User talk:Djonni/Archive

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is an archive of old discussions from my talk page. It is by no means intended to close off the discussions if anyone has something to add — my talk page was just getting too long. If you've something to add to the conversation here at all, please don't hesitate. It will be seen!

Changes-to-changes to Talk:Main Page

Hey, thanks for taking the time to pare down Talk:Main Page and start archiving older discussions, it was sorely needed. You may or may not have already seen that I peeled those sections off onto a separate Talk:Main Page/Archive (and left a pointer in the first section on the main talk page). The main reason (the only reason, really) I did that was to facilitate new-discussion creation.

Both the "Add Topic" link in the tabs on top of the page, and the "Click here to start a new topic" in Spode's talkheader box, will automatically add a new section at the very bottom of the page, in keeping with the standard MediaWiki Talk-page model. Which is a good process and worth encouraging people to follow, so since having any other content at the bottom of the page (like the older discussion archives) interferes with that, I figured it made sense to again emulate Wikipedia (where, for the most part, their policies and norms have reasons behind them, and have grown out of hard-won experience, and lessons learned in facing all these same issues) and roll Talk archives off onto a subpage instead. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I did see you'd done that, I thought it was a good idea and it wouldn't have occurred to me. Much better to keep the bottom of talk pages open for new topics.
In fact your addition at the top of the talk pages that you created an /Archive subpage got me thinking: do you think adding an {{#ifexist:Djonni/Archive/Archive|... bit to the bottom of {{talkheader}} would be good, to simplify/standardise that? There are an awful lot of talk entries all over the place that date back quite a few years to a time when the wiki had a lot more activity (2012 in particular), and I think it might be good to have a standardised archiving process that people can find in, say, Template:Talkheader/Documentation? What do you think? --Djonni (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Or, if one prefers, a separate {{talkarchive}} instead, so it doesn't come with all the {{talkheader}} guff... Which can still be called from an #ifexist the same way --Djonni (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I like the idea of bogging down every single Talk page load with a {{#ifexist:}} check, especially when the answer to that check will (a) almost never change, and (b) always involves human intervention since the page in question is itself manually created. It's not like there are bots here creating Archives without human intervention, in which case automated archive-detection and -linking might make sense.
The process of creating an /Archive subpage on Godwiki requires manually editing the source page anyway, which is the perfect opportunity to place a template similar to Wikipedia's Template:Archives on the talk page from which the archives are being extracted. I do also like the idea of it living outside of {{Talkheader}}, because as you say there's the option to use it without necessarily having to include the full {{Talkheader}}.
(I would also make a case for any such template being as dumb as possible, in its simplest version merely linking to [[/Archive]], without any sort of detection logic / automagic. At some point in the future it might need to support more than just a single /Archive subpage, but still that could be done by passing it a numeric parameter for the highest-numbered Archive subpage, rather than bothering with subpage autodetection. That sort of logic is expensive, and since this will be called on every Talk page load the CPU cycles consumed have to be balanced against how often there will even be anything to detect. Page-detection checks that are going to consume CPU cycles just to come up empty > 99% of the time don't seem worthwhile to me.)
There are a lot of older discussions on Talk pages, but there are no more than a handful of Talk pages long/active enough to warrant archiving. (It doesn't make sense to create an archive page for a Talk page that only has three short sections, even if all three of those sections date back to 2010. The point of archiving is to get older discussions out of the way of newer ones, but for that to matter there need to be newer ones, which are still an infrequent occurrence on this wiki.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Mmm, I didn't think of the expensiveness but that's very true. And really, considering there are currently only two such pages on this list, it's unnecessary for now, particularly since as you say it's not necessary to archive old talk material unless the talk page is 'active' by GodWiki standards. Thought shelved. :) --Djonni (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Heh. In fact, I'd had an idea to perhaps solve the incoming-links breakage problem with Archiving (e.g. if there are links to [[Talk:Main Page#some_section_title]] then archiving that section gives those links no destination section to scroll to) by having the template automatically preserve the incoming fragment identifier on the archive link. (So, the Archives box would link to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive#some_section_title]] automatically in those cases.) But even ignoring possible issues with caching, unfortunately the fragment identifier is never even sent to the server in page requests. (In fact, at one point the # sign was not even a documented part of the URI spec, but they retought that and added it back in. It's still illegal to include the #fragment part of a URL in an HTTP request header, though.) Anchor navigation is purely a client-side feature, so it would in turn require client-side JavaScript trickery to make that work. Alas!
Anyway, I've already borrowed the file-cabinet icon from Wikipedia and I'll whip up a Godwiki Template:Archives. I'd write it now if my phone hadn't just reminded me about a prior commitment in a few minutes, but I should have something simple put together this afternoon (it's currently ~ 10am local time). -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Said commitment was just rescheduled on me, so I guess I will write it now. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Aaargh. The moment I got settled and ready to start, the reschedule was re-rescheduled earlier. Aaaaanyway, at some point hopefully in the next 24 hours. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Template:Archives is now available, and in place on Talk:Main Page. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks great! The right-hand float next to the TOC is a clever idea! --Djonni (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

