| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| | Would it make sense to sort by ranking instead of alphabetical? I guess latest ranking would make more sense. Also I think it would look better to change the columns to 2011 and 2012. --[[User:Jonts|Jonts]] ([[User talk:Jonts|talk]]) 21:18, 28 October 2012 (EDT)OK, just noticed the tables are sortable. That's cool. Maybe we could have it default to ranking then? --[[User:Jonts|Jonts]] ([[User talk:Jonts|talk]]) 01:38, 29 October 2012 (EDT) | | Would it make sense to sort by ranking instead of alphabetical? I guess latest ranking would make more sense. Also I think it would look better to change the columns to 2011 and 2012. --[[User:Jonts|Jonts]] ([[User talk:Jonts|talk]]) 21:18, 28 October 2012 (EDT)OK, just noticed the tables are sortable. That's cool. Maybe we could have it default to ranking then? --[[User:Jonts|Jonts]] ([[User talk:Jonts|talk]]) 01:38, 29 October 2012 (EDT) |
| | :Pre-sorting doesn't work with CSS classes as far as I can see. I have to write a JS file and embed it on this page. Maybe I'll do that on a later stage. Renaming the columns is a good idea. --[[User:Qvist|Qvist]] ([[User talk:Qvist|talk]]) 04:06, 29 October 2012 (EDT) | | :Pre-sorting doesn't work with CSS classes as far as I can see. I have to write a JS file and embed it on this page. Maybe I'll do that on a later stage. Renaming the columns is a good idea. --[[User:Qvist|Qvist]] ([[User talk:Qvist|talk]]) 04:06, 29 October 2012 (EDT) |
| − | :The polls on Qvist's profile are labeled 2012 Ed. 1 and 2012 Ed. 2. I see that the actual polling for Ed. 1 happened during 2011, so that's fine with me. We could pre-sort the lists by ranking by hand if we wanted to, or we could do Qvist's JS method. I was just sticking them in alphabetically because that made sense, but can easily sort them by rank instead. --[[User:Schneau|Schneau]] ([[User talk:Schneau|talk]]) 08:38, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::The naming now is consistent with the respecting forum threads. I think it would be more confusing otherwise. --[[User:Qvist|Qvist]] ([[User talk:Qvist|talk]]) 09:10, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Nothing to do with the wiki, but I was thinking about the categories here and realized that technically possession should fall in the $6 or more category. Though obviously it would be silly to do so.--[[User:Jonts|Jonts]] ([[User talk:Jonts|talk]]) 16:04, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Column sort fix ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | So using some regex wizardry, I attempted to fix the sorting of rows. Before I changed anything, clicking on column headers would result in you getting numbers sorted ACSIInumerically, i.e. 1, 10, 11, 12, 2, 3, etc. This obviously defeats the purpose of having a sorting function in the first place. The solution was to use the data-sort-value function to sort each single-digit entry as if it had a leading zero (without displaying it), which unfortunately does make the table much more dense and less human-readable and -editable (on the code side. It's quite clean on the front end). I used the same trick to make - be sorted like ~ (to put those entries at the end of the sorted list), and 0 to be sorted as -0 (which places it in the proper place between the positive and negative numbers in the various +/- columns).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Now, there are two bugs that I can see that don't seem to have anything to do with my direct changes (though I could of course be mistaken), and I'm hoping that some of you wiki wizards might be able to shed some light here.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | First, some columns place the - row at the start. This appears to occur randomly. To see this in action, sort the columns of the first table one by one, and you'll see the proper functionality for the first three columns, but then starting with 2013 ed, the - entries are now sorted at the top when in ascending order. Considering it works for some but not others, I have no idea what might be causing this, though it's possible this is related to the second bug.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Second, some of the +/- columns seem to behave erratically. On most of the left-most versions of these columns, clicking the column header once results in an arrow pointing up, and the column sorted in ascending order. However, in some of the columns (including all the +/- that are the right-most), clicking on the header once results in an up arrow and the column being sorted in ''descending'' order. On all of these glitched +/- columns, any - rows are also arranged in an interesting manner - see the Cost 4 table, rightmost +/- column for an example of what I mean.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I have three theories. First, since these are all related to newer card sets, perhaps there's some template skulduggery going on here. Second, it's a bug in the underlying mediawiki stuff. Third, I screwed up somewhere. <.<;;
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Any light that might be shed on this would be most appreciated. If not, it's still overall an improvement, I think, though if I've overstepped in my assuming this, feel free to revert.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:Ketura|Ketura]] ([[User talk:Ketura|talk]]) 03:58, 18 July 2015 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Why there are events on list of cards?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | : Because last year, the Events and Cards were ranked together. There is now some discussions about how this year's ranking will be done (especially looking at how Debt will be included) on the forums, if you want to join in there. [[User:ConMan|ConMan]] ([[User talk:ConMan|talk]]) 20:33, 3 July 2016 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == what about Sentry? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | i don't see the Sentry card on here. should it be listed?
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | - I added Sentry and Replace with null values. If they have a qvist rank, someone else can add that
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == 2019 Rankings? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Were there 2019 rankings? Will there be any this year? --[[User:Jonvs|Jonvs]] ([[User talk:Jonvs|talk]]) 00:53, 28 March 2020 (EDT)
| |
