View source for Talk:Midnight blockade history

{{Migration article|
*Barrister
*Blinkoing
*Callistan
*Guppymomma
*VPeric
*Yaten
*66.92.184.115
*81.179.241.112
*141.157.240.38
}}
{{TOCright}}
== Ye Olde Date Talke ==
Can anyone jog my memory and remind me why the April 2005, etc. headers are linked? --[[User:Guppymomma|Guppymomma]] 28 July 2005 16:40 (PDT)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Date_formatting This article] -- international users get dates to show up in their proper format. {{User:Yaten/sig}} 28 July 2005 18:07 (PDT)
::Ah.  Only the month year doesn't work with that according to that page. "If the date does not contain a day and a month, then date preferences do not work. In such cases, square brackets around dates do not respond to user preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it."  So in light of that, I suggest removing them as it just makes them show up on the Wanted Pages. --[[User:Guppymomma|Guppymomma]] 28 July 2005 18:40 (PDT)
::I'm also not sure if it's turned on at all in this wiki because my preferred date format is day month year and even the month day dates on the blockade pages just show up as red month day links. --[[User:Guppymomma|Guppymomma]] 29 July 2005 07:19 (PDT)

Do date links make sense? Why would anyone look up "June 25?" Maybe "June 25, 2005" if that was a heavy blockade weekend, I suppose. A category of "2005" could be put on any page describing events that happened this year, and the list would at least be automagically updated. Is it just me? --[[User:AtteSmythe|AtteSmythe]] 11:03, 3 August 2005 (PDT)
:I agree, but [[Talk:Midnight_blockade_history]] talks about how dates are corrected for locale in wikis if made into a link. I'm not sure I see the value in it either though. {{User:Callistan/sig}} 11:27, 3 August 2005 (PDT)
::They have date links in wikipedia because they have "on this day" pages. I don't think it makes sense on the YPPedia though. --[[User:Nicksterv|Nickster]] | [[User talk:Nicksterv|Talk]] 11:28, 3 August 2005 (PDT)
:::This is my fault.  I copied the format from Wikipedia.  Should we just delete the date links?  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 11:41, 3 August 2005 (PDT)
::::I think they should be zapped.  The linking doesn't even format them like it does at wikipedia. --[[User:Guppymomma|Guppymomma]] 11:42, 3 August 2005 (PDT)
:::::I'll take care of the blockade histories, then.  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 11:45, 3 August 2005 (PDT)
:: Ah, thanks for the link to [[Talk:Midnight blockade history]] - I'd missed that discussion. --[[User:AtteSmythe|AtteSmythe]] 11:45, 3 August 2005 (PDT)

==Endurance and Gaea==
When were they transferred to Heavens Aligned? {{User:Yaten/sig}} 29 July 2005 11:05 (PDT)

: I should have the exact date soon.  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 29 July 2005 12:12 (PDT)

== Event blockades ==

I'm assuming we plan on keeping track of these (since a handful of others are already here). Should we continue to classify them as regular blockades, or do something else?

Also, under the event blockades of the Ringer held islands, a note says: "Regardless of scoring, Vilya was guaranteed to win." This isn't completely accurate, as if the island changed hands (as Jorvik did for its event), it would simply be taken back. This is also in the plan for the event blockades that are coming. --[[User:Thunderbird|Thunderbird]] 13:02, 16 March 2006 (PST)

:I'd like to keep track of the event blockades, unless they became extremely frequent.  And, yes you're right, the phrase "guaranteed to win" is inaccurate.  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 13:11, 16 March 2006 (PST)

== Meke V ==

''First blockade to have all three rounds won for the defender by an unallied faction.'' <--I'm pretty sure this isn't true. As I recall, Vilya's blockade victory at Guava I was due to unallied defenders (CT primarily, I think). --[[User:Thunderbird|Thunderbird]] 16:01, 20 March 2006 (PST)

: Good catch.  Nuke the comment.  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 16:36, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Before my time, apologies. --[[User:Piplicus|Pip]]<sup>([[User talk:Piplicus|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Piplicus|c]]|[[User:Piplicus/Projects needing help|p]])</sup> 22:45, 20 March 2006 (PST)

