UDWiki:Wiki Questions

Community Portal – General Discussion – Wiki Questions – Featured Articles – Did You Know

A page for wiki-related questions. Please consider visiting the Help pages to see if your problem is already addressed there. For questions about the game, see the FAQ.

An archive is located here.

Templates and server load?

Could anyone explain to me the relation between template use and server load? Is just the fact that they require the movement/copying of data from one page to another? I've seen a template (ironically) disparaging the use of templated signatures as they increase server load; is this actually a significant problem? --aClashInRedSnow^|talk 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert, but I've read that the server load increase is insignificant, if any. The main objection is that they are prime targets for vandalism (once the whole Developing Suggestions was posted in someone's sig,) and the server load one. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Template parameters

Does anyone know if there's a way to change the output of template parameters so that if "location_type=police dept" is entered it can display "police department" in the category section of Template:Locationblock? It's also needed for Necrotech buildings, libraries, cemeteries. If I can't figure out a way to do this, I'll probably have to rollback to the old system -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:42 30 December 2008 (BST)

If you create a template in the format Template:Info_X, and then input the last word into the "location_type" parameter when using the template, then it will work, as shown here. (To make it so that a category is given to the page, use <includeonly> tags and put in Category:Police Departments, for example.) --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I added the category to Template:Info Police Dept (and other corresponding Info templates), which worked fine -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:00 5 November 2009 (BST)

signatures

how do you change your signature?--Sgt Gonnella 01:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See this. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Time Travel?

Ok, something is seriously up with the timekeeping all of a sudden for me. I was happily reviewing my bot and checking the odd edit to make sure it hadn't broken anything. My refresh of RC yielded no new results though. Fearing it had crashed I checked my program, it was still trodding along happily. I pasted a page to check the edit history. It had updated just fine and at the current time.

Looking closer at RC, it's fucking jumped a hour off and fucked the edit history over.

My bot was working in alphabetical order, and the mass of edits certainly helps me a bit here...

This question started at 23:45 UTC and posted at 23:58 UTC.

Recent Changes, top of list, show bots on.

(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Edgecombe)‎; 00:24 . . (+39) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.)
...
A ton more bot edits here, you get the idea.
...
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Ferreol's Hospital (Dartside)‎; 00:20 . . (+81) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.)
(diff) (hist) . . N User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A8‎; 00:20 . . (+956) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{UDGame| top=Somewhere| NW_location={{UDBox|B7|a field}} | NW_color=Field66|)

All these times, and notice the usual edits too, have suddenly jumped an hour into the future!

The bots edits were being made at the correct UTC time though, and had gotten stuck deeper into the stack, inamongst edits that had been made an hour previous (the edits from an hour before have now jumped an hour ahead, remember)

See how the alphabetical order has continued! Louis Hospital to Luke Cathedral. The non-bot edits I believe were made from the hour ago streak. Thus the edits are getting interwoven.

(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Margaret's Church (Wray Heights)‎; 23:24 . . (+90) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Luke's Cathedral‎; 23:23 . . (-14) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . Lockettside Republicans Army‎; 23:23 . . (-2) . . Devilz-fury (Talk | contribs) (→What we do - ) 
(diff) (hist) . . m User:Rikev‎; 23:21 . . (0) . . Rikev (Talk | contribs) 

So...WTF?

If there's some edits during actual UTC 00:20 to 00:24, they should intersperse with an unbroken bot edit streak. If anybody else is getting this error, you could turn turing on bot edits in RC and seeing the result.

For the record, this is the streak as of now, currently just far enough into the future to be undisturbed.

(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Edgecombe)‎; 00:24 . . (+39) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Chancelwood)‎; 00:23 . . (-18) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Lazarus's Church (Paynterton)‎; 00:23 . . (+57) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Laurence's Hospital‎; 00:23 . . (+44) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Joseph's Hospital‎; 00:23 . . (+74) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Lockettside)‎; 00:22 . . (+82) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Gibsonton)‎; 00:22 . . (-105) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Cathedral‎; 00:22 . . (+24) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Joachim's Church (Starlingtown)‎; 00:22 . . (+60) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Jeremy's Hospital‎; 00:22 . . (+58) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Hubertus's Hospital‎; 00:21 . . (+86) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Holy's Church (Starlingtown)‎; 00:21 . . (+16) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Henry's Hospital‎; 00:21 . . (+91) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Helier's Hospital‎; 00:21 . . (+72) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Helena's Hospital (Roachtown)‎; 00:21 . . (+43) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 03‎; 00:20 . . (+132) . . Zombie slay3r (Talk | contribs) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Gall's Church (Pennville)‎; 00:20 . . (+49) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Ferreol's Hospital (Dartside)‎; 00:20 . . (+81) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . N User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A8‎; 00:20 . . (+956) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{UDGame| top=Somewhere| NW_location={{UDBox|B7|a field}} | NW_color=Field66| 

