Difference between revisions of "User talk:FeRDNYC"

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (need to find out how this talkback really works to avoid spamming you of that xD)
m (Clear out Template:talkbacks that have been responded to.)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkback|WardPhoenix|}}
 
 
 
{{sign|width=auto|title=Contacting me|text=Note: I am not generally reachable within the Godwiki game interface (browser/app) — I '''never''' check the private messages there, so if you try to reach me there you may not get a response for a very long time. (Literally months.) You should leave a message here instead.|style=float:left;max-width:40em;}}
 
{{sign|width=auto|title=Contacting me|text=Note: I am not generally reachable within the Godwiki game interface (browser/app) — I '''never''' check the private messages there, so if you try to reach me there you may not get a response for a very long time. (Literally months.) You should leave a message here instead.|style=float:left;max-width:40em;}}
 
{{Archives}}
 
{{Archives}}

Revision as of 15:24, 16 February 2019

Important.png

Contacting me

Note: I am not generally reachable within the Godwiki game interface (browser/app) — I never check the private messages there, so if you try to reach me there you may not get a response for a very long time. (Literally months.) You should leave a message here instead.


This page has an /Archive

Old and/or inactive discussions have been moved to the archive subpage.

Guilds that make several pages

Some guilds make several pages, such as the Ahnk-Morpork City Watch (pages listed as "AMCW ___"). I think that's fine, but they take up space in the "backstage" category. Ideally I'd like all such pages to be sub pages of the guilds themselves, but I don't know how to accomplish this. I unilaterally decided to create the "Backguild" page (a portmanteau of "Backstage" and "guild") but I'm told that that isn't the best idea. Any suggestions as to how to solve the problem, without creating others? ElectroChip (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ideally I'd like all such pages to be sub pages of the guilds themselves, but I don't know how to accomplish this.

As far as that issue goes, agreed. It's been a long-standing frustration of mine that whenever someone wants to create additional pages of guild content, they generally default to creating a bunch of unrelated top-level articles. (It's even more frustrating when they create what are clearly intended to be User (sub-)pages in the article mainspace, instead of creating them as actual user pages. And if they then place some sort of "please don't edit this without consulting me" type message at the top, then my brain just completely explodes.)
In the past I've made stabs at trying to change that, and you can see from the response there how that went. (Spoiler: Not well.) Subpages are not a feature that's generally understood by anyone until they've gained a reasonable amount of experience with MediaWiki installations — either here or elsewhere. Failing that, people will do what seems to make sense to them, and changing that can be an uphill battle.
Not that I blame them at all, honestly — their actions are typically well-intentioned, resources on the "right way" to do things are scarce to nonexistent around here, and even what resources do exist, it's almost impossible to ensure that people will be able to find them and gain the information we'd prefer they have, before they take action.
So, that's the main source of (my) frustration, really: The fact that there really isn't enough information directing people on how they should approach things, the information that is available is hidden and out of date, and with the wiki being (for all intents and purposes) without any administration, the barriers to changing that feel way, way too high.
(For instance, the message shown when creating a new page is totally customizable, and could provide far better resources than what it offers today: Some ungrammatical ramblings (You also advised to take a look at the Guidebook.) vaguely pointing to the out-of-date and unhelpful Godwiki Guidebook, along with some suggestions for other places to search — including the logs, which users no longer have access to!! Nothing says "this isn't really helpful information" like a search suggestion that links to a "Permission error" page. But, there's no way of knowing whether the admins would be willing to update that message, and the process for asking them to ­— submitting requests via the Ideabox — is really just unworkable. I don't even bother submitting all of the issues I document, anymore, because it just feels like such a waste of time.)
Anyway, I'm ranting. TL;DR: I agree with you on principle, but I've mostly made my peace with the fact that these things aren't really going to be fixable, so #MEH. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I unilaterally decided

Which, TBH, was the crux of my complaint — not because I feel people need to "ask permission" before taking actions, but more because the wiki's effectively-unadministered limbo status means that our decisions can have lasting consequences for the entire userbase. Be Bold as a guiding principle makes complete sense at the individual article level, because anything we do can just as easily be reversed should someone disagree. But there's nobody here with the ability to delete pages, perform page moves over existing pages, etc. Which means that Bold page-level actions are effectively irreversible, so a little pre-planning and discussion can go a long way.

to create the "Backguild" page (a portmanteau of "Backstage" and "guild")

If you'd posted to Talk:Main Page or Category talk:Backstage about this beforehand, here's what my response would've been:

Great idea, makes total sense to me! I think we should definitely do it.

