Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Facelift: Side note: it's the Godwiki's decennary!)
m (Facelift: let's get this party started! 🎉🎉🎉)
(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
Line 322: Line 322:
  
 
{{outdent|:::}} I'm just inserting a random note here: we have just whizzed past the [https://wiki.godvillegame.com/History:~:text=Godwiki%20comes%20online.%5B Godwiki's decennary, on August 28.] Seems to me like that's an absolutely ideal excuse to really dig into the aesthetics and usability of the main page and, even if some may feel it isn't strictly ''needed'', a fresh coat of paint would probably brighten the place up a bit! So let's keep hashing out the options. Don't be afraid to bring up an idea, even if it turns out to be impossible, unwise, or unpopular. We'll think it through. 😊 No, carry on, sorry for the interruption-- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 12:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 
{{outdent|:::}} I'm just inserting a random note here: we have just whizzed past the [https://wiki.godvillegame.com/History:~:text=Godwiki%20comes%20online.%5B Godwiki's decennary, on August 28.] Seems to me like that's an absolutely ideal excuse to really dig into the aesthetics and usability of the main page and, even if some may feel it isn't strictly ''needed'', a fresh coat of paint would probably brighten the place up a bit! So let's keep hashing out the options. Don't be afraid to bring up an idea, even if it turns out to be impossible, unwise, or unpopular. We'll think it through. 😊 No, carry on, sorry for the interruption-- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 12:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
: How long do we have to wait before we can start implementing your emoji idea? I say let's start that now, and continue the discussion of how to rewrite the rest of the page as it happens. --[[User:His portliness|His portliness]] ([[User talk:His portliness|talk]]) 12:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:40, 3 November 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Main Page 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.

Encouraging use of user talk pages

So, I've written this message, which I'm thinking of going around and (manually) placing on the User talk pages of everyone whose User: page is redirected to the main-article space, to point out that they won't receive talk-page message notifications unless they use their corresponding user talk page.

(This covers two types of users:)

  1. Those with user talk pages like User talk:BlueStapler, User talk:Hershey Almighty, etc. that are redirected to Talk:BlueStapler, Talk:Hershey Almighty, etc.
  2. Users like User:Hairplug4men, User:EJ Rose, etc. with redirected User pages, who have no redirect for their user talk page.

Basically it's about 50 people, I have a whole list. Most of them are probably not active users, but I'd plan to contact them all regardless. If they never see it, oh well. If they do, then great.

I just wanted to solicit feedback before I start.

With Special:ExpandTemplates, you can see what the message would look like when it's placed on Djonni's talk page (as an example). Click the following url:

https://wiki.godvillegame.com/index.php?title=Special:ExpandTemplates&wpInput=%7b%7bsafesubst:User:FeRDNYC/User+Talk+Message%7d%7d&wpContextTitle=User+talk:Djonni

You'll see the formatted message at the bottom of the page. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems some people keeps on redirect their user page to another page for some reasons, tried to leave messages but it don't seem to reach through. Well it's not really a serious issue but still happens. --WardPhoenix (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, though, that's fine and if people want to do it then more power to 'em. (There are all sorts of reasons why someone might want to, including intending their user page to be editable by other people. That's the reason Djonni (talkcontribs) specifically gives on his talk page.) If people want to keep a "god" page in the article namespace, as long as it's properly categorized no harm done. It's only when the corresponding talk page isn't redirected back to User talk: space that there's a down side. But it works just fine to maintain a non-User:Foo userpage at Foo, with a Talk:Foo page that redirects to User talk:foo, and doing that means they won't miss notifications. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, the example-message URL above was "down" for a couple of weeks, as I'd repurposed the page in question to do canvassing for the JanuWiki post-mortem and forgot to set it back afterwards. Anyway, it's working again now. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm joining this conversation pretty late, and FeRDNYC hasn't been around the wiki since April... does anyone know if he went ahead with the plan? I think it's a very good idea, speaking from my own experience with an unredirected talk page! -- Djonni (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he end up doing it, but I could be wrong.--WardPhoenix (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, alright. I found his draft at User:FeRDNYC/User Talk Message. I think it's a bit wordy personally, and gets a little lost in the weeds about the history of notifications on mediawiki sites, and needs a heavy edit. But I think his idea is really good and we should work up a better draft and go ahead with it.
It's a shame he isn't around at the moment (I'll leave him a talkback regardless!) because he went to the trouble of compiling a list of the affected users and we don't have it! I'll have to do that myself. -- Djonni (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Theming or Other Event Brainstorms

