User talk:FeralKitty/Archive 2

From, the Viva Piñata wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Category:Arctic - :Arctic species ?

Do you think it's worthwhile to make a subcat? Will there be vegetation that is confirmed to the arctic, for example, that might also need to be categorized? –xenocidic (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There will be arctic (and desert) plants, and we'll most likely do categories for them -- we already have an old Category:Water Flower, for example. At the moment, arctic is a sub-category of species, and the plants are sub-categories of Category:Garden Piece. If there were enough arctic articles for a top-level, then it may be worth doing a top-level category, as we've done with/for Species. (Species used to be the category for the Classic species, when there was only one game in existence.)

Navbox-wise, though, we treat the plants as a single collective {{plants}} Navbox and that will probably remain that way at the bottom of their articles. I don't think we're going to break them down by game, as we now do species.

In general, I think I'm trying to stick to the KISS principle, not overcategorize, and mostly just fix things that need reorganizing to support multiple games, instead of trying to fix everything at once.

Since the time we've known about the new games, we've talked about reorganizing things, and a lot of changes that are being made are a result of that long and continuing reorg discussion. There's an old User:FeralKitty/Reorg document that hasn't been updated in ages. It mostly lists what we want to fix, but not what has (exactly) been decided, since then. --FeralKitty 03:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. {{VP2}} will add the article to Category:Trouble in Paradise, which should help us focus on the new stuff once the game hits. {{div}} can be used to more easily do those different tabbing boxes. basically if I start doing stuff that is running counter to how you guys have already planned, just let me know. I'll go over that reorg doc now. could you tweak your sig to include a link to your talk page? also, feel free to reply wherever a conversation starts rather than bouncing back and forth. –xenocidic (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

div documentation

{{div}} documentation is done. =) –xenocidic (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks much! :) --FeralKitty (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to tabs