Anybody know what the hell's going on? --  RoosterDragon  23:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The same thing was happening to me. Oddly enough, the wiki was awfully slow around that time. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought maybe a DST change, but that's not til late this month. It also happens at 1/2 AM depending on whether we're stepping on or off. My preferences reports the server time correctly, and my local time correct too (not hard, no offset) I am considering making an edit summary that will "pre-empt" another edit just for the awesomeness though. --  RoosterDragon  00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. One awesome for me.

(diff) (hist) . . m User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A7‎; 00:11 . . (0) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (eh x2) 
(diff) (hist) . . m User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A7‎; 00:10 . . (0) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (eh) 
(diff) (hist) . . N User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A7‎; 00:10 . . (+922) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{UDGame| top=Somewhere| NW_location={{UDBox|B6|a field}} | NW_color=Field67| N_location={{UDBox|B7|a field}} | N_color=Field66| NE_location={{UDBox|1Wood1|Woodland}}| NE_color=Woodland| W...) 
(diff) (hist) . . m Wiki Questions‎; 00:09 . . (+1) . . The Rooster (Talk | contribs) (→Time Travel? - I am using my time travel powers to known the AHLG is about to create a page in his subspace, titled A7. Then double eh when it goes wrong!) 

And minus half an awesome for the "known" typo as opposed to "know". Or maybe that is correct. Bloody time travel, screws with tenses. --  RoosterDragon  00:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Kevan. I suspect it's just a weird bug. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaag, what's going on? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

conflicted Time's caught up Gnome, we'll be fine now.

Good show, Link. I'll just wrap up with this bit, I had the bot run 6 extra edits just to show how the edits got interwoven. (Seven, if you count that fact it then recorded that brief streak in the UpdateReport) Compare to the earlier list I posted before time caught up.

(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReportTimekeeperBot/UpdateReport‎; 00:24 . . (-2) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Last update has been recorded.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Edgecombe)‎; 00:24 . . (+39) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Chancelwood)‎; 00:23 . . (-18) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Lazarus's Church (Paynterton)‎; 00:23 . . (+57) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Elson Building‎; 00:23 . . (+76) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Laurence's Hospital‎; 00:23 . . (+44) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Edgecombe Museum‎; 00:23 . . (+96) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Joseph's Hospital‎; 00:23 . . (+74) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Lockettside)‎; 00:22 . . (+82) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Eden Museum‎; 00:22 . . (+50) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Gibsonton)‎; 00:22 . . (-105) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Dunham Building‎; 00:22 . . (+61) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Cathedral‎; 00:22 . . (+24) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Joachim's Church (Starlingtown)‎; 00:22 . . (+60) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Jeremy's Hospital‎; 00:22 . . (+58) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Doubting Building‎; 00:22 . . (+44) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Dooley Building‎; 00:21 . . (+75) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 
(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Hubertus's Hospital‎; 00:21 . . (+86) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) 

What fun. --  RoosterDragon  00:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't edit my userspace still. Summary from a page I tried to create "funny thing is, this page isn't in my contributions or RC, yet the code is here and there's a history. It also goes straight to the edit window from A8" --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, everything seems fixed, including my userpage problem. This wiki never ceases to amaze me. :O --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Template Creation

People appear to use templates for creating awards/badges for all manner of things and I was wondering if there are any rules outlying their creation? I've considered creating my own several times for different purposes (mostly fun) and I want to know if there any requirements I need to fulfil? Category:Templates and Help:Templates have told me how to make one but not if I'm allowed to.

On a side note putting Category:Templates does not include it as a link... why is this? (It's actually in both sentences without the <nowiki> tags! --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:57, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Use [[:Category:Templates]] (notice the colon at the start) if you want to make it a link that doesn't include the page in the actual category. There is no specific rules about template creation, but unless they're used on multiple pages (or likely to be), mostly it's better to just put the code on the page itself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:06 1 June 2009 (BST)

Thanks. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:18, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Wiki 'Zerging'

Is there any defense against one user creating multiple wiki accounts and causing grief for other users? This could include voting multiple times for a suggestion using different accounts, plus spam and the like.--Degree7 05:33, 15 August 2009 (BST)

