Talk:Hunter blockade history

Factcheck
The Brigand King power of Iocane XV was changed from 2 to 8, while the edit history of Current Hunter blockades shows a power of 3. --Alfwyn 09:18, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
 * I'll change it to 3 according to this Hunter Parley post--Alfwyn 11:27, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

Doyle Blockade, March 23rd
I can't seem to add in the March 23 2008 blockade on Doyle. --DonteLewis 7:06, 23 March 2008 (PDT)


 * Exactly what's the problem ? Do you get some kind of error message ? --Alfwyn 08:12, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Well, I've followed the old templates of adding new blockades with new dates, but it just gets combined with the March 22 2008 blockades. --DonteLewis 3:35, 24 March 2008 (PDT)


 * That was because of the line '', stating that there would be 3 blockade entries for march 22nd. I changed that to 2, adding the 23rd blockades should be no problem now. --Alfwyn 05:25, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

Win/Loss records
I don't like the fact, that the recent changes to the Win/Loss records were just undone, without any comment or discussion as to why. If someone put a lot of work into something, he should be at least given a reason as to why the changes aren't wanted.

That said, I prefer the old layout of the table, the new makes it hard to find out the actual win/loss record in some case (example, Death's Daggers ebtry at Sage_blockade_history) and makes it hard to add new entries (easy to messs up). --Alfwyn 15:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The table layout was done to match the consistency of the other Blockade by Ocean tables. They weren't "just" undone, they were double checked.  Many entries were out of alphabetical order and some were just missing.  In regards to the table formatting, I didnt start it but it's only an argument to difficuty now?-- Haywoodx(t/c) 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If I wasn't clear, I was referring to the undoing of your changes here and the Malachite blockade history. --Alfwyn 16:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I am not enitely happy with having 6 hours of work or more cast aside, but I never liked the "|rowspan=" tabling becuase it IS easy to mess up and hard to update, thats why I assumed you were referring to my changes instead of the other way around.

I'm open to proceeding with a concencus decision on the table formatting as long as it is consistent across all Blockade Ocean History Pages. Removal of the "|rowspan=" tabling so that every entry has a Win_count|Loss_Count|Percentage.


 * I like the removal of the rowspan in the tables. It was a lot of work to keep it looking correct and did not make it easy for less experienced users to edit.  I personally would like to see the tables simplified even further with the user of a template.  So rather then having to type
 * |bgcolor="#D0E7FF" align="center"| Coerced Coexistence || | 14 || 0 || 1.000
 * |bgcolor="#D0E7FF" align="center"| Coerced Coexistence || | 14 || 0 || 1.000


 * for each entry, I could instead type something along the lines of
 * and all of the extra information would be handled in the background. The percentage could actually be calculated automatically and appear as 100 rather then 1.000, the background color would be handled by the template, as well as any other necessary formatting.  All of the table setup could be done with a  and  type of template as well which will make editing the page a lot simpler as well..
 * and all of the extra information would be handled in the background. The percentage could actually be calculated automatically and appear as 100 rather then 1.000, the background color would be handled by the template, as well as any other necessary formatting.  All of the table setup could be done with a  and  type of template as well which will make editing the page a lot simpler as well..