For Your Entertainment (Mobile-view Infoboxes)


(Note: Not actually entertaining.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts, at all?

Re: User talk:FeRDNYC/TestMonster#Inconsistent_infobox_widths. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


Heh. Two mentions in one issue! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

So my guild council delighted in pointing out ad nauseum XD Thanks for recording it for posterity haha!

Template:Equipment subcategorization

Ooh, hold off on any more {{Equipment}} additions to pages, if you can, for the moment. I just had an idea. Since we have equipment sub-categorizations based on equipment type (Body => Category:Bodies, Weapon => Category:Weapons, etc.), I'm going to add automatic categorization to the infobox template, the same way Template:Artifact now sub-categorizes healing, activatable, and bold items. That way, we won't have to manually set categories, just fill in the infobox parameter, and the existing manual categories can be removed from articles when the infobox is applied.

I thought of this because I noticed that there's a discrepancy in the AT-field article β€” the category that BlueStapler set, Category:Shields, doesn't match the type (Body) that Queen of War included in the description. I don't even know which one is right and which is wrong, but I know that I'd rather have the category auto-set by the type than have both values manually set, and therefore able to disagree. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Tick.png Done Carry on!
So, when adding {{Equipment}} to an article, I'd recommend also removing any manual categories at the bottom. (Unless there are categories other than Category:Equipment and the sub-category for the type, of course.) Not a hard requirement, but it'll help keep things cleaner. The template will drive the categorization, and any mistakes in the typing can be corrected by just editing the template parameter.
Of course, if the manual categories aren't removed, then we'll see more articles like AT-field that end up in two sub-categories. Which I guess will at least highlight the conflicts. (Not really useful in practice, since there's no way to know just from that which is actually the right subcat. "Never carry two compasses. Carry one, or three.") -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
This AT-field question reminds me, I've often wondered why there's no {{confirmation-required}} (or whatever, I'm sure there's an existing other wiki/Wikimedia standard template name) and corresponding category. Worth considering? --Djonni (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia tag for that is simply {{citation needed}}, since if a fact is challenged the way to confirm it is to provide a citation. (And, really, the ideal is that there not be any uncited facts.) There's also a whole class of tags for citations that don't actually support the claims made, like {{failed verification}} and the {{when}}/{{where}}/{{who}}/{{which}} series. But the way to question something, really, is to check the citation, or to call for one if none are present.
Godwiki is different since we don't generally expect citations. That being said, we do have a {{citation needed}}, which operates in the normal manner. Maybe the thing to do is repurpose that template (seeing as calling for citations here is, well... not very productive). Some people will already be familiar with it, or its aliases {{Fact}} and {{Cn}}. Or, we could create new inline tags in the style of {{Cn}}, which is pretty easy since {{Fix}} forms the basis for them. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The other issue, of course, is that you can't (usefully) tag a category membership, the tag will show up someplace weird. I suspect it'll also screw up our infobox templates to place inline tags in template arguments, though. So we're kind of in a rough spot either way, with trying to actually make use of things like {{citation needed}} in practice. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Mace of amnesia (ooh, how Wikiformal!)


