User talk:WardPhoenix

From GodWiki
Revision as of 16:55, 14 February 2019 by WardPhoenix (talk | contribs) (Your edit to the Monster articles guidelines)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a talk page. Maybe. Or not. Don't know. Leaving this just in case : GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

Leave a note for me there

Your edit to the Monster articles guidelines

Hey, I'm just curious about this edit removing the |pet=yes note from the Monster article guidelines. (Especially since the edit summary, deleted a lu, isn't particularly comprehensible to me. 😉)

For background, that line replaced an older note pointing people to {{Pet}}, which should no longer be used.

There's no question all of those guidelines need expanding. (For this one in particular, to incorporate |boss=yes and |sea=yes in addition to |pet=yes, among other things.) But inclusion of |pet=yes in the {{Monster}} parameters when writing Pet articles is still accurate currently, and the guideline no longer makes any mention of it. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It was because it's redundant with the information within the guidelines of the template, since writers are supposed to use it. And since it didn't looked as up to date formatting of templates, I was bold and kicked that line.

As for the edit summary, my phone just wanted to throw the change before i was done typing it (and I was like, oh fuck it). -- WardPhoenix (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Heh, I have so many typos in edit summaries, and every one is going to haunt me forever I think. And, of course, it's never the edit summaries nobody reads... feels like they only happen when someone else will actually need to understand what I wrote.
Anyway, I restored the |pet= note, as I think it's still useful. Generally, my take on the Guidelines instructions for writing articles is that they're meant to be the main, one-stop resource for someone creating an article. (Which is why it's so shocking that we've let them get so out of date.)
Some editors may choose to read the documentation for Template:Monster and the like, but we can't expect them all to. And really (in my view), they shouldn't have to. The ideal situation would be one where, for example, Guideline: Monster Articles contains all of the information someone needs to have, in order to write monster articles. With the documentation in {{Monster}} and etc. being available as a resource for those who're interested in going beyond that, to learn about how the template works and what other (non-"required") things they're able to do with it.
So, really Guideline: Monster Articles should not only cover |pet=, but it should also cover |boss= and |sea=, it should cover the relevant Navboxes (starting with {{Navbox bosses}}), etc. The same way that, ideally, some Guidelines article (or a new one) should cover the {{Hero or heroine}} template family, and offer some guidance on using (or not using) gender when writing wiki articles. That stuff is absent, currently, only because we've been neglecting that entire area of the wiki for so long, and allowed it to fall criminally out of date. (Maybe Guidelines should be our next event?)
TL;DR: the way I see it, redundancy between the Guidelines and other documentation is a good thing. In fact, everything in the Guidelines articles should really be redundant, in the sense that it should present a condensed, bare-minimum, need-to-know overview of a topic that's fully documented elsewhere. With links to that full documentation, so that any interested editors can learn about those things in more detail. (Whereas the disinterested editors don't have to be bothered with those details.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem, see your point there. WardPhoenix (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating "empty" articles

Hey, I was just looking through Special:RecentChanges (I admit, I troll the global edits list), and I noticed a bunch of new-article creations you did, for items that previously were article-less? And it looks like you set them up with just the corresponding template? Was there any particular reason those articles needed to be created? If not, can I ask that you hold off on doing that, until we can get some consensus on whether that's the right approach?

Personally I'd be against it, unless someone came up with an argument that changed my mind. If a page doesn't exist, it's shown as a redlink, which instantly tells readers that there's no content at the other end of that link, and therefore no reason to follow it. But if an article is created that has no, or minimal, content, then there's no such indication. So the reader has to actually follow that link, just to find out that there's effectively nothing there (or, nothing they didn't already know).

So when an article contains nothing you couldn't could learn from its entry in the List of Equipment or List of Monsters or whatever, then it doesn't really provide much value to the readers. But they're essentially "tricked" (by the link's non-red status) into visiting these articles that I described on the forums as "all structure, no content". So it's actually (IMHO) more helpful & informative for those articles to stay as redlinks.

Now, others may disagree, and feel that there is value in creating "shell" articles. But I think we should discuss it as a group. My take on the JanuWiki process is (now) that even using boilerplate content for articles was a mistake, at least the way we did it. It led to articles being created that (in a few cases) never got written, yet no longer appear as the redlinks that they still (effectively) are. For those articles, because we can't delete the article entirely once it's been created, we were forced to turn them into stubs. But avoiding the creation of "no-content" articles in the first place would (again, IMHO) be preferable. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I had also meant to point out that you accidentally created one of them as Talk:Scale of justice. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The articles I have created are mainly equipment articles that my heroine have, meaning I had the durability information and wanted to create the article to not lose the information. The others are articles that were featured in Newspapers. Felt it was sad to have direct link from newspaper to totally unformated page. But if you feel against it, i can avoid further addition. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, no, just to be clear: I am always in favor of expanding existing articles, adding structure, cleaning up content, etc. — in any way, shape, or form. That kind of stuff is basically always positive, and you've done absolutely amazing amounts of good across the entire wiki with that kind of stuff. I am immensely grateful, and everyone who uses the wiki should be as well — it's tedious and often thankless work. All of that also falls firmly under the Be Bold principle, since if anyone ever objects to anything, it's easily reversible with just a couple of clicks. (Like with the Guideline: Monster Articles edit above, in fact.) So, there's no reason to hesitate on any of that stuff. "Easier to ask forgiveness than permission" and all that.
The only edits I'm referring to are the ones which create entirely new articles, where before no article existed at all — the ones that turn a redlink into an article link. Unlike any type of edit to the content of an existing article, article creation edits (including page moves) are permanent and irreversible — neither the user who performed the action, nor anyone else on the wiki, has the ability to undo those actions. Short of, perhaps, making an appeal to the Godville admins to come in and take care of it, but that's not a role that they've traditionally played "on-demand".
In terms of those articles, I guess the question is whether item durability, alone, warrants the creation of an article for an item. I'd personally lean towards "no", I think — that one data point doesn't seem substantive enough on its own, without additional content to flesh the article out. But I'd be curious to hear what others think, as it's possible I'm just overreacting. Maybe it's a question worth putting before the group, in some way — perhaps at Help:Requests, since I guess it loosely falls under "Wiki coding help"? I'd ask in the forum, but I'm reluctant to move a discussion of wiki procedure/norms off-wiki. I'd rather have it locally so there's a record available (and searchable) for future reference. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes on possible homonyms Artifact/equipment

Just a note to my self for possible homonyms artifact/equipment that could either be mistakes or actually both existing, as they are mentionned in both artifact and equipment list at the moment. Feel free to help finding the truth!