FeRDNYC makes a really good point above that two big events a year would be amazing, but that there's also opportunities for smaller events. With the basis that JanuWiki should now be an annual event, perhaps this should be a list of other event or drive ideas (big and small) that we could do, to figure out how we could space things to still get necessary stuff done. -- SourceRunner (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • JanuWiki 2020: Year of the WikiGnome/GodWikiStmas -- Big event. Next JanuWiki. Starts when? Ends January 31, 2020. Wrap-up ends February 29, 2020. Theming granularity? Process certainties?
  • Guidelines and Guide Resources Drive

(Please expand)

  • Easter Interlink Special -- Small event. EIS Eternal would be willing to sponsor a small wiki event during the Easter week or two weeks, with the object of adding links between pages on GodWiki (with reasonable reasons for doing so). One of the wiki strengths is the ability to create an ecosystem of lore, and the best way to explore that is following links between pages. So there could be the a specific event that GodWiki editors and content creators each chose a pair of pages to interlink, and write the lore between them that explains their relationships in the ecosystem and links the two. A report to the "Help Request" page when finished a pairing would make the pair's linker eligible for a reward of some sort after EIS checks that it has been done and does make sense.
  • Trans-Lore-Ation -- Small event. A lot of Godville lore is in the forums and tucked away in little sections of personal chronicles. As players, we in common tend to "know" this lore to be true, but not have it on GodWiki. How about a small event where people scavenger-hunt their favorite descriptions of towns, taverns, monsters, and Godville myths from the older parts of forums and the crannies of guild and personal pages, then add excerpts and possible links to the applicable pages in GodWiki.
  • Stub It Out -- Large event. Survey what articles with the "Stub" tag are still stubs, and remove tags where appropriate. Expand articles that are still stubs.
  • "Wherefore ART Thou?" -- Large event(?). Adding art to the "picture needed" category articles. Some artists need a long time to plan, so this may need to be a slow or multi-phase event.
Could be associated with the stub event maybe?


Sounds like there is some good ideas ready for the oven. I'd say that if you want to throw an event, just go for it. Create a page for it and allow us to help for the preparation.
Maybe we should make like a planner for upcomming events. By the way, talks about upcomming event may be more appropriate on the main talk
As for JanuWiki2020 (or GodWikiStmas maybe), I'd say we have the time to see it coming. Let's care of other event before.
--WardPhoenix (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
As another idea for a possible event (I don't even know if it would be considered big or small), Category:Pictures needed is up to 314 entries. That's 314 existing articles (primarily ones that use {{Monster}}, {{Artifact}}, or {{Equipment}}) which don't have an image to go with their subject. Trimming that list down a bit could also be a good way to get non-writers involved in creating wiki content. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yes, and Category:Stubs is up to 552 articles that (in theory) need fleshing-out.
I say "in theory" because some of them may not really be stubs, having been expanded since they were tagged that way. In the "Advanced options" at the bottom of the appearance preferences is the option "Threshold for stub link formatting". It takes a length (in bytes) an article's source must be so it's not considered a stub. Links to all articles shorter than that threshold will be colored with a darker shade of red than the standard redlink coloring.
I currently have that preference set to 1000 bytes, and still some of the items in Category:Stubs are colored blue. It's certainly possible for an article that's over 1000 bytes long to also be a stub, but it's also possible that there's already plenty of content there and the stub designation is outdated / overzealous. I'd say maybe 10-15% of the category's members show non-stub link coloring. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
These are great ideas for events, WardPhoenix and FeRDNYC. I've added them to the bullet point list above, and tried to evaluate them as large or small, based on your descriptions. Please feel free to expand or change what's in the bullet list.
WardPhoenix, good suggestion about the planner/calendar for events. Is something like that possible in GodWiki, FeRDNYC? --SourceRunner (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that if you want to throw an event, just go for it. Create a page for it and allow us to help for the preparation.
— User:WardPhoenix

