Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChyranandChloe (talk | contribs) at 05:09, 26 December 2008 (→Merry Christmas). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to leave a new message

You're Welcome.

No problem. I just felt some mention of the character's physical appearance should be mentioned. Happy wiking. :D LunaRain~ 01:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LunaRain (talk • contribs)

MPRP POTD Template

I didn't know you had figured out the image size problem. What exactly did you do? I couldn't think of any way to switch from tables to css in my design. If you could, can you edit the design to include a CSS layout instead of a tabled one.. If you don't feel like doing that, a simple explanation of how I could do so would suffice. Thanks!

I'm actually still going to work on this javascript code though. I didn't want to get into too much detail on the MPRP page (It's already too long as it is), but I'm working up some script that will detect a <span></span> element with a certain id parameter (something like screeninfo). The code will then use the contents of that span to call a certain function (windowwidth would call a function to return the width of the viewport; resolution would return screen resolution; etc.) and replace the contents of that span with the output. So something like <span id="screeninfo">windowwidth</span> would return 1024 for me. Creating a Template ({{Screeninfo}} or something) containing "<span id="screeninfo">{{{1}}}</span>" would allow people to simply type {{Screeninfo|windowwidth}} and get the window width. It's still a work in progress (I'll hopefully have it turned out before Christmas), but I can see big applications for it. Hopefully they'll accept it over at common.js. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I turned it out faster than I thought I would haha. I just uploaded the code to User:Dudemanfellabra/monobook.js. It allows you to type <span class="screeninfo">parameter</span>, and return what you asked for. The code currently supports screen width, screen height, screen resolution, and color depth of the display. Screen width was the main thing I was aiming for (for the POTD template), but screen height will probably be useful too. If a user wants to make a div extend to the end of the page, he could use this (since height=100% sadly no longer works) to figure out the window height then set the div's height to that number. Also, color depth could be used to determine whether or not to display a background image (like in the MPRP discussion). If the user's screen is set below 24-bit color, the background image wouldn't be displayed, etc. After some testing, I hope to get this added to Misplaced Pages's js file and create that template, so users don't have to worry about span this and class that. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I just added support for the total page height and the total page width (not just the viewable part). This would be a better use of the height=100% dilemma. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're on the right track in increasing the number of features. Nice work on the Javascript; if we can find a serious application for it: passing it into common.js should not be too great of a hurdle. Using it for the MPRP I don't think is applicable just yet, since our operations can be done with simply CSS. Furthurmore I think there is a general mistrust of JavaScript, remember the hide/show issue?

I can switch it to CSS at a later time, it's not a difficult task, but it is time consuming. I think it was Pretzels that really prompted the switch back a while ago, but simply put it replace each column with "<div style="width:50%; float:right">..." ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

MPRP Notice

I know we are in disagreement over some part of the discussion, can you expand and clarify what you mean? I'd like to see the entire story rather than an excerpt. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To what are you referring? —David Levy 01:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is as you stated "Oh, so there was discussion behind the switch away from project-linking, custom-tweaked icons? By all means, please point me to that." However I think there may, perhaps, be more to it than that, therefore this is an opportunity for you to elaborate what you disagree with or what you are in contempt with. What motivates me to ask you this is because keeping together the MPRP is more important to me than the individual issues we may be sullen to argue about, by I'd like to understand your rather strong reaction. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that I harbor no "contempt." You criticised my failure to initiate discussion on every individual change that I made (including the restoration of the carefully tweaked icon files and their linkage to the projects), so I'm asking you to direct me to the discussion(s) behind the removal of these elements. It must exist, right? I mean, I'd assumed that the omissions were unintentional, but I obviously must have been mistaken. After all, why else would you have raised the issue? Surely, you wouldn't criticise me for neglecting to discuss the reversion of undiscussed changes to longstanding code. —David Levy 01:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My criticism lies with the omission of any discussion between when I made the edit which centered the Sister projects and returned to the 3x3 layout and the the return to the layout currently on the main page; I would have prefer that you outline each step, but it would have also been perfectly acceptable if you would have stated that you are returning to the older version of code. I need you to clarify "I'm asking you to direct me to the discussion(s) behind the removal of these elements", since "these elements" can be applied to a number of situations.

