All posts by Absay

29,424Pages

A reply to Buchou

Absay·7/21/2021

Simple answer: That's not possible with the current implementation of Portable Infoboxes. You're out of luck, though asking the staff to add support for images wouldn't hurt, I guess.

Longer answer: In order for those tabs to work, Portable Infobox makes use of <gallery> tags, and the caption variable displays the text in a tab, e.g. "VS" or "L/n". Unfortunately, Fandom doesn't allow to use wikitext like "[[Image:SomeIcon.svg|20px]]" in the caption variable. It only seems to support regular text and wiki links only.

A reply to Johnyeat1

Absay·7/21/2021

Wikis are meant to be collaborative by nature, either here or on Wikipedia, etc.

Still, you can download the MediaWiki software (the engine behind most wikis) and make your privately-owned wiki on your own machine, then host it and publish it by yourself if you want your wiki visible to public but still restricted to your edits.

Fandom is not your personal service for hosting your own content, there are other places for that.

A reply to Evil Sirena

Absay·7/20/2021

Is that actually the message you get? Good heavens. I remember back in the old days adopting a low-traffic wiki WAS an opportunity to revive it, to increase visibility and give Wikia (in those days) more chances to get a profit. Things sure have changed around here and I wouldn't say it's been for the best. :/

(edited by Absay)

A reply to Absay

Absay·7/19/2021

Do we have a place to look at when this is fixed, like an announcement page (since I don't believe the staff uses a bug tracker)? Or should we just simply expect to see the the red links again one day to know the issue has been solved?

A reply to Monstermaster13

Absay·7/18/2021

> I don't care if it's been two years I am still sore from what happened.

This sounds like a you problem.

(edited by Absay)

A reply to Absay

Absay·7/18/2021

Thank you both!

Seems like this issue is not older than a couple of days. And it makes sense: I made the changes on Friday night, then really didn't pay much attention for the whole Saturday, until today. This is why I thought it was a consequence of the Theme Designer adjustments I did.

Since the staff is aware of it, I guess I'll just wait for the fix...

Absay·7/18/2021 in Support Requests - Getting Technical

Red links for new pages are now blue

I changed the design of a wiki using the Theme Designer (with Fandom Desktop skin), and for some reason ALL links are now blue, as per "Link color" field in the designer, including the links to new pages, which should be red. This was NOT an issue when I freshly switched to the new skin, only after I used the theme designer (I believe), and I didn't even mess with the link color setting to start with.

Reverting to a previous version of the design doesn't help.

Attempting to change them with CSS is not possible since the "a" tag no longer has a "class" property that can be used in the Fandom Desktop skin.

How can I get the default red color for new links back?

Edit: it looks like this is a bug that has nothing to do with my actions with the Theme Designer. The staff is aware of it and (hopefully) working on it.

(edited by Absay)

Links

Absay·7/15/2021 in General

Recent changes log older than 90 days

Is it possible to view the Recent Changes log with entries older than 90 days? I've tried to manually set the days variable to 120 or 150 in the URL but it goes back to 90 automatically.

Recent changes

A reply to Absay

Absay·2/26/2021

Thanks for the insights Andrew.

Just to clarify, I was not talking about the Infobox Builder but the infobox source editor. I have rarely ever used any of Wikia/Fandom's GUI editors, I like to go straight to source edition, save in this particular case that I attempted to include an infobox using the Visual Editor and ran across the bug.

Also, I'd like to point out that Fandom seems to have THREE source editors: one for regular pages, one for templates and one for infoboxes, the latter with all the cool code editing stuff I've been talking about (not to confuse with WYSIWYG tools).

A reply to Absay

Absay·2/23/2021

Yes, changing the classification to something else (e.g. Data) does the trick but the infobox has to be removed from Cateogory:Infoboxes first. Otherwise, if the infobox is still included in the category, the classification change won't even stick.
I meant the infobox source editor. It has stuff many modern code editors have like auto tag closing, auto indentation, moving and copying lines with keyboard combos, line gutter with line numbers and collapsible scopes, warning/error/info counters, error handling, etc. It's really complete code-wise though not perfect. Hopefully they make it even better if they plan to change it.
Yep, I'm filing it as we speak, though I'm sure it's a very known issue.

Thanks again for your time.

A reply to Absay

Absay·2/23/2021

Oh, I see!

Thanks for the answer. Yes, just as I hit "Create post" it occurred to me to change the classification and test it from there, instead of having to learn the structure of the TD json object, which was my plan B but would have been a bit of hassle ;). Glad to know that workaround works.

