User talk:Mikk/Archive02

Why "font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif"?

On template:listboxformat and many of the other templates, such as for wiki administration and stuff, you or someone like you has added "font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif" to the style. Is there a reason why specifically Tahoma? As I said on another page (and I don't remember seeing an answer), I prefer a different font, and use that as default. And then Tahoma creeps its ugly head. =/ As it is, the default font on this website is Tahoma anyways. In IE6 (on my brother's computer -- mine is kaput right now), I've changed my font preferences to another font and it still doesn't show up oddly. But in Firefox I changed my preferred font and it does show up. However, this Tahoma comes up which IMO is ugly. Is there a good reason for it, or what? Schmidt 06:49, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

Well, first out, Tahoma isn't the default font in the wiki. The CSS2 generic "sans-serif" is, which means browsers get to pick whatever they please. IE might pick Tahoma, I dunno. The reason I'm using it in some places is because it is much more readable in small type. (Really, there's a world of difference), so if I'm reducing font size, I've gone Tahoma. The wiki administration you're talking about was one last "quick tweak" I did before sending main.css to Rustak that was .. urhm.. not so well though-out. I didn't realize how many places that style was being used in. (New pages list for one. Oops.) Apologies. Let's fix it ASAP when we can, huh? --Mikk 07:44, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

And, yeah, I agree, 12 pt Tahoma is yuck. --Mikk 07:45, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

Yeah, yuck is right. I have seen worse, but the other font I am used to is way better. What do you mean "fix it when we can?" We can't fix the fact that Tahoma makes smaller fonts more readable. (With my font, it looks fine at reduced size on a high-res screen like mine.) So what would be the process to fix it? Classing in CSS? Schmidt 07:59, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

I meant yank it from that one style where it's extra yuck because it doesn't actually end up reducing size (a lot) in some of the admin pages where the yuckiness of large-point Tahoma becomes apparent.

Is small point Tahoma a problem for you as well? Like in the current TOC for example, or in the voting templates? (Yep, that's small-point Tahoma in both of them.) Any ideas on what to replace it with if so? Because telling Joe User to please tell their browser to use a better font to WoWWiki doesn't seem like a realistic option to me. =/   --Mikk 08:05, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

Well, I got my computer running again, thank the light. Tahoma isn't a problem for me, but I wanted to know why you put it there, since I don't like it and at the time it didn't make sense. It looked like you chose that just because you thought it might look good. But the reason is only cosmetic. If it is likely to make it more readable for others, leave it. Because as you say, that isn't realistic. I don't have any ideas for any other fonts that others are likely to have, so I'd say leave it. But if you want to, remove the mention of Tahoma from wherever the font size is not reduced, if you know where it is. Schmidt 10:45, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

It's only in that one place. *patiently waits for in-wiki stylesheet access* --Mikk 11:08, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

I like using Tahoma for the small text, much better than Arial, and gives it a little bit of variety. At least it's not Verdana =) Actually, even better than Tahoma would be Segoe UI, but few have that yet (it's the standard font in Vista, *very* well designed). -- Kirkburn 11:29, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

On a related note, Verdana is actually a kickass heading font. I was liking Main Page Dev 3 better in Opera, so I had to go and look what font Opera was using. I nearly fainted when I saw it was Verdana. Kirkburn: Try changing the x-large headings to Verdana and you'll see. It looks so damn classy it's nearly painful. At least, in my opinion, it does =)   --Mikk 11:34, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

Interesting, interesting :) I'm a huge fan of the new fonts for vista/office 2007 though - they're just sooo good - pity that nearly no-one has them :( I'm using Segoe UI as my OS font, and this is being written in Consolas, and I use Calibri wherever I can (*cough* ClearFont *cough*) -- Kirkburn 15:57, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

Adding Cosmos AddOn pages back into AddOn category too

After last night's cleanup and sorting the pages, I hope you had a chance to mark the remaining AddOn pages with deletemod. Here is what we thought afterwards. We would like to have Cosmos AddOn pages in the AddOns category too, not just Cosmos AddOns. So rather then separating pages like this:

* Cosmos AddOns are in Cosmos AddOns category only
* Other AddOns are in AddOns category only

we would prefer to have it like this:

* Cosmos AddOns are in Cosmos AddOns and AddOns categories
* Other AddOns are in AddOns category only

These should still distinguish between the two categories, for easy scripting. There are several reasons for doing it like this. Cosmos AddOns are also AddOns. Furthermore, a lot of them are available as stand-alones as well, but the Wiki is their only source of documentation, especially the libraries, such as Sea, Khaos etc. but others too. Since the AddOns category is designed (among other things) to be a documentation source for AddOns that don't have documentation elsewhere, and the vast majority of Cosmos AddOns fit this bill, we would like this change. What do you think? Lego 05:36, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Further thought: for some pages, it doesn't make sense to list them in the AddOns category. So we really do need all three possible variations for a page:

* in AddOns only
* in Cosmos AddOns only
* in both

I know that this is back to the situation that it was before yesterday, however at least now the pages would be properly sorted. We can also place some kind of template on the Cosmos AddOns pages, so that people understand this is for AddOns in the package rather than optionally supporting it.

It works fine if there's some sane way of separating them for future cleanup work. I'd suggest a few choice templates that can be placed in the pages. Perhaps a few nicely-formatted boxes that say:

• T:cosmosdep "This third-party AddOn requires Cosmos, but is not included in the Cosmos package."
• T:cosmosoptdep "This AddOn is optionally dependent on Cosmos, i.e. it is configurable through the Cosmos UI, and having Cosmos may improve its usability to some extent."