Sure, A/VB. No one is allowed to vote multiple times with different accounts. And teaming up on someone with alt user accounts can be viewed as bad faith as well. But it needs confirming with more than just suspicion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:50 15 August 2009 (BST)

Isn't that a tad tough to prove though?--SlegthVonDraco 07:43, 26 September 2009 (BST)

No. We can compare IPs of users. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:10, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Table spacing

I can't find or figure out how to make a dead space between rows in a table. I would like to put just a blank line or two between my characters on my user page, ideally without resorting to using empty cells. Is this possible, if so, how? Thanks. Captdrett 22:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest making each one its own table, then putting some line breaks between the tables. Otherwise, inserting an empty row really is your best bet. You could also try to use cell spacing, but I don't think it'd achieve the results you want. —Aichon— 23:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasnt sure where to put this...but how do I advertise?

And is it acceptable to advertise in certain ways but not others? I'm trying to make a Survivor Mall Tour but noone knows about it. I dont wanna bug its just that survivors probably "need" this: something fun to do that gives an excuse to repair areas and kill a ton of zombies efficiently. Right now everyone is just in their own lil' groups, not helping each other out exactly.

So how do I advertise? Any free ways? And so on...--Supercohboy 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Recruitment. Make an ad for your group as a sub-page, e.g. Survivor Mall Tour/Recruit, and then link it there as instructed on the page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, groups are helping each other out. My survivor group (40-50 active members) is currently out of their home suburb, helping another group/suburb get back on its feet. And I know The Big Prick has been organizing an RP cleanup of eastern Malton for a few weeks now, which is just starting to get underway. Plenty of groups are helping other groups out. But yes, as Yonnua said, post on the Recruitment page. —Aichon— 02:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Also, I just knew saying that would offend someone eventually, and I know there are groups out there that are helping each other, but I meant in the big picture there are more zombies working together and making a bunch of targeted events then we are, and it is messing up Malton*! I want to help by making an event we all can look forward to as survivors. *Messing up Malton in a non-Barhah point of view. You zombies are fine bringing Barhah, we just need countermeasures!--Supercohboy 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Images as direct links

I've seen, on a few different wikis, coding allowing images to be used as direct links to other pages - not like the redirects we tend to use here (such as with Iscariot's sig, for a prominent example). Examples of this can be see with the sprites here, or with the flag images in the infobox here. Now, I'm not a huge fan of redirects, and if it were possible to set up something like that here, I'd make use of it, but having viewed what source code I have, I'm not entirely sure I understand it. From what I can gather, the first example runs from a standardised image archive, the likes of which we don't have, while the source code for wikipedia's example seems similarly tied to a small subset of images. Basically, is there a way to do this kind of thing in a manner which allows any image on the wiki to be used as a direct page link? 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure I've seen this before, but it might be that the mediawiki isn't good enough to sustain it. I had a fiddle, but I couldn't see an easy way of doing it. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, after checking out the template calls on WWII flag image template, [1], I didn't go further than that page I just linked cause I'm concentrating on a lecture atm, but judging by the code it's most like a div template hovering over the image that links straight to the page, so you can't actually click the flag cause it's hiding behind the transparent template of the same size. I believe Rooster (it might have been AHLG and Iscariot too) spent a bit of time in 2009 messing with the concept. --

 

 

 

 

23:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried an alternate way than redirects originally, but couldn't get it sustain large areas. The aborted attempt can be found here if you're looking for an alternative to redirects. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That should work, thanks. I'm trying to fix my sig with images so it actually displays right, so nothing's going to be much bigger than a tiny image. Cheers. 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Wait no, scratch that. Can't line up stuff with it horizontally. Thanks anyway, though. 23:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As shown on this test (banner at the top), even when putting in larger values I couldn't get the link area to sustain beyond a certain limit. It might work for sigs, but I'd do some serious beta testing first, that example was for Bob, but I don't recall him ever using it so it's never been put into the wilds to interact with page code and other people's sigs. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For those following at home, this page now contains last year's tests, combined with a proof of concept and a rendered sig using this method. My only real concern with this is the increase in template calls within the templated sig. It might be possible to use raw code as a replacement for the click template, but I just can't be bothered at this time of night. This concept will also need testing regarding its interactions with other common coding on talk pages and in sigs before I'm happy for them to go into the wild. Comments? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be fiddling up the raw code as soon as I have the images finished, then we can see what it looks like on bigger and busier pages. Thanks again, Iz. 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Update the second, Mis and I just tried the multi-templated version in my sig. The template calls didn't cause page breakage, however we found that the sig would automatically rejustify itself on a new line, away from indented comments and that it would displace the timestamp as well. My table speak is exhausted. Spellcasting: SUMMON CODEMONKEY. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's never going to work like that, other wikis use some sort of extension for signature images like that. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sick and heading to bed in a sec, so you'll have to excuse the fact that I just skimmed what you all said, but I can think of two possible ways to rig this up by using the technique that was described earlier (covering the image with a link).

