Metroid Wiki:Discussion Center/Archive05

From Metroid Wiki

Template change project

A while ago we started the task of phasing out the Template:Artwork, logbook image, screenshot, and sprite templates in favor of the more universal source template. While we have made progress, these templates are still on over 1000 pages. If anyone would like to assist me in their removal so we can finally finish this project, it would be greatly appreciated. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 00:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's on my to-do list, too. =P Embyr 75  --Talk-- 18:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Made this, it should help with the project. Everything is now all in one place :)MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 00:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
With template:Sprite killed in action (yay!!!), I would like to focus our efforts on Template:logbook image now. This one will take a bit more work cause we also need to make sure we're using the wonderful image that Dany36 provided and not ones from Metroid Database. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 04:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured Content

Hey, I thought I'd bump a conversation started here regarding the front page. Reading the whole conversation would probably be better, but I'll try to summarize the main points. Quoth myself:

To summarize the conversation above, the discussion suggests:
  1. Coming up with some sort of rotation schedule for featured content
  2. Finding a way to make "Remember Me?" more sustainable
As for the featured content, ideas included:
  1. Rotating on a by-visit, weekly, or monthly schedule
  2. Creating a tabbed template for the main page, giving users the ability to toggle through articles/images
The only suggestion for expanding the "Remember Me?" section was:
  1. Allow inclusion of any editor-original topic related to Metroid, turning the current "Remember Me?" articles into a series within the Wiki Exclusive umbrella.

Eventually I created the two tabbed templates currently on the front page for Featured Articles and Featured Pictures, but I figured those templates would be a temporary measure. That discussion was a while ago and was basically just me and Bop1996 throwing ideas back and forth, so I'd like to get more input since there's been a refreshing surge of activity here recently. Any comments on either topic? Embyr 75  --Talk-- 01:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article/ Main Page content

I am going to propose that we give admins autonomous ability to promote featured article. There are two few users to vote, and there are only three active admins, I think we can each trust each others' judgement on placing articles in the featured pool and this way it can be updated with more frequency. I really don't see a situation in which one of the admins chooses and article and it turns out to be bad. And in the worst case scenario, we can rescind whatever article was chosen. If a non-admin wants an article featured, I think he or she can simply ask an admin, and in that case the admin can decide whether or not the article is worthy. In most cases I imagine, the admin would probably give a yes vote. At the very least, I propose a two admin yes count, though a one admin decision I think would work fine. Also, we should have a consistent featured pool, somewhere between 3 - 5 articles/pictures. --Malake256 {Talk | Contribs} 04:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I like the idea of having two votes from admins, otherwise there really wouldn't be a point to nominating things, and I've always thought giving people the ability to vote on nominations was a good community builder. I think an alternate to this would be to create a time restriction on how long an article can be up for nomination. If it has significant support by the time the time limit is up, it can be featured even if it doesn't have five votes.
As for the consistency of the featured pool: do you mean a consistent pool of things to be nominated, or a consistent pool of things featured on the front page at one time? I'm not sure I like the idea of limiting how many things we keep featured on the front page. I assumed that once we grew to that point, where there was more articles or pictures than could be reasonably stored on a tabbed template, that we'd move to a different sort of rotation. Just because we have more featured articles or pictures doesn't lower the quality of the articles/pictures that were initially featured, and we should still draw attention to them. (Disqualifying featured content because it no longer meets our standards for what's considered good enough to be featured is another matter.) Embyr 75  --Talk-- 04:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Two admin votes sounds good to me, though I wouldn't mind the occasional user opinion or two if they are available (just to say what they like or don't like about it, I'd appreciate their insight). A time restriction can definitely be made for the duration of nominations, perhaps a month? I don't mind a slow growth for the articles and images considered "Featured", just as long as it is a growth, we definitely need to have extra scrutiny on their quality to make sure they are the best we've made. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 05:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think three months would be a good amount of time, since people kind of flow in and out around here. Give them a chance to voice their opinions. Also, I think the same rule should apply for opposition votes: Two or three opposition votes by admins (or even non-admins) should disqualify a nomination. (That's already in the rules. :P)
Also... any comments on the section above concerning featured rotation options and ways to make the "Remember Me?" section of the page more sustainable? Bop1996 and I had a long conversation about it a while ago on the Main Page talk page... Embyr 75  --Talk-- 02:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a little difficult to sustain when people, as you said, flow in and out. It is fun to write, but after the first couple it felt forced rather than fun. If we came up with a specific schedule on releases, I might be more inclined to write. Otherwise I think it'd be best to drop it and/or replace it with something else on the main page. We could go for a more simple design on the main page, maybe a lot smaller or something. --Malake256 {Talk | Contribs} 21:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Editorials like this aren't easy to sustain, while I think they are cool, I wouldn't mind discontinuing them indefinitely. A slight redesign of the main page would be interesting Malake, there are a few old things on the community bar that need to be removed that we discontinued a while ago. And on the topic of the featured pictures... can we also change it so we don't have to give a critical analysis of a picture? I can't think of what to say sometimes...MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 00:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as the Remember Me section, I wasn't thinking of having you continue to write those. I think it's a little impossible to write in such a narrow topic indefinitely, and on one's own. It was more like... why not make it a place where users could submit creative articles, (For example, I'd be interested in writing something on the Theoretical Physics of Interdimensional Travel, as seen in MP2), and we could feature interesting, fan-made articles on Metroid related topics? On Zelda Wiki these are called "Wikiexclusive" articles. They are a lot of fun to write and to read. Then all of the currently existing articles in the section could be part of a Wiki Exclusive "series" (written by Malake, and called "remember me"), but the following Wiki Exclusives could be written on a variety of topics by various people. That's just one option, though, to keep that section alive. (It'd be renamed, probably, of course). If we were to redesign though, I guess we could just abandon that project.

