User talk:Lucario

There's some overlap between the Arcade genre and the Arcade VC titles. It's an issue Kolano wants to fix (see General Discussion). In the mean time, be careful not to assign the Arcade Global problems (which is ONLY for Arcade VC Titles) to wiiware, wii, or other games. - MaJoR (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2013 (CEST)

Dolphin Manual
So uh, why are you working on the Dolphin Manual? You realize it's extremely out of date and one of the creators (me) wants to kill it, right? Having images just makes that harder, without fixing the tremendous problems that make it necessary to exterminate. - MaJoR (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2014 (CEST)

Recommended Accessories Edits Removal
You do great work here on the wiki, so I wanted to personally tell you the precise reasoning for reverting your edits to the Recommended Accessories page. First of all, it's an official page that is on the main site, and is referenced in many places. It's important that everything on it is vetted to be accurately the thing that it says it is and something that is directly related to dolphin. For example, it has gamecube controllers because this is a gamecube emulator and using gamecube controllers and adapters brings dolphin closer to accurate emulation. So no generic controllers should be on the guide, only things that specifically help with getting closer to accurate emulation. Another is that the amazon account, while providing a (small) sum to help developers get accessories, but also stamps it with authenticity. Anything from that account you know came from top developers giving it clearance to be recommended by it. Very very few people have the keys to it. ...Which is actually an issue since we need to add more too it and it's hard to! Anyway, I'm really sorry for removing all of your hard work, and I hope there aren't any hard feelings. I'm sorry I wasn't able to catch it sooner, but with all of the articles and citra work I'm doing lately, I'm not able to come here as often as I used to. :( - MaJoR (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2015 (CEST)
 * No apologies needed. It's not my thing. I only just frown upon no matter what people did to me. But I'd be appreciated when you're improving that page using my old edits, I guess. Lucario (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2015 (CEST)

Infobox Edits
Your edits seem to have broken the Infobox VG template. I'm likely to revert them back shortly.

I don't think the edits you've been making on the Infobox template will be well supported anyway. We currently only list "Platform" on VC titles, so we would never generate a "Category:Wii titles that use Classic Controller" as there should be no pages that list "Wii" as a platform. In the case of the VC titles, the supported controlled are almost never different, so these categories would just become duplicates of the pre-existing VC categories. In general, if we want something like this, I'd think it might be better to look into adding an "intersection" extension to the wiki, which would allow for auto-generating sub-categories based on the inclusion of other categories. Kolano (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2015 (CEST)

Please talk to us before doing big structural changes to the way our templates work... Even I won't change things like that without talking to everyone to make sure they are fine with it! Big changes that effect everything need to be agreed upon. Btw, if the idea is to allow for cross referencing of controllers, a plugin would be great for that! - MaJoR (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2015 (CEST)


 * My original intention was to create a list that show all Wii games with controller specific support. For example, "Wii titles that use GameCube Controller". I think it's nice addition to this Dolphin wiki. In earlier edit in sandbox I've added them instead of replacing the existing controller set. It should work out of the box (sort of, it depends on |platforms=, unfortunately). Then I ultimately replaced them as I think it's bit odd to see like this:


 * Category:Classic Controller (Input supported)
 * Category:Wii titles that use Classic Controller
 * Category:GameCube Controller (Input supported)
 * Category:Wii titles that use GameCube Controller
 * Category:Nunchuk (Input supported)
 * Category:Wii titles that use Nunchuk
 * Category:Wii Remote (Input supported)
 * Category:Wii titles that use Wii Remote


 * While I know "GameCube titles that use GameCube Controller" is very silly and redundant, but that can be kept separated from other platforms, and as an replacement for "GameCube Controller (Input supported). Such as, the link Category:GameCube Controller (Input supported) in GameCube game pages. It's sheer obvious that every GameCube titles will use GameCube controllers. They're basically a duplication of the list of GameCube games, with other platforms only to add clutter to it. Indeed, the current controller categories are a mess at the moment. If one user want to view Wii titles that use GameCube Controller, they will have to read through list of irrelevant platforms. Some titles don't use GameCube Controller, while others do, so it's realistic to see platform x controller categories to exist.


 * I've created "|system=" because due to my limited coding abilities, I can't parse each system into "[SYSTEM] that use [CONTROLLER]", such as if there was Nintendo 64 and Virtual Console in the infobox.


 * But since you've deleted the categories that Infobox VG (with my edits) was going to take advantage of, my edits are complete pointless.


