User talk:Zalusi

Before Breaking Old Template
Hey bud! :-D Welcome to the project. Before you break an old template, be sure to get the first one up and running and mostly added. Be sure to leave a note ahead of time that such and such is deprecated, and what to use instead. That way other people can help too! Again, welcome, and good ideas so far. Be sure to post into the Tarapedia:Formatting section too, if you haven't already. --Bal 19:22, 3 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Sorry about that... It shouldn't take me too long to get everything changed around to the new template version (Other than updating logos information at the same time). It just seemed that the two templates would clash if I started migrating the logos over to the new template before altering the old one to be deprecated. The old system would think that the logos had no zone, and the new one would have it correctly placed in the zone's category. So it would be simultaneously listed as both needing information and having information. Alternately if I kept the information in the old template calls while implementing the new template, it would require another run through every logos to remove the old template calls afterwards. So yeah... I just decided to do what would require the least amount of edits. I'm new to editing wiki entries, so if I'm missing an easier way to go about it, feel free to tell me! Zalusi 19:47, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Template: Logos
Hey man, make sure you discuss locked down templates before you edit them so harshly. All of the admins have decided a locked down category listing for that. (One of the more active discussions in here) It's also a pain in the ass when we have to fix all old articles with new templates. It's cool you added the +25 Abilities, but the category listing is something that we have discussed thoroughly. (Imper1um 19:13, 4 September 2007 (EDT))
 * Also, please, could you fix the old table? We are attempting to fully avoid limited inner tables like the one you have created for expansion, so it makes it easy for us to put in a history of locations, should the DEVs relocate them, or should multiple Logos locations exist. (Imper1um 19:17, 4 September 2007 (EDT))
 * Honestly I wasn't aware of the lockdowns when I made the changes initially. I was/am rather new to the editing of wikis (this being the first). I went to edit add some logos and the existing logosref implementation wasn't working correctly so I went about correcting things to work and everything expanded from there.


 * Now as for the fixing of the old table. What table are we talking about here? I changed the Logos Reference table, but only by removing the one named image column which seemed rather useless with a working logosref implementation. The only other template I made a major modification to is the Logos template. I stripped out the location information from it, but that has been duplicated (sans instance field) in the new LogosShrineLoc template. This allows multiple logos locations. It doesn't really support a history as it doesn't have a function to mark a previous location as old (for that matter the old Logos template didn't either), but that functionality could easily be added. The main reason I moved all the information from the Logos template was that it was being duplicated in the Location template below it anyhow (and in more detail at that). As it stands now I don't think we have any lesser functionality than we had before. In fact we can categorize pages automatically into missing loc information etc that wouldn't have been feasible before.


 * Or am I just not getting what you're saying? --Zalusi 19:35, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
 * (Imper1um 21:32, 4 September 2007 (EDT)):
 * See, the thing is that the categories were added to the Logos template itself. It would auto-adjust based off of what the info was in there. I admit that the Planet and Continent areas could have been removed, however, adding them to an entirely new template, which adds more to the clutter, just doesn't help out the fact that we would have to reedit the entire Logos section. We already did a massive change to the new, organized template which allowed us to make minuscule changes to the template without massive overhauls, which that was supposed to be the end of it.
 * Like I said, if you have a problem with the template, visit the Template's Talk page. I frequent the Special:Recent Changes, and I will notice if a talk page has changed, especially with the templates I created.
 * As for the change to Logosref that is fine, since it prevents us from Double-Uploading.
 * I understand the categories were added to the Logos template, and that it would auto-recategorize based on the information that was there. The changed system does the same thing. (Minus the instance field - which there was hardly any consensus on anyhow, and half the people didn't use correctly in the templates anyhow.)


 * You say adding them to an entirely new template adds to the clutter, but that's the thing - I replaced the use of an existing template (Template:Location) where that information was already there in duplicate. Previously every information change/addition would have to be done twice: once in the location table and once in the Logos template. As it stands now, only the new LogosShrineLoc template needs to be changed and everything should fall in place. If anything, my change has reduced clutter considering any piece of information now only needs to be stated once. Sure, every logos needs to be updated with the change, but I'm already through the first page of logos where I have both updated the template usage, updated the associated abilities, and have created new stubs for every one that didn't exist a mere few days ago.


