Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Deathworks]

Hi!

(I can only accept the wisdom in the last responses to my post, so no further comment about that)

Actually, I am considering contributing to the wiki, maybe even looking into the tutorial thingie (no guarantees, as I don't know how much free time I will have), but I want to wait a little bit until the new version has fully stabilized (I am definitely going to upload some pregenned worlds, and I don't want to see them outdated every other week). Again, I can't promise anything, but I will see what I can do.

Also note that I am not really big in going into the raws and/or into the normal wiki (which is one of the reasons why I enjoy reading selected real life tidbits in the dwarfwiki), so I can only add information that is easily available.

Deathworks

[SirHoneyBadger]

I'll definitely try to come up with some (more) concrete suggestions, but-to me, anyway-the conversation seemed to be drifting into argument area, over whether or not things even needed to be improved. I absolutely feel they can be, but until a majority get on the same page about that, there's a high risk of the improvement process getting stalled.

I've seen it happen many, many times.

Also, going along with both statements above, I don't have all the answers. Not even close.
I just don't want to see anybody else be thrown by the Version problem, like I was. Beyond that, my biggest concern right now is developing an easy-to-follow modding guide, which I do plan to add to the Wiki, if nothing better comes along by the time I'm done. I'm hoping that will be pretty helpful and informative, eventually.

[Mason11987]

I'll definitely try to come up with some (more) concrete suggestions, but-to me, anyway-the conversation seemed to be drifting into argument area, over whether or not things even needed to be improved. I absolutely feel they can be, but until a majority get on the same page about that, there's a high risk of the improvement process getting stalled.

I've seen it happen many, many times.

All I'm saying is that there is a high risk of the improvement process getting stalled if people only talk about how the ideas in place aren't good enough, rather then producing good ideas.

I don't disagree with you that things can be improved.  I saw you said you'd come up with "some (more) concrete suggestions", so I read through this topic to see what I missed...

You said that the modding section had been "wiped out" - It hadn't.
You said there should be a link to the old wiki on the main page - There is.
You said "someone should have just pointed it to me" - Ctrl-F "archive" - Is this really that big a deal?  Most people go to game wikis looking for information on the current version of games, that is the audience we directly cater towards, if you want 40d info you have to... scroll down...
Finally, You had a nice almost mission statement like post about what the wiki should be, not how to get it there.  And apparently we're going to "learn from these events"?  Which events?

I am not trying to sound like an asshole here.  But you're getting VERY much into the "this can be great, it can be useful, it can be everything to everyone" area, but forgetting the "how" while also criticizing the people who actually gave it a shot and planned for change and attempted to set up something that would make everyone happy all the time.

Feel free to criticize, but either:
A) Be specific about things you think should be different and why
B) Do something yourself, or get a better plan made yourself.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Mason11987: I thought it had been wiped out. It was very unclear that it hadn't been, and not just to me. That was the point of my original post.
And there's a hard to find link on the main page. It was even harder to find before. It's since been improved, but that's because people have asked for it to be improved. Again, not just me. 

Someone should have just pointed it out, yes. Clearly. 

Out of context, what does "Ctrl-F Archive" mean? In other words, if noone tells you what it does--that that's how to find that information--then you aren't going to know. Again, that's the point.
Not that it's hard to do, provided you already know exactly what you need to, to make it work. It's really easy to speak Japanese, if you happen to be fluent in it. The point is that not everyone knows everything.

And clearly, from your response, there's atleast some opposition here to making things easier to find than they currently are.
Which just goes to prove the accuracy and necessity of my post. 

As far as being critical: only towards the choice to delete things on a large scale, before there was anything to take the place of that information, and then the absense of clear directions to finding the old information. The Wiki doesn't work by osmosis, or divine grace. If there aren't clear instructions, then it shouldn't be assumed that visitors will automatically decypher what they're supposed to be doing.

I'm entirely supportive of the efforts to both help, and to maintain the Wiki in the first place.