{{link}} now works, unfortunately the bold of the page you're on seems to break. (Test it out on the first two species of Template:Species-TroubleInParadise-Standard) I think it's an unfortunate tradeoff for the convenience of linking to tabs. What do you think of renaming the species-standard to just #Trouble in Paradise ? it would make things a little easier for internal link purposes, and the default target for the link template would be Trouble in Paradise so that people wouldn't have to supply a paramater to link to an article or species from VP2. –xenocidic (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We'd be trading one annoyance for another annoyance. I know I definitely utilize bold to see where I am, without having to glance elsewhere. There's no solution that lets both work? As for renaming, are you talking about the tab (i.e., TiP - Standard -> Trouble in Paradise)? We use that tab label already for tabs that apply to both modes. I would think it would be confusing to mix conventions, wouldn't it? --FeralKitty (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There might be a workaround, I can perhaps ask my wiki-wiz friend over at if he can think of a better way. But if not, I think the convenience of linking directly to tabs outweighs the bold, at least for our readers.
As for the renaming, yes... I think the "Jff" tab is pretty self-explanatory what it's for, and I *think* most readers I think will be looking for standard information... (the just for fun crowd doesn't strike me as the wiki-crawling type). it's intuitive that "Trouble in Paradise" (just so) in terms of an article will apply to both , in terms of a species, will be standard and "Just for fun species information" disambiguates it. Not sure if I'm making sense. in any case, it makes linking directly to tabs a lot easier and with parameters to remember. –xenocidic (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
We use the convention in numerous places. Are we talking about dropping - Standard from, say, Navbox titles too, to be consistent with the tab? Also, how do you distinguish between a "Trouble in Paradise" tab that only applies to Standard, and a "Trouble in Paradise" tab that applies to both modes? Doesn't that create an ambiguity?
Having an either/or/both trinary also gave us the most flexibility for the style sheets. I'm not sure that we should move from a more flexible capacity to a more limited capacity. Still, I'll leave it up to Jim to see what he thinks. --FeralKitty (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll defer to yours and Jim's judgment on this one - I haven't gotten my feet wet enough to understand quite where the confusion would lie. I haven't been keeping up enough to know exactly what jff entails. –xenocidic (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • woot new and improved link, now with 100% more bolding of the current article! does that work for ya? see Template:Link =) –xenocidic (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Kudos to you and/or your friend for the solution! :) Once we modify the style to match the internal link colors (so they appear as local links to visitors), that can be put to bed. I shall be grateful, every time I click on one of those links now. Well done! --FeralKitty (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I worked it out without thingg-vention but I'll try to get him over here anyway, he's an absolute genius with stuff like that. I can tuck the color that in the span tag, what's the correct color? –xenocidic (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
a {color: #002bb8;} a:visited {color: #5a3696;} a:active {color: #faa700;} --FeralKitty (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's what my friend said: Sorry for not getting back to you sooner; I was at the New York state fair yesterday... As to your question, I dunno man. I'm not sure if it's possible to fix it without modifying the MediaWiki software. The problem is the server is parsing the "=" symbol to its ASCII hexadecimal value of "3d" when it processes the internal link (MediaWiki apparently urlencodes all internal links before rendering the html) and at the same time, the server won't recognize a link to a page such as where the "=" is replaced with "%3d" because the "=" in this case is part of a server-side command ($_GET) that is processed before the "%3d" is parsed to display the "=". The only way I can think of to get around it is to use the full url of the tab. (GAAAA!!!!!!) sorry man, but I can't figure out any other way to get it to work. If it would help you, here's a link to the MediaWiki source code that parses internal links. Thingg⊕⊗ 20:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I was thinking that maybe we can make Trouble in Paradise - Standard the default tab when the game launches. Thoughts? –xenocidic (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be Jim's decision, although I wouldn't want to be the person to edit well over 100 articles just to move a tab section. Honestly, even if you move it, it wouldn't solve problems for people playing JfF or Pocket Paradise, so my feeling would be to keep the tabs in logical order, as they are now. --FeralKitty (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
ah, i thought maybe there would be an easier way. oh well. –xenocidic (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This issue may be completely solved already - if so, feel to ignore this, but: is it possible to edit the /extensions/HeaderTabs/skins/headertabs.js file on the site? If it is, I think you could make a couple tweaks and be able to link to any tab cleanly with a link looking like this:

The only advantage would be that you could then link to any potential or future tab, not just ones laid out in templates. --VrtraTheory-2063 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What are the changes? I can test them out. --FeralKitty (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In the file, try changing line 12 to:
var bookmarkedtab = YAHOO.util.History.getBookmarkedState('tab') || getAlternateBookmark() || '--no-tab--';

And, at the very top of the file (or in any other utilities js that's included) add the new function:

function getAlternateBookmark() {
  var idx = location.href.indexOf("#");
  if (idx<0) return null;
  return location.href.substring(idx+1).split("&")[0];

--VrtraTheory-2063 10:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The links scroll the page up to the tab region, but they don't bring me to a different tab. Each section link continues to show me the Classic tab section. Also, the bold current article link functionality breaks. --FeralKitty (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
According to [1],{{#switchtablink}} is supposed to provide link-to-tab functionality... –xenocidic (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
As documented at the extension article, the switchtablink parser function only switches tabs within the current page. It can't link to a tab on a different page. For that, you need to use an external link -- the path we went down before. --FeralKitty (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't tested it, so I don't know if it works, but v0.6.5 of the extension (released on Sep 2nd) appears to significantly change the way the third argument is handled: it looks like instead of passing in {Tab Name|Link Text|Subheader}, it now expects {Tab Name|Link Text|Wiki Page}, and constructs a link to a different page with the #tab= argument. Might be something to test out. --VrtraTheory-2063 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yea, it looks like we need the new version according to Sergey. –xenocidic (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't tested it, so I don't know if it works, but v0.6.5 of the extension (released on Sep 2nd) appears to significantly change the way the third argument is handled: it looks like instead of passing in {Tab Name|Link Text|Subheader}, it now expects {Tab Name|Link Text|Wiki Page}, and constructs a link to a different page with the #tab= argument. Might be something to test out. --VrtraTheory-2063 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I can point out why it might not work out, even if the functionality may have changed. First, it generates links instead of using wiki markup, so if it breaks bolding, that's no good. Second, it's probably a good idea to avoid calling a parser function about 300 times per article, on some of the most heavily-visited articles. Xeno is already aware of what all the issues are.
If there's a workable solution that doesn't break functionality or slow things down, I won't have a problem with it, but this isn't a good time for me to get side-tracked from other priorities for the site that I'm currently working on. If I didn't have another task, I'd be adding content and/or reviewing other edits. Linking to tabs is a convenience, but not as important as other things that still need to get done, such as seeing content (e.g., missing requirements and images) get filled in (properly). Perhaps this can be addressed later? --FeralKitty (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

