Template talk:Featured

From GodWiki
Revision as of 22:30, 4 August 2021 by WardPhoenix (talk | contribs) (→‎Removing link from featured article: fixing template)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Featured page.

  • 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
Nominations have been moved to {{Featured/Nominations}}

History of Featured Articles

Before September 2017 no changes were made to the Featured Article for several years. I've compiled the history since 2017 of the Featured Articles to:

  • Recognise gods for making good (chosen) nominations;
  • Recognise editors for keeping the featured article fresh(ish);
  • Keep an easy reference of what articles have already been featured in case of duplicate nominations; and
  • Give insights into what kinds of articles are being featured, to inform good choices by editors and nominators about what isn't getting attention.

When removing a newly featured article from the nominations list, please add the change to the table. Be sure to use {{god|extended=yes|Godname}} to give easy access to talk pages. The YYYY-MM-DD date format means that table sorting works for chronological order. -- Djonni (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The featured system was overhauled in August 2020 by an automated system which makes the featured page rotate between 52 (or 53 articles). The expandable table below is kept as a memento of deities keeping the featured article fresh up to there. --WardPhoenix (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Article Type Nomination by Edit by
2020- 07 -01 Last Resort Town GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T)  GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 
2020- 06 -01 Heroes Gameplay GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T)  GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 
2020- 05 -02 Godville Administrator Monster GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T)  GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 
2020- 04 -01 Bottle of demonade Artifact GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T)  GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 
2020- 03 -01 Bear arms Equipment GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T)  GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 
2020- 02 -01 Beasties Gameplay GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T)  GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 
2020- 01 -02 Godbuster Monster GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T)  GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 
2019- 12 -01 Deliver some sour gnomish beer to the dark elves Quest GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T)  GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 
2019- 11 -01 Zombie survival kit Artifact GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 10 -01 Progress Bar Tavern GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 09 -01 Fool's goldfish Artifact GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 08 -01 Beer-battered beer Artifact GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 07 -02 128-bit encryption Equipment GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 06 -01 Ancient Demon Monster GodSome atheist (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 05 -01 Cash Cow Monster GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 04 -02 Sarcastic Samurai Monster GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 03 -04 Hellaphant Monster GodHoly Spirit of Hell (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 02 -12 Silent Lamb Monster GodWaaurufu (U • C • T) 

GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 

2019- 01 -05 Yorkshire Mammoth Monster GodVeryoldman (U • C • T) 

GodHoly Spirit of Hell (U • C • T) 

2018-12-02 Waking Nightmare Monster GodElectroChip (U • C • T)  GodDjonni (U • C • T) 
2018-11-02 Nine Inch Snail Monster GodRussleJimJams (U • C • T)  GodDjonni (U • C • T) 
2018-09-01 Temple Completion Time Estimation Backstage GodBalance keeper (U • C • T)  GodHoly Spirit of Hell (U • C • T) 
2018-08-02 Map of Godville Gameplay GodDjonni (U • C • T)  GodDjonni (U • C • T) 
2018-07-02 Rootbear Monster GodDjonni (U • C • T)  GodDjonni (U • C • T) 
2018-06-08 Somersault through the navel Skill GodHaemoglobin (U • C • T)  GodDjonni (U • C • T) 
2018-01-23 Voice of God Gameplay GodDbulm2 (U • C • T)  GodHoly Spirit of Hell (U • C • T) 
2017-11-23 Dreaded Gazebo Monster GodDerelict Red (U • C • T)  GodHoly Spirit of Hell (U • C • T) 
2017-10-19 New Times Roman Monster GodFound Alt-self (U • C • T)  GodHoly Spirit of Hell (U • C • T) 
2017-09-06 Sacrificial lamp Artifact GodElectroChip (U • C • T)  GodHoly Spirit of Hell (U • C • T) 

Move History & Nominations?

This is the talk page for {{Featured}}. I don’t really feel that history and nominations should be on the talk page. Proof of this is that this talk discussion topic feels out of place on the talk page. Perhaps we could move History to Template:Featured/History, and Nominations to Template:Featured/Nominations.