 * Now I can understand you being agitated by my sudden upheaval of the templates being used without going through the normal processes, but beyond that it seems there is no technical reason against it. You want to keep a history of past locations? Add an outdated flag to the LogosShrineLoc template and have it automatically strike-out that information. As previously mentioned, the template can be coded to place a logos in a special category if it's missing location coordinates. Missions can be (and are) tied directly to the location they're reflective of. The instance/zone dispute might be solved by a ParentZone field or some such and have the template automatically deal with the formatting of the location table slightly different while still do any category classification you might want. All of these situations couldn't be done in the previous way things were laid out. Besides... It just seems more logical to have location data within a location template than in the Logos template which just displays the icon, abilities, and formally a single mission attribute. --Zalusi 22:19, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
 * (Imper1um 01:52, 5 September 2007 (EDT))
 * Actually, the thing is you are placing a technical limiter on it by preventing extra information from being displayed. Multiple tables would have to be placed on the page just so that multiple logos locations could be displayed. Just believe me, if this is your first time editing a wiki, it really shows. Your first edits to a wiki should not be of a major template, but articles to get used to the fact that it is a community wiki, with multiple editors, and using the talk pages allows the coordination of these edits. Your best bet is to make a sandbox, or edit your own User Page to figure out the structure of the wiki.
 * The edits you are placing are almost spam related to get up count of contributions. ANYONE could bot edit a stub, but it takes a real editor to put in the content. Don't just stub it, fix it! I at least make sure I got a location before I even put a stub, or know something about it. Heck, I made the Template:Recipe/Item and added three Recipes so that it wouldn't be contentless. All edits I do have some kind of content meaning or fix involved. Seriously, chill on the stubs unless you have input, otherwise, it's just a blank contribution.
 * Just, again, before you edit something as major as a locked down template, stop, click the 'talk' page and then edit that page, and then when agreements have been made, THEN edit. Like I said, none of my edits have been of locked down places. All of them have been fixes.♠
 * Quite frankly I could care less about edit count or any such thing. If I wanted some sort of fame, I'd be better off spending it in game since nobody really cares how many wiki entries a person has. Better yet, I'd spend my time on something more meaningful all together. The stubbing was to get them all categorized into the logos missing zones page. It seems to me that it would help anybody wanting to contribute the actual logos locations by having a single page listing every known one that needed updating in a nice alphabetical list rather than a 4 page split listing of randomly ordered logos where they'd have to hunt and peck for what hasn't yet been created. Beyond that, not all the stubs were without any contribution; I also went through and edited in the associated abilities for all logos that had them. Or is that a meaningless contribution in your eyes too? Personally I think you're too critical on what you consider a contribution, and that attitude will only serve to drive off contributions with the person fearing that it's too little so they might as well wait for somebody else to do a larger bulk contribution. IMO any contribution ultimately furthers the cause of the wiki - even if it only saves the next guy a few seconds of filling something in that he otherwise would have.


 * Now you say multiple tables would have to be placed on the page so that multiple logos locations could be displayed. Really, I don't see how this is the case as the template can currently handle up to three locations and can be easily expanded for more. The only way what you say is true is if you have multiple different logos in the same table. In that case, just use the old Location template with it's type field and be done with it, since it wont be on a logos page (which by nature would have only one type of logos), and thus won't need to be and shouldn't be categorized under an area's logos. That and I don't know why anybody would want to duplicate the locations of multiple different logos types in a table anyhow - It would just be even more things to fix if anything does change in the game.


