Template talk:VersionCompatibilityVersion/sandbox

Discussion Clean-up
There's a lot of content here now that needs to be reviewed and boiled down to something we can actually discuss / work through. A few of the unaddressed topics would seem to be:


 * Color selection (though I fear this will get into a lot of somewhat pointless preferences)
 * Handling of pre-2.0 releases (I think there are now so many releases charted that the original purpose of cutting off prior to 2.0 likely no longer stands, so I'd prefer we just chart the datapoints availible)
 * Reducing content displayed /wo mouse-over
 * There's a bunch of bickering below regarding rating names and etc. That should likely be handled separately in discussions of a revised rating system. For now this template should align with the current ratings setup.

In any case we'll need to archive the discussion below, and surface any other remaining discussion points to move on here. We should also try to separate these threads into separate headings, as things get messy quickly when many diverse topics are discussed at once. Kolano (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2018 (CET)


 * Ouch, I've completely forgotten how lengthy this discussion has become! I've gotten used to the current template but there are clearly a few features that still don't make it out of the sandbox. I like the new yellow (it was added after merge of new colors). I've abandoned some features from sandbox (you can put your last pointer to rest). Once we all get what we like I'll be ready to abandon this discussion once and for all. I've gained JS experience so I'll take a look into a better tooltip popup to use. Also it seems the revision labels are getting overlapped again especially for narrowed browsers, will really need a better solution yet... mbc07 mentioned something along with logarithmic to create necessary gaps between labels, don't really know how it works.


 * Might discuss about 2.0 thing later. Idc really. I'll come again later to see if there's anything I missed. I don't see what's stopping the revision text on top from making it outside the sandbox yet. Lucario (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (CET)

Details of Purpose?
Can you provide more specific details of what you wanted to accomplish here? Kolano (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2015 (CET)
 * Trying to create something like this: http://i.imgur.com/pzrJ6n9.png
 * I can't seem to display the text outside the box. By the way, the stacking bars aren't intended. It isn't paint job but rather a piece of screenshot of something I made in CSS test area. Lucario (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2015 (CET)

div class="versioncompatibilityversion" Seems to combine the multiple color bars into a single bar but hides the revision texts when it's going outside the box. Lucario (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2015 (CET)

(not quite) Finished!
It could be better but due to my limited coding abilities, it's good as it is now! How is the new version compatibility bar? Maybe try to accustom to it first in several game page previews to find out? (just add "/sandbox" in each template then preview) Lucario (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2016 (CET)

I'm not counter to revising this, but there are still some minor issues with the current revision:
 * Longer revisions, almost anything with 4char revision indicators, are being cut off (i.e. ).
 * Close revisions overlap problematically. With the older style, overlapping revisions would overlap but the newer revision would still be legible. Here overlaps make both revisions illegible. Might be addressable in a few ways:
 * Adding background color to the revision label, perhaps with transparent gradient borders to help things not look odd against non-white backrounds.
 * Handled it this way for now. Such obscures the earlier revision, but at least one is legible this way.Kolano (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2016 (CET)
 * Revising things to handle odd/even revisions slightly differently (up/down, or top of the bar/bottom of the bar).
 * Going with fully vertical text

Beyond those, I'd like to take some time to try to work in some other revised functionality before we'd deploy updates: Kolano (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2016 (CET)
 * Add indicators of major revisions in addition to the end points beneath the bar (i.e. 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0)
 * Revise the default covered range to exclude 2.0 revisions (i.e. cover from v3.0-v5.0)
 * Working out a concept of hard vs soft stops. So we could more accurately indicate where a known compatibility change occurs vs compatibility happens to be such at some revision (but the change may have occurred in an earlier one). Basically I'd like to allow replacing the solid 1px right border with a transparent gradient, so the one compatibility would fade into it's prior one.
 * Allow the covered range to be revised, so it would be possible to display 5.0-1.0 or other range of revisions.


 * I'm against text going vertical. It doesn't free up the space between revisions very much compared to diagonal texts. It will in turn harder to read and require more space above to avoid text cut-off. Besides, it's extraordinary to see the revision getting nearly complete overlapped anyway. Well, my original intention was to resolve the overlap problem between two revisions closing each others, but not for those that's nearly complete overlapped. But I'm in for the white/transparent background just in case. I was thinking this illegible text is better than the older revision getting its revision number cut-off or impossible to click.


