User talk:LobStoR

Converting Rating to Subpages?
Hi LobStor,

I'm not clear if you're aware or not, but we currently face a serious problem with the Ratings template. More or less, the "list" pages include many hundreds of uses of the template, which is too much for the current wiki server to handle resulting in errors being shown. Migrating the ratings to subpages does make their handling a bit cleaner, but I fear it may exacerbate the errors seen with the list pages and cause them to have to be broken up more than they already are. Kolano 17:12, 29 May 2011 (CEST)
 * I'll fix this, which will temporarily mean a revert. The errors are caused by  which is an "expensive" parser function.  22:30, 29 May 2011 (CEST)
 * edit: once most of the ratings have been rolled into the subpages, the templates won't need the ifexist tag, and should mostly function within the same limitations as before. I'd like to keep the new templates, for now, unless we run into a problem where our current lists will not render. I'll keep an eye on Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls, and begin moving ratings into subpages. This will probably take a few days. 22:44, 29 May 2011 (CEST)

About Template:CurrentRevision
You apparently are an advanced user to MetaWiki, so I think that you can help on this template. We need some way of making this template to be updated automatically when some change occur on http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/source/list. I've tried by embedding a RSS feed reader (based on JavaScript) on template to return the current revision, but they always crashed the wiki, resulting in a "500: Internal Server Error". Now, periodically we have to manually edit this template, that is very annoyng to do every time that a commit is made, since none of us can be connected 24 hours per day to update this... Jhonn 21:16, 29 May 2011 (CEST)

Preserving Blank Talk Pages?
As you reverted my purges of blanked Talk pages, I'm presuming you want to preserve their history. I can accept such, though I'd still like some way to distinguish active Talk discussions from useless blank pages. Once can easily find the talk pages via... http://wiki.dolphin-emulator.com/index.php?title=Special:PrefixIndex&prefix=&namespace=1 ...but I can't work out a means to filter out blanked pages without ongoing discussion. Do you have any hints to enable such? Kolano 05:30, 22 June 2011 (CEST)
 * You read my mind, I was interested in preserving revision histories. A few alternative "tracking" mechanisms:
 * Use the [ namespace filter on the recent changes listing] to find "new" activity (doesn't help with months-old stuff)
 * Create a template+category, named (or similar) to list open discussions in a category (relies on proper usage)
 * 
 * I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I'd rather not delete archived discussions. I actually don't even like blanking the pages, because then you can't search the text anymore (sometimes old discussions are still relevant). Not sure, anyone else have any ideas on how we can keep track of unresolved talk page discussions? 23:53, 22 June 2011 (CEST)
 * I'd like to restrain the directly linked talk pages to relevant conversation. If you'd prefer to preserve irrelevant discussion in a searchable format I'm OK with migrating such to sub-pages, but would prefer to not having it pollute the directly linked talk pages. Generally I'd prefer to not have it pollute searches at all. I understand the desire to preserve content, but typically these deletions are completely irrelevant going forward, and sometime even cover erroneous details.


 * Some examples from the recent deletions...
 * Discusses a gap in revisions related to the suggested configuration, which was addressed within the page. Any further discussion regarding that config is irrelevant to the former gap in documentation, so it's unclear preserving it has value.
 * Discusses naming conventions for multi-region titles with varying names. Discussed conventions were implemented and are now documented elsewhere. History of the convention's discussion may be informative, but the relevant convention is covered elsewhere.
 * Discussion around an apparently erroneous configuration entry. Useful during the phase while the error was confirmed, but just related to apparently false information otherwise.
 * Thanks around corrections to a series of problematic edits. Useful for the period of time the editor was likely to notice it. Beyond such, it's nice to be thanked, but I don't need such preserved on the wiki and it's not useful to others stumbling onto it.
 * Discusses config issues now addressed in the recommended config, only relevant for historic purposes.


 * In any case, I'd like to keep Talk pages to current/relevant discussion and put irrelevant content in the bin. I understand that page deletion has an adverse effect on page histories, and will accept tagging ongoing relevant discussions with a category to avoid deletions. I'd like to keep the irrelevant discussion out of search though, and would prefer to continue to blank irrelevant discussion to do so (though I'm not resilient to disputes/reversions, as "relevance" can be a sticky subject). I'm OK with use of archive pages to preserve irrelevant discussion, if we can't agree on the former direction.Kolano 06:52, 23 June 2011 (CEST) P.S.-Thanks for all you're recent assistance on the wiki, it's very appreciated.


 * Since you guys are actively talking about this, I wanted to give you a headsup. In the previous windwaker discussion, it was debated whether the older revisions element should be removed. A decision was reached- erm, no objections were raised, to keep it till 3.0 comes out, because 2.0 still uses the method described in older revisions. So I left the relevant bits in the talk after blanking. It is not exactly active discussion, but a useful bit of information nevertheless. Should it stay? -- MaJoR 01:46, 24 June 2011 (CEST)


 * I'd prefer things be handled as you have. Purge the irrelevant bits and preserving the relevant ones until post the release of 3.0. Presumably post the release of 3.0 such will be purged, when it will no longer be relevant. Hopefully the discussion here will resolve whether these purges are appropriate or should be handled in a different manner. I lean toward purging irrelevant discussion, as you have done, and am hoping for agreement on such.Kolano 03:30, 24 June 2011 (CEST)


 * I think we've all agreed. I can live with blanking or summarizing talk pages (just not deleting). This weekend when I have a spare moment I'll throw together a basic "open discussion" template+category that we can slap onto any active talk pages. 04:02, 24 June 2011 (CEST)

About Nintendo GameCube
Should we merge the game lists present on the templates directly on the GameCube page? Jhonn 18:21, 24 June 2011 (CEST)
 * Nah, I wouldn't bother - it's fine the way it is (for now). Sometime in the future we should look into the errors that apparently come up when all the games are listed on one article, to see if there's any solution to that problem. Thanks again for plugging away at those ratings! 18:27, 24 June 2011 (CEST)
 * Well, I'll merge the game list to the GameCube page since now they're useless (the list was splitted in templates when the erros started to appear)... Jhonn 18:31, 24 June 2011 (CEST)