 * Any part of my edits that you'd like to detract other than the need to update every game pages to take advantage of my changes? I'm thinking of just add specific Wii game pages that support GameCube controller to subcategory Category:Wii titles that use GameCube Controller. Is that cool with you? Lucario (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2015 (CEST)


 * OK, to be specific regarding my concerns:
 * The edits would require editing every titles page, with thousands of pages that would take a while, even if we put the regex search-n-replace to use.
 * Preexisting pages that included a "platforms=" were completely broken, spitting out a broken and escaped set of categories. This may have been addressed by replacing "platforms=" with "platforms="+"system=", but I was unhappy to have all the pages broken till that was completed, which per above would take a while.
 * It should be fairly easy to use the Regex template to do things like purge out the comma and "Virtual Console" from the platforms list if that was the only reason to add a separate "systems=" parameter.
 * This sort of "pages that are part of multiple categories" category is provided more cleanly and easily via a few different Mediawiki add-ins, which is probably a preferable way to pursue this.


 * I'm not against setting up these sorts of categories, I just don't want to cause chaos while they are set up. Some other responses/comments:
 * If we are going to have these sorts of categories we should have a "GameCube titles that use GameCube Controllers" category. Yes, it seems like all games should support the consoles own controller, but I'd prefer there to be consistency in how things were handled.
 * For similar reasons, I'd prefer to not just arbitrarily add only a "Wii titles that use GameCube Controller" category.
 * I wouldn't mind getting Wii/GameCube listed as platforms and auto-generating their related categories, so we could purge out the handcoded GC/Wii category assignments. Again, this requires a lot of page edits so it should be approached carefully.
 * For the dual-category categories, let's look into getting an "intersection" extension in place, which I think will make this as easy as editing some template parameters.


 * I'm going in for some surgery after breaking my foot Mon morning, so I may not be able to respond/follow-up on this for a while. But hopefully we can work this out over the next few weeks. Kolano (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2015 (CEST)


 * Regex search-n-replace is something I thought we could do it after the new infobox took in effect, but since you've said it'd take quite a while, I'm afraid you're right, it might not be good idea to go ahead with all the changes in infobox when the articles are not ready for it yet. I actually don't mind investing my time into it and undertaking regex search-n-replace if I know how to do it, because I don't have much else to do. Do you/they not mind if the recent changes page exploded with regex replacement changes? I can start with adding "system=" and leaving the console names out of "platforms=" in the Virtual Console game pages. I want to apply "Virtual Console" as platforms along with GCN and Wii, in similar way the games was sorted in Dolphin gamelist by platforms (Virtual Consoles as WiiWare actually & unfortunately).


 * I don't know anything about Mediawiki addons... sorry! I'm still learning wiki codes. Maybe you could do it meantime?


 * Hoping you get better soon! Lucario (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2015 (CEST)


 * Personally I still think that some sort of cross referencing wiki plugin would be the best approach for this. That way a user could combine "Wii games" and "Input GameCube Controller" and get the list you wish to create, all without us editing a single page! The best part is, we'd instantly get a very powerful cross referencing system for controllers, allowing for far more possibilities that even you have imagined! - MaJoR (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2015 (CEST)
 * I don't mind that actually. Lucario (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2015 (CEST)

Sonic Mega Collection Edit
I thought that the problems section of each article was for reporting any inaccuracies that Dolphin has when comparing it to the real hardware? I also thought that enhancement sections are for things beyond what a real GameCube or Wii can do. As far as my knowledge goes, the IPL fonts that Dolphin possesses are not accurate and is an issue with certain games. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2015 (CET)

I think your correct Wildgoosespeeder, I've restored your writeup to the problems section. Font differences is a significant, but often overlooked, problem in a lot of games. We really need to get on putting together a proper article on extracting GC ROM images, and fonts from those images here. Kolano (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2015 (CET)


 * "Font differences is a significant, but often overlooked, problem in a lot of games": I still don't get why a text that uses a font alternative (of the same family), which doesn't cause any issues or glitched text at all in a particular game should be listed as a problem using another game which does have visible problems with that alternative font as excuse to consider that an "overlooked" problem, it's like saying that websites that define a generic font (e.g. Sans Serif) instead of a specific font family for a particular text block all have problems too just because they look different on Mac, Ubuntu or Windows since every OS/Browser may use a different font family as default for Sans Serif. Anyway, we aren't making any progress about that particular edit, no arguments provided were good enough to change my point of view but considering everyone who expressed their thoughts I'm the minority, I'll just stop here and leave the font edit as a (non existant) problem like the majority wants. - Jhonn (talk)