I looked through that editor's other "contributions", just out of curiosity. Fortunately they appear to be free of additional shenanigans, and that instance seems to have been an outlier. Not sure what inspired it, or why (having been so inspired) they'd then stop after just the one article. But I wish I had more confidence that the explanation won't turn out to be something depressing, like 'The Mace of amnesia article represents some of the only non-male-biased content on the entire Godwiki.' -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I also did a little audit and tidied a couple of dark-grey areas. There was one that I hovered over for a while before moving on, but I eventually decided that I might have made a similar edit myself, on balance.
As the original author of Mace of amnesia, which was my first new article contribution, I can tell you that the reason I wrote it as about a heroine was because of the lack of female protagonists and pronouns in the Wiki. This was a good reminder that that's still a problem worth tackling. Considering adding it to my Creators Manual TODO list.
Thank you for leaving me a note about it :) --Djonni (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that Buzzkiller edit as well, and just #NOPEd right out of the whole thing. I like the Creators Manual idea, balance is sorely needed. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
On a similar note, my hero has currently collected 378 male animals, and 297 female animals. Even the in-game world is a sausage fest! πŸ˜ƒ -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Aaand awesome idea "New town name: Sausagefirth" submitted πŸ‘ŒπŸ˜‚ --Djonni (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Discovering Starless Knight, a second page (!!) that features content with a female protagonist, has returned my thinking to this issue of the lack of female-first content on the GodWiki.

I've been gnawing on this a bit since this conversation around the Mace of Amnesia edits began, and have a proposal. Creating a category dedicated to female protagonist content might be both subtle enough to not be obnoxious, but also draw some attention to the unhappy state of affairs as it is, and act as an informal 'spotlight' on this kind of content.

I've wondered about trying to explicitly write down somewhere that female-focussed content is desired (and will be protected by editors if defaced), but I haven't yet imagined a wording that I'm satisfied with. Nor, frankly, a place where that wording could be best placed. The proposed category page would be exactly one such place, and I'd probably rather that a female editor was active in choosing (drafting, editing, whatever) any such wording.

I'm putting this note here in advance of creating a new topic in Talk:Main Page (and a call-out on the Wiki Questions Thread as a temperature tester and sanity checker. If you're reading this (yes, you), please share any thoughts you have here, this is the sort of thing where a plurality of voices is really valuable. -- Djonni (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

More material. Not comprehensive, simply keeping track.
  • Lego Golem — the creator of the Lego Golem is a female Professor
Material about female protagonists because the subject is explicitly female (which may or may not qualify: for discussion)
-- Djonni (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"Aha! Pronoun trouble!"

Saw the new set of templates, very cool! Hopefully each of the wiki's editors will come to embrace them, and appreciate that she benefits from your efforts.

I believe I have protected the code against those missing-{{PAGEID}} error conditions you'd encountered, and if I managed to get them all then the fix should be applied across the full set of templates. I updated the docs accordingly, with the error information/explanations just HTML-commented out for now.

As far as the documentation goes... honestly, IMNSHO save yourself a ton of tedium and upkeep, just write one documentation page that covers the entire set. Then you can transclude that same article in directly as the template documentation for all of them. See my {{1ab}}-and-friends template set for an example: Template:N-ability dungeon boss/Documentation is the only documentation article I created for the entire set of nine templates. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Trying the template in a new page creation preview it now seems to work fine. I had tried without success to use #iferror. I think I'll implement the |daily= idea, though possibly not today. I'll update the docs to explain that until hitting 'save' on a new page, the template will switch randomly between the two options. (Which kinda makes me think I should go ahead and make the inverted {{she-or-he}} counterparts. In fact, with |daily=, that's going to be necessary.) And yes, I'll do the same as you did with the {{1ab}} template family documentation :) -- Djonni (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick housekeeping request