If you are talking about the version I reverted it to, it was originally proposed as a package by Pretzels. We conceded and later made several minor derivations from it. You can find that discussion near the top of the section as Pretzels stated "I'm going to swap out the old sister projects section for this new, cleaner version."

I do not consider the "longstanding code" to be very intuitive or well written (I can cite specific examples if you want); and I certainly found it unilateral in the statement that the code Dudemanfellabra and I proposed to be "never intended to be used for a 3x3 grid". ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, I understand that you're criticising me for failing to initiate discussion regarding each and every individual change that I made. And I'm asking you to point me to the discussion in which it was decided that "the carefully tweaked icon files and their linkage" should be removed. I've requested this several times, so I don't know how there could be any ambiguity. I thought that the meaning of the phrase "these elements" was clear, given the fact that I identified those specific elements earlier in the same sentence. But it seems that I was mistaken, so I apologize for being inarticulate again. I know how "sick" of that you are.

2. You say that "it would have also been perfectly acceptable if would have stated that returning to the older version of code." Somehow, I had the bizarre notion that the edit summary "tweaked projects section to reintegrate existing code " conveyed precisely that. So please forgive me for foolishly believing that it was appropriate to summarize my edit via the edit summary.

3. Okay, I'll rephrase my statement regarding the code from "it was never intended to be used for a 3x3 grid" to "it sucks when used for a 3x3 grid." Okay? Please let me know if that isn't articulate enough. Thanks! —David Levy 04:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "you're criticising me for failing to initiate discussion regarding each and every individual change that I made", I didn't say that, I stated that there was "the omission of any discussion between when I made the edit which centered the Sister projects and returned to the 3x3 layout and the the return to the layout currently on the main page." The edit History is not a place for discussion. Nevertheless, we'll go with what we got now. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

1. You complained about the lack of discussion regarding several specific changes, including the restoration of the project-linking images:

"I also don't know what you guys think about switching from images to imagemap which allows the icons to link to the project (this was in David's package)."

So again, please point me to the discussion in which it was decided to remove this element. (Surely, there must have been one, or why would you have criticised my reversion?)

2. Indeed, the edit history isn't a discussion venue. But you just stated that "it would have also been perfectly acceptable if would have stated that returning to the older version of code." How does that describe anything other than the concept of an edit summary (including the one that I provided)? Why have you deemed it mandatory to duplicate this information on the talk page? —David Levy 04:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not complaining about lack of discussion regarding several specific changes, I am complaining that at the time there was no discussion regarding any of the changes you made. Dudemanfellabra had to prompt you about the links before it was even acknowledge in the discussion. Despite that, my central point is that you didn't give any rationale to how the method you used is better than ours. What I have from you so far is that our code "sucks", "is not intended", and so forth. I don't intent that to offensive, but all that necessary is a a solid rationale statement of how our code (that the derivative of the code Pretzel proposed) "sucks" and how the one you used is better.

Part of documentation is a little duplication, that is to understand the purpose of each edit and therefore understand each line of code; but above is where my position is centered at, and I'd like addressed first. Dudemanfellabra and I occasionally cleanup the code (for example, in Dudemanfellabra deleted redundant statements). How our edits differ from the one you made is that they do not change the appearance or behavior of the page.

There is no specific discussion about changing from imagemap to simply images; Pretzels proposed all the those changes as a package and we (the group at the time) conceded. I didn't bring it up because—well—I dislike the practice and figured that it was non-essential in the first place since we have placed the link directly next to the image. In the current editing climate, and as you've brought up, my position on its importance has changed; but I still dislike the practice, if you want to get that—it contains a rather large amount of jargon. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How DARE I perform an edit without advance discussion?! By waiting until someone else commented (and then discussing it), I violated your rule! I should be ashamed of myself. —David Levy 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is offensive, and does not address my point. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What point is that? That when numerous changes (including some whose existence has been justified solely as a means of accommodating others) are made as a "package," and then some of them are eliminated, I'm supposed to somehow divine that the apparent vestiges (such as text that was reduced in size to allow two additional projects to fit in each row) and omissions that haven't even been mentioned (such as the imagemaps) are important to you?

You say that the above statement is offensive, but I don't see anyone else attempting to enforce a "document every change on the talk page" rule or complaining that I waited until someone commented on an edit before discussing it. —David Levy 06:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You are not addressing my central point; and adding imagemap and so forth could be easily accomplished with copy and paste. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I'll ask again: what is your central point? To be clear, this question is not rhetorical.

