Template talk:Event: Difference between revisions
From Legacy Roblox Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
>GoldenUrg →Link doesn't work for duplicates: new section |
>NXTBoy No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Categorization issue == | |||
{{Needs attention}} | |||
You ''really'' need to remove this line from this template: | |||
<nowiki><includeonly>[[Category:Events]] __NOTOC__ </includeonly></nowiki> | |||
It's causing all the objects to be listed under the Events category. Which is rather silly behavior{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
==Colors== | |||
Um, that wasn't.. uhh. | Um, that wasn't.. uhh. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 24: | ||
For duplicate events like Changed, the link points to the combined page rather than the specific detailed one. | For duplicate events like Changed, the link points to the combined page rather than the specific detailed one. | ||
Can we make a version that allows for the specific version? -- [[User:GoldenUrg|GoldenUrg]] 04:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC) | Can we make a version that allows for the specific version? -- [[User:GoldenUrg|GoldenUrg]] 04:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
:How do you mean? Duplicate events now have sub-pages named in a manner that I thought made sense. The sub-pages have the actual template, the main page should be used to describe them and the differences between them. Not sure what you're asking for. ---[[User:Mr Doom Bringer|Mr Doom Bringer]] 04:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:45, 16 August 2010
Categorization issue
You really need to remove this line from this template:
<includeonly>[[Category:Events]] __NOTOC__ </includeonly>
It's causing all the objects to be listed under the Events category. Which is rather silly behavior
Colors
Um, that wasn't.. uhh.
Opinion on color? 'Cause I think it's a little.. odd. I wanted to limit these templates to only the border color changing to keep the redability and overall theme coherent. Not that it looks bad, it's just not quite what I was expecting. ---Mr Doom Bringer 05:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, wouldn't sticking with the red be best?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that this does look off; I didn't really follow any sort of schematic, and this specific color doesn't work well at all. It's just that I found the original unbearable to look at. The other two were only slightly more tolerable. Perhaps there's a better shade of red that will suit all three? Maybe a different color entirely? --Anaminus (Talk | contribs) 19:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- While the original border was a bit out, having the whole thing a solid color is a bit much. I think a different color for events is plausible but the main format should go back to the way I had it, with just the color changing. ---Mr Doom Bringer 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the Pinkish color ought to be changed to something that would work better with each of the borders, and the rest of the wiki for that matter. The color may have worked well when the wiki had the white background, but that's a darker gray now. So, the shade of red should be adjusted accordingly (which would also require toning down the white). --Anaminus (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Event standalone pages are now tiny with a scrollbar. Is this a side-effect of this change? --GoldenUrg 22:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Link doesn't work for duplicates
For duplicate events like Changed, the link points to the combined page rather than the specific detailed one. Can we make a version that allows for the specific version? -- GoldenUrg 04:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- How do you mean? Duplicate events now have sub-pages named in a manner that I thought made sense. The sub-pages have the actual template, the main page should be used to describe them and the differences between them. Not sure what you're asking for. ---Mr Doom Bringer 04:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
