1,301
edits
Project:General Discussions: Difference between revisions
I figure the conversation was best moved here because it was really not on-topic with Template:RatingProblemFix specifically. I could be wrong.
No edit summary |
(I figure the conversation was best moved here because it was really not on-topic with Template:RatingProblemFix specifically. I could be wrong.) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::::::::The idea of rating each problem is to give the user a quick way to evaluate the cost of emulating things accurately instead of having to look at a wall of text which can be more redundant than the ratings in some cases. Higher accuracy takes up more CPU/GPU cycles generally speaking. I'm not expecting this system to be deployed any time soon unlike the banners we devised so far. Needs several revisions and tweaks. --[[User:Wildgoosespeeder|Wildgoosespeeder]] ([[User talk:Wildgoosespeeder|talk]]) 02:35, 7 November 2015 (CET) | ::::::::The idea of rating each problem is to give the user a quick way to evaluate the cost of emulating things accurately instead of having to look at a wall of text which can be more redundant than the ratings in some cases. Higher accuracy takes up more CPU/GPU cycles generally speaking. I'm not expecting this system to be deployed any time soon unlike the banners we devised so far. Needs several revisions and tweaks. --[[User:Wildgoosespeeder|Wildgoosespeeder]] ([[User talk:Wildgoosespeeder|talk]]) 02:35, 7 November 2015 (CET) | ||
::::::::: Lucario, about the section name, I don't like Emulation Info neither Common Mistakes, but from the point you raised, Emulation Information seems a little better, we may stick with that. About raising it above Problems Section, I think we should (+1 from me), but it's a somewhat big structure change that affects a huge number of pages, I would like to hear from MaJoR and Kolano too before proceeding on that. And about rating the problems, well, that's another user against it, don't waste your time Wildgoosespeeder. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | ::::::::: Lucario, about the section name, I don't like Emulation Info neither Common Mistakes, but from the point you raised, Emulation Information seems a little better, we may stick with that. About raising it above Problems Section, I think we should (+1 from me), but it's a somewhat big structure change that affects a huge number of pages, I would like to hear from MaJoR and Kolano too before proceeding on that. And about rating the problems, well, that's another user against it, don't waste your time Wildgoosespeeder. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | ||
== Banners == | |||
Just saw [[F-Zero GX/sandbox]] and it's a big '''NO!''' from me: | |||
* The banner is ugly and puts the 16:9 info before anything else as if it was the top priority info in a game page (which clearly it's not the case). | |||
* The stars-in-a-box-thing makes my eyes bleed: the chosen colors doesn't blend with stars (not to mention they appear constantly shouting "LOOK TO ME NOW! I'M IMPORTANT!!!"). | |||
* From my point of view you're trying to fix a non-existent problem. Why we need to assign ratings to the problems? As end-user, do you really think I would bother about the severity of a emulation problem? If something is not working with my game, I would go to the wiki to find a solution or workaround, the rating of that problem doesn't matter at all. | |||
* How do you plan to maintain that? And how you plan to consistently define what rating a problem should get? A problem may look like 3 stars for you but it may look as 2 stars for other people... | |||
* And finally, how do you plan to add that rating-thing in currently existing problems of all game pages? We try to maintain consistency across the wiki, big changes like that should go to every page, not just some. | |||
To finish, we already are discussing a new section for problems that aren't really problems (native 16:9, mixed controllers, etc), which looks waaaay better than this and just reinforces my point of you trying to fix a non-existent problem with this template. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | |||
---- | |||
:Keep in mind that [[F-Zero GX/sandbox]] is a proof of concept and should be regarded as a prototype of the idea. Refinements will be made on both a template format level and page layout level. | |||
:* It might be ugly now but the idea behind banners is to be a sign with important information. The position it is located now may change later. | |||
:* I'm no good with design. I just came up with a rough concept. Again, refinements will be made. | |||
:* [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] editing [[Sonic Mega Collection]] the way he did before the edit was reverted to a more acceptable state was a case where this template idea could eliminate that kind of unnecessary edit. Something was unclear and my template idea is my attempt to make it clearer. | |||
:* See [[RatingProblemFix/sandbox]]. Details will be worked out later just like Dolphin.exe had to from its first version to the latest development build. | |||
:* Occasionally I see [[User:Kolano]] do automated edits from what it looks like when looking at [[Special:RecentChanges]]. I would ask him to insert <tt><nowiki>{{RatingProblemFix|0}}</nowiki></tt> into each subsection of the problems sections. Unless the parameter is 1, 2, or 3, it will put pages with <tt><nowiki>{{RatingProblemFix|0}}</nowiki></tt> anywhere in its markup into [[:Category:Pages with problem rating template issues]]. This will be great for [[Project:To Do]] or something. | |||
:I hope I answered your concerns right now. --[[User:Wildgoosespeeder|Wildgoosespeeder]] ([[User talk:Wildgoosespeeder|talk]]) 20:13, 5 November 2015 (CET) | |||
---- | |||
::<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> Okay, you still didn't provide a single, feasible reason to rate problems but still want to push this non-sense forward. First you want to address existing problems by using the replace feature (which we admins have access to) to simply "rate" all currently existing problems of the entire wiki to "undefined"?! You must be kidding, really. First, say me *WHY* we would rate the problems? What benefit do you think this template will provide (other than adding more stuff to maintain -- and currently in a messy way)? Why we would add more clutter (no matter how good you design this) to an already crowded section in most game pages just to display an "undefined" rating to the viewers? Or do you plan to go into every game page with problems to provide a feasible rating? Probably not. And not related to this but why you also want to convert problems into banners? Dual-Layer games already have its own category which is easy to reach from the bottom of the page, GC games with 16:9 native support already have an entry in problems section and in those cases both will be moved to the new Emulation Info/Common Misconceptions (or whatever name we choose) and can also be accessed through its own categories. And about your complaint regarding unnecessary edits, font problem in Sonic Mega Collection was moved back and forth because of my initial complaints about the subject but eventually settled in Problems section. How this template or your banners-that-go-before-anything-else would have improved this particular case? Just stop, you made an ugly proof of concept where I can't see any way to improve, nor it provides anything better than the new section we're discussing in [[Talk:F-Zero GX]], not to mention you didn't provide any feasible reason. Unless other admins (MaJoR, Kolano) or active members like Lucario weight in pointing something positive in favouring this approach, you can consider this whole "problem rating" thing something that won't go anywhere else besides the F-Zero GX sandbox. ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it'' - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | |||
---- | |||
:::You are probably making this out to be worse than it actually will be. I did explain myself. It's not non-sense. Isn't a common problem with Wiki maintenance keeping pages up-to-date? I am noticing a lot of articles still not up-to-date with even 4.0.2 let alone the latest development version. The ideas I have should hopefully encourage more edits, from not just a few people but rather anyone, to increase the likelihood something is up-to-date while at the same time minimize unnecessary editing and talk pages over one small issue that could have been avoided (like what happened at [[Sonic Mega Collection]], which is why I created the problem rating system in the first place). Sure, my initial edits are back to some degree, but the effort to bring back a minor emulation issue where it properly belongs seems a bit absurd and a waste of time when the next edit from my initial edit was wrong. I also didn't want to start an edit war. To me, there is a failed conveyance of information regarding what should go in each section (problems, enhancements, emulation information, version compatibility, and testing). | |||
:::What are the chances people are going to look all the way at the bottom of the page in that cluttered mess you call useful? For example, [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]. Out of 36 categories, only 2 are immediately useful (compatibility rating and dual-layer disk) and ''Tested On'' (15) is only useful if you want to use a particular version of Dolphin on a certain platform of PC. The rest does not help Dolphin usage. That is why the banners are created because it is extracting the more useful categories and making them stand out. How ratings are handled, that is already in a good spot with the [[Template:Infobox VG]]. Maybe it's better to also have in that Infobox the WidescreenGCN and DualLayerWiiDisc banners? That might be the happy middle ground that everyone will like when it comes to the [[Template:WidescreenGCN]] and [[Template:DualLayerWiiDiscs]] banners. --[[User:Wildgoosespeeder|Wildgoosespeeder]] ([[User talk:Wildgoosespeeder|talk]]) 01:05, 6 November 2015 (CET) | |||
---- | |||
::::Okay, let's answer this in parts: | |||
::::*'''"You are probably making this out to be worse than it actually will be."''' - I'm not making out anything. It's just how your current sandboxes (for F-Zero GX and SSBB) look like. | |||
::::*'''"Isn't a common problem with Wiki maintenance keeping pages up-to-date? [...] The ideas I have should hopefully encourage more edits, from not just a few people but rather anyone"''' - Some pages, most of games we don't own or games that aren't popular really may be outdated. A Problem Rating System and Banners won't encourage nor improve anything regarding that. By the way, I'm still waiting for a single, feasible reason or benefit that adding ratings to the problems will provide, there's been lots of discussions but you kept evading this simple question. | |||
::::*'''"[...] minimize unnecessary editing and talk pages over one small issue that could have been avoided (like what happened at [[Sonic Mega Collection]], which is why I created the problem rating system in the first place)."''' - When members diverge about an edit, that's what they do, go to the talk page and explain their thoughts and why (or why not) that edit was reverted/edited. I'm still against listing the Font as a problem, but as seen from the other active members thoughts I'm alone on this one and that's why the edit was restored after the discussion settled. But using this case as excuse to implement that Rating Problem System? I'll ask again: give me a single, feasible reason or benefit that adding ratings to the problems will provide. | |||
::::*'''"To me, there is a failed conveyance of information regarding what should go in each section (problems, enhancements, emulation information, version compatibility, and testing)"''' - '''[[Project:Wiki Conventions|Hello, I'm the Wiki Conventions, glad to meet you!]]''' (Patches section got renamed to Enhancements and we're still discussing about Emulation Info section -- both will be there once we finish the discussion about those sections "standards"). | |||
::::*'''"What are the chances people are going to look all the way at the bottom of the page in that cluttered mess you call useful? [...]"''' - They're not going all the way down to hunt the categories (categories exist just to quickly list all games that are dual-layer or that have native 16:9 support, etc). An user would find that kind of info in the new Emulation Information section. In fact, they can even click the title directly from the TOC at the beginning of the article to jump directly to the desired info, without having to deal with those banners. How could that be simple? Lots of stars next to the titles surely won't help, either. | |||
::::*'''"Maybe it's better to also have in that Infobox the WidescreenGCN and DualLayerWiiDisc banners? That might be the happy middle ground that everyone will like when it comes to the Template:WidescreenGCN and Template:DualLayerWiiDiscs banners."''' - From all of this discussion that's the only thing you brought that may work, from my point of view. Again, those banner templates are completely unnecessary. First, banners won't look good inside the Infobox no matter how you design them, second, if we're going to put new things in Infobox we could just make the its template handle the categories for those cases as well (reinforcing there's no need for separate templates like WidescreenGCN and DualLayerWiiDisc) since it already handles lots of categories based on the info put in the Infobox. My approach to get those "notes" in the Infobox would be discrete icons with mouse-hover, like the peripherals section of [http://www.wiibrew.org/wiki/Homebrew_Browser any homebrew app in WiiBrew], they are discrete (unlikely banners) and doesn't disrupt content flow. | |||
::::To finish, you still failed to provide any benefit of using {{tl|RatingProblemFix}} and none of the other active admins/members shared thoughts in favour of this template, so, still don't expect this template going anywhere else besides the sandboxes, as far as I'm concerned. And about Template:WidescreenGCN and Template:DualLayerWiiDiscs, they should go as well, I suggest you trying something like peripherals section of Homebrew Channel infobox. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | |||
---- | |||
:::::* I have since revised the pages and cleaned up any ugliness based on your feedback. | |||
:::::* Banners were updated and moved locations. I don't know what to tell you. Either you refuse to accept my answers or there is a true miscommunication going on here. | |||
:::::* The ratings are there to quickly evaluate importance of certain settings deviating from the default. I don't mind talk pages but what I found kind of irritating was someone else not clear what the problems section was for. | |||
:::::* Looked at the [[Project:Wiki Conventions#Problems|problems section]]. There is nothing about emulator vs. real hardware but rather formatting best practices for that section and talking about Dolphin's programming quirks. I rest my case. | |||
:::::* The categories is still a disorganized mess and the emulation information section is still easy to miss (I still like ''False Problems'' because there is more precision with using that phrasing). The banners are there to make things easier to spot. | |||
:::::* You keep taking my ideas as finalized when they are not even close to being final. That is why they are in a sandbox. Iteration is the key word here. This idea I have may go through several design iterations until it looks practical and noticeable. | |||
:::::Overall, only you and [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] seem to have disapproval of my attempted improvements. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] is showing concern but it seems he is willing to see how I revise my implementations to look nicer. --[[User:Wildgoosespeeder|Wildgoosespeeder]] ([[User talk:Wildgoosespeeder|talk]]) 05:20, 6 November 2015 (CET) | |||
---- | |||
::::::* Those banners you've slapped into infobox still are ugly and takes a lot of space but already looks somewhat better than that ad-like thing in the top of the page. However, put two or more of those banners in the same infobox and you get an even messy and long infobox. As I said, change that to discrete icons with mouse-hover text ([http://www.wiibrew.org/wiki/Homebrew_Browser like the example I gave from WiiBrew]) if you ever want this going official (or provide us a concept better than WiiBrew example). And just get rid of those separate templates by putting its categorize-this-page thing directly in Infobox template, '''they're not necessary'''! | |||
::::::* Again, that rating problem system '''won't go forward''' as far as I'm concerned (and apparently I'm the only one seen that during those days nobody else weighed in favour or against this template, in particular). There's '''no need''' to rate problems, they provide '''no benefit''' for the visitors/end-users and add a lot of '''unnecessary maintenance''', not to mention that you want to rate all existing problems as '''undefined''' and I'm pretty sure they would remain like that if this non-sense ever got implemented -- After the automated search and replace to implement that, would you go to '''every single page''' to give an appropriate rating to '''every single problem''' it have? '''Certainly no''' (not to mention the kinds of disagreement about what rating a particular problem should get this crap would generate). From the conventions, if a problem is severe, move it to the top of problems section, if other problem is something minor, move it below the severe one, if it's fixed, cross it and move to the bottom and that's it, how would be that more simple? Of course, rating the problems won't make them any more simple to add/maintain. Another point is that this would add complexity even to outsider, anonymous users, if implemented. Let's say that user wants to add a new problem, they would need to deal with a new template that they probably never saw in any other wiki (probably unsure of what rating that problem should get) and it would probably set it wrong, all of this hassle to just add a new problem, something that's damn easy currently. And '''stop using an isolated edition disagreement case''' to say to me it's OK to implement this crap. '''It's not.''' | |||
::::::* About "taking my ideas as finalized when they are not even close to being final", I'm not taking anything as final, you banner-thing is shapening to something acceptable. But about this "brilliant" idea of rating problems, yes, that's '''already rejected''', no matter to what shape you get this template you'll be just wasting your time since I already gave N reasons to why this "rating problem" system '''is not necessary, does not provide any benefit and thus won't go forward'''. Don't expect me changing my position about this. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | |||
---- | |||
:::::::* I'm kind of concerned that if I do like WiiBrew, my current configuration will lose visibility of more vital information such as DVD9 and 16:9 GCN games as the icons are easily recognizable for peripherals that the app supports and not technical details. I really like how WiiBrew handles warning the user about NAND modifications in the [http://www.wiibrew.org/wiki/SaveGame_Manager_GX SaveGame Manager GX] example. I know the templates are unnecessary at this point but for the purposes right now, until I can settle on a design that works, it will be in that structure for now. | |||
:::::::* I remember bringing up an issue months ago relating to my ratings idea because this Wiki is so determined to be accuracy-based without much regard to frame rate performance ([[Project:General Discussions#Performance Addition to Game Wiki Pages]]). Want to see [[:Category:0_stars_(Rating)|0 star ratings]] for maintenance? I can only update games I own to update the ratings. | |||
:::::::* I would like opinions other than you about the rating system for problems though. I really need some feedback to make it good. --[[User:Wildgoosespeeder|Wildgoosespeeder]] ([[User talk:Wildgoosespeeder|talk]]) 21:44, 6 November 2015 (CET) | |||
---- | |||
::::::::* That's exactly my point, that "vital" information isn't that important (especially in the infobox), the icons with mouse-hover still looks like the best approach for me (especially when this kind of info will probably be detailed in the new Emu Info section as well). You can try a "NAND Warning from WiiBrew" concept to show us how they would look, just don't forget they use a slightly small font and no icons at all (and even that, still draws more attention than it should, in my opinion). | |||
::::::::* So? You brought this idea months ago and got mostly negative votes, now you come with this clutter, still receives negative votes (at the moment in 100% rate considering users that shared their thoughts) and still works on something that won't get implemented at all? Really dude, just stop wasting time. | |||
::::::::* You wanted more opinions (other than me) and got another negative vote. It doesn't matter how "good" it looks if the idea behind this template were already rejected. | |||
::::::::Don't waste time on this, concentrate on your 16:9/dual-layer disc ideas instead, they're the only thing here getting into an acceptable shape. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | |||
:::::::::* [[Template:DualLayerWiiDiscs]] is pretty vital for some games emulating accurately while [[Template:WidescreenGCN]] is only vital to those who want their GCN games in widescreen and might be misinformed about the select GCN games that support it natively. | |||
:::::::::* I consider each mentioning a part of the iteration process. My initial idea was to include a section about performance over accuracy in conjunction with the current problem section that is about accuracy over performance. I consider my ratings idea a second form of my idea where the advancement is not requiring a redundant section. Instead of rejecting the idea outright, hypothetically assume that if these changes were to go in effect, what would make them more appealing? I need feedback on that and you are failing to supply me with that. Who knows? Maybe my efforts are a waste of time. I don't know for sure because it's too early to tell. I don't think so because I do believe the core idea I have can be useful for Dolphin Wiki users, even though it's current appearance may not be. | |||
::::::::::I'm pretty much done with my ratings idea. I need more feedback to further refine the idea. Telling me to quit working on it isn't useful in the slightest. --[[User:Wildgoosespeeder|Wildgoosespeeder]] ([[User talk:Wildgoosespeeder|talk]]) 04:13, 7 November 2015 (CET) | |||
=== Global Replacement Request === | === Global Replacement Request === | ||