Well, it is tangentially related. I was trying to accommodate Rab's earlier complaint about my slide shows being 'ugly' by converting slide shows to image galleries. Now he says the images should not be here at all.
I've never seen a slide show that was 'broken'. Do you mean when some images do not show up? I've seen that before, but I'm guessing it is a wikia technical issue that admins can do nothing about.
Well... I can point you to the page and describe what Firefox generates on my end.
On the sites home page, right under "This Week's Comics", the slide show of the textless covers comes up as a dark gray rectangle with the left and right arrow buttons. No image show, and the "title" is locked at the first link from the list below.
And the "'Zero Issues'/'The Dark Knight Rises'/'The New 53'/'Community'" pane doesn't even get that - it just is not there.
IE runs them fine, but both seem to be broken for me in FF.
The point I worry at is that it may just be a browser issue. That would make galleries using that type of code useless to any one using the database with Firefox.
If your page galleries use the same coding, then you would be adding something that not all users could access.
Hey, why create galleries with only one image? Not really much of a point to it if its the same image as the profile picture and the only image in the image category is there? Just curious.
We've have an unofficial rule about this actually. If it's only one image we don't make galleries even if it adds to the category of missing galleries.
Energy Resistance and Interrogation are do-able, like a number of the missing ones. (see User:Byfield/sandbox3... I've got read links for the missing A and some of the B powers before I decided to concentrate on what was already in place.)
{{Sorcery}} is currently covering Magic, so it could be moved. I'm tempted to tweak it though to act like {{Martial Arts}} and {{Science}}.
For the most part {{Master Combatant}} places into HTHC(A) and I went with "Basic Hand-to-Hand Combat Training" because "Hand-to-Hand Combat (Basic)" was worse. I really can't think of any thing else except maybe "Brawling". And HTHC(A) is a bit of an issue with how it interacts Martial Arts - IIRC one of the Power Girls and one of the Supergirls has "Master Combatant" and then goes on to list martial arts they've received training in.
Magic already works like Martial Arts and Science, Sorcery was just our other term for it. Magic has the category so magic needs to be the template.
Remember I didn't want to start using these templates if they weren't all done yet they've trickled through so let's see if they can be the priority.
Hand-to-Hand Combat (Basic) and (Advanced) are the terms we accept. There used to be a time where we would've asked to call (Advanced) Master Combatant but we also found it ran into issues with Martial Arts so we've settled with the following.
HTHC (B) covers all basic fighting, thugs, policemen, army training. HTHC (A) covers years of training, multiple fighting forms or enhanced knowledge of fighting techniques. So {{Master Combatant}} won't work, we need {{Hand-to-Hand Combat (Advanced)}} likewise for Basic.
With Sorcery/Magic, I was looking more at a function in the template more than category structure. I've done the tweak, and right now {{Sorcery|Divination}} will render "Divination" as a link to Divination and add the category "Divination" while {{Sorcery|Voodoo}} will render as "Voodoo" but link to Magic and add the category "Magic".
The template can be moved, the question is should it be a cut-n-paste or a move. The same can be done with the template "Master Combatant".
I think there is one or two last things that needs clarity though...
Is the basic text to be rendered - what is read, not necessarily the link - in the article for HTHC(B)&(A) "Hand-to-Hand Combat (Basic)" and "Hand-to-Hand Combat (Advanced)"? If so, the alternate default can be removed to leave the bare link.
Also the "don't use with 'Martial Art'" may need to be removed from the article style header at HTHC(A).
Well Voodoo isn't a power or ability so I hope we didn't just create a category for it but I think I know what you mean. Using Voodoo as a alternate term, right?
I'll be working through the Skills after I'm done with the Powers, it'll take a lot more time but trust me it's something I've made it my personal project since it looks like only you and I care this much about these categories.
I'm not sure what you mean by basic text rendered but just to be clear; Hand-to-Hand Combat (Basic) and Hand-to-Hand Combat (Advanced) are the terms we'll be using, not Master Combatant or anything along those lines.
Sorcery/Magic seems to get equal placement in "Powers" and "Abilities" (Skills), so the types of magic - Divination, Necromancy, Naming, Voodoo, etc - seem to collect under both as well.
As for the rendered text... the templates are doing 2 things, they are placing a link in the text and adding a category. In the simplest cases it is like this:
{{Mimicry}} will place the link '''[[Mimicry]]''' which read as Mimicry and link to Category:Mimicry through the redirect.
Adding a term will do this:
{{Mimicry|Bird Calls}} will place the link as <nowiki>'''[[Mimicry|Bird Calls]]''' which read as Bird Calls but still link to Category:Mimicry through the redirect.
"Render" in this case is how the link looks when a user actually reads the article.
Magic (Sorcery is just another name for it) is only a power, if for some reason it falls into skills (Abilities) it shouldn't. It can get messy, certain characters have no magic aptitude but can use magical devices or spells from books due to their occultism.
