Difference between revisions of "Talk:JanuWiki 2019"

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (My inattention, and thanks :): Clarification, I hope, it's still early ☕)
(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
m (Death to boldface-type "headings")
Line 132: Line 132:
 
:::: And, yes — '''''very''''' awesome, [[User:Wanamingo|Wanamingo]]! You have my gratitude. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 
:::: And, yes — '''''very''''' awesome, [[User:Wanamingo|Wanamingo]]! You have my gratitude. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  
::::: Monsters E-N are also done. These edits were made with the TOC in mind. You're welcome! -- [[User:Wanamingo|Wanamingo]] ([[User talk:Wanamingo|talk]]) 06:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
+
::::: Monsters E-L are also done. These edits were made with the TOC in mind. You're welcome! -- [[User:Wanamingo|Wanamingo]] ([[User talk:Wanamingo|talk]]) 06:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::: Monsters A-D are done.
 +
::::: In summary, all boldface-type headings for currently existing Monster pages have been changed to be actual headings.
 +
::::: Once again, with feeling: /watch?v=9FgwKpemKmo
 +
::::: Please feel free to archive this section of the talk page. Have a good weekend! -- [[User:Wanamingo|Wanamingo]] ([[User talk:Wanamingo|talk]]) 07:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  
 
== My inattention, and thanks :) ==
 
== My inattention, and thanks :) ==

Revision as of 07:01, 5 January 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the JanuWiki 2019 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
  • Opinionated research if possible
  • Neutral point of view when appropriate
  • Humour
  • Verifiability
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Do not bite the newcomers
  • Respond in a mature manner
  • Be welcoming
  • Maintain civility at all times


This page has an /Archive

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

The original proposal and discussion from Talk:Main Page can be found at Talk:JanuWiki 2019/Archive.

Some quick docs feedback

Some thoughts, purely IMHO for your consideration and to do with as you see fit.

  • JanuWiki 2019 is already getting sort of terrifyingly long, and may scare people off. It's worth considering whether that needs to all be on the same page, or which of it needs to be there at all. (That TOC is especially intimidating. Altho mobile users don't see it, which is a double-edged sword.)
  • By the same token, JanuWiki 2019#Technical Stuff's links section is verbose enough to lose people, and probably needs more tabular examples rather than in-prose examples. They're tricky to follow.
  • Please don't even cover <strike>...</strike> in the formatting discussion. Anyone who doesn't already know how to do it doesn't need to.
  • The FAQ answers could also be way more brief. One sentence is a perfectly acceptable length for an answer to a question, if it can be answered in one sentence. And, like, there's no point in overexplaining things like The only requirement to join in on JanuWiki is a heroine or hero of at least level 15, which is when you gain access to the GodWiki. — it is not relevant or important to the content drive. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Noted, and agreed. I've been writing stuff in small chunks and it's easy to lose track of how small chunks snowball. Will do some machete-ing and cut it to size. :) -- Djonni (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

That TOC is especially intimidating. Altho mobile users don't see it, which is a double-edged sword.

I've been thinking. At one point you found a CSS class that would appear only on mobile (or was it the other way around...?). In short, is there a CSS class that find be used to manually make a highly simplified TOC four mobile views? 🤔 It's certainly not vital, but you're right about that double-edged sword, and perhaps one of those edges could be bluntened... -- Djonni (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a good question, I'd have to check whether that's still possible with the death of the default mobile skin. (And I will, shortly.) Though, another option would just be to set the page up __NOTOC__, and use the manual TOC for all skins — that way, people wouldn't be seeing different TOCs depending which of the various skins they're using. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Mmm, nope, I was afraid of that. The default mobile skin is now Vector, same as the desktop skin. It just uses some media queries to format things differently on narrow screens. But there are no longer any classes present on mobile but not desktop, or vice versa. (Except when using the WPTouch skin, my "switch back to mobile skin" trick still works there since it's the only skin that's different from the other views.) So, my suggestion about using the manual TOC for all skins/views would be the only option, probably. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Event hatnotes

I've been contemplating these (ref Talk:Main Page#Navbox and other technical details), and I think it's the right way to manage JanuWiki content pages. I'd like to get them up so that we can start incorporating them into magic links.

