15,188
edits
Template talk:VersionCompatibilityVersion/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Template talk:VersionCompatibilityVersion/sandbox (view source)
Revision as of 22:29, 6 August 2017
, 6 August 2017Username rename (Jhonn => mbc07)
(Username rename (Jhonn => mbc07)) |
|||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
:::Is there really nothing that can make it out of the sandbox? [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 05:33, 17 June 2016 (CEST) | :::Is there really nothing that can make it out of the sandbox? [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 05:33, 17 June 2016 (CEST) | ||
:::: As any other wiki, the Dolphinwiki works based on consensus. If you, | :::: As any other wiki, the Dolphinwiki works based on consensus. If you, mbc07, and Kolano all wish to implement it as is, then I'm simply overruled, and have to follow it. I cannot just simply stop it based on my preferences. But the same applies to you - if the majority of us are not in favor of this template, or wish changes to be done first, you'll have to comply with it as well. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, we could find a compromise solution too, based on all of our input. And yes I have read the discussion and have watched this develop, know the reasons behind the changes. I just don't agree. :/ I'll be making sure to go through my position in detail soon, but right now I'm swamped with 5.0 release work! >_< I'll post in detail after 5.0. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 09:31, 17 June 2016 (CEST) | ||
::::: I thought it's almost a given that the bar layout is in need of a revamp. I suppose the new bar layout that I came up with is in need of a consensus since it could be just me who thinks it's a worthy replacement for the current bar layout as it is currently (well, after some cleanup like undoing rating text in the tooltip). What side are you on, [[User: | ::::: I thought it's almost a given that the bar layout is in need of a revamp. I suppose the new bar layout that I came up with is in need of a consensus since it could be just me who thinks it's a worthy replacement for the current bar layout as it is currently (well, after some cleanup like undoing rating text in the tooltip). What side are you on, [[User:mbc07]] and [[User:Kolano]]? We can always work on a better bar layout to replace on top of this new bar layout in the future, like Kolano said something with CSS. | ||
::::: If you'd (MaJoR) like, you can provide a better alternative for something you dislike about this new bar layout meantime. Should it make it in before going out of the sandbox or to save it for the future. I will most likely undo the rating text in the tooltip as you and Kolano seems to oppose it and I don't have strong point with it going out of the sandbox. I didn't returned for a while because I don't like to get involved in discussion like this. I was mad on that time (and still am!). | ::::: If you'd (MaJoR) like, you can provide a better alternative for something you dislike about this new bar layout meantime. Should it make it in before going out of the sandbox or to save it for the future. I will most likely undo the rating text in the tooltip as you and Kolano seems to oppose it and I don't have strong point with it going out of the sandbox. I didn't returned for a while because I don't like to get involved in discussion like this. I was mad on that time (and still am!). | ||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
::::: I hope your progress with releasing Dolphin 5.0 went smooth! Quite excited for it. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 16:43, 17 June 2016 (CEST) | ::::: I hope your progress with releasing Dolphin 5.0 went smooth! Quite excited for it. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 16:43, 17 June 2016 (CEST) | ||
:::::: I share similar thoughts with MaJoR, I would be against implementing this outside of the sandbox in the current state. I can say that the only thing in this sandbox that I personally think it's better than the current template are the new colors, everything else needs adjustments here or there or aren't really necessary (I'll elaborate more after 5.0 release)... - [[User: | :::::: I share similar thoughts with MaJoR, I would be against implementing this outside of the sandbox in the current state. I can say that the only thing in this sandbox that I personally think it's better than the current template are the new colors, everything else needs adjustments here or there or aren't really necessary (I'll elaborate more after 5.0 release)... - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 03:13, 18 June 2016 (CEST) | ||
Let's divide features the new bar layout is made up of, then you and MaJoR can see what you're actually opposing on with MaJoR's unclear response "all of it really". | Let's divide features the new bar layout is made up of, then you and MaJoR can see what you're actually opposing on with MaJoR's unclear response "all of it really". | ||
| Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
| Done | | Done | ||
| New color | | New color | ||
| | | mbc07, Kolano, Lucario | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
| Done | | Done | ||
| White bar for game with no revision tested | | White bar for game with no revision tested | ||
