Template talk:Ccsc

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki

hey lol, why did you remove Dasupalouis? haha Janitor 11:51, May 13, 2007 (GMT)

He hasn't filled out a profile yet so I don't know how his name is actually spelled. I generally don't want any red links in a template, but ESPECIALLY not ones with spelling errors. -- Randall00 ^Talk 17:54, May 13, 2007 (GMT)

Randall, i made a little page for NOOD, but i will make it larger when i have the time. I can't get his alias the link to to his page in the template. Help? --Janitor 00:31, August 27, 2007 (EDT)

I added a few more smashers and linked them. I've only done a few, but i'll try to do several of them during the week.--– Janitor ( Talk • Contribs) 00:12, December 18, 2007 (EST)

hey lol, why did you remove Dasupalouis? haha Janitor 11:51, May 13, 2007 (GMT)

He hasn't filled out a profile yet so I don't know how his name is actually spelled. I generally don't want any red links in a template, but ESPECIALLY not ones with spelling errors. -- Randall00 ^Talk 17:54, May 13, 2007 (GMT)

Randall, i made a little page for NOOD, but i will make it larger when i have the time. I can't get his alias the link to to his page in the template. Help? --Janitor 00:31, August 27, 2007 (EDT)

I added a few more smashers and linked them. I've only done a few, but i'll try to do several of them during the week.--– Janitor ( Talk • Contribs) 00:12, December 18, 2007 (EST)

[edit] test change

{| style="margin: 0 auto; clear: both; font-size: 90%; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 2px; background-color: #f9f9f9;" |- ! style="background-color: #ccf;" | [[Image:CCSCtemplate.jpg|center|65px|Central Canada Smash Circuit]] ! style="background-color: #ccf;" | [[Image:Canadaflag.gif|16px]] '''[[Central Canada Smash Circuit]]''' [[Image:Canadaflag.gif|16px]]<br/>[[CCSC Power Rankings]]: Alberta • Saskatchewan • Manitoba |- ! style="background-color: #ccf; width: 75px;" | [[List of tournaments|Tournaments]] | [[At Melee's End - Pro Impact CCSC Championship]] • [[CT3]] • [[ROUND TWO]] • [[Pro Impact Random Rumble I]] |- ! style="background-color: #ccf;" | [[Tournament Series|Recurring Events]] | [[CAST]] • [[L.A.SMASH]] • [[Pro Impact BI-WEEKLY Smash]] • [[Winnipeg Smash Ring]] |- ! style="background-color: #ccf;" | [[Crew]]s/[[Team]]s | [[Absolute Zero]] • [[Anti-Wendy Wu Crew]] • [[Crimson Silence]] • [[n00b School Bus]] • [[Pro Impact Players]] • [[Punch Crew]] • [[SSA]] • [[Suave]] • [[Team A/C]] • [[Teh Fair]] |- ! style="background-color: #ccf;" rowspan="3" | [[Smasher]]s | [[Levi|=]]] • [[~.~?]] • [[5950]] • [[Aeshir]] • [[Alphicans]] • [[Azure49]] • [[BackItch]] • [[Beeble]] • [[Bizzareo]] • [[BlueBlueGlassMoon]] • [[Buddyvishnu]] • [[Cappin' Wings]] • [[Chaoszero]] • [[Dasupalouie]] • [[Dark Link 50]] • [[Depressed_Brian]] • [[DJT]] • [[dreadheaddude]] • [[Dru]] • [[FalseFalco]] • [[FastFox]] • [[Fosh]] • [[Fox Machine]] • [[Frio]] • [[Gerbil]] • [[HylianHero]] • [[I T I]] • [[Icingdeath]] • [[Janitor]] • [[JAPMAN]] • [[Jiangshadow]] • [[JIN]] • [[K Lover]] • [[Kennyoutragous]] • [[Kithkin]] • [[Koda]] • [[LeeSharpe]] • [[LemonLau]] • [[Lord Efrem]] • [[M]] • [[MagnuM]] • [[MAIN Attraction]] • [[MICH]] • [[MikeMonkey]] • [[Neat]] • [[Newman]] • [[Nitrocidal]] • [[Nood]] • [[PALO DA SUFFOCATER]] • [[pibbers]] • [[PKT]] • [[poo]] • [[Proton Jon]] • [[QAZ]] • [[R.L.Prodigy]] • [[RJM]] • [[Sieg]] • [[SHWN]] • [[Spin-Dash]] • [[Steve]] • [[SuPeRbOoM]] • [[stv]] • [[Swipes]] • [[The Brown Thunder]] • [[The Lizinator]] • [[The Prized Pig]] • [[Tyson]] • [[Valdemar]] • [[Vitality]] • [[xpiritflare]] • [[Zeh Chopper]] |- | [[joenopride]] • [[ShineSmashShine]] |- | [[Apex]] • [[Edge (smasher)|Edge]] • [[Forced Rape]] • [[Fosskers]] • [[Lickuid]] • [[Soul Breaker (smasher)|Soul Breaker]] |}