Could you pull User:Djonni/Sandbox out of Category:Templates when you get a chance? #KTHXBAI

-- Yours truly, the anal-retentive FeRDNYC (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, done! It was a copy-paste and I neglected to tear off the category tags! :) -- Djonni (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Smiley.png Thank you!
It was a copy-paste and I neglected to tear off the category tags! By far one of the worst thing about sandbox-type testing, is how it's not really sandboxed against that kinda stuff. I usually throw leading colons in front of all the cat links, to serve as a quick-disable whenever I'm sandboxing categorized pages. Makes it real easy to rip them all out again, if I need to C&P it back over the original at some later point. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I just thought to take a look at Special:UncategorizedTemplates (inspired by this request and your recent reply at Category talk:Talk namespace templates#Templates about templates) and there's a lot of /Documentations of mine there too... Will tidy that up in the next day or two also πŸ‘ --Djonni (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I slogged through as many of those as I could stand before finally bailing on it. Thanks for getting... wow, all the rest, sweet! πŸ‘ -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

In other news...

How. Dumb. Are. We? That we went all this time never thinking of this, I mean: {{Guild link}}

e.g.: {{Guild link|Skeatseria Lodge}} => ⚜️ Skeatseria Lodge 

(Especially when we were implementing the {{Guild}} auto-linking!)

Still, it's there now. I'll announce it at Talk:Main Page when I've finished fucking around trying to come up with creative ways to break it. (Or, it's more formally known, "QA".) And since I already claimed in the docs that {{Guild}} uses it, I guess now I have to integrate it. But I haven't quite gotten around to that step just yet.

I hope the emoji (or at least a plain-text unicode equivalent) shows up everywhere. Otherwise, I'll have to find and upload an image. ...If it does show up everywhere, I'm sorely tempted to rewrite {{God}} the same way, instead of using the tiny image file for the icon. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's so obvious in hindsight, hah! The emoji shows up fine on my Android device (both in-app browser and Chrome), and I'm sure you did the work on desktop, so it's probably safe.
{{God}} could definitely use πŸ‘€ instead of the tiny image, though perhaps a |retro=yes might be nice πŸ˜„ -- Djonni (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Preview Release!

So, User:FeRDNYC/Sandbox is at a state where it's sooooorta ready for at least initial perusal, though everything should be considered very much half-finished and in flux, because it all is.

