Template talk:Stalkbox

From RationalWikiWiki

Contents 1 Looking good. 2 Sig 3 But... 4 Cell padding 5 Stance & Misc. 6 Female 7 Signature 8 Suggestion. 9 Possible Fix 10 Articles made and users welcomed 11 Right you fuckers

[edit] Looking good.

Looks good.--User:FalseFlag^{Flag Me} 17:39, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks. If you want any changes, let me know here, at my talk page, or at my talk page on RW. human^{be in} 17:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

What do you think about links back to the RW user page? And/Or to any announced exterior homepage? The problem is that you then need to fill out that damn confirmation box each time you make an edit.--User:FalseFlag^{Flag Me} 15:47, 9 March 2008 (EST)

It would be easy to make the links (using {{PAGENAME}}), but, as you say, captcha would then make life miserable. But links to their user pages, talk pages and contribs would make a lot of sense. Shall we try it and see if it gets on our nerves too much? Just say yes and I'll paste the links in a bar across the bottom... human^{be in} 17:08, 9 March 2008 (EST)

Mmmmmm- OK, let's try it.--User:FalseFlag^{Flag Me} 17:46, 9 March 2008 (EST)

Done. Also made more use of RWW Orange. human^{be in} 17:56, 9 March 2008 (EST)

Oh, and tested - it does not force a "captcha", since there isn't really an "htxtp" thing on the pages themselves. Cool. human^{be in} 17:58, 9 March 2008 (EST)

Hey. That's seriously cool. I mean seriously. Great way to pick up diffs too. Any to insert diffs that don't kick off a "captcha"?--User:FalseFlag^{Flag Me} 18:05, 9 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Thanks! I'm glad I thought of grabbing the logo color for it. As far as diffs, well, I suppose a template that has the htxtp www rw.com/wiki part built in might do it. I'm still not sure this really gets around captcha, though, since I managed to save a page with an EL the second time I edited it with no "security check". Maybe it only kicks in if you actually add or change a link? You might want to sandbox that, and test adding some diffs, then just editng other text, etc. If you want me to make the template, just tell me what to call it. ({{diff}}?) human^{be in} 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EST)

Thinking of adding "Signs as"? Might be useful, just a thought. human^{be in} 04:51, 10 March 2008 (EST)

I guess so. How many people use a different sig?--User:FalseFlag^{Flag Me} 14:36, 10 March 2008 (EST)

I guess I was also thinking of the users with "strange" signatures, as well. That is, ones that aren't just silly colors, but use odd characters, like interpreted. Probably no big deal. human^{be in} 17:49, 10 March 2008 (EST)

Ah, I see. Probably be best just to mention them in the appropriate articles? Otherwise there'll be a blank space in most of the boxes.--User:FalseFlag^{Flag Me} 17:56, 10 March 2008 (EST)

Sounds good to me. I'll try to copy a few over as I notice them. human^{be in} 18:22, 10 March 2008 (EST)

When you compare different member pages the position of the data column is not consistent. Just though tyou should know. BarbaraK 17:56, 15 March 2008 (EST)

[edit] Sig

Should we perhaps add user's sigs? I kinda got this idea from Wp. Pinto's5150 12:32, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

We discussed it a bit above - I think it makes more sense to just include it in their page text, since "most" sign fairly clearly. I would say, feel free to copy over the "funky" sigs (like interpreted's), and the people who use one or several "other names" (like editor at cp). But another line on this template would be mostly unused. human^{be in} 14:06, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

[edit] But...

The letters look cut off to me. Is this intentional or does it look different on other people's monitors? Definitely not lurker 23:32, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

May be your moniter, because it appears fine to me. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 23:35, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

You should discuss this with Human; this is his expertise. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 23:37, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

What's the matter? Please tell screen resolution and browser so I can try to duplicate - your problem - also please describe the problem in detail. Can you upload a screenshot, please? We will try to make your wikiwikiwiki experience the highest possible quality given enough INFORMATION. WE WANT INFORMATION. Hehe. 3 points if you get the reference. human^{be in} 00:05, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Oh fuck sorry about that. But why can't everyone just use the same computer at all the exact same settings as I do. Oh well. 64.62.138.101 10:27, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

File:Stalkbox.jpg

That's what I see using IE @ 1280 x 800. I tried it on Firefox and it looked fine (and don't even try telling me to just use that piece of crap instead!) It's not really a huge deal, but when anon changed it I figured out that I wasn't the only one seeing it that way. Definitely not lurker 10:46, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

I saw the same on IE. I altered the template a bit and it loaded ok for me in my antique version of IE. See if it is all better in your versions? human^{be in} 13:29, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Definitely not lurker 13:29, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

No problem - thanks for pointing it out! human^{be in} 14:22, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

[edit] Cell padding

Instead of using &nbsp ;, why don't you just increase the cell padding? The two word row titles look silly with the second word left of the first. Fat Tuesday 15:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stance & Misc.

