Talk:Main Page
From Inselkampf
(Difference between revisions)
(reverted page after the bastards spammed it) |
(→Logging In) |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | == Tables == | |
| - | + | It would appear that this wiki doesn't support the wiki format for tables, if there are more than 12 rows. This is an issue when updating things like Stone Wall Defences--[[User:Silent1|Silent1]] 22:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT) | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ==Logging In == | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | Is it worth forcing people to register and log in to make changes? | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | It would be a pain, but seems like it has become necessary with all the little kids on the net these days. | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | * You probably should seeing as everything says "have anal sex!" [[User:Ingenious|Ingenious]] 17:59, 26 August 2007 (EDT) | |
| - | + | ** I reverted everything that vandal had done to the world two wikis here --[[User:DCJoeDog|DCJoeDog]] 14:59, 7 September 2007 (EDT) | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | It seems someone made anon login possible again, and guess what, vandals hit the site again, so I made it the way it was. do NOT change it without discussing it first. I know I am not the only admin here so talk about it here first. My argument is that is it controls the vandals, which it seems is true.--[[User:DCJoeDog|DCJoeDog]] 11:16, 24 October 2007 (EDT) | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | == Screen width guidelines == | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | Are we shooting for any specific screen width for view-ability reasons? Pages like the [[Gold Mine]] run into bad formatting business if the viewing window is thinner than 1000 pixels or so. This seems to be a problem mainly because the Prerequisites template runs into the window content, and they overlap ungracefully. Do we care? If there was a minimum width left for the content that the template wouldn't encroach upon (say 460-480 pixels?) this might help, but my kung-fu is not strong in this department. --[[User:Headphones|Headphones]] 15:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT) | |
| - | + | * Yeah, you got me on that one as well, I see what you mean, although I don't know anyone who uses a resolution lower than 1024 these days, so it may not be as big a deal as you may think--[[User:DCJoeDog|DCJoeDog]] 19:43, 17 October 2007 (EDT) | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | * | + | |
| - | * | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | *[[ | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
Current revision as of 15:16, 24 October 2007
Tables
It would appear that this wiki doesn't support the wiki format for tables, if there are more than 12 rows. This is an issue when updating things like Stone Wall Defences--Silent1 22:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Logging In
Is it worth forcing people to register and log in to make changes?
It would be a pain, but seems like it has become necessary with all the little kids on the net these days.
- You probably should seeing as everything says "have anal sex!" Ingenious 17:59, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
- I reverted everything that vandal had done to the world two wikis here --DCJoeDog 14:59, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
It seems someone made anon login possible again, and guess what, vandals hit the site again, so I made it the way it was. do NOT change it without discussing it first. I know I am not the only admin here so talk about it here first. My argument is that is it controls the vandals, which it seems is true.--DCJoeDog 11:16, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
Screen width guidelines
Are we shooting for any specific screen width for view-ability reasons? Pages like the Gold Mine run into bad formatting business if the viewing window is thinner than 1000 pixels or so. This seems to be a problem mainly because the Prerequisites template runs into the window content, and they overlap ungracefully. Do we care? If there was a minimum width left for the content that the template wouldn't encroach upon (say 460-480 pixels?) this might help, but my kung-fu is not strong in this department. --Headphones 15:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- Yeah, you got me on that one as well, I see what you mean, although I don't know anyone who uses a resolution lower than 1024 these days, so it may not be as big a deal as you may think--DCJoeDog 19:43, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