Test case for a new looking template. How do you like it? I know this is template is pretty assiduously maintained, so I didn't want to just go and edit it right off the bat. --Sky (t | c | w) 23:13, February 19, 2008 (EST)

Good choice. I like the "•", as that would've been a better character right off the bat. --RJM ^Talk 23:40, February 20, 2008 (EST)

Mk, I'll edit it then, and move the documentation off to a subpage to be transcluded at the same time. Because that's just a good way to do it. --Sky (t | c | w) 23:47, February 20, 2008 (EST)

Haha, too late. :^) --RJM ^Talk 23:47, February 20, 2008 (EST)

All you did was change the characters; my intent was to change the color as well. But w/e. --Sky (t | c | w) 23:54, February 20, 2008 (EST)

Yep, I'm down with the characters, retaining the rest of the format. --RJM ^Talk 01:30, February 21, 2008 (EST)

Looks ugly to me, but oh well. I'ma tweak those colors to match yours; would that suit you more? Else, while you're here, can you swing by the Pool Room and have a look at the requests that I made at #Admin editing requests (or something like that?). --Sky (t | c | w) 01:36, February 21, 2008 (EST)

The misconception arises as a result of using an inferior web browser such as Microsoft's masterpiece Internet Explorer that seems to be unable to handle certain hexadecimal combinations for some reason: http://www.proimpact.ca/smash/images/ccsctempscreen.png --RJM ^Talk 16:13, February 21, 2008 (EST)

Huh? Lost me there.

Download Firefox. :^) --RJM ^Talk 17:40, February 21, 2008 (EST)

I use FF. Explain what this "misconception" is; I know for a fact that it's the same color (if not hexadecimal; all that change would require would be to add a letter to each) as that which Wikipedia uses for its skinning. I'm sensing that the real issue here is that smashboards only runs on one box; would I be correct in that guess? --Sky (t | c | w) 18:13, February 21, 2008 (EST)

...er, one box? What box? I'm not sure what the "real issue" is if you're running FireFox as well. I have only ever noticed fluctuations in colours in Internet Explorer, but as of today, right now, it looks like the screenshot I posted above on my FireFox and only slightly different in my Internet Explorer on a totally different computer. In fact, your test change model appears a little broken on the Internet Explorer window I'm looking at now. All background colours seem to have been replaced by black or white. I'll check it when I get home, too. --RJM ^Talk 18:39, February 21, 2008 (EST)

Yup, the six-character hex fixes your test change on IE, anyway. --RJM ^Talk 16:51, February 22, 2008 (EST)

Server box. I maybe should have rephrased what I said originally; the point was to change the coloration of seemingly random colors to one that is standard, for appearances sake. Again, if you want me to change the color of the above test template (or if you feel you want to), go ahead; I was just striving for something a little less... random. xD

