Hi,
Why do smaller image thumbs now appear white? This is not good for the dark theme. How can this be fixed? Larger thumbs are unaffected.
https://dungeonkeeper.fandom.com/wiki/Scavenger_Room (affected thumbs)
https://dungeonkeeper.fandom.com/wiki/Dungeon_Heart (unaffected thumbs)
Thanks.
I'm dead sure I'm right. Creative Commons themselves have said that the BY-SA licences are only forwards-compatible, not backwards: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/
Also, before Wikimedia's licensing update (when they were still using CC-BY-SA 3.0, like Fandom still are), Wikipedia had declared CC-BY-SA 4.0 incompatible: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright&oldid=1156616168 I see no reason why the situation on Fandom would be any different.
But, would the staff want to be asked something like this?
Do Fandom have any plans to update to CC-BY-SA 4.0?
The reason I ask is that on 1 June 2023, Wikimedia updated to CC-BY-SA 4.0 (https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy%3ATerms_of_Use&diff=256875&oldid=240859), and copying text from Wikipedia is commonplace. Even Help:Importing and exporting pages acknowledges that this is commonplace, and still encourages it. However, their update means their licence is no longer compatible with Fandom (CC-BY-SA licences are not backwards-compatible, only forwards); you cannot re-use CC-BY-SA-licensed content under an earlier version of the licence than the one under which it was licensed, only the one it was licensed under or a later version. Therefore, copying Wikipedia content dated 1 June 2023 or later to Fandom is copyright infringement, even if attribution is provided! But I see nothing about this incompatibility anywhere in Fandom's help, not Help:Importing and exporting pages, not Help:Licensing, not Help:Copyright, not anywhere.
Note, however, that this new licensing only applies to content dated 1 June 2023 onwards (copyright belongs to the authors, not Wikimedia); content dated before that remains CC-BY-SA 3.0, and Fandom-compatible. But I daresay we have many unsuspecting users causing copyright issues for themselves and for Fandom by copying recent Wikipedia content.
I was just about to say that deleting favicons.sqlite in my Firefox profile fixed it, but thanks anyway.
That's weird. It has never worked for me since I changed it some time ago to what it is now (the old one worked). Anything bookmark-related just displays the Fandom logo as the Favicon. Even deleting and readding the bookmark doesn't fix it. Other wikis' favicons work okay.
Hi,
Can anyone tell me why my wiki's favicon does not display on bookmarks? It works fine on the browser's (Firefox) tabs. I get Fandom's logo instead. According to Help:Favicon, this might happen if it's too small, but it's the maximum size of 256x256.
Thanks
https://dungeonkeeper.fandom.com/wiki/File:Site-favicon.ico
That's what I'm trying to ascertain. The wiki to be merged is dead (no one has edited it for nearly two years, and I highly doubt anyone ever will again), and the help seems to suggest that, because of that, I can just go ahead.
Hi,
There are two wikis, one of which is dead, and hasn't been edited for nearly two years, about a retired video game in a series, and one very much alive (even if I'm the only active editor) and about the rest of the series. The continued existence of the dead one might be detrimental to the SEO of the alive one, as they both have the same name and almost identical urls, so I'd like to merge the dead one into the alive one. I left messages on the dead one quite some time ago, but got no reply. According to Help:Merging communities, I can simply go ahead and copy content over.
My question is this: just like that? Do I have to inform Fandom or something? Also, the wikis have pages that have the same title, though are about different things. Is there a way to import them at different titles? Or will I have to temporarily move pages on the alive wiki to make way for importing from the dead one? (yes, I'm an admin on the alive one)
The wikis in question are:
https://dungeonkeeper.fandom.com/wiki/Dungeon_Keeper_Wiki (alive)
https://dungeon-keeper.fandom.com/wiki/Dungeon_Keeper_Wiki (dead)
Thanks.
@DaneGeld It's probably the F word; the filter is a computer program, and therefore cannot see the context in which it was used. It just sees the word, sees that it's on a list of "banned" words, and just blocks it. It can't see things the way humans can. I've had that with the N word (not the N word: the other N word, the lookalike word with a totally different meaning), but unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about the Scunthorpe problem :(.
Hi,
Someone on my wiki has decided that it needs to be censored to remove terminology including, but not limited to, 'queer street' and 'queer one's pitch' (these are actually well-known, legitimate expressions) and seems to have gone on a crusade to do just that. Who (if anyone) is in the wrong here? Does Fandom have a stance on such terminology?
But it's not just my wiki: https://kuroshitsuji.fandom.com/wiki/Kuroshitsuji_Wiki (I have nothing to do with this wiki; it's just something I stumbled across) is chock-a-block with uses of the f-word (and I'm not talking about the swear word) to refer to schoolboy servitude (https://kuroshitsuji.fandom.com/wiki/Weston_College is a good example), which is a perfectly legitimate usage of that word. If someone wanted to remove that word from this wiki, would they be justified in doing so?
Thanks.
Unfortunately, I get the distinct impression that they'll consider it an abuse of my admin powers no matter how I justify it or how disruptive they're being. This is especially so considering they consider (rightly or wrongly, but that in itself is a matter of debate) my preference in the matter to be highly controversial. Further complicating matters is that virtually all discussion of how the wiki is run takes place off-wiki.
Hi,
There's an article on my wiki undergoing a content dispute which is threatening to escalate into a full-blown edit war. On that basis, I've had to threaten to protect the page; however, as I'm involved in the dispute, another editor has taken that as a threat to abuse my admin powers to get my own way. I am the only admin on the wiki, so am therefore the only one who can protect a page. I've had a look at Help:Page protection, but there's nothing there about what to do in this kind of situation. Are there any rules or guidance about what to do in this kind of situation? Thanks.
Actually, I think it's because the other fields are programmed to be hidden if there's no content, whereas Source isn't. But yeah, the other non-article templates call Imbox, which is a notice. Should I change all Mbox templates to Data or something?
https://dungeonkeeper.fandom.com/wiki/File:Stop_sign.svg (Not the file in question, but just an example)
On mobile view, only the description field of the information template shows properly. The source tag is empty, and the other fields don't show at all.
It's because the other templates use a template of type Notice, isn't it?
Do non-article templates appear on mobile? (as the templates in question are classed as non-article, I'm guessing they don't...)
Edit: Oh, wait, it seems they do display on mobile, but other non-article templates used in one aren't showing on mobile view.
I made the page, but I don't know if it worked, as the logo and related templates don't display on mobile.
And it's exactly the same code?
Where and how do I do that?
Do I need to do CSS mobile code even though I put the above in common.css?
That worked! Cheers!
I notice, though, that the CSS uses fandomdesktop. Will this affect mobile viewing?
