Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (archiving)
m (further archiving)
 
Line 94: Line 94:
  
  
== File namespace pass (pass to mark images for deletion) ==
 
Shortly, I will be going through the file namespace (specifically the items listed on [[Special:UnusedFiles]]) and mass marking files for deletion.
 
 
According to [[Rules]]:
 
{{tqb|4. GodWiki is not an image-hosting platform, and images should never be uploaded "in case they're useful" or "to be used at some point" but only for immediate use in an article. Images which are not used in articles may be deleted without notice.|source=[[Rules]]}}
 
 
I interpret this to mean that anything in the [[Special:UnusedFiles]] report can be safely marked for deletion under the {{tqi|Images which are not used in articles may be deleted without notice.|q=yes}} sentence. However, the keyword there is '''''may'''''. That means that images won't necessarily be deleted just for not being on a page. I've been trying to think of scenarios where images would be kept vs deleted (since ''some'' of the images in [[Special:UnusedFiles]] might be worth keeping).
 
 
So far, I've come up with these scenarios:
 
* Images with watermarks (eg: [[:File:Greyscale.jpg]])
 
* Images not related to the game at all (excluding images of heroes/gods) (perhaps: [[:File:104866108.jpg]])
 
* Images related to the game but do not have an article created (eg: [[:File:Feralpetrock.jpg]])
 
* Images related to the game but not included on any page (eg: [[:File:Undead garden gnome.jpg]])
 
* Images of diary entries and other in-games screens (which otherwise have no purpose since the diary and diaryquest templates exist, eg: [[:File:Dust Kitty.png]])
 
* Images of formulas that are not listed on any page (eg: [[:File:Fo3.gif]])
 
** If necessary, I can go through and try to determine what these formulas are (eg: the linked one above is probably a formula to estimate temple completion)
 
* Images with no discernible purpose or description (eg: [[:File:Founder.jpg]])
 
* Images that appear to be duplicates of other images (eg: [[:File:Beer-bottle-tree.jpg]] and [[:File:Beer-bottle-tree1.jpg]])
 
** If they're perfectly identical, I can just mark one of them for deletion
 
** If they're different sizes, I can mark the smaller one for deletion
 
 
Unfortunately, I can't detect if an image ''used'' to be on any pages by nature of MediaWiki. (I was thinking about exporting the diffs of each page and searching them for <code><nowiki>[[Image:xxx]]]</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>[[File:xxx]]</nowiki></code>. But I don't want to do that because that would put a lot of strain on the database/website [probably], and I don't want to be responsible for if anything happens.)
 
 
I'll be considering the nature of the images (as listed in the scenarios above), as well as the age of the image, who uploaded it (mainly to see if {{u|Spode}} or a few others uploaded it. {{u|Spode}} created a bunch of templates and other things that have since been marked for deletion (Usually Spode was the one to mark his templates as such))
 
 
Worst case, you'll be able to see which ones I have marked for deletion in [[:Category:Marked for deletion]] and on my dummy page ([[User talk:Emptysora/dummy]]) when I add them there (which will be as I go along, but I'll save after every couple hundred or so). If you feel a file shouldn't be on there, feel free to discuss it here or on the file's talk page.
 
 
The main reason I have been going through the [[Special:UnusedTemplates]], [[Special:UnusedFiles]], and [[Special:UnusedCategories]] special pages is so that we can actually use those reports as intended. Ie: I'm adding everything that has been marked for deletion to my dummy page such that they're removed from those reports. The page is in ''User talk'' because the ''User'' namespace is semi-protected (but ''User talk'' isn't). IE: If I go off for a month and things are unnominated or the devs actually clear the category out, you'll be able to modify the page to remove the deleted pages from the Special:Wanted reports.
 
 
Before I start "pruning" (mass-marking these images for deletion), I wanted to hear some opinions about this. To be safe, if there's anything I'm not sure about, I'll post a reply to this thread asking for more opinions on a case-by-case basis. To start out, I've listed the example images from above. -- [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 21:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
: I don't think there is something wrong about marking any unused pictures with "To delete". That whats the Recommandation #4 say that happens to those pictures anyway, we can still upload new pictures when needed....  The problem remains the same, we can't delete them ourselves. I don't know if that's something easy to do/useful from dev POV though. -- [[User:WardPhoenix|WardPhoenix]] ([[User talk:WardPhoenix|talk]]) 22:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:: What I was thinking about is if we could perhaps every so often submit an "Other" report to the devs via feedback and ask them to clear out [[:Category:Marked for deletion]]. (Eg: maybe once a year). From a dev perspective, I don't think there's an easy way to batch the deletion. At least not without installing extensions such as [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DeleteBatch DeleteBatch] or [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Nuke Nuke]. The only thing I can think of is if we made a template that would link to the confirmed delete action and create a page where all they had to do was to click links to delete the pages. That poses an issue of, say, if a malicious actor modified the page before the admins get to it (not that our special category doesn't have that risk either). Aside from that, the devs would have to go into each page, drop down the "More" menu, and click the "Delete" option that's listed for them.
 