User:FeRDNYC was clever to put {{Godwiki event banner}} into a generic name that can be reused for future events. I think it's wise to do the same for the event Hatnotes. So: {{Event construction}}, {{Event review}}? Is there a better name to use for these? -- Djonni (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Decision made: {{Godwiki event construction}} and {{Godwiki event review}} created and hopefully ready to use. Will write a brief explanation and instructions on the page tomorrow! -- Djonni (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, speaking of, I just thought to take a look at those on mobile, and they might need some adjustment. The large image/emoji end up being kind of overpowering there. (Same problem I ran into with the main page event banner.) If you want I can rebuild them as flexboxes, so the graphics and the text block will stay separate from each other instead of all wrapping together. (Most likely it'd go left-graphic, textbox, right-emoji, stacked vertically under the heading.) They'd still be a bit long vertically, tho. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Mmm, you're right, the {{God}} template and the right-float emoji also lead the top area text to be sparse and broken up. Trying them as flexboxes might work, the text can be trimmed if they're too long. We can also just reduce the emoji size, like you did on the banner. -- Djonni (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, given that it's using {{Sign}} which isn't trivially flexbox-able, I'd suggest shrinking the left-hand image a little (even using |imgwidth= if need be), and making the emoji small and part of the title. Then the text can fill the width. I'd also set the width to 100%, since for mobile it'll need all the space. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I made some edits to {{Godwiki event review}}, see what you think (or feel free to revert). Naturally, on my phone the title is still juuuuust too-wide enough that the emoji ends up wrapping onto a second title line all by itself. You can never win with web-formatting. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
(And I'd meant to offer: If you want me to make those same changes to {{Godwiki event construction}}, or to update both with any edits, let me know.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes please! Your mobile width is sightly less than mine, which I think makes it a better test for these. The changes look good — if you think the title text could be trimmed (or shrunk) such that layout is better for a narrower width, go ahead.

I also realised that for reasons unknown I actually hadn't used {{god}} in ... review}}, which would have been confusing as I kept insisting that was the justification for {{subst:ing the revision author 😅 Fixed that, and added |plain=yes to reduce ugliness. -- Djonni (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I just updated {{Godwiki event construction}} to match {{Godwiki event review}} in terms of sizing / image placement / etc — with the shorter titles you set, both juuust make it without wrapping on my phone, so that's cool. (The "Last edit" line still wraps depending on the length of the username — yours no, mine yes — but that's not so bad.) So I think they're good now.
The size/length seems fine on mobile, "construction" is about half the screen height in Chrome (meaning the page canvas, not counting browser headers and etc.); "review" is just over 1/3. I think that's reasonable. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
One thing that did occur to me, reading {{Godwiki event construction}} — it kind of switches from hatnote to instructions like halfway through, which is a bit unusual. IOW, the first sentence is a notice for people reading the article, to let them know what's going on... and then the next sentence/two are instructions for the editor of the article, instead of the readers. ...I don't really have any thoughts on that, I just wanted to point it out since it struck me when reading it with my "wiki reader" hat on. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Side job quest boxes

In case it's useful (just because I noticed some Side Jobs in the JanuWiki material), {{Diaryquest}} now finally has that Side Job mode I've been procrastinating on for months. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw the edits, was going to take a closer look if it's ready to use! (Judging from the edit comment I figured it was somewhere from readyish to ready enough.) It'll... probably come in handy? Haven't seen that far ahead yet, heh... I'll make sure User:SourceRunner knows it's there too! -- Djonni (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's now 100% functional, that "come back to this" edit-comment is a code issue (I just copy-pasted a whole block of code into two different {{#if:}} blocks, because getting the conditionals right was too hard for right then), nothing to do with functionality. I mentioned it at Talk:Side Job too, so if anything is not ready with it, hopefully someone will point it out. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Preloads

