated by an equals sign, but by combining the above templates we can simulate that as follows:


which will output "then" if "thing1"="thing2" and "else" otherwise.

The question I have here is should this third template be constructed on its own as a 4-parameter template for general use? If so, should it carry the name "if" and the current "if" template be renamed to something like "iftext"?--Yiab 05:44, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

I Like it

Whoever redid the page, it doesn't look that bad.--Veszerin 07:57, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

  • I totallly agree, the new logo seems better and more KOL related than the old one. But, the colours are a bit dull.--Jz 02:55, 31 May 2006 (CDT)


Ah! What the hell just happened to the wiki? Change it back! Change it back!--Someone Else 12:58, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Looks like they just threw the wiki into the main Coldfront template... Not totally digging this either... --Shoptroll 13:23, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

I really, really hope this is changed back. This puts me off A LOT. It's not helpful and looks really ugly. WHAT THE HELL WAS SO WRONG WITH THE OLD VERSION THAT YOU HAD TO SWITCH TO THIS PIECE OF CRAP? --Someone Else 13:40, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

As you can see from Jinya's comments our goal has been to integrate the sites slowly over time. Hopefully you can see how this moves closer to that goal. --FrostByghte 13:52, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

I don't like this much either, well the logo is funny but the frames are just...bad.--Enemy Lasagna 13:54, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Intergrate the sites? WHY? What's wrong with having a bit of distinction between Coldfront and this wiki? This way seems a bit too claustrophobic for my likings, the right side panel is bugging me. A LOT.--Someone Else 14:25, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

I don't like this either. The text is too small even at 1024x768 resolution, so much so I don't know what the code to my date stamp is because I couldn't read it (lucky there's a button for doing it). Also loads of the frames don't open properly. Please switch it back to how the wiki was, it looked much nicer. --Nospine 14:31, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

  • Hard refreshing helped but still the blue advert frame on the right is too wide at 1024*768 and the title fonts are really pixelated. The item name fonts (under their pics) are not in the proper KoL in-game font anymore. --Nospine 16:25, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Change it back, I'm so confused! --'Ivan 14:39, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

I think this is a case of "If something's not broken, don't fix it".--Someone Else 14:40, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

I really hate this, if the goal is to bring the sites together why not change the coldfront aesthetic.--Practitioner of Saucy Arts 14:43, 30 May 2006 (CDT) Also for at least me the change is causing formatting errors that leave page elements scattered about on numerous other pages as well. --Practitioner of Saucy Arts 14:46, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

I dislike it as well. I'm only 22 years old, but I have to bring myself very close to the screen to read the text. I feel like I need reading glasses! The ad at the top takes up half the page. The graphics at the top left don't work together. This is what it looks like for me: Screenshot You can see how small the text is compared to the address bar. The whole thing just hurts my head. I appreciate that you're trying to improve the look of the wiki, but this particular template doesn't work for me. --LucySpace 15:03, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

You've got it worse than me. This is what it looks like to me: Screenshot --Someone Else 15:11, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

It appears that you need to hard refresh (ctrl+f5) the page ... you seem to be using a cached version of the stylesheet. --Rhaegar 21:17, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Ewww. I really really really don't like this. Just thought I'd post my opinion so hopefully they'll see how many people don't like it and change it back. Everything is so spread apart and hard to find. Just... ewww. --is love 16:18, 30 May 2006 (EST)

  • Hmph, the page no longer scale down to 800x600 at all because the ads are soo wide. The font is wasy to small. Many first paragraph of things are single spaced, then the rest is double spaced. images which were floated left or right are no longer inline images, so they take up a whole line on their own, like the pic in features artivles or the images on Penguin Mafia abd MANY others. On page diffs, you can;t tell the what was added or removed at all, (all (background) coloration is gone, making it a huge paaaaain to try and figure out the differences between versions. The text in these edit boxes is was to small, the boxes are way to small, only take up 2/3 the available width. So much is broken and there are so many huge obtrusive ads taking up way to much space, can;t coldfront jsut take donations an get rid of this blinking crap? *Enables Adblock* Ahhh much better, but there's still a lot of dead dark blue space now.--JRSiebz (|§|) 15:26, 30 May 2006 (CDT)
  • Acutally because of the ads, the wiki wont even size down to 1024x768 without horizontal scrollbars!!! I can't stand them, no prob to scroll up and down, but side to side too, that's unreasonably annoying. --JRSiebz (|§|) 16:14, 30 May 2006 (CDT)
  • JR, you know what's over on the right side of the screen now? . . . An advertisement. Buck up. --Thræryn 18:00, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Something I just don't understand: In almost EVERY cool site I've visited, there has always been an issue with "Here! doesn't the new layout look wonderful?" And everyone else says "No! Eeeww!", and then nothing gets done about it, and lots of people quit. I don't want this to turn into one of those sites. Why change in the first place? Why? WHY? --Someone Else 15:33, 30 May 2006 (CDT) And if this isn't fixed by tomorrow, I might cry.--Someone Else 15:40, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