 
:: I just think that just because we ''can't'' delete pages doesn't mean we ''shouldn't be looking to'' (hence why I'm doing this). -- [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 23:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::: Passed through the list and whittled it down to 317 (when it used to be at 1200~). Gonna apologize now since that action probably will make people's lives miserable when they check [[Special:RecentChanges]]. Tip: Set "namespace" to "File" and check the "Invert selection" box (which might not work on mobile) to hide my recent File edits (which is over 800). I'll do some more tomorrow. -- [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 02:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:::: Nobody's been willing to go through this so thoroughly in ''ever'', {{u|Emptysora}}, so 👏👏👏 well done! I have a small suggestion as to how to best use all this work of yours. I think it's worth trying to turn this into a genuine cleanup, and make it as easy as possible for the Devs to do that big batch delete. I've always had a concern that there's quite a lot of material in those old pictures that is copyrighted or lacks suitable licensing, and shouldn't be here.
 
 
:::: We could, if we want to be generous, post a message on the forum about this and give fokls a grace period to come and rescue anything they wanted kept. I also think it's wise to exclude anything which is a screenshot of the game, as there are lots of genuine reasons why someone may have one of those uploaded without being in use on a page (and, since they're material from the game, they pose no threat of copyright or licencing violations at all). But, assuming those two things are done, I think that it's worth you submitting an Ideabox->Other to the Devs asking them to do a batch delete (with links to those extensions, as they might find that useful).
 
 
:::: To make it as easy as possible for that deletion to go ahead, I can modify {{tl|delete}} so that it checks if it's on an image page (i.e., in the <code>File:</code> namespace), and adds those images to a new <nowiki>[[Category:Files marked for deletion]]</nowiki>, which will make not just this batch deletion easier, but future image cleanups as well. We will then in future simply be able to drop a {{tlf|delete}} onto images as needed, and once there's enough to make it worth the trouble, pop a fresh request through to the Devs.
 
 
:::: I suspect they will actually be glad for the opportunity to clear all that old junk out, especially if we point out that there's copyrighted and unlicensed material sprinkled through it. For most of the Godwiki's history, image licensing issues have never been adequately emphasised, but I really think it needs to be something we're much more assiduous about, and this big image cleanup will really help with that. 👏 again! -- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 11:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
{{outdent|:::::}}
 
The only screenshots of the game I propose to mark for deletion unquestionably is things like screenshots of the diary, pantheon rankings, and hero stats screens. The rules state this isn’t a hosting website, and generally, those kinds of images are mostly uploaded to share “hey, this happened” or “I’m number one on the Destruction pantheon” or “I’m rich.” So, those ones should be almost certainly deleted. Things like inventory screens etc. I can see keeping. There was one I caught after the fact but forgot to remove the template that showed some holiday exclusive items. There’s also what appears to be dungeon maps and strategies/guides (I assume that’s what that is, I’m 92 bricks until I can see that mechanic.)
 
 
I also agree that a warning (especially if this is a regular thing from now on) on the forums is important. I forgot to suggest that in my OP (despite alluding to it). If people on the site have a desire to keep their images, they’ll check. It allows us to prune the inactive images and old content. If you do put a message on the forums, you should specify that they should add their images to their user page or something so they aren’t marked for deletion. If they want to hide it there, you can tell them the 1x1 trick we thought of on your page.
 
 
I hope the moderators don’t have to go through a lot of trouble to batch it.
 
 
Eventually, I’ll be going through the entire File list for inappropriate images, copyrighted content, etc. and marking those accordingly. That’s... another day though.
 
 
Personally, and as heartless as this is, nobody has the right to complain if their image is removed since GV doesn’t ever guarantee it’ll stay, has provisions for removing images, and states it’s not a hosting platform. They can, however, get mad at ''us'' for marking it to be deleted (Especially me since I just went through and added 800 to the category).
 
 
Well, I guess I’ll call this '''''{{tqi|Project Cleanup 2019}}''''' I guess, if this is going to become a full cleanup operation. I’m only one person, so, I could use all the help I can get anyway. Honestly, I had planned to do a cleanup of all three for this reason. No offense to anyone, but there’s a lot of old “junk” left around. It bugs me when I see stuff like that (especially with the unused reports), so... you know (;一_一)
 
 
Lastly, the image licensing we definitely need to pay attention to. I hate copyright law enough to know that some people and companies CAN and WILL take action against people for this stuff '''**cough cough** RIAA/MPAA **cough cough**''' (though those two are music and video, and our at risk files are mostly anime images)
 