[Mason11987]

Mason11987: I thought it had been wiped out. It was very unclear that it hadn't been, and not just to me. That was the point of my original post.
And there's a hard to find link on the main page. It was even harder to find before. It's since been improved, but that's because people have asked for it to be improved. Again, not just me. 

Someone should have just pointed it out, yes. Clearly. 

Out of context, what does "Ctrl-F Archive" mean? In other words, if noone tells you what it does--that that's how to find that information--then you aren't going to know. Again, that's the point.
Not that it's hard to do, provided you already know exactly what you need to, to make it work. It's really easy to speak Japanese, if you happen to be fluent in it. The point is that not everyone knows everything.

And clearly, from your response, there's atleast some opposition here to making things easier to find than they currently are.
Which just goes to prove the accuracy and necessity of my post. 

As far as being critical: only towards the choice to delete things on a large scale, before there was anything to take the place of that information, and then the absense of clear directions to finding the old information. The Wiki doesn't work by osmosis, or divine grace. If there aren't clear instructions, then it shouldn't be assumed that visitors will automatically decypher what they're supposed to be doing.

I'm entirely supportive of the efforts to both help, and to maintain the Wiki in the first place.

In your browser, Ctrl-F does a "find" on the page, so you can find the archive link if you can't look around the page.  It was a half-joke.

"And clearly, from your response, there's atleast some opposition here to making things easier to find than they currently are.
Which just goes to prove the accuracy and necessity of my post.  "

There isn't any opposition to making things easier.  There is opposition to saying "you got rid of things" or "there isn't any way to find it" which are the kind of things you're saying.

The way I think we'd wish people would go is say "where is this?" not "you got rid of everything".  We obviously think it's easy to find or we would have done something different.  If you point out it isn't easy to find, or that you can't find it without so much criticism then we can work to fix it.  The fact that you think we're against improving it is why you're getting this response from me. 

We ARENT against it, and we try very hard to improve it, but when we are attacked by people who don't even attempt the minimal effort (you didn't even look on the main page when you were TOLD it was there) and then those people tell US we don't care?  It's a little frustrating.

The old information wasn't particularly easy to find for maybe a week?  It's pretty easy to find now with minimal effort.  Or if you disagree then tell us how to fix it.  It's hard to meet your requirements for "ease of use" when you don't say what would meet that requirement.

The wiki isn't going to be exactly the same with regard to 40d as it was previously because a new release came out.  It's never going to again be EXACTLY the same.  If that's what you're looking for then I guess we won't meet your requiremetns.  But if you want something less then everything for nothing then please offer specific suggestions.

You missed the entire point of my last post.  You said you'd offer more concrete suggestions.  You haven't offered one.

[SirHoneyBadger]

This isn't an attack. It's a criticism that you're treating as an attack, which goes some way towards justifying my claim of opposition.

And yes, I did look at the main page, repeatedly.

Once again from the top: I couldn't find what I was looking for. How many times do I have to repeat that? How many times do other people? It was confusing. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

As far as suggestions go, I've made several already in this thread, but how about giving some kind of timeframe as to when the empty articles are going to be filled? Is there any kind of ETA on that? It makes sense to me that, if you've already gone ahead and made this level of change to the Wiki, that you ought to have some kind of idea of when those changes will be more fully realized.

So how about some kind of progress report? That should make it more obvious that the Wiki is going through a period of major change to any casual visitor, and it would also help potential Wiki editors find what the current focus is on, and what needs more attention.

For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.

Also, how about putting the "green box" on the main Wiki page? As an example, if nothing else, since it's referenced. That would go a long way towards reducing confusion, I would think.

[Footkerchief]

For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.

Bottom of each page.

[Tarran]

For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.

Bottom of each page.

Argh. Why, why every time there's something I want to answer I get beaten to it?

[SirHoneyBadger]

For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.

Bottom of each page.

You're right. I must have missed that. In that case (in the interest of it being more useful), could it please be moved to a more prominent location?