Either that, or we could do similar to Wiktionary’s Word of the Day: Create GodWiki:Featured (preferably GodWiki:FeaturedArticle since it’s more descriptive) to explain what Featured is, and create /History and /Nominations. This would be ideal since this kind of thing should probably be in the project namespace anyway, and so normal users don’t have to go anywhere near the template. This page should only contain topics pertaining to the template itself, not past iterations of it, or requests for featured. I’ll gladly make the necessary edits if we're in agreement. I should have time tomorrow for them.

We really don’t use the project namespace as much as we probably should... — Emptysora (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, I think we should also have a list of preselected backup topics ready for if we don’t have an article for a particular day, like WOTD has. — Emptysora (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, IMO, it doesn't feel much out of the place since the nominations are technically a comment asking to change something in the template, and the history need to be on the same page to the nominations (to avoid dupes). But well, that's just my point of view, I guess another page could work instead of talk, but then the talk page would become unused.
And to be perfectly honest, I don't think many care about that template. Besides mines, there was only ONE nominations for the template this year. I tried to award interesting articles by putting them there every month though (monthly is better than daily or maybe even hebdo - more time for more people to see it). --WardPhoenix (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I also feel like we don’t need to split Nominations and History, but, I still do think we shouldn’t have them on the talk page.
This is mainly because actual discussions like these look REALLY out of place here with how it is currently. The talk page here ideally should only be about improving the template itself and changing the “featured” system itself. This discussion would be an example of the latter. Doing this also removes clutter from the nominations page.
I’m more against History being on the talk page rather than nominations. I feel that nominations are more of a discussion about our project of featuring articles rather than a discussion about the template itself, hence this topic. — Emptysora (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Also in my opinion, any time we can keep regular users and editors as far away from templates as possible, the better. I hope what I said makes some semblance of sense.

Also, thanks for your work on this template/project, WardPhoenix. I really do like the featured article project, so it’s nice to see it updated. Monthly is more than fine, and would be much easier to manage. :) — Emptysora (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing link from featured article

Perhaps the link to nominate an article should be removed from the featured article section of the main godwiki page, since it appears that nominating an article no longer is an option. --His portliness (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh it's definitely still an option! There's just nothing there in the nominations list right now. Perhaps I should update the link to immediately open an edit window into the correct place, with the instructions right there to be read.
WardPhoenix built a system to make sure that the featured article rotates regularly without a human having to remember to manually change it every now and then, so a nominated article can be put into that rotation. 😊 -- Djonni (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
As Djonni said, nominations are still opens and you are more welcome to become the first one (myself excluded) to make a nomination since July 2019 (maybe it will become part of the rotation who knows?). It is very easy to place a nominated article despite the introduction of the rotation.
On a side note, His portliness's comments made me remember and give more credits to Emptysora comments about how maybe the nomination form is maybe not separated clearly enough from the talk page, and not clear enough by itself at all, maybe leading to deities not do a nomination?
Maybe we could indeed consider a {{Featured/Nominations}} (with or without history)? --WardPhoenix (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the history on this page and lack of nominations lead me to believe it was defunct. A new clean page with an easy to use nomination function would probably be a good idea. --His portliness (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So let's say we do a page to separate nomination on its own (namely {{Featured/Nominations}} ). Do you guys think the current format on the top of this page is enough or should it be updated ? -- WardPhoenix (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If there is a way to create an input box that people can simply type their nomination in, without any need for wiki editing knowledge, that would probably encourage more active interest. I think that for many, the need to research how to type in bold or how to mark their name is enough of a deterrent to keep them from editing articles. If only we had the visual editing that Wikipedia has...
--His portliness (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Sadly there's no way to do that kind of thing here, and... well, I'll be honest. I feel like someone who wants to get involved with stuff like nominating articles, participating in talk pages, etc, pretty much needs to get to grips with the basics of wikicode and the fundamentals of wiki structure. Learning isn't bad. My impulse is to make choices focussed on helping people become more comfortable in and familiar with wiki settings, rather than focussed on making it so they don't need to become familiar with it.
But that's a gut reaction, and I've been lurking around this wiki long enough now to count as "old guard", and I should rightly have my thinking challenged and poked at whenever necessary. 😋 I'm totally okay with any solution that WardPhoenix wants to implement, including a nomination subpage (I actually think that's a pretty elegant solution that would definitely help make it easy for inexperienced users to make their nominations). I think we can do without the history now — it was my idea to have the history in the first place to try and promote a wider variety of pages and nominees, and it didn't work, it just became a burden. -- Djonni (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that anything which pulls more users in is worth it. If we get visual editing than it anyway wouldn't make a difference, but we probably aren't getting visual editing anytime soon. But either way, anything which gets prone involved is good because if they get invested there us a better chance that they'll suck around when the learning curve hits them. Otherwise purple get frustrated and ditch because they don't see the point or they haven't been involved enough to make it with their time.
I had another idea for getting people to write more. If we can set up a way for people to submit word documents or emails with articles I think that more people would write. This gets rid of the wiki know how that they would otherwise need. I would volunteer to edit and insert these articles in their proper places and do all the linking and uploading, and I'm sure others would do the work as well. We can create an email account for this. People would also be able to simply copy paste an existing article and edit it and we can insert their additions. This would only be worth the time if they are submitting full additions or complete articles, not little grammar corrections.
It seems that adding visual editing is a simple install, perhaps we can petition the devs to do it. Here is a link to the info.
Looking forward to hearing some feedback :)
--His portliness (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Firstly: I haven't looked into adding visual editing, as I just assumed that it would require a significant upgrade of the mediawiki installation, but if it's quite straightforward, I encourage you to submit it to the Devs as an Awesome Idea. Include all the links they need to do it as easily as possible, with as little extra research required, and reasoning for why you think it will be an improvement. (Be aware that their reaction is likely to be "We've never needed it before, why now?", so you may like to address that directly. 😊)

