Table formatting Edit
Howdy. I saw you took out the table column widths on the chem table of the crafting page. I checked both diffs and didn't see anything bad with the layout in multiple screen sizes. Did you have some kind of rendering issue that you saw? If so, would you let me know what it was, what browser and what resolution you were seeing it at? Thanks. 01:06, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
- Howdy. Thanks for hyperlinking the article so I could instantly follow what article you are talking about. Yes, those chems! When reading the article with screen resolution high enough, the width=100% creates artistically pleasant and neatly formatted picture. Sadly that does not mean it is nice to read when your eyes are jumping from another side to another and majority of the stuff between is empty (pale green) space. The food and medicine parts show this well. In a nutshell, forcing table widths should be done only when handling pictures, making tables airy or nice looking should be left for CSS markup. % width makes nice looking stuff, but rarely nicely readable. BlackSmith (talk) 18:32, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
Tables, widths and you! Edit
Howdy, I'm just popping by to inquire as to what exactly the issue is with the tables and the widths. In one of your edit summaries you mentioned that it didn't work right on mobile or very large screens, however, for my mobile at least it worked just fine. As you seem to be the first user that has had an issue with this that I know of I'd like to know what exactly the issue is. Additionally, do not edit war. Richie9999 (talk) 02:25, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop changing our table formatting. If you feel that the full width tables are a problem, I'd like you to bring it up in a forum to discuss it. We have literally 1000s of full width tables on this site. I really don't want any changes made without some kind of discussion. 02:27, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
- What does worked fine mean to you? Having a row that has as much empty space around it as its context can be seen as 'working' but also heavy to read with wide screens. Neither are tables that are forced to be tall opposite to automatic positioning that results in to (in most case) more compact view. Specially in thinner views.
- I have reverted someone else's revert once, thus please don't go plural. About that case, my edits have got solid points why and what. The reverts grounding was 'because I understand it and the game uses that format' to what I pointed out that I made it more informative to people that are interested about the net gain and to those that use global metrics.
- I haven't changed thousands of tables, just the ones that work badly with fixed width, have no benefit/reason for fixed width. If width=100% is policy in the wiki (that it is not) I would see the point bring it up to be changed. Also reverting table width changes should have even some kind of a solid grounding. As not all tables have the same content, using it as a reason holds no water.
- If you look closely, the "extra" /BR's are removed when there is nothing else after them. Making a new break for nothing is kinda useless don't you think? If you mean the empty line after |'s, then i fail to see how it helps new editors. It is not consistent through the wiki nor there is no reason to place such empty newlines. In worst case scenarios, such 'policy' would result in wide table/style breaks as empty line breaks result into new paragraphs that in turn can change the style as per CSS. Oh and in most likely because of the extra break lines, you are forced to do extra magic as the browser can't make the optimal layout.
Häppy new year BlackSmith (talk) 18:04, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
You may find it a bit of a lousy thing to do, but I deleted your forum about a seperate Fallout wiki. We have a bad history concerning a similar thing in the past (I can tell from personal experience) and I don't want it repeated. Sorry but that's how it is. Jspoel 14:49, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed that was a dick move to do. Especially from a veteran editor like yourself thus you know the rules about removing discussions. Its sad to heard that there has been a hard dispute among editors that you haven't been able to resolve, yet it's even more sad to have a wiki that is announced to be about fallout 4, yet more than half of the info returned to the reader is not about the game. So who should I contact for releasing the fallout4 namespace? BlackSmith (talk) 05:39, November 23, 2015 (UTC)