1. Set the image you want as the background image for a div. After that, create a link in the div with span around it that has display:block set for it and its width and height matching the size of the div. You can see an example of how to create a link with span in that manner here (mouse over Dakerstown on the map).
2. If you can't set wiki images as background images (I honestly can't remember if it's possible at the moment), then do the same thing with the link as what I said for #1, but make sure its first in the code, with position:relative, float:left, and a z-layer that is higher than that of the image. Then, just have the image in the div like normal after that. Assuming my brain isn't horribly addled (and it might be), the image should just float under the link, meaning it'll work as desired.

If neither of those work, or nobody can get them working, I'll see if I can find some time in the next few days to put something together, but it should be possible. All of the other things I saw mentioned here seem to require additional extensions (but again, I only skimmed). Hope this helps. And now, to bed... —Aichon— 07:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't set background images. Mediawiki itself is coded to remove the image code as it's a "security threat" (I think it's something about external images executing arbitrary code, but don't quote me on that. I don't get why you couldn't use local ones either). You put the code down, and the parser will silently remove the whole lot. The only thing that makes it when setting a background definition is the background-color attribute.

So the other, working, option is just laying a big div on top. You then have to set a link up using spaces to fill the box. Unfortunately Click doesn't take the best route to it. It's uses a 100px font size and 3 non-breaking spaces to set up the link. 3 nbsp's aren't even 100px wide, and only 100px tall because of the font-size. So anything bigger than that and you won't get it covering the whole area.

I think I can make it less fail and create a new version once I post this, but I'd still recommend image redirects for signatures. They work just fine and don't require the additional template call, and the template is a bit kludgey anyway.

Skimming quickly the mediawiki documentation on images, it seems they added a handy link= parameter as of 1.14. We're on 1.9.something IIRC. So add it to the list of stuff we don't have. --  RoosterDragon  18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In reference to your second paragraph, I've already tackled that problem if you check the link I provided earlier to here. Anyway, rather than explain how it can be done, I'll just link an example of it in action. I changed the link's color to be semi-transparent red, that way you can see that it's overlaying the image, but it'd be trivial to remove that coloration. Does this satisfy what everyone was looking for? I can clean up the code and simplify it a bit, maybe even toss it into a template, if people want it. —Aichon— 18:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I lost points for skim reading your previous reply. And I just fixed {{Click}} to be less fail too. You should go ahead and alter that template. In the meantime, perhaps there's other stuff I can solve half-assedly that you already have solutions for? --  RoosterDragon  18:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could possibly stop fucking arbitrarily altering the templates others are using, particularly if you're going to make them worse? For fuck's sake, go create a new version and we'll decide which one we prefer. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot you had tests for it. But I don't see that I broke anything. --  RoosterDragon  19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to your own documentation, five times height/width causes breakage whereas the old one had no such limitation. Going backwards is not good. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The previous version left out the note that it failed above 100px high or ~80px wide. Far worse, in my opinion. --  RoosterDragon  19:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More often than not, you're the one with the solution that I'm looking for. Anyway, Click looks like it can be simplified quite a bit if we use my approach, and my approach also has the advantage of not showing the underline through the middle of the div when you mouseover the link (the text of my link consists of a single space with a font size of 0px, so the underline doesn't appear at all). I'm pretty sure my approach would also work for any size at all. I'll toss together a template quickly, as per Iscariot's suggestion, and you guys can see what you think of it. —Aichon— 18:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, added a bit to the demo page to show off the new template in action. If it looks good, feel free to move it to the public namespace with an appropriate name. Also, mine lets you set the mouseover text if you want, which Click doesn't do, I just realized, but otherwise you should probably be able to swap mine in directly for Click, since they need the same variables. —Aichon— 18:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine, may as well just replace Click outright. --  RoosterDragon  19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed up a few more things, so now you can have multiple image links on the same line. I think it probably also needs some fool-proofing done in cases where the sizes are set incorrectly. I notice that Click has overflow properties, which might be useful here as well. Otherwise, it's close to being or is ready, I'd say. Let's see what Mis thinks. —Aichon— 19:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I owe you guys pints. 16:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept cookies as well. ;) —Aichon— 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I will accept Fiffy being flown over to the UK instead of pints. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Iz mah Fiffeh! U cantz haz! :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I did a bit more editing, and near as I can tell, it works in almost every major browser. I've fool-proofed it a bit too. All told, I made the following changes:

• If you set your height too small for the link to cover the entire image, the image gets cut off. Should be obvious to the user, I think.
• If you set your height too large and the link exceeds the image, rather than giving you blank space that acts as a link, the excess area is colored in fuchsia and instructions for fixing it show up in that space (true story).
• IE8 degrades gracefully, near as I can tell, and in most cases acts as if the link wasn't even there (i.e. you should still use image redirects for IE users). I didn't test IE7. And I'm willing to bet that this thing breaks IE6 all to hell.
• Issues with cross-browser vertical alignment seem to have been fixed (FF was behaving differently than WebKit).

Take a look at the new examples I've posted here to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Anyway, unless someone sees issues in their browser, I think it's done. I'm just hesitant to replace Click myself. ;) —Aichon— 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Page?

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/People_of_Malton/Headquarters

I found this page linked in the Malton Fire Department building listings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBardofAwesome (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

If it was linked there before, it's not now. These are all of the links to that page right now. —Aichon— 06:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. What do you mean and what does it mean in terms of the question you are asking, if any? --

 

 

 

 

06:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I the coding.

Kudos if you get the reference in the subject title.

Anyway, I was working on a part for Ross's new town and I seem to have ruptured the very fabric of coding that was in place.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:TheBardofAwesome

It used to have a form like the one above it. If anybody can help me out and fix it, I'd be eternally grateful. --TheBardofAwesome 04:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured out the problem. --TheBardofAwesome 05:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Policy on Impersonation

I have a question regarding the content allowed or not allowed on group pages, related to UDWiki:Specific Case Editing Guidelines. If a group attempts to impersonate and claim to be part of a different group that is has nothing to do with, can this be prevented? Can such a group be forced to include a NPOV introduction containing the notice that the following claims and so on are POV?
I am aware that impersonating another wiki user is considered vandalism, does this apply to impersonating another group as well?
An example is the page Malton Vice Unit. While this group most obviously claims to be a part of the DEM and is impersonating it, as a matter of fact it is in no way affiliated with the DEM. Can this group (if it even is a real group, which can be doubted) be required to preferably remove the DEM references or at least include an introductory notice that the connection to the DEM is POV/RPing/whatever but not a fact and thus untrue?
Thank you, G F J 14:27, 19 April 2010 (BST)

I firstly must thank you for that NPOV notice on the NDEM, that'll do wonders for my chances to get a policy through to ban enforced NPOV sections.

Remember that the notice at the top must be NPOV, which means you going "They're not us!!1!" is not NPOV ;)

Anything else on those pages is up to the group in question. Which means they could put sections about that top notice being a deliberate lie and that in fact they are the dedicated rotted zombie wing of the DEM that are unleashed on any survivors that remind the metagame that you alt polices break the basic laws of this game as set down by Kevan and there's nothing you can do about it. I'd remind you that editing another group's page outside that NPOV into paragraph is vandalism, as is altering that paragraph from NPOV to emphasise any opinion you may have about them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:33, 19 April 2010 (BST)

Basically, you can add a brief, neutral explanation to the top of the page, explaining any deceptions. But you must be prepared to justify any claims you make in arbitration if you do, and it is challenged. You can also remove the page from any category owned by your group, no matter where on the page they include the category tag. Sometimes this may mean subst'ing a template (like the DEMnav one on that page) and removing the category manually -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:06 20 April 2010 (BST)

Not really. On his group's templates he can, but not when the problem is community templates that the DEM has seen fit to brand as their own with a category tag. Especially when he's already been going around demanding people remove themselves from his category when the fault is his members not knowing how to <no include> them on template pages. The fault is with the DEM here, not wiki users. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:18, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Template:DEMnavbar isn't a community template. It's a DEM template, created by the group, for the group. Using it on a page not affiliated with DEM, in order to impersonate them isn't what it was designed for. They're within their rights to remove pages that do use it from the DEM category, if they don't belong there. Putting category tags in group specific templates is a legitimate way to ensure they are all categorised correctly -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:28 20 April 2010 (BST)

Thank you for the replies, Boxy. They certainly helped to clear this up. And yes, the Navbar template is indeed not a community template, it is group specific, edited only by DEM members and intended only for internal use. G F J 12:15, 20 April 2010 (BST)

It makes no difference, you'd be better sticking no include tags on it as you cannot prevent groups using code and content, so they can still use an exact copy of that template. Still no response on why community templates somehow find themselves in the DEM category? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:21, 20 April 2010 (BST)