Editing User talk:Vaelis (section)

== SAO Nav ==

Vaelis. May I ask why you undid my edits on all chapter pages? Not just reverting the Nav template but also reverting the punctuation changes and removing the '''noinclude''' tags from the '''notoc''' on the chapter pages. The first two reduced the page sizes considerably thus reducing website space. Putting the '''notoc''' in '''noinclude''' tags ensured that the volume pages at least had a table of contents. The new nav template allowed for forward and backward navigation as well as jumping to ''any'' SAO page. Putting comments right besides headings causes a problem with the "Editing Table of Contents", ie: the chapters do not register for a link, so I put the comments in the line after the heading and the problem was solved. Please explain why you reverted such useful edits. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  04:45, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

Vaelis, please respond quickly. If others make more changes it's going to be more difficult to undo the changes selectively, that is if that decision is made. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  05:28, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

I see. Since you didn't respond it has led me to believe that your account may have been hijacked by a vandal and thus the reason for the unexplainable reverts. If not we can discuss this when you feel up to it. For now I'll restore my hard work. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  08:21, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

Did you ask for permission to change all that first? Regardless of whether its more useful or not, you usually ask the Project Administrator or Project Supervisor first before making such changes. Although, I am being a bit intrusive when I say this in another's affair. The templates does look nice though. --[[User:Hiro Hayase|Hiro Hayase]] 08:49, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

Hmm my apologies. Since you put it that way. It might have been too impulsive of me. But I still don't get why he undid all the punctuation changes and everything else too. The total amount of changes he made increased the total website storage space by 30258 (that includes the extra code of the old templates, changes in punctuation, double spacing, etc; see recent changes and calculate it yourself). Now, that is not a small number (website-wise, that is). [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  09:31, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

On the other hand if there is a problem with the [[Template:SAO Nav]]'s layout then talking about it on it's talk page would have helped more. I'm sure we could have reached a better option than going through all the pages and changing things in such a way that useful edits were also removed. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  09:35, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

Yes I can see your point in conserving space by making those changes, but you still need permission first to do so. Otherwise, its just going to end up being an edit war, switching back and forth just like what going now. The changes that you made are by no means minor, major changes like these need proper permission from individuals in charge of the project. And about Vaelis, I believe that he's in a timezone which is night time now or he's busy with work/school since summer's almost over. -[[User:Hiro Hayase|Hiro Hayase]] 09:43, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

That still doesn't explain why he didn't choose to edit only SAO Nav to the old version. For now I'll do that and we can discuss the rest. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  09:46, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

There. Compatibility-vise that ought to do it. So shall we begin the discussion. What exactly was it that Vaelis did not like about the new nav template? Please tell me Vaelis so that I may tailor the template in such a way as to be as compatible as possible with you. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  09:57, 24 August 2011 (CDT)

----
Here are the reasons I think the new system is preferable:

#The old system only allows for navigation amongst consecutive pages, however the new SAO Nav can allow jumping to any chapter/volume page ''without'' the tedious process of either going to the Main page or writing the long page name in the search bar. The Main Page/Search detour is an inconvenience that is eliminated by this.
##Not everyone thinks in the linear plane. There are many who would wish to go back a few chapters to check a specific chapter. It would take too long for them to go back page by page or even through the main page. This is faster.
##Supervisors and translators can jump from any page to any other without the unnecessary delays found in loading more than one page.
#The old system required copying a larger amount of code from other chapters. Whereas the new template's call code more concise, thus saving website storage space.
#Compared to the old system in which copying from other chapters was necessary because the code was too long and difficult to remember, the new nav template's call code is easy to memorize and write. Thereby making it more user friendly (easy to learn and use).
#There is one source page for the nav template. Any changes only need to be made there and all pages in which the template is called will automatically mirror the changes just like the relationship between the chapter and volume pages (ie: Less work more gain, data redundancy and data error is largely reduced).
#The template has both jumping and consecutive page stepping functionality and is also collapsible. Those who wish to just step to the next or previous page may do so with a click and those who wish to jump only need to expand the template to access the jump functionality.

As you can see the new system has overwhelming advantages over the old. Please consider this. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  03:59, 25 August 2011 (CDT)
----

I see you wont consider it. If so thenn make the changes selectively (ie: only delete the nav). Otherwise it's just wrong. If you don't like the new nav then keep the issue to it only. Don't mess up other edits.[[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  04:29, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

The nav bar: your second version was better but it doesn't change the fact that to decide whether to use it or not, it shouldn't be in place. I will think about it, see if it can be improved and eventually decide to use it (or not) but until then the old way should be kept.

For the other edits: I'm against replacing all the punctuation. “” are the correct quotation marks (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark), I don't see any reason to replace them by "". You're using the argument “it's smaller in size” but did you see any news about Baka-Tsuki having storage space issue? Anyway 30258 bytes is a ridiculous amount for a website.

