|
|
| Line 81: |
Line 81: |
| :::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... - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 08:24, 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... - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 21:16, 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. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk: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 {{tl|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 {{tl|s}}{{tl|/s}}. I'm reverting your changes now. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]])
| |
| :How could you... This new category can help us find the old problem that should've been crossed out with {{tl|s}}{{tl|/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. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk: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 {{tl|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). - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PageInCat (1)] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CategoryTests (2)]. Am I missing something? [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk: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 {{tl|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. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]])
| |
| ::::: Thanks for the response Jhonn. If you contact Parlane on this extension, please also remind him of the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DynamicPageList3 Multi-category page] extension that had been asked for at the end of October. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk: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)? - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (CET)
| |
| :::::::Huh... If the multi-cat extension was enabled, how would we still be able to find the active problems in the game pages? [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 02:07, 14 November 2015 (CET)
| |
|
| |
|
| == ToDo Template == | | == ToDo Template == |
| Remember that we need to discuss new templates before we start deploying them everywhere. Gadzooks, we just went over this a few days ago. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 14:55, 14 November 2015 (CET) | | Remember that we need to discuss new templates before we start deploying them everywhere. Gadzooks, we just went over this a few days ago. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 14:55, 14 November 2015 (CET) |
| : Again, '''please''' use sandboxes when showcasing new templates. Hadn't time to go through your edits yet but expect {{tl|Todo}} changes being mass reverted soon... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | | : Again, '''please''' use sandboxes when showcasing new templates. Hadn't time to go through your edits yet but expect {{tl|Todo}} changes being mass reverted soon... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) |