Only suggestion: Why don't we go with Category:Guild backstage for the category name? I think it's a little clearer and more self-explanatory.

There will probably always be reminders of Spode's odd aversion to the space character scattered around the wiki, but we've been trying to move away from that where we can ({{Navboxpantheons}} is dead, long live {{Navbox pantheons}}!), and categories in particular are better served with longer, more descriptive titles like Category:Talk namespace templates or Category:Disambiguation pages... IMHO.

My only real complaint, at least technically (as opposed to procedurally), is the name of the category. And naming categories is especially consequential, because moving or redirecting them to change the name doesn't work — the only option is to edit every individual page to change the category. Now, Category:Backguild only contains six pages, so in theory that could still be done. But the old name would remain there as well, potentially causing confusion unless I (or somebody) made another category-deletion appeal to the admins. So I guess Category:Backguild it is.

but I'm told that that isn't the best idea.

Well, as far as my talk-page message goes, that's totally my mistake and I apologize. I saw the edits go by in Special:RecentChanges and thought you were posting all of those AMCW... pages as a member of the guild; I didn't realize you were simply editing the categories.
Even editing the categories, though, is technically a violation of GodWiki rule #3, though (which is part of why I assumed you were a guild member), so that's likely to ruffle some feathers.
My personal opinion (and ultimately that's all it is) regarding Rule 3 is that it's not completely absolute — there are limited, valid housekeeping reasons for non-members to edit Guild pages. For example, if links need to be edited following a page move, or code changes to a template require modifications to pages using it, then limited, directed mass-editing of guild pages is (IMHO) justified. But those things need to be discussed (or at least announced) with the group — no single editor should decide on a course of action entirely by themselves, then immediately set about executing it, especially on other people's Guild pages.
The other interested wiki users (of which there are only ever a handful, so it's not like it's some massive bureaucracy) generally appreciate being kept in the loop, they appreciate being consulted... and in my experience, they often have invaluable input to offer that will often make a plan better, and sometimes end up saving me a ton of effort by pointing out something I've overlooked or not been aware of. Plus, taking the time to consult the community just demonstrates that their input is valued and their ideas respected. After all, there's no rush, because there's no deadline. It's not a competition — except when it is. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Different Conversation

Thank you for your note on my Talk page re: Main/Guide(?)page Talk page edit. It was actually supposed to be one of the "Thumbs Up" votes that Djonni asked for regarding approval/disapproval of modifying the page. But I see that my copy-paste failed to grab the unicode emoticon. Hmm. I know that I highlighted it, so maybe there is a transient bug in my Android interface with GodWiki. Thank you for letting me know it went wrong. -- SourceRunner, 19DEC2018.

Not at all, happy to help! My only concern was exactly that — that you might've intended to post something that didn't come through. I wanted to make sure you knew that'd happened.
On an entirely different note, just FYI you can sign messages automatically when posting to Talk pages (of any sort) by just typing four tildes at the end of your post (~~~~, or optionally -- ~~~~ to separate it from the text). — The wiki software will automatically fill in your name, links to your user page and talk page, and a timestamp, like so: -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
(Oh, any by the by I've edited Talk:Main Page and added the missing emoji to your comment, so that's fixed up.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Help:Requests page

Quick note to say Cheers for your feedback re: the Help:Requests page, both on my Talk page and the Wiki Questions Thread. All great suggestions! I've updated the Help:Requests page to include the four-tilde code for godname/date stamp, and also added my name to the Writing Volunteers section.

I'm always grateful for suggestions and tips, so if you see anything else like that, just fire a note my way. I do like to do things the Wiki way whenever possible; the problem is usually not knowing what I don't know... ;) Thanks again! -- Cham Almighty (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

JanuWiki Banner

The proposed JanuWiki banner for the main page on your Sandbox looks good. The color choice especially makes sense. SourceRunner (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Multi-column tables