 * Really, I'm still waiting for a concrete example of where the new system is worse than the old. I'm a programmer, and I work best with hard data. In every situation I've thought of, the current systems lacks for nothing compared to the old system other than perhaps cpu cycles from the if statements needed (and I don't have much control with the limited wiki parsers to make any really elegant code anyhow). The only example you've given me makes little sense (different logos in a location table designed to go on a single page). You also say I'm preventing extra information from being displayed in the Logos template, but none of that information outside of the mission was ever displayed in the Logos template to begin with. Even if it was displayed, it would end up being horribly jumbled and cramped to take the place of a location table. Now this isn't to say there is no case where the old system is potentially better, but I have yet to think of it, and you have yet to state it. --Zalusi 04:34, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
 * (Imper1um 10:00, 5 September 2007 (EDT))
 * Seriously, if you are a programmer, you've never been in a real programming atmosphere. You say you are a programmer, yet your code is limiting, and prevents expansion. We put the Categories in the Summary page because that's where it belongs. We put the missions up in the top right because that's where it belongs. You broke a locked down template, and that's the fact of the matter. Any programmer knows here where I work that once code is locked down, it required a meeting to change before it is updated. The reason why every single template is that way because it provides a link of standardization.
 * As for posting the stubs, Special:Wantedpages. It works hella-better than Template:Stub.
 * It's just very annoying that we have done an overhaul for each section and the fact of the matter is that we now have to do a new overhaul to change it back or to the new way of doing it, which is what we are discussing, when it could have been avoided, had you clicked the Talk page and added a discussion.
 * More and more of the politics... It's a dead horse. I'm well aware, as is anybody else that is following this, that I broke the convention of talk before implement. I've admitted it before, and have apologized for it. Nothing is going to change that fact at this point. And really that has nothing to do with being a programmer in the sense that I brought it up, so don't change the context in an attempt to belittle me (which you seem to like doing). I wanted concrete examples of where the new system was less efficient than the old since you provided none. You still have provided none. "Because it belongs" is not a valid reason without any logic behind it. The mission before did not tie itself to the respective location if there was more than one - now it does. That being the case, I don't see how it "belongs" in the logos area any more than in the logos location area. You say my coding is limited (which any code is when dealing with the limited parsers lol), but it has no less functionality than the system originally did. The change simply moved existing logic to another template that is used in the same page. No functionality was lost, data redundancy was reduced, readability was increased, uniformity is enforced, and additional options now exist. You say it prevents expansion, but you give no examples of any such expansion, and where it would be limited. As far as I can see, any function that could be added to the Logos template can also be added to the new template if it has something to do with the location. You say we put the categories in the summary page because that's where it belongs. Now that I'm not sure what you're talking about... The code is still generating categories the same way the old code was (heck, it is slightly tweaked code from the old Logos template). (IE: Category:Concordia Logos) I have not removed any categories to my knowledge.


 * The wanted pages is not unique to logos, and would do absolutely no good for somebody wanting to print off a listing of logos that need updating for while they're playing. (Or keeping the window open in another monitor etc.) I only categorized them as stubs since the information was ultimately incomplete. Perhaps I just shouldn't have bothered categorizing them as stub, since you seem to hate stubs and they'd fall under the missing zone category anyhow.


 * You talk about annoying overhauls, but new system is completely in place at this point anyhow. Or am I missing sections? The only major overhaul I see at this point is if you want to revert everything to the old system. As far as that goes, there's no reason to revert back to the old system unless valid examples can be provided on how the old system was that much superior to the new - data redundancy and all. Besides, now is the time to do any massive changes to wiki structure. Sure it takes time, but it's certainly a lot less trouble now then it will be when the game goes live, or even open beta for that matter. --Zalusi 11:24, 5 September 2007 (EDT)


 * As far as I can see, it broke listing logos for what instances they're in. That's less functionality to me.  I intend to fix this shortly. --Bal 20:16, 9 September 2007 (EDT)


 * It should still be listing them in the instances category pages. It's just that not every instance category page is linked to the parent zone category page. That can be easily fixed by updating the category pages, and isn't a limitation of the new system any more than the old. I meant to start linking them, but got side tracked. The major thing that's missing is a function to take the parent zone for an instance and display it in the table logically. Instances are zones but special zones in that they have a parent zone. I have ideas on that, but really I didn't want to do much more with the template until this dispute was somewhat resolved. --Zalusi 22:58, 9 September 2007 (EDT)


 * You are correct, it didn't break the instance category pages. I was wrong there.  Still has some issues with the parent zone to instance linking like you say.  If I recall correctly, instances do not have areas?  I don't remember any area names inside of them anyway.  If that's the case, we can do a if/else on whether {instance} is set and include the logos in the instance's category instead of the zone's.  I'd prefer that the location table display planet, continent, zone (parent zone for instances), area (instance name for instances).  --Bal 23:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)