As to the model itself, weird that they show up black or white. I experienced slight issues with that last night with a different template but the same coloration, but put it down to a hiccup in the server. I've changed it to use 6-digit hex rather than 3. Ideally, this particular coloration-set and likewise code would be implemented as a css class in MediaWiki:Common.css. I wouldn't want it exactly as it is coded above (would rather just copy-paste the .navbox class from wikipedia:MediaWiki:Common.css than I how I implemented), but it would probably be wise in either case to make it such a class. --Sky (t | c | w) 00:43, February 22, 2008 (EST)

I see what you mean. It was showing up on my copy of IE7 also; I discovered that using style="background-color: #ccf;" works, which suggests to me that it actually does override the skin issues, as it's designating a custom CSS selection. In other words, note to self not to use bgcolor="#ccf". =) --Sky (t | c | w) 18:11, February 23, 2008 (EST)

[edit] Documentation

Furthermore, I must ask, why do you continue to remove the documentation subpage. Having all the documentation on a separate page from the main template ensures that you can edit the documentation without starting a job queue. Seeing as this particular template is transcluded to many pages, I see little reason for not having the documentation separated. --Sky (t | c | w) 17:14, February 21, 2008 (EST)

Hehe, oh no not a job queue at SmashWiki!! (though I found it pretty easy to open twenty different template-editing windows and still not get a single number in the job queue) -- Actually, I wasn't intentionally reverting your documentation edit; since your original edit also did away with the old formatting, I recklessly assumed that you were just reverting the content back to that of the original, but I see now that's not the case. Nevertheless, I'd say leave it as is, perhaps as a lesson in the futility of the bureaucratic process. Working backwards, there's no reason that the documentation should not be separated--but there's no reason that it should be separated either. If SmashWiki's job queue ever exceeds 10, I'll eat my hat; if it ever reaches a point where the job queue is a real operational issue, I'll donate my internal organs to the MediaWiki foundation, how's that? --RJM ^Talk 17:40, February 21, 2008 (EST)

It just occurred to me that you're also the one responsible for all that sub-categorization of templates like Category:Message templates. It's such a waste of your skill set! Complex categorization trees in the back end are sooooo unnecessary in a wiki of this size, I really just don't know any other way of putting it. --RJM ^Talk 17:54, February 21, 2008 (EST)

Edit Smasherbeta. =) Or, even better, run a dry edit on T:If or something. I have stated my reason for the documentation being split; have you defended it not being done?
As to becoming a real operational issue, you have a point, but every little bit helps, especially with templates, from what I've seen.
I was working my way through Special:Uncategorizedtemplates, and there wasn't any tree at all (which I noted you had on your toDo list, after I had finished :P). It wasn't that I was desiring to make a tree; it was purely for organizational purposes. I attempted to keep the categories broad. On a slightly related note, I'd like to (re)point you in the direction SmashWiki:Pool Room#Insomnia, as I can't edit those pages (I know why, but I don't understand they're protected to begin with). --Sky (t | c | w) 18:13, February 21, 2008 (EST)

The intent is to edit Template:Smasher itself and account for backwards compatibility, not Smasherbeta (hence the beta, I suppose). My defense for not splitting documentation is clear: it is a waste of your otherwise valuable skill set and effort. I realizee that what you choose to do with that skill set is ultimately up to you, but I try and do what I can to make the few users who are well-suited to work in a wiki community realize how they can best implement those skills for the greater good. The privacy policy is protected because such things are not drafted by the community, regardless of how keen a user might be. The admin template is protected as a vandalism deterrent and I've always been of the opinion that SmashWiki:Site support needs a serious editing--but again, not by a user. Professionals is one of the worst articles in the entire database and will eventually be deleted and replaced completely. --RJM ^Talk 18:32, February 21, 2008 (EST)

Oh. I didn't exactly intend to go around templates and split every single one of them; I agree, that would be a waste of effort. It was because I was already here, and was already editing the template (with the above test case) that I moved the documentation off the page; one fel swoop, and then the the only reason to edit it further would be to change names of smashers, remove smashers, add a row, etc, etc.

I knew that these items were protected for exactly those reasons, I just disagree with protection in particular. The user-template probably doesn't need it, and I would say that Site support doesn't need it; pages, tbh, should only be locked when there is considerable concern that some page or another will very likely be vandalized (usually because of high-usage). The template and site support don't exactly fit that profile to me. This is from experience. =).

