User talk:Kolano

Autoconfirmed Users
Are you aware that new users aren't able to edit the wiki at all right now? I was reading on the forums that the permission was set to take three days, then let new users edit, but according to multiple people on the forums it's not working properly. There's reports of existing, old accounts used to make edits before not working either. I know that User:MayImilae said she'd take a look at it, but I thought I should tell you as well in case you didn't know. - Xerxes (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2017 (CEST)

Page Status Template
I really like your idea to add a status template to talk pages. I think that putting IDs needing confirmation in there would also address a lot of my points over at User talk:Xerxes as well. How were you planning on interacting with stuff like revisions since last test from the talk page, if you thought about it that far? The variables are local to just the game page so my best idea was some crazy transclusion/regex shenanigans which sounds terrible and slow. - Xerxes (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2017 (CEST)
 * Yeah, unfortunately I didn't have a good solution for such. Not sure if there may be some plug-ins that might help. Generally it's been taking so long to even build out the game pages I haven't been worrying about maintenance pages for them; I have a feeling we'll be understaffed to maintain them properly even were they to exist. Kolano (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2017 (CEST)
 * Completely understandable. Truthfully, besides liking the idea, I was thinking about this in particular because it seemed like the hardest template to make and I was bored. I think it can be done by assigning the entire contents of the game page's wikitext to one variable on the talk page and then regex-ing that variable in #if statements. Like #var pagecontents = , #if not (regex on pagecontents to delete everything but what's being looked for) then add category "what I looked for is missing". I'll toy around with it over the weekend and see what happens. - Xerxes (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2017 (CEST)

GTX 1060
Minor point, but the NVIDIA site says that the 1060 3GB and 6GB have different core counts (source). The memory is actually part of the name and not a descriptor from my understanding. But I understand trying to keep the testing template as thin as possible. - Xerxes (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2017 (CET)


 * Yeah, sorry, RAM is typically not significant, so we'd prefer to not worry about it. I'd doubt the increased/decreased cores in the alternate cards there is likely to be too impactful. Honestly, in recent years the only detail of significance is likely the vendor; since I don't think most titles stress modern graphics cards much even /w significant enhancements applied. So it's just things like identifying driver differences that tend to be useful. Kolano (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2017 (CET)

Invisible UI
I've just noticed you added the invisible UI problem in Tom and Jerry in War of the Whiskers, that may be similar to Sonic Adventure DX: Director's Cut. It can be retrieved back to screen using Free Look hack. Can it be done in Tom and Jerry game as well? Lucario (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2015 (CET)

Performance Guide
I see you went ahead and purged the Performance Guide but I noticed we caused issues on the main website! The Performance Guide still is on the list of Guides and now point to a deleted page and there's probably other places where this guide was linked too and they're broken as well... - mbc07 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2016 (CET)

I thought the general sentiment was that the former guide was too outdated to align well for the 5.0 release anyway. We can re-add some statement, which I believe generally is that out of the box settings are best for performance. Some general configuration guide would still be good to have, but I haven't seen a lot of commitment to create/maintain such. Kolano (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2016 (CET)


 * It was *very* inappropriate to remove this without informing everyone or having a proper conversation about it! The prior discussion in April 2014 had settled on keeping it, and by removing it without informing anyone it violated the established discussion. But worse of all, I am very disappointed that something that affects the entire project was removed without talking to anyone inside or outside of the wiki. The devs learning about this from someone complaining about a dead link on our guides page is NOT how this project should be run! I'll send some PMs and make sure everyone is here to talk about it, we need to either remove the link from the main page or restore the guide ASAP! - MayImilae (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2016 (CET)


 * I guess I'll start with reasons for keeping it. As silly as it was, the performance guide was one of our most trafficked guides. Users have a tendency to not believe that default settings are correct, and they don't think to look at the emulator tooltips for that information, they google or look at our guides page. They'd find our performance guide, and we served them that information. Now that we don't have a performance guide, they'll google one and get god knows what giving them HORRIBLE advice! As bad as it was, and as annoying as it was, it served a purpose. I think it should be restored, and fixed up for the 5.0 release. - MayImilae (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2016 (CET)


 * Sigh. We had requests from multiple people to purge it, and it was well known and agreed upon that it's content it very out of date. I've restored the page, but not it's images or other internal wiki links to it. It's even more of a mess due to that, but that's probably reflective of the state of it's content currently. I really hate having such unrefined and out of date content on the wiki, particularly since the guide seems to provides minimal useful info (i.e. that isn't already included in Dolphin tooltips). It all needs to be rewritten so I'm not clear that restoring this old version of it really provides any assistance for setting up a 5.0 aligned version. If we do rewrite it we should make it a 5.0 performance guide and no longer update it with dev updates (i.e. no updates till 6.0), trying to maintain alignment with dev changes over time becomes too much maintenance effort. Kolano (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2016 (CET)


 * We'll never know if those million visitors were actually looking for recommended system requirements to play Dolphin smoothly. Lucario (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2016 (CET)


 * Honestly I would just remove the linking on the main website and let this die. The problem I see with the guide in its current form is that it just duplicates what already is in Dolphin (in a very poor way, if you ask me) and the screenshots just makes the maintenance harder. Said that, if purging the guide really is not an option (I wish it was), my proposal is rewriting the guide to clearly inform the user that the default Dolphin options already are the best performance settings and that they can read Dolphin's tooltips/descriptions for more details of "what option X does" (we could go even further and state that there's no magical setting in Dolphin that will make it run great on a computer not meeting the system requirements -- that's the main reason to someone seek a performance guide, I think?). We could also expand the guide a little more by listing known non-default options that sacrifices accuracy in order to improve the speed but warning very clearly of the consequences (also explaining they won't get support on the forums with problems caused by using those settings, for example). In other words, in current state this guide is unfixable and I have no hope on it, even if we just update the current guide to align with recent versions (or even if we make it a "5.0 stable only" guide) because it'll inevitably become the same mess in future, so, I'm in favour of either letting it die or doing a complete redesign. - mbc07 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2016 (CET)


 * I would like nothing more than to see it go. :( But it is heavily trafficked, and the number of "performance guides" I've seen floating about the internet is very alarming. Honestly the only thing I disagree on about any of this is how it was done. I am sorry to be the person that goes "this crap must stay!", I'd much rather be the one pushing for it's removal, but... such is the situation we're in. :/ Maybe this time we can try a different approach and make it better!- MayImilae (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2016 (CET)


 * I'd generally prefer to provide general guidance around the various config settings, and not singularly focus on performance details. Provide some general statement on the "Performance Guide" page as indicated by mbc07 above (and previously by others) that default settings provide optimal performance and link to a more complete configuration guide for actual config details. Also, as indicated above, we should be cautious about documenting anything outside of what's in the 5.0 release. We go so long between releases it forces accounting for pre-release updates around the wiki, but the more we can avoid that the better. There were some config changes recently, so it's probably best that we held off updating things quite yet. Kolano (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2016 (CET)

What?
I see that deletion request for Category:Pages without Problems section has be undone with your edit summary I don't understand. I realized my edit summary in Template:testing/start edit history might be vague and might be what caused misunderstanding between us. I was trying to point out that DPL at Project:To Do, just right under Project:To Do is accomplishing the same thing. I am currently in the position favoring to continue the deletion request unless I unnderstand what you meant. Can you clear things up for me? Thanks.Lucario (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2018 (CET)