Please create an account or Login! Have fun!

User:Indyindeed/Infobox Test

< User:Indyindeed
Revision as of 22:27, 23 June 2019 by Indyindeed (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is purely for demonstration purposes, to showcase ideas for the formatting of the new infoboxes coming soon to the Wiki. It will most likely be deleted shortly following their addition.



Notes:

  • Image as part of header: optional, but would look slightly better in my opinion
  • Smaller width: reduced to 27% down from the current infoboxes' 30% (if you think this is too small or too big, feel free to change it)
  • Separated passwords / chip counts: all CCLXP2 levels marked with LX (viewable here) have their passwords mirrored, and some CCLXP2 levels have different chip count levels
  • Unreachable chips note: looks better to me this way than to store in a separate box, hoping the community doesn't decide against this
  • No box for hint; the level does not have a hint
    • CCLXP2 levels marked with * or LX have unreadable hints added to them (assuming the level doesn't already have a hint) saying:
      "This level has been tweaked from its original version." or
      "This level is not solvable in MS mode."
      I think we simply shouldn't add those to the infoboxes at all
  • Links to MS and Lynx rulesets provided; if the level is in CC1, a link to CC2 ruleset would also be provided
    • Links are written specifically as [[MS ruleset|MS]] and [[Lynx ruleset|Lynx]], been attempting to point all links to one redirect so that What links here can be viewed in one place
  • No box for bold luck; the level has no luck-based elements
  • No difficulty settings for Lynx; the difficulty settings are the same
  • Next to Lynx bold is LX to represent a Lynx-only level, and a link to the section of the CCLXP2 article that explains why incompatible levels were marked with * and LX in their titles


Side note: Cypher II, and In the Slime have multiple designers, so perhaps it would be best to pluralize Designer on these two levels