The most fleshed-out so far β€” in terms of not just features implemented (since almost all features are already implemented, at least on a coarse level), but in progress made on style and polish β€” are the two monster articles down towards the bottom. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Just took a look — the monster infoboxes are looking great! I love the accent colours for the Pet and Boss subsections. Really fantastic.
Very excited to see the progress! -- Djonni (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
*nod* My plan is to have each box's main content be slightly different color, as well, to clearly indicate what type of article it is. Kind of like the Main Page blocks β€” but not quite that severe, I don't think. I haven't quite settled on how exactly to do that yet, though. (I mean, there are only like 2 or 3 possibilities, I just have to try them out and see what people like best, since I find that's the kind of thing you can only decide once you can see how it actually looks in practice.) It'll either be:
  1. Coloring the headers and labels of the primary section β€” like the blue areas of the Monster infobox β€” using different hues β€” maybe orange for Artifacts, purple for Equipment, etc.
  2. Or, coloring the background of the entire infobox in much lighter shades of primary hues.
    1. Possibly with the headers/labels done in a darker shade of the same primary.
    2. Or with headers/labels always the same color (but then the trick would be finding one that works with all of the background hues.
    3. Because CSS allows background colors with an alpha channel, though, what I might be able to do (as a variation on 2.1, basically) is set the background color, and then just set the header and label background to a color like #777777BB (that's a semi-transparent version of #777 medium gray, over a light yellow #fdf8bd background) to have it just darken whatever the background color for the infobox is.
  3. Or, going completely the other direction, always use the same background colors for the box, the data, and the labels regardless of infobox type (in the primary section, still with accents on optional sections like the Boss or Pet data), but color only the title bar to indicate the type of infobox. If nothing else, that would be way less coding. And it might make for better harmony.
Re: #3 β€” Whatever shading I ultimately do, I still don't want the infoboxes to look too different from each other. The whole point of using Template:Infobox as a base implementation is so that all of the infoboxes work and look like they're just minor variations on a theme, because that's what they are. So part of my goal, and the reason for having them all on one page like that for testing, is that I want them to stay harmonized enough that it looks OK even when they're all together on one page. If scrolling through User:FeRDNYC/Sandbox ever looks like a clown got sick on the page, then I've gone too far with the shading.
The other decision, and I guess the time to make it is now, is where to put the overall "type" label for the infobox β€” the "Monsters of Godville", "Equipment of Godville", etc. label. So far I've had it in a subhead, below the article title. But the other option is to set the infobox |title=, which puts it outside the Infobox area entirely, making it seem less like part of the individual data than an overall grouping, because that's what it is. (It also means the information keeps the order it has in the current infoboxes, which place that information at the very top.) I just changed the Equipment infobox at the bottom of User:FeRDNYC/Sandbox, compare that to the other ones and see what you think. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It'll be interesting to see a few versions of the colour scheme options β€” I think using similar colours to those used in the Omnibus is a nice idea, though I agree that shading all the infoboxes in those colours might be overwhelming and distract from the information. I suspect we'll end up with something closer to option 3.
As for the "Category of Godville" label... It's a little hard to say, but I think overall having the label over the box in the |title= may be the most aesthetic, rather than interjecting it between the {{PAGENAME}} and the image. I think having the title immediately above the image without the type label in between is nicer. -- Djonni (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
πŸ‘ Cool, I was leaning that way anyway, so this is all the motivation I need to go all-in on that. All infoboxes at User:FeRDNYC/Sandbox updated accordingly. I also set the |title= parameter of each infobox template (which is completely different from the |title= of the {{Infobox}} template that they call) so that all of the infoboxes will show the actual item name, instead of all showing FeRDNYC/Sandbox. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, seeing them all like that, with the |title= and the, er, other |title= set, I think that's the right decision!
Lookin' real purdy. -- Djonni (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
So, I updated the last two infoboxes on the sandbox page to use more overall color styling, purple for the monster and orange for the equipment. (Taken from Main Page, originally, but made immensely lighter after I saw how dark the first version looked.) Let me know what you think! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Apologies for not being engaged with the Wiki this last week, starting a new job (in a new language) and had very little mental energy to spare!

I'll participate over at User talk:FeRDNYC/Sandbox to be part of the wider conversation. :) -- Djonni (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


I implemented a parameter |ignore-no-image= for the infoboxes which use automatic placeholders, to turn off the {{Picture}} templating. I really don't want people manually filling in |image= with the placeholder image, as it sort of defeats the point of it.

