Template talk:Vid - Revision history

Shiori: /* Date */

2007-11-24T16:31:10Z

‎Date

Shiori at 20:32, 20 November 2007

2007-11-20T20:32:04Z

Renegade: /* RE: if vs. ifeq - right? */

2007-04-11T21:28:36Z

‎RE: if vs. ifeq - right?

OwenIsCool at 18:20, 11 April 2007

2007-04-11T18:20:02Z

Jonpro at 17:06, 11 April 2007

2007-04-11T17:06:10Z

Renegade: RE: if vs. ifeq - right?

2007-04-11T12:41:50Z

RE: if vs. ifeq - right?

New page

== RE: if vs. ifeq - right? ==

Basically, the answer is "yes and no". Your design specifically checks for "new=yes". My design checks for "new=[anything but blank]". If it was up to me, I'd have designed to just check for "new" without anything - since that is not possible, I wrote it to check for new and anything. I just specified "new=yes" because the more options people have, the more confused they get - if I said "just write new= and anything" people would go "what do you mean, 'anything'?". Telling them "write new=yes if the video is new" makes logical sense to them and is easy to do. Nevertheless, with if only, "new=yse" or any other typo would work as well. 
In other words: I ''suggested'' "yes" as the value, you ''enforced'' it. (It's good to be admin, isn't it? :D) In practise, it'll hardly ever make a difference - only if somebody neither previews nor proofreads. (Although I'd love to see people's looks if the code said |new=kids on the block or something.)
:~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 07:41, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:31, 24 November 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:
	== Date ==		== Date ==
	Could we make the date on this template an optional field? I think the main portal pages may look a little cleaner if only one video from a given date (the most recent one) listed the date. What does everyone else think? - [[User:Shiori\|Shiori]] 14:32, 20 November 2007 (CST)		Could we make the date on this template an optional field? I think the main portal pages may look a little cleaner if only one video from a given date (the most recent one) listed the date. What does everyone else think? - [[User:Shiori\|Shiori]] 14:32, 20 November 2007 (CST)
		+	::Heh. I swear I tried to remove the date on some videos to no avail earlier, but I just noticed the optional part of the code is in there. It works, so whatever. Thanks, guys! - [[User:Shiori\|Shiori]] 10:31, 24 November 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 20 November 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:::<small>(Although it does mean people didn't care to read the documentation...-_-)</small>		:::<small>(Although it does mean people didn't care to read the documentation...-_-)</small>
	::::~ [[User:Renegade\|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Renegade\|contribs]]) 16:28, 11 April 2007 (CDT)		::::~ [[User:Renegade\|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Renegade\|contribs]]) 16:28, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
		+
		+	== Date ==
		+	Could we make the date on this template an optional field? I think the main portal pages may look a little cleaner if only one video from a given date (the most recent one) listed the date. What does everyone else think? - [[User:Shiori\|Shiori]] 14:32, 20 November 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 11 April 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:

	::I think either method could work provided that the documentation is there. I have to admit when I saw the new feature I thought it would be a "yes" or "no" thing too. I think I would prefer to have it yes-no rather than new=anything, it seems more intuitive and I'd like this to be something that anyone would be able to put on the Main Page if they wanted to update it. However, I'm not attached to either option and I understand R's points here. [[User:OwenIsCool\|OwenIsCool]] 13:20, 11 April 2007 (CDT)		::I think either method could work provided that the documentation is there. I have to admit when I saw the new feature I thought it would be a "yes" or "no" thing too. I think I would prefer to have it yes-no rather than new=anything, it seems more intuitive and I'd like this to be something that anyone would be able to put on the Main Page if they wanted to update it. However, I'm not attached to either option and I understand R's points here. [[User:OwenIsCool\|OwenIsCool]] 13:20, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
		+
		+	:::Well, having it designed the way I did, and with the un-new examples I wrote clearly not having a new-line, I didn't actually consider people might think of "new=no"...if people in fact tried that, then you're right, restricting it to yes is better.
		+	:::<small>(Although it does mean people didn't care to read the documentation...-_-)</small>
		+	::::~ [[User:Renegade\|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Renegade\|contribs]]) 16:28, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:20, 11 April 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	:Right, all I did was restrict it so that the "yes" was required. The reason is that I noticed that someone changed the "yes" to "no" on the Main Page when there was a new video (which seems logical). It doesn't make sense for the template to treat "new=no" as a new video. I understand that typos could cause a problem, but can't they always? :) Oh, and being an admin doesn't really mean that I can do whatever I want. If we were to reach consensus that the old way was better, for example, that's what we'd go with, even if I disagree.--[[User:Jonpro\|Jonpro]] 12:06, 11 April 2007 (CDT)		:Right, all I did was restrict it so that the "yes" was required. The reason is that I noticed that someone changed the "yes" to "no" on the Main Page when there was a new video (which seems logical). It doesn't make sense for the template to treat "new=no" as a new video. I understand that typos could cause a problem, but can't they always? :) Oh, and being an admin doesn't really mean that I can do whatever I want. If we were to reach consensus that the old way was better, for example, that's what we'd go with, even if I disagree.--[[User:Jonpro\|Jonpro]] 12:06, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
		+
		+	::I think either method could work provided that the documentation is there. I have to admit when I saw the new feature I thought it would be a "yes" or "no" thing too. I think I would prefer to have it yes-no rather than new=anything, it seems more intuitive and I'd like this to be something that anyone would be able to put on the Main Page if they wanted to update it. However, I'm not attached to either option and I understand R's points here. [[User:OwenIsCool\|OwenIsCool]] 13:20, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 11 April 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	In other words: I ''suggested'' "yes" as the value, you ''enforced'' it. <small>(It's good to be admin, isn't it? :D)</small> In practise, it'll hardly ever make a difference - only if somebody neither previews nor proofreads. <small>(Although I'd love to see people's looks if the code said \|new=kids on the block or something.)</small>		In other words: I ''suggested'' "yes" as the value, you ''enforced'' it. <small>(It's good to be admin, isn't it? :D)</small> In practise, it'll hardly ever make a difference - only if somebody neither previews nor proofreads. <small>(Although I'd love to see people's looks if the code said \|new=kids on the block or something.)</small>
	:~ [[User:Renegade\|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Renegade\|contribs]]) 07:41, 11 April 2007 (CDT)		:~ [[User:Renegade\|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Renegade\|contribs]]) 07:41, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
		+
		+	:Right, all I did was restrict it so that the "yes" was required. The reason is that I noticed that someone changed the "yes" to "no" on the Main Page when there was a new video (which seems logical). It doesn't make sense for the template to treat "new=no" as a new video. I understand that typos could cause a problem, but can't they always? :) Oh, and being an admin doesn't really mean that I can do whatever I want. If we were to reach consensus that the old way was better, for example, that's what we'd go with, even if I disagree.--[[User:Jonpro\|Jonpro]] 12:06, 11 April 2007 (CDT)