Next, I'm gonna offer two reasons why I think the document suggestion may not work well as suggested.

  1. I am very skeptical of any suggestion which requires anything outside of the wiki, or the Godville system. In other words, an email address. Email addresses in particular require passwords, and passwords imply ownership, and that's a problem to me. It's also not 100% transparent the way the wiki is, and that transparency is profoundly important. It's why I always prefer talk pages over private messages for all wiki business. Nobody makes private decisions, nobody makes private agreements, and nobody claims to own anything. It's all a common resource, and having any resources off-site, not visible to casual visitors, and behind passwords, well, that would really bother me.
  2. There is, in all initiatives like this, always a problem of momentum. No initiative, however good or well intentioned, will last if it relies on too few people, or relies on the same small group of people being constantly responsive for a long time — WardPhoenix and I have both learnt this lesson, and been burnt by it. This reflects back on the ownership/password issue above, but is more than that: if there's an email address, and everyone who accesses it becomes busy, or uninterested, or inactive, or disappears, or just dies, then what? Do people continue sending things into the void? Who makes and keeps commitments about how long it takes, if we're all busy? Or if someone takes a document, deletes the email, days they're working on it, and just... doesn't?

These objections aren't insurmountable, and I'm all for ideas which promote engagement and content, so I think the idea can be workshopped a bit. 😊 I would be much, much more supportive of it if it used only respected and systems already available to us, didn't require us to create or invent new things, or step outside of the Godville garden. For example: we don't need an email address, we have Help: Requests, the forums, and private messages! Nobody actually emails documents these days except for grandparents and weird uncles. Why not make a section of Help: Requests for document-to-article adaptation requests? Post a link to your document in any format that can be accessed by anyone. Anyone can see it, anyone can action it, anyone can see what's being done or ignored, and following up is trivial — there's talk pages, forums, PMs, etc. I'd be pretty happy to make a change like that to Help: Requests, add a note to the Main Page "Did You Know?", and announce it on the forums, if we all thought that would work well. -- Djonni (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