2. I did perform my revision via copying and pasting. I carefully integrated the changes that I perceived as non-vestigial into the existing main page code, and I documented that in my summary. Then, as I was discussing one of my edits with another editor, you showed up, announced that I'd violated your rules, and mass-reverted (subsequently restoring the one modification of which you personally approved, despite the fact that this was the only element that anyone else had complained about). —David Levy 07:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My central point is simple: give some rationale whenever you make a significant edit to the draft (the rationale is usually too long for the edit summery and we can't discuss it there either), this allows for understanding of the purpose of each element and each line of code. During the revert, and in my opinion, the action was justified since we were using the WP:CON model of editing: that is you've made a bold edit, and I revert to what I felt as the most stable version, and we'd discuss what happened from there. In retrospect though, I would say that the revert was too excessive and, as you've stated, too unilateral; the better possibility would have been to have only prompted you on the issues I enumerated and thus keeping the editing climate in good faith. Most of the issues have been address now (for example, placing the link "other languages", the header, and so on). And for the sake of transparency the remaining can be dealt on the MPRP talk page as we go.

I find many of your post inherently inflammatory, and I cannot phantom how to address them in good faith. So if you will comment on that. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I did provide a rationale. The issue, evidently, is that I did so via the edit summary (thereby using it for its intended purpose) instead of abiding by your rule that everything must be documented on the talk page. Indeed, discussions shouldn't occur via edit summaries, and that's why I was gladly engaged in discussion on the talk page.

You've acknowledged that the changes that I reverted were made without any independent rationales supplied in the first place. (They were included in a "package" built around changes that already were defunct when I performed the revision in question.) But somehow, I was supposed to " the purpose of each element and each line of code" (instead of assuming that they were vestigial of changes that already had been withdrawn) because you silently approved of them in your mind.

So in actuality, most of my edit fell under the "R" step of BRD. But instead of proceeding to "D" (in which I already was engaged on the talk page), you reverted my reversions and restored the one new element that I'd boldly added (because you happened to like it), despite the fact that this was one change that someone else had complained about.

Have you forgotten that this is a proposed redesign of Main Page? By reverting from new code introduced without independent justification, I restored the "stable" version.

I'm sorry that you find many of my posts inflammatory. You must be as "sick" of that as you are of my rampant failure to articulate. —David Levy 04:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In seeing a significant edit with so little enumerated in the discussion, and compounded with an ongoing dispute (you and Dudemanfellabra over "other languages") I restored to the previous version (which I viewed we have conceded on: that is to have a 3x3 method of display). After giving it some thought, I added the "other languages" back in, since I assumed that it was the main issue (the "bold edit") and I wanted to see what Pretzels would say (he might have left). In context, when Dudemanfellabra introduced the header, and when Pretzels introduced the sister projects—they both discussed it before they implemented it (they even went as far as show mockups in their sandboxes).

It's a little inconsistent, since BRD describes that the bold edit be reverted; and person bias get in th way. When Dudemanfellabra reverted back to your version, I didn't press the issue; but what really got me was your inflammatory posts. "never intented" still does posses specific citations, and the patronization only destroys the good faith. What I was planning would happen was that after the revert, we would go through the changes you wanted (header, alignment, so on); and once we get an idea of what's to happen we'd just go from there. When we're finished with the prose for the other languages, I have an issue to bring up regarding how the table cells are designed (some possible syntax errors).

Other than that, we have different views on what is the stable version. There was a consensus (with the group at the time) to use Pretzel's proposal as a foundation for the new Sister projects, that's why it was implemented as a whole when he proposed it. For your edit to be R of BRD at the time, it seems a stretch since you've effectively waited two weeks for the "revert". Whether we recognize this through your view or mine, I do not believe that it is relevant in amounting to a decision regarding the MPRP; since we seem to be going off of your proposal anyway. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The changes that I reverted (And yes, that's what I did; the concept contains no time limit.) were not proposed or discussed on their own merits; they either stemmed from oversight (such as the absence of custom-tweaked image files and imagemap code) or existed to accommodate the 5x2 layout (such as the smaller text and tighter spacing). I viewed (and continue to view) the former as unintentional and the latter as vestigial (because the 5x2 layout was eliminated). You say that you happened to like these changes independently, but I had no way of knowing that at the time. The only communicated rationale no longer applied.