 
Glad to help with all of this, though. — [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 11:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:I'm going to gently but '''''quite firmly''''' argue again that material that's clearly ''directly'' related to Godville &mdash; screenshots, etc &mdash; has an implicit but clear reason to be here, regardless of whether it appears on [[Special:UnusedFiles]]. There are plenty of places around the wiki ([[Hall of records]] spring to mind) where a large number of players with zero experience (or interest) in wikis and how they work have simply made trial-and-error guesses about how to do stuff, and come up with some ''creative'' solutions that will mean files that are, in fact, in use will ''erroneously'' appear on that report. And that's not even to mention when people upload an image to the Godwiki to be linked from the forums, or in a private message, or in the discord(s), which does happen, and which is, in my opinion, a totally reasonable thing for a player to do. Because, in fact, why ''shouldn't'' people use the Godwiki as a place to put {{tqi|those kinds of images... uploaded to share “hey, this happened” or “I’m number one on the Destruction pantheon” or “I’m rich”}}? Proudly displaying your achievements as a God or a Guild is one of the Godwiki's most-used purposes.
 
 
:Granted that the Godwiki isn't an {{tqi|image-hosting platform}}<sup>1</sup>, but if you're a Godville player, you have a totally reasonable expectation that it's a place you could safely put game-related material, regardless of whether you have '''1)''' ever seen those guidelines or even realise that they exist (most don't), and '''2)''' have the slightest idea how wikis work. And both of those are things we can continue to expect from the majority of occasional Godwiki contributors forever, as there's really nothing we could (or should) do about it if we want people to feel like they can use the Godwiki freely.
 
 
:There's a reason why [[Special:UnusedFiles]] is separate to the marked-for-deletion categories. Any mediawiki installation would have use cases for images to be present that should not be deleted, and this is definitely one of them for us. Regardless of whether we ''like'' having things on that report, it is, nonetheless, ''simply'' a report, and doesn't always require action to be taken to [[wikipedia:WP:BROKE|"fix"]] it. 😊
 
 
:Of course, I realise that this might mean that someone has to go through every file that's been marked for deletion and un-mark anything that is clearly game related, and I don't mind doing that work in the next while. 😊
 
 
:Footnote <sup>1</sup>: That wording actually comes from the ''bad old days'', and in my opinion, we should actually rethink it with the above in mind. Because all mediawikis ''are'' an image-hosting platform, if they have any images at all. The wording is sarcastic, and was put there just to be a stick to hit people with (''ref'': {{tl|Warning}}) if they uploaded something that a certain someone didn't like. The rule is sound in principle, but should reflect a more reasonable, friendlier tone. -- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 12:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:: I’ll go through it later, don’t worry.
 
 
:: My only comment is that I don’t think that just because it’s a screenshot of the game or directly related to the game, that we unconditionally keep the image on the site. All the rules state is that it’s not a hosting platform, things should be for immediate use, and content unrelated can be deleted without warning. Ie: it doesn’t say “Anything related to the game will always stay” (as silly or implicit such a rule would be)
 
 
:: What I’ll do is go through and individually find the applicable images and evaluate based on your comments so far, if they would have a use or would be necessary to keep. I’ll even search the forums (assuming I can actually search for links like that and automate it) and see if any are linked, automatically removing the template etc.. I’ll post here if I have questions.
 
 
:: I know why Unused is not called pending delete or similar. I never treated it as such (or else there’d be nothing left in that report). In such cases, we could still add them to a page like my dummy page so they don’t show up in the report.
 
 
:: The problem is that while some of the images MAY be in use despite being on that report, there’s no way for us to tell. We can’t just not delete any files because they ''could'' be used elsewhere. Things directly related to GV I understand. But, with other images, there’s just no way to tell. This is why I think a forum post is a good idea. At least then we gave people a chance to see if their image is pending deletion and potentially remove it.
 
 
:: Regardless, I think the rules are a bit too vague in this situation. They’re too broadly written. It allows people to interpret them too extremely. I kind of wish we had an admin’s opinion on this. That would certainly clarify some of this. — [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::: Sorry if I’m coming off harsh... I’m half asleep and really need to sleep. I **will** go through them later and put the applicable files into a temporary purgatory of sorts.
 
 
::: Honestly, I’m playing devil’s advocate for the most part (just offering a counterargument). at least this discussion will allow us to not have to fuss about it as much. There’s just too many hidden variables with this.
 
 
::: From what I read, you feel that if it’s game related, it almost certainly stays (nearly regardless of the image itself), and that some images shouldn’t be deleted just because they aren’t used (that one... is hard to deal with).
 
 
::: Our main issue is the fact that we have nearly zero categorized images, we don’t know what any of them are for. We should start categorizing images based on where they’re located (into the appropriate existing categories)
 
 
::: in the very least, once we deal with the unused file report, in the future, we’ll be able to see which files were uploaded to be used on the wiki. This allows us to pretty easily determine what to do with most of the files. The uncategorized files we can, for the most part, assume are used elsewhere off the site (Eg: forums). This can allow us to make a better decision on what to do with those.
 
