15,188
edits
Template talk:Ratings: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Lucario's recent changes
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::It's not like a rating error is going to be a hard to find without this category. It's certainly not going to explode wiki. The change I made is not major and we also have a new alternative to it (I'm glad you and Xerxes are indifferent to it) so it's not exactly "a feature removal", maybe less management efficient but it's still not really worth it to look over, there are others that deserve more attention than this | ::It's not like a rating error is going to be a hard to find without this category. It's certainly not going to explode wiki. The change I made is not major and we also have a new alternative to it (I'm glad you and Xerxes are indifferent to it) so it's not exactly "a feature removal", maybe less management efficient but it's still not really worth it to look over, there are others that deserve more attention than this | ||
::Also I dislike how you're putting up your strong preferences like that. You know, I've been pretty much withdrawn lately because you write like this. It's as if you're telling me that I don't know what is right anymore. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 03:29, 14 June 2020 (CEST) | ::Also I dislike how you're putting up your strong preferences like that. You know, I've been pretty much withdrawn lately because you write like this. It's as if you're telling me that I don't know what is right anymore. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 03:29, 14 June 2020 (CEST) | ||
::: I'm not putting up any strong preferences here. Whether it's a major feature or not is open up to individual interpretation, but in the end a feature still is a feature and if you want to add, drop or substantially change how an existing feature works, you should discuss it first. That's nothing new, you can dig the talk page history of nearly any template we still use nowadays to see this kind of change always went that route since pretty much this wiki's creation. Also keep in mind that there are places where the ratings template is called indirectly and without user intervention (e.g. from Infobox VG). The maintenance category is something that is always granted to work and it allows quickly locating any page from anywhere in the wiki that called this template either directly or indirectly and did it wrong, as it will reunite all affected pages on the same location (the category page), while the visual indicator will appear only if you actually visit the page where it broke and thus is way more likely to slip through and go unnoticed, remaining broken for who knows how long. | |||
::: '''TL;DR''' Like I said earlier I'm neutral on the visual indicator and completely opposite on dropping the maintenance category (I'm not alone on this point). Since there's nobody disagreeing with the visual indicator and this discussion has been ongoing on for a few days already, feel free to add it back to the main template. And to clarify, I don't have a beef or anything like that with you, just don't go dropping features or making other major changes to existing templates completely out of the blue. Also, call it "strong preference" if you want but rest assured that any change of this nature that skipped the review process will get reverted without hesitation once I get to them, regardless of who actually made the change. [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 09:25, 14 June 2020 (CEST) | |||
== Nonerror parameter necessary? == | == Nonerror parameter necessary? == | ||