I would agree with that, with one small adjustment: When you decide you definitely are throwing an event, creating a page for it would be the first step in preparing for it, and can serve as the formal announcement of the upcoming event.
I think Djonni worked up to JanuWiki 2019 exactly the right way (whether intentionally or by pure luck): He put out feelers on the forums and in a proposal here at Talk:Main Page, and used those discussions to solicit feedback and take the community's temperature on the idea. Then once he was sure there was sufficient interest that he could commit to definitely doing an event, he pulled the trigger on creating the event page, at which point he had someplace he could link to as a "more information" resource when he made the official announcement(s) about the upcoming event.
At any stage of planning, there's always the possibility that an event could end up getting cancelled for lack of involvement or interest. Things happen. But that risk can be minimized by getting at least a core team on board before putting a lot of work into constructing an event framework for a "maybe" or "possible" event. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved this to the main page as it is more appropriate place and also easier to reach (yeah I'm lazy to reach for januwiki page every time on my phone). By the way I think the EIS event would be quite interesting, and as easter is coming i'd suggest we start thinking about it if you really want to kick it. On a side note, I don't think a guideline event would be appropriate. Guidelines are supposed to be wrote by experimented and active users for beginners. That's more something we have to work on with experimented users I'd say. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point, re: the Guidelines. I guess it depends how broadly you define "event". Certainly, you're right, guidelines-updates aren't the sort of free-for-all activity where we'd put out a call to the entire Godville user community for participation. Maybe "an effort", or "a sprint" (to employ some of my least-favorite software development jargon), among those experienced users.
That being said...
  1. A lot of what's lacking in the current Guidelines articles just comes down to formatting, copyediting, structure, and layout fixes — things that could be done by almost anyone, especially with guidance, as there's no real expertise needed. (However, as they also need major content updates, they're definitely not entirely fixable by casual editors alone. But they could be vastly improved.)
  2. Because (as you say) the target audience for the Guidelines is inexperienced users, in my experience it's a huge mistake to write them without any input from users at or near that level. One of the things I learned in software development is that you never have the senior programmer, the one who wrote most of the code and knows every aspect of the software inside-and-out, write the instruction manual. If they try, 90% of the time it'll end up being unintelligible to the "average users" it's supposed to be written for.

    (It's the same reason you NEVER sign up for a freshman-level "Intro to Whatever" class if it's taught by that department's most senior, most published, most brilliant researcher. Very few people whose knowledge of a topic is at that level will be capable of "dumbing things down" sufficiently that they can effectively teach it to students who have virtually no background in the subject. Everything will go right over their heads.)

The two trickiest problems in documentation don't have anything to do with knowledge or accuracy of information: The first is figuring out exactly where your target audience is at in terms of background knowledge and skill level, so that you know which things need to be explained, vs. what they probably already know so you don't waste their time repeating it. The other problem, then, is being able to explain things at that level, without leaving out any of the information they need because it's just implicitly assumed or seems "obvious" to someone with more experience.
...But, all that being said I agree that Guidelines updates wouldn't make sense as an "event" in the JanuWiki mold, where we try to solicit come-one-come-all participation from as many users as possible. Heck, they may not be a very good fit for any sort of organized "group effort" at all — our best bet may be for someone to eventually just dive in and start making Bold changes to define an updated, improved structure for the content. Even if they only update a single Guideline article, once there's an example to work off of, other editors can pitch in to apply the same changes to the rest of the Guidelines. (That sort of example-based, follow-the-leader model is how most content-wide changes propagate here, really. Djonni created the {{hero or heroine}} template set, but he's responsible for only a handful of edits that applied those templates to article content.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)




Subpages for main namespace

According to MW:Help:Subpages, subpages are disabled for the main namespace. Should I submit a Feedback => Other asking for them to add the Main namespace to $wgNamespacesWithSubpages?

If we are going to suggest that guilds use subpages instead of not subpages, shouldn’t they be enabled...? I only noticed this now as I was dealing with HM’s main namespace pages and didn’t see the breadcrumb links. — Emptysora (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a good thing to submit, though it may not be accepted. Since there are already subpages being used in practice in Main, the primary advantages would be:
  • Better breadcrumb navigation (or, breadcrumb navigation in Main at all)
  • Correct subpage moves if required
The only subpages I know of in Main are Guild (off the top of my head, ref. the HM subpages, Russia/statistics, TFL subpages) and some user pages in the main namespace (including my own Djonni/Shared sandbox... We'll see if the Devs feel it's worth enabling for those cases. With the changes to user templates that are being discussed and worked on, subpages with infobox templates may become more common for guilds. -- Djonni (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Submitted~! — Emptysora (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

A Godwiki survey?

One of the thing I had planned at one point of SummerWiki 2019 was a poll to vote for best article. The idea was to make maybe people that didn't participate aware of the articles and make them read those and further if possibly. After all, people lile to vote anonymouse, so I though a poll would have been an idea to present the godwiki.

Soooo, I was wondering if doing an anonymous survey for the Godwiki could lure people there and maybe tell us why people aren't using it that much (or atleast not contributing much). There is thousands of actives gods and wey less active right here. And maybe with those answers we could improve the godwiki to lure more people in.

