Basically, I'd like to convert your existing infoboxes to be portable. They would look identically (unless you would like me to redesign them) to the current templates on desktop, but a lot better on mobile. This change would require no changes to articles at all and the infoboxes should be more maintainable in the future. For example, here's how a Portable Infobox would look on the Episode 0001 page:
We'd really like to get working on your community, but we would appreciate your go-ahead. Also, if you have any questions, or this is the wrong venue for this kind of a discussion, please let me know.
Is there any particular reason behind this decision? As suggested before your community is currently one of the biggest wikis that still use non-portable infoboxes, and we would like to carry the migration out already. The change itself won't require any work on your side, so if you don't see any downsides to migrating then I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to do it. If you feel that you are going to be limited by Portable Infoboxes in any way then I'm sure we can resolve that together.
1) There's really nothing wrong with our infoboxes. They look fine on both desktop and mobile.
2) We're familiar with the code currently being used. We don't need to relearn a new system.
3) From what I've seen, the new code is rather restrictive. Although, in full disclosure, it's been a while since I've looked into it and I don't exactly remember what features worked and what didn't. But I don remember that some options were no longer doable using the new code.
If you can convince us we're wrong on these points, I'm open to hearing about it. Perhaps some proof of concept on all of our currently used templates in a test environment not on this wiki.
But honestly I don't know why there's such a push. If it's not broke, why fix it? Why is this agenda being pushed so aggressively?
1) Fandom's systems are built with the fact that not all of the wikis use PIs in mind. That might not be the case in the future. For instance, the way tables render on mobile can change pretty much at any point and break your infoboxes. Thus non-portable infoboxes are just not future-proof, while PIs are officially supported and will not break in the future. So even if you feel like your infoboxes look fine on mobile it might not be the case in the future. Also, the thing with tables is that they were never intended to be used for layout. It is not even my personal opinion, or Fandom's opinion, it is advised against in the spec of that element. Tables cause problems as opposed to a native solution designed directly with infoboxes in mind.
2) I don't think the change would be too hard to get used to. For instance here's a before/after for a single data row:
The syntax is easy to learn and it's probably even simpler than before. As for article pages, their source stays exactly as it is now.
3) It might have been the case when the feature debuted which happened a solid few years ago. At the moment I can't recall a single feature which can be done with old-school infoboxes and can't be done with the new ones.
Perhaps some proof of concept on all of our currently used templates in a test environment not on this wiki.
I've created some live comparisons on a test wiki here: Episode 0001, Episode 0695. Of course ignore the styling outside of the article area and focus on the infoboxes themselves. Here's the infobox source if you want to take a look at it.
But honestly I don't know why there's such a push. If it's not broke, why fix it?
I hope I've explained it in point 1.
Alright, please let me know what you think of the linked proof of concept. If you'd like to see a comparison of another infobox template, or if you feel that something should be changed with the current demo then I'll be sure to make changes. Also if you have any other questions, or if you feel that I didn't explain some of the points well enough then feel free to let me know. Thanks!
We use tables on roughly 8,000 of our 35,000 pages. What's to happen to them if Fandom decides to change the way they render in the future?
I might have worded that incorrectly, so sorry if I scared you, let me clarify. If any change happens to tables you can be sure that it won't break the the tables you are using, as long as you are using them correctly - to organize and display data. An example of a good use of the table would be the Picture/Segment/Description table on episode pages. An example of a bad use of tables would be using them as infoboxes, as currently. Any theoretical changes to wikitext tables would be thoroughly tested before being shipped. But those wouldn't be tested against infobox use, because that's not what tables are for. You can check Best practices with tables for further details.
Currently, we have some special styling for mobile non-portable infoboxes, which takes up precious page size. We can't pretend that it will be kept forever. So clarifying and summing up: correctly used tables and Portable Infoboxes won't break, tables used as non-portable infoboxes might break.
I found a compilation of international Sesame Street theme songs, in it there was a version of the Plaza Sesamo theme song I had never heard before. Perhaps I am just a tad naive but never the less it might be a fun thing to look into
Hi, Sarah. That's a nice find, although I have to admit to not knowing much about the history of the Plaza Sésamo theme song. If you think you have a good handle on it, there's probably justification to have a "Plaza Sésamo Theme" article. We have similar pages for "Sesame Street Theme", "Sesamstrasse Theme", and "Sesamstraat Thema". There's also "Plaza Sésamo Tema" which appears to be some kind of mash-up of several versions of the theme. Anyway, maybe it's something you might want to start building in the sandbox? Sandbox:Plaza Sésamo Theme.
Hi, I'm looking at the CSS for the trending pages titles on the category page. The pic here is what it looks like for me -- not very readable. Wikia changed their category treatment in November, and I agree with you that their version leaves a lot to be desired :) -- the centering for one thing. But I'd like to tweak the font a bit more.
I think you made a change to Wikia.css in this edit in response to their changes. I tried taking those lines out, to see if that's the right bit. So far it hasn't done anything, but css changes always take a while to settle. Do you have any thoughts?
Yeah, I was just looking at that. :) Those two screenshots of Category:Sesame Street Characters were taken less than an hour apart, and they only have three items in common. Either their "trending pages" definition is on a hair-trigger or it doesn't work that well.
I was sort of startled when I went to do the releases section for Goudvis and found that the page I had used to create it (which I've had up in a tab for a few days) was no longer listed as linking to it. Is there some reason you unlinked all the songs?
We've had some discussions in multiple threads over the years about monitoring Special:Wantedpages and how it's a useful tool but has its quirks: 1) that it's limited to 1,000 pages, and 2) that the Exclude Titles feature has been broken some time and Staff doesn't place a fix in very high priority. So we've been working under the presumption that a lot of keywords don't need redlinks unless they're likely to get pages. Songs on obscure international records are pretty niche and likely only to have pages created for them if someone comes along with the drive to do so and not as the result of creating demand via redlinks. Goudvis falls under that criteria, and it looks like your follow-up action was the appropriate one.
Thanks, but I knew most of that. I read (and followed) Andrew's forum post and subsequent discussions about the issue last week. As I can do absolutely nothing about the sesame street episodes that flood it and make it hard to find anything else, and certainly can't do anything about the actual special pages bug, I chose not to post. Instead I spent the last week creating pages from the list where I could find information to add. I'm being reasonably methodical about it or it would have been all Dutch songs, which I enjoy because they are fairly easy -- there is a dutch song database to verify titles and authors, I speak dutch, and they are all on youtube. Having finally gotten to them it was a bit distressing to have them suddenly start to disappear.
In any event, I was trying to do the same thing as you, which is to clean up that page.
On a related note, for non-English titles, does the wiki try to use English rules for capitalization? Or does it follow the specific language rules? Dutch only capitalizes the first word and proper names in most titles, but the existing song and book pages are a mix both ways and it's bugging me.
I don't think we've ever had a discussion about how to be consistent with foreign language capitalization rules (or I've forgotten about it). I usually check to see if there's a similar Wikipedia or IMDb entry and follow that style. But it's probably a topic for a bigger conversation with the community.