...I do have to ask, though: are there actually any places where the infobox is not at the top of an article? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, P.S: Thanks for fixing up Bagstabber... I remember being so confused that I'd already edited that one to remove the {{picture}} from it (or so I thought), yet there it was still in the article. But I didn't look at the history to figure out why I "had to" double-edit it.
My only excuse is that it was apparently 6:30am local time, based on the timestamp, and I was still up slogging through the last of those. (I regretted deciding to do {{Monster}} as soon as I saw how many transclusions there were. {{Artifact}} was almost as lightly-used as {{Equipment}}, but {{Monster}} sure gets a workout.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a lie, it was only like 9:30pm local time β€” I adjusted the time zone offset in the wrong direction. Well, then I have no excuse! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Who needs an excuse? Easy mistake to make β€” and considering how often you tidy up after my edits, I think you've still got plenty of editor karma banked ;)
I couldn't tell you where or when I've seen it, but I'm sure I've seen examples of an infobox template not at the immediate top of a page... πŸ€” Though now that you mention it I'm less certain.
But I can imagine putting together a page with, say, a small navbox at the top, or even several variants of a new type of artifact/monster/whatever that are similar enough that each doesn't quite warrant a separate page, but each could have an infobox.
*Shrug* Perhaps out wasn't something worth worrying about β€” I just had this premonition of pages with {{Picture}} hatnotes sprinkled into the text. Thanks for adding the |ignore-no-image= option :) -- Djonni (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure what the intent was with Template:N/a (or its documentation, specifically) β€” but it's kind of a mess now. WUT U DO???? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well... the documentation from the table cell family wasn't really complete/relevant, in that it didn't document the actual parameters or behaviour of {{N/a}} as such. (I assume that's why you moved it back in August.) So I hastily put together a documentation page that actually documented {{N/a}}, and kept those old docs in-place below, in case it became useful in future (i.e., in case we ended up adding more of the table cell templates).
Do you think there's any need for any of the other table cell templates from that family here on GodWiki? (The commented-out table entries from those older docs, too large to bother pasting in here.) If not, I don't see why we even need that old documentation page. Or, for now, we can just transclude the one set of documentation at {{N/a}}, relevant to it specifically, but then that old doc page ends up orphaned and detached and will inevitably be forgotten (the reason I didn't entirely remove it in the first place). Thoughts? -- Djonni (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
A current need, no. But I can certainly envision more than a few of the collection becoming useful at some point. (Wikipedia's {{yes}} and {{no}} are the most immediately obvious. But I can also see a use for table-cell templates that replace the bare B/A/H/U entries for artifact type in List of Artifacts, or the equipment type letters in List of Equipment.) So my idea was to leave them "ready-to-add/import", and more importantly keep them treated as a coherent set, so that they would all be expected to have exactly the same options, and could all be documented concisely with a single explanation.
The way I view it β€” and this is certainly just my opinion, and others' may vary β€” template documentation for complex templates like the infoboxes should take a different form from the documentation for simple templates. With the infoboxes, you want to exhaustively document all of the possible fields to give anyone using it all the information they need on what's possible. Ditto behind-the-scenes templates like {{Sign}}.
But it's kind of cruel and offputting to make people slog through the same form of exhaustive long-form documentation, if all they want to do is transclude a convenience template like {{N/a}}. Even where it has arguments, the idea is that they're not going to be used 99.9% of the time, so they're barely worth discussing, and certainly not making the focus of documentation. It's just information overload for someone who just wants to answer the question, "What things can I type inside a table cell to conveniently fill something in?" A table of "Table cell templates" does that (even if it's only one item long for now), and people should be encouraged to add to it directly or by request, by borrowing or building, so that the options are expanded to fill other needs.
So that's why, for example, my {{N-ability dungeon boss/Documentation}} starts off immediately with a table of convenience templates, and only documents the arguments after that, for anyone who's looking for more information. Because it's expected that stuff will be of no interest to most people, nor should it be. The point of the design of a set of convenience templates is so they shouldn't have to deal with those details.
Anyway, that was my thinking on the template set. But what I was really asking about was the fact that Template:N/a contains a documentation box, and then right below it, a second, slightly-shorter documentation box with near-identical copies of most of the same content. A page potentially getting lost/forgotten-about seems a far lesser evil, to me, than displaying double copies of the same information on a template page, where other people are invited to look and learn. The former is a housekeeping worry at most, and those should always take a back seat to users' interests, which are not served by redundant documentation.
Regardless, despite this tome of a response it's really not a big deal at all (I think we've established by now that the length either of us can go on about a topic is in no way indicative of its importance), I was just confused what the plan was there since the current state of the page is certainly not long-term viable. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Just saw your undo on this — totally reasonable. Last few days have been busy, sorry I haven't been on much.
[I]t's kind of cruel and offputting to make people slog through the same form of exhaustive long-form documentation, if all they want to do is transclude a convenience template... Y'know that's a good point, I tend to err on the side of detailed (and therefore dense and technical) in docs, and that's sometimes a bad approach. -- Djonni (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
And I have the same tendencies, as I alluded to above β€” and why I have so many words in my head on this topic. It's a conversation I've had at length with myself, on multiple occasions, and I was probably addressing myself as much as you in my previous comment. I find I need constant reminding of these things.
I do hate reverting things, though, as it feels like such a lazy approach. And I guess it is, which isn't always a bad thing, since laziness lets us handle some things while still conserving effort for others. But don't read anything more into it than, "Let's not solve this quite that way", as that's all it was. A natural part of the whole BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means things are operating as expected and intended.
(However, the commentary from SourceRunner and others in the forum is also relevant, and reverting people when they're just trying to contribute is one of the actions that could be considered discouraging or exclusionary. I knew you could take it and besides we'd already begun this discussion, but it's important to remember how that can come off to other users. ...Again, talking to myself as much as anyone.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we are drifting off-topic for {{N/a}} (weird, that never happens) but I spent some time today thinking about guidelines for editors for JanuWiki, and what sort of norms we want. I want to start getting a draft of that stuff on JanuWiki 2019 quickly, perhaps tonight... Life's great random permitting. -- Djonni (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Stupid emoji tricks

