User talk:Watchout/My Main Page

Ah, but this looks awful in the default WoWWiki skin. Once we get the wiki updated to the latest version, we should be able to sort any issue, however :) -- Kirkburn 06:14, 26 August 2006 (EDT)


 * As many noticed, there is no real way to do those things right and skin-independent with just wiki templates/styles. So actually this page *has* to be broken in the wowwiki style and is by no means a proposal for replacement, its just for those (like me) who like the monobook style more and still use the mainpage.
 * And while we're waiting for CSS, you're welcome to play on the colors here too (but keep in mind this is for Monobook only), so there's less work to do once we actually have CSS access -watchout 07:26, 26 August 2006 (EDT)


 * I just did a couple of minor changes on the Main Page Dev to make all the text fixed white in monobook. Hopefully that should help at least a little for now - look better for you? -- Kirkburn 07:35, 26 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Yay, it's a bit better, but still the main problem is the quite dark blue links on the dark grey background... its like ([]) but it would be crazy to color them all separately. -watchout 07:53, 26 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Thank you for that my eyes, my eyes! ... once we get control of the CSS sheets properly, things like that should be fixed - the owner is hoping to update the wiki within the next few weeks :) -- Kirkburn 07:56, 26 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Well thats actually some good news (maybe new icons too? *cheer*), hopefully the update won't produce more problems than it solves, but I guess we'll all see... -watchout 08:03, 26 August 2006 (EDT)

Interface Customization Menu
Regarding the Interface menu links (I originally posted this on the wrong page):

The Cosmos devs will not accept removing the individual addon links, btw. The separate addon links are pretty important to keep, especially for those who use the wiki as their main addon documentation center. I'm also not sure why you moved them into a single column - the API pages come under the API section... -- Kirkburn 10:27, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * The Cosmos dev's will have to admit that this wiki is dedicated to WoW and not their addon.
 * That thing with the wowapi and widget-api... tbh. the page World of Warcraft API is actually a Global API Functions page. You might say that Widgets are linked on that page, but they are not a subpart of the global functions, they are global objects and thus have their own functions etc. The title is misleading, and thats why I didnt propose this change on the mainpage talk page -watchout 12:01, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Your first comment would be wrong - the Cosmos section is the main resource for Cosmos development, and is where much of the documentation resides. And since Cosmos is part of WoW, and is extremely popular, it has to stay, sorry.
 * On the second part - I'll mention it to Mikk, see what he says :) -- Kirkburn 13:37, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Actually, Cosmos is one of the major reasons that this Wiki exists to begin with. Personally, I wouldn't have Cosmos linked on the main page but I know there's a whole bunch of people that think otherwise, so I don't feel like starting up that ruckus again myself.
 * On the API links... I myself wouldn't even have World of Warcraft API linked on the main page. It's only the first link in the Interface Customization menu. Devs need to just bookmark the Interface Customization page rather than the front page, in my opinion. --Mikk 14:59, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Good thing, I just decided to stop arguing with you about the thing with Cosmos... And yeah, ok lets get rid of the wowapi link :) -watchout 15:21, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Oh and on structure... yeah, the "World of Warcraft API" page "shouldn't" be more than a link farm to the other sections (global functions, widget api, lua library functions...), but changing it around serves no real purpose other than annoy all the people that expect the global API to be on that page, and mess with all the people linking directly to the page. --Mikk 15:03, 27 August 2006 (EDT)


 * Well it would be a better overall structure. But I agree it would cause more work and confusion than it's worth -watchout 15:21, 27 August 2006 (EDT)