MD5
Super Smash Bros. Brawl/sandbox for you because Project:General Discussions. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2015 (CET)

MUST SEE
Template_talk:WidescreenGCN --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2015 (CET)
 * Thank you for stopping. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2015 (CET)

Template Implementation
Please stop any and all template implementations immediately. The issue with wildgoosespeeder is too nuts right now, and nothing whatsoever should be changed or implemented until we can weigh in on them. - MaJoR (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2015 (CET)
 * Err... okay, fine. Leave them as-is for now, OK? They're not broken after all. Lucario (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2015 (CET)
 * Sorry for the nuts bit MaJoR. I didn't realize how invested I would get in attempting to fix the Wiki's current maintenance issues and how that investment could cause a chain of events. I've pretty much calmed down now until I can get some feedback on the concept. Any way to get in direct contact with Kolano or you? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2015 (CET)
 * Kolano and I are both on the IRC and the forums, and of course talk pages. - MaJoR (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2015 (CET)
 * Thanks Lucario. And yea, I intend to leave the edits as is, as you said they are not causing any harm. Just with all of this chaos I'm worried about edits slipping through unreviewed... - MaJoR (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2015 (CET)
 * If it makes you feel any better, I can self-regulate so I don't end up like Brandonorf9999 did. If you need reassurance that I can do that, I can be found on Bulbapedia and Bulbapedia Archives. You can look at my contributions there. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2015 (CET)
 * Thanks for holding up on this Lucario. We're a bit sensitive to large scale edits taking place atm. It would have also helped a bit if some explanation was provided /w the template edit. So from what I see, this is intended to remove pages from the Active Problems list when the related problem has been resolved but not yet removed from a page (per our one rev back preservation policy). Please go ahead with the rest of the revisions related to this if you can (I presume you were cross-referencing Category:Pages with active problems against Category:Pages with fixed problems, which reminds me that we still need to work on getting the multi-category category plug-in established). Kolano (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2015 (CET)
 * I didn't know Category:Pages with fixed problems existed, so yeah, I wasn't cross-referencing them. I just check for slashed out problems in each game page that's currently in that "page with active problem" category. Hopefully this isn't a performance tax for Dolphin wiki. Also you may see that I wasn't involved in discussion or do some write up. That's something I'm slow at! I'm glad my template edit/idea look alright without consensus though. Lucario (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2015 (CET)
 * Kolano can you clarify this please? Are you asking him to resume editing pages? I was wanting to hold off until the larger issue is resolved and things have calmed down... - MaJoR (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2015 (CET)
 * This change is unrelated to any of the banners / rating problems / infobox stuff, it simply cleans up the Category:Pages with active problems list, which currently list numerous non-active problems due to us keeping resolved problems around for a while. I don't see any reason to hold up the clean-up on this. Kolano (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2015 (CET)