 * Maybe we can create mouse over popup so that the revision link will appear when the mouse is hovering the bar or the black arrow. Or mouse over to make the white background so the overlapped text will appear legible? The rotated texts will be no longer needed for this.


 * Your new ideas sound good too. You can edit this template and see how it goes. I'm satisfied with this new template though more features are welcomed. Lucario (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2016 (CET)


 * kolano, after seeing the semi-transparent white background in effect I'd actually prefer the illegible text again. Maybe you could revise it to make the white background thinner, blurrier, and don't extend behind the black arrow? Lucario (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2016 (CET)


 * The semi-transparent background being too thick and extending behind black arrow is now fixed. I still prefer the illegible texts though. Lucario (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2016 (CET)


 * There's now no more 2.0 starting point. The first revision tested will be starting point of game's compatibility chart. If I'm not mistaken, that fulfills one of your wishlist: "possible to display 5.0-1.0 or other range of revisions"? I'm not sure if we need to implement such way to revise the default covered range above 2.0. Simply removing the old revision lines from game pages may be what you're looking for. Lucario (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2016 (CEST)


 * Indicators of major revisions made the new bar layout look cluttered and I don't even want to think what would happen if we include indicator for 5.0, so slashed that out. Lucario (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2016 (CEST)

I'm not entirely sure how much of a good idea this is... we get a lot of "I tried it and it was good!" things which did not change the rating or have anything notable in them, which do not belong on the version compatibility graph. By the definition of "where compatibility change occured", if we strictly followed our own rules this is almost never an issue. The only times I can think of where it would genuinely be useful is cases like, a bug occurs and it is fixed rapidly. But the wiki often misses those anyway. :P But anyway, we shouldn't change anything until clear improvements are established, and I'm not really seeing them right now. - MaJoR (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2016 (CET)


 * As of right now the styling of this new bar isn't really good, such as a wasted space above and few other ugly styling layouts. They will be ironed out eventually. By the way, there is overlap problem like this Star Wars Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader that this new bar may be better for that. Let's also take narrowed browsers into consideration, where the revision labels will be overlapped even more in there. I'm hoping to implement this hover popup (like http://www.wickham43.net/hoverpopups.php) which works for Safari on iOS. Currently I and other iOS users cannot view notes or revision number of the overlapped revision. Lucario (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2016 (CET)


 * Major, there are a bunch of Compatibility Graph updates to work through. We'll work on a few things here before releasing it. I'd guess your concern were partially raised by the "unsure of revision" change. Addressing such rather than ignoring it allows for a few things:
 * Specifically shows unclear changes. Given there are over 700 in the [:Category:VersionCompatibilityVersion Template missing notes] list there are likely many of these.
 * Lets us label titles /w unclear revs for investigation. The category above addresses many of them, but there are unclear entries with notes.
 * Generally allow us to more clearly address cleaning up things like [Ben 10 Alien Force: The Rise of Hex]. We know the rating was updated to 4 back in 2012, but don't know what revision from that timeframe corrected the crashing formerly seen.
 * Cleaning up compatibility graphs will generally be a longer term project. Tasks like reviewing the Issues lists will help with such.

Overlapping Text Correction
Overlapping versions had initially been accounted for by adding a background color to make the topmost version legible. This was recently revised to use the presence of a 4th parameter to shift a later revision sideways. The new correction makes up to 2 overlapping revisions visible. But I don't think works out for more than 2. The restoring the background color would help a bit with that (i.e. so at least 2 of three overlapping results would be legible). Use of the additional variable also complicates things, so I'd like to find an alternate solution.