[[User:Vaelis|Vaelis]] 11:16, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

Vaelis: your arguments about quotation marks seem odd and in one case factually incorrect: when you reference the wikipedia page for quotation marks, you're referencing the encyclopedia page about quotation marks, not the style manual page about there use on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations), and that style page uses the form of quotation marks [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] uses, not yours. Also 30Kb is not an insignificant amount of data, and it's always better to be efficient. --[[User:Saganatsu|Saganatsu]] 13:23, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

I humbly apologize about applying the new nav template without your approval. But seriously which ever quotation marks you use the viewing result is the same, so isn't it better to use those with less space usage? Isn't that a good enough reason. And you haven't addressed the issue of double spacing. Extra data means longer loading time. This is an issue of loading speed and reader satisfaction. Not everyone uses DSL. What of the '''notoc''' '''noinclude''' on volume 3 and 4's chapters. leaving the '''notoc''' without '''noinclude''' causes there to be no table of contents on the volume page. A fault if I may say so. Same with the comments right next to the headings. It messes up the "Editing Mode's Table of Contents". [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  13:33, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

For the points in favor of the new template, I've given them above. Size reduction is only one of the points, there. Won't you consider it? You still havent explained what is it exactly you don't like about it. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  13:34, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

Oh and umm. Saganatsu. Umm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks) would have been more accurate. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  13:44, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

Did any of you know the difference between “recommended usage when using en.wikipedia.org” and “correct” typographic usage? Fortunately we're not en.wikipedia.org. 

Anyway I will look at the project chapter by chapter, when I will have the time, to undo all the mess done by some people.

[[User:Vaelis|Vaelis]] 15:27, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

As for correct typographic usage: "Depending on the typeface, opening and closing quotation marks may be identical in form (called vertical, straight, or typewriter quotation marks), or may be distinctly left-handed and right-handed (typographic or, colloquially, curly quotation marks)." It still makes no sense to site wikipedia. --[[User:Saganatsu|Saganatsu]] 16:06, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

That "typographic usage" is for advanced word processors like "MS Word" not mediawiki based sites. Otherwise the Manual of Style would not have distinctly chosen to use the quotation format it has chosen and the quotation marks would automatically change to right and left formats like in "MS Word". Please think about the points given above rationally. In viewing mode there is '''no''' difference between the two formats however your method takes up more space than necessary and prolongs loading time more than necessary. And wasn't it vaelis that brought wikipedia into the discussion at first. Now you're saying "Fortunately we're not en.wikipedia.org"? In normal writing, correct usage would be the right and left format but here it would not. Doing so would be detrimental to baka-tsuki. There is a difference in situation. I hope for your understanding, Vaelis. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  16:55, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

Um I'm all for reasoned debate, and admittedly have a preference for how to resolve this, but it doesn't look like either of you two are going to persuade one another about either of the two points. Shall we throw this onto the forum and put it to a vote? --[[User:Saganatsu|Saganatsu]] 17:22, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

I understand what Vaelis is trying to say about the left and right quotation marks. Actually, I take care of that when I write with a pen and paper. I just think this situation is different because of all my above given reasons. Namely, no difference in views and smaller size, loading speed, etc. I'm all for a vote. Copy the whole conversation there first and let everyone stew on it for a while first. I think that would be better. Add the stuff about punctuation from my talk page as well. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  18:02, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

But what about the double spacing, '''notoc''' and '''noinclude'''? [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  18:05, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

I'd like to invite you to a discussion [http://www.baka-tsuki.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4564 here]. Please, I would be honored if you would join me. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  13:39, 13 September 2011 (CDT)

OK, in case you guys didn't see me post in the forums, I'll say it here: It's easier for editors to simply type the quotation marks, or rather the apostrophes, during the editing rather than copy-pasting from word. Not commenting for the other arguments. [[User:Kira0802|Kira]] ([[User_talk:Kira0802|Talk]]) 13:16, 27 November 2011 (CST)

Vaelis, I understand that you are a supervisor. But a believe even you have overstepped your rights by deleting a ''freshly'' started discussion just because either you do not agree with it ''or'' no one has responded for a few days. As you wished I started the discussion in order to gain everyone's viewpoints as well as the necessary approval. It will take some time. What you did is the same as the Chinese govt blocking human rights, etc websites. Please revert your edits. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  09:54, 19 December 2011 (CST)

It's a mistake, I didn't see it was only one week old. I put it back.

[[User:Vaelis|Vaelis]] 10:24, 19 December 2011 (CST)

Thank you. [[User:Zero2001|Zero2001]] - [[User_talk:Zero2001|Talk]] -  21:09, 20 December 2011 (CST)