If so, could you do me a favor and replace all of the text in that template with the text at Template:ShipInfobox/sandbox? All that you need to do is copy/paste it, I've previewed it in articles and everything's in working order.
The updated version of the template in that sandbox has all of the same parameters as before, but with two additions (Armour Hardness and First Produced to note the in-universe date that a ship debuted). I also reorganized the layout around a bit and made the underlying code text a little neater.
Once the template has been updated, I'll go through the ship pages later today or tomorrow and add the new parameters myself.
I looked at how Wikipedia did it with ship classes, but they use "Built" and then have the span of years the class was in active production (ex. 1914-1922). If we did that here, we'd just have "2700-Present" or "3304-Present" on all the in-game ships since they're all still being produced. I figure mentioning just the year the current models debuted is sufficient for now.
For an aircraft carriers class they use the term "built" (years when it was produced) and "In commission" with a day, month, year (or just year) for the period that it was utilized.
For fighter jets they use the term "Introduction" when it first formally entered service. "Produced" is for the years that it's produced. NASA's Space Shuttle uses the term "first flight" and "last flight."
So we could use the term "Years Produced" or "Years Built." What do you prefer?
Like I said before, my version has all the same parameters as are currently in the template plus the two new ones, and they're reorganized. We had too many headers for things that didn't really need headers (there's no reason MLF needs to be separate from other stats, for example), and some parts needed tweaking or clarification (the MLF parameter wasn't fully capitalized, "Seats" could have been confused with Passenger Seats so I changed it to "Pilot Seats", small things like that).
The other big improvements are that the underlying code is now neat and easily legible instead of a jumble, and the blank preview of the template finally has all parameters included for easy copy/pasting to future ship articles.
Great, I'll get to work in the next hour. And thanks again.
I looked into migrating the template too, but it seems like it won't be a clean conversion if done with the automated process instead of manually. A Wikia staff member, User:FishTank, was working on migrating it a few months ago, but as you can see from Template:ShipInfobox/Draft he never finished. FishTank's version also doesn't carry over the black/gray color scheme, and the width of the template is narrower. I can make basic templates with the new markup, but customizing them to match the current look of Template:ShipInfobox exactly is beyond my abilities (it may also require admin-level CSS changes).
The talk of migrating to new template was not so much CSS, since that can be done fairly easily (there were already attempts to make it look like Elite by FishTank if I remember correctly), but rather the fact that we utilize Module:ShipInfobox to make things work and look better
Since this is a rewrite of the infobox I would've liked if there were more discussions as to why the new style is better, as well as if there would be any additions or complications with the associated Module.
I'll go ahead and ask then: Why is the new style better? What fields are added? What fields are removed?
Right of the bat there's one issue I see. When I look at an infobox of a faction-locked ship I can't from a glance see if it is faction locked or not anymore, I have to look through Overview to check if there is a 'Faction' field.
As I told Univero, all the parameters or fields that were in the template before the revision are still in the template after the revision. I was very clear on that, I wasn't trying to attempt anything experimental and I tested my revisions before they were implemented. Only two additional fields were added: Armour Hardness and Years Produced. Three superfluous headers, Ship values, Expansion Content, and Faction Specific, were removed since the template was already lengthy and pushing into lower sections on the articles.
Ship values only had MLF under it, so MLF was moved into the section for ship stats, Default Specifications. Expansion Content and Faction Specific also had too little info under them to justify being separated, so they were condensed into the Overview section with other meta data like Cost and Manufacturer.
Overview is meant to cover everything about who makes the ship and how to obtain it (cost, any required faction rank, any required expansion). Default Specifications is all base ship stats, and the Maximum Non-Engineered Specs is just the old Maximum/Upgraded Versions section with an updated name.
Greetings. I'm new to this place, but I signed up because I wanted to add the missing ships to the "Ships" page.
I like using it to compair ships a lot, and having some ships missing from it annoys me.
So instead of just telling other people to do it I wanted to help by doing it myself. Afterall, if noone is already adding those ships it means they propably dont have time to do so currently.
However it sais the source is locked (which I expected but still). Seeing you're named as the moderator of this wiki I wanted to ask if I could have permission to add those ships to the "Ships" page.
I'm not a diehard fan of Elite Dangerous who plays it all the time, nor have I played for years. But I do enjoy it.
I dont know the ins and outs of the game either, but adding some more lines to a table (with the info of the ships already being on the wiki on their own seperate pages) shouldnt be to hard.
Also, looking at recent comments on the "Ships" page the lack of the new ships seem to be mentioned a lot.
So yeah. I'd like to help do that little thing if I may.
If you have any questions (and I'd understand if you do, seeing I'm new and you dont know me) I'm open.
Hi Ethribin, yes it says only "established registered users" can edit the ships page. It means you have to contribute by adding other content to this wiki first. If you want to edit only the ships page then you should ask SpyTec for permission.
I've added Content Moderator rights. Since last year you understand how wiki workflow works and how to structure articles. With this you can protect articles, delete and move files and use rollback feature.
With rollback it should only be used when there's vandalism, what it does is revert all their edits to last edited by different user and hides the edits from Special:WikiActivity
Update to "Council of Admirals" article, very much appreciated. The article I'd cited in comments was more the product of research too - GalNet is kind of an ongoing tabloid of events which, it seems, might leave it more prone to error if not reviewed as carefully. Also of note, the "Assembly" is often referred to as the "Alliance Parliament" which suggests a PM might need the confidence of the 'House' to select a leader.
Hi, lots of screenshots on this wiki were not made by the users who uploaded it. They're used to enhance articles with visual information. Nowhere do I and most other users claim those screenshots as their own. For example I uploaded the logo of NASA, but don't claim it as my own.
You can add author information to images by clicking on More Info and then add a description.
Hi, okay it uses less space and centers the images on the page which improves navigation and viewing. The default gallery has the images aligned to the left side and uses more space with less images per row.
Well when images use less space in a gallery by having 4 images instead of 3 per row means it requires less time to navigate a gallery and more images can be viewed at the same time. That makes it more efficient and saves space. Keeping consistency can be done by making it the same in all galleries. Whether it's better is subjective though. I can change it if you prefer the old style with more space between images and 3 images per row.
Hey. You can't just take images from Wikimedia Commons and use them without attribution. The license requires you to specify the author and the license, preferably by linking to the original file page on Wikimedia Commons that you stole it from.
Checking your uploads again, I wonder if you checked for permission at all. Is the raw fish a stock photo?! Please specify the exact source of all your uploads if you didn't create them yourself. What you are doing seems to be downright illegal and might well get you into trouble.
wow, that was quick, thank you very much :) I think it's wonderful and fine now.
The reason why I was so insisting on this problem: I have seen people who got very angry and started legal actions against people not adhering exactly to the license on Wikimedia Commons. And stock photos are even worse - if they catch you copying a stock photo, they force you to pay license fees of over 1000€ :(
It's nice that you found a replacement that can be freely used. Thank you again. :)
Hi welcome to the ED Wiki. You can compare your faction page with other ones such as Canonn . It should be good if it has a similar style. It shouldn't read like an advertisement. Maybe write the info in third person.
I think it would be better to link to website pages as reference rather than images if possible.
You can shorten headings like "About the Order of Enblackenment" to "About" and "Structure of the Order of Enblackenment" to "Structure".