 * What I don't like about that idea is the precedence in order is currently placed on the percentile figure. If that portion of the output is automatically configured, the template won't sort it and editors won't either.  This leaves us to decide on another precedence order; such as alphabetically.-- Haywoodx(t/c) 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who originally set-up the Blockade Wins by Flag template; since May 2008 up to the present I've been primarily the user dedicated to maintaining the blatently confusing format. I ordered flags by percentage precedence; in the event of a tie, I moved to alphabetical order. I endorse Cedarwings discussion to remove the "|rowspan=" in favor of a template. Also, what would be the difficulty is possibly setting up a "Howto:" page for new users to update the table? I can piece one together in my sandbox if needed. --Mwagner 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of a sortable table, like the one below is now, could mean that we can place the entries in alphabetical order and anyone change change how the tables are sorted as they like. I think will please more people.  -- Cedarwings (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that is pimp and I whole heartedly endorse that product or service. I didn;t know you could do that and I looked around for a way with no luck.  I have so much to learn.  /me bows.-- Haywoodx(t/c) 04:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to make a sortable table on this wiki once before (though I don't recall what it was for) but I couldn't seem to get it to work. --Belthazar451 05:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It might have been before the MediaWiki upgrade. Sortable tables required version 1.9.  -- Cedarwings (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So, the one issue that suddenly occurs to me with regard to this template is flags with disambiguated names. Jinx (flag) is the perfect example. Do we want another parameter for a disambiguation tag? --Belthazar451 06:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good point. I'm working on it, although I think I'm missing something in the ifndef statement that I can't find right now, but, the entries will now be  and disambig name will only be required for flags that require it.  -- Cedarwings (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I broke it and I can't fix it right now. My brain is officially fried.  If someone wishes to figure out what I did wrong, go right ahead.  In theory it works in my head but in practice I'm missing something.  I'll look at it later.  -- Cedarwings (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I managed to get it linking again, but it's still not disambiguating properly, and I don't understand the ifdef template well enough to figure out why. That template really needs usage notes. --Belthazar451 08:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Works now. But I think it would be better to just use it like Jinx (flag)|Jinx and scrap the second parameter. Using | has the advantage to (potentially) work in every auto-link case, so one hasn't to look up how to do disambiguated auto-links with the specific template. --Alfwyn 10:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It suddenly occured to me that with the sortable table, there's no need to be reordering the flags all the time - just list them in alphabetical order, and people can re-sort as they see fit. The order that is displayed by default is the order they're written in, but maybe there's some way to change that? Also, I'm thinking there's some way to use Excel to easily transform the current tables to the new template structure. --Belthazar451 20:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While we are at it, someone brought up the notion that a flag that participated in more blockades, regardless of record would be more prominant that a flag that participated in a single winning blockade. How hard would it be to use this new template table with sorting function to add a total blockades column or is it really that necesary?-- Haywoodx(t/c) 03:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Somthing else that came to my mind while mocking up Malachites W/L table in my sandbox is now that the table sorts alphabetically by function, it won't ignore the article "The" like we do when sorting objects manually on other lists throghtout the wiki. Please refer to my sandbox for my suggested workaround.-- Haywoodx(t/c) 17:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the totals column. It doesn't really change the difficulty factor of entering in new data.  Calculated columns are easy.  I like the suggestion for flag names that include "The".  As for default order of things, I searched around briefly, but I wish there was a default sort order so that things could just get added to the list and we wouldn't have to keep it in any particular order.  That being said, when I go looking to add a blockade win or loss to a flag name, I want to be able to search through the list alphabetically to find the entry I'm looking for.  -- Cedarwings (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a couple entries in the Hunter blockade history (there will probably be others on other oceans) that need to get sorted out. There are a couple of entries that include more then one flag name, like Vilya/Bakers Union/Apple Pie and Piraten der Weltmeere/Deutsche Kaiserflotte.  How should we handle these and similar entries?  -- Cedarwings (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note, I think it'd be preferable to have real flag names as examples for the usage notes. The ones used there just ain't pretty... that and it makes things appear in the Wanted Pages list. --Belthazar451 15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Change was made.  I also prefer the use of Displayed name in usage notes and hiding the formula errors that Alfwyn made.  -- Cedarwings (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Great work on the template mates! I'm working right now on moving to the new one the Sage Cade History Win/Loss table. Here's how it looks like User:Ceci1980/Sandbox. If everything is ok with template I can get started on the other ones (Midnight is probably going to take days! lol) --Cecidrake 18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it looks like we are at an implementation stage and Cecidrake has given us a start with Sage and Malachite (sure take the easy one :P). Everything looks good so far. Re-reading through all of the above notes, and also have another look at all the blockade history pages it appears as though the only outstanding issue to be dealt with is with a couple of entries on Sage that contain multiple flag names. I have a feeling we are going to need to split each of those entries up unless someone has another idea. -- Cedarwings (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was Hunter with the entries with multiple flag names and I went ahead and split them up. You can take a look at how it turned out in my sandbox. I'm moving to the three big oceans tonight, so guess that by the end of the weekend we should have everything in place.--Cecidrake 23:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why split them up, just combine them like normal in the display field and link the current flag in the linking field. The result would be the same regardless.  If you split them up the defunt merged page will either be inactive and display a broken link or page up a redirect to the merged-to flag page anyway.  Also, I have midnight almost wrapped up.  I have it covered.-- Haywoodx(t/c) 00:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok got everything done (Should have read here while I was doing it... Have the whole Midnight one stored in Notepad Haywood! lol) About the Hunter multiple flag names. There were three entries with that problem. One of them had 2 flags with no wiki pages, second one was a renamed flag and the other one had all the Three Rings flags on one entry. Since the first case had no wiki pages... guess no problem in splitting them up, and if they were the same flag but renamed we can't really know unless some savvy Hunter player tells us the story. The one about the renamed flag still has the 2 names so it links to the correct place. The different ringer flags have different entries in other cade histories so guess it looks better and since each of them has a different page, no messing with broken links or redirects. Poof! Had fun doing all this! The template is great as I said before! Cheers mates!--Cecidrake 04:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * Support - makes moving entries up and down the list easier without breaking the table. Even though I have no problems with it, novice editors usually booch it. -- Haywoodx(t´/c)