 
::: Ideally, the only thing I’d like in that report, is files that are new, or are not on the site for use on the wiki. (Or images that have since been removed with categories)
 
 
::: We just need to clean up the mess from “the ''bad old days''” as you put it.
 
 
::: As for rule changes. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with allowing game-related images to be hosted. We should probably word it, “GodWiki is not an image hosting website. Images unrelated to the game, it’s contents, gods, and guilds can be removed without warning. In the event you do not think your image will be in use soon, please put a description with the image when you upload it so others that come after you know what you intended. Any content that breaks TOS can be removed without warning.” (Ie: be specific about what is considered unrelated content, and put a note to uploaders letting them know to describe what they’re uploading if it’s not going to be immediately used.)
 
 
::: For this first purge, I think the unused guild, god, and content images (Eg: monsters, artifacts) be included too (excluding other content related to the game like screenshots.) we then do a forum post so that people can pull what they want out (Eg: grace period of a month). After this, ideally, we categorize uploads so we know WHAT is on the report (since half the time it isn’t clear.) — [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 15:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
{{outdent|::::}} Heh, don't worry about it. It happens to <s>the best of us</s> me all the time, I often reread stuff I wrote when tired and wonder why anyone still talks to me, or how they could have possibly understood what I'd hoped to say. 😐
 
 
And in which spirit, I want to be more clear about what I mean, as I'm not sure we have ended up on the same page. I'm really talking ''very specifically'' about screenshots of the game, or of game material which was generated ''by Godville itself'' in some way. And there is a more general way to talk about this which might draw a clearer picture.
 
 
To me, it comes down to this: ''why'' do we wish to clear out old images? What's our purpose? It can't '' just'' be to clear the special report pages, or keep things "tidy". In fact, there's ''very little reason why'' one should want to do this, other than general fastidious (which I am in general down with, but not in this case).
 
 
The most legitimate purpose for clearing out old images is to prevent potential future problems to do with licensing and copyright. Because in the end, at some point, someone had a reason to put every single one of those images up in the Godwiki, and it's not possible for us to know what they were, nor if the pictures are still important to someone. So to remove any image we need to justify the choice. And honestly, the only justification I think is reasonable is a precautionary one against legal threats to Godville.
 
 
Material generated by the game or by the game's players doesn't pose that threat. There is, I argue, simply no ''justification'' for removing it.
 
 
Organise it? Absolutely! Find a way to better use it? No question! Find a way to take them off the reports, so those reports become useful again? Great idea! Delete someone else's contribution or achievement just... because we decided to? Nah.
 
 
What I'm trying to say is that simply not being displayed with <code>[<nowiki />[File:...]]]</code> (the report's metric for "in use") isn't a ''reason'' to delete a file. But it's absolutely a reason to take a look and figure out whether it's safe to keep. And if it's not safe, it should go. If it poses no risk at all, which includes any screenshots or game-created content, we don't have a reason to remove something that someone choose to put here. 😊 That's all I'm trying to say. -- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 18:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
: It's basically a case by case issue. I know I uploaded a screenshot that could be deleted because it have no use now (need to find it back to mark it). I don't think there is any good middle ground since deleting is kinda permanent. And copyright haven't been a major issue here so far thanks whatever (Gosh if would be drama if all copyrighted images were deleted).
 
: There's also a lot of duplicate (guilty as charged for one...) that could be deleted without much thoughts. I'd tend to say that unused screenshot intended for the hall of records could be deleted, but well I can understand the objection of Djonni.
 
: But, I'd object that objection by saying that most of the people who posted those unused screenshot are unlikely watching at them or at the Godwiki on a regular basis (far fetched argument I know).
 
: But I also understand there is no emergency at deleting pictures, unless the devs says otherwise (when i need a pic, i try to search if there is something down there i can use instead of upload, like i did for {{tlx|Geography}}), it would just make it cleaner.
 
: Categorizing the pictures can be useful I guess, but that's gonna be quite the monumental task. (And I guess we need to define those category firsthand). -- [[User:WardPhoenix|WardPhoenix]] ([[User talk:WardPhoenix|talk]]) 23:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:: {{u|Djonni}} I ask myself that question everyday... heh. I see what you mean. I’ll definitely add the categorization to my list of things to. I like monumental tasks. For the most part, we can use [[:Category:Gods]], [[:Category:Guilds]] and so on for nearly everything. There’s no real reason to create new categories explicitly for images.
 