I'm not sure what you mean about the critical analysis of a picture...? Embyr 75  --Talk-- 02:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize there, a bit of confusion on my part lol. I don't know why but I thought that I had to give much more detailed opinion as to why it should be featured. As for the editorials, I'll go along with whatever we agree upon. I have no strong opinions either way. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 00:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a general creative outlet rather than having the section be specifically about old and obscure metroid things. Though I think there is plenty of relevant material for that in Metroid, giving a section where users or even just readers can submit anything would be cool. Like maybe even an entire chapter of fanfic can be used to cross promote. And we can always keep remember me? As a 'type' of submission. It would be fun to write about the physics that would be involved in some of these things :D Names? Metroid related? Or something like ZW's exclusive? --Malake256 {Talk | Contribs} 08:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You can check out ZW's page on Wikiexclusives for more info on what they do there, we may be able to use a few of those guidelines for our own version (One of the most creative articles I saw was "The Science of Cryobiology in Zoras," cuz, you know, they get frozen a lot. :D). I definitely think these kinds of articles should be subject to admin review before being published. And I think we should still encourage references (where applicable). Any ideas for a name? Metroid-related ideas off the top of my head are... Mission Logs, Metroid Wiki Data (or just Wiki Data/Logs/Lore), or maybe Wiki Artifacts. I admit they're a bit cheesy and I'm totally open to different ideas if none of those are appealing. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 16:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we can lay down some of ZW's rules for a base. I'm liking this idea --Malake256 {Talk | Contribs} 22:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I made a rudimentary Help Page in my Sandbox. Any comments or changes? Also, any thoughts on a name? I'm thinking something logbook-y sounding. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I propose calling it... The Daily Beetal! (horrible title, please don't choose that...) Do you have any specific titles you want to propose? And I think it looks nice so far, a change I would suggest is maybe having a staff vote on it instead of just one staff member. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 00:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I didn't make myself clear. As on ZW, I intended all the admins to weigh in (but for the writer to send it to just one of us. Simpler for them). I'll rewrite that section in my sandbox to make it more clear. As for names, I posted a couple above (Logbook-related names, like Metroid Wiki Data/Logs/Lore/Testaments/Research Data or just Wiki Data/Logs/etc), but I'd like to hear some other suggestions if you guys have any... Embyr 75  --Talk-- 01:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

New Templates

Prod has made some new templates that will serve as replacements for old templates or ease the coding in others.

