Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Navbox Patch Notes"

Latest revision as of 17:58, 28 July 2012

Removal from Wanted

Getting rid of this from Special:WantedPages. -- Agge (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bolding

Do we know why the particular patch note you are currently looking at does not show up in the list at the bottom in bold as it should with a self-directed link? It would make it easier to navigate the massive listing to related patches if it did. —Thirty7 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That list is generated by DPL, and the issue you note is a bug in DPL. Normally, it omits the current page from its output entirely; we clearly don't want that. Alternately, you can force it to include the current page, but then it renders just like all the others. There's no way to make it render in bold like normal. The alternative is manually maintaining them, but in the past that wasn't always done; plus given how many there are, it's very easy for one to get missed and nobody notice. -- Sekoia 19:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I forced a workaround. The relevant template is now about 5 times more complex, but it now renders the current page in bold. Thanks for nudging this, this has always bugged me too but I'd never spent the time to think about how it could be fixed. :) -- Sekoia 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't really expect folks to go out of their way to impliment coding like that... but it is cool that it works now.  :) It was just something I noticed while browsing the patchnotes from the past few updates and thought it was odd... especially when I compared the functionality to other similar infoboxes. Awesome, Sekoia! —Thirty7 21:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Navigating

While we're at it, what would it take to implement a sort of "previous notes" and "next notes" option? --GuyPerfect 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea... my gut says that that would be obnoxious to do... especially since the dates they are stored by aren't incremental (by a uniform value). If they were listed as "2009 Patch 3", I would think it would be easier... would something like this actually require a granular breakdown of going page by page adding links? —Thirty7 03:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Using 2005-08-31 as an example, here's previous:

• Patch Notes/2005-07-13

And here's next:

• Patch Notes/2005-09-15

So it's definitely doable. Formatting it properly would require more complexity, but still achievable. -- Sekoia 04:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd really integrate well with this template. A separate template put at the top of each page though, maybe? -- Sekoia 04:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and created such a template: {{Browse Patch Notes}}. Thoughts? -- Sekoia 05:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think it should be across the top, with next on the far right and previous on the far left?... —Thirty7 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to mock up a design, I'm certainly open to ideas. :) I was disinclined towards that because I thought it'd waste too much screen real estate and make too big a deal out of something that should be an aside, but I didn't put too much thought into it. -- Sekoia 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that this would be going in the actual patch template itself on the bottom of the page... so I guess it depends where you want to put it... but I was thinking something as simple as: (possibly without the title)

—Thirty7 23:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That could work at the bottom, where it's out of the way. But I'd rather see this at the top, and that format's too big for the top. -- Sekoia 23:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Sekoia/Sandbox/Five. I temporarily have a demo there that shows a Previous/Next link up on the header line in the top right corner. It's in the same style as the subpage backlinks, but on the opposite side of the screen. (Ignore the Infobox that is also on that page.) This is subtle but readily accessible, and could be used in addition to having a more substantial navigation at the bottom. Thoughts? -- Sekoia 23:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

To me, any of the formats could work... so long as they are put in the right place. It would just be great to have that functionality available, no matter the form. So I guess chalk me up as a vote to whatever format everyone else likes.  :) —Thirty7 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)