 
:: My reason for deleting files was never to clear out the [[Special:UnusedFiles]] report. That was simply the first place I looked through as those images were not in use (Ie: people wouldn’t care ''as much'' if those were gone through)
 
 
:: I understood what you meant by the game generated content. Yes, those generally would not cause us legal issues, but, there’s other reasons to delete things than just because of legal issues. As {{u|WardPhoenix}} pointed out, there’s duplicate file issues too. Aside from that, there’s also the potential storage space issue. I’m not sure how the devs are handling that one though, and since they haven’t said anything, it’s likely not a problem yet. We should ask them for their opinion on this at some point, though.
 
 
:: The general assumption I had when I was going through that report was that “since they were unused, the uploaders either don’t need, or want the images anymore.” (That obviously doesn’t work in the case of forum messages.) If somebody worked hard and contributed by uploading a file, you would at least assume they would want to show that file off. The fact that such images appear on that report defies that very idea. In many cases, people have uploaded replacements to be used instead of their original uploads (such as hero/god avatars, guild banners, especially HM, and some bird one I can’t remember the name of.). I kind of want to hear a scenario where this logic would not hold true for the unused file report (at least for the older images, and ones not of game content itself). I’m not suggesting people don’t care about their achievements, but that, in many cases, that doesn’t apply.
 
 
:: As {{u|WardPhoenix}} said, there’s no rush to delete the images (and I was thinking at least a couple month grace period for the forum post since not everyone comes on everyday like we seem to).
 
 
:: Sorry for the “late” reply, I’ve been dealing with some legal things these past few weeks (I alluded to it on my user page Monday). I’ve been a bit busy.
 
 
:: Ugh, this topic is getting long. REALLY long. For some reason the TOC doesn’t show up on the mobile skin, so scrolling to the “edit” link for this section, is a big hassle. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Emptysora|contribs]])  Thursday November 21</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 
 
::: Hey, no problems, real life always comes first here. Everyone's among friends here, you take any time you need. As one of my old mentors here once patiently told me, the Godwiki will always be here. 😊 We all hope you're okay, and if you need anything, we're here.
 
 
::: {{tqi|As {{u|WardPhoenix}} pointed out, there’s duplicate file issues too}}: Yes, absolutely, there's some common sense actions that can safely be taken to clear out dupes, etc. 👍
 
 
::: {{tqi|there’s also the potential storage space issue}}: This doesn't concern me at all, for a few reasons. Firstly, it's not our concern. 🤷‍♂️ If the space used by the Mediawiki installation had ever been a concern for the Devs, they could have popped in at any time in the last eight years and nuked every unused file. They haven't. Not on Godwiki-en, nor on Godwiki-ru, which is ''much'' busier and larger than ours. Secondly, a careful inspection of the [https://wiki.godvillegame.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&dir=prev&offset=20130914040147&limit=500&type=delete&user= Godwiki deletion logs] reveals that, even at times where deleting offensive images was necessary (and it's worth noting that that's the ''only'' reason an image has ''ever'' been deleted), they were very selective in deleting only the historical revision of the <code>[[File:</code> that was offensive, and leaving behind the pointless placeholder that was uploaded to obscure the offensive file. They have clearly demonstrated that they strongly prefer for ''all user content to be kept'', even the pointless stuff, unless there's a clear and compelling reason to remove it. Y'see? We don't need to ask the Devs opinion on this stuff, we've got it demonstrated if we just look.
 
 
::: {{tqi|you would at least assume they would want to show that file off. The fact that such images appear on that report defies that very idea}}: Well, I think I've expressed my disagreement with this enough. 😊 The key word there really is "assume" — we simply shouldn't be assuming what those users wanted, or want, with the file. And we shouldn't assume that a correctly formatted <code>[[File:</code> is the only way the images have been used.
 
 
::: {{tqi|such as hero/god avatars, guild banners, especially HM, and...}}: I don't believe we ever really disagreed on that. 👍 Unless for some weird reason a guild used a screenshot for their emblem, which 🤷‍♂️ sure, if they did, I'd be arguing for it's preservation.
 
 
::: On the matter of guilds, though, it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where someone would be angry about this. Take: the newly elected guild leader, keen to revitalise the guild's symbols and wiki page for recruitment, goes looking for all the old emblems and banners for some retro inspiration, or to cherry pick the best to reuse. For the last eight years, there's been no problem doing that. We are about to change the ''de facto'' rules, to bring them more in line with the ''de jure'', in a way that could, and one day certainly will, disrupt and frustrate people. It really is something we need to remember. Indifference to user experience has damages the Godwiki's reputation again and again, year after year, and we really mustn't repeat those mistakes
 
 
::: Btw, I'm not arguing that we keep all the old guild rubbish files. Just highlighting that the expectations of our fellow users need to be kept in mind at all times. Fair warning on the forums will suffice, for cases like that suggested above. Before we take this to the forums, though, we really need to develop a very clear and ''easy'' way people can rescue any files they want kept.
 