== Winter II ==

I filled in the scores based on the note, and the fact that Brew Works disbanded before the blockade actually started (I remember wondering what was going to happen to the blockade when that happened). Since Brew Works disbanded before the blockade started, it could not have won any rounds. --[[User:Thunderbird|Thunderbird]] 16:41, 22 March 2006 (PST)

: Small problem.  That was back when we had 12-round blockades.  If the blockade had run its natural course, it would have lasted 6 rounds.  But, I'm nearly certain it was cut short.  Possibly around 4. --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 16:43, 22 March 2006 (PST)

:: Well, the info said the blockade was cut short (it says after 3 rounds). I used that when filling in the data. --[[User:Thunderbird|Thunderbird]] 16:45, 22 March 2006 (PST)

::: Oh, er, yeah.  Whoops!  Carry on.  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 16:46, 22 March 2006 (PST)

== Reorganising Blockade History ==

Due to the sheer length of this page, would it be a good idea if it was archived up into years? Maybe leaving 2006 on the front main page - as it is the current. This could go for all the blockade history pages. (I volunteer for archiving!)--[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 16:04, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
:I'd rather find a more compact way of representing the blockades.  Perhaps using tables with a cell for each blockade.  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 23:37, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
::Are you thinking new table for each month or just one large table. I'll spend some time later having a play with one. --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 04:05, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
:::Haven't thought it through that far.  But the current layout wastes a lot of space.  I should know since I created it. :-) --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 04:12, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
::::Yeah nevermind bout what I said before - this layout seems to work. See [[User:Sagacious/Blockade_History_Rework#April 2004 (Mock 1)|Mock 1]] and [[User:Sagacious/Blockade_History_Rework#April 2004 (Mock 2)|Mock 2]] for the two table ideas I've come up with. I prefer table 2. --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 11:45, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
:I think it is swaying towards [[User:Sagacious/Blockade_History_Rework#April 2004 (Mock 2)|Mock 2]] - coz tiz better. Just need some feedback as to how that looks and anything that might need changing. I'm itching to get on with revamping the history pages :-P *pant* --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 08:46, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
::Well, just because you're asking for feedback, I agree that your "Mock 2" table is definitely cleaner and easier to follow than any other existing or proposed layout. Two extremely minor, nit-picky points though: 1) if it's possible, center the island name and roman numeral in the cell rather than left/top-justified.  2) no need to underline the header/title cells (Date, Blockade, Notes, etc.)  --[[User:Rixation|Rixation]]<sup>([[User_talk:Rixation|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Rixation|c]])</sup> 09:09, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
:::I thought the underlining of lables added to presentation... it will probably be a pain to wiki code that specific column to be centered. I think it looks ok top left. --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 10:35, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

So I hate to bring this up, but with the advent of the default values thing, it would be possible to template this using a single template with various options. It could make it easier for folks to add new blockades if you think about it in a long-term future upkeep kinda way. --[[User:Guppymomma|Guppymomma]] 13:37, 2 July 2006 (PDT)
:Was much easier when converting the old pages to the new format to do it the way it is now. To rewrite it into a single template thing is now possible, but would most likely require much more re-writing. I might have a look and see if I can make a template that won't be too much work to convert. --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 13:42, 2 July 2006 (PDT)

I have a new template to replace <nowiki>{{blockid}}</nowiki>.  It takes up to 9 contenders and 5 notes.  It defaults to having no defender (with a zero score). Take a look at [[User:Barrister/Sandbox]].  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 15:38, 3 July 2006 (PDT)

:Looks really nice.  It combines Sagacious' nice work on readable, compact formatting with the fun new default values templatey goodness for all to easily understand how to use. --[[User:Guppymomma|Guppymomma]] 16:35, 3 July 2006 (PDT)
::Shiny - but how much re-coding will it take to put that template in use? --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 16:56, 3 July 2006 (PDT)

:::It will be tedious, but not that much.  I'll be glad to take a stab at it sometime this week unless Barrster tackles it first.  This will make it easier for new people to continue upkeep of the blockade history pages. --[[User:Guppymomma|Guppymomma]] 17:09, 3 July 2006 (PDT)