I'm still trying to figure out their usage so that'll be coming soon. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 04:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And just an FYI, I will preserve a listing of all the colors on something like this, probably on the game-color template page itself. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 04:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Life form category refinements

So Malake and I been working on further refining our category system and we have two proposals to make. The first is removing the wildlife categories, replacing them with the already existing life form categories. The reasoning behind this is to simplify that system a bit and certain things like transplanted species or Pirates don't really work in those categories.

The second is a reworking of the categories themselves. We've been working on some revamps here. More information is on that page, but the most recent revision is much more organized in my opinion.

Any input on this would be greatly appreciated :). MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 20:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I really like revision 2. I think it's simple and elegant. But we need to rename the "sentient/non-sentient" categories; sentience is basically having consciousness, so being unintelligent doesn't mean you're non-sentient. :P Also, sorry about being inactive all weekend, I was outta town. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 00:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Prod ran a text replace with pages linking to the Wildlife categories, they now link to Life Form equivalents. The new framework for the categories will need to be set up and the old categories deleted. Concerning the sentient/non-sentient, that point was brought up by Template-Man as well and I'm fine with changing it. Intelligent species works for one, anyone got a good name for the second one? MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 06:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Before we work on creations of the categories, I just want to make sure we're clear on how the setup will be. An example category chain for say Magmoors would be Magmoor Caverns Life Forms ->Tallon IV Life Forms (hub category for all plants, animals, fungi, and other stuff on Tallon IV) ->Life Forms. Any Problems with this? MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No objections. As for the "Intelligent" species issue, that's tough. I can't really find a single word (except, perhaps, Sapience, which is rather obscure) that we could use to apply to both sets of species. I suggest we focus on the organizational aspect, i.e., their ability to build civilizations, to distinguish them from animals (even ones who may congregate with pack or swarm mentalities). But it's definitely tough. The first word that comes to mind is "Civilized" versus "Uncivilized," but I don't think I really like it. I'll do more research and see if I can come up with anything else. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 17:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "Civilized" would work for our intentions, the Space Pirates don't fit really fit under that. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 01:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I didn't like it. That word has too many alternate meanings besides the intended one, which is, more directly, a "Civilization." After scouring Wikipedia, I'd have to say that "Sapient" is definitely the best word I've found. Here's a brief blurb from Wikipedia: "In fantasy fiction and science fiction, sapience describes an essential human property that bestows "personhood" onto a non-human. It indicates that a computer, alien, mythical creature or other object will be treated as a completely human character, with similar rights, capabilities and desires as any human character." Otherwise, I'd say Intelligent Species is the next best thing. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 03:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, one more comment on this. If "Sapient" or "Intelligent Species" doesn't work for everyone, I'd like to direct your attention to the Metroid Prime 2: Echoes Bonus Disc Logbook. It's set up a little differently from the regular logbook. The Ing and Space Pirates are filed away under "Sentient" whereas the other creatures are not. Even though this doesn't reflect the full scope of the word as some use it, apparently, in the Metroid universe, "Sentient" is limited to intelligent, self-aware, organized species. Some Sci-Fi series will use the word this way, like Star Trek, so I guess this isn't surprising. So I'd actually support any of those three suggestions, in light of this: Sapient, Intelligent Species, or Sentient. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 00:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Sapient works for me. Probably the best fitting of the names. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 18:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Room articles