 
::: Okay, okay, I'm procrastinating because I'm having a bad day. Must. Get. Back. To. Work. -- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 12:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 
===Let's place a header here because duck scrolling===
 
{{outdent|::::}} I... forgot to sign my comment... oops.
 
 
Thanks for kind of understanding what I meant when I asked for a scenario. I wasn’t being combative at all (even though it probably looks like that), I just figured, if there WAS a reason, I just want to know, since I can’t think of such a reason. You make a good point about going through for past inspiration. Basically, I just wanted a counterargument to what I argued.
 
 
I think we should change our perspective on this. We’re currently taking a '''“delete first, ask users to save their stuff later”''' kind of thing. Let’s flip it. Instead of that, let’s '''“Save first, and ask people and guilds to go through their uploads to see what they don’t need/want anymore.”''' You’ve already shown that there’s far more scenarios where ''keeping the files is the de facto norm.'' Instead of trying to arbitrarily decide who gets to keep their stuff and who doesn’t, I feel we should instead categorize everything, and ask people to look into their uploads for stuff they don’t want to. The only things we will auto-flag for removal are: 1) copyrighted content (which would likely, and, unfortunately include memes), 2) inappropriate content, 3) and duplicate content (putting a ''redirect'' on the dup’s page to the kept file). User content isn’t a problem in most cases, I’ve noticed that most of the outdated user content is handmade, not from copyrighted material anyway. There’s no pressing reason for us to push this. Space isn’t an issue. Most of the content doesn’t violate copyright, and generally poses no issue. And, as a result, simply ''asking'' for people to go through their uploads, will get the so called “file purge” I have been devising, while not upsetting anyone (hopefully).
 
 
For guilds in particular, I think we should suggest that final authority on whether things like banners be removed be delegated to the original uploader/guild master/majority of the guild (Ie: that they use the guild council and forums to debate whether they need to keep their content on here.)
 
 
I’d say that we should stress that ''most'' of the content is perfectly fine and can stay, but, that, we’re trying to do ''something'' about the vast number of unused files, whether that be just to hear, “yeah, it’s not in use, but we’d like to keep it” or “Oh, that? You can get rid of it.” We all like this game, and most of us definitely want to see this wiki improve (I for one want to live to see the [[Special:WantedPages]] show a single digit red link count), so, if we simply organize this as a sort of “spring cleaning” I have no doubt that the interested parties will at least ''look'' through their stuff.
 
 
I’m going to start going through and categorizing all of the files into their appropriate categories. Files that can be categorized and don’t fit into the above listed auto-flag scenarios will be removed from [[:Category:Marked for deletion]].
 
 
After this is all done, we should write some form of guideline article for uploading files (reminding people to put descriptions, categorize, avoid uploading duplicates, etc.). We could even create templates to be used in the file namespace explicitly, such as a <code><nowiki>{{Quality}}</nowiki></code> template which could say, “The quality of this image does not fit the guidelines for images on this wiki. Reason: (((reason))). If you can provide a better image, please replace this file.” Or similar, (reasons can be, “Image has watermark” “resolution too poor” or similar).
 
 
Your thoughts? — [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 19:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
: Created a working demo of the "FileUse" template. It's in my [[User:Emptysora/sandbox|sandbox]]. example:
 
 
: <code><nowiki>{{User:Emptysora/sandbox|no-category=yes|type=hero|god=Emptysora|hero=Sora Amasaki|hero-link=User:Emptysora/Sora Amasaki|hero-gender=female}}</nowiki></code>
 
 
: Produces:
 
{{User:Emptysora/sandbox|no-category=yes|type=hero|god=Emptysora|hero=Sora Amasaki|hero-link=User:Emptysora/Sora Amasaki|hero-gender=female}}
 
 
: The template uses the <code><nowiki>{{gender:[username]|ifmale|iffemale|ifneutral}}</nowiki></code> magic word to automatically detect the gender preference from the user's settings to decide whether to call the user "god" "goddess" or "almighty" (gender neutral). This setting is found on [[Special:Preferences]] the section titled "How do you prefer to be described?". I chose this example because it explains all of the fringe usages of the parameters in the template (namely hero-link). The template, as suggested by <code>no-category=yes</code>, by default, automatically categorizes the file into categories (namely: [[:Category:Guilds]] [[:Category:Gods]] [[:Category:Heroes]] and [[:Category:Backstage]]) Feedback and suggestions can be left on my [[User talk:Emptysora/sandbox|sandbox's talk page]].
 
 
: Type currently supports: god, hero, guild, and forum. If you have any other suggestions for file uses, please tell me. I want this template to be as complete as possible from the get-go.
 
 
: -- [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 00:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:: There is already an existing guideline for the upload file within the [[Creators Manual]], it just needs improvement (I did my best, but obviously I missed some points when I rewrote that whole article).
 
