Difference between revisions of "User talk:Shiori"

Revision as of 01:29, 6 December 2007

Hey there! Let me offer you a belated welcome, and thanks from a fellow LGPedian for all your great work. Also: your caption for Jonas Cares is absolutely hysterical. :-D ~ JBSHRYNE 15:27, 28 November 2007 (CST)

Theories

Hey, just wanted to tell you all the work you did on the Theories page is awesome! Nancypants 19:53, 3 December 2007 (CST)

0xxx

I didn't say anything so far because I didn't find anything that broke because of it, but...why the hell do you always add a leading zero to the episode numbers? What is the practical purpose of that? -_^

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 09:35, 4 December 2007 (CST)

[in reply to User talk:Renegade#0xxx]

Well, since your note is lacking in my framework, no wonder I didn't see it. xD (And no, that's not a hint to update it. :P)

The thing is, with a leading zero, the sorting is messed up as well - everything is filed under "0". Episode 10, 256, 320, they're all in section "0" instead of "1", "2" and "3". I do see your point, but, in my opinion, it's easier to find episode 30 by checking a section "3" than to count down 30 in the "0" section...

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 09:51, 4 December 2007 (CST)

[again in reply to User talk:Renegade#0xxx]

Done :P

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:20, 4 December 2007 (CST)

AGAIN??

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 18:46, 5 December 2007 (CST)

No, I fixed that; I was contemplating changing things to be to the 100th place, but decided against it. The categorization is WAY off now, though. I'm trying to sort by date added, but it's not working too well. - Shiori 18:53, 5 December 2007 (CST)

It's less off than it was before, and it was less off than before you changed it to sorting by date. Before, everything was ordered under "0", now, at least what's starting with 3 is sorted under "3". It sucks that it leads to 3, 3x, 3xx, but it's still better having all 3s under "3" than having no numeral indication at all.

I'm gonna revert that blog change, btw, because 0+order and numbers+slight inorder both make more sense than ordering by seemingly random characters. Not to mention that this ordering doesn't create any more order, because it Orders both September 2006 and September 2007 under "S" - not to mention all the stuff that goes into "J".

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:00, 5 December 2007 (CST)

Yeah, I know. Like I said in the change there, it was tentative. Ideally, it would be awesome if we could find someway to sort by date without having the pages categorized under any label at all; maybe year. I don't think that's possible, though, so bah. I mainly only care because it makes finding a person's previous blog a little easier. - Shiori 19:06, 5 December 2007 (CST)

I find it quite easy to find the previous blog simply by looking at the List of videos?

What we could try is do conditional sorting - iow, change the sort key to automatically change the sort key to "1 - {{{number}}}" "10 - {{{number}}}" "100 - {{{number}}}" and so on. That *should* sort them correctly. Actually, scratch that...that would result in the same ordering as now. But please leave the episode numbers alone in the future, it's easier to do such stuff in the template than editing 366 vid pages. ;)

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (CST)

I think I found why the zeros were there in the first place; I found this on Wikipedia:

"When trying to sort with numbers (e.g. wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music)), don't forget to add an extra zero when more than 9 entries in the category are expected; and a second extra zero when more than 99, etc...: [[Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn|Symphony 13]] → [[Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn|Symphony 013]] (he wrote 108 symphonies). Categories sort by the first character, so leaving out the preceding zero would cause 10 to be sorted before 2."

I agree that, assuming we wanted to put them back in, it would be WAY better to do it in the template itself. - Shiori 19:29, 5 December 2007 (CST)