6,576
edits
Template talk:VersionCompatibilityVersion/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Template talk:VersionCompatibilityVersion/sandbox (view source)
Revision as of 11:13, 10 October 2016
, 10 October 2016→Any flaws? Dislikes?
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
| MaJoR | | MaJoR | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Rating text on top: white bar to be in its full width ( See [[#Few questions (opinions usually)]] ) | | <s>Rating</s>Revision text on top: white bar to be in its full width ( See [[#Few questions (opinions usually)]] ) | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
*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. | *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. | ||
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. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 08:54, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | ||
::My response (to Jhonn) 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 [[#Few questions (opinions usually)]]. | |||
*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. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk: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 Jhonn, 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. | 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 Jhonn, 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. | ||
| Line 239: | Line 249: | ||
::: 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... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 23:40, 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... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|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 Jhonn's response and have skimmed through MaJoR's response. I'll be back later. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 11:11, 10 October 2016 (CEST) | |||
== Few questions (opinions usually) == | == Few questions (opinions usually) == | ||