Issue template
Whoa, whoa there! Don't just push new features that will change a huge number of pages directly into templates being used everywhere, without providing a sandbox and test example first (and hearing other thoughts first). That's what you just did with Issue and although it's a fairly simple change, it have some fundamental flaws: first, sometimes an issue relates to a specific problem that occur with many games (e.g. zfreeze) and while a new build may fix the issue in a game, others may still have the problem so the issue still remain open, and second because the category you created is redundant, you're essentially flagging the same game pages that already are categorized in Category:Pages with fixed problems since you're adding that fixed tag to all problems that have links to issues and are crossed but they already are flagged by s/s. I'm reverting your changes now. - Jhonn (talk)
 * How could you... This new category can help us find the old problem that should've been crossed out with s/s if the issue has already been fixed. "fixed" doesn't have to mean that the issue is actually fixed as seen in bug tracker, it just means that this issue is "no longer the case" for that game. Again, it was supposed to find and update the old problems that's since been fixed. The fixed and active problem categories are not same. Lucario (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2015 (CET)
 * The point is, you should not jump straight to a template currently used in a lot of pages and just throw something new at it (that'll change how the template works). You discuss it first, show a sandbox with the concept, then, if you got positive consensus, you go implementing it, I'm just sick of you and Wildgoosespeeder‎ failing to properly isolate whatever concepts you're proposing in the sandboxes instead of messing with templates and pages already in use by the wiki just to show how that concept will look. Not to mention also that your new wanted category could be instantly achieved with a simple snippet in issue to check if the page that's including it already isn't a member of Category:Pages with fixed problems and if not, tag it with the Category:Pages with active problems instead of go spreading |fixed everywhere on the wiki (and even then the concept you proposed would still be somewhat wrong since a problem doesn't necessarily include a link to an issue and so the proposed category would have missing pages). - Jhonn (talk)
 * You can test if a page exists, but I was of the impression that an additional extension would be needed to perform "Is page in category" tests (1) (2). Am I missing something? Kolano (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2015 (CET)
 * sigh OKAY! Let's start discuss about it here and now (or Category talk:Pages with active problems). I didn't think it require consensus to move forward because it looks very reasonable addition to the Wiki. I even created a sandboxed version of Infobox (now deleted) to make sure it works alright. There are even users here talking about it in this talk page and did some edits to the new category. That's the mutual agreement with the new category & template and that should be enough to continue. But you? You were late to the party and outright reverted this new template/category implementation and demand for the real consensus through proper discussion pages. Why? They were fine and you haven't even giving them a second thought. It's like your mind is only filled with negative thoughts about them. It will not make any progress if you behave like that. This new category may not be able to detect the pages with active problems that doesn't include the issue template, but that's not the real problem (and surprisingly you use this as an argument to detract this new implementation). The new template feature "|fixed" did not conflict anything, and we could've added one more new template to cover the active problems sections that doesn't contain issue template at all so that game can be added to the same category. Co-existing each others by accident shouldn't be a real problem either. They will be cleaned up eventually when every problems are slashed out. Anymore detraction you would like to throw in here about this new template feature and category? And what the position are you on right now? Either you lean more into one side or the other way around, I'm interested with your final thoughts on this. Lucario (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2015 (CET)
 * Kolano: yes, we would need to install a new extension to our wiki, but I don't see that as a problem either (when I needed Loops and Variables extensions to implement Video Gallery/Global Problems, Parlane promptly answered our requests and the required extensions were running in no time). Yes, that means we would have to wait until the extension get installed, but given the benefits the wait surely is worthy.
 * Lucario: you test it in a (now deleted) sandbox and just because it worked you go ahead without waiting possible feedback on it? And then say I'm late to the party? Not even a day passed since your test and the actual mass edits began, I hadn't time to show my approach to what you want, that's also not the first time this happens (sometimes you and Wildgoosespeeder just go way too faster). And by the way, my mind is not only filled with negative thoughts about them, I'm not against tagging the pages in the new category you created and your new "feature" indeed did not conflict with anything, but I'm very against the way you implemented it (and that's why I did the mass reverts), adding a lot of unnecessary work (going into every page with crossed problems pointing to issues just to put |fixed in the template call) while it's possible to implement exactly the same functionality through a new extension and a very small code change, achieving exactly what you proposed with actually zero changes to the pages itself (other than implementing the logic in issue). If you don't have any other objections with that approach I'll just contact Parlane asking for the installation of the required extension. Yes, you may need to wait a little before the approach I'm taking here actually go live (waiting for the extension install, etc), but I can't see why we should go the mass edit route you started earlier when there's the automagically approach, both achieving the same results. - Jhonn (talk)
 * Thanks for the response Jhonn. If you contact Parlane on this extension, please also remind him of the Multi-category page extension that had been asked for at the end of October. Kolano (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2015 (CET)
 * There's one most baffling thing that you did is that you actually deleted that new category out of the way. I'm not sure why? There isn't any different approach to replace that. I'm also surprised that you said you're strongly against my solution with |fixed. I'm up for another approach to how to add the pages with active problems to there but still wasn't sure why you'd want to immediately reverted them long before the new approach was even implemented. It's going to be awkward if the new approach is not going to happen. Lucario (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2015 (CET)
 * Kolano: Done, I contacted him and I'm now waiting for his answer (asked also for the DynamicPageList3, as you requested).
 * Lucario: I may have accidentally jumped into the category during the mass revert, but yes, it'll still be needed, even with the automatic method. And about letting the first approach go live, it would just be more work to you (by adding |fixed everywhere else, not just the initial set) and more work to us to actually go reverting that when the automatic approach goes live. Also, why wouldn't it go live when the change needed for the automatic approach is fairly simple (after having the extension installed)? - Jhonn (talk)
 * Yes, it was more work for me, and it's already near-completed, and yes it may have been more work for you to revert them, but doesn't seem that hard, right? After realizing the 2nd approach is possible, I've regretted implementing a such thing with 1st approach, and was such let down that you've reverted them that immediate. We would have left them as is until the 2nd approach has been implemented but it's too late. They're already reverted. I was confused and didn't know why the consensus was needed to continue until I've realized the better solution that could work the same way. We all make mistake. Looking forward to the multi-category extension getting implemented someday soon! Lucario (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (CET)