| Lucario, | | Lucario, mbc07 | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| Kolano, | | Kolano, mbc07 (see notes below) | ||
| | | | ||
|- style="background-color:#fdb; color:#630;" | |- style="background-color:#fdb; color:#630;" | ||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| | | mbc07, MaJoR | ||
|- style="background-color:#fcc; color:#600;" | |- style="background-color:#fcc; color:#600;" | ||
| Dropped | | Dropped | ||
| Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
| | | | ||
| MaJoR | | MaJoR | ||
| | | mbc07 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
| Revision text on top | | Revision text on top | ||
| | | mbc07, Kolano, Lucario | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| | | mbc07, MaJoR | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
| Correcting overlapped revision text by shifting later revision to upper-left | | Correcting overlapped revision text by shifting later revision to upper-left | ||
| | | mbc07 (see notes) | ||
| Kolano | | Kolano | ||
| Lucario (if revision text on top, and no better alternative to overlap problem) | | Lucario (if revision text on top, and no better alternative to overlap problem) | ||
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
| Done | | Done | ||
| Major revision points in footer | | Major revision points in footer | ||
| Kolano (Though further revs are needed), | | Kolano (Though further revs are needed), mbc07 (see notes) | ||
| | | | ||
| Lucario (if revision text on top) | | Lucario (if revision text on top) | ||
| Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
| | | | ||
| MaJoR | | MaJoR | ||
| | | mbc07 (see notes) | ||
|- style="background-color:#fcc; color:#600;" | |- style="background-color:#fcc; color:#600;" | ||
| Dropped | | Dropped | ||
| Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
| | | | ||
| Kolano | | Kolano | ||
| | | mbc07, MaJoR | ||
|} | |} | ||
I'm in support of big bold rating text as it gives users idea of what color means in the bar. It's got its font style to blend into the background of the bar. This will require the revision text to go outside of the bar. I realized that with revision text on top I can also find version compatibility in wrong order in several game pages (discovered when previewing with sandboxed templates, I can't remember which game I first discovered but [[Rayman Origins]] got similar, ordered exactly backward). [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 07:00, 18 June 2016 (CEST) | I'm in support of big bold rating text as it gives users idea of what color means in the bar. It's got its font style to blend into the background of the bar. This will require the revision text to go outside of the bar. I realized that with revision text on top I can also find version compatibility in wrong order in several game pages (discovered when previewing with sandboxed templates, I can't remember which game I first discovered but [[Rayman Origins]] got similar, ordered exactly backward). [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 07:00, 18 June 2016 (CEST) | ||
: Okay, got some time to review this, firstly, could you explain better what exactly are you referring to by "Rating text on top: white bar to be in its full width"? I didn't figure out what it might be, so I'm presumably opposing until I understand better. Secondly, about "Correcting overlapped revision text by shifting later revision to upper-left", I'm supportive of having some way to correct overlapped revisions but I think the current design isn't looking good, needs further refinement. Moving on, I'm also supportive of "Major revision points in footer", but in the future, with more releases, it'll get messy. Maybe using some kind of logarithmic instead of linear calculation to the revision position on the bar (so the recent releases get a wider space in the chart compared to old ones, like 2.0). This also relates to "Remove static "2.0" end point": I oppose having anything older than 2.0 being the "earliest", the data available on those revisions are pretty scarce and 2.0 at this point is so old to even bother trying to gather information about it (I mean, the Version Compatibility chart didn't even exist on the wiki around 2.0 release time, AFAIK -- why bother keeping track of revisions before it while we already have trouble documenting revisions released after?). That's all I had to say, for now. If you want to discuss further on some point that I'm officially opposing, let me know. - [[User: | : Okay, got some time to review this, firstly, could you explain better what exactly are you referring to by "Rating text on top: white bar to be in its full width"? I didn't figure out what it might be, so I'm presumably opposing until I understand better. Secondly, about "Correcting overlapped revision text by shifting later revision to upper-left", I'm supportive of having some way to correct overlapped revisions but I think the current design isn't looking good, needs further refinement. Moving on, I'm also supportive of "Major revision points in footer", but in the future, with more releases, it'll get messy. Maybe using some kind of logarithmic instead of linear calculation to the revision position on the bar (so the recent releases get a wider space in the chart compared to old ones, like 2.0). This also relates to "Remove static "2.0" end point": I oppose having anything older than 2.0 being the "earliest", the data available on those revisions are pretty scarce and 2.0 at this point is so old to even bother trying to gather information about it (I mean, the Version Compatibility chart didn't even exist on the wiki around 2.0 release time, AFAIK -- why bother keeping track of revisions before it while we already have trouble documenting revisions released after?). That's all I had to say, for now. If you want to discuss further on some point that I'm officially opposing, let me know. - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 04:57, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | ||