==New Icons?==
:I added in some defender/contender icons to try out. Do they look good? --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 07:07, 2 July 2006 (PDT)
:: I didn't reply in time to weigh in on the looks, but I think they work really well. Would some visual indication of the side that won the blockade (red or green), such as a thin inner border or very faint cell background be too gaudy? I find my eye skipping over the bolding because it's part of a blue link. That may just be me, though. --[[User:AtteSmythe|AtteSmythe]] 22:20, 3 July 2006 (PDT)
::: The flag names aren't in individual cells, so we'd need another way of emphasizing them.  Suggestions beyond font color?  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 22:30, 3 July 2006 (PDT)

:::: Crude, 1:30AM thoughts: The table could probably use some color, but this is likely way too much. --[[User:AtteSmythe|AtteSmythe]] 22:44, 3 July 2006 (PDT)

:::::Less cell padding, shorter article, less wasted space. Aside from that - Oooo colours. --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 03:35, 4 July 2006 (PDT)
:::::: Didn't look like that last night. Looks like Barrister is in the middle of format tweaking, and since the example below uses the blockade templates, it'll be affected by that. --[[User:AtteSmythe|AtteSmythe]] 12:48, 4 July 2006 (PDT)

:::::Maybe lighten up the color and remove the border and just do it for the winner. --[[User:Guppymomma|Guppymomma]] 12:54, 4 July 2006 (PDT)
:::::: At the risk of conversation-spamming, but because I don't plan on checking this page for a while after this, I agree that it needs lighter, more pastel colors. I'm just not an artist. --[[User:AtteSmythe|AtteSmythe]] 13:06, 4 July 2006 (PDT)
::: I like the red and blue! --[[User:AtteSmythe|AtteSmythe]] 21:34, 9 July 2006 (PDT)
:::Took a while, but I worked out some suitable template code to make it happen eventually. The fact we now have default values for templates made it alot simpler to put in use. --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 01:47, 10 July 2006 (PDT)

::::FYI, I intend to remove the "Sinking blockade" notes, but only after more folks have weighed in on the colors.  I'd like to make sure that the colors are color-blind friendly.  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 22:45, 9 July 2006 (PDT)
:::::There's a site that gives the view of specific pages from a colorblind person's perspective, but I forget where it is. It was brought up in one of the might ring threads. --[[User:Thunderbird|Thunderbird]] 23:05, 9 July 2006 (PDT)
::::::I found [http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckImage.php Vischeck] as a colour-blind friendly tester. The site also converts whole webpages directly, but it didn't change some parts. So, I screenshot some sections of the Midnight history and ran the Vischeck on the screenshots, and the colours are fine. The pink/red colour looked a beige/light brown colour - the same with the icons. Seems we're ok from that side of things. --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 02:03, 10 July 2006 (PDT)

==April 2004==
{{blockstart}}
|- valign="top"
{{Blockdate|April 29|2}}
{{Blockid|id=Emperor|num=I|island=Emperor Island|ocean=Midnight}}
*0 - {{defender}} - none
*<div style="padding:2px; margin:2px; border:1px solid red; background-color:pink;">'''7 - {{contender}} - [[The Jolly Company]]'''
</div>
|
*First island to be blockaded.

|- valign="top"
{{Blockid|id=Byrne|num=I|island=Byrne Island|ocean=Midnight}}
<div style="padding:2px; margin:2px; border:1px solid green; background-color:#99FF99;">
*1 - {{defender}} - none
*'''7 - {{contender}} - [[Tyr's Own]]'''
</div>
|&nbsp;
|- valign="top"
{{Blockdate|April 29|2}}
{{Blockid|id=Emperor|num=I|island=Emperor Island|ocean=Midnight}}
*0 - {{defender}} - none
*<div style="padding:2px; margin:2px; border:1px solid red; background-color:pink;">'''7 - {{contender}} - [[The Jolly Company]]'''
</div>
|
*First island to be blockaded.

{{blockend}}

== Order ==

Does reverse chrono make more sense here? I tried reverse year, forward months within the year, and found that to be perhaps more navigable. [[Release]]s are listed reverse chrono, but they don't have the weekly regularity of blockades... --[[User:AtteSmythe|AtteSmythe]] 22:18, 3 July 2006 (PDT)