HAHAHAHAHA! I just happened to notice, reading the documentation for {{Guild link}}, that using those templates in the middle of italic text will italicize the emoji: ⚜️ Skeatseria Lodge ! (I'm guessing it's maybe a bit more pronounced/obvious with the fleur-de-lis, or we probably would've noticed it with the shield.)

...I am really not even sure what to think about that. (And it certainly could be worked around, with the addition of some <span>...</span>-nage, so I guess what I really mean is, "Do we think we should do anything about that?" In fact, I guess it's worth discussing whether any of the template output should be allowed to be italicized, or if we should force more styling to lock down the entire thing.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hah, I hadn't noticed that either! Two things spring to mind... When |plain=yes then we should definitely let the surrounding formatting apply. But when |plain=no, wellll... I guess it depends how much you to revisit the boxed-in-text styling in the link templates in the new year/maΓ±ana. I guess there's no harm <span>...</span>ing the emojis, since they kinda do look strange italicised and it can't be unseen... But if the Bumbledork Guild really wants to link to ⚜️ Bumbledork Guild , or even to <span style="color: red; text-size: x-large;">⚜️ Bumbledork Guild </span>, I kinda wanna let them πŸ˜‰
Though I've just noticed that if {{Guild link}} is enclosed in '''...''' it leads to this: ⚜️ Bumbledork Guild , so perhaps some <span>...</span> styling is needed... -- Djonni (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Ew! Yeah, the italics were just funny but that last example is all sorts of wrong. Good catch. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Heh. And the really interesting thing is why it's happening. Because the templates use wikicode internally to bold the text, they're susceptible to having their code misinterpreted by the parser due to the existing state of the surrounding wikicode. The generated output (thank you Special:ExpandTemplates) of the {{Guild link}}-inside-wikibold example is...
'''<span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fcfcf9; margin-right: .3em; padding: 1px;">'''<span style="white-space: nowrap">[ ⚜️ <nowiki/>Skeatseria Lodge]</span>'''</span>'''
That then parses to HTML as...
    <span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fcfcf9; margin-right: .3em; padding: 1px;">
    <span style="white-space: nowrap">
      <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">⚜️ Skeatseria Lodge</a>
Which is actually suuuuper broken. So, good reminder to (a) always use HTML instead of wikicode, when writing inline-insertion templates that aren't protected by their own outer <div>...</div> or other block-level HTML element, and (b) test inline templates with Special:ExpandTemplates. (Or, write examples of some interesting forms like that into the template documentation == free test cases.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
{{Guild link}} fixed (as you can see above), as well as {{Pantheon link}}, {{God}}, and {{Cite blog}}. {{Cite forum}} contained no wikicode. -- FeRDNYC (talk)

Continued from Requests convo

Wrote this there, decided to move it here. Hence the wrong indenting. Too lazy to fix.