  • I remember someone bringing up the Eve online ad before, but I will do it again. It causes lag. Not just 2 second lag, but I counted an extra 7 seconds loading each page just because of that ad. Remove the ad, *poof*, load time is gone.--SomeStranger (T | C) 15:41, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

I am taking notes of all the bugs you mention and will endevour to have them fixed as soon as possible. I hope you can be patient. The EVE online ad thing is interesting, we'll have to look into that if it's causing lag. --Rhaegar (your terrible designer) 21:47, 30 May 2006 (BST)

  • Ooooh =) Rhaegar to the rescue. I have a nice list of bugs running over at Discussion. I think it has some which are not mentioned here.--SomeStranger (T | C) 15:58, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Why do that at all? Why not just revert it?--Someone Else 15:56, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

  • hard refresh* ahhh. A lot better, but the colors are a little dull. I suppose the bar on the right could go; it doesn't do much for me.--Dehstil 15:59, 30 May 2006 (CDT)
  • All editbox-text is being displayed in gray instead of black, which only makes the "Arial, sans-serif" font change even MORE unbearable. Please fix these, or I'll soon hold the rank of being a wiki-admin on this site for the shortest period of time. --Quietust 16:05, 30 May 2006 (CDT)
    • The standard MediaWiki stylesheet (monobook) is approximately 23KB long, 1433 lines. The new stylesheet is barely one third the size, missing TONS of style definitions, including those used for the "diff" tables to indicate which data was added or removed. I don't envy the person whose job it will be to fix all of this... --Quietust 16:12, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

The wiki looks totally unprofessional like this. Before it was better. Much better. Why do we have to adapt to this awful new design? Why don't we just revert it to how it was? Why? WHY? WHY? --Someone Else 16:07, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

  • As a recently appointed wiki admin, I feel I must strongly object to this new style being forced onto a live website without any prior testing, as it is clearly resulting in a large number of people being alienated from the site due to its now increased difficulty of usage. You guys should have tested this beforehand on a private server, ironed all of the bugs out of it, and then given us a preview of the new skin (like you did with the Main Page). At this point, you have 2 realistic choices - 1: revert back to the old style until you get this one working (and give everybody some warning before updating it again), or 2: try to fix it while it's still live on the site, potentially causing even more problems and having to deal with many angry users, myself included. --Quietust 16:23, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Thankyou, Quietust! Through my annoying, shouty posts, that was exactly what I was trying to say. It's extremely unprofessional. And extremely exasperating.--Someone Else 16:27, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Ah, the hard refresh works much better, although there are still a couple problems with it, most notably the navigation bar flitting about the top of the page. Screenshot. I suspect many people are having problems due to not refreshing. --LucySpace 16:38, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

  • I, for one, think the new layout is horrible. The text is too cramped, and you guys seem to have thrown usability down the toilet. I understand your desire to integrate the wiki, but do it with subtle changes; colours, logos, etc... Don't take away from this amazing resource's usability just to make it look like the rest of coldfront.

/me totally votes for a revert to yesterday's main page --Somethingcool 16:44, 30 May 2006 (CDT) (#205087)

Yeah, seriously. I understand the want to integrate, but the new skin (aside from being ugly, I personally think) makes it A LOT harder to view pages...where as before you could see everything your window, now you need to scroll down forever, and even scroll sideways to read's a real pain...not only that, but its much more annoying to use the basic fuctions, such as edit and search and stuff...stick with the normal wiki format, if it is good enough for wikipedia, it's good enough for the kolwiki....--Cowdude101 17:29, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

What are you people talking about? You know what changes I see? The pages are blue, and every now and then the alignment of a picture or a line of text is slightly off. While it doesn't surprise me that people are complaining, it does make me sad.

I bet that half of you folks complaining are some of the same folks that complained heavily about our lack of speed before we moved to Coldfront, then complained about our moving to Coldfront, ignoring the fact that the site was speedy and useful again.

Some of you folks have posted some very odd screenshots, but one thing stands out when I look at them: the problems I see could be fixed by doing a hard refresh, which would download the new CSS, or by changing your browser settings so that text is either bigger or smaller to suit your tastes.

We're not going to do it all for you. Hell, I'm not even going to tell you how to hard refresh. Someone else already did.

