Talk:Pantheon of Crosswordery

From GodWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If people are interested in this, I think it's great to track it here

I only have two reservations:

  • I'm not sure about the article name, since (as you say) it's not actually an official Pantheon. Maybe something as simple as renaming it "Unofficial Pantheon of Crosswordery", just so that it doesn't give the impression that it's one of the official pantheons. (Only from the title, obviously anyone who reads the page will understand that it's unofficial.) Not a big deal, just a thought.
  • (This one is much more of a big deal...) We really don't support "ownership" of articles in the main namespace, as that goes against the entire concept of a Wiki. So, I'm really uncomfortable with a wiki article containing a message that nobody else should edit the page, or should get "clearance" from a particular user before editing. If any user wants to maintain a page that only they can edit, they can do so as a subpage of their user page, (for example, perhaps /Crosswordery). That way, all other users will be prohibited from editing it. Otherwise, with a few exceptions (like the Guild articles), the Wiki's articles are open for editing by all users.

-- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I can rename the article, no problem. Sorry about the "ownership" message, I have removed it. I don't really want to move it to a subpage of my userpage, because I feel like that's not the best place for it since it's something for GV as a whole. -- Cassia Rainsonne (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No apology necessary, thanks for understanding. Up to you on the rename, really. If you do Move it (which you can do from the More actions menu), a redirect will be automatically created from the old name, so technically it'll exist at both names unless a new (official?) Pantheon of Crosswordery article is created to replace the redirect. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Two questions, two suggestions

I had further thoughts/questions about two things, related to the article content:

1: The page formatting

It's... how can I put this delicately... a horror show? 😉

It looks like you're using the Omnibus List as a template? That's basically the worst possible example, since it combines the worst aspects of HTML and Wiki features to create a Frankenstein's Article formatting that ends up being messy everywhere, but especially on mobile where you end up having to swipe left and right to read the whole page.

Some of the data (specifically, the daily rankings) would also benefit from a tabular format, instead of being just four separate lists that happen to appear side by side. If you moved that information into a single table of its own, you could add a row in one place, rather than having to add items to the end of four different lists.

I'd suggest replacing everything to the right of the Pantheon list with a separate daily rankings wikitable, like so:

Daily Top Rankings
First Second Third Date
Woody Pecker Dan Maku Kevin-g93 October 4, 2018
Kevin-g93 Cham Almighty Woody Pecker October 5, 2018
Kevin-g93 Cassia Rainsonne Cham Almighty October 6, 2018
Dan Maku Cassia Rainsonne Kevin-g93 October 7, 2018
The Great Jimsky Cham Almighty Woody Pecker October 8, 2018
Kevin-g93 Cham Almighty Beausoleil October 9, 2018
Kevin-g93 Woody Pecker Goddygoddy October 10, 2018
Dan Maku Kevin-g93 Kazehime October 11, 2018
Wawajabba Kevin-g93 Beausoleil October 12. 2018
Woody Pecker Cassia Rainsonne Cham Almighty October 13, 2018

You can see the code for the whole table if you Edit the page, but basically the headers look like this:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Daily Top Rankings
! First !! Second !! Third !! Date

and each row looks like this:

|[ Woody Pecker]
|[ Cassia Rainsonne] 
|[ Cham Almighty] 
|[ October 13, 2018]

(I might also suggest moving the Date column to be first, instead of last, but that's a separate issue.)

If you wanted to do things that way, I'd suggest moving the rankings table before the Pantheon listing, since it's the more important of the two. Then you can get rid of the <table> tags entirely, and the Pantheon can come after as a simple list. It can also be made collapsible (or collapsible after a certain point), to avoid displaying such a long article by default.

2: The rankings

Regarding the rankings themselves, I know originally when you set up the pantheon only the first three to solve the crossword received rankings. But now that it's expanded so that everyone who solves the crossword gets ranked, how do you ensure that you count everyone? The list of solvers is cleared when a new crossword is posted, so doesn't the list you have depend on when you capture the list? In theory, if you get the list of crossword-solvers at, say, three hours before the new issue, then anyone who solves after that won't be counted.

Because of that, and because it's unreasonable to expect that you'd camp out and watch the crossword solvers list until the moment it's cleared every day, it might make sense to limit rankings/points to only the first 10, or 20, or 30 people who solve it each day. That way, you can stop at that point and not have to worry about missing anyone who solves after.