Does this cover all the bases?

On the libraries... I don't know... Do they really belong in AddOns? They live in Category:Function Libraries also!

Oh, question: Which of these three go in Cosmos Addons? All three? (Just trying to understand, no matter really)

--Mikk 10:29, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

styling project

I thought you would have checked out Project:Styling and its talk page by now. =/ Check it out, man! Lend your thoughts. Schmidt 10:46, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Haha, yeah I still have the watchlist open and that line bold, but someone made lots of changes to Widget API so I'm doublechecking stuff =)

Oh, and I might actually go and get some breakfast first, too :P --Mikk 10:49, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Bah. Who but a mortal needs food? Schmidt 10:54, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Nice refactoring! --Mikk 11:28, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

HOWTO Clarification

I love the "HOWTO: Hook chat frames to modify or suppress messages", but I'm afraid I don't understand how to use it, since you did not include any context to it's use.

Could you give it to us in a rough "addon" version on that page, so we can see how to use it?

If not, then please give those of us coders who are just starting out a understanding of what you are doing. (Comments!)

Thanks!

-Kjasi

Taken care of. --Mikk 14:13, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Yay! Thanks! --Kjasi 14:56, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

Doomhammer Boodah

On Doomhammer Boodah, in tagging for speedydelete, you deleted what had been there. It would be nice if you would leave the article exactly as it is when you tag it so. Also, add a note as you have been – that's fine – but I'd like to see what's there without looking at the history, especially when you say "defamation." Schmidt 03:56, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

There's a problem though. If it's defamation, it shouldn't be viewable. Nor get indexed by search engines crawling over the wiki. At least, that's my take on the matter. What's yours? --Mikk 06:06, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

Ref Project talk:DNP policy on defamation btw. My proposal currently says to delete defamatory content when tagging for speedy deletion. If you disagree violently, now would be a good time to speak up over there =)   --Mikk 06:08, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

See Project:Speedy_deletion#Process:

There should be no removal of text in the process of tagging an article for speedy deletion, no matter what the quality of the text is. If there is a note to be made, it should be made immediately below the flag, and should include whether or not there are any links to the article.

I did make a suggestion over there at Wowpedia talk:DNP policy, btw. Schmidt 13:21, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

deletemod

You've been adding T:deletemod to a lot of mod pages that are worthy of nothing better than deletion, but others too. For some (at least one I've come across), you said "has its own page". But World of Warcraft has its own page, too. If you use that reasoning, there's no reason for this wiki to be around. Schmidt 00:17, 5 July 2006 (EDT)

What I meant was "has the same info and then lots more info at its own dedicated web site". (Pardon, there was a lot of pages to tag =P) This wiki has lots of info that's not readily available elsewhere =)   How about you just zap the ones you don't have any problems with whatsoever and then I can dig deeper for the ones remaining and give more extensive info? --Mikk 05:43, 5 July 2006 (EDT)

Alright. I'll let you know when I've been through them. Schmidt 05:51, 5 July 2006 (EDT)

OK. I'm finished with them. It's surprising that it has taken this long. That's not good! Check through them and let me know if you feel strongly that what is left should also be removed. Hopefully I'll be more responsive next time around. Schmidt 16:43, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

Greetings from a fellow Bloodhoofian!

May your hits be crits, and may loot be plenty ;) Jeoh 10:17, 16 July 2006 (EDT) (yes, a night elf hunter. wtb [Transmute: Hunter to Warrior])

World/Continent

Hey, Mikk. I was wondering why you're removing everything from the World:Azeroth and Continent:Kalimdor/Eastern Kingdoms categories. Is something wrong with the categories?
-Varghedin 15:09, 18 August 2006 (CET)

Well.. "everything" is a bit strong. What's there is very random to begin with. I'm just applying a bit of category policy: an article listed in a sub category (e.g. Zone: Durotar) should not also be listed in a higher category (i.e. continent / world categories). --Mikk 06:56, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Ok, everything beginning with A then :)

I can appreciate removing the world and continent cats from subzones, but from Azshara, Ashenvale, and Arathi Highlands? They should at least be in the Continent cat.

Hum, you're absolutely right. They should be in the continent cat. I'll fix. --Mikk 07:42, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

On another note, if all articles except continent articles are removed from the World category, there won't be many articles in it in the end. Northrend, Kalimdor and Eastern Kingdoms, maybe small isolated islands, not really enough to justify a separate category. Shrug?
-Varghedin 15:27, 18 August 2006 (CET)

There won't be a whole lot in the World:Azeroth category no, but, fact is, the ones that ARE there (ones that do not belong in sub categories), are hidden among all the zone pages spam. Which why I thought cleaning it up be a good idea :-)   --Mikk 07:42, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Some styling

Maybe you forgot our conversation in the API talk page... well, I finished User:Watchout/DevWidget, I'd like to hear your opinion, since it seems that you pull the strings when it comes to styling :)

Yeah, sorry, I've been lagging about. I'll get to it. --Mikk

And... while trying to create the page above, I figured out a quite easy way to make those Stub messages (and others with similar looks) skin-independent: User:Watchout/Stub ... so long -watchout 11:40, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Oh, kinda nice. Except I don't like the standard table background color :-P   I was thinking we'd fix this properly when we finally get CSS access --Mikk 06:19, 26 August 2006 (EDT)