6,576
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
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
::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) | ::: 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 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 | :::''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 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. 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) | ||