Doesn't belong in this wiki?[]
I hate to rain on your parade, but STOwiki really isn't the place for this type of content. The wiki policy is to include only in-game lore and content rather than wider Star Trek canon. See Project:About. I'm not a moderator though, so this is just my opinion! --Zutty 17:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't add anything that's not in STO already (or at least prominently mentioned). For me it's interesting to see how canon elements, and especially characters, are included in the game. I'd dare to say that it interests other users as well. I don't think it hurts anyone to refer to these things as canon in a nav template, and I don't see how this would violate the guidelines.
- But then, I'm not a moderator, either. So it's not my decision. :) -- Backyardserenade 17:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see what your getting at, and I agree it doesn't hurt to have some information in here for reference, but I think we should clearly delineate what is in-game and what isn't. As a compromise, what abut keeping your template and all the non-STO articles, but marking them clearly as referring to stuff thats not in-game. I have been thinking about adding a banner for a while now; something like this...
- What do you reckon? --Zutty 18:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if I see the need for that. Besides maybe the Enterprise-D article (which could be deleted, IMO) and the Voyager article, those canon topics either appear in game or are clearly referenced (Janeway, Picard and Sisko come to my mind). Articles like those on Scotty, Spock or McCoy do contain some additional canon information - but I think that's OK to convey why these characters are actually important and relevant.
- There aren't that many articles that only include canon information without any STO reference. And articles like Voyager or Janeway could clearly state in the notes that these characters do not (yet) appear in game.
- Just my 2c. :) -- Backyardserenade 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to keep a low profile on canon elements. In order for a character/ship/planet/device to deserve an article, it has at the very least to be referenced in-game through dialog text. The only additional resources I can think of are "Countdown" (comic), the "Path to 2409", and "The Needs of The Many" (book). You can always use {{MAlpha|Something}} to create links to Memory Alpha. But I do not think we should be very careful about replicating content from there. Your nav bar does look great, but the items on it are quite arbitrary from an in-game point of view. So I would vote against using it on each article with a canon equivalent, because tehn we would have to start adding it to a lot of articles like Earth, Borg, Romulan Bird-of-Prey, Sela, Madred, Laas, and the list simply gets as big as you want it to be. Better to have Memory Alpha keep track of these things. If you have a MA account, you can however add links to our articles from there through interwiki links like at the end of this article: Species 8472.--RachelGarrett 10:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- What do you reckon? --Zutty 18:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
[]
I have revamped the template, and I think it will be a nice guide to canon elements in the game. I used the small font, so the template doesn't become too long, as it features quite a bit of information.
I've decided to include referenced characters ("Mentioned only") as there already a few articles on them and I stand by the point I had a few years ago, that those characters who are prominently mentioned definitely deserve their articles (i.e. we also have an article on the Na'kuhl because there are a few references to them - I think this only adds to the wiki). This does not mean that we should create an article for every main character for example. However, if they are heavily referenced in-game and especially if their fates in 2410 are revealed, I'd say that's fine. This is true for example for Chakotay (said to be head of Starfleet Intelligence) or Kira Nerys (said to be Bajor's serving Kai).
Just to avoid confusion: I'm actually backyardserande who started this template a few years ago. Back when the wiki switched to Curse I was somehow to dense to link my accounts and have worked with this one ever since. ;)
I'd appreciate it, if people would add the template to canon character and ship pages! I'll try to update some myself, of course. If you have any suggestions for better icons, be my guest. If you have any questions or criticism let me know! --Tadayou (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Uncollapsing on Template page (and other non-article pages)[]
I've taken the initiative to launch a sort of "pilot program" for changes to the default-collapsed navigation templates, beginning with {{Canon}} and {{Removed Missions}}. Using a newly-imported copy of Wikipedia's {{Main other}}, I've set the mw-collapsed entry in the table's CSS classes to be included only when the table is rendered in the main (article) namespace.
The effect is that the table elements are still collapsed, when included in a wiki article, but will be uncollapsed by default in any other context, like the template's own page. IMHO this makes the default-collapsed templates much easier to work with, as the full contents will automatically be visible when needed.
Any issues with or objections to this approach? Is it worth soldiering on and hitting the rest of the templates that are defined mw-collapsed by default (and currently, unconditionally)? FeRDNYC (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hey there, I think this is a wonderful idea personally. Keep up the good work! One thing I'd like to mention is that there seems to be a MediaWiki error where collapsed wikitables can't be sortable, hopefully this doesn't hamper your work in the future. SFC3 (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @SFC3 Well, after... 2.5 months(!!?!), I'm finally returning to this. But I've already updated a few templates, and should be able to work through the rest at a good pace. Fortunately the templates I'm updating are nearly all navboxes (in spirit, if not in fact), which rarely would benefit from sorting anyway.
- However, regarding the sortability issue you mentioned: While it shouldn't prevent sorting, making a table collapsible normally stuffs the control into the last cell on the header row, which can be confusing if the table is also sortable. But, that won't be a problem as long as the table is also given a caption. The software will prefer the caption line over any of the table cells, as the destination for the expand/collapse link.
- Check it out:
| Goofy | sorting | Sadface | dot com |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lorem | ipsum | dolor | sit amet |
| ipsum | dolor | sit amet | Lorem |
| dolor | sit amet | Lorem | ipsum |
| Lorem | Ipsum | Dolor | Sit amet |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lorem | ipsum | dolor | sit amet |
| ipsum | dolor | sit amet | Lorem |
| dolor | sit amet | Lorem | ipsum |
- (I both set the width explicitly to
100%90%, and made the caption linenowrap, because if the width of the caption text isn't forced then collapsing the table will shrink the width down to a comically narrow, wrapped block of text. But with some constraining, it works fine when necessary.) FeRDNYC (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)- (The table sort indicators are broken, but that has nothing to do with the
collapsiblestyle and everything to do with this rule in the site CSS having an!importantflag on it:.skin-fandomdesktop table.jquery-tablesorter th.headerSort { background-image: url(https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/sto_gamepedia/images/d/df/STOWiki-Vector-Sort-Both.png/revision/latest) !important; }
- ...which causes the "sortBoth" up-and-down indicator arrows to always be visible, even when they shouldn't be.) FeRDNYC (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, and interior collapsibility (like the kind often used in nested navboxes) would almost certainly completely destroy any sortability for the table, I forgot about that. But that sort of collapsing is even less likely to be combined with sortable tables, or at least I can't think of a time I've ever needed to combine the two. Hopefully I won't discover any new uses for that combo, in the process of updating these navboxes! FeRDNYC (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- (The table sort indicators are broken, but that has nothing to do with the
- (I both set the width explicitly to