 
:: Categorizing the image is ok, obviously. But as Djonni pointed, is there really a need to mark for delete except for unused obvious dupes and unused copyrighted content?
 
 
::As for your template, as impressive it is technically (great work seriously), I don't see the point apart from polluting the file page (please don't take it bad, I know i kind of say that too blunt) and it feels a little... agressive somehow.
 
::In theory, files won't be changed by people, unless by mistake or by vandalism.
 
::The former will be worried about the warning and may takes it the bad way, while the later will not care obviously.
 
::But as revert is quite easy it's not an issue. Basically, I'd say that changing any file upload by another user falls into [[Rules#2]]. And if the file is deleted, it will be by the Devs, who will never be wrong if they delete a file. --[[User:WardPhoenix|WardPhoenix]] ([[User talk:WardPhoenix|talk]]) 00:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::: I don't see how it would pollute the file page. The purpose of the template is to provide information about what the file is, and where it is used. It presents this information in a clear, easy to understand, way. If you click a photo on a monster article and see said file, you obviously understand that the image is an image of a monster. Say you click on the "random image" link on the Main page, without looking at the file name, description provided by the uploader, and the pages linking to the image, it's impossible to tell what the image is. And, in the case of images on [[Special:UnusedFiles]], all you have to go on is the description provided by the uploader (which is, in the vast majority of cases, missing), and the file name. Even if modifying files uploaded by other users falls into [[Rules#2]], if all you do is look at the file page, and have never seen the [[Rules]] page (which is most of the people in this game), you won't know that.
 
 
::: The "Please do not delete or modify this content without permission" message is supposed to just tell the user not to make edits or flag for deletion without contacting the owner/discussing it. That's why it links to the appropriate talk pages. I understand the verbiage sounds aggressive, but verbiage can be changed. We shouldn't ''not'' do something just because the first incarnation of it can be considered aggressive and taken the wrong way. That goes against everything a wiki stands for: collaboration.
 
 
::: {{tqi|"But as Djonni pointed, is there really a need to mark for delete except for unused obvious dupes and unused copyrighted content?"}}, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The only things I suggested be marked for deletion is duplicate files, copyrighted content, and content that is against the ToU/ToS of the site. Aside from the last item, that's exactly what I said (when I agreed with him). What I'm suggesting is that we call on users to see if they have any files or whatever they want to get rid of, before we send the request to the devs to do a mass deletion, since there's likely not going to be another opportunity to remove files for a long time. IE: I want to at least give the others a chance to get rid of anything they don't want anymore instead of just not telling them we did this.
 
 
::: While the "This file is an image." title may seem redundant, it's not because images aren't the only thing that can be uploaded (even if the allowed extensions only permit images). Not to mention, I simply couldn't think of what to put there. I can either remove or edit the message so it's not so useless, which is, again, why I wanted feedback.
 
 
::: -- [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 01:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:::: Cool template. :)
 
 
:::: It's been a long time since I've actually set up my Godwiki preferences. Is the gender preference from the users settings automatically populated from their God/Goddess status, or does it default to something (hopefully gender neutral)? I would also suggest removing the link to the hero(ine) talk page, as messages left their won't trigger an alert to the user when they next visit, so 99% would never be seen.
 
 
:::: I know that a bunch of image use templates are used on wikipedia and a lot of other wikis. They've never been used here, obviously, and I thing there's some reasons for that. My main question about the file use template, which isn't obvious to me... who is expected to be placing these templates on images, and when? And within 'who', I'm bundling in a question about how familiar that group of intended users are with templates, parameters, etc, and how they will find out about the template.
 
 
:::: Is it intended to be a part of the spring clean effort, a way for people to mark their images as still wanted? Because if that's the case, I think it's way too hard to use (our target group there is likely to have ''very'' little wiki literacy). I honestly would think that simply removing the {{tlf|delete}} template from an image they want kept will be at the upper limits of what folks will figure out how to do. If this is the intended use, I would ''really'' aim for purest of simplicity. E.g., something named along the lines of {{tlc|Keep image}} with one optional unnamed parameter for the username, with documentation that recommends placing in pages like so: {{tlc|Keep image|&#126;&#126;&#126;}}. (An {{tlc|&#35;ifexist: User:{{param|1}}}} would catch cases where a username is manually entered.)
 