moving on

Can we start discussing stuff mostly on wiki? –xenocidic (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Just please let me reply instead of pasting my replies from elsewhere. It's a bit bothersome to try to save and find out that you've replied for me in the meantime :) --FeralKitty (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Italics would work to highlight the new species in the navboxes. –xenocidic (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, you're talking about Template:Species ? i like the "Types" division ... i think it's ok. I'm wondering exactly why we have to seperate "just for fun" species. won't they behave basically the same except not getting sick and such? –xenocidic (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for Fun is also meant for younger gamers. It has fewer pinatas, and their requirements are simpler/easier to complete than the same species in Standard mode. -feralkitty (forum msg)
k, that explains why we need the two different tabs and navboxes then. –xenocidic (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to categorize all new gameplay elements and mechanics. What if we rename "{{VP2}}" to {{New in TIP}} and it categorizes things into Category:Introduced in Trouble in Paradise or something like that ? –xenocidic (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try out the italics to start, and hold off on a new category for now. Perhaps a simple solution of just listing out the "new" ones in the cat's article would work just fine, for curious folk. -feralkitty (forum msg)
k, sounds good. –xenocidic (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
We actually wouldn't have to list anything. Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that, as the cat's art has the Navbox, which has the italicized names. Wouldn't that be clear enough? --FeralKitty (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, yep, that should be enough. Should I go ahead with tweaking the navboxes with the link template? –xenocidic (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

naming conventions

Should we move {{VP2}} to {{TIP}} then? If we want to not use VP2 in favor of TIP... –xenocidic (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I just wrote elsewhere, let's hold off on renaming things, and get the spec done. Once we agree on something that's uniform and robust enough to support both our needs across all namespaces and for classes and idents, then we'll have the answer for the correct template name to use. Sound good? --FeralKitty (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Try copying User:Xenocidic/monobook.js into your monobook, see if it speeds previews up at all. supposedly it does stuff within the javascript rather than the server side. –xenocidic (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


OK everything is cleaned up. VP2 was renamed to TIP because we shouldn't use VP2 as an acronym. I also think we should discourage camel case in all cases, either "TIP" for the start of a category or template name and "tip" when it's in a class, as it is now. "TiP" should never be used and we should also not have "Tips" for gamers, we should have "Hints".