I think we also generally dislike consuming the additional space above the graph just for labels. One way I'm thinking a bit about to address both would be creating a hovering window over the graph acting like a magnifying glass. Allowing the graph to be drawn wider than the page, and increasing gaps between revisions (perhaps to the a 1 rev per px resolution. Alternate revision labeling would also be feasible. Not clear that works out smoothly, as there would still be limited resolution to the mouse coordinates. It might also alleviate the need to allow revising the revisions to cover. Kolano (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2016 (CET)
 * I think games with three version compatibility revisions overlapping together even with this new bar layout is just extremely rare. I don't think we'd have to worry about that. Let the extreme cases have illegible text. Lucario (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2016 (CEST)

Default Revision Range
As discussed elsewhere, we may need to reduce the number of revisions covered to keep it's output reasonable. I'm not clear on a good range to trim it too. There have been so many 4.0 revs I think limiting it to just those may be appropriate, but I'd like to hear from others before moving forward with related changes. Kolano (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2016 (CET)

Any flaws? Dislikes?
Ok, so I haven't found a (an obvious) flaw as of late besides the flaws inherited from the current bar layout (tooltips unavailable to iOS). Is it good enough to replace the current bar layout? Like I said you could try get accustomed to it after previewing sandbox templates in the game pages so you can judge better.

There are two game sandbox pages with this new bar layout that you can check without previewing:
 * The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (GC)/sandbox
 * Super Smash Bros. Melee/sandbox

If this new bar layout as whole can't be out of the sandbox, is there something you'd like to add to the current bar layout at least? Lucario (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2016 (CEST)

Thanks for working on this. I like what's been done thus far, particularly removing the static end points. I'd like to see the tooltip text revised though. We should show the rating text for all tooltips, not just when there were changes, and I'd like to get rid of the "Rev"/"Compatibility Updated"/"What's New" labels which just seem like excess text to me. Kolano (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2016 (CEST)


 * We can get rid of "Unclear entry" and "What's new" however I think "Rev" should stay. The Dolphin revision looks like list number in the tooltip without "Rev", like "r#### – note", "#.0 – note". I like "Compatibiliy update" though as it tells if the bar didn't change the compatibility rating, great for when I've missed that the bar is transparent. Lucario (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2016 (CEST)
 * We need to find a way to transform that tooltip from div tags into else so that it will work on iOS devices. Mouse over popup will work. We can work on that later... Lucario (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2016 (CEST)


 * I think the problem with using tooltips was that various browsers truncated longer ones rather than showing multiple lines of output, but it's been a while since I looked at it. Can we be clearer about where the angled text doesn't work out. I'd prefer to preserve it where it looks OK, which may be possible with some fancier CSS rules.
 * Also I'm unsure that the new overlap handling works very well. If the browser window is small enough all entries overlap, but if it's wider (like on my 4k) we end up with odd entries floating out in space that wouldn't overlap anything. Kolano (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2016 (CEST)


 * I've used this browser compatibility test and have noticed some browsers couldn't rotate or anti-aliasing the texts so I've removed the rotation codes then implemented more shift to the revision labels. I guess it's a waste of my work because they're for older browsers/computer and I hadn't taken higher res screen into consideration. Lucario (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2016 (CEST)


 * No harm in trying some things out, outside of some time used. This is a hobby, so that's the point anyway. CanIUse.com seems to indicate support for the rotate transform is fairly good in "current" browsers. If the fallback when the rotation isn't supported is that some of the labels overlap, it's probably not the end of the world. Kolano (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2016 (CEST)


 * Okay, transform rotate have returned. I realized we probably should only have to worry about how the website looks on the currently supported browsers. I have a question, would it be more performance hit if there's more extension functions behind the template? Lucario (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2016 (CEST)


 * There are limits, but I'd guess most things likely shouldn't be a problem. What were you thinking of? Also can you add in placemarks for the other major releases (i.e. 3.0, 3.5, 4.0)? Kolano (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2016 (CEST)


 * This Dolphin wiki seems not to be as fast as Wikipedia when it comes to large pages. Anyway, I have mentioned about indicator points that they made the new bar layout looks cluttered and I don't want to think about what will happen when 5.0 is out. It shouldn't be hard to add them there if you want them. Just have to copy/paste 2.0 indicator point then modify to another version. Lucario (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2016 (CEST)

Just small issue we have right now: The recent dolphin revision's rating text will overflow in the left and then eventually clipped by grand-whatever parent div. I tried fix it with another "overflow: hidden" but wasn't sure where to put it in the template (yet). IDK if that's an issue we should care about, as the dolphin revision increases the revision text will not be overflowing anymore.