Hey guys, I haven't done much here lately since I've been doing plenty of work at Nookipedia (where I'm an admin), and I still have plenty of unfinished work here. I was wondering if any of you guys could help me out with the room articles. To make things easier, I have a preferred order of the room articles under "Current projects" on my user page. I would greatly appreciate any help with these projects while I'm at Nookipedia, and I may return to add more content to these articles as well. --Wookiee 123 01:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you around! Expanding content and adding images to the room pages is definitely on my to-do list. Hope you can come edit with us again really soon! Embyr 75  --Talk-- 02:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


Hey, I know this may be totally out of the question, but I was wondering if a merger could be reached between Metroid Wiki and Wikitroid. I've read our article about Wikitroid in the past, so I know about the whole incident with the rivalries that were later solved. Even though this sounds totally far-fetched, I wanted to know if we could retry a merger. In order to get the maximum amount of content on this wiki, we would need over 1,800 more articles.

When it comes to wiki layout, this wiki takes the cake, but for content, Wikitroid has most of it. Sorry if this is out of the blue, but it's just a request to see if we can both reach a merger to potentially combine our superior interface and all their content. --Wookiee 123 08:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't part of the fun of wiki editing having to start from scratch and watching your work pile up? ;) As far as merging, I can't speak for Wikitroid of course, but as you know, the whole point of NIWA is to avoid Wiki Farms (such as Wikia) and use independent hosts, so moving to Wikia would not be an option if we wanted to stick with NIWA.
If Wikitroid users want to move here, I suppose we could open a dialogue, but there's a lot more involved than just merging content. It's merging users, merging policies, merging communities... it's a bit complicated. I wouldn't say I'm against such a thing, but it would definitely take a lot of work and I'm not sure everyone would be happy with such an arrangement. I know our content is small now, but it's growing, and if we could get a steady userbase it could really improve things, so I'm not discouraged by our current article count. And personally I like a little friendly competition!! ;) Embyr 75  --Talk-- 16:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Like Embyr said, it's a lot of work. My biggest problem wouldn't be that part, it'd be some of their users. The community there is downright hostile at times. Then there's the problem with the Wikia overlords, the articles could be brought over but the overlords would force all content to remain, still leaving two major wikis. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 22:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
All of this is true. If we can at least borrow their content rather than the whole community, then everything would be fine. This is what happened when the Wikia wiki Animal Crossing City merged into Nookipedia. Some users moved, and all content was merged into Nookipedia even though the original wiki still exists. If possible, that's all that can be done. Wookiee 123 15:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Borrowing content would be big no no. And like I thought, their community didn't want to go for it anyway. In any case I'd rather work on the content ourselves, even if it takes years it'll be more satisfying. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 18:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange Spacing/Upload Issues

I recently noticed spacing issues that I don't believe we had before popping up all over the site. For example, in this Template, (see an example here), all the options take up three lines of space instead of just one, making the infobox needlessly tall. Anyone else seeing this? Know what the problem is? Even on the Recent Changes, the round box with the useful links in it got taller (extra space on top and bottom). It's not just me, is it? Seems like some kind of site-wide issue rather than limited to particular templates.

Also, when I upload new versions of files, it takes days for the transparent versions to show up, even when I purge my cache/delete all my browsing history. Did we do a server-side update or something I'm not aware of that's making everything wacky? Or has my computer completely lost its mind? Embyr 75  --Talk-- 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