In those cases that's when it's sourced under Occultism; Necromancy, Divination, Voodoo cannot be categorized under Abilities because although they maybe be presented as such they use 'powers'. (I hope that wasn't too confusing.)
And I see what you mean by render now, how does that come into conflict with the HTHC?
Part of my issue with HTHC is a hold over from pen-n-paper RPGs. The terms as they stand sound like an entry on a character sheet for Champions or GURPS. That works for the categories, but it looks real strange in the articles since IIUC they shouldn't look like character sheets.
Having the two templates default to the link with a different piped term to render in the article makes sense to me. It allows the template to match the category name, keeps the proper link, and allow for a decent, biography friendly term in the article.
Just pooled a few of our admin friends and the consensus is the same. Hand-to-Hand Combat (Basic) and (Advanced) will stay as such and appear as such on the pages (both category and character).
As to what each is or means and how that exists with Martial Arts will be determined later through more research and admin-talk. By all means join in on chat a few times and ask around, we've always got our notes handy.
And thanks for fixing up the rest of the templates. We can get back to business now.
Your template use is causing certain articles to use double colons. I think you said you fixed the bit so it can be bare and without colons right? As always be careful with your usage of these templates. I see you working hard but it's already gotten messy.
Actually I'm removing the "bare"/colon from the templates then checking the articles to add the colons in. What I've seeing is that some of the templates, which started with the colon included, had one added after the template call in some of the articles.
That is: Articles were botched by others before I touched the templates and the clean up is on going.
Though, if you are seeing cases with power templates prior to {{Super-Leaping}}}, let me know. That's where I've gotten to at this point.
I'm just offering caution, especially when working so deeply with integral or untested templates. I know you're doing your best and working hard with these specific templates so I'd like to remind you to pop into the chat every know and then so we can know what projects you're working on.
They seem appropriate and from an editing standpoint they're highly functional but when it regards this being a wiki where not all the users or editors or even admins have a high proficiency in coding it becomes confusing and cumbersome.
Basically, using a template to make our jobs easier is fine but when the template becomes too extravagant it impedes the article.
I'm fully willing and ready to explain my position if necessary. I won't touch the page in question until this is sorted but please refrain from doing so on more pages.
Then I'm really missing something. Is the issue with the content and categories that are added or the actual coding of the template?
If the issue is with the template adding the content and categories, that seems a base line problem with many, many templates that are in use - including the infoboxes which do multiple category placements. The implication is that using templates to place content and categories is acceptable if not desired.
If the issue is coding, again it seems a base line problem since a number of very widely used templates with extremely complex coding.
In a way I think the docs on the template page are more important that coding. I would assume that an average user needs to know how to place the template into an article/page rather than, not necessarily tinker with the coding the template calls. If the docs are clear, and I think they are with {{Power Ring}}, there should not be an issue with the template use in articles.
Here's the problem and it isn't with the coding of the template, which I've already mentioned the average user does not know how to edit.
Categories don't go on the page's editable field, they go in a little box on the right hand side labeled categories.
And correct me if I'm wrong but the templates for powers and abilities and now for equipment simply adds the correct visuals on the page along with it automatically adding the category.
It becomes more of a personal matter when deciding whether or not to use the "Template:Template" or manual editing. While obviously the templates make lives a lot easier it doesn't necessarily help when you have to add bare=y and name=charactername to a field where a majority of the other pages lack such editing techniques.
(moving this here since chat seems to have bogged down and I need to log)
Let me see if I've got the issues straight:
Adding the categories via template in editable fields in another template.
the "bare" parameter
and the "name" parameter
Does that about cover it?
'(Midoki24 from chat): The last two are the same issue but essentially yes that covers it.
OK...
I guess the problem I've got with first is that the power, skill, and weakness category templates were more or less already in place an in use before I started working with them.
'(Midoki24 from chat): They were here but they aren't in use and I actively advocate against them.
Then Midoki, I'd prefer to see the admins get together and determine if those templates be removed or not in a timely manner.
I understand it is within your purview as a group to decide how material is added, structure, and presented on here, but this is something that, as best I can tell, has been around for years and was at least partially designed by an admin.
I'd rather know if this is the consensus of the admins to stop using this method or not. As an editor here I'd go with either based on the group stance, I just don't want to wind up waiting doing neither - using the format or working to remove it - for a long period of time.
As for the two parameters. If the templates are to be used they can be fixed/removed:
"bare" was added to deal with the ":" when additional text is present since the templates had/have the colon as part of them. It would be just as simple to remove the colon or have it conditional on a blank parameter holing text.
"character" was an attempt to make sure templated boilerplate-ish text flowed smoothly with an article. If generic text is OK, the parameter isn't needed.
I tried to understand exactly what the dilemma is here and couldn't... I'd be happy to mediate a discussion if you guys are both in chat at the same time at some point again soon.