User talk:mbc07

The spam page

It must have caught your eyes by you going to the Project:Community portal where I edited something there recently. I added more page types for talk page DPL so my discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css doesn't vanish but then I noticed the spam page. I'm impressed that it has survived so long. Lucario (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2022 (CET)

Why did you remove the rating template from someone's testing result?

From your recent edit at StarBlade sorry, it was Rygar: The Battle of Argus, I see you removed a four star {{Rating}} and replaced it with "Playable", is there something wrong with the template? Lucario (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2022 (CET)

Excess Ratings templates on a page throw off the Category:Rating that pages get assigned to. Kolano (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2022 (CET)

Actually this isn't the case, as that template doesn't output the categories. At the same time I'm supportive of these updates. Kolano (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2022 (CET)

Two similar templates doing similar things can be confusing, if one's going this won't be the case. Lucario (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2022 (CET)

Also, when included on the testing template, the stars become very tiny to the point it's barely readable and out of place in general, as the results column is intended to have text only. Furthermore, it has been years since we last used that template on game pages (it was superseded by {{Ratings}}) and the only reason {{Rating}} hasn't been deleted yet is because you're including it in one of your sandboxes, otherwise it would have been already gone. mbc07 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2022 (CET)

Alright, you've got a point. I think the templates used in my sandboxes can go too, the rating number can be fed into the main template but I will most likely abandon that column anyway. I'll copy/paste codes used to create stars for future use... Lucario (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2022 (CET)

Ultrawide AR Codes

I saw this edit reverting another user's 32:9 codes for the F-Zero GX[1] and wanted to know where I could advocate for the Wiki pages themselves having more codes on them. Your comment for the edit, "(Although widescreen codes are an allowed code type per the wiki conventions, we currently accept only 4:3 => 16:9 or vice-versa)" indicated that this was a standard, but I couldn't find that on the Project:Wiki_Conventions#Enhancements that you linked. It only says Wider Aspect Ratios, not specifically 16:9. So, where can I learn more, or advocate for a change here? The rule seems to exist - but I don't see where it was decided. Thank you! --BlinksTale (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2022 (CET)

The discussion goes waaay back and at some point were scattered over a few different talk pages (usually from wiki users questioning why an edit adding a widescreen code got reverted) so it might be a bit hard to find them all nowadays. From a quick search, I could find only the initial discussion back from 2015 under Project talk:Wiki Conventions and a lot has changed since then (especially the page pollution that big codes caused at the time). I recognize that the usage of bigger displays (aka wider than 16:9) is more widespread nowadays than it was 7 years ago, but I'm personally still a bit wary of allowing other aspect ratio codes directly on the wiki. Anyway, feel free to create a new discussion topic about this under Project talk:Wiki Conventions (or Project:General Discussions perhaps) and let's see how it goes, we can adjust the conventions depending of the general outcome... - mbc07 (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2022 (CET)