I have never done such a survey so well, if you thought it's a good idea, let's work on it together once more! -- WardPhoenix (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Random samples of questions

  • How often do you use the Godwiki.
  • If you don't use the Godwiki tell us why
    • Too hard to use
    • Don't see why I should use it
    • etc.
  • If you use Godwiki, do you contribute often to it?
  • If you don't contribute to it tell us why.
    • Too complicated
    • Not confident in english
    • Don't care
    • etc.
  • Are you aware of events that happened and could happens on the Godwiki?
  • What do you like on the Godwiki
  • What don't you like on the Godwiki
  • What you would like to see on Godwiki?
  • What do you think could be improved on the Godwiki?
  • Were you aware there are volunteers ready to help you with Godwiki articles?
  • Were you aware that you could create your personnal page on the Godwiki ?
Are you suggesting like a Google Forms or SurveyMonkey survey be posted as an alert on the main page? Since most of my motivation for editing is to make editing as painless as possible for other people, I’m actually completely on-board with with idea.
If we do do a survey, I would suggest making the aggregate results public (eg: announcing it on the main page).
We could also not do this as a one-time thing, but a recurring thing at set intervals.
I would suggest that instead of the conditional question for not contributing, we ask the question and then provide a set of “How much do you agree with the following statements” questions after it. Eg: “The editing guidelines are easy to understand.” (And others... I just can’t think of any)
I’d ask a conditional question “Have you recently posted a request for help on Help:Requests?” And if so, do another “how much agree” set. Like: “I feel that my request was satisfactorily resolved.” (Etc) optionally asking the name of the volunteer/for more info they want to provide.
Lastly I’d suggest on the last page we add an optional field asking for god name (should they want to provide it), and an option to perhaps request that we contact them...? Similarly, an “any additional comments” field.
I know I say all of this, but, the simpler the form, the better. Likewise, the less text and shorter the form, the better. I don’t expect us to do all of what I just wrote, I’m just throwing it out there. — Emptysora (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm definitely on-board for this, with a few hesitations.
Getting surveys right is hard. Phrasing questions well requires a lot of thought, so let's not rush. I think we need to keep a few things in mind:
  • Any question that requires typing will cause some people to just stop doing the survey in immediately.
  • We don't have permission to collect personal information, and shouldn't ask for it. No god name fields at all, no personal information at all, neither the respondent's nor others' (e.g., editors who helped them)
  • Information from the community belongs to the community. All answers should be anonymous, anonymized if necessary, and then the data made available to everyone, once we check through to ensure there is no personal or inappropriate information included (all text that is kept would have to comply with the game rules, not mention any individuals or guilds, etc. Any response that wasn't suitable to be made public would need to be discarded)
There's probably others but I'm still working on my first coffee.
A cautious thumbs up from this guy. -- Djonni (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I’m going to start going to you, Djonni, when I have questions about privacy practices... heh.

But yes, everything you said is very valid. Maybe at most, on the final screen (very end) an additional comments field that’s entirely optional.

Surveys certainly are hard, my first reaction to a survey from a company I’m not entirely on board with (virtually everything aside from Mozilla/MDN surveys) is, “Ugh. No thank you,” if I am in a good mood, and, “Yeah, no. I don’t need more people tracking me and my opinions,” otherwise. The longer the survey, the more likely I am to abandon it too.

I mean, I’m not attached to the idea of collecting god/volunteer names anyway. That’s probably just useless information at best and asking for trouble at worst. I’m not even attached to having text fields. The “how much do you agree” kind of things are more than enough for the vast majority of the things we might be looking for. Using them results in less text the user has to read too, which should, if even just a little, raise the odds of someone completing the survey. The most successful surveys are short and sweet. Eg: “would you recommend us to a friend?” (Y/N), “why?” (Text), end of form. — Emptysora (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A draft of what could be done as a survey. Updated the link for the draft, try to answer it so I can see how the results appears and give feedback about it if you don't mind! --WardPhoenix (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Some informations from what I can see at the moments: there is possibility to keep the survey anonymous easily (just a parameter to check) and there is detailled results for each questions even, written ones. --WardPhoenix (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm reopening this discussion as per my new topic below. The survey can be a great tool, but I'd like to keep in mind what the goal of the survey is. My personal goal is to make the GodWiki more inviting and encourage more users to come over from the game to the wiki. I'd like to make it easier for the less experienced wiki writers to still create in the wiki. There is a discussion here (in the removing link topic) about adding a page for submitting articles to be switched to wiki text, although it's a bit long winded and off topic. I think the survey should include a question that will let us know if this is something that would get more involvement in the wiki.