Hooray! Lucario (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2016 (CEST)

I haven't talked here because I really only have one thing to say, but, I guess it should be said... I don't like it. :/ The colors, the indicator of our silly in need of reworking definitions for stars, the font choices, the way the revisions are on an angle... all of it really. I honestly think the current system is better. You've put a lot of work into this, and that's not an easy thing to hear, but... those are my thoughts on it. Sorry... I'm bringing it up now since it seems to be nearing completion, and it would not be ok if the changes are just merged without discussion. We'll absolutely need to vote on this before anything is applied. - MaJoR (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2016 (CEST)


 * I want to contribute Dolphin Emulator in any way I can but this is not what I want to read. Most of your replies sound like prejudice and are killing my motivation to contribute or to love Dolphin Emulator (considering you're higher in position of the Dolphin Emulator community). Prejudice is hurtful. I'm fine with this needing some discussion and voting, but please keep prejudice to themselves. Lucario (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2016 (CEST)


 * *sigh* That was not prejudice. I made no criticism of you or your capacity to do good work, and I even went out of my way to praise how much work you are putting into this! And you have done a lot of great work here, especially in the guides sections! My criticism was directed at this specific template implementation. Just... I know that stung a lot... I really should have said this waaay before now, before you put a lot of work into this, and um, I'm sorry that I didn't... I was trying to work myself into replying, and then you stopped working on it in January, then I forgot about it, then you picked up on it while I was busy moving... *sigh* I am sorry about that... But I need to give my opinion honestly. If it didn't come up now, it would come up when it came time to vote on this for implementation, and I wanted to say it before that. I know this is discouraging, but, this is kind of how wikis are; lots of my pet projects weren't approved (just look at the many attempts to fix the rating definitions -_-) and that's just a potential you need to be prepared for in this consensus driven environment. Anyway, I'm sorry, and I know its discouraging, but I felt like you should hear this before it is blocked and voted on and all of that.... This was probably nooot the best way to go about it, but, its the best I could see at the time I guess. - MaJoR (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2016 (CEST)


 * I was under the impression that it is. I just cannot believe that this new bar layout can be stopped by your personal preference. You didn't like this new color, didn't like rotated texts, didn't like thick text, didn't like whatever it's got that the current bar layout doesn't have. You haven't even asked why. There are legit reasons why they're there. You did read this whole discussion, didn't you? Initially this new bar layout was started after you said that the current bar layout couldn't handle clutter (here).


 * Is there really nothing that can make it out of the sandbox? Lucario (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2016 (CEST)


 * As any other wiki, the Dolphinwiki works based on consensus. If you, mbc07, and Kolano all wish to implement it as is, then I'm simply overruled, and have to follow it. I cannot just simply stop it based on my preferences. But the same applies to you - if the majority of us are not in favor of this template, or wish changes to be done first, you'll have to comply with it as well. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, we could find a compromise solution too, based on all of our input. And yes I have read the discussion and have watched this develop, know the reasons behind the changes. I just don't agree. :/ I'll be making sure to go through my position in detail soon, but right now I'm swamped with 5.0 release work! >_< I'll post in detail after 5.0. - MaJoR (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2016 (CEST)


 * I thought it's almost a given that the bar layout is in need of a revamp. I suppose the new bar layout that I came up with is in need of a consensus since it could be just me who thinks it's a worthy replacement for the current bar layout as it is currently (well, after some cleanup like undoing rating text in the tooltip). What side are you on, User:mbc07 and User:Kolano? We can always work on a better bar layout to replace on top of this new bar layout in the future, like Kolano said something with CSS.


 * If you'd (MaJoR) like, you can provide a better alternative for something you dislike about this new bar layout meantime. Should it make it in before going out of the sandbox or to save it for the future. I will most likely undo the rating text in the tooltip as you and Kolano seems to oppose it and I don't have strong point with it going out of the sandbox. I didn't returned for a while because I don't like to get involved in discussion like this. I was mad on that time (and still am!).