anyhow, rather than working at cross purposes how about you tell me what is high on our priority list and I can work on that. –xenocidic (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to speak with Jim, if you feel "TiP - Standard" is an inappropriate tab label. I think it's been conventional use on the forum, though, and that people recognize the meaning of TiP in a forum post.
Since I already use tip for styles and TroubleInParadise for template names, that's not a problem. I do think, though, that a template name should be spelled out full, as I'll explain. To be frank about using tip in classes (instead of spelling it out), there's much more likelihood of future game conflicting with those three letters, than if we used the full name, however, it's a reasonable trade off so the class names aren't absurdly long.
I'm more concerned about using TIP outside of classes, alone, as in {{TIP}}. I think acronyms will run into the same problem as JfF (or JFF as you prefer). We should avoid using terse names for categories or templates that might conflict with future terse names.
I think template names should be "sortable/groupable," similar to a list of image names. If we start all Quackberry pics with "Quackberry"..., then it's easy to spot all of them, and/or see if any are missing or misnamed.
So, my suggestion would be to do {{Category-TroubleInParadise}} for a template that transcludes the "Trouble in Paradise" category. It would make it easier to both spot all the category-transcluding templates, and also recognize what the template did. Surely that would be easier to maintain, edit, and/or organize than a variety of {{TIP}}, {{Arctic species}}, {{VPC}}, ... templates throughout the template namespace.
I think there's a difference between a tip and a hint. A tip is an outright piece of information or advice, where a hint is an indirect suggestion without necessarily giving the full details. But, I'm going to leave that up to Jim if he wants to change the sidebar wording.
As for something that would be very helpful, and based on your idea/contribution, I would love to see all the hardcoded categories get replaced by transcluded categories. I think that's an excellent suggestion/approach that you're recommending. How do you feel about making templates for every existing category (but with slight adjustments)? I think the types like Category:Evolved should end up in a template called {{Category-EvolvedSpecies}} instead of {{Evolved}} or {{Category-Evolved}}. I'm not suggesting we also change the category names at the same time, just that we use better-qualified template names to match what the categories probably should have been called. That way, we can support a future {{Category-Arctic}}, as you had suggested, if we decide that a top-level category is needed to hold arctic articles and sub-categories.
If you could make them up, but let me know before you transclude them, I'd like to take a quick glance at them first, please.
How's that sound? --FeralKitty (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. Can we shorten it to just {{Cat-}} like {{Cat-EvolvedSpecies}} or something? or {{CAT-}}?. –xenocidic (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there a significant advantage to the shorter name, besides being easier to type? It just seems less readable to me.
We didn't abbreviate the classes -- it's species-tip-content, not spec-tip-cont -- or other template names, so I'm not convinced yet that we should abruptly switch to a different style mid-stream. --FeralKitty (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you look at User:Xenocidic#Div codes for tabs/formatting and tell me if I'm missing anything? Is there a jff article div code? –xenocidic (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Never mind - I'll pull the necessary codes from MediaWiki:Common.css
Sure, I can glance at it in a bit, but I need to get back to the plants stuff and make some more progress first. Those articles need to get done by today, so most of my attention needs to be there. --FeralKitty (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I've re-purposed div, by the way. It should be more useful and less resource intensive - instead of a switch it just accepts the class name and puts it in. defaults to a TIP article so you can just use subst:div to create the tab for a TIP article. As it is now, it will only create tabs though, perhaps it should be renamed to "tab". –xenocidic (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but I don't really understand why we need it. We don't tend to create a lot of articles, and I know the ones I create I just copy-and-paste from a similar article, or the "blank" species and plant templates. It may be a neat thing, but it seems like a lot of effort working on it, for little reward. Got to get back to the plants. --FeralKitty (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
True enough. I mainly plan to use it to convert articles that already exist that need tabs. –xenocidic (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Here are the proposed templates, example being the evolved one that's already created

[[Template:CAT-Species-Arctic]] [[Template:CAT-Species-Aquatic]] [[Template:CAT-Species-Cryptid]] [[Template:CAT-Species-Domestic]] [[Template:CAT-Species-Evolved]] [[Template:CAT-Species-Flying]] [[Template:CAT-Species-Nocturnal]] [[Template:CAT-Species-Sour]]

