Now that Special:ExpandTemplates is available, is there any reason an Expand Templates tool can't be added to the list of available tools for the Toolbar (as seen at Help:Toolbar/List of available tools)? Thx.
(I did get a laugh out of your post asking whether it's a bug that the interface has been completely reconfigured, though. That's the kind of bug I want to have! All my bugs ever do is break stuff, never once has one meticulously redesigned a UI on me.) 😆
P.S> (Covering my bases here.) Yes, of course I'm joking and I fully understand how it could be a bug that you're getting a different interface.
My unsolicited advice: Step back for a second and consider whether this is one of those changes that seems bad at first simply because it's unfamiliar. How are notifications "hard to see" because they're at the bottom-left of the screen? Other than because you're used to looking at the top-right?
You'll get used to the new location, I promise you. Mine moved weeks ago, and I'd almost forgotten where they used to be until I looked at your screenshot.
(Now, the bug a lot of people have been hitting, where the notification panel doesn't load at all — that IS genuinely a problem that needs to be fixed. But it isn't the change in location that caused that bug, it's changes to the notifications code. They'd be not-loading with the new code even if they were still in the upper right.)
Depends what you mean by "join". Your FANDOM account is the same on every wiki, so effectively you've already joined all of them. Your account will have a profile page at each FANDOM site you visit. To contribute to a specific wiki, just go ahead and edit whatever you'd like to change.
Now that Special:ExpandTemplates is available, is there any reason an Expand Templates tool can't be added to the list of available tools for the Toolbar (as seen at Help:Toolbar/List of available tools)? Thx.
@HumansCanWinElves Oh, no question (in my mind) that this is a problem they've had a hand in creating themselves. I think at least some staffers are aware of that, though there are probably others safely inside the Reality Distortion Field who remain in denial.
A rule change sounds likely, I know (meaning, I've been told by FANDOM staff) that they're trying to sort out FANDOM sites where the discussion and wiki components are essentially completely completely separate entities, and merge them back into being treated as related components of a single common project.
(This is concerning sites like the Marvel Database, for example. Where the current discussion moderators will aggressively lock any forum topics posted about wiki content, if you can believe that.)
Given the problems that's caused even on sites that do also host wiki content, I can see how they'd no longer want to encourage "discussion-only" wikis, which would likely only serve to exacerbate the problem.
Like Fandyllic said, though, users can't block other users on a wiki, and there's no reason to think that FANDOM staff or vandalism fighters would go around preemptively blocking anyone for things they haven't done.
(Or if it was going to happen, it would probably be FANDOM-wide, not limited to an individual wiki. I was once blocked systemwide for purported spam that nobody could actually produce any record of, so the block was lifted after I appealed it. It was annoying, but hardly unclear what the situation was.)
This feels equally like a response to a problem that nobody can demonstrate is actually happening.
My guess is that MaverickAtom uploaded the files to FANDOM via drag-and-drop directly from Apple Photos, and therefore the images retained the autogenerated UUID identifiers they were assigned when Apple Photos imported them into its database.
Alas, they said no.
I mean, they were vaguely diplomatic about it, "we regret etc etc...", but it was a firm no.
Huh! I never realized it was that recent. Thanks, RickGT.
I will ask about a couple of the FANDOM sites, in particular, where I most often tend to end up elbows-deep in curly braces.
But for starters, it'd be great to have it available... well... here. As the central hub for behind-the-scenes development of the FANDOM "universe", it'd sure be convenient if Special:ExpandTemplates was at least accessible right here on Community Central.
So I guess I'll start with that request. Thanks again!
The standard MediaWiki special page Special:ExpandTemplates doesn't appear to be enabled on any of the FANDOM sites that I'm a member of, nor can I find any mention of the feature by searching Help on Community Central... which makes me think it's probably been disabled Wikia-wide, for some reason.
Why? When working on more intricate template coding, having someplace you can test-execute a piece of code is invaluable (or at least, there are those of us who find it invaluable), and Special:ExpandTemplates is the best way I know of to do that.
Sure, if it's just the transclusion or parameter syntax that I need to debug, I can use Wikipedia's Special:ExpandTemplates to execute the code and that works fine. But Wikipedia's version doesn't have access to the same set of templates as any given FANDOM community site, and sometimes you really need to test how a piece of code will interact with what's already present. That means you need to test that code in the local Special:ExpandTemplates for the wiki in question.
So, why has that option been (apparently) taken away? Is there some down side to making Special:ExpandTemplates available that I'm not aware of, some exposure it creates (that isn't also created simply by having the ability to edit a page on the wiki)?
It doesn't have to be advertised. It doesn't have to be user-friendly. It doesn't even have to be acknowledged anywhere — I'd be perfectly fine if the only way to access it on a wiki was by manually navigating to the "secret" URL for http://community.fandom.com/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates — I can do that. Or... I COULD. Why can't I?
Thanks.
Yep, here we go. From "Qualaroo.scss" (whatever that is):
@media only screen and (max-width: 1083px) { .WikiaPage { padding:0 24px; width: 718px } } @media only screen and (min-width: 1084px) and (max-width:1595px) { .WikiaPage { padding:0 20px; width: 1024px } } @media only screen and (min-width: 1596px) { .WikiaPage { padding:0 30px; width: 1178px } }
So, the answer is, there's really no addressing it on smaller screens except to use a smaller image, because Wikia is capping the page width.
It might be possible to automatically swap out the image with one of a different resolution, based on the display size. But with an imagemap I'm not sure that's easily achievable, since you can't use things like <img srcset> or <picture> to specify image collections at multiple resolutions.
It's not zoom. The image is cut off unless the viewport is at least 1596 pixels wide, then the page layout automatically adjusts sliiightly wider and the image fits. (The font auto resizes itself at that point, too.) There must be either a CSS media query or JS event listener that's reconfiguring the overall page layout based on the browser width.
(ETA: Zoom will affect it too, of course, but even at normal 100% zoom the image will either fit or not fit, depending how wide the browser window/screen is.)
JoePlay wrote:
To see examples of these fixes, feel free to look at my bot’s contributions at God of War Wiki.Looking at that, I notice that all edits to the end of 2013 (after which there's a large gap) are set as minor edits, but after they resume in May of this year nothing is marked as a minor edit. Is that just a switch in the bot config or something, either mark all edits minor or don't?
I have to admit, looking at the edits made on the God of War wiki, the bot's accuracy is pretty impressive, even in some complex situations. Take this edit, for example. Some highlights:
[
[Courtyard of Atropos|Courtyard of Atropos.]]
could be rewritten as simply [
[Courtyard of Atropos]].
Basically all the rest of the edits were spelling fixes and formatting, all correct. (Though you could maybe argue that removing spaces around the pipe character in a wikilink isn't strictly necessary.)
Matthew Cenance wrote: So does the statement "A wiki is not eligible to be scanned until 30 days have passed since the previous scan" only apply to that wiki, so if a wiki gets scanned, only that wiki must wait 30 days for another scan?
Yes, of course. (How else can you interpret it? They'll only scan one wiki per month?)