Difference between revisions of "User talk:WardPhoenix"

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Notes on possible homonyms Artifact/equipment: Yeah, there's gotta be some explanation)
Line 1: Line 1:
This is a talk page. Maybe. Or not. Don't know.
This is a talk page. Maybe. Or not. Don't know.
Leaving this just in case : {{god|extended=yes|WardPhoenix}}
Leaving this just in case : {{god|extended=yes|WardPhoenix}}
== Leave a note for me there ==
== Leave a note for me there ==
== Your edit  to the Monster articles guidelines ==
Hey, I'm just curious about [https://wiki.godvillegame.com/index.php?title=Guideline:_Monster_Articles&diff=96284&oldid=96280 this edit] removing the {{para|pet|yes}} note from the Monster article guidelines. (Especially since the edit summary, {{tqi|quotes=yes|deleted a lu}}, isn't particularly comprehensible to me. 😉)
For background, that line [https://wiki.godvillegame.com/index.php?title=Guideline:_Monster_Articles&diff=87888&oldid=58835 replaced] an older note pointing people to {{tlx|Pet}}, which should no longer be used.
There's no question all of those guidelines need ''expanding''. (For this one in particular, to incorporate {{para|boss|yes}} and {{para|sea|yes}} in addition to {{para|pet|yes}}, among other things.) But inclusion of {{para|pet|yes}} in the {{tlx|Monster}} parameters when writing Pet articles is still accurate currently, and the guideline no longer makes any mention of it. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk: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). -- [[User:WardPhoenix|WardPhoenix]] ([[User talk: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 {{para|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 {{tlx|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 {{para|pet}}, but it ''should'' also cover {{para|boss}} and {{para|sea}}, it should cover the relevant Navboxes (starting with {{tlx|Navbox bosses}}), etc. The same way that, ideally, '''some''' Guidelines article (or a new one) ''should'' cover the {{tlx|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.) -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
::::: No problem, see your point there. [[User:WardPhoenix|WardPhoenix]] ([[User talk: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 [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:red link|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 [https://godvillegame.com/forums/redirect_to_post/308?post=1231251 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. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk: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]]. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:WardPhoenix|WardPhoenix]] ([[User talk: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 [[wikipedia:WP:BOLD|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. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 16:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
:::: I knew you were talking about brand new articles don't worry about that. I'll try to be more careful on creation of page (especially on moves one) --[[User:WardPhoenix|WardPhoenix]] ([[User talk:WardPhoenix|talk]]) 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
== Notes on possible homonyms Artifact/equipment ==
== Notes on possible homonyms Artifact/equipment ==

Revision as of 22:16, 14 February 2019

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

This page has an archive

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

Leave a note for me there

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!

Maybe should I create a talk about it on the main page or something? WardPhoenix (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably somewhere, yeah. I find it difficult to believe that there are really this many things that are both artifacts and equipment. My guess (since it' safe to assume they can't all have come from people being confused/mistaken, though one or two may be just that) is that there are items that were originally one type, A, but got converted to the other type, B, when the devs realized they needed additional B's and already had more than enough A's. Or even just that the item seemed "more clever" as a B than an A.
It's purely a theory based on nothing but guesswork and past experience, but I bet if we were to dig around in the history of these items, it would eventually come out (well, might eventually come out, assuming we could find any information at all) that the item(s) showed up as type A only a very loooong time ago, or only very briefly right in the beginning of its existence. And then at some point, it started showing up as type B, and has never been seen as type A since. (They've on at least one occasion swapped out the boss-monster for a mini-quest in similar fashion.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)