Just a thought, since it seems more fair to set a cutoff than to risk missing some people based on timing. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL, yeah I'm not very good with Wiki stuff, and I like the idea of the wikitable for sure. Concerning the rankings, I also suggested using a cutoff time to get the pantheon rankings, but people didn't really like that. I do have my own cutoff time an hour before the crossword ends, and someone usually gets me the last five people that miss my cutoff. If I don't get the names, then they can submit screenshot proof if they're that concerned about it (but I don't think anyone is haha). However, this is pretty much me just trying things out for a month and seeing how it goes. I like the idea of having the first 10, 20, 30 people etc. because it's less work for me, but we'll see how things go. -- Cassia Rainsonne (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the table looks good, it's definitely an improvement! I'm going to Be Bold™ and make a few more (small-er) changes, for the reasons I'll explain below (before making the edits).
I'll also make each of these a separate edit, to keep them separated and self-contained. You should feel free to be equally bold and revert (via the undo link next to each edit, in the page history) any of them you disagree with, in order to restore the previous state of the article. Then we can further discuss them here and hopefully reach some consensus on how to proceed.
(I'll be changing the existing, accepted article content, so you changing it back if you feel it's necessary (and can provide an explanation why) would be every bit as not-wrong — our views on the article have equal weight. It would then be wrong for me to reinstate my reverted changes, without further discussing them with other editors (you). That's the point at which it becomes edit warring. To decide whether and how contested changes should be made, consensus needs to be reached among everyone involved.)
The changes:
  1. I'm going to get rid of the side-by-side thing.

    To see why, just look at the article on a phone or other mobile device. Or use the mobile-display emulation of your desktop browser. (In either Chrome or Firefox, hit F12 to launch the developer tools, then Ctrl+Shift+M. The page view will be reformatted for a mobile screen, you can choose your screen size at the top and then Reload the page to bring up the Godwiki mobile formatting.)

    I don't know the stats for Godwiki, but currently on Wikipedia "Oct 2018: mobile traffic represents 55.8% of total traffic". I would probably expect Godwiki's percentage to be higher, if anything, since a lot of the traffic here is driven by the game app's built-in browser. It's no longer "good enough" for articles to be formatted so they look OK in desktop browsers, as much of Godwiki was until quite recently. With more than half of web users browsing on a mobile device, content has to adapt to mobile screens.

    A lot of work has actually gone into making Godwiki mobile-friendly over the past year, and at this point nearly all of the articles are, even tricky ones like the Main Page. The Omnibus List is really one of the only remaining holdouts, for reasons I won't go into.

  2. I'm going to get rid of the header.

    I know why that header's there on the Omnibus List, and it makes sense in that context — it links to each of the different lists, which are otherwise hard to reach as they're long and scattered all over the page, and it acts as the color key for the list shading.

    But this article only has one table and one list, each of which has a heading or caption identifying it. The header serves no purpose here.

  3. By the same token, I'm going to get rid of the colored background on the Pantheon.

    This one's actually a bigger thing, for accessibility reasons. It makes sense to color-code the different lists on the Omnibus List, since everything's crammed into one article and the color-coding is the only way of being sure which list you're even looking at. But with only one list, the color-coding again serves no purpose here.

    And more importantly, in the the Omnibus List all of the content is plain text — black on $background_color (teal, in this instance). But nearly all of the Pantheon list's content consists of hyperlinks, so instead of black-on-teal, it's blue-on-teal. That's going to be a complete nightmare for people with certain types of color-vision deficiency.

Anyway, I'll go make those three edits now so you can take a look, and if you have any thoughts on different approaches or ideas for further changes, feel free to build on it from there, or outline them here on the Talk page and I'll be happy to give what input I can. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Whoops. Well, I accidentally combined edit #1 and #3, since the colored background got dropped when I removed the Pantheon list from its HTML table wrapping. So it's actually only two edits, sorry. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, another suggestion

This one's totally up to you, but I just thought I'd point out that the same HTML links you're creating "by hand" in the table can also be created using the wiki's {{God}} template.

Instead of: [ Woody Pecker]

you'd just write: : {{god|Woody Pecker}}

The formatting of the resulting link is slightly different (GodWoody Pecker  vs. Woody Pecker), but if that's an issue I could easily create a "normal-link" version of the {{God}} template that renders the same way as the standard-hyperlink version. Doesn't really make too much difference for the final output, but it might make your life simpler in editing the article source text. So, like I said, up to you. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all your previous edits in the other section (thanks for doing that). That template is definitely simpler, although it'll take more reformatting, I think it'll be worth it in the long run. --Cassia Rainsonne (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)