It's pretty easy to miss, since I was looking specifically for it, especially on the empty pages that have a lot of blank space between the "Category" line and the physical bottom of the page.

And as far as that goes, it would be nice if the blue "Category" line were the bottom of the page. That would remove this exact type of confusion.

[Tarran]

You do know that that's hard codded into the wiki right? I highly doubt that that will ever be moved, unless it is really easy to remove it from the bottom (which is definitely hard codded) and move it up into a box at the top (or bottom) of the page, Which would also take some time to work out. I mean, it's already there, why move it when it's already so easy to see?

[Locriani]

For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.

Bottom of each page.

You're right. I must have missed that. In that case (in the interest of it being more useful), could it please be moved to a more prominent location?

It's pretty easy to miss, since I was looking specifically for it, especially on the empty pages that have a lot of blank space between the "Category" line and the physical bottom of the page.

And as far as that goes, it would be nice if the blue "Category" line were the bottom of the page. That would remove this exact type of confusion.

It's hard coded into that position on the page.  Unfortunately, many of the issues you've raised are due to a significant number of shortcomings with the mediawiki software that are impractical to address.

We are trying to address them though (more details on this later).

[SirHoneyBadger]

But it doesn't seem to actually be *at* the bottom, which is why I missed the date. It's almost an entire (blank) page down from the Category line.

Tarran, are you saying that the Category line should be at the bottom?
Or do you mean the date is hardcoded?

When I look at the "other Wiki", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia, the Category line does seem to always be on the bottom of the articles, but apparently not on the DF Wiki, for some reason.

Which leads me to think that it can't be hardcoded, or elsewise, the DF Wiki uses a different code than the "other Wiki". 

It might also be a minimum character issue, though. That's possible.


If instead you mean the date, maybe current in-game information could just require whoever edits it in, to list the date they added it, manually? I feel that would be extremely helpful, and also might help separate "real data" from the hearsay and the fluff.

[Tarran]

You must be using a different style, Since it's also at the bottom of the page on regular Wikipedia.

I'm saying if someone wants to look at the last time it was modified, they should be able to scroll down. Otherwise, they likely don't really care when it was last modified.

[SirHoneyBadger]

They care if it means a player is using outdated information that will cause them to lose their Fortress. Or if it costs an editor several hours of free time, searching for information in the wrong place.

The game gets updated, if not daily, then atleast weekly, with a new download often occurring semi-monthly.

Knowing when an article was last touched is beneficial not only to players, but Wiki editors.

I'm ok with the date being somewhere on the page. So that problem's fixed, as far as I'm concerned.

It's still a case of the information not being very clear to newcomers, though, which is one of the main points I'm trying to get across, here.

And I'll grant that I might be using a different style, but it seems strange to me that it would display one way on the DF Wiki, and another way on the "other Wiki". 

[Tarran]

They care if it means a player is using outdated information that will cause them to lose their Fortress. Or if it costs an editor several hours of free time, searching for information in the wrong place.

When a major version comes out, all of that is taken care of. As seen when 31 came out.

The game gets updated, if not daily, then atleast weekly, with a new download often occurring semi-monthly.

Most of the information that needs to be changed is changed. Are you helping? Because if you care so much about outdated information why don't you help?

Knowing when an article was last touched is beneficial not only to players, but Wiki editors.

Uhh, no, just new players. Because we have the history tab, and we also read the page for mistakes. And editors would also know where the 'last modified' date is.

It's still a case of the information not being very clear to newcomers, though, which is one of the main points I'm trying to get across, here.

Then make suggestions that are actually vital to newcomers. Seeing when the page was last edited is already there, seeing what the information is for what version is already there. I have yet to see a good suggestion that wasn't already there.

And I'll grant that I might be using a different style, but it seems strange to me that it would display one way on the DF Wiki, and another way on the "other Wiki". 

Different wiki's have different settings, and different users. why else would you need to sign up twice to have a profile at both wikis?