This way they can be sorted properly and it's easier to type rather than Category-EvolvedSpecies. I also think typing category out in full could lead to confusion - is it a template or a category? Let me know before I go ahead though, rather than having to rename them if you still want them to say Category in full. –xenocidic (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a much nicer sort order, and also fits much better with the -qualifier convention. Awesome suggestion!
I think I still would like to spell it out in full, please. Human-readable names are simply easier to read than something like CAT-Spec-Fly. --FeralKitty (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
K, they're ready to roll. just give me the go-ahead. –xenocidic (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Category:Desert is missing. Other than that, everything looks great, so go for it :) This is very helpful and useful to the Reorg and future-proofing, thanks! --FeralKitty (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, doing now. I must apologize, I am starting to see the big picture and understand where you are trying to go with all this. I just like complicated templates so much but yesterday was definitely pretty nonproductive! =) –xenocidic (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

renaming the species categories

OK, pretty sure the species are all taken care of. the categories themselves should probably be renamed to Category:Species - Evolved or something of the sort but no rush on this because it's just 1 change in the templates. Do we want a top level template {{Category-Species}} to put onto the categories, or is putting Category:Species enough?

The platform categories should be renamed in line with the above, i.e. Category:Species - Classic, Category:Species - Trouble In Paradise. Thoughts? –xenocidic (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for taking care of them! As far as actually renaming them, I think there are a couple of things to consider:
  1. The readability of the Category footer. I'm not sure we want it to get too wordy, too long, or too "backwards." Species - Evolved may work find for a sort order, but it's probably not something that a human needs to see, when reading the footer. I don't even know if I'd want to flip it in readable order, and force people to read "species" repeatedly (e.g. Sherbat would be Categories: Classic species | Trouble in Paradise species | Pocket Paradise species | Flying species | Nocturnal species | Sour species). While I like consistency, it's also a bit long and a bit repetitive. It would be a tough call, and I'm definitely going to let Jim decide that one, if he'd want to change them.
  2. Consistency elsewhere. We'd have to go through everything -- templates, articles, etc. and change old visible references to new references. (Sure a #REDIRECT would handle that but I'm not keen on leaving wrong visible references out there. Still, not a big deal, but we've got more important things to do still, and editing articles to "fix" category names would take time away from others issues that require more attention.)
I think the important thing, like you said, is that they can now be changed, easily, if they had to.
As for doing Category:Species or the platform ones, I'd say they're not worth the overhead, and there's no benefit. I don't expect us to change any from one name to another, so I wouldn't do anything with/for those categories. I think they should definitely stay in readable order, so the sub-categories on Category:Species match the articles, and everything is intuitive. (We don't call the article Species - List of Classic or List of Species - Classic, so why flip the categories?)
Again, if Jim happens to feel differently, they could be done later, but why do them in advance, if it turns out that there was no need to change them. --FeralKitty (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


moving onto plants, they should probably be organized hierarchically the same way. so the top level would be simply "Plants"

, with additional categories for terrain , if necessary

Thoughts? –xenocidic (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the plants should be ordered the same way, and since the new Infobox and div container is plant, it all works well. Why don't you go ahead and set those up, please. --FeralKitty (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points above on the renaming of categories. Question, then, what should the plant terrain categories be called (or are they necessary)?

