Template talk:Pfstart

A MediaWiki extension?
Wouldn't it be more convenient to have a single tag for the whole diagram? I.E. something like

+-+ +-+
 * oo|
 * s llll oo|
 * sszzttt l|
 * szoot l|
 * szoot l|

Writing an extension for this would not be that hard at all. 66.93.12.67 17:29, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Feel free to write such an extension and post the source code. --Tepples 22:23, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

Block images, and the future of pfrow
After discussion with Digital in IRC about how to format something, we came to the conclusion that the current system isn't perfect. We are limited to the number of diffferent images that we can use that would result in a single character code (somewhere in the region of 40, I believe), and the currently remaining spaces in the alphabet don't leave much room for expansion. Adding 2 character codes for images would be impractical, as a benefit of the current system is that it's fairly easy to get a rough idea of the image while editing.

The diagrams also create a large amount of server load. Some pages have over 5000 block images, and each image comes with a link back to the page where it came from, which is undersireable, because people don't really need to know the history of an image which is only 10x10.

It's also somewhat inflexible. It is soemtime desireable to alter the width of the diagram (mostly making it narrower), which is hard to do cleanly. We have templates for the narrower diagrams, but it's impractical, and it's even more impractical to change the width of a diagram that has already been made. However, it is a very flexible system in the vertical direction, as it's easy to add an additional line.

Ultimately, any new system would need to address these things, while at the same time, provide the flexibility that we are used to with the current system. Suggestions are welcomed, but until a new system has been agreed on, and has been demonstrated to be reliable, the current pfrow system should remain in place. --Lardarse 11:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)

After some consideration, I have come to the conclusion that 2 letter block codes won't be as impractical as first thought. I have also realised that it will be very difficult (if not impossible) to improve the template. And the advangate of 2 letter block codes is that the template doesn't need to be modified.

The naming scheme for these 2 letter codes will go as follows:
 * The first characher of the code will indicate the "group" that the image is from. Images from the SRS group will use the letter S, and be in guideline colours. A will be for ARS, featuring Sega/TGM colours and a visual style similar to TGM. Other letters will be reserved for future expansion. It is likely that we will ahve some letters that indicate a group that is not specific to any one game or rotation system.
 * The second character is which image from that group should appear. I,J,L,O,S,T,Z will be the block types for each piece, in the relevant colour. G will be a grey block, to be potentially used for garbage. Other letters will have different meanings, depending on which group has been selected.
 * If the first character is a space, then it will be ignored for the purposes of determining the image to use, and the single character block image will be used. This makes the system completely backwards-compatible with existing diagrams, and it also means that single and double character blocks can be mixed. It also means that the single character diagrams will still work, and won't need to be converted until a new feature is required.
 * An empty cell can be made with either one space character or two.

Assuming that this idea is agreed upon, there is one last item of business. I would like to propose that the size of the block images is increased, to allow for more detail. I have prepared some images that will allow people to form an opinion:



The first image is the current block size, of 10x10. The other images are with block sizes of 12x12 and 16x16. My preference is towards 12x12, although a larger size was suggested to me. Opinions are welcomed, on both points of discussion. --Lardarse 01:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)