...The other side of the coin, and the reason I decided to still have a volunteer list at all, was that there are incredibly few resources for seeking out help on the wiki. For the most part, if you do have a question and want to contact someone, anyone... good luck with that, I guess? Β―\_(ツ)_/Β― That's very much how it felt, coming in here, and honestly how it still feels today. At least, I know it still feels that way to me at times.

I still have vague memories of being new here, and what it felt like the first time I had an interest in interactions beyond just merely reading content. Looking at my contribution history, it was when I wanted to add totem monster assignments (guild names) to List of Monsters. I'd already had significant experience with wiki editing (which already put me a leg up on most new users, in terms of self-help), so making a copy of the article in my userspace to work on changes wasn't an issue. (Little did I know I'd never be able to delete that page.)

But then, while working on the changes, I discovered the duplicate totem-monster assignment bug, and went... well, fuck, what do I do NOW? The usual approach would be to post at Talk:List of Monsters, but at that point there had been no activity there for nearly a year, and I'd already gotten the general impression that article Talk page posts weren't likely to get any response. So, flailing around, I just decided to post the issue to User talk:Spode and User talk:BlueStapler. Spode's name was about the only one I had seen anywhere in a "person of authority" context, even though he'd clearly not been active for over a year. BlueStapler was active and had made edits in the Template namespace so I figured they must sorta know what they're doing β€” that was genuinely my entire thought process, and that's kind of nuts. (BlueStapler ended up editing {{Monster}} to support multiple totem assignments. Then User:Brinjal "barged in", as they put it, to offer a pointer to the forum "Wiki Questions" thread and to say that they'd reported the bug to the devs. So it was a victory for getting the bug addressed, but kind of felt like a hard fail in terms of wiki-support response.)

So, I don't want to leave people in the situation where they're looking for help and have no idea where to turn, or have to take it upon themselves to guess who they should contact. I agree, having a list of non-active people isn't ideal, but having no list period would be far worse since the "contact someone for help"-type resources here are already just abysmal. (Never mind the "contact an admin" resources which are nil.)

I figure, give users one central page as a contact-point, plus keep a list of usual suspects for our own use and hope that at least one person on it stays active and notices new requests. Because having Spode's name scattered around various places on the wiki as the only contact point isn't really doing anyone any good now. (We should probably make some effort to replace those instances with links to Help:Requests, in fact β€” when we happen to be editing that content, at least, if not actually seeking it out.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, do I hear ya. I became inactive at about the time you started playing Godville because life, and I remember having the same feeling about the wiki. I was contributing a little, trying to improve accuracy, and enjoyed keeping my own little wiki page for my own pleasure, but the GodWiki had already become a sad, empty party by then.
I strongly remember coming back again earlier this year and taking a look around, and seeing these interesting, un-responded to Talk topics scattered around, by you and others at some point in the last couple of years. I could see that there were a handful of people who were still trying to do something with the GodWiki, but that the momentum was tenuous and the effort sporadic. I remember being quite surprised when I would respond to an old talk message, or start a new one, and there was someone actually reading and thinking and talking back.
Honestly, it's probably lucky that our interest in the GodWiki happened to temporally overlap. It's easy to imagine me coming back just a few months later than I did to find the evidence that you had been around, or vice versa. Not that we have been the only ones contributing to the wiki in this time, but if Talk bytes are any kind of metric, wellll... πŸ˜… We have, at least, each talked more than everyone else put together.
In fact I think you're totally right that Help:Requests would be a place where someone who has the potential to be an active contributor might start reaching out to other active people, in whatever future era that might be. That "new to the GodWiki" experience you and I had is something we can all agree needs to be avoided. -- Djonni (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)