how about

We already have a very poorly named Category:Water Flower which I will happy to see renamed, even if merely to change it to Water flower. :p Honestly, though, this is a bit of a harder question. As much as I hate to say pluralize it, technically the others "sound" plural (i.e. arctic species) :p Still, even if it's a bit improper to do, it "reads" better. If I had Arctic, Arctic species, and Arctic plant on a page, the last would stick out like a sore thumb. Anyway, it's inside a template, so it's not like we're locked into one thing or the other. If Jim or you or I come up with a better idea, we can change it easily. Let's just go with the plurals for now.
As for temperate, if you're not sure about it, maybe ask Jim when he's back. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, and he might have a better feeling as to whether it's useful and/or what you might want to call it. (It's really an "odd" category, since it's more of a non-arctic/non-desert set, but I don't know if it would be confusing or not.) --FeralKitty (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, will "temperate" plants work in the arctic or the desert? if so it might just be best to call the "Normal plants", or something. –xenocidic (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Possibly not. Plants have a specific terrain type where they want to be planted, so you may not be able to plant a non-arctic seed in the snow.
Again, temperate is more of a collection/set, as opposed to a type, which is what the rest of the plant cats are. Let's just let Jim decide. I can't give you a good answer as to whether it should be a category or not. --FeralKitty (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going ahead with the rest, I won't bother with adding the temperate template for now. I guess we can just let readers know that if it's not an arctic or a desert plant, it goes in grass or soil, and it won't go in the arctic or the desert. –xenocidic (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Please trust me when I say that we don't need a Template for Category:Plants. There's already a mechanism in place to handle this. --FeralKitty (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we still want them categorized in "Garden piece"? –xenocidic (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because plants are a subset of Category:Garden Piece. I think Jim wants to overhaul that category/article, although I can't remember what his specific complaint was. Why don't you go ahead and add your new top-level category and its sub-categories to the Site Map (below the species please). --FeralKitty (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Like this ? What's next? –xenocidic (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's great, thanks! --FeralKitty (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


p.s. you might wanna archive some of that old stuff at the top. want me to? –xenocidic (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm capable of archiving my own talk page. --FeralKitty (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