:: Forgot something about the new colors: I don't like the color used for "playable". My suggestion here is using the current "perfect green" as the color for playable and using some kind of blue (somewhat close to the Dolphin logo, for example) as "perfect". - [[User: | :: Forgot something about the new colors: I don't like the color used for "playable". My suggestion here is using the current "perfect green" as the color for playable and using some kind of blue (somewhat close to the Dolphin logo, for example) as "perfect". - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 05:02, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | ||
::Will respond in a few bullets bellow... [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 08:54, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | ::Will respond in a few bullets bellow... [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 08:54, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | ||
| Line 239: | Line 239: | ||
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 | ::My response (to mbc07) 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)]]. | *"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)]]. | ||
| Line 249: | Line 249: | ||
*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) | *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 | 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 mbc07, 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. | ||
Now I'm going to go over it and take on some issues I have with the template. I will not be referencing the table you created do to the above reasons, instead I will be looking at the template and bringing up points of things that I see. | Now I'm going to go over it and take on some issues I have with the template. I will not be referencing the table you created do to the above reasons, instead I will be looking at the template and bringing up points of things that I see. | ||
*Broken-Intro-Starts-Playable-Perfect - Those terms are completely arbitrary and subjective, and I do not like them. The entire rating system is desperately in need of an overhaul, but we've never managed to overhaul it due to disagreements in the precise implementation. But that's just the root problem with it, isn't it? It's entirely up in the air, there's no meaning to it at all, and so it's very difficult to get anyone to agree on an ideal scenario. Even extremely small adjustments have failed. The problem has only become worse over time - Dolphin becomes more and more accurate, I'm sure you've noticed that everything is stuck on 4 stars, making it rather useless. In the not so distant future the entire concept of ratings will be pointless. Anyway, because of the fundamental issues with the rating system, and how they are only going to become worse over time, I am of the strong opinion that raising its obviousness is absolutely the wrong course of action, and oppose this aspect of the proposed changes. I absolutely would prefer that text be gone. And while I'm at it, the font is poor and the padding is insufficient, and the colors are bad too. Seriously, when darkening yellows and oranges, remember to always go to warmer tones! If you don't it will look sickly... | *Broken-Intro-Starts-Playable-Perfect - Those terms are completely arbitrary and subjective, and I do not like them. The entire rating system is desperately in need of an overhaul, but we've never managed to overhaul it due to disagreements in the precise implementation. But that's just the root problem with it, isn't it? It's entirely up in the air, there's no meaning to it at all, and so it's very difficult to get anyone to agree on an ideal scenario. Even extremely small adjustments have failed. The problem has only become worse over time - Dolphin becomes more and more accurate, I'm sure you've noticed that everything is stuck on 4 stars, making it rather useless. In the not so distant future the entire concept of ratings will be pointless. Anyway, because of the fundamental issues with the rating system, and how they are only going to become worse over time, I am of the strong opinion that raising its obviousness is absolutely the wrong course of action, and oppose this aspect of the proposed changes. I absolutely would prefer that text be gone. And while I'm at it, the font is poor and the padding is insufficient, and the colors are bad too. Seriously, when darkening yellows and oranges, remember to always go to warmer tones! If you don't it will look sickly... | ||
| Line 256: | Line 256: | ||