So I discovered the problem in the Creature infobox template; for some reason the line break between {{!}} and the following line created that weird extra space. Didn't used to do that though... anyway. That's a fix for templates, at least. Still wondering about the rest though. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 20:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what the problem is but I will try to figure it out. Comparing the coding, it looks like it may also be related to {{if}} statements. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 20:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Or not :P. At least it's fixed now :). MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Any idea how to fix the upload quirks and the extra spacing on the Recent Changes? (That extra space really irks me... I have to scroll down to see the latest edit. You wouldn't think that would be too annoying, but, it is lol.) Embyr 75  --Talk-- 00:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
What upload quirks are you referring to? MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 05:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
When I upload a transparent version of a file, it takes days before the transparent version shows up sometimes (the same, black-background image loads in the thumbnail and on the main example of the image), even when I clear my browsing data and purge everything. I don't know if others are having this problem though. And did I mention that space on the RC? :P Embyr 75  --Talk-- 16:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about the recent changes (probably a CSS related thing), but I talked to Prod and he said that the image delay caused by the content delivery network. It stores cached versions of the images to lighten the server load so they don't get updated as frequently. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 02:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also asked to make a change to add more padding between paragraphs, just to ease readability. This was a change to <p> css on the server. We can either revert that or fix any locations where it becomes a problem. -- Prod (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Either of those options is fine with me. I didn't see a problem with it before, so my personal vote is to just revert it, but it's up to the majority of course. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The more I look around, the more I'm thinking reverting might be a good idea. It's messing up a lot of templates, creating tons of unnecessary empty space, and things like the way words appear in the galleries. Any thoughts? Embyr 75  --Talk-- 20:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
My personal view is that the paragraphs look much nicer with the added space. Space Pirate has a lot of paragraphs, and without the added spacing the text looks a bit squished. You can see the difference by copying my custom css page. -- Prod (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess I see what you're saying, but I've always dealt with "squishy" pages by adding more images and "dressing up" the page more to compensate. I think it would be easier, on a day-to-day editing basis, to just dress up pages that get to that point (and if it's looking that way, it's probably an indication that the page is looking drab anyway), rather than create aesthetic problems on templates. To me, this spacing feels normal. But hey, I can always just use the custom css to see it the way I want if no one else agrees. :) Embyr 75  --Talk-- 17:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Clicking the link to Space Pirate, another little oddity with the infobox is the bullets *, it didn't do that before either. --Malake256 {Talk | Contribs} 17:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Any idea what's causing that? MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 17:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed one line of the Species template, you can use that to fix the remaining. -- Prod (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, ok, that would undo everything we did in the above conversation! Quote myself, a few paragraphs up: "So I discovered the problem in the Creature infobox template; for some reason the line break between {{!}} and the following line created that weird extra space. Didn't used to do that though..."
Which brings us back to the original problem. The new settings for extra-spaced paragraphs are creating weird spaces with line breaks in templates, and when we try to fix that problem by removing the line breaks, it creates problems with the bullets. We could fix everything by just going back to the way things were... Unless there's another solution? Embyr 75  --Talk-- 02:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't actually see the problem you're talking about. Would you be able to take some screenshots to show the difference? -- Prod (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing! This image is a comparison between how the Species infobox looks when I'm logged in with my custom css working (top), and when I'm logged out and viewing as a guest user (bottom). Notice the needless extra space around the Game parameters. It doesn't seem like a big issue, but when all the parameters start doing that, you get a very long infobox. I'm using Chrome, if that makes a difference. I haven't looked with other browsers. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 04:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So the cause of this is that when parameters are sent to the templates, the leading whitespace is trimmed. And without a * starting on a new line, it's just treated as a *, not a bullet. We may want to create a generic infobox css class that is implemented skin-wide. That way we can override the larger spacing around paragraphs. It would also clean up lots of the inline css which would help page loads. -- Prod (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(Moved from "Sidebar")

