Discuss CryGaiaWiki talk:Contributor Portal

From CryGaia Wiki
CryGaiaWiki talk:Contributor Portal / (Redirected from CryGaiaWiki talk:Contributor Portal)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives

Important Notices

  • Use the {{Delete}} template to delete pages.

Important Editor Links

Discussions

Anything You Need From Game Assets?

As part of my music etc projects I'm often poking around in the game files, if there's any images/data you need let me know. --Skolia (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Abilities

I've started working on Blade abilities. I also added the in-game weapon icons, you can access them quickly with the Weapon template

{{weapon|assault}}

etc. The images are from the game resources, I added a black outline.

I'm playing with a table format for abilities (trying it on Blade). Part of my reasoning is the old filtering box on the ability pages is gone and it might be nice to have sorted tables. Maybe I'll add columns with some Yes/No's for generates hate, etc.

--Skolia (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:SWLAbilitypage - It calls for both Ability box and Ability listing on the same page. That way, everything is on the same page and we don't need to keep multiple pages updated for the same ability, but it also allows for ability transclusion onto other pages. I would love to figure out how to get the listing information and the box information into the same template, but I just haven't had the time to figure it out yet. Right now Demolish is the example I'm working on for an ability page, and Hammer is a page that uses the Transclusion section Sojourner (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

New Templates

Discussion of new templates being worked on. Links to templates in progress are listed below. To keep from cluttering this page, discussions about specific templates should probably be on their talk pages, and use this section for over-all look and design.

Right before the crygaia.com site shut down and User:Hsekiu resurrected it as crygaia.org - we had created a Report template that used the same black and grey formatting as the Template:Journal. Unfortunately, we weren't able to recover that template from the original site. It was a bitch to get it to look just right, so I haven't tried to recreate it yet. But, now that we're having to deal with TSW and SWL, this might be the time to do it. After the report template was done, a black/grey mission box template was going to be next. Never got done, but again this might be the time to do it.
I'd like to see the Black/Grey style of the report box redone and then the reward box folded into it. The idea would be to have a box that looks something similar to the in-game report box with faction handler text + reward information (With the difference being that all three faction texts would be displayed in the same box). Sojourner (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do with that format, I'm new to wiki template programming but not programming in general.
It's too bad it looks like you can't do template nesting very well - it would be nice to fully abstract the image files.
So the goal is to have stuff be done in the style of the game's UI? Just to be clear. :)
--Skolia (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on trying to merge the weapon / weapon_abilities pages, I have a start on Blade on it's sandbox page. Ideally the ability list would pull from a transcluded list and will as soon as figure out how. --Skolia (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Templates in Progress

This template uses direct game assets for any in-game tokens (currencies, keys, etc) with the pixel size set to work with text. It does duplicate some assets from the Cost template but does not have amount as a parameter.
Includes icons from game assets for the weapon icons at 96px.
Secret World and Secret World Legends Steam banners. Function will probably eventually just be absorbed by other templates.
Experimental template for icons for BUG: NOTE: TIP: etc, designed to be formatted with text. It would probably be better to actually make templates for bugs, tips and notes like the missionboxes, etc.
Inline templates for Secret World Legends UI elements, directly from game assets where possible.


Bug Report Page?

We should set up a page to centralize template bug reports. --Skolia (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User Roles

So, with all the spam attacks we've been dealing with, it might be a good idea to look at a few things. Here's one idea, which won't help directly, but it'll help divvy things up. I want to know what your thoughts on this are.

Right now, permissions are very specific. You have administrators with powers, and then editors with some powers, but not as much. Everyone else doesn't get that much. Obviously, certain permissions are risky in the hands of new users, which is why we don't just hand out Editor status to every single person.

I am thinking of overhauling the way permissions work. Basically, on other major sites, like Wikipedia, you still have your Administrators, Editors, etc. That doesn't go away. But in addition to that, they have "micro roles" so to speak. So they can give them out to people who deserve or need them, and they can do that job, without giving them other permissions you don't want or need to. So you might have someone who's a Patroller. They don't get autopatrol, but they can patrol other edits. There is a specific user group just for autopatrol, too. There's roles for things like Page Movers, File Movers, Template Editors, Rollbackers, and so on.