 * I hope your progress with releasing Dolphin 5.0 went smooth! Quite excited for it. Lucario (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2016 (CEST)


 * I share similar thoughts with MaJoR, I would be against implementing this outside of the sandbox in the current state. I can say that the only thing in this sandbox that I personally think it's better than the current template are the new colors, everything else needs adjustments here or there or aren't really necessary (I'll elaborate more after 5.0 release)... - mbc07 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2016 (CEST)

Let's divide features the new bar layout is made up of, then you and MaJoR can see what you're actually opposing on with MaJoR's unclear response "all of it really".

I'm in support of big bold rating text as it gives users idea of what color means in the bar. It's got its font style to blend into the background of the bar. This will require the revision text to go outside of the bar. I realized that with revision text on top I can also find version compatibility in wrong order in several game pages (discovered when previewing with sandboxed templates, I can't remember which game I first discovered but Rayman Origins got similar, ordered exactly backward). Lucario (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2016 (CEST)


 * Okay, got some time to review this, firstly, could you explain better what exactly are you referring to by "Rating text on top: white bar to be in its full width"? I didn't figure out what it might be, so I'm presumably opposing until I understand better. Secondly, about "Correcting overlapped revision text by shifting later revision to upper-left", I'm supportive of having some way to correct overlapped revisions but I think the current design isn't looking good, needs further refinement. Moving on, I'm also supportive of "Major revision points in footer", but in the future, with more releases, it'll get messy. Maybe using some kind of logarithmic instead of linear calculation to the revision position on the bar (so the recent releases get a wider space in the chart compared to old ones, like 2.0). This also relates to "Remove static "2.0" end point": I oppose having anything older than 2.0 being the "earliest", the data available on those revisions are pretty scarce and 2.0 at this point is so old to even bother trying to gather information about it (I mean, the Version Compatibility chart didn't even exist on the wiki around 2.0 release time, AFAIK -- why bother keeping track of revisions before it while we already have trouble documenting revisions released after?). That's all I had to say, for now. If you want to discuss further on some point that I'm officially opposing, let me know. - mbc07 (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2016 (CEST)
 * Forgot something about the new colors: I don't like the color used for "playable". My suggestion here is using the current "perfect green" as the color for playable and using some kind of blue (somewhat close to the Dolphin logo, for example) as "perfect". - mbc07 (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2016 (CEST)


 * Will respond in a few bullets bellow... Kolano (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2016 (CEST)

I'm happy to see discussion here, but would like to ensure that we don't deride some of the improvements that have been made due to what are likely more minor design decisions. Kolano (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2016 (CEST)
 * I believe the "Rating text on top: white bar to be in its full width" is related to the current revision no longer consuming 100% of the width. Instead there is as odd gap between the last revision shown and the edge of the chart. I remain a bit unclear why that would be necessary, I'd think the header/footer rows would be be styled to allow for overlapping other content avoiding forcing odd offsets, but I haven't had time to look closely at why the gap has been added.
 * Can you or Major be more clear about oppositions to revisions to account for overlapping revision text? The current revision seems to significantly improve on displaying close revisions. Do we not feel there enough CSS3 compliant browsers that support angled text? Neither you or Major have described why you are opposed to the current revisions to account for such? We had considered some additional revisions to offset close revisions further (i.e. allow even closely set diagonal text to not overlap), but wanted to avoid some of the complexities of that for now. In any case I want to have a clearer understanding of the opposition of pulling the change revision indicators into the header, and offsetting them diagonally to allow close set revisions to be legible.
 * I think the eventual goal regarding the baseline revision point will be to make it be set arbitrarily based on whatever revision we have the earliest report on. If we have no reports earlier than 4.0 then there is no reason to clutter the graph with earlier revisions. However, where we have reports from prior to 2.0 I'd like the chart to display them. My vote would be to display all available data and work out some reasonable display when no data is available.
 * I understand there has been some ongoing effort to purge historic data from the wiki, and I understand the lack of desire to maintain such. For instance, I have not opposed the purge of problem data. At the same time there is a historic aspect of things to preserve as well, which I feel the Compatibility graph plays into.