Re: the current version of the {{Monster}} preload, which reads:

{{monster
| image = <!-- An image filename (e.g. Example_picture_name.jpg). If the filename doesn't exist, this gives you a link to upload it. -->
| class = <!-- Monster's class. E.g., Humanoid, Troll, Giant mecha -->
| description = <!-- Brief description of the monster -->
| habitat = <!-- E.g., Subterranean swamps, Cookie jars, Behind waterfalls -->
| latin = <!-- Optional Latin-style species name. E.g., Exterreri exsomnum -->
| boss = <!-- Optional, 'yes' if this is a boss-monster -->
  | boss-type = <!-- Type can be: above, 1ab, 2ab, 3ab, tb, dig, quest, or dungeon. Look at Template:Monster for more info. -->
}}

"Instructional" comments might be better than "documentation" comments. I'd say lose all the "Optional"s, for starters.

  • The |image= info is pretty good
  • But with |boss= and |pet= I'd go with Insert 'yes' if the article is about a (boss|tamable) monster.
  • With "|boss-type=", maybe Insert one of: above, dig, quest, 1ab, 2ab, 3ab - see Template:Monster for details. (They don't need to know the alternate/other options.)
  • I don't know if "description" really needs a redundant comment at all. Maybe literally just Briefly.
  • Ditto "Class", "Habitat"... they'll figure it out, or leave it blank if they don't.

-- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If we want to stress that fields are optional, the intro block-comment can always make a blanket mention that leaving any infobox field blank is OK. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Please, be bold! :) I'm not precious about owning all this, I'm more than happy for another set of eyes/fingers/neurons to improve my efforts. -- Djonni (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, cool thanks. It was more a matter of not wanting to trample on your fingers as you're actively still writing (and also because you are still writing additional preload subpages)... I'll make a pass over all of them in a couplethree hours, look for opportunities to harmonize/consolidate. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
BOLD like a brand new magic marker. I made some pretty sweeping changes to JanuWiki 2019/Monster preload, still deciding myself what I think of them. So, in return, Be Savage — and once we decide we're closing in on what we want it to be, I'll edit the Equipment and Artifact preloads to fit the same basic mold. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
To see how it went, I simulated your expansion of monster into artifact. The text is definitely clearer, my concern is that it's too much reading now... I'm worried that "THIS is a QUICK start?? Forget it!" could be the first reaction.
I've run out of time for now, but we should try some fresh eyes and cut it down as much as possible, I think. Probably useful to point people back to the text on JanuWiki 2019 as much as possible. -- Djonni (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree, and I'm almost tempted to say there should be two versions of each preload: The "beginner" version with copious inline comments, and an "advanced"/"normal" version with **JUST** the boilerplate content and NO comments. Because there's just no way for one preload [per type] to be all things to all people. But how to choose? Upon which side of that divide is it better to err? These are the questions which only the audience for these could answer, but almost by definition... aren't really able to answer, either. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Death to boldface-type "headings"

I already changed this yesterday in the Monster preload template, to avoid encouraging even more of it, but it's undeniably TRUE that this is currently a very common pattern scattered throughout our existing article content:

'''Strengths:'''
* Stuff
* More stuff

'''Weaknesses:'''
* Crap
* Additional crap

To the point where I'd sponsor a special attaheroine just for the heroine who went through our existing articles and fixed that trash so that headings were headings:

==Attributes==
===Strengths===
* Stuff
* More stuff

===Weaknesses===
* Crap
* Additional crap

(Those particular sections/headings being only one example of a type, there are many other variations.) Because tedium like this is the kind of stuf that inspires Wikipedians to breed bot accounts. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The dark deed you requested is done for Monsters M-Z. Wanamingo (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I saw your edits going through, Wanamingo, well done! I've one additional request, as you work: in articles such as Satan Claus, where we have a big section of content and then ==Attributes== becomes the first heading in the article, if there is any further heading (such as ==Pet Taming== there, for example) we end up with a weirdly-placed Table of Contents generated automatically just above the first heading. (The wiki will helpfully create a TOC if there are >3 headings of any level in the article, and since it has no understanding of the content, the most obvious place for this is immediately above the first heading.)
I'll leave it to your judgement how to solve this on a per-article basis, depending which is the most sensible. Here are the three main approaches I'd consider:
  1. Force the wiki not to generate a TOC with the magic word __NOTOC__ at the top of the page (where future editors will see it immediately).
  2. Add a new heading near the top, after a short introductory sentence/paragraph. Something like ==History==, ==Features==, or whatever makes sense contextually in the article.
  3. If you think the page should have a TOC, and that there's no sensible way to insert a heading near the top, you could change the location of the generated table of contents by putting a different magic word __TOC__ on a line in the place where a TOC would make sense (usually near to, but not at, the top of the article).
I'm sure there are other ways to approach it, but those three seem the ones most likely to make sense (in my mind, at least).
Once again, great work. 👍 -- Djonni (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

in articles such as Satan Claus, where we have a big section of content and then ==Attributes== becomes the first heading in the article, if there is any further heading (such as ==Pet Taming== there, for example) we end up with a weirdly-placed Table of Contents generated automatically just above the first heading.

I'll be honest... I don't see the problem there, myself. At least, not looking at the Satan Claus example. The TOC is only "weirdly placed" if you feel it needs to be at the top of the article, which I personally don't. It's placed where the sectioned content begins, which is the natural place to index the sections. Putting it higher (farther from the section headings) would be the weird thing. And adding headings so that everything is in sections (thus pushing the TOC to the very top of the article) looks even worse IMHO, at least in articles where there's also an infobox. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
And, yes — very awesome, Wanamingo! You have my gratitude. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Monsters E-L are also done. These edits were made with the TOC in mind. You're welcome! -- Wanamingo (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Monsters A-D are done.
In summary, all boldface-type headings for currently existing Monster pages have been changed to be actual headings.
Once again, with feeling: /watch?v=9FgwKpemKmo
Please feel free to archive this section of the talk page. Have a good weekend! -- Wanamingo (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

My inattention, and thanks :)

Just wanted to drop a little message here saying thanks to everyone who's tidied up my mistakes here (you know who you are, thank you) and for everyone keeping the balls bouncing while I've been a bit distracted and inattentive the last few days. :)

Some folks have asked me by PM if they should allow me to do updates to things like Help:Requests assignments or JanuWiki 2019#Progress updates -- absolutely not! :) The only thing I'd suggest is best not to update your own scores (but you all have been following that instinctively anyways), but please don't hesitate to keep things up-to-date and accurate (especially when someone I do an inaccurate update! 😅)

Thanks again to everyone who's participating in JanuWiki, whether you're writing, finding/creating pictures, a volunteer editor, fixing and updating the wider wiki and its content, or even if all you're doing is reading and grinning along with the fun, the response to JanuWiki has been so, so much better than I had hoped, and wildly better than I had feared. :)

Oh, another thing I should mention/apologise for, I haven't been keeping any commentary or updates up over at Wiki Questions Thread... since day 1. Perhaps it's not completely necessary (especially after the super positive dev blog mention! THANK YOU, GodGodville !) but if anyone wanted to put a little summary over there for those who dwell only in the deepest darkest forum threads, every little JanuWiki teaser has brought more activity and vibrancy to the wiki. :)

Now, it's after midnight where I am and I have to be up really early for travel, so... G'night! -- Djonni (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Some folks have asked me by PM if they should allow me to do updates to things like Help:Requests assignments or JanuWiki 2019#Progress updates

...Meaning, they've asked whether they should not do those things, and instead leave them to you? (Just making sure I, and everyone else, understood correctly.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I meant. To rephrase, I have been asked if I want to take the sole responsibility for those things, and the answer is "certainly not" :) -- Djonni (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)