User talk:Burninat0r

Win/Loss records
Ahoy! Somehow your edit to the Sage blockade history seems to have deleted quite some entries ([ diff]). Could it be that you edited an out of date version of the history ? --Alfwyn 12:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there, I generated the new history using a tool I'm working on developing. It looks like I didn't handle parsing red links correctly. Please leave the page be, I will fix my tool and update the page to reflect red links as well tonight! Thanks for pointing it out! --Burninat0r 12:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They should be correct now! --Burninat0r 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The last Sage edit looks weird, Wild Twisted Fun is now at 37 lost blockades. Somehow the lost blockades are now the previous sum of blockades. --Alfwyn 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of errors, I noticed that on Midnight's page, it magically added 4 losses to of doom (which it decided to capitalize as well, the name really is all lowercase). There aren't any losses in the history. --Guppymomma 05:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the versions for Cobalt, Midnight and Sage back for now. They all seemed to suffer from the 'losses=sum of blockades' phenomen. The new version was simply far more inaccurate than the old. --Alfwyn 13:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I think I've finally got Regexen that are working for everything! AFAIK Everything should be golden now, but do bug me if there are any more issues. -- Burni (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Blockades-at-a-glance
Is this your idea for a blockades-at-a-glance table for flag pages? Because I think the one we already have is a while lot better-looking. The fancy colour-coding for sinking/non-sinking is a bit overwhelming, and the curent one gives more information. --Belthazar451 05:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's *an* idea. Do you think the various "won event"/"colonized island"/"lost island", etc. text is necessary? I'm of the opinion that most of it can be relatively easily inferred. I find having to look right to left, up and down, reduces the effectiveness of the template for me personally. -- Burni (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, the color-coding is consistent with the blockade history page, which i feel is a plus. But it could be removed and replaced with text instead.
 * The blockade history page is meant to be just a big list of data. In such a situation, colour-coding and fancy formatting to aid in data comprehension is appropriate, even if it comes at the expense of prettiness. However, the point of flag articles is the flag, not the data. For that we need something a little more succinct and less overwhelming. Is my opinion, in any case. --Belthazar451 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does User:Burninat0r/sandbox2 look any better to you? My _primary_ concern is the way the data is laid out. I'd prefer to see a table format like this to the multiple infoboxes, as it feels more organized. -- Burni (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit better without the clear at the top. If a clear is desperately needed, it can be manually added, but for the most part it's either not necessary, or is a disadvantage. The BK flag articles are the prime example of where we'd not want a clear. --Belthazar451 09:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm changing it to no clear for the moment, but take a look and see why I don't like it: 1) Everything's pushed together, 2) The extra space at the right won't get used below the float:right stuff. Do you still think it's better this way?
 * Better than the far larger empty space to the left of all the infoboxes if you do have the auto-clear. That everything can be pushed together is one of the main advantages of your replacement - don't lose that advantage by forcing it to be pushed below everything. Secondly, the best place for a clear is above the section heading, not below, so that the section heading doesn't get widely separated from the section - that is, before the template call. And incidentally, I was already typing this reply when I got your message. You don't need to remind me. =Þ --Belthazar451 09:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But the section heading isn't part of the template! =O =O Must do it all so it doesn't require manual intervention! &lt;/sarcasm&gt; I'll leave it as is then. Most non-bk flag pages with any decent info will have it lower on the page, thankfully. -- Burni (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You could always wrap the template with another template. I see the issue with the flag infos taking up so much height. The usage of the clear template is required before the section header for the table, but then a TOC needs to be forced on top to quickly jump down to the history table. The table looks really nice btw. I like it way much more than the old boxes. --Kamuflaro 00:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give a link to a page where the non-clear version displays suboptimal ? I'm too lazy to go hunting :P --Alfwyn 11:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any BK page. However, note that I've had the non-stretch skin on all the time... I just switched to the stretch skin and it looks a lot better (1280 width screen). I wonder how many people are using the stretch skin, the non-stretch was my default. -- Burni (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You deserve a medal!


Hehe =D - I think you need a medal for all the work you have done fixing up the blockade templates and stuff, so I made you one =) You have done an awesome job! Adrielle =) 11:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. -- Burni (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * :O You got a special Adrielle like Barnstar, 1st person ever! Anyway, nice work mate =) --Lcawte 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mass edits
Next time there is another mass editing project, please make sure to mark the edit as minor so it can be hidden in recent changes. --Guppymomma 14:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's the purpose of the minor flag? If I had known I would have done it this time, but since the edits were not "minor" obviously I didn't select it. -- Burni (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, as long as the formatting change has been discussed and consensus reached that it would be fine, switching a template on pages without really changing the actual information content is considered minor. --Guppymomma 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks for the tip. -- Burni (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)