Wiki editing discussion

Page 8/16
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

By rderooy

Champion (317)

rderooy's picture

12-03-2018, 00:06

Manuel wrote:

I noticed that several expansion slot types were mentioned. But is there already an overview of the pinouts or other differences between them?

This is all we have for now: https://www.msx.org/wiki/Expansion_bus_slots

By Manuel

Ascended (14327)

Manuel's picture

13-03-2018, 07:49

Mars, if you're interested I can ask who wrote the several versions of ICP.

By mars2000you

Enlighted (5287)

mars2000you's picture

13-03-2018, 09:33

Manuel wrote:

Mars, if you're interested I can ask who wrote the several versions of ICP.

It can be very useful for a still more accurate Wiki. I guess it's one (or several) MCM member(s).

By ren

Paragon (1123)

ren's picture

13-03-2018, 11:42

@Grauw Addressing the more technical bits from your post:

Grauw wrote:

And if that kind of update ever happens, *then* we can correct the pages. There’s no need to fight a battle over it now.

Yes, like who's looking forward to edit 2000 (rounded that one up perhaps Wink) pages (again)?

Better to do things the right way now, then... (you get the drift).

Grauw wrote:

Working within the limits of the MRC wiki, they have made the choice to favour nice presentation over very unimportant details like semantic correctness.

Some limits only seem to be there. If you're meaning the user is unable to adjust the stylesheet: an admin can. Simply come with a well-grounded request for change. And I believe users can be given authorization to edit it themselves (not completely sure about that one though, but *should* be possible.. Wink)

Very unimportant details? Why? It's literally the framework for your content.
Quite a controversial standpoint you're taking here.. Wink

Grauw wrote:

There is nothing wrong with doing things for stylistic reasons, because in the end things need to be read by a human, not a computer.

Well, IMO there *is* something wrong with it if the wrong means are applied.
And come on, of course content (pages) need to be read by a computer as well. Most prominent example: search bots.
Another: accessibility tools. Being able to generate a correct outline from the document is not that invaluable I believe.

If we care the slightest about end-user accessibility, we should care about the headings.

Grauw wrote:

as we do not control the markup generator nor the stylesheet, the end must be reached by other means
[...]
their ways on details that I’m sure they’ve put thought into and made a well-informed choice on.

So that's where you're wrong I believe. We do control it, though an admin should be addressed.

In that regard I doubt this possibility has been (even) considered. Yes, the default boundaries are such there's no way to control the stylesheet, but... (see above).

Now at this very moment it looks like all pages are being adjusted with this new heading level structure. To me this simply looks like a mistake, and a lot of effort that should have gone into revamping the stylesheet.
I've checked some old(er) pages (2012 ... 2016), what I see there is an H2 base level heading (seems they (deliberately?) decided upon that) Now it seems that's all becoming H1, based upon a decision by 1 (could be wrong here) individual it seems. Has this restructuring put forward for debate before?

Note that H2 as base still gives you 5 headings to work with. Should be plenty. (But that was not the issue at hand I believe.)

Grauw wrote:

p.s. In case I was a bit harsh, note I also appreciate your passion and desire to improve things.

Well, looks my ways (at times) provoke reaction. Good thing to get feedback. Yes, sometimes I can be bit too critical, kinda blunt/rash & headstrong (myself) perhaps. In this case I could have taken a bit more reserved stance.
Anyway, the end doesn't justify the means Wink Thanks for the feedback, will probably come back on some other bits later.

By Manuel

Ascended (14327)

Manuel's picture

13-03-2018, 18:16

Regarding H2/H1 discussion: I think it's best to follow the WIkipedia standards. After all, MediaWiki is mostly written to serve Wikipedia... What they do is use == for the top level headings in an article.
In other words: let's not reinvent the wheel.

By Manuel

Ascended (14327)

Manuel's picture

13-03-2018, 19:43

At least ICP 1 and 2 were written by Wammes Witkop.

By mars2000you

Enlighted (5287)

mars2000you's picture

14-03-2018, 09:32

Manuel wrote:

Regarding H2/H1 discussion: I think it's best to follow the WIkipedia standards. After all, MediaWiki is mostly written to serve Wikipedia... What they do is use == for the top level headings in an article.
In other words: let's not reinvent the wheel.

Contrary to what you seem to think, here on MRC, starting with H1 for the top level heading in an article does not give the same height for the characters as the presumed H1 used for the title of the page.

Check for example this page: https://www.msx.org/wiki/BASIC_Routines_In_Main-ROM

The title page has an height of 16, the top level heading (with H1) has an height of 13.

This page is also interesting because section 1 uses sub-sections (with H2 used) and sub-sub sections (with H3 used). You can observe that the characters become smaller and smaller. Do you see the result with H3? Try to imagine the result with H4!

By ren

Paragon (1123)

ren's picture

14-03-2018, 15:40

@Manuel Yes, I've noticed that too. Thing is, the page/article titles in the wiki here aren't actual headings. I don't know if that's a config setting (the way, or HTML used perhaps to wrap your page title in), or that the MediaWiki devs made a change along the road, and titles are put in an H1 now.

Quote:

You can observe that the characters become smaller and smaller. Do you see the result with H3? Try to imagine the result with H4!

I'm under the impression you don't get what I've been trying to bring across here.
You do understand (that's) what stylesheets are for?

By Grauw

Enlighted (7213)

Grauw's picture

14-03-2018, 16:12

So then, how about you get the stylesheets fixed first?

It does not make sense to me to first make the content look worse than it does now, and then hope someone will address it on the stylesheet side. Doing it the other way around makes more sense to me, and will also eliminate all of the disagreement on this point (!).

While you’re at it, get the style for <code> fixed as well, because that style attribute they have on the wiki now looks horrible Smile.

By ren

Paragon (1123)

ren's picture

14-03-2018, 17:34

@Grauw I started this discussion when I noticed these recent heading changes. I was not complaining at first.

If I'm allowed editing rights, I'm prepared to have a look at it, and yes, some things need to be fixed anyway Wink

I also added a quote template the other day that still needs some tweaking/pimping.

[edit] OTOH - I believe so many pages are adjusted by now, it looks like, as far as the headings are concerned, the "let's fix the stylesheet" boat has sailed.

Page 8/16
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
My MSX profile