 * My response (to mbc07) in bullets


 * "Rating text on top: white bar to be in its full width" - WHOOPS! It's Revision text, not rating text. Not sure how I've overlooked that :/. The remaining white gap is visible at the end of chart. This is because the revision point symbol is taking in place before revision text (hence "Revision text on top" rather than inside), the revision bar had to be moved away from the right edge to avoid revision texts getting overflowed or cropped. The revision bar can't consume 100% of the width, that's a given, but the white bar can. If it's distracting to you then it can be moved to left like the rest of the revision bars (I think I've tried in the other day, it's feasible if I remembered correctly). It's better to take further discussion at.


 * I think it's natural to let "perfect" have green and "playable" to have blue (teal) than the other way around, because green would mean better than bue. I don't exactly care about rainbow order but you've got good point about that blue is one of dolphin emulator's color scheme. I'm indifferent which order should we go for playable and perfect. You can change the color order in the sandbox template if you insist, I'm cool.


 * "Remove static "2.0" end point" - after reading the end of this discussion I assume you will support of this idea afterwards? Especially that all the pre-2.0 revision texts will overlapping together at once if otherwise. Originally I've thought of it after seeing a big black bar gap taking up bit too much, seen regularly in the game pages where there's only a new revision as the first revision tested. It's already implemented in the new bar if you didn't know, testcases are available too that you can preview. Maybe you already did, I can't tell from this long of discussion.


 * I'd stop worrying about the revisions getting crowded together in the version compatibility table even after taking many, many more revisions coming in from the future. The overlap fix will help, but no more. Let them be. If someone was going to do a serious research they'd work with the big monitor or look in the page source. This new bar is a worthy replacement as it is now, for me. The version compatibility graph can be double up as a dump collection of historic issues like Kolano suggested, but they've already been purged though. Maybe wait until some editor care enough to bring them back. Lucario (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2016 (CEST)

Ok... Usually I like how loosely the wiki is run, but... there is a bit of a debate ethics problem. Detaching someone's opinion from their words is very dangerous. It is extremely easy to manipulate someone's opinion when detaching it, so it is vital that any such summarizing is handled by someone outside of the two primary parties involved in an argument/debate. Lucario, that means me, who initially voiced opposition, and you, the creator. It is improper for either one of us to manage the opinions of others in this discussion. As such, the table you made must be verified by a third party. Kolano or mbc07, please go through everyone's opinions on this table and verify the information present is accurate, and make any corrections that may be needed? And Lucario, please do not make any further alternations to the table, and allow someone else to maintain it. I appreciate that you created the table and what you are trying to achieve, but proper procedure must be maintained in bigger and elaborate discussions like this one. Now I'm going to go over it and take on some issues I have with the template. I will not be referencing the table you created do to the above reasons, instead I will be looking at the template and bringing up points of things that I see. So what changes would I like made to the template? I absolutely want the ratings text removed. Colors should be adjusted some, but it's not the biggest deal in the world. I do not like the always on diagonal arrows with revisions, but if those arrows were to appear on mouse over, that I think would be nice. Like, have it display like the current system, but mouse over and it gives more details with the arrows if you want it. It looks busy when always on, but if it only appears when someone deliberately wishes for more information, then the busy-ness is wanted and perfectly fine! Anyway, that is my opinion on this. Sorry it's kind of late, I kind of crashed after the 5.0 push, then I had to start dealing with real life bureaucracy (yuck!). - MaJoR (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2016 (CEST)
 * Broken-Intro-Starts-Playable-Perfect - Those terms are completely arbitrary and subjective, and I do not like them. The entire rating system is desperately in need of an overhaul, but we've never managed to overhaul it due to disagreements in the precise implementation. But that's just the root problem with it, isn't it? It's entirely up in the air, there's no meaning to it at all, and so it's very difficult to get anyone to agree on an ideal scenario. Even extremely small adjustments have failed. The problem has only become worse over time - Dolphin becomes more and more accurate, I'm sure you've noticed that everything is stuck on 4 stars, making it rather useless. In the not so distant future the entire concept of ratings will be pointless. Anyway, because of the fundamental issues with the rating system, and how they are only going to become worse over time, I am of the strong opinion that raising its obviousness is absolutely the wrong course of action, and oppose this aspect of the proposed changes. I absolutely would prefer that text be gone. And while I'm at it, the font is poor and the padding is insufficient, and the colors are bad too. Seriously, when darkening yellows and oranges, remember to always go to warmer tones! If you don't it will look sickly...
 * Diagonal Revision Numbers - One of the primary purposes for the diagonal revision numbers is the above addition of rating titles, which I oppose. The other (and likely primary) reason is to allow more revision to be legible on the bar at one time. But is this really something we want? The current system wraps gracefully, it can have tons and tons of revisions in it and it doesn't matter, since they'll just disappear and always be on the same small space. And we still get this information for historical purposes by looking at the code. But with this system, lots and lots of revisions means lots and lots of text jutting out of the bar, and it becomes very busy. It is aesthetically not pleasing and distracting, imo.
 * Colors - Actually, I kind of rate this as a "meh". The new colors are muddy, the old colors are garish. Of course the ratings text colors has a lot to do with that, so that may help it. It might also help to brighten the colors a little to maybe try to find a halfway point?