== Small Visual Issue ==

The small size of the April 2004 blockade section at the top makes it so the content list drags down white space to the next header in May.  It's a small issue, but does anyone know how to fix it?  If it can't be done, the April blockades could also be condensed into the May section.  It's not a big deal at all, but visually it's sort of a bother, as it seems to suggest there is some specific reason that April 2004 is somehow different from the rest of the months. -- [[User:HolyApoc|HolyApoc]] 10:58, 12 March 2007 (PDT)
:I think it's fixed now, could anyone comment on whether or not using width tags and such are an acceptable way to do it?  I'm not sure how well it's turning out on all types of monitor resolutions, browsers, text sizes, and so on...so if anyone happens to find a setting that makes the page look absolutely abysmal, the settings could obviously be changed around a bit. -- [[User:HolyApoc|HolyApoc]] 16:37, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

== Orange for BK blockades ==

I like it. Anyone else? --[[User:Parrrdner|Parrrdner]] 09:23, 3 July 2007 (PDT)
:I'm a fan, but mostly cause I picked out that color. Pastel orange just screams BK to me. --[[User:Muffynz|Muffynz]] 09:42, 3 July 2007 (PDT)
::Loved it!. --[[User:Revolutionbr|Yukkon]] 10:38, 8 July 2007 (PDT)

== Template/Strength ==

I'm not real familiar with the template but the strength modifier places the icon beneath both the defender and contender(s).  Until now the BK has been the contender and the placement of the strength icon wasn't a problem. Now that the BK was the defender of Jorvik, it appeares that the ship strength is reflecting the contender, [[Broadsiders]].  This could be confusing and a workaround could be to put the strength of the BK in the notes portion of the table instead.
--[[User:Biliter01| Haywoodx]]<sup><small>([[User talk:Biliter01|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Biliter01|c]])</small></sup> 13:52, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
:I've got an idea on how to fix that but it'll have to wait until later.  Basically I think a "defense_strength" variable could be used for when the BK is the defender.  If somebody else wants to implement it before I get home be my guest.  --[[User:Fiddler|Fiddler]] 14:03, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
::I did it like this actually. Two options both under the {{tl|ifdef}} template. '''strength_attacker''' and '''strength_defender'''. Just use the proper one and it will put the icons under the correct flag name. --[[User:Muffynz|Muffynz]] 15:54, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
:::Your rework did corre3ct the placement of the BK strength indication but somehow the contenders score attaches to the end of it instead of its usual spot.  I have tried to make sense of the ((1|))@34{543))%)|))<sup><small>(/sarcasm)</small></sup>, but alas; I cannot.--[[User:Biliter01| Haywoodx]]<sup><small>([[User talk:Biliter01|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Biliter01|c]])</small></sup> 18:26, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
:::I have loaded the page in both IE and FFox and it seems its another spacing issue with IE.  I wish them boys over there at Microsloth could get bullcannon right.  The page is fine and the template works (even though I still cannot follow the paths just yet.--[[User:Biliter01| Haywoodx]]<sup><small>([[User talk:Biliter01|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Biliter01|c]])</small></sup> 18:37, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
::::Not an IE thing really.  It was missing a break that I just added.  I also shrank the bkpower things a bit as they will look better in the wiki slightly smaller.  --[[User:Guppymomma|Guppymomma]] 18:57, 8 July 2007 (PDT)
::::: Not to be picky or anything, but there still appears to be some alignment issues with the BK strength icons. I'm running Firefox if that makes any difference, but from the comment above me, can I assume that it appears this way for everyone? I also have a suggestion for the appearance if the BK is the defender. Why not change the ship icons to green to match the defender icon? I think it would be more aesthetically pleasing this way, as well as contrasting defender/attacker more clearly at first glance. --[[User:Majortom|Majortom]] 23:30, 10 July 2007 (PDT)

== Win/loss Records ==

Assuming someone is keeping up this table at the bottom of the page, I'd like to propose that the "rankings" of flags be sorted by blockade wins (an interesting statistic) instead of by win percentage (not interesting). Flags that are 1-0 should not be listed above wildly successful flags that are 13-12. And I don't think anyone would object to the 11-24 flag being listed near the top, since I don't think there is any implication of "best" here. Unless I see objections, I'll be trying it out next time I'm bored. :) --[[User:Parrrdner|Parrrdner]] 04:49, 11 September 2007 (PDT)

: I'd tend to agree that victory percentage is probably the least interesting.  Blockade wins, blockade participation, or even using wins-losses as an equation (so that a 5-4 flag and a 1-0 flag would both be '+1 win') would all be better.  Be nice to have a year-by-year breakdown, too, though at that point you're almost wanting a separate page for accumulated statistics.  --[[User:Varthlokkur|Varthlokkur]] 08:54, 27 November 2007 (PST)