In closing, I don't want to swear angrily at you all (especially since I'm barely involved in this project anymore), but I do sincerely wish the bitching over style integration would cease. --Thræryn 17:52, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Have you guys seen what this looks like in Firefox? (Angry FF users should check what it looks like in IE, it's not half as bad). Yeah, I know, IE is still the standard. I could care less if the style was integrated, but do it right! I don't even mind switching browsers to view the wiki, I'm not lazy, but please, a bit of warning next time? --Spine 18:22, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

  • I opened up IE to look at it; I'm not sure I see the difference other than some spacing differences (in fact, I think the spacing looks better in Firefox). -- Also, do we want to make a note on the main page that it may help users to refresh the page to update the CSS in their cache? --LucySpace 20:12, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

There is a sense of the pages seem more squished now there's ad content on the right. I personally have no problem with the layout; it's different, but the important stuff (the information) is still there. What's happening is that a lot of text is being wrapped around because of the smaller space. This may result in pages elongating and seem stuffed with too much content per page. Since we can't touch the ads(I assume), the side menu on the left will have to take some sacrifices. I believe some reduction in the border size will help too. Just look at how many layers of bordering the page goes through before reaching the real content. --Yehman 15:02, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

  • Oh, and what's up with the naked lady ads? Those aren't straight porn ads but come damn close... --Yehman 15:02, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

If you're using adblock and do it to the mediawiki image also, you get a lot more room.--Dehstil 15:36, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

Skin option

  • Might we give an option in the skins section to use the old skin, but leave the coldfront one as the default? Then all the people that edit the wiki could revert back to the old one until the coldfront skin was edit friendly.--SomeStranger (T | C) 16:18, 30 May 2006 (CDT)
  • It's already possible to select skins, but the guys here went and overwrote the original skin instead of creating a new one. --Quietust 16:26, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Overwriting the original skin? That was incredibly stupid. Sorry, but it was. I'm seriously not going to be happy with this wiki until we get that old skin back.--Someone Else 16:53, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

For the love of Jick, revert! REVERT!! --A Naked Jew 16:56, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Lol, angry are we? Well, I was one of the people whose first reaction was to change my skin options, but to no avail. Please restore it?--Dehstil 17:03, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Why hasn't this been reverted yet? At the moment, they're ironing bugs. This would be great, if only we got the old skin while waiting! This is stupid. This is beyond stupid. I'm really angry at you guys right now.--Someone Else 17:07, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

  • Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but something is seriously fucked up with the current layout (on all pages) - I'm using Firefox / Linux and the new blue bars at the top and right side don't seem to be working right. See The screenshot at my page (which I'll add in a bit)--Climox 17:57, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Addendum: It's working again! Hurrah for whoever changed it! --Climox 18:13, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

  • A distinct lack of constructive criticism, and an overabudance of whining. Thanks for those of you who actually care enough to go with change and help where it is needed, I just wanted to comment on how saddened I am to see "this blows" and various other comments without any real constructive value. --Dotts
    • Ok, rule one of adding skins... You do NOT DELETE THE OLD ONES. Common sense people. More opitions = good, removing the good ones, = bad. Also, isn't this what happened to the old spoiler forum? -Carados 00:22, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

Brilliant, so there is no way out of this horrible new design. Whos bright idea was this anyway?--Enemy Lasagna 17:53, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

Basically, if you haven't already seen it, Mag covers why there won't be an option to revert to the new skin on the other page. But, to sum up, if you intend to continue using the Wiki and want to make it better, I suggest being constructive instead of complaining. --Dotts

  • Complaining that a stupid mistake was made? Its common sense. I mean, I don't mind the new skin, but how stupid do you have to be to override the old one in replacing it? -Carados 00:05, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
  • Stupid when it was intentional? 'kay, keep thinking that. --Dotts
    • If its intentional, that makes it stupider. -Carados 10:01, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Comment offense, but I think the makeover REALLY SUCKS. I can't even see who I'm logged in as and such. No offense to the people to made this makeover though. It's just that it seems disorganized.James chen0 21:17, 30 May 2006 (CDT)


One minor thing, but I can't edit the main page, so: The quicklinks part is missing a br tag, probably between "Safe Adventuring" and "Tattoos"; it already has one between "Items" and "Locations". It just looks slightly funny.--Dehstil 22:52, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Also, I noticed carriage returns are actually making new lines now. The main page is making them after every section header except featured articles as you can see:

Coldfront Feed Featured Articles
          <td style="color:#000;">
<td style="color:#000;">{{featuredarticle}}
[[:Category:Featured Articles|'''Featured Article Archive''']]</td>

As you can see, no new line before featured articles. Also, it's creating new lines at the end of each box if that's an issue.--Dehstil 23:02, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

  • The font size of the wiki links seems to be hardcoded in the css, so I can't override the size them in td or span styles like usual. The text of the quicklinks and the links at the bottom used to fit until the middle part was made smaller (due to the blue column off to the right. I'd tweak their fonts slightly smaller, but only plain text resizes, and the links don't. Like the phrase "seems to be hardcoded in the css" is up above. --JRSiebz (|§|) 23:05, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

One thing about the quicklinks; would it be appropriate to add a link to that Observatory, since that seems to be fairly popular? Nice makeover, by the way. Psychade 04:19, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

  • The quicklinks are already so wide that they don;t display right on 1024x768 or 800x600 without wrapping funny, I rather have less than more ;-) But I'll see what I can squeeze in. --JRSiebz (|§|) 15:51, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
    • Now that the Observatory is, umm, destroyed, is there really a point in having a link to it in the top bar? --Quietust 22:58, 4 June 2006 (CDT)