Harry Potter Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Portable infoboxes and you



Hey guys!

As you probably already know, Wikia wants to make your content look as good on as many devices as possible. A big part of that effort has to do with modernising your infoboxes with some new code. Mobile devices just can't handle the old way of doing infoboxes. So we've come up with some new code that's easier for humans and portable devices to understands

In the case of Harry Potter, we've found that almost everything translates over exactly. Best of all you have to do almost nothing to get the new code. And you're not going to lose your intricately-coded color scheme. We've already coded all the new infoboxes and included the colour scheme that you've currently got active. Take a look at how closely these two infoboxes match:

New, portable version of {{Ministry of Magic individual infobox}} is at right; old version at left.

The main difference is the size of the signature; otherwise it's a pretty good match! Also, the "hide" button isn't really here anymore, but that's a legacy bit of programming that most people don't really use. Wookieepedia — on whose code your infoboxes are clearly based — decided to just abandon that feature going forward, so I've not made a big effort to include it here at Harry Potter.

Since there's so little difference between the current and new versions of the infoboxes, would you guys mind if I just started adding and converting the rest of the infoboxes? Feel free to put your comments below. I'll be back over the weekend to see what you think! Thanks a lot, guys! :) — CzechOut 08:36, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

I have a personal dislike of Portable Infoboxes, they have less customisation available to them, which nullifies many parserfunctions from working in them to create more dynamic and efficient infoboxes. The only thing that seems good about this particular instance is the smaller text: if this smaller text was carried back to the older infobox and the hide button removed, then I doubt there'd be much reason to convert. So I have to say "no" to converting them, but I doubt it matters as Wikia will just convert them anyway regardless of our opinions. --Sajuuk 08:44, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
While I take your point, it may not be as applicable at this community as at others. See, only 5 infobox templates out of the ~75 have even been touched since 2014. Most were made in 2011/12 and never touched again. They were made in a particularly straightforward style, and they just don't use very complicated parser functions.
Because of the lightweight code used to make Harry Potter's current infoboxes, it all boils down to whether the infobox on the right is a reasonable match for the one on the left. — CzechOut 09:06, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
That is true, however I would argue the point that there are too many separated infoboxes on the wiki, which would be confusing to members and I'd vote to combine them and use parser functions to make them dynamic for all uses. --Sajuuk 11:53, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
I feel ya. I love parser functions and enjoy solving the puzzles they present. But not everyone is like that. Moreover, multiple nested parser functions come with their own set of problems, notably heavier load times. These load times aren't something you'd necessarily perceive in the ideal conditions of cable internet at home or school, but they're definitely something you feel on your phone or on crappy WiFi, like in a plane or at a convention.
Truth is, this wiki's infoboxes are simple, but highly effective. They're easy to understand, and they load swiftly. More importantly, judging by the fact that most haven't been touched in half a decade, they're uncontroversial. They do the job that this community has asked of them. So while I truly do understand the appeal of heavily parser-ed up infoboxes, I don't think that's what this community is looking for. It's honestly a lot easier to just copy and paste existing, working infoboxes, change the colours to suit the new requirements, and be on about your way. — CzechOut 18:27, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
I don't have much complaint (it pretty much follows what we've had here previously) -- I'm only somewhat bothered at the "Signature" field. It looks better on the current/old version, in that it's explained what that is, instead of a showing just the character's name in a random scribble (not to point out how frankly odd it would appear in pages about characters with illegible signatures, like Lucinda Thomsonicle-Pocus, Emma Vane's mother, or Mafalda Hopkirk's Ministerial Superior). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:48, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, no complaints here  BachLynn23  Send me an Owl!  The worst failure, is the failure to try.  14:43,3/4/2016 
I don't see any issues with the updated infobox except the signature field that Seth has already mentioned. I understand that space limitations may preclude the inclusion of a "Signature:" marker on the side of the signature field as in the current infobox design. But this marker should probably be integrated somehow, either above or below the signature field instead. It just looks messy to have a field that doesn't have a marker, and as Seth pointed out, its absence may cause confusion on certain articles. Starstuff (Owl me!) 13:53, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
I hear you loud and clear guys :) I didn't realise that some sigs were virtually unreadable. If you clear your cache you will now see that the infobox on the right restores the signature to a left-labeled field with the signature at the same size as the original. Because of the way I had to do this, the current infoboxes (at left) are now skewed a bit. However, this will only be a temporary issue as we transition to the new ones. So, having addressed the signature issue, and seeing a majority of respondents to this thread in agreement with conversion after a week's debate, I'm gonna go ahead and start converting your infoboxes. If there are any other issues, do please send me an owl on my talk page! Thanks for your input! — CzechOut 17:44, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
I'll post this here, and onto your talkpage, but I'd like to ask: does PI have the ability to add collapsible sections? If not, this should really be added as it would help with making the infobox look less lengthy on first view. --Sajuuk 08:46, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
Hey again, SuperSajuuk!
The issue of collapsible groups here on Harry Potter is fascinating.
Generally, collapsibility is something controlled by the user, not by the editor. We as individual readers choose, typically by clicking a little arrow, whether we want a section to hide or not.
But that's not how it was, here. At Harry Potter, there were little variables that editors could assign values to, and particular sections would be hidden. Or not. So it was a very, very manual affair — and one completely out of the hands of the reader. It also was not widely used. So the example above eliminated all that syntax. And when no one, after a week, requested collapsibility, I went ahead without it.
And unfortunately, by the time of your message, all of the infoboxes that were long enough to need the old way of collapsing had already been converted.
As our help files show, though, it's not hard to add collapsible groups. But I don't think this community really has consensus to add them, and I wouldn't feel right about imposing collapsibility where it didn't previously exist. After all, the longest infoboxes on the wiki — found naturally enough at Ron, Hermione and Harry — didn't use collapsed sections prior to conversion, so I really can't add them myself. Still, if the community wants to add the feature, it can do so with great ease later. — CzechOut 19:12, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. My question was more about whether the feature (aka PI's in general on Wikia) could support collapsible sections and if they didn't, then it should be a feature request; not so much whether the infoboxes on this wiki could be updated to include collapsibility.
I'll ask a couple of sysops and Rodolphus and see what they think about it. Unfortunately, in terms of editing, this wiki has a very small community of users, which was showcased by me struggling to get the minimum 3 votes to be granted Content Moderator rights. :P --Sajuuk 19:32, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry: let me be clearer. Yes, PIs do indeed support collapsible groups — and they're easy to make. — CzechOut 22:46, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Conversions done[]

See? That wasn't so painful. All conversions have been done now. Thanks to all who participated in this process! If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to send me an owl! — CzechOut 00:58, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

  1. Hermione's date of birth falls after the Hogwarts term begins on 1 September. If she had been born in 1980 like Harry and Ron, she would be too young to begin attending school in 1991; she would be ten, a couple of weeks away from turning eleven. So she must have been born in 1979; in 1991, she would be eleven, a couple of weeks away from turning twelve.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Harry Potter Limited Edition - A Guide to the Graphic Arts Department: Posters, Prints, and Publications from the Harry Potter Films (see this image)
  3. 3.0 3.1 Pottermore - "DUMBLEDORE'S ARMY REUNITES AT QUIDDITCH WORLD CUP" (Daily Prophet, 08 July 2014)
  4. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, chapter 21 : "Hermione's white face was sticking out from behind a tree."
  5. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
  6. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)
  7. http://www.beyondhogwarts.com
Advertisement