Template talk:Common armor art gallery

Glacial Gauntlets
The main Female section header ("Female Glacial Gauntlets gallery") and 2 more lower level headers do not show up in the Contents, it goes from Acquisition straight to the third lower level header. The three missing headers are in the /Female page inclusion. RoseOfKali 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a bug, that's how I designed - those headers aren't true wiki headers, they're just formatted to look like them.  I did this to prevent readers clicking the [edit] links on those headers and accidentally editing the template (which did happen to the Deldrimor gallery template).  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is not desired, the headers have to move out of the template onto the page - and if this wiki's tradion for kludgy hacks is honored, the template gets a "noheader" parameter and doesn't display them when that is set. ;-) --◄mendel► 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can move the primary header out of the template, yes - the one that says "Female Glacial Gauntlets gallery" - but the subheaders can't be moved out without requiring that we also break the template into pieces.
 * For a long time, the main template had  in it for the same reason - users couldn't accidentally click [edit] on a section that was part of the template.  The only drawback to this was that it removed edit links for all sections on any page that transcluded the template, which wasn't a huge problem (it lasted over a year like that).  On June 24, however, our illustrious Beerocrat decided that it was "foolish to have it here", and in just over a month since then we have had two accidental edits to the template.
 * I'm in favor of putting back into all the armor gallery templates, as I see very little drawback to losing the other section edit links.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I's not that hard to figure out how to edit the /Male or /Female section alone, or just edit the whole page for the other stuff.  This is not a problem for those who edit armor pages regularly, and would be a deterrent to occasional vandals, too.  This is better than having half-complete Contents...  Besides, once the template is in place, why would the Male/Female pages need editing anyway? RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.jpg]] 05:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone bug me to read this tomorrow cause i just tried to read this now and I couldn't comprehend any of it.&mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 05:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll wait another day or so for JR or anyone else to comment on this, then I'll implement NOEDITSECTION in all the armor galleries. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comprehension aid --◄mendel► 06:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The armor art gallery template creates section and subsection headers.
 * If these headers have "edit" links, clicking on them lets you edit the template.
 * We don't want people to edit the template.
 * It has happened.
 * It breaks things.
 * It is not what people want, but they don't know better.
 * So we have two options:
 * using __NOEDITSECTIONLINKS__ to remove the "edit" links from every page that has this template on it
 * using fake section headers in the armor gallery that don't create edit links, but don't show up in the table of contents either.
 * Currently we are using option 2, but Rose and Ishy want to switch back to option 1.


 * The reason I want to switch to option one is mostly because often there are other sections (dye bugs, common mesmer gloves, etc) besides the basic ones in the template, and they do show up, so it breaks the TOC to hell. Plus, like I said before, there is no reason to edit armor article sections once the templates are in place, it would be uneducated edits by new users at best, or vandalism.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.jpg]] 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Small clarification: we are using option 2 on Template:Deldrimor armor gallery and Template:Common armor art gallery, we are using option 3 (= true headers within template) on Template:Armor art gallery. Rehashing the drawbacks of the various options:
 * removes the [edit] links from all headers in any article that includes a gallery.
 * Fake headers break the TOC.
 * True headers allow the possibility of accidental edits to the template.
 * And I just came up with a fourth option that would require a small addition to our site css. We can wrap everything in the template with  .  Then we add this to common.css:

div.hideeditsection .editsection { display:none; }
 * That will hide the [edit] links for all sections within the div. [edit] links remain for the rest of the page and the TOC is non-broken.  Thoughts on this idea?  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a good direction to be thinking in. I say let's keep all level 2 headers, moving those out of the templates if necessary, and hide all level 3 headers. That way, we're consistent. Or use level 4 headers inside the templates and hide those. So we wouldn't hide .editsection, we'd hide div.hideeditsection h3 span.editsection or some such. I'll add some headers willy-nilly here so we can test:

This is beyond my knowledge of wiki code... O_O One other thing that could be done is using true headers and adding an editor comment to the top of each section a-la. But from what I could comprehend from all the CSS stuff above, that sounds like a good option if you can make it work. RoseOfKali 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

= level 1 =

level 4
some content
 * I'm going to post after I've tested. --◄mendel► 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

CSS to hide edit section links
div.hideeditsection h3 span.editsection { display:none; } div.hideeditsection h4 span.editsection { display:none; } This reliably hides edit links on level 3 and 4 sections. To test this yourself, copy the two lines into your global.css on central wikia: w:Special:Mypage/global.css. --◄mendel► 23:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, executive summary of the proposal:
 * You put at the top of the armor gallery page (not the template).
 * You put  at the bottom of the page.
 * Now Level 1 and 2 headers (with =one= and ==two== ) still have edit links.
 * We do not use them in the gallery template
 * we can use them to structure the gallery page
 * Level ===3=== and ====4==== headers will not have edit links.
 * We can use them on the page and in the template.

Advantages:
 * No more edit links into a tenmplate
 * consistency: users can't edit these headings anywhere on the page

possible variations: --◄mendel► 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * let ===level 3=== have edit links,and remove them from level 4 only
 * make two classes, hideeditsection3 and hideeditsection4
 * to activate both, 


 * The L2 headers are generated by the template, and I think they should stay that way. Also, we only need to remove edit links from headers in the template, not from any other sections in the subgalleries outside the templates.  What if we hid all edit links, include L2 - that would leave the TOC completely intact - but then wrote in an edit link on the L2 link that edits the subgallery?  Like so:

(Putting in nowiki so it doesn't break this page...) &#91;[ edit Female Paragon Norn armor gallery]&#93;

Female Paragon Norn armor gallery
[rest of template]
 * Pros: 1) Preserves TOC; 2) Prevents accidental template editing; 3) Provides direct link to edit subgallery; 4) Allows subgallery L2 header to stay in template; 5) Allows subgallery sections outside the template to keep their edit links. I can't think of any cons.  Size/positioning/text of the written-in edit link probably need to be tweaked.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 18:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure, as long as all the sections have some sort of edit header (and not just a select few), that sounds like an excellent idea! --◄mendel► 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify? I'm not sure I understand completely... &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what I mean is, don't leave any section headers without an edit link on the final page and I'll be satisfied. --◄mendel► 01:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But the L3 headers generated by the template (Overview, Component view, Colorable areas) can't be edited on their own, so why would they need one? &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 01:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't see why ANY of the sections would need edit links. Once the template is on the page, that's the final version that it should be, there shouldn't be any more editing except to like change description or add bugs (main page edit), or add additional "screenshots of interest" to the male or female gallery, which is the /Male or /Female subpage edit.  Use the template or don't, there's no inbetween.  You cannot change the section and still keep it applicable to the template that it belongs to, all this would do is break the template usage on that page.  No section on the page should be in need of editing once the template is in use.  I say just remove all edit links and be done.  And if anyone wants to edit the /Male or the /Female (to change dye color, add additional screenshots, or w/e), just click the link to that page (the header itself is the link to them) and edit that whole page.  Tadaa!  I think you're making this much more of a problem than it really is.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.jpg]] 03:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh, Rose is probably right - we should just use NOEDITSECTION and stop worrying about it. Very few edits should need to be made to the armor articles in any case.  With the templates, they're short enough that it's not a problem to edit the whole thing, if you need to.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Alright, I'm going to go with NOEDITSECTION in the templates. If there is a huge user outcry against it, which I think is highly unlikely, we can then figure out a less blunt approach. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 15:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. --◄mendel► 15:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)