I'm not sure what kind of "experience" you're proofing on this, but opening up official Smash World policy placeholders to be edited by anyone (especially amongst a sea of gamers) is not even close to being a good idea. Perhaps the legal ramifications are beyond the scope of your experience. --RJM ^Talk 16:48, February 22, 2008 (EST)

As to T:Smasher, I made the edits to Smasherbeta because that is the one more used (for one), and two, because of a user who was having a conflict with a 2nd user due to the fact that there was no way to link to Brawl toons using Smasherbeta. You are welcome to research the issue yourself; I agree with the second that making pages for false characters (such as Roy (SSBB)) redirect to their Melee counterpart is incorrect and therefore deceitful to the end user. They stopped fighting about it, and one has even offered a compromise; leave the links which actually are in SSBB, but as non-characters, redirect to their Main page, while deleting the incorrect. I can make all the template inclusions of Smasherbeta switch to Smasher quickly (using wikipedia:Wikipedia:AWB), but I'd rather have a second account set up as a bot for that, which isn't possible without the MakeBot extension.

I think it's a little scary to bring in a bot to handle a database that doesn't have a formalized structure to begin with. Similar to job queues, bots of that variety are a sort of maintenance tool that really only applies to larger wikis. Smasherbeta is a beta template and was created as such because Brawl was well on its way. I hope to have that resolved properly by the time the game actually gets released. --RJM ^Talk 16:48, February 22, 2008 (EST)

And, tbh, the easiest way for me to fit into the niche of editor here would be to +admin me, but I doubt that would happen, as I'm new to this wiki (if not smashboards / wikis in general), and thus an unknown. Plus, the issue that people must self-nominate is slightly disturbing; I'd personally rather have someone say "hey you, go be an admin". I self nom'd at the wiki in my signature, but our local bureaucrat only gave in because I kept bugging him (something about having made 15k contributions, + several deleted). And that he decided that the Main Page was probably safe from me, if you know what I mean. ;) --Sky (t | c | w) 00:43, February 22, 2008 (EST)

I disagree with self-nomination as well and the entire procedure for selecting SysOps is a little unusual in principle, however there does have to be certain filtration measures in place. You're dealing with a pretty big network of websites here that rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars in Google Ads just to pay for server costs and that's not always immediately obvious to people who want to lurk around on the administrative side. As to the Main Page being safe from you and something about 15k contributions/self-nomination in your signature....no, I have no idea what you mean or what you're talking about, sorry. --RJM ^Talk 16:48, February 22, 2008 (EST)

I don't know why the wiki would need structure to preclude the use of an (semi-)automated program/bot; a bot's a tool, to get things fixed; spelling, template usage, what not.
Ah. That's why they're self-noms. Easy to understand.
Lastly, it was a joke in reference to deletion; delete the Main Page, and just about everyone would freak out until it was restored, as it's protected.

Experience: that I edit/sysop a wiki which has a bigger (gaming) community then this (I would claim). Usually, the vandalization comes to main-space pages; it's rather odd that other pages aren't hit. The fact that people must register is, without a doubt, one of the reasons why disrupting pages is difficult, but one wonders. As to ramifications: It's a wiki. If they make an absolutely retarded edit, you revert it. If you must, delete the page, and then only restore the revisions you want in the page history. But, I will concede the point if it makes you so jittery. ;P --Sky (t | c | w) 18:06, February 22, 2008 (EST)

I didn't really provide any justification for the self-nomination procedure, but if it suddenly makes sense, all power to ya. I think the biggest difference between this and the Wow wiki (which is by far a larger gaming community and always will be) is that SmashWiki is directly associated with Smash World as a proprietary entity, whereas wowwiki is a user-created forum that has no contractual/legal association with Blizzard Entertainment and their official forums. They claim complete disassociation with Blizzard, whereas our guidelines and policies are dictated by a higher level than Bureacrat. --RJM ^Talk 20:04, February 23, 2008 (EST)