Template talk:Icon/Archive01

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Just so you know, the change to require the exntension is accordance to new {{tooltip}} features, where the filename is passed onto this template in full. Yes this would require a bot run to change all use of {{Icon}}, but all uses outside of {{tooltip}} need to be removed now anyways (made redundant because of {{tooltip}}), and even if they weren't the alternative is to change tooltip and do a bot run of all uses of that too. --Zealtalkcontrweb 16:55, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Are you going to run the bot to fix the need for the extension? If not, I'm going to revert it so it doesn't need the extension. Making a change to a widely used template such that you need to run a bot to fix all the old inclusions, but not actually having a bot to do it is pretty obnoxious. I hope I don't start looking at your username and think of its negative connotations when I see it. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:30 PM PST 27 Feb 2007
Fandyllic. Currently, {{Tooltip}} was already replacing the Icon. So it needs to be removed. The only reason it was staying around was because it was still in the boilerplate (which it no longer is), and my reluctance to do so until i added a stakc overlay to the icon in tooltip. {{Tooltip}} is already widely used too, and because it is designed to replace it, we can't continue to replace it without offering the same functionality. So it's one or the other, if you revert this, it breaks tooltip and you have to go change all the tooltips, if you leave it as it is, you have to remove all the icons (which needs to be done one way or the other). There is no point in waiting on a bot to make these changes, duplicating content on the pages in the time being, and then creating more work for users (having to recode this and tooltip) when a bot is available.
I've done this to push ahead on changes that should have been done ages ago and are being held back by a lack of a bot or no desire to do it by hand. I will not be running a bot, but i will be removing the icon from any page i come across with it, especially now that it will appear broken in all places where it should be removed. So if anything this is beneficial, user's jsut been to be more proactive (hell, reactive) rather than sitting around and not making changes.
PS: if you really want to get to know me better, then join IRC, or speak to Kirkburn, Adys, er.. Tekkub, Montag, Teomyr plenty of others. I'm sure you're get a good mix of my good and bad. :p --Zealtalkcontrweb 18:02, 27 February 2007 (EST)
This all sounds well and good with one huge flaw. Why do you have to use the existing {{icon}} template? Why didn't you just make a new one like {{tooltip-icon}}, so you didn't have to break all the pages that used the original one?
All your logic does is encourage a revert war. Your attitude is, "-I- think it should have been done anyway and my cohorts agree with me. -My- tooltip is more important than a legacy icon use, so screw them all." Not too friendly.
I'm generally quite accomodating, but your attitude is starting to bug me.
We'll see how this all shakes out, but there is a difference between not making changes and making changes that don't break stuff. You can make changes without breaking stuff... some of your actions seem more OCD than necessary. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:18 PM PST 28 Feb 2007
Well i regret it bugs you, i know i'm a handfull, but i don't think i'm intolerable. I'm glad you actually figured out the one the valid point against what i did, shows you actually understood instead of being dismissive, surprisingly a rare thing.
Yes, i could have used a different name, but at the time i didn't realize the change i was making (i made an effort to ensure the parameters matched up so the old use survived), only after did i notice the impact, at which point i had already implemented it into the tooltip. It could have been reverted and moved elsewhere, but that required editing tooltip again, and i ultimately saw it as a way to actually force people to take notice, discuss, and implement.
What Patrigan said on the village pump is true, he and i are not the only ones who feel that way or see it happening. Very rarely do i take such a wild action as this, it was ultimately by accident, but i stood by it, and still do. It's made it's impact, and it has made people look at current issues that need to be addressed, so the mistake of it has seved it's purpose i feel. If you want to revert it, that's fine. I'm just glad it got people talking. I've not had many encounters with you tbh, and already you've brought much to the table and added greatly in issues that needed to be addressed, so i'm pleased.
I do however resent what you said about I' and My. Of course i think it should have been anyway, but it wasn't decided it with some random group of people (who i might add rarely ever see eye to eye with me anyways), i didn't claim the actions made in regard to {{Icon}} were part of that, but it ultimately is part of the progression of {{Tooltip}} (that no one foresaw it was going to happen is a seperate issue). Contributers and admins who have been here far longer than me suggested {{Tooltip}} be the new standard and there was consensus at the time. As to calling it my {{tooltip}}, that's because i've been the sole author of it and it was spawned from my methods and it's been me addressing all issues related to it. I know that the moment it was in the template namespace it became the wiki's, thats more than fine by me, i don't care about recieving credit for it, but it's just a way of differenciating between the one's created in the past. --Zealtalkcontrweb 19:24, 28 February 2007 (EST)
Hopping on the bandwagon - I have been and will be rather inactive until the 11th March since Im not home - but why not create another Ext= argument and default it to .png? So we can keep the actual use and have {{Icon|INV_Misc_QuestionMark|20}} still show and if needed use {{Icon|Inv_Misc_QuestionMark|20|ext=.gif}} show another? Instead of acting in a silly maneer. --User:Adys/Sig 11:34, 2 March 2007 (EST)
March 11th?! nooo! :( Come back to us soon! :p Anyways, i couldn't do that, as i'd of had to make the change to tooltip as well, which was the main point of why i didn't. : / --Zealtalkcontrweb 18:35, 2 March 2007 (EST)
It would be much better, imo, to run a bot to delete .png from the current tooltip and icon uses rather than run a bot to add .png to the entries missing it. Besides, on the long term it's a better thing to have a default format, else we will keep having wikians uploading incorrect icons etc. --User:Adys/Sig 11:54, 3 March 2007 (EST)
Adys, i'd love too enforce it to make sure people are using png, but you know as well as i do not all icons are up yet. Having to find out if one is then then get it (which most people won't know how to do), format it (which the vast majority of icons are not) and upload it will probably deter people from bothering to write the tooltip at all. --Zealtalkcontrweb 21:45, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Broke prior usage

I find myself distressed that changes to this template broke prior usage without cleaning up. Unlike Fandyllic, my gripe is not that it was changed, but that the cleanup was not performed following it. You declare "change it this other way would require a bot run anyway" several times. Which asks the question: "which change is easier to bot?"

So you know: A side effect of breaking the legacy behavior of existing templates is to make me less inclined to rely upon them at all. I don't think that is your goal, so please do take it into consideration. --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:33, 7 March 2007 (EST)