Before leaving a message:
- Start a new section by clicking this link.
- Keep the conversation in one page. If I sent a message on your page, don't reply here.
- If I reverted your edit, read the edit summary. If I didn't write an edit summary, the reason for reverting your edits should be obvious.
- Use English or Finnish.
- I'm a Senior Administrator. Check here what I can and cannot do.
- I don't make edits, upload files, or have any powers on Bulbagarden Archives.
- Give me a little time to reply unless you are a staff member who can answer the question better than I.
Lady Ariel is showing herself determined to undo my fixes for the roundy bits of the table in the Items in each Hidden Grotto section on the Hidden Grotto page. (I also forgot that other tables on that page need the same fixes, but I'd expect to encounter the same resistance if I try to fix those right now.) Without the changes I made, the roundy templates (Template:roundytl, etc.) end up having no effect whatsoever on the table; you can take out those templates/styles and the table looks exactly the same. In order for them to work, the row cannot have a background color style, and the cells must each have it instead. If you look carefully at the tables in the before and after revisions, you can see that the corners are actually round in the before version with my edits.
Can you impress on Lady Ariel that she has no call to undo those fixes of mine? ...Or am I somehow not as right as I think? Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like you're right there. Your version is visually the correct one, and it's not like the extra ~250 bytes cause some issues. So I think you can add it back. If Ariel still disagrees, she should take part in the discussion.--電禅Den Zen 17:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The corners are identical in both versions (using Safari and Chrome). It is possible to have the background color set for the entire row and have rounded corners for individual cells. In addition I changed the color scheme of the tables. The actual edit I just did is here, which makes the table borders less blocky (similar background and border colors in the old versions) and removes unnecessary coding. Also the way I re-coded those few cells is how a majority of tables are coded on Bulbapedia. Should I take pictures of the corners of the cells and provide them or should it be reverted to my recent edit? Lady Ariel 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at your revision in Chromium, I now see why you've been undoing my changes. The problem is, in Firefox, my changes actually do change the way the tables display.
- As I mentioned when I reverted it, you're entirely welcome to redo any of the changes that don't affect the roundy fixes (as above: each cell in a roundy row has to have its own background color, and the row cannot have a background color); I just didn't have the patience to sort out your new changes from the roundy stuff myself, or redo the roundy stuff. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is like to the colspan issue with tables, which is caused when a table has a number set for colspan that is greater than the number of columns some browsers display a gap and others don't. I will go ahead and change the tables then (leaving the roundy now that we know it is a browser issue). However, finding the countless number of tables that use the coding I used on the Hidden Grotto page won't be easy. Lady Ariel 19:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you mean finding those "countless numbers of tables" to fix the roundy stuff, I don't expect to or even intend to try. I just fix whatever I happen to notice (and manage to care about that moment). Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Having a "countless*" number of things to fix isn't supposed to be a deterrent from completing a task that need to be finished. It is more a reason to change something you see is wrong when you see it, because otherwise, it may not be found again for a long while. MaverickNate 21:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Page without category
Since a user has created a page about roller-shake tricks, will you either add a category or delete the page? Cinday123 (Talk) 02:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I get permission to move this sub page of an user into the mainspace or you do it for it? --Cinday123 (Talk) 09:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just up to me. It should be discussed here first.--電禅Den Zen 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Silcoon and Cascoon
Both of them having the same base stats, type, learnset and Ability all seem rather obvious with them being counterparts in the same evolutionary family. Metapod and Kakuna also have the same base stat total, learnset and Ability (and share at least one type, since Kakuna is dual Bug/Poison). Seems to me, the trivia should be combined, but with the shared species trivia being uniform throughout all the species' pages, I'm not sure if it should be merged, a separate trivia point, or a subsequent trivia point. What say you? Glik (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's not that obvious considering that Beautifly and Dustox don't have any of those similarities. The species name should stay separate since Silcoon and Cascoon have more in common with each other than with Metapod or Kakuna.--電禅Den Zen 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Umm...Do you also think that this does not fit here as it was undone by user Glik, I personally think that this trivia is ABSOLutely correct. - unsigned comment from Viv (talk • contribs)
- Almost every Pokémon with Super Luck can do the same thing. It's correct, but not notable.--電禅Den Zen 15:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, got it!.--Viv (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)