[thesalus]

I'm finding that the quotes, as they are right now, are lacking a certain polish that was present in the old wiki.

For example:
Article on Old Wiki.
Old Article on new Wiki.

I tried fixing this up in the current version of the Kalam article:
The now deprecated box class for spans, I replaced with:

<span style="border: 1px solid #b8b7b7;background:#fbfbfb;color: #000000;padding:0 2px;">

And for the quotes (formerly the breakout class), I used:

<div style="padding:10px;margin:20px;margin:20px;border:1px solid #666;">

But the WYSIWYG editor makes the source code somewhat ugly, and it'd be a lot easier if they were added to the css templates. (assuming they're adopted as standards)

Speaking of standards, we should probably whip up a page to unify them and inform new users. (Or this page should be updated.)

This post has been edited by thesalus: 06 November 2008 - 12:39 AM

[D'rek]

Yeah, it would be nice to get a quote-dividing layout like the old style. Doesn't have to be a gargantuous box like the old one, but something would be good. As it is, the removal of the old formatting also makes the quotes very confusing as you'll get something like:

Quote

"Quote 1 text
blah
blah"

Quote 1 Reference
"Quote 2 text
blah blah
blah blah
blah blah"

Quote 2 Reference
"Quote 3 text
blah blah"

etc, where the spacing that defaults from it being in the old formatting makes it look like the references are above their quote (ie it looks like the Quote 1 reference is for Quote 2, etc) and thus we need to switch it to something like:

Quote

"Quote 1 text
blah
blah"
-Quote 1 Reference

"Quote 2 text
blah blah
blah blah
blah blah"
-Quote 2 Reference

"Quote 3 text
blah blah"

This post has been edited by D'rek: 06 November 2008 - 03:50 AM

[Imperial Historian]

thesalus, on Nov 6 2008, 01:37 AM, said:

I'm finding that the quotes, as they are right now, are lacking a certain polish that was present in the old wiki.

But the WYSIWYG editor makes the source code somewhat ugly, and it'd be a lot easier if they were added to the css templates. (assuming they're adopted as standards)

Speaking of standards, we should probably whip up a page to unify them and inform new users. (Or this page should be updated.)

I agree, I much prefered the old quote layout, and the standards page does drastically need to be updated.

Using the code you suggested does give a better look, but I don't think we can add things to the css templates (I can't find any such option anyway, if someone can find out how to and let me know I'll definitely do it), and it would be a major job to edit the formating as you suggest, if anyone can come up with a better option for editing quotes using what's available and easy we might adopt that. I'll have a look at any suggestions people come up with and update the standards page at the weekend.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Hey, did you guys set something down for this? I never did work out how to make those text boxes in the old one, and don't know now either. How about a spoiler policy too? I was experimenting with this format in the new wiki:

http://encyclopediamalazica.pbwiki.com/How...he+spoiler+tags

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 13 December 2008 - 08:31 PM

[D'rek]

We haven't really been bothering with spoiler-tagging anything, I think mostly because there are too many things that occur in early novels that would require us to spoiler a ludicrous amount of other things, and in the end the wiki would be more spoiler-tagged than not.

Or we're just lazy...

This post has been edited by D'rek: 05 February 2010 - 09:59 PM

[Dolorous Menhir]

D'rek, on Dec 13 2008, 11:47 PM, said:

We haven't really been bothering with spoiler-tagging anything, I think mostly because there are too many things that occur in early novels that would require us to spoiler a ludicrous amount of other things, and in the end the wiki would be more spoiler-tagged than not.

Or we're just lazy...

That's fair enough, but I was originally given responsibility for the FAQ's - and I think a spoiler policy is needed there, at least in the book specific FAQ's.

I agree, it would be unworkable elsewhere in the Wiki.