I know you've been trying for a while, and as someone who has slipped up here before with that, I know what a blow it can be to be set back. However, I was hoping you'd keep trying and you were able to keep going and push through.
It'll be a mix of old and new images so we don't end up with a bunch of near-duplicates floating around. Gonna look through the galleries and my own folders today so I know where I'll need to bring my camera in-game.
I've noticed you swapping out the code for the gallery scrollboxes and I'm curious what effect this has compared to the old code. I'm also at the point where scrollboxes are becoming relevant to the galleries at the TAZ wiki so any wisdom you have on the subject is appreciated. ^^
The main problem with the old code was that it defined a set width in pixels for the box, which can cause issues. As I was fixing this I started to realize that if I was editing the style for all those pages anyways, I might as well put the style rules in a CSS class. This has the advantage of allowing any further change to the scrollboxes to be made by editing only the CSS page instead of many pages, and it also makes the source code much less cluttered.
If you want to use scrollboxes in the same way, you'll have to add the class to the wiki's CSS page.
May I ask what difference is now being applied to the infoboxes on some of the mission pages? I notice the difference in the code itself, but what actual difference does it make and why is it being applied?
I did a before and after look, and nothing (visually) is changed, at least that I could tell..
I posted this to my tumblr at some point, if I recall correctly I grabbed the image from one of the official videos about dh2 before the launch. I don't think they ever mentioned the paintings directly in the video but the fact that they're clearly visible should be enough of a source if anyone finds the video. I think it may have been about the art of dh2 but its been a while so I can't be certain, hopefully one of y'all know what I'm talking about though.
Just a thing I noticed: you've recently been changing scrolling galleries from "width:675px" to "width:100%". While this probably makes a difference on some screens (not mine, so I couldn't say for sure), it's also technically in violation of the Manual of Style. Perhaps you'd better bring it up and get the MoS changed? Otherwise, people are going to continue using the "width:675px" scrollbox because they've copied the code from the MoS, so we'll have differences in scrollboxes, some looking better than others.
Hmm, I guess so. I thought such a change wouldn't need to be brought up, as it's all upside as far as I'm aware.
Here's a page that has the old, fixed width: Royal Conservatory. For me, it looks like this. As you can see, the width box only allows for two columns of images instead of the usual three.
The Dreadful Wale page tries to fix this by adding columns="3" to the gallery, forcing it to have three columns. For me it results in this. A scrollbar is awkwardly added to the bottom due to the gallery being wider than the box surrounding it. Far from pleasing if you ask me.
I've been fixing this by setting the width to 100%, which solved has solved my, though today I found out that I could just not set the width at all instead. If anyone has troubles or questions, let me know.
I'm currently testing a better way to make galleries scroll, which you can view on my user page.
If I may, the Royal Conservatory page has three columns for the gallery and the Dreadful Wale page has no scroll bar at the bottom. Unless I'm missing something, it appears to be something on your end, Ox.
I have to agree with Epic, for me both your examples have three columns and look exactly the same.
Edit: If the goal is to have the gallery width spanning the page instead of about 2/3 of it, then I think 100% would work better than any width you could set because of different screens/screen resolutions.
I'd also prefer the scrollable gallery with a box around it, because a scrollbar on the side of an otherwise "open" gallery (as currently shown on your user page) looks pretty awkward to me.
Blood Ox wrote: Hmm, I guess so. I thought such a change wouldn't need to be brought up, as it's all upside as far as I'm aware.
I'm sorry, what? Isn't this how the whole issue with the unnecessary italization of the page titles and the debacle that followed it happened?
As far as I am aware we don't change the codes (or anything else here) simply because one person doesn't like it. If there is a problem on your end, then that's something you should resolve yourself rather than deciding to change policy/presentation simply because it doesn't suit you personally.
You italicized the article titles without asking anyone else simply because "That's the way Wikipedia does it."
You added magic words like the DefaultSort without asking or consulting anyone (at least as far as I know) to change the sorting of the article titles. And afterwards, specific instructions were not provided to people so that the titles were being added incorrectly. Numerous edits for the sorting had to be redone (and basically resulted in several unnecessary extra edits to correct them) just because you wished to add this to the pages.
I would ask in the future that you quit adding codes or new style techniques to pages/articles simply because you like them or think they are neat. If you would like a change in formatting, presentation, or anything else in the rules, then ask or bring it to an admin's attention ahead of time. No other wiki I admin on has editors change up presentations or MoS like this willy-nilly as it's considered disruptive.
I'm not a fan of the italicized page titles nor of the NavBoxes that make searches more difficult. Despite this, I don't just start changing up formatting and presentation simply because I don't like them.
@Ox: Sorry for not getting back at you sooner. Real life is taking its toll at the moment. The example scrollbox on your user page looks fine to me, I will try and get on chat tomorrow evening so that we can do what needs to be done.