In short, I want a survey that will help us implement changes that lead to more involvement in the wiki. The survey should be really really short, like three or four questions. Longer than that and we lose many responses. All questions should have multiple choice answers. An optional comment section at the end might be a good idea. I am happy to take responsibility for creating, managing, and presenting the information from the survey. --His portliness (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Pages marked for deletion tend to redirect here

I don't think this is a good practice. See this page for a list of redirects to the main page. --Uni34 (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I completely agree. The main page redirects came first in most cases, and were then marked for deletion. I argued for the redirects to simply be replaced with {{Delete}}, as I felt then and still do that those redirects are very disorientating for people especially for people who don't understand how wikis work. But this conversation happened a while ago, (I can't find it now) and folks didn't seem to agree with me, so I started adding {{Delete}} to those redirects as I came across them, leaving the redirects in place.
But, since someone else has brought it up again... I completely agree, redirecting hundreds of random unneeded pages to the Main Page instead of marking then for deletion with a clear reason was, I think, always a bad idea! I'd love to get rid of aaallllll those redirects if those here now agree that it's a good idea. -- Djonni (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
👍-- WardPhoenix (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Note about creating a special kind of article

See this post. The idea is interesting , but we should considerate if we need to create one article regrouping all of those advices or having those advices in every concerned articles (dungeon/sail/etc)

Both, it will be a pain to keep updated, but that way new people coming in will know their needs are being considered and met. In every page, so that everyone is integrated within the community. --Sand Devil (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Category: Test templates

I have reclaimed the dead category, Category:Test templates, for use again. Please feel free to tag any sandbox template that you would like people to play with and give you feedback on with this category tag.

I'd advise that any test template should include enough {{doc|content=Documentation}} to allow people to see what it is and how it works, at least enough to give them a start on figuring it out and giving feedback. 😊 -- Djonni (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Facelift

Hi all, I think that the mainpage can use a bit of a facelift. It could definitely look more modern, and use some polishing. In general a new look every few years keeps things fresh. I have a few ideas, but I'm looking to hear from the community what ideas or suggestions they have. Things that should or should not be included, layout ideas, how to make the page more inviting, all good things.

In addition, I'd like to reopen the above discussion about doing a survey. The goal of the makeover is to encourage more participation in the GodWiki. I think the survey is important to help us figure out what is needed to get that participation, and the questions should be geared towards that end.

--His portliness (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Leaving the survey discussion to the topic above, I'm pretty open to a facelift of the main page. However the main page is super technical, so it's going to need very careful sandbox testing before any changes are rolled out. And, since it is quite technical, it's probably going to be my job to do that, unless someone else has the skills and interest to make and test any required changes.
What would we want to change, if we can make any changes we like to the Main Page? Are we just talking about freshening up the design to look more "modern and polished", without a major redesign? And what exactly do we mean by "modern and polished", because someone has to do that, and it's just flat not possible to do fancy design stuff here on the wiki. Are we talking about a rewrite of the wording? Rethinking what should be on the front page at all? -- Djonni (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
As someone with zero knowledge of the how-to, I have some ideas and questions lol. I was wondering if it was possible to embed a giant background and have all the text show up against it? That way the background can look nicer in a way which probably will totally screw up the mobile version of the main page 😂. I think the content of the main page should be reevaluated, there is a bit too much on it. Less is more. It needs a cleaner look. I think a link to a daily digest is preferable to having all the current articles on the main page itself. If you look at Wikipedia's main page, there are these little basic pictures with a weird next to it, such as "Commons: Free usable photos", and if we can implement that here it would be great. I'm imagining a little 2d monster, an artifact, a 2d silhouette of a building, etc.
Users with not much experience can still help with collecting the backgrounds, symbols, pictures, and also with rewriting what should be there. --His portliness (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Responding in pieces:
I was wondering if it was possible to embed a giant background: No. Probably not in the way you imagine, at least. You may have noticed the complete absence of background images in the entire wiki, with one exception that I know of: my own user page's {{Usergod}}. It is possible (but not easy) to create a repeating, patterned background using overlapping CSS gradients, but to "embed a giant background" is not possible. And beside the question of it being possible, there's a significant question of it being desirable: such backgrounds can have really significant impacts on the vision impaired if not handled with a lot of care. Perhaps a concrete example of what you imagine would make for a better background than the current plain color blocks?
probably will totally screw up the mobile version: Yes, this is important to keep foremost in our minds when discussing changes. Negative impacts on 1) mobile users, and 2) accessibility, completely override any aesthetic or technical preferences we have.
there is a bit too much on it: I completely agree with you there, I've always felt the main page was way too text-heavy 👍
I think a link to a daily digest is preferable to having all the current articles on the main page itself: I'm afraid I don't understand this, can you try to explain what you mean?
If you look at Wikipedia's main page, there are these little basic pictures with a weird next to it: If I understand this right, you're talking about changing the bulleted list in the top panel of our Main Page (• Gameplay • Monsters • Pets, etc) to resemble the "Wikipedia's sister projects" section of the Wikipedia main page...? That's fine, but it makes it very difficult for people to change that list in future, and it will take up a lot more screen space. So we'd better discuss what that list will contain, and whether it would still be at the top. -- Djonni (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some points:

  1. The background would be unnecessary if the main page was slimmed down and cleaner. A plain white backgrounmd would then be preferable, in my opinion. See [Wikipedia.org] for what I think we should be modeling.
  2. In regards to a daily digest, I mean that we currently have a Featured Article and Daily Image on the main page. Perhaps to a link to a page with those two on it would be better. Same with a FYI or FAQ or a DYK section. It should be a link to a page, not on the page itself.
  3. Links should appear as Example link.jpg instead of simple links. It is very aesthetically pleasing, and makes the page more exciting. To ease the future editors' job, each link can be an image with a link embedded in it, as explained here. Any editor can replace the picture, change the link, or add new pictures with links quite easily. I made my picture clickable to open the wikibooks site so you can see what I mean.

I don't think this is that hard, especially since the main page will be very clean. It will (hopefully) require less formatting for mobile and be easier to navigate. --His portliness (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think a link to a daily digest is preferable to having all the current articles on the main page itself I think the idea is to create a "Godwiki Times" that would change daily and have the current daily info (featured, do you know, random image, maybe more?)
I do think we should take a look for inspiration at others wikis. I personally do like the Terraria one as example (having every single main content listed on main page with image instead of bullets. Maybe not suited to Godwiki). But the main issue of the main page is clearly the banner to me. I don't think the rest of the page is that bad.
Globally I would gladly also help a little on the redo of the page as I am in training for web developement so that would be good training for me 🤣. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
To ease the future editors' job, each link can be an image with a link embedded in it — It's the use of images at all that makes it difficult for future editors. Let's say in future it's decided that the header there should focus on the game goals, not on the content categories. If it's text only, that's maybe 3 minutes work. With images and links and layouts etc, it becomes a day just finding the pictures, or, in most likelihood, having to make the pictures from scratch which, unless it's something you do regularly, probably takes more like a week of learning and fiddling. 3 minutes to a week. Y'see what I mean? Even just changing one item (say, Geography comes off, Towns goes on; or Godville's History comes off, Ideabox goes on) becomes a massive pain in the arse with images. Right now, it's about 15 seconds work. 30 if you preview your changes, heh.
I'm not saying we definitely shouldn't do it; I'm just making sure we're aware of the non-obvious outcomes of the changes we're considering. And I'm certainly all for things being easier to navigate on mobile, so I'm definitely positive about that in general. But the images are a bit of a pandora's box.
As for a daily digest, my feeling is that if it's not worth having on the Main Page then it's not worth having. Who's going to look at a daily digest? Nobody. The Featured Article is a showcase and reward for people who contribute awesome content, I personally feel quite strongly that it should stay, though the snippets of text should be short. The featured image, well, meh. Quite a lot of the Godwiki's images are old rubbish, and the RandomImage extension has no way of limiting the image choice to certain categories, so if we want to get rid of that then that's fine by me. DYK can probably be reduced to one line now that it's a rotation, which means that if we like the DYK box can be dissolved and the text can be incorporated into some other part of the page. -- Djonni (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, I wanna apologize if any of this is coming through as grumpy! It's not intentional, I'm having a bad day and I'm in a bad mood, so I hope it's not bleeding through too much 😅 -- Djonni (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── First, Djonni, if this is you at your worst I can't wait to see you at your best. Hugs and I hope your day gets better.

To address WardPhoenix, the Terraria Wiki is really cool, but would be really hard to put together for godville. It would require tons of hours compiling lists of what should be included. As a long term project, I'm all for it, but I think it would be years before we really got to the point of Terraria.