 
:::: My biggest concern is that it will just not be used. Or, more specifically, that it will become another thing that we wiki gardeners will need to do on every uploaded image, just for our own benefit, in which case I wonder if ''we'' would actually take the time use it, switching between screens and copy-pasting stuff to fill in all those parameters with other people's information...? Does it offer us materially more information than the "File usage" section at the bottom? -- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 10:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::::: In arelated vein, ref [https://wiki.godvillegame.com/index.php?title=SilverWolves&curid=7105&diff=111013&oldid=47834 this edit] comment: {{tqi|after said guilds no longer exist...? What do we do with these? Redirect to Main Page certainly isn't the answer}}
 
 
::::: I completely agree, and it's something we've discussed  a little (at [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive#Many_GodWiki_pages_need_to_be_deleted]], which we should consider un-archiving as part of the spring clean). As you'll see there, I agree that the main page redirects are a terrible solution, and have already argued that those redirects should be removed, but we didn't reach consensus. It was a part of why I created {{tl|Delete guild}}, and arged that these pages should go into a special Category. (I suggested 'Category:Dead guilds' at the time, but I don't think that 'dead' is the right word anymore, and would argue for 'Category:Guilds not widely known on Godville', in light of later discussion with {{u|WardPhoenix}} at [[Template talk:Delete guild]].) -- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 11:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
{{outdent|:::::}}
 
I’ve seen a few edits by people who have done such redirects with the excuse “it’s not going to be deleted anyway.” Aside from how pessimistic or cynical that is, redirecting pages to Main Page without using “Delete” when, at the time, it actually existed, seems a bit... weird and arbitrary.
 
 
The preference defaults to gender neutral.
 
 
Ideally, I would like the template on all images (and I can rewrite it to make it easier to use for inexperienced editors). In other words, it would (hopefully) be something the uploader can just copy and paste into the “description” box when they upload (ie: in the same vein as the article infobox templates). It’s purpose isn’t to mark things as “to keep” but to show the purpose of an image in a clear manner. The only place I’d really say it’s required is when images are no longer in use, or images uploaded for the forums. Like with other other guideline articles, we can move the image guidelines to a separate, dedicated, article, and describe how to use the template. Alternatively, we can add a “Images” subheading to the guideline articles, describing a case-by-case use of the template.
 
 
Really, though, I don’t think it’s that important if the template is on the monster, artifact, equipment, and quests. Those are half obvious. The message is pretty redundant and unnecessary on those anyway, I only added those parameters for consistency with the types of images uploaded. Ie: I would only suggest putting them on guild/god/hero images.
 
 
What I could also do is split up the template into “guild-file” “god-file” and “hero-file” templates making the usage much easier (like we do with the already split guild, usergod, hero, and the other templates.)
 
 
The “File usage” at the bottom, especially if the files aren’t used, gives *no* information (and neither does the description in most cases). Anything the template says would be information that section cannot provide. Not to mention, this information wouldn’t disappear as soon as the file goes into disuse.
 
 
Though, I don’t see how the usage of this template really affects our spring cleaning. Like I did with stubs, if we ultimately decide to use the template (if even in a subset of files), we can remove the category references if we add said template.
 
 
— [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 15:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
: As a side note, I've started categorizing the files. I started from most recently uploaded to the least recently uploaded. If you guys see new files on the wiki that haven't been categorized, do you mind categorizing them (that's why I started from most recent, I'll eventually clear through my 4,786 image backlog and then we only need to worry about new images)
 
 
: I'm putting notes on my edits where possible, you all might want to read them as they contain ideas/suggestions, potential copyright issues, etc.. Recent changes only shows up to 500 edits, so to see all of mine, you'll have to go to [[Special:Contributions/Emptysora|my contributions]]. They're all in the format "categorizing: {categories} [(notes)]". Similarly to hide my file edits on Recent changes, you have to select "File" from the namespace menu, and check "Invert Selection".
 
 
: As per usual, I uploaded the script I'm using to my website, so you can download it if you want. Details on how it works are on [[User:Emptysora|my user page]]. (all the way at the bottom)
 
 
: I'm planning on going through roughly 500 images a day (might only do 300 today because of how late it is right now), so I should be completely done in under two weeks.
 
 
: I quick overview of the script: Scrapes the list of files on the server using [[Special:ListFiles]], provides a semi-automatic way to edit images. It provides a sidebar with a bunch of buttons that can add/remove categories from the page, and another sidebar that views the "Read" page of the file (so you can see the image/description/file usages/etc.). It removes the copyright warning in the editor so the "Save changes" button is in-view (less scrolling). It removes the "delete|unused" template call automatically. and automatically sets the edit to "minor" and the summary to "categorizing: [categories]" (auto-updated). Every time you save the page (or click "Read" to exit the editor), the script moves on to the next image on the site, allowing you to sequentially batch edit the files. '''(EDIT)''' [https://gyazo.com/cf4a94d8a5bf6431851c6ad58b856256 Screenshot].
 
 
: -- [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 02:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:: Touching this thread just to let people know I haven’t forgotten about it. I '''will''' get to this. Kind of been busy lately, sorry. You can see my user page for a more up to date status of this project (and other projects I’m working on). — [[User:Emptysora|Emptysora]] ([[User talk:Emptysora|talk]]) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 
  
  

Latest revision as of 12:02, 10 March 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)

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)