I work with templates a lot. it's tough to teach an old dog new tricks. Rather than clutter up your templatespace, I figured UX would be an easy way to access my userspace as a templatespace. Is it OK if I restore it? It will only be a substing template and if "Template:UX" ever becomes necessary, we can repurpose it. –xenocidic (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It seemed like it only existed so you could do your own custom welcome message. Again, why are we diverging from one welcome to two different welcomes? If the site's welcome can be improved, perhaps discuss or make improvements with that one, so Jim or others can benefit too, when they use it. I don't think it's helpful to have two or more welcome templates, or start doing welcomes two or more different ways. That's just good maintenance policy. --FeralKitty (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
No, and the reason that I'm doing things in my userspace is because I don't want to change things in the template space without your approval, because you might not like the changes I make. The changes to the welcome template will sign your name automatically and add a header. It will also hard code the person's username so it looks a little more personal. The changes should be implemented into Template:Welcome
Anyway, I've deleted all the templates I created except Template:Div (which I feel is very useful) and Template:= (I'm not sure if we need this, it was supposed to help with the internal linking to tabs but no dice). –xenocidic (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The only time I had problems with some changes you made, where to the Navboxes where you rearranged and removed some things without consideration of the direction that we were moving in. Instead of "solving" how to avoid transcluding itself, you could have split the doc off as they were templates that hadn't been split, yet. Also the <center> markup that looked unnecessary was there for browser compatibility with older browser versions that wouldn't have have centered the table.
I have absolutely no problems with you editing templates, and if you have some helpful improvements for {{Welcome}}, feel free. It doesn't hurt, though, to discuss things, simply to make sure that we're all moving towards the same objectives (e.g. documenting templates, standardizing names and other such consistencies, improving performance, and modernizing the look and feel). As long as we don't introduce multiple ways of doing something, and the articles start taking different paths, I don't really have a problem, otherwise.
By all means, if you know better or more efficient ways to do things, I think that's a big help for us. I enjoy writing templates, and personally would like to know how things can be done better, so if you convince me of something, I'll be the first to adopt and use it, just as I had given {{div}} a shot, before it went 4 different ways. --FeralKitty (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's just difficult to work on templates when they're includeonly'ing themselves - you cannnot preview the template because it's transcluding the saved version, rather than rendering the new changes. The categorization of the template is solved by simply wrapping the including categories with includeonly. Then the template will display itself (rather than transclude itself) when you are at the template's page, and the instructions can either be above, or below, depending on how you want it to look. But this isn't really a big deal if you like how you're doing documentation, I'll just have to temporarily remove the includeonly tags while I'm working on the template.
FWIW I think the new div should be a lot less processor intensive, uses single paramaters matching our css, and divclear would've been a great way to close tabs, but if you'd rather stick with <div class="pii_article_content_container"><div class="pii_article_classic_content"> in the code rather than {{div|article|classic}}, then we can, and I'll just use div to subst in the proper div markup.
Again, I'm a huge fan of templates, so if you don't mind, I'd like to restore Template:UX (or suggest to me another very short name that I can use in templatespace) so that I can subst stuff out of my userspace without cluttering templatespace. –xenocidic (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you can't preview it, I understand that you can wrap cats with includeonly, as we have done for quite some time. Before we went to split docs, I used some of those exact tricks you mention to let the template appear below the (inline) doc, when its output served as an example. And yes, when I really need to preview something in a split doc, I remove the includeonly too. So, I'm not sure that anything's being done wrong with a split doc approach. Since I knew we were going to move to a split-doc approach, I had intentionally includeonly'd those templates and transcluded them. Even with a split-doc approach, I would rather do things consistently, than not includeonly some, and play around with where I include the doc, merely to accomplish something clever.
I think we're working from two different directions. I use specific cut-and-paste templates with lots of information filled in (i.e., {{PlantInfobox}}). Why do I want to setup a second template just to hold that information, merely so I can subst it? I'd have two separate templates to maintain and template names to remember, instead of it being self-contained. While it may be a few seconds faster than cutting and pasting with the mouse, I don't think I want to add various custom species/plants/whatever shell templates into the template namespace, to save a few seconds when we discover a new plant or whatever.
As for the final point, it seems like you've already put it somewhere else, so that place is probably good enough, right? --FeralKitty (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Typing UX is a lot easier than typing User:Xen. You have your ways, I have mine. I've deleted all my templates except for div, which I suppose I will subst so we can have the div markup in the articles (though, see User:Xenocidic/Reddhott for an example of how it would play out) . Please let me have Template:UX, at least while I'm actively working here. Once things quiet down, I'll delete it. –xenocidic (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, to save you from having to type six extra characters, and keep you happy, move it back.
As for your Reddhott example, I agree that it looks nicer, except for the unnecessary divclear comment :) But it's getting late, and we're going around in circles. To actually create something like that, you'd need to have subst'ed something... what we're seeing is how it would look, not how it was created. And to create it, we'd need a template to make species shells, similar to how {{div}} makes article shells for you. The problem is, as you've said yourself, that you end up with more and more templates, for more and more different types of articles, don't you? You like saving time, and it's fine for you if thousands of templates are the way of life. I'm trying not to see thousands of templates, when I list them, because when it's time to clean things up, as we'll have to do soon with the Image namespace, then you have to go though, one by one, and see what links here or whatever, and it's a maintenance/cleanup headache, in my opinion. But, if you can somehow do all these in your userspace, then I don't have to be concerned at all, when cleanup time rolls around, and there's less to look through, to see what's unused, been replaced, or obsolete. The point is, someone has to maintain all this code, and if you're not active here, down the road, I don't want to have to edit both an Infobox and a subst'ed template. Does that make sense?
(Again, we're consuming more time debating whether it's better to save time when creating articles, or save time maintaining the site, when I should really be working on the site.) Tell you what. If Jim says "My goodness, that's absolutely brilliant! I want us to subst everything like that," then we'll do it that way. Otherwise, if he's not going to use it and I'm not going to use it, I don't want to have to be the maintainer of it. Fair enough? :) Now, how about we shelf this discussion, so I can edit some articles, instead of writing replies :) --FeralKitty (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sweet. As long as I have a way to fairly easily substitute content, I don't mind if we use div markup code directly in the articles - but transcluded (not subst'ed) {{div}} could work to create tabs and divclear could work to close them. Since most of the articles are already rolled out with divmarkup, let's continue with that. –xenocidic (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for tabbing the shops. It's appreciated. Perhaps check for other articles with missing tabs (besides the plants), or see if we've overlooked any other things that need to be done for the game release.

