Template talk:Navbox Patch Notes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Thirty7 |
imported>Sekoia |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
: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? —[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] 03:40, 6 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? —[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] 03:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
Using 2005-08-31 as an example, here's previous: | |||
{{#dpl: | |||
| titlematch=Patch Notes/%-%-% | |||
| title<=Patch Notes/2005-08-31 | |||
| namespace= | |||
| order=ascending | |||
| count=1 | |||
| allowcachedresults=yes | |||
| suppresserrors=true | |||
}} | |||
And here's next: | |||
{{#dpl: | |||
| titlematch=Patch Notes/%-%-% | |||
| title>=Patch Notes/2005-08-31 | |||
| namespace= | |||
| order=ascending | |||
| count=1 | |||
| allowcachedresults=yes | |||
| suppresserrors=true | |||
}} | |||
So it's definitely doable. Formatting it properly would require more complexity, but still achievable. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 04:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:51, 6 January 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)
- 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
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:
And here's next:
So it's definitely doable. Formatting it properly would require more complexity, but still achievable. -- Sekoia 04:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)