==Orca XIV==
I have no idea why I can't get Riot to show up as a 2nd contender.  Help :/ [[User:Tarajayne|Tarajayne]] 12:08, 19 September 2007 (PDT)
: It needed a contender_count=2. :P --[[User:Parrrdner|Parrrdner]] 17:34, 19 September 2007 (PDT)
Also -- the tmeplate does not put the widow queen's strength measuremment in the right place when there are two contenders :( --[[User:Parrrdner|Parrrdner]] 17:34, 19 September 2007 (PDT)
:It needed to be strength_defender, not strength_attacker.  --[[User:Fiddler|Fiddler]] 19:55, 19 September 2007 (PDT)

== New navigation thingy ==

As per request in a thread in Midnight Parley, I made a neater-looking table of contents for Midnight Blockade History.  I was wondering what the general opinion on implementing it is, though, before I actually do that.  You can see my current idea [[User:Thefirstdude/Sandbox/BHMidnight|here]].  Comments would be appreciated :)  -- [[User:Thefirstdude|Thefirstdude]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Thefirstdude|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Thefirstdude|c]])</small></sup> 20:11, 16 December 2007 (PST)
: /me likes! Change it! -- [[User:nalle5|Angara]] 14:10, 5 march 2008 (CET)

== Oops I broke it, sorry ==

I broke the Blockade win/loss record table .  Sorry \=  We should be at 6 and 6 though.
: I've unbroken it, but I haven't fixed the scoring to reflect 6 and 6.  --[[User:Barrister|Barrister]] 02:08, 20 January 2008 (PST)

== Blockades notes ==

Why are the 2 blockade notes I placed for the 19th gone [[User:Parrrdner|Parrrdner]]? I have them placed there after being in both blocks and talking to the ppl who ran the blocks even from your flag so I would know if they pulled out or not. --[[User:Mr_Swagger|Mr_Swagger]] 05:31, 21 January 2008 (PST)

Apparently you wouldn't, since both notes were incorrect.  I was driving at Frond then went jobbing at Angelfish and Pandemonium and Riot entered both round threes.  ~ Sweetiepiepi
::Pandemonium entered the 3rd round yes but did they stay? No, left one sloop on the board with 22 points. Would seem they pulled out. Also I was driving at Angelfish and speaking to the queen of Riot and another titled member of Riot I was told they pulled out. So both notes wouldnt really be incorrect, maybe Frond but not Angelfish. --[[User:Mr_Swagger|Mr_Swagger]] 00:15, 23 January 2008 (PST)

The notes in the blockade history page about pulling out are used to indicate when rounds are not contested at all.  That is why your notes were deleted, the two flags entered both round threes and contested for part of it.  ~ Sweetiepiepi

== Table of contents ==

I've made a new template to replace the page's current table of contents (and those of the other blockade histories) with a more compact and visually appealing version. The template may be seen [[User:Belthazar451/Sandbox/BlockadeTOC|here]] and an example can be seen in action [[User:Belthazar451/Sandbox/Midnight blockade history|here]]. Let me know what you think. --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
:I like it. The arrangement of years/months seemed to be lacking some kind of visual ordering - making them look a tad messy. I've added a soft grey to each year cell - I think this enhances appearance. Feel free to undo though. --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 14:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
::No, I like your addition. I was trying to think of some way to separate the years, but couldn't think of a good way, then completely forgot about it. It looks better now. =) --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the template you created, since the ToC on blockade pages is long and ugly, and, well, long and ugly. However, is it possible to make the years go down the list rather than left to right? Also, is something just missing out of the "example in action"? It seems to skip some years. --[[User:Fannon|Fannon]] 22:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
:I've done the suggested re-order. As for the example skipping years, that was just me fiddling with the parameters to make sure they worked correctly. I can do away with them so you can see the full template, if you'd like. =) --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 22:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah I meant to ask if it was intentional (the skipping years), since it was either that or the template just was randomly broken. I like the new format better than the old. Does it look weird to force it to the right so that it doesn't break up the page? I started to fiddle with it to look at it in preview, but my coding knowledge doesn't extend that far. =P      --[[User:Fannon|Fannon]] 01:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Like so? I'm not entirely certain if it looks good like that... On a side note, I just noticed Thefirstdude was doing something similar back in December above, but it never got implemented. =) --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 01:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
::I like yours better. And yeah, it looks kind of funky shoved to the right, especially since there's no margin between the box and the text. Though I don't think a margin would help it any. --[[User:Fannon|Fannon]] 01:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Aye, I tried to add a margin, but it doesn't seem to help matters. Back to centered, then. Mind you, when it's centered, we can quite easily put one at the top and bottom, for easier navingating.

