Difference between revisions of "Talk:Djonni"

From GodWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Template:N/A: all good)
m (→‎Template:N/A: Tangents.)
Line 169: Line 169:
:::: (However, the commentary from SourceRunner and others [https://godvillegame.com/forums/redirect_to_post/308?post=1231220 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.) -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 13:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
:::: (However, the commentary from SourceRunner and others [https://godvillegame.com/forums/redirect_to_post/308?post=1231220 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.) -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 13:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
::::: Yeah, we are drifting off-topic for {{tlx|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. -- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 17:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:39, 19 December 2018

Ralph wave.gif

Hi, friend or stranger! You've found your way to my Talk page. I'm GodDjonni , and this is one of the ways you can get in touch with me about anything game or wiki related. If you leave me a note here, I'll reply here. You can click here to start a conversation with me about a new topic below. If you prefer you're also welcome to add me as a friend in the game and message me directly there. I'll reply equally promptly to either.

You'll also note, if you're a little experienced in how the wiki works, that my page is not in the User: namespace. This is on purpose — I'm perfectly happy for others to make changes to my page. If I have a problem with it I'll just undo the edit, just like any other page. And if for whatever reason I'm not around, then it doesn't really matter anyway!

This page has an archive

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

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! 😃 -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Aaand awesome idea "New town name: Sausagefirth" submitted 👌😂 --Djonni (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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 he 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 👍 --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! 👍 -- 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 👤 instead of the tiny image, though perhaps a |retro=yes might be nice 😄 -- 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 — 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 — 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 — 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 — like the blue areas of the Monster infobox — using different hues — 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 — 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 — 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 — 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)
👍 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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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 — 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 — 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... 🤔 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 — 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) — 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 — and this is certainly just my opinion, and others' may vary — 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 — 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)