Great! Thanks! Have you decided whether you want to revert the css spacing or if you want to implement another solution for the bullets/spacing in infoboxes? Embyr 75  --Talk-- 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather keep the new spacing and just override it in infoboxes. Is there anywhere else it causes problems? -- Prod (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I have my custom CSS running so I haven't noticed anything recently, but I noticed it on the useful links box on the Special:RecentChanges, for one. Another thing I recall is that on talk pages like this one, whether you do one line break or two before starting your comment makes a difference in the spacing above, creating uneven looking talk pages. I'll logout and browse to see what else I notice. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 22:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(Update:) I did a quick run-around while logged out and didn't notice another other major problems as far as templates are concerned. I did notice aesthetic problems in certain situations though. For example, areas with lots of lists and headers (like Metroid_Wiki:Featured_Article_Nomination) look really gangly and strung out.
While I think the premise of these additional spaces has merit, the spaces are just too darn big. Especially in very short or small articles, all that space draws the attention of the eye. The extra space is less awkward in very large articles, but let's face it, the vast, vast majority of our articles are not big. The more I look into this issue, the more strongly I feel that the articles look better without this extra spacing. If it absolutely must stay, then I think we should at least decrease the space to somewhere closer to what it was. I don't know if it's the dark background of the skin or what that makes it stand out so much or what, but it's just too drastic a jump between paragraphs. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 22:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it just takes a bit of getting used to, as the spacing to me is comfortable :). However, I'll implement whatever you guys want, so just let me know. (This should all also probably be moved to the previous topic). -- Prod (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That's probably true. But I stick by my thoughts that what we have was built around the old spacing and the change is more troublesome than beneficial. I'll try to get some more community input on this. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about late response, I was really indifferent to the change to begin with, but I will say the spacing does look a little too large to me. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 05:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, MK and I sort of make up the whole Wiki community right now. I think that's as much input as we'll get. So... back to the old way, or at least shrunk, then? Embyr 75  --Talk-- 04:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Original: bottom - 0.4, top 0.5
First change: bottom 1.25, top 1.25
Second change: bottom .9, top .9
It might take a bit of time for these changes to show up, but you can make the modifications in your personal css to see how it looks. This is a bit shrunk, but if it's still not good enough, we can go to .5/.5. -- Prod (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


The bullets in the sidebar still appear as white dots (instead of like this). It's been bugging me forever, but I never brought it up lol. Also, Metroid Headquarters is now Metroid HQ, so we should probably update that was well. Have no idea how to edit the sidebar, though. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 01:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Sidebar for future reference :). As for the white dots, I have no idea how to change that (probably another CSS related thing...) MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 01:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
AH. That... makes sense. ;) Thanks! As for the bullets: Oh well! Then, for now, they shall remain white dots. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 04:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've made the change so it shows up like that, but it'll take some time to get through the caching. -- Prod (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
(Moved to "Strange Spacing/Upload Issues")