I've made many changes within Bella Rebe's page based on your recommendations. Thank you for all of your help. Also, I redirected Sand Devil's talk page to USER:Sand Devil]s talk page per your recommendation. Thanks for looking out. ~ Sand Devil (U • C • T) , 28 January 2019 (3185 g.e.) Try 2 -- Sand Devil (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Question for you about this: Is there a way to limit the number of columns?
For example: a list of titles and their descriptions. Sure, they could collapse if the screen width is too small, but it'll look tacky to have more than 2 columns. or is it best to stick to wiki-tables for that? Sand Devil (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely! Just add |style={{column-count|n}} to the {{div col}} template (where n is an integer number), and it'll set the target column count to n. (Still allowing fewer if they don't fit, and widening them if necessary to only fit n columns in the available space.)
So a column set created with {{div col|colwidth=8em|style={{column-count|2}}}} is guaranteed to have no more than 2 columns, each at least 8em wide.
  • Item one
  • Item two
  • Item three
  • Item four
  • Item five
  • Item six
  • Item seven
  • Item eight
  • Item nine
...However, since you mentioned "a list of titles and their descriptions", do you mean a list of titles in one column, descriptions in the other? That, I would recommend against.
Multi-column lists aren't really meant for that, and it won't work out well in practice. For starters, if any of the items on the list ends up wrapping to more than one line, it won't be kept aligned with the corresponding item in the other column:
  • Item one
  • Item two which is really really long and ends up getting wrapped to be more than one line
  • Item three
  • Item four
  • Item five
  • Item six
  • Item seven
  • Item eight is also really long and gets wrapped to multiple lines, meaning that it can't be (reliably) lined up with anything in the left-hand column.
  • Item nine


Any sort of chart/grid-based data, where alignment of individual cells matters, is better formatted in a wikitable than with multi-column CSS. The multi-column formatting is really meant for lists that are meant to be read down from top-to-bottom, but (because they tend to be narrow) can be fit into multiple columns to save space.
Another option, though — other than tables — would be the third type of standard list. (<ol>...</ol> ordered lists and <ul>...</ul> unordered lists are the first two.) The third type is the <dl>...</dl> description list. It's meant to hold a two-level structure.
MediaWiki's shorthand for them is the semicolon and colon (; and :), same as talk page indentation. A line that starts with a ; begins a <dt>...</dt> element, whereas : starts a <dd>...</dd> element — either at the start of a new line, or on a line that starts with a ;. For example:
; Term 1
: Description for term 1
; Term 2
: Description for term 2
: More description for term 2
; Term 3 : Description for term 3
; Term 4
: Description for term 4
: More description for term 4
: Even more term 4 description
That would produce:
Term 1
Description for term 1
Term 2
Description for term 2
More description for term 2
Term 3 
Description for term 3
Term 4
Description for term 4
More description for term 4
Even more term 4 description
...But if you also want to make it multi-column, then just like other wikilists you can't actually use that markup, so you have to write it as HTML. Meaning:
{{div col|colwidth=10em}}
<dl style="margin-top:0;">
<dt>Term 1</dt>
<dd>Description for term 1 that's wider than the available column width and definitely wraps.</dd>
<dt>Term 2</dt>
<dd>Description for term 2 that's wider than the available column width and definitely wraps.</dd>
<dt>Term 3</dt>
<dd>Description for term 3</dd>
<dt>Term 4</dt>
<dd>Description for term 4</dd>
<dd>Description for term 4<br>With more description for term 4<br>on three lines.</dd>
</dl>
{{div col end}}
Which will get you this:
Term 1
Description for term 1 that's wider than the available column width and definitely wraps.
Term 2
Description for term 2 that's wider than the available column width and definitely wraps.
Term 3
Description for term 3
Term 4
Description for term 4
With more description for term 4
on three lines.
(The reason I changed from multiple <dd>...</dd> lines to a single <dd>...</dd> per item with multiple lines separated by <br> line-breaks is because the multi-column wrapping will split up multiple <dd>...</dd> tags wherever it wants to across columns, whereas it tries to keep multiple lines together inside a single tag — though as you can see, the wrapping is still kind of a mess.)
Apparently this issue is a whole big thing with description lists, and in practice multi-column <dl>...</dl> lists don't work as well as multi-column <ul>...</ul> or <ol>...</ol> lists. Tables are probably the way to go. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That stackoverflow question I linked to in my previous response also has an answer which provides a workable (if imperfect) solution to the wrapping issue, when using <dl>...</dl> lists.
If, instead of creating a multi-term description list, you create a single overarching unordered list (the same <ul>...</ul> we've used for the other multi-column lists), and then make each list item a separate <dl>...</dl> list, it'll be wrapped like other lists, treating each item as a single entity that shouldn't be split over column breaks.
So the following code (which I indented to make the structure more readable)...
<div style="margin-left:1.6em;border:1px solid gray;padding:0.2em;">
{{div col|colwidth=15em|style={{column-count|2}}}}
<ul style="margin-top:0; list-style:none; margin-left:0;">
<li>
  <dl style="margin-top:0;">
    <dt>Term 1</dt>
    <dd>Description for term 1 that's wider than the available column width and definitely wraps.</dd>
  </dl>
</li>
<li>
  <dl style="margin-top:0;">
    <dt>Term 2</dt>
    <dd>Description for term 2 that's wider than the available column width and definitely wraps.</dd>
  </dl>
</li>
<li>
  <dl style="margin-top:0;">
    <dt>Term 3</dt>
    <dd>Description for term 3</dd>
  </dl>
</li>
<li>
  <dl style="margin-top:0;">
    <dt>Term 4</dt>
    <dd>Description for term 4<br>With more description for term 4<br>on three lines.</dd>
  </dl>
</li>
</ul>
{{div col end}}
</div>
gets you...
  • Term 1
    Description for term 1 that's wider than the available column width and definitely wraps.
  • Term 2
    Description for term 2 that's wider than the available column width and definitely wraps.
  • Term 3
    Description for term 3
  • Term 4
    Description for term 4
    With more description for term 4
    on three lines.
Which is a much better presentation of exactly the same list contents as the previous <dl>...</dl>-only solution. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