Just curious, do you know if there are any plans to update the infobox template editor (and pray they don't take away any of its many useful editor features!)?

As for the bug report, does Fandom have a proper bug filing system? If not, I guess the zendesk report should suffice in this case anyway.

Absay·2/23/2021 in Support Requests - Getting Technical

Does TemplateData work with Portable Infoboxes in UCP wikis?

I'm trying to add Templatedata to a portable infobox via the "Manage TemplateData" button in the source code editor, but upon hitting "Apply" the dialog just hangs and nothing happens. Clicking on "Cancel" does not work. I need to refresh the page but nothing is affected anyway.

TemplateData does seem to work fine with other non-infobox templates, as it applies the templatedata tag normally and the documentation is generated as it's expected.

For context:

PI: https://empireearth.fandom.com/es/wiki/Plantilla:Infobox_Edificio (TD is borken)

A regular template: https://empireearth.fandom.com/es/wiki/Plantilla:Icono (TD works)

Do portable infoboxes not get along with templatedata or am I missing something?

Infoboxes Templates

Absay·7/3/2016 in Support Requests - Getting Technical

[bug?] Adding links to labels in infoboxes propagates "ghost" links

Add a link to a label in an infobox, for example:

...
<data source="foo">
    <label>[[Foo]]</label>
</data>
<data source="bar">
    <label>[[Bar]]</label>
</data>
...

Now, suppose you put infobox in an article but leave out the "Foo" field because it's not needed in that specific article:

{{myInfobox
|bar = Some value
}}

When the infobox is rendered, it will only show the "Bar" field with its value and the label will link to [[Bar]], as it should.

But if you check Special:WhatLinksHere/Foo you still will notice the article with the infobox is listed there even though there is no actual [[Foo]] link anywhere on the page! The WhatLinksHere page is grabbing a "ghost" link and I strongly believe it's somehow getting it from the link added to the label regardless of it being rendered at all or not.

Is this supposed to be a bug or the normal behavior?

Thank you.

(edited by Absay)

A reply to Absay

Absay·1/16/2016

Yeah, I should have done that in my OP, sorry.

Here it is.

It all went down after the (+13). Every change upwards was me trying to undo the removals or trying to unsuccessfully roll back to the (+13) or getting only some pieces, but I managed to do a full roll back at the end.

At some point I got the Error message in my OP.

It's all normal now. It fixed itself, I suppose. But I'm not sure if it will happen again. I guess I should try.

(edited by Absay)

Absay·1/16/2016 in Support Requests - Getting Technical

Strange behavior when trying to submit CSS changes

There's something really weird happening right now.

I tried to add a few lines to a CSS page but when I submitted, it ended up REMOVING a massive amount of content from the CSS.

I tried to undo the changes but it removed a bunch of code again (twice!).

I tried again and got:

Error 503 Backend fetch failed
Backend fetch failed
Guru Meditation:
XID: 811197239
Varnish cache server

Also, the whole site seems to be abnormally slower than usual.

What's happening?

(edited by Absay)

A reply to Pinkgirl234

Absay·12/20/2015

Did you get it to work?

In case you didn't, try this:

.portable-infobox .pi-data-label div{
    background-color:#21CA27 !important;
}

(edited by Absay)

A reply to Nanococo

Absay·12/20/2015

I suggest you to read the basics first.

(edited by Absay)

A reply to Kevingr

Absay·12/9/2015

I'm sorry but the "This is a known bug, send feedback and we'll fix it" seemed just ridiculous to me. How can THAT be a bug?

If your first release is perfect, you've done something wrong.

Well, I never said the first release must be perfect. All I'm saying is that immediately assuming EVERY page in a wiki is a candidate for an infobox is as illogical as assuming every user should be given privileges to block people. This is unacceptable for perfect and imperfect first-time releases. It's like your first "well, except for..." case scenario when you are at the early stages of design.

(edited by Absay)

A reply to Absay

Absay·12/9/2015

How reviewing technical updates would solve anything? I mean, I would learn why they made bad decisions and when I can expect to see them in effect but I would still have problems nobody in the staff will be willing to even take into consideration.

(edited by Absay)

A reply to Kevingr

Absay·12/9/2015

Funny, I asked a similar question a few days ago (Thread:956672) and as you can see the only comments I got were "Tell the staff" and "Just ignore it". Yup. None of those answers were solutions to my problem.

This is truly outraging and baffling. How could Wikia "devs" not see that not all pages needed an infobox before they released the feature? What kind of development methodology were they following that allowed them to make such a stupid assumption? Because it looks really stupid when even Redirection pages are listed as "this may need an infobox".

(edited by Absay)