In regards to adding the extension, I would bring it up with the devs, but I can't do too much explaining, I have almost no grasp of the programming necessary to explain it or understand it. It is supposed to be pretty straightforward, feel free to check out the link above.
Now, to address your points.
  1. I agree with the issue of having something outside the wiki. I don't have an immediate better solution, because anything requiring people to link another article is already asking for wikitext knowledge. Putting the wrong case or space and it won't link. It was sooo frustrating for me when I first started here. Again, an input form would be great, but that requires another extension to be installed. The issue of making something private is indeed something I thought about, but I still think the idea is the first step to something good, it needs reworking. Maybe a page with absurdly clear instructions on posting the article text as a new topic would be good.
  2. Momentum is an issue, but my idea aims to get people involved enough to take the leap to join the other side of this wiki - learning to edit and create, which in turn gives us more help and participants. Which goes back to the other point of visual editing. I'd be delighted if you or WardPhoenix took up the cause. I think it would really change things around here, but as I said before I don't think I can make a case for it to the devs right now because I honestly don't understand this stuff... yet.
  3. My own point, making a section of a page for something is still a bit confusing. On you talk page there is a thing you click that opens up a new section automatically, which I think would be great if it was inserted on a new page for Submit an article. Then, anyone can rework the article and archive the submission on Submit an article when done.
--His portliness (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick partial replay to clarify this: anything requiring people to link another article is already asking for wikitext knowledge. I'm not saying people link to an article, I'm saying people dump a link to their document. Like, they go and put this into the designated place:
Hi, I have written an article for Generic Monster, can someone please put it there for me and fix it up? https://www.dropbox.com/link/to/document
Nobody has to know or do anything more complicated than to click on "Edit" and "Save changes". Does it make more sense what I meant now? -- Djonni (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Lol my bad, that should of been clear to me. So should we create a page with instructions and promote it? How do we find out if we have people on board for a project like this? --His portliness (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This talk is getting a little out of subject, we are supposed to talk about featured here 😅.

I'll probably try to put up a nominations page ({{Featured/Nominations}} i guess) in the weekend, but if you guys already have a clear idea on how to create it, just go ahead.

As for the rest of discussion : Disclaimer, rest of comment might be a little harsh toned. Blame it on my english skills.

IMO, I don't think having an extension to have a visual editing would change a single thing. I don't say that wikitext is easy, but frankly it's not that difficult and most of basic formatting is covered by the Creators Manual.

People are just not bold and brave enough to try, learn, and try again until it works the way they wanted (which is a basic programming process). They don't even search why it doesn't work instantly and give up after 1 try while both documentations and help pages exist. They would like to have things done by someone else and not learn anything at all ("learning? for what?"). It might be harsh and rude, but people need to remember they have to help themselves a little if they want things to be done, wiki included.

But I can get behind the idea of having someone sharring a link to a text and asking for help to translate it to wikitext. But again, volunteers are here to help, not to do the whole work for someone else. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination have been moved at {{Featured/Nominations}}. Feel free to check it correct it and update it! --WardPhoenix (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Warning by nomination

As per Djonni's discussion over at Template talk:Warning what will happen to the warning on this page about guild and user pages not being eligible? Will it look odd with the whole nice message around it? Perhaps using the {{subst:Template}} command we can avoid this page getting the update? --His portliness (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Good catch! I fixed a bunch of non-warning warnings around the wiki yesterday but missed this one. I've switched it for {{sign}} now, but... I mean, there are so few nominations, I'd consider removing the sign and seeing if it's actually a problem? I doubt we'll have enough such nominations to be any kind of problem...? 🤔 -- Djonni (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Some alignment fixes

Hi! I was bothered by the wonky alignment between the Featured Article section and the Introduction to the Godwiki section for the past few days. (Please see screenshot for illustration of problem.) This is a problem that can only be seen on desktop since the layout shows both sections side by side there instead of the vertical stack layout on mobile. I've been trying to figure it out and making notes on my userpage and finally I have the solution. Basically, the code for the Featured Article section was missing an extra blank line at the start which was present on the Introduction to the Godwiki section. Also, FA uses the wikicode for section header which comes with its own default CSS values. (See here for default CSS values of wiki headers.) I have to remove the margin from the header so there's not much white space above. So instead of ==Title==, it will now say <h2 style = margin: 0;>Title</h2>. I know the FA uses a template and I will happily edit everything in the template to match it with this recent edit if everyone is okay with this. Please let me know if it's a go or a no. -- Zoombie (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I vote go. It does fix the issue, and if you'll make it work across the board then why not. --His portliness (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess I'm still uncomfortable with making changes in templates on my own as they affect a lot of things. Anyway, I'll implement this edit so consider this a note that I'm leaving in case I mess up and someone needs to clean up after me. -- Zoombie (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)