I don't want to be the voice of doom, but I started wondering; before we go into a big project like this, how long will Godville still be around? The devs don't really push the game in the playstore, so the user base is dying out. Which brings me to Djonni's points. Even if this does make it harder in the future, what is the chance that there will be another major overhaul of the Main Page or the GodWiki? I think if we have a good idea and people are willing to join in the effort, we should go for it. With that in mind, I'd love to arrange the page in a way that leaves space for something like the Terraria Wiki, meaning start now on the basic page, and create a sandbox page with the rest as a sort of long term project. I think there won't really be much future editing a few years down the line and we can safely do whatever we want. I am new to this and have only been watching the wiki a few months, and been actively contributing even less, so good chance I'm wrong. Djonni will correct me if I am, he's my guiding voice of reason.

Worst case scenario, some future editor comes along and wants to make a complete change to the page, they can rip it up and make it text again. Maybe even leave a <!-- note --> with a link to a sandbox version of the page as it currently is, so any editor can easily put back the original main page if it is too difficult for them to deal with and they really want to make a major overhaul.

I definitely understand the sentiment about the featured article staying, especially seeing how it encourages more people to write and rewards those that did. We have to figure out a way to include it that looks fresh, and doesn't take over the page. The way it is now, the main opage has no focus, it is a seemingly random jumble of info.

One last point, there are some things on the main page that are there in duplicate or even triplicate. Some examples are the link to the Guidebook (x3), Creators manual (x2), Help:Requests (x2). With a cleaner page, each of these important links will be easier to find, and will not need to be linked in a bunch of places with the hope that people find them.