Could we perhaps add some info as to what should be added to those two spaces? Both seem pretty vague to me, and stance is currently used for different things on different pages. Thanks. FernoKlump 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Female

Is there a category: "Male Rationalwikians"? Or are we being a little sexist here? 217.171.129.nn 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one (and the automagic catting doesn't work since the gender string usually contains a ref, and there's no substring parserfunction) --  Nx/talk  14:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is one now, and the automagic categorizing works as long as the first 6 or 4 letters of gender are female or male (case doesn't matter).

[edit] Signature

I think this would be a good addition, especially given that some users *cough*Toast*cough* have taken to using sigs that do not contain their username. 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But it does contain her username --  Nx/talk  15:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not her new one; it's just a full stop with a few nbsps on either side and a link to her talk page with some text. 18:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the idea? 18:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

She switched back. As for the idea, how do you plan to store the signature? As a screenshot, or replicating the wikitext/html/subpages/magic? --  Nx/talk  18:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If it renders differently on a lot of browsers or OSs then an image, otherwise replicate the code. 18:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of trouble to me, since some change often. Although, if you must do it, I'd recommend using nice little screenshot pngs, and just putting them in the article itself. human^{be in} 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with screenshots is that I have to open Grab, take the screenshot of the sig, crop it, save it as a jpeg of >150Kb and then upload it, which would make instigating this at all very difficult. 07:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. How about you use grab (one click or two?), in the "selection" mode, doing the cropping at that point. I've never gone straight to "save", does it allow general prefs? A typical sig ought to be around 10-30k at most. And, yeah, then you'd have to upload, etc. Replicating the code is far more work, digging through templates, getting any images they use, etc. Which is why I think except for very amusing cases it would be pointless, hence silly to put in the SB. human^{be in} 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion.

It'd be useful to have people's equivalent profiles at CP (socks and real profiles) and other places (ASK, if you will), if they are different at RW; or what they were if they were renamed. Always so hard to follow that. Sterile 01:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We could do that. I should warn you that Bradley pops up here occasionally, and RobS/DMorris as well. Ty 01:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RobS and DMorris are different people. Nutty Roux 02:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't edit and watch something at the same time. Ty 02:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Fix

I suggest removing the age section from the template. I feel that would greatly reduce the problems here, as that seems to be the main issue people are having. John Childermass 01:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That appears to have worked. John Childermass 01:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Articles made and users welcomed

This is a stupid idea. Who's going to bother updating these? If you want to brag, do it on your userpage. No-one else cares. -- Nx / talk 07:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Who do you think? Though the users welcomed is rather silly. Also, as you seem to be getting rid of DPL that would make regular updates nigh impossible for some people. Tyrannis^{An iron, yet caring fist} 12:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Right you fuckers

I have sorted this mess out for you. There is now only one stalkbox template. The other one (Template:Stalkbox2) currently transcludes this, but if some enterprising bot or aspie wants to go swap it for this one on all the relevant articles & delete the duplicate, go right ahead.

All fields are now optional, and only the ones which are used are displayed, which should cut down on pointless whitespace. The image is also optional. If you really must insist on a default image, please make it something RW relevant like the brain emblem or a goat or something, not Anonymous; it looks daft when half our articles have an image which is really nothing to do with RW/RWW culture at all. Weaselicious ^{Bite Me} 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I removed the "articles created" field. Put it back in if there's really any demand for it, but I don't see the point as it doesn't seem very interesting or relevant, and will be impossible to keep updated accurately. Weaselicious ^{Bite Me} 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My agenda! You killed it Q__Q Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 15:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I trample on your agenda. I grind it into the ground. I wipe my ass with your agenda. I burn it, light cigars with it, and put them out in your eyes. Mwuahahaha ha!!! Weaselicious ^{Bite Me} 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)