Outside of that, write some cat art or other {{stub}} content? Make proposals for improving existing templates? Design a better-looking (but not more complex) Infobox? --FeralKitty (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What about deprecating the tree/bush/flower infoboxes and moving to PlantInfobox? Is that ready to be done yet? –xenocidic (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking care of all that, personally, so you can ignore that as I mentioned earlier. I've made a number of other suggestions. Why not check through all the other articles, and see if any have been overlooked? If you're not sure what to do once that's done, why not look at the templates to suggest how they might be improved, or work on stubs/content? And please, let's shift future discussions off my user_talk page onto relevant talk pages. Questions about PlantInfobox rollout can be discussed on its own talk page, for example. --FeralKitty (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. –xenocidic (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requirement?

Do pinata's have unblock requirements ? –xenocidic (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't limit the person answering the question to me. This should be discussed on Talk:Arocknid, not here. --FeralKitty (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the discussion? If you're not certain, please just don't guess and change it to something else that you think it might be. Objective/goal: We'd like those edits to be certain, based on factual information, so the articles can serve as an accurate, authoritative reference. --FeralKitty (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I did a search for unblock requirements and nothing turned up. I'll copy this convo onto the article talk page. –xenocidic (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Image categorizing templates

When you get a chance, can you please give me your thoughts at Template talk:PVI regarding rolling out some image categorizing templates like the species-categorizing ones above? –xenocidic (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

If there is pinata page that has a picture of a pinata (TiP Version) but doesn't have it in Pinata Vision but we do, should or could we replace it? For example, I have a Pinata Vision card of a Parmadillo Variant. On the Parmadillo page there is already a plain screenshot of the variant. However, I am pretty sure that Pinata Vision cards are perferred. Is that right? I just wanted to ask before I edit somebody's work.

Thanks, Kearneyweard

Yes. When possible, we want to use PV cards instead of screenshots. A PV card may not have been available before, so a screenshot would have been better than nothing, but a PV card is better than a screenshot. --FeralKitty (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and comments

Thanks for your help and I will continue to add PVCs as I make them and see that they are needed in the wiki ImaTestWentBad 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh..Plant levels..I see

I understand now why it was so different from what I had! Thank for clearing that up and I will not make those incorrect anymore :)ImaTestWentBad 08:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


Hey, I noticed you reverted my edit on the Kittyfloss page and I thought I'd ask you where that information could go. I noticed that you didn't have an area on Fetchem's page for the prices of hunts nor on the doc's page for the base price of a heal. Plus there was no space in the information box for how much the house sells for. I do kind of understand why you may not want the information on the species page, but a wikia is supposed to be about providing all the information that may be needing on the wikia's subject. Also, I started a discussion on the Apple Tree page that I would appreciate you having a look at ^_^ -- Andrealinia 12:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if the information is general, e.g., doing m costs n% of base price, or some such, it probably just belongs in one place, instead of repeating the math on every page where it may apply. It's too much work to keep stuff like that up to date, and it introduces more potential for errors (i.e., someone corrects a base price, but doesn't adjust the heal, sell, or fetch price). Honestly, though, I think it's slightly obscure, and I don't tend to see people ask questions like that on the forum.
I think in general, it's better for the articles to be simpler and less cluttered, than bloated with every last possible detail, image, or whatever. I'd rather streamline an Infobox or layout, than add more to it. There are a lot of factors, from server load, to page load times, to readability, to support for low-res devices, and so forth. There's enough that still needs to be fixed, or missing details that still need to be added, that people already expect or rely on, so I'm leaning in the 'if it's not broke, let's not fix it' direction. Having said that, if someone had the time and wanted to work on something (new), that their time and attention certainly would be appreciated and more than welcome. I think that staff, editors, and visitors appreciate contributions far more than people know! --FeralKitty (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)