 * Sorry for the late reply, but here we go: my main issues with it before it goes live are the rotated text for overlapping revisions and the rating texts inside the chart. I'm supportive of having a way to deal with the overlapping revisions (as with more data being added to the charts it started to be an issue), but I don't think the rotated text is a good approach to it, and just like MaJoR, I don't find (nor I'm supportive) of having revision text/numbers outside of the chart for the sole reason of having rating text there instead. If you guys reealy want to have rating text on the compatibility chart I suggest doing a small (separate) box with some kind of legend instead of kicking revision text outside of the chart. MaJoR's suggestion of having the arrows showing on hover for overlapped revisions only sounds good, but then we would have the same issues we had with tooltips, I think. And speaking of major revision points, I reaffirm we should purge anything regarding pre-2.0 era (the number of pages with that kind of ancient info are pretty small so I don't think it's worth the effort to make the chart relayout properly when that old info is available -- and by capping the chart to 2.0 or newer we are still covering nearly 6 years of data) - mbc07 (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2016 (CEST)


 * I disagree on purging pre-2.0 information from the version compatibility. We need to keep a record of old data somewhere, and it is hidden so it doesn't hurt anything. EDIT: I guess the history is a record of that... but having that little bit of data in version compatibility is very useful in giving us an idea of how far back to go in the history. - MaJoR (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2016 (CEST)


 * Okay, I'm alone on this point, pre-2.0 info stay then. However, the math responsible for positioning the revisions should absolutely be remade before going outside of the sandbox. If you use the current design on a page that includes a chart entry for r805, for example, the actual math will put r805 at the rightmost and push 2.0 marker nearly the middle of the graph and that's baaad. I didn't took a look at the code behind the positioning but current math seems based on a linear approach. Using a logarithmic math probably fixes this... - mbc07 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (CEST)

It's getting incredibly harder for me to read this whole discussion. I would like to reply while I can if I'm able to. I've replied to mbc07's response and have skimmed through MaJoR's response. I'll be back later. Lucario (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2016 (CEST)

Few questions (opinions usually)
1. Is the new color scheme good? Particularly that "Playable" bar color. Originally I changed to turquoise because sometime I thought it's "Perfect". But now there is rating text around, I don't mind either. I still like turquoise color though. Lucario (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2016 (CEST)


 * I'm OK with the new scheme. The non-green is easier to distinguish. Kolano (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (CEST)


 * Okay, great. Lucario (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2016 (CEST)

2. Does white bar visible in the right bothers you? The games with no revision tested will appreciate this otherwise. They will just have white bar in full width. Lucario (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2016 (CEST)


 * It does, but I'd guess it shouldn't be too hard to correct for. Can't we just add a margin to push it to the left? If it's finicky we might need a calc CSS rule to handle it. Kolano (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (CEST)


 * The white bar was originally in the same width as other bars until I've moved it out of div that pushed bars to the left. It's to make the white bar look good on the game pages with no revision tested. I don't know which one is better. In fact, I wasn't bothered by either. So... should the white bar go back to its same width as other bars or leave it as it is? Lucario (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2016 (CEST)