Do you think this is a good idea? Let me know. I also want to know if anyone is opposed to this, and of course, why. Since this a pretty significant change, I want to make sure we discuss it first, and if we decide it's a good idea, to figure out what our exact needs/wants are with it. This will tie in eventually with the manual too. We'll probably have to come up with policies for some of these.

Also, if you support this idea, please let me know what 'jobs' you would like to see created. Thanks! -- Hsekiu (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I like the concept, but do we have enough people working on the wiki to split the jobs up beyond contributor, editors and admins? Sojourner (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
As it is right now, probably not. However, thinking about it, it could still potentially increase our contributors, by a small amount. Think about it: Not everyone is good at the same things. Maybe someone isn't very good with the lore of the game, or writing an article, but they're good at making and fixing templates. They could then just edit templates with the user permission for it, without needing Rditor status which has a host of other responsibilities.
Likewise, maybe someone isn't really good at wikimarkup no matter how much they try, but still have a good attention to detail and are usually able to discern what is acceptable and whats not. They could become a patroller, freeing up more time for other editors, and it's a good way to keep watch on spam.
We could also have trusted designated spam management people. They would have access to most or all of our spam management tools, which would be useful because there's less waiting around for an admin to log in or see it.
Basically, it doesn't all have to be for editing. We could probably have a system where someone nominates themself if they are interested in a specific permission, and we can discuss it amongst ourselves. Or something else like that. There's always lots of maintenance related tasks like moving, this could theoretically alleviate some of the burden. We would probably start small, one or two permissions at a time, just to see how it works. But it's just an idea right now. - Hsekiu (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Useful Tools

Ready for archival, expand to see discussion

Sojourner what was that tool you mentioned for converting spreadsheets into wiki table code? --Skolia (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the page I used to use is offline, but this one looks like it is pretty close to it - http://tools.wmflabs.org/excel2wiki/

Adding Patch Notes?

Ready for archival, expand to see discussion

I tried to create an update page for 2.1.0 but it didn't show up in the updates panel properly so I think it needs to be created with a broilerplate or template.
I'm putting the information in my sandbox User:Skolia/sandbox/PatchNotes if anyone needs the information.
I edited Template:Updates to add 2.1.0, if this isn't the right way to do it, please let me know. I'll leave my sandbox PatchNotes up in case I didn't do it right and someone needs to nuke the 2.1.0 update page. --Skolia (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Editing the Template:Updates is the right way to add it to links at the bottom of the pages. To update it on the wiki main page, update News and the version section and the first half-dozen or so news articles onto the main page Sojourner (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Merged Pages vs Subpages

Ready for archival, expand to see discussion

Check out these two pages:

Is there any preference between single 'mission' template versus calling the three individually? Sojourner (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If we were to decide on the single Mission template, are you suggesting we use that on every mission page or just the ones that don't change much? It would be confusing if we have to switch between templates depending on the mission. Also, hadn't we decided a while ago that the walkthrough would come before the report? I might be remembering that wrong.
That being said, User:Hsekiu is pretty adamant that we use subpages for everything, regardless of how many things change. We should probably decide as a wiki what we're doing with that first. I'm not sure what I prefer. -- ListlessDreamer (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Walkthrough before report is the one downside to the unified Template:Mission. It was/is the preference when using individual templates, and all things being equal is what I still prefer as well. However, there isn't a way to do it using a master template calling the others. If the Mission template isn't saving us enough work to be worth sections being in the reverse order, then lets scrap it and we stick with how we have been doing it. I also like using single template rather than repeating the same value in 3 seperate templates (mission name as an example), but torn on whether or not it is worth re-ordering the sections. Template:Mission is simplistic enough that I threw it together to see if there was interest in it and not much effort lost if we scrap it.
Although, if sub-pages for TSW is the direction, then I would probably say scrap all the merged-page templates - while they are a lot more flexible, they are also a lot more complicated. It wont be worth the complexity if everything is seperate.
My personal opinion would be use merged pages if we want to keep TSW information, and delete TSW specific stuff if we don't. Keeping duplicates of everything (page + subpage) is going to be a pain in the ass with categories, searching, updating, etc
Sojourner (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Like ListlessDreamer said, I am pretty adamant on using subpages. I have been looking over the proposed templates and sandboxes provided as examples since it was first brought to my attention. I do see where people are coming from, however, I just do not feel it is very user friendly for readers, our primary audience. It adds clutter and most people are only searching for one set of information, and if they want the other, it is only a click away with subpages. This is something I deliberated on for months before SWL launched and it is not an easy decision because essentially any method used will have it's own pros and cons. I tried to see what other wiki's were doing, if applicable to our situation. I particularly looked at Wookieepedia, as they one of the largest and most frequently visited wiki's for a fandom. They themselves use subpages for a similar issue - there are two sets of information ever since LucasFilm made all the Expanded Universe stuff non-canon as "Legends" to make way for the sequel films. This is where I got the idea from, essentially. I liked it because it was much cleaner, particularly from a readers perspective, while still keeping all of the information. The drawbacks were clear right away though, that categorization will be annoying, in particular, like pointed.
That being said, it becomes a draw. I see the points to every side in this but we need to take everyone into account, not just editors. It is true that merged pages will be easier for editors, but it won't be for readers, the vast majority of our audience. And even if we used merged pages, categorization is still an issue. So it essentially ends up looking like this:
Merged Pages Subpages
+ Less annoying for editors - Annoying for editors
---- Confusing for readers ++++ Little to no fuss for readers
-- Categorization issues -- Categorization issues
Please keep in mind editors are the minority here, which itself is a vast understatement. Even with an increased userbase, editors will always remain a small minority in comparison to the vast majority of readers who will never even register an account. It is incredibly easy to forget this. This is an issue that effects not just wiki's, but virtually any other kind of software. This is why when a programmer develops software they need a UI/UX designer. It is a convoluted, clunky, mess otherwise. It's important to face the facts that what is slightly more convenient for us is actually a major inconvenience for our primary audience. Issues will still be present with the merged pages method, however using subpages instead instantly removes the most major one - the issue with our readers. The draw becomes clear, in my opinion at least, to pointing towards subpages. While it won't erase the other issues, they are generally the same or similar to the issues with merged pages. Also let's keep in mind my example above, Wookieepedia - I'm sure they did not come to this decision lightly either, but they still chose to make it and it seems to be working with them, although I'm sure they deal with similar issues behind the scenes as editors.
I definitely agree that no matter what we do, categorization is frustrating and is something we all need to take a deeper look at and figure out what we want to do with it. It is an issue we are going to have to address sooner or later, regardless of the method we go with. I am not sure even where to begin on the issue of categorization - perhaps we can start with compiling a list of sorts of what our current problems or grievances are, or write done some things we would like to achieve with categories. It would probably be a good idea to create a discussion page just for this issue in specific, as it will effect nearly everything on the wiki.
Anyway, I hope I'm making sense. That is essentially why I made the decision to use subpages, and why I continue to be adamant on it. I understand your frustrations with it, and I experience them too. However, it is not just about me, you, or other editors - we always need to take the readers into account first and foremost. -- Hsekiu (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


You're making sense and I'm fine with the subpages, I was thinking more in an engineering context on what is essentially going to nearly double the size of the wiki. Clarity wise and for future alterations of missions (which may happen if Funcom 'remasters' older content) the split is probably the way to go. (I really should've e-mailed you about it. I did a test page and things just kinda ran from there. I do apologize. --Skolia (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Categorization Ideas

Ready for archival, expand to see discussion

Some ideas on categorization with the disclaimer that I'm fairly new to mediawiki and these are just ideas so if it's not feasible or stupid I won't be offended.

That said here we go:

Something like "Category: Secret World Exclusive" and "Category: Secret World Legends Exclusive" as appropriate for content that is only in one game.

Does mediawiki support categorization like "Category: User Guide (Secret World)"? or even "Category: User Guide/tsw" ? (For reader clarity I actually prefer not to use abbreviations, at least for the first use in a page.)

Can categories have nesting? Like "Category: User Interface/HUD" etc? If so that might be a way to help with the overall organization. --Skolia (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You can kind of nest them, but its fairly manual unless a template does it. For missions, this is what I've done with the mission box template
This means you can see all Category:TSW missions or all Category:SWL missions. And then for Category:Missions, <region> missions, <zone> missions, or <faction> missions - