15,190
edits
 |
Progress Continues
We've already had 21582 updates since Dolphin 5.0. Keep up with Dolphin's continuing progress through the Dolphin Blog: February, March, and April 2024 Dolphin Progress Report. |
 |
The Dolphin Emulator Wiki needs your help! Dolphin can play thousands of games, and changes are happening all the time. Help us keep up! Join in and help us make this the best resource for Dolphin. |
User talk:Lucario: Difference between revisions
→Issue template
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
::: 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) | ::: 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) | :::''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 fto 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|issues}}). 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]]) | |||