Additionally, the language used on the talk page ("stick with the 3x3 grid" / "going back to the 3x3 grid") appeared to support the idea of restoring the pre-existing 3x3 grid code, so it's unfair to claim that my reversion had no basis in discussion.

Note that I didn't indiscriminately remove all of the changes. I carefully retained modifications that were intentional and unrelated to the grid configuration (such as the new text, the Misplaced Pages pseudo-link, the absence of a Meta-Wiki link and the grey descriptions). You know that I don't like all of these changes, so my edit obviously wasn't based on my personal preferences.

2. What bothered me was not your reversion, but being scolded for failing to follow your unilateral rule.

3. Your continual references to my "...never intended..." remark (and above statement that this was "inflammatory") lead me to believe that you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't know how you interpreted it, but I meant nothing more than that the code was written with a 5x2 layout (not a 3x3 layout) in mind. —David Levy 07:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Point two gives a good clarification as it pinpoints the center of where our distrust lies. When the talk page was cleared during the transition from proposal candidate based to consensus based (it was very hard on a lot of editors, Jennavencia left along with Wintran and a few others), I updated the notice from "New proposals are now closed" to "Document all changes here in the discussion" after HereToHelp gave the reminder that the former was no longer relevant. In better securing the transition I paraphrased WP:CON for the notice. At the time, the rationale was to guard against editors from using the draft as a sandbox, since the draft is where we would look at the proposal holistically rather than as a collection of proposed parts. It was not removed for a wholesome three weeks and therefore I assumed that it was understood. Now that we got this one better worked out, I'm sorry that I provoked you with the unilateral rule, and in retrospect I believe it was perhaps unnecessary in the first place, since we could of just pulled BRD.

I disagree that "the concept contains no time limit" since that clause is not enumerated in WP:BRD, however the larger issue I see is that you did not revert to the currently used version on the main page. It's inconsistent. By selectively choosing the parts you approved of, you are effectively creating a new proposal rather than reverting back to the "stable version". There were more changes than returning to the 3x3 grid code work. In addition, and confusion on my part, I didn't intent to return to the code work of the current a 3x3 grid, all I meant was that we're using a 3x3 grid.

I don't find "never intendet" inflammatory, other than I don't understand how it was never intended (specific examples is what I was looking for). What I did find inflammatory was how your comments were both non-essential to the discussion and approaching a near ad hominid attack. For example when you stated "Don't forget to dot every "i" and cross every "t," unless the rules only apply to everyone else" I found (1) the chiche was taking my position to the other extreme, (2) I do follow every rule I set in that I state what and why every time I edit the draft, and (3) in I asked myself: how would I respond to that without further transgressing the situation? In short, I just left that day for a cool down, and to see how Dudemanfellabra and HereToHelp would reaction. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

MPRP Transparency

(left on HereToHelp's talk page) Since the header you seem to be rather silent, and I believe that you are underrepresented in the discussion. I'm sorry that you may feel that we are not acknowledging your opinions, and I find that as a rather disheartening trend, but a MPRP is a real challenge. I'm sure that you have a lot on your mind, do you mind explaining? ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as how the redesign is conducted, I am a little disheartened with how it has devolved into arguing back and forth as much about who's being unclear and who's being unreasonable. Don't mind me; I post as often as I like and I try to stay (mostly) involved in the substance, not the process. That said, the Wiki Way is that the more people contribute, the better something will be. I want to archive all of the dead discussion so newcomers can see exactly where to jump in and not be daunted by about ten (twenty?) pages of "dead" text. Have you noticed that a little less than a week ago we had a flurry of new voices, but they've all left? Clear the way for them by getting rid of the stuff that's no longer active. As for my opinions on content, I just posted a long response detailing what I support. I referenced your post of :you guys haven't let me know what you think about this" post and tried to answer all of your questions. Thanks for your concern. HereToHelp 03:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not my decision. Take some time off, perhaps, but it's down to us four so i don't want to lose anyone else.I could lock the page for 24 to enforce a cool-down period, but I don't think the situation is that explosive.--HereToHelp 13:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello ChyranandChloe! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One 11:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You too. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)