MediaWiki 1.21.2

I've updated the site to Mediawiki 1.21.2, the latest stable release. I think the only notable feature is that clicking the patrol link uses ajax, instead of reloading the whole page. I haven't tested it, so it may not work in this skin. This version also changed some of the heading levels for the static menus on the site, so until the cache clears, it will look a bit odd. If you guys see any further issues, please let me know. -- Prod (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I've noticed a couple things already. The header sizes, as you mentioned, on the sidebar are awful. Also, a couple new headers that I don't believe are sitting where they're supposed to be sitting. I've highlighted them in this image. I think they're supposed to be on the same line as the buttons, rather than hovering above and causing a line break.
Most disturbing and horrible of all, there's no more Special:MultipleUpload?!?!? My life is ruined!! T_T Embyr 75  --Talk-- 03:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The issues in the screenshot were due to the cache again. They should have cleared up by now, you may need to purge your cache. MultipleUpload has not been maintained for a while, and it was really annoying having to manually figure out how to fix it every time. Instead, we now have Special:UploadWizard. It's a bit flaky to load the first time, I usually have to refresh the page. Beyond that, let me know how it works for you. -- Prod (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, everything looks good. I'll let you know if anything doesn't work out. Thanks for your help! =) Embyr 75  --Talk-- 16:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Found another one, but I'm not sure if it's related to the update or not. This image no longer generates a thumbnail (didn't used to have that problem) and as a result it doesn't show up on the front page in its Featured Picture rotation either. It looks pretty ugly. Anyone know why this would suddenly happen? Also, the headers in the sidebar are overlapping the purple strip on the left ever so slightly. Any way to bump them? Embyr 75  --Talk-- 17:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This image doesn't generate one either. :( Embyr 75  --Talk-- 19:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for the report :). -- Prod (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hooray!!! =D Thanks!! Embyr 75  --Talk-- 20:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Found moar possibly related issues. Clicking "Full Resolution" on an image file won't show the full resolution; in fact, the image it generates is usually smaller than the preview (in large screenshots, anyway, such as this one). Also, animated sprites no longer show in the Gallery. They never worked in Galleries anyway, but the first frame would at least show. Now it's empty (See the Screw Attack page for an example). Embyr 75  --Talk-- 23:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The first image appears the same for me. The "Full Resolution" is the same size as the image displayed for me. Perhaps it's a browser issue? As for the second, it looks like it's an issue with thumbnailing again, I may need to increase the memory allocated even more. -- Prod (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, that's odd. I can't rule out that it's a browser issue (I honestly don't know enough about my browser to know what could cause that), but I'm using the latest version of Chrome and I didn't have a problem with it before the update. I checked the file using IE and noticed that the images were much closer in size than when I was using Chrome but the full resolution still didn't seem much bigger, perhaps even a little smaller. If we're certain it's just my computer doing that, it's fine, I just want to be sure it isn't effecting everyone. :P Embyr 75  --Talk-- 03:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I just tried from chrome on my pc (which has 1920x1080 resolution) and the image is slightly bigger. The easiest way I found to compare was by right clicking the image and saying "Open image in new tab". That way you can have the original and thumbnailed picture in tabs to compare. In the end, all that matters is that the original is accessible. When you click the link to the full size version, the address should be
As for the thumbnailing issue, I'm a bit confused about why that isn't working. I tried it on the beta site, and after increasing the memory size, it worked. But I set the memory limit to max on here and it still wouldn't generate. Are there a lot of animated gifs on the site, or is this a rare issue? -- Prod (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, forget the high resolution problem. Yes, it was a problem on my end. And it was so obvious I'm ashamed to tell you what it was. I refuse to divulge!!! XD
But about the thumbnails, there are a few animated gifs around, but not a ton. However, I did notice that this gif, this gif, and this gif aren't loading in galleries or navigation templates, even though they aren't animated. Other animated gifs are working fine. I found these three just browsing the Sprites Category; there are probably more. I don't get why they aren't loading when others are. It's weird. =\ Embyr 75  --Talk-- 00:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've increased the memory limit to what I think should work. Now gotta wait for the cache for those files to expire, which could take a while. I'll see if I can get a full cache purge during the week sometime and we can do a proper test that it's fixed everywhere. -- Prod (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate Image in the Samus fusion gallery?

Random anon here...posted a question on the discussion page :

Refrained from making any edits or anything. Figured I'd just bring it to the editors attention. - unsigned comment from (talkcontribs)

Fixed. MKMetroid mf Sprite.gif 19:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.22

I'm doing some final testing of MediaWiki 1.22 before deploying it here. Please email me or leave a message on my talk page if you're interested in testing it. I'll contact a few of the most active users who reply with access details. -- Prod (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This is now live. Let me know if anyone sees any problems! -- Prod (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks great! Here are some oddities (don't know if all of these are purposeful or not):
  • The "Edit" button for sections is now on the left, just after the header, instead of on the right side of the page (I'm guessing this one is on purpose).
  • The Edit Summary box area when editing is gray, and the font on it is also gray, making it really hard to read.
  • The Table of Contents box now spans the entire article width.
  • I noticed that the Template:Unsigned used just above this post isn't working properly anymore.
I'll add more as I come across them. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 18:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. This is intended and mirrors what wikipedia did.
  2. I've made a change, but it may take some time to get through the cache.
  3. Try clearing your cache, this should be fixed.
  4. WTF Mate?! Not sure what would cause this weird behaviour. I'll have to dig into it. There was an extra space, fixed. -- Prod (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reports! I believe that's all the mentioned issues. Let me know if you see anything else. -- Prod (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for all your hard work! :) Embyr 75  --Talk-- 20:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)