 * Support - as per comments above --Alfwyn 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely remove the rowspan= but maybe look at additional simplification. (see my notes above)  -- Cedarwings (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Much simpler. =) --Belthazar451 05:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm loving the new template example below, the fact that the percentage doesn't have to be added manually is great! As a frequent editor of Blockade Histories who usually ignored the win/loss table, the template below would make it much more easy for me to keep it up to date. --Cecidrake 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - The template below is seamless. --Mwagner 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

February 7, Aimuari XII
Unfortunately, the BK strength of 40 breaks any form of table. I wrote down all the notes that seems significant to the table. This someone know how to clean this up?
 * This is another case of IE breaking on something that Firefox can handle fine, I think. The easiest solution is to either force the cell to a specific width, or to manually insert linebreaks into the bk strength sub-template. --Belthazar451 05:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I lean towards replicating the cell width, but I'm looking a bit into other solutions. We can't be the only ones having this sort of problem and you can tweak the table layout algorithm a bit via style sheets. Another thing, it looks broken with IE6, but what about IE7 (don't have access to one right now) ? --Alfwyn 14:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IE7 has the same problem. All ship icons in the same row, and the note section pushed into the blue area. --Thunderbird 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Using style="table-layout:fixed" seems to be the cure for IE and displays well with my (ancient) Mozilla too. My Iceweasel sporadically (and unpredictably) drops some of the table borders on the second example upon reload (minor problem). Any problems with other browsers on the second example? If not I would incorporate the change into blockstart. --Alfwyn 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good in IE7. I don't have access to IE6 anymore so I can't check that.  -- Cedarwings (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

 * -valign="top"

{| border=1 cellpadding=7 cellspacing=0 style="border-collapse:collapse; margin:0em 0em 1em 1em; table-layout:fixed" !style="background:#ddd;" width="100"|Date !style="background:#ddd;" width="90"|Blockade !style="background:#ddd;" width="225"|Flags & Scores !style="background:#ddd;" width="250"|Notes
 * - valign="top"
 * -valign="top"


 * -valign="top"


 * - valign="top"

Doyle XVII
It appears the date for Doyle XVII is wrong. April 25 was Doyle XVI, in fact this date is mentioned twice. I assume the 2nd time it got mentioned, should be May 30 or 31. Someone verify this?


 * The intent post says May 30, I'll change it accordingly. --Alfwyn 14:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Impartiality
I believe that this section should be an impartial. If a contributer cannot keep it that way and feel the need to tart, then they should not be one and should just stay in parley. This is why I edited grizzly's potshot edit.