So what changes would I like made to the template? I absolutely want the ratings text removed. Colors should be adjusted some, but it's not the biggest deal in the world. I do not like the always on diagonal arrows with revisions, but if those arrows were to appear on mouse over, that I think would be nice. Like, have it display like the current system, but mouse over and it gives more details with the arrows if you want it. It looks busy when always on, but if it only appears when someone deliberately wishes for more information, then the busy-ness is wanted and perfectly fine! Anyway, that is my opinion on this. Sorry it's kind of late, I kind of crashed after the 5.0 push, then I had to start dealing with real life bureaucracy (yuck!). - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 23:55, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | So what changes would I like made to the template? I absolutely want the ratings text removed. Colors should be adjusted some, but it's not the biggest deal in the world. I do not like the always on diagonal arrows with revisions, but if those arrows were to appear on mouse over, that I think would be nice. Like, have it display like the current system, but mouse over and it gives more details with the arrows if you want it. It looks busy when always on, but if it only appears when someone deliberately wishes for more information, then the busy-ness is wanted and perfectly fine! Anyway, that is my opinion on this. Sorry it's kind of late, I kind of crashed after the 5.0 push, then I had to start dealing with real life bureaucracy (yuck!). - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 23:55, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | ||
: Sorry for the late reply, but here we go: my main issues with it before it goes live are the rotated text for overlapping revisions and the rating texts inside the chart. I'm supportive of having a way to deal with the overlapping revisions (as with more data being added to the charts it started to be an issue), but I don't think the rotated text is a good approach to it, and just like MaJoR, I don't find (nor I'm supportive) of having revision text/numbers outside of the chart for the sole reason of having rating text there instead. If you guys reealy want to have rating text on the compatibility chart I suggest doing a small (separate) box with some kind of legend instead of kicking revision text outside of the chart. MaJoR's suggestion of having the arrows showing on hover for overlapped revisions only sounds good, but then we would have the same issues we had with tooltips, I think. And speaking of major revision points, I reaffirm we should purge anything regarding pre-2.0 era (the number of pages with that kind of ancient info are pretty small so I don't think it's worth the effort to make the chart relayout properly when that old info is available -- and by capping the chart to 2.0 or newer we are still covering nearly 6 years of data) - [[User: | : Sorry for the late reply, but here we go: my main issues with it before it goes live are the rotated text for overlapping revisions and the rating texts inside the chart. I'm supportive of having a way to deal with the overlapping revisions (as with more data being added to the charts it started to be an issue), but I don't think the rotated text is a good approach to it, and just like MaJoR, I don't find (nor I'm supportive) of having revision text/numbers outside of the chart for the sole reason of having rating text there instead. If you guys reealy want to have rating text on the compatibility chart I suggest doing a small (separate) box with some kind of legend instead of kicking revision text outside of the chart. MaJoR's suggestion of having the arrows showing on hover for overlapped revisions only sounds good, but then we would have the same issues we had with tooltips, I think. And speaking of major revision points, I reaffirm we should purge anything regarding pre-2.0 era (the number of pages with that kind of ancient info are pretty small so I don't think it's worth the effort to make the chart relayout properly when that old info is available -- and by capping the chart to 2.0 or newer we are still covering nearly 6 years of data) - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 07:06, 15 July 2016 (CEST) | ||
:: I disagree on purging pre-2.0 information from the version compatibility. We need to keep a record of old data somewhere, and it is hidden so it doesn't hurt anything. EDIT: I guess the history is a record of that... but having that little bit of data in version compatibility is very useful in giving us an idea of how far back to go in the history. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 21:54, 15 July 2016 (CEST) | :: I disagree on purging pre-2.0 information from the version compatibility. We need to keep a record of old data somewhere, and it is hidden so it doesn't hurt anything. EDIT: I guess the history is a record of that... but having that little bit of data in version compatibility is very useful in giving us an idea of how far back to go in the history. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 21:54, 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: | ::: 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:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|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 | 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 mbc07'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) == | ||