:::On a side note, I just noticed that the first two tables on my example page are narrower than the page width, as though they were still leaving space for the original table of contents, and I can't for the life of me work out why. They shouldn't be doing that, since the only thing that was putting the TOC on the right was the TOCright template, and that's not there any more. --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm vaguely pondering whether I should wait for more feedback, or if I should just go plastering it around the place now. Yep, I'm patient. =) --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 04:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:Really thick lead piping bugged me, so I've tried to make the tables look nicer with thinner lines. Yay or nay? Heartily approve of your ToC though :-) --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 04:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
::I like the looks of this. Excellent work. Very clear, concise, and good usage of space. I think it's perfect. I'd recommend giving it another 24 hours just to let anyone who might have some concerns voice them and after that if it's all chocolates and praises, feel free to start implementing them on the actual pages. {{User:Muffynz/sig}} 06:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank ye - twenty-four hours it is, then. Hopefully that weird invisible-TOC effect will go away when it's added to the page propers... otherwise I'll have a poke around it and see if I can work out what's the problem. Mmm, chocolates. =) As for your border weight changes, Sagacious, to be honest, I don't really mind it either way. --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 07:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Trust me to pick on the things nobody cares about :P --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::On second thoughts, Sag, I don't know if it's because of the change you made, or if it's simply because the pages are too big for the wiki software to handle, but the table borders disappear in some places. Especially in the win/loss record tables. Using Firefox here. --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::I couldn't find that issue anywhere other than the Win/Loss table and its key. I used the same styling I applied to the blockade tables and that appears to have made them look good in Firefox again. On another note, is there a way we can use some show/hides to make the page shorter? Perhaps per year or per half year? --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 05:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not sure about putting the blockade record into show/hide boxes. Isn't the point of it just to show a complete record? Using the new ToC would make it easier to navigate anyway. The win/loss record could probably go in a show/hide box, however, especially considering how not up to date its typically kept. --[[User:Fannon|Fannon]] 05:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

::'''''Image zapped''''' Here's an image demonstrating what I mean. It's not at all consistent, and it seems to come and go and appear in different places on the page, which vaguely suggests it's possibly an issue with Firefox, possibly related to the large size of the page. If it was an issue with the page code, I suspect it would happen in the same place each time. I've not idea what's causing it, though. --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 06:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
:::That's a FF rendering issue. Are you using 2 or 3? Empty your cache and reload, while closing some tabs as that won't be helping! --[[User:Sagacious|Sagacious]] <sup>([[User_talk:Sagacious|talk]])</sup> 07:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm using version two. Upgrade, hey?

::::In other news, it's been another twenty-four hours, so I'm gonna go with installing the new contents boxes. =) --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 07:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Done. Mind you, it was kind of embarassing adding it to the Malachite blockade history. We've really gotta start having blockades there. =D On a side note, I worked out why the Midnight page was still behaving as though the original TOC was still there - someone had stuck a table around the first two months to force them into a smaller width. It's been rectified. --[[User:Belthazar451|Belthazar451]] 07:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

== Winter IX ==

Could someone please point to me where [[Klingon Empire]] gained control of {{Midnight|Winter Solstice}} in order to defend it?--[[User:Biliter01| Haywood<sup>x</sup>]]<sup>([[User talk:Biliter01|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Biliter01|c]])</sup> 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::Nevermind, I found it.--[[User:Biliter01| Haywood<sup>x</sup>]]<sup>([[User talk:Biliter01|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Biliter01|c]])</sup> 21:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== Fire and Ice ==

I was recently updating the [[Fire and Ice]], but the links on this page should, by definition, point to a Midnight Ocean crew, right?  If this crew exists, could sombebody redirect it?  (For now, I'll leave it linking to the redirect page. [[User:Jlh0605|Jlh0605]] 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)