--His portliness (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I’ve been learning about the wiki the past few months and recently started working more on editing the wiki. I have some thoughts on your ideas based on my short experience so far—to add a less experienced user POV. First, I do have experience with HTML, CSS, and JS; what is easily possible on a website using that trio (or just the first two) is not so easy on this wiki. Djonni and WardPhoenix know waaay more about the technical aspects of WikiMedia and the GodWiki than me. But even I’ve realized how hard it is to deal with images and certain formatting, especially trying to make changes that work on both desktop and mobile devices.
There has been an ongoing effort to make the wiki more mobile-view friendly, which I support since I usually access it through my phone nowadays. I started playing Godville in a desktop browser almost 9 years ago. It is because I discovered the mobile app (iOS) that I came back to the game after 5+ years. I’d guess userbase comes and goes.
Even with all the really hard work on mobile-compatibility, it’s a work in progress. For example, there are still individual articles (not on major pages) that need wiki code adjustments so images and text float properly and the mobile layout doesn’t hide part of the text behind an image.
Do you usually (or always) access the GodWiki from a desktop browser? I’m curious because to me the Main Page doesn’t seem like a jumble of random info without any focus. Sure, there could be improvements, but the main info (or links) I’m looking for is what I almost immediately see filling the screen when I open the Main page. I usually don’t need to scroll much at all. Maybe the stacked layout on the mobile version makes it seem more streamlined? I use the desktop view on rare occasions, but admit I’m more used to mobile.
Even without technical limitations, I’m strongly against an embedded background on whatever screen size. I do have vision issues where certain backgrounds can trigger migraines or make reading difficult. Unless it is an unobtrusive shade in a solid color, page backgrounds can be problematic in general.
Finally, I don’t want to seem like I’m just piling on criticism. Different and new ideas can spark great changes! 👍🏼 I suppose I have a more utilitarian view of the GodWiki, though. I want to be able to find accurate, current, and easily understandable information. From my own experience first poking around, then gradually feeling more comfortable editing the wiki, I know there are many updates and/or reorganization needed (or being considered) for various documentation or content. A fresh look is less important than content updates to me. Of course, if the layout impedes finding content that is a problem. 😊 -- Bibliophile (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The more perspectives the better, Bibliophile, thanks for jumping in 😊 It's really nice to be having conversations about the wiki that aren't just WardPhoenix and I agreeing with each other 😂 And as you're no doubt discovering ((WardPhoenix too, if you're studying web design at the moment), wanting to improve the wiki and having experience with HTML, CSS, and JS is pretty much an exercise in constant frustration 😉 Having no access to the site's CSS is a frequent source of frustration, especially when images and the lack of responsive design rears its head. Anyway, I digress.
Regarding how long will Godville still be around, why don't we proceed on the assumption that this game with ~20,000 active players at its least busy times, which is the little sister of a Russian-language game with closer to 100,000 active players, will still be around for as long as the Devs are alive and earning enough money to continue with it, shall we? It's very important to remember that most of the game's players use the wiki, and that most of the game's players simultaneously know nothing and don't care about the wiki and how it works until it doesn't work for them. As Bibliophile pointed out, and I can also attest to from my own Honoured Renegade achievement, it's totally common for individual players to drift in and out over the years, and for the attention of individual players to drift in and out of the Godwiki as well. The future of the game, and the future of the Godwiki, is as long as it is foreseeable, and our decisions need to assume that during that long future, none of us may be around, and those who want to fix up and improve the game in that future will need to rely on the archives of these conversation and the page histories to figure out what the hell was going on in the last decade. (Trust me on this, it's what FeRDNYC (ʿalayhi s-salām) and I had to do several years ago as we tried to pull this place back from dereliction once already.)
Your impulse to preserve the page state for future editors is a good impulse but not needed: it's unfeasible (and ultimately confusing) to keep a separate snapshot of every past state of a page that a future editor may want to refer to; the page history is already built for that. What's needed are helpful, clear edit summaries, so that in future someone can pull up the history and read through each step that was taken and zoom in on the one they need to inspect. All of us who really care about the Godwiki should head to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and enable the option to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" (and while you're there, probably "Mark all edits minor by default").
I've been thinking more about the images idea for the banner list, and if you'll permit me, I'm suspecting we're falling into an XY problem. Laying aside the actual images for a moment, if I've understood right, the crux of the suggestion is probably an attempt to achieve the following:
  • Some more whitespace around the list items;
  • Some decoration of the list items.
I've actually been on a long-term mission to stamp out small or repetitive images everywhere I can on the wiki ({{God}} continues to be one of my last areas of frustration) for a long list of technical and accessibility reasons that are mostly to do with how infuriatingly dumb this wiki is with inserting images into pages. The solution that we have been moving towards is emojis, with some care to be aware that newer emojis still have really bad cross-device support and must be avoided. Emojis are correctly rendered (with the previous caveat) on any device, they are correctly handled by screen readers (all emojis have a name in words), and they scale intelligently for those who need to zoom pages for readability. (Images used inline with text like we're proposing are a total nightmare for people with a vision impairment who actually like to, y'know, read things themselves, just zoomed in. They can quickly make a page completely unusable.)
So, perhaps one solution is that we create a nicely designed touch target for the banner link list that includes emojis instead of images? It'll take some tweaking and mocking up, but here's a bit of an attempt:
There's plenty of tweaking we can do to that, of course, spacing, subtle borders, etc, but that's the basic concept I'd propose. Take a look at how it performs in various different viewscreen sizes (on desktop, make the browser window narrower/wider, etc, and try different zoom levels). -- Djonni (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Bibliophile, it's nice to hear more voices joining in. I, too, am pretty new around here. You are going for the functional aspect, and the links are right there. I use godville both on pc and mobile so that I can get both perspectives. I think that from a purely functional standpoint you are right; the most important links are at the top. From an aesthetics pov there is a bunch of random information on a main page, although Djonni brought up some very good reasons for some of it to stay. I am mostly concerned with the outdated look, which brings me to the comment by Djonni. I love that XY problem! It really got me thinking again. You are totally right about what I want, mainly more whitespace and a more decorative look than simple wordlinks. Your solution solves my issue completely. I looked at it on mobile and pc, zoomed in and out, and tried to amke it break a little. It still looks pretty good to me.
The next issue that I would like to look at is rewording or totally changing the setup. I have a few ideas but I would like to hear other's thoughts first. One quick point though, it should probably be put before the featured article because it is about the godwiki itself and is kind of the natural progression of the page. For some reason on pc it comes second while on mobile it shows up first. I'll leave that to the pros.
I think the Help:Requests needs better representation on the main page. I feel like it should be more noticeable, as someone who was looking for it i skipped right over it the first bunch of times I needed it. --His portliness (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm just inserting a random note here: we have just whizzed past the Godwiki's decennary, on August 28. Seems to me like that's an absolutely ideal excuse to really dig into the aesthetics and usability of the main page and, even if some may feel it isn't strictly needed, a fresh coat of paint would probably brighten the place up a bit! So let's keep hashing out the options. Don't be afraid to bring up an idea, even if it turns out to be impossible, unwise, or unpopular. We'll think it through. 😊 No, carry on, sorry for the interruption-- Djonni (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

How long do we have to wait before we can start implementing your emoji idea? I say let's start that now, and continue the discussion of how to rewrite the rest of the page as it happens. --His portliness (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)