Template talk:Userbox Veteran: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Snorii (historical) (→57 - Abiding: new section) |
imported>Eabrace (historical) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Seems to work on my user page, but I somehow messed up the example. For me it shows Allegiant rather than Abiding. - [[User:Snorii|Snorii]] 14:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | Seems to work on my user page, but I somehow messed up the example. For me it shows Allegiant rather than Abiding. - [[User:Snorii|Snorii]] 14:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:When I hit Edit and Preview without making any changes, it looks fine. I see this every once in a while when editing templates. My guess is that it's a server-side caching issue. Perhaps forcing a flush of this particular page from the server cache would cause it to show correctly? --[[User:Eabrace|Eabrace]] 15:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:48, 17 February 2009
For the Template gurus out there:
Since I based this off of the Userbox_Server template and didn't write it from scratch (I'm not quite that far along yet), I think I may have inherited something that I either don't need or should modify somehow. Specifically, toward the end of the third line, there's a "{{{3|" in there that I don't particularly get the functionality of. Someone want to offer me a clue? --Eabrace 03:13, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
- From what I can tell, the Userbox Server template uses an optional third argument that can replace the image with a custom one, the last example on the page is a well, example of what I can infer that code is about. --Kevo 03:52, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
- It may be better to base it off of Userbox Generic instead. --Kevo 04:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
57 - Abiding
Seems to work on my user page, but I somehow messed up the example. For me it shows Allegiant rather than Abiding. - Snorii 14:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- When I hit Edit and Preview without making any changes, it looks fine. I see this every once in a while when editing templates. My guess is that it's a server-side caching issue. Perhaps forcing a flush of this particular page from the server cache would cause it to show correctly? --Eabrace 15:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)