6,576
edits
User talk:Lucario: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
Whoa, whoa there! Don't just push new features that will change a huge number of pages directly into templates being used everywhere, without providing a sandbox and test example first (and hearing other thoughts first). That's what you just did with {{tl|Issue}} and although it's a fairly simple change, it have some fundamental flaws: first, sometimes an issue relates to a specific problem that occur with many games (e.g. zfreeze) and while a new build may fix the issue in a game, others may still have the problem so the issue still remain open, and second because the category you created is redundant, you're essentially flagging the same game pages that already are categorized in [[:Category:Pages with fixed problems]] since you're adding that fixed tag to all problems that have links to issues and are crossed but they already are flagged by {{tl|s}}{{tl|/s}}. I'm reverting your changes now. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | Whoa, whoa there! Don't just push new features that will change a huge number of pages directly into templates being used everywhere, without providing a sandbox and test example first (and hearing other thoughts first). That's what you just did with {{tl|Issue}} and although it's a fairly simple change, it have some fundamental flaws: first, sometimes an issue relates to a specific problem that occur with many games (e.g. zfreeze) and while a new build may fix the issue in a game, others may still have the problem so the issue still remain open, and second because the category you created is redundant, you're essentially flagging the same game pages that already are categorized in [[:Category:Pages with fixed problems]] since you're adding that fixed tag to all problems that have links to issues and are crossed but they already are flagged by {{tl|s}}{{tl|/s}}. I'm reverting your changes now. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | ||
:How could you... This new category can help us find the old problem that should've been crossed out with {{tl|s}}{{tl|/s}} if the issue has already been fixed. "fixed" doesn't have to mean that the issue is actually fixed as seen in bug tracker, it just means that ''this'' issue is "no longer the case" for ''that'' game. Again, it was supposed to find and update the old problems that's since been fixed. The fixed and active problem categories are not same. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 02:23, 11 November 2015 (CET) | :How could you... This new category can help us find the old problem that should've been crossed out with {{tl|s}}{{tl|/s}} if the issue has already been fixed. "fixed" doesn't have to mean that the issue is actually fixed as seen in bug tracker, it just means that ''this'' issue is "no longer the case" for ''that'' game. Again, it was supposed to find and update the old problems that's since been fixed. The fixed and active problem categories are not same. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 02:23, 11 November 2015 (CET) | ||
:: The point is, you '''should not''' jump straight to a template currently used in a lot of pages and just throw something new at it (that'll change how the template works). You '''discuss''' it first, show a sandbox with the concept, then, if you got positive '''consensus''', you go implementing it, I'm just sick of you and Wildgoosespeeder failing to properly isolate whatever concepts you're proposing in the sandboxes instead of messing with templates and pages already in use by the wiki just to show how that concept will look. Not to mention also that your new wanted category could be instantly achieved with a simple snippet in {{tl|issue}} to check if the page that's including it already isn't a member of [[:Category:Pages with fixed problems]] and if not, tag it with the [[:Category:Pages with active problems]] instead of go spreading |fixed everywhere on the wiki (and even then the concept you proposed would still be somewhat wrong since a problem doesn't necessarily include a link to an issue and so the proposed category would have missing pages). - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | ::The point is, you '''should not''' jump straight to a template currently used in a lot of pages and just throw something new at it (that'll change how the template works). You '''discuss''' it first, show a sandbox with the concept, then, if you got positive '''consensus''', you go implementing it, I'm just sick of you and Wildgoosespeeder failing to properly isolate whatever concepts you're proposing in the sandboxes instead of messing with templates and pages already in use by the wiki just to show how that concept will look. Not to mention also that your new wanted category could be instantly achieved with a simple snippet in {{tl|issue}} to check if the page that's including it already isn't a member of [[:Category:Pages with fixed problems]] and if not, tag it with the [[:Category:Pages with active problems]] instead of go spreading |fixed everywhere on the wiki (and even then the concept you proposed would still be somewhat wrong since a problem doesn't necessarily include a link to an issue and so the proposed category would have missing pages). - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) | ||
::: 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 [[Template 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 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 that co-exist with issue template that add the game to the same category. Anymore detraction you would like to throw in here about this new template feature and category? 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) | |||