WOW! That was very detailed.

I was thinking of something like this:

Rank Day Number Delta
Fan 0 0
Intern 1 (+1)
Recruit 3 (+2)
Follower 8 (+5)
Master 18 (+10)
Chief Master 35 (+17)
Advisor 60 (+25)
Grand Master 90 (+30)
Cardinal 135 (+45)
Hierarch 200 (+65)
Patriarch or Matriarch 300 (+100)
Regent 450 (+150)
Prophet 600 (+150)
High-level Rank[note 1] 800 (+200)
  1. The name of this rank is set by the guild leader and therefore varies from guild to guild. It may not exist if it has not been set.

I am sure I didn't explain it correctly, but I see the div-col is not the solution.

Sand Devil (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Template

Hey FeRDNYC, I just read your message on my talk page about that template I made years ago. I didn't made the template for personal use, I wanted to be like a profile box template where you can add your own stuff. My mistake was naming the template wrong haha. Anyway, I moved it to my user page. One more thing though, I messed up while moving it and created a new page, do you have permission to delete pages? Tjorvi (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (GMT-3)

Oh, cool, thanks a lot for fixing that up! Much appreciated.
Unfortunately I don't have page delete rights I'm afraid, really nobody does on the wiki. (The game admins do, but they generally don't get involved in wiki housekeeping unless it's a pressing need.) Believe me, I know where you're coming from. I've got a few pages under my own User:FeRDNYC space that I wish I could delete, too! Afraid we're just stuck with them, for now. Sorry!
(There's no limit on subpages per account, fortunately, so they're not really causing any problems being there. It's just clutter.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a Silly Note

Sometimes, despite the WYSIWYG interface, http://xkcd.com/2109/ is how it feels to edit GodWiki. It really helps to squelch that feeling to know such dedicated people as those who post here are keeping things going straight. Thanks for your work. --SourceRunner (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hah! That one's great, I hadn't seen it yet. Those stupid invisible markup boundaries are the bane of my existence in rich editors, most especially GMail's, because they act like quicksand traps. You're typing some bold text, or using a different font, and at the end you turn it off... but then you realize you need to move the cursor for any reason... #BoldComesBack 🤬
Anyway, thanks for the kind words. It's funny, because I contribute very little on the content side of things. So I try to help out however I can, since formatting, layout, and technical aspects are much more my forte. Still, if the whole thing were left to me alone, there wouldn't be any content to format in the first place! So it's definitely a group effort.
JanuWiki, in particular, I think would've fallen apart without your dedication on the editorial side of things, so thanks to you for keeping that all humming along — and for even putting it ahead of finding time to work on your own article! I feel like there should be some sort of award for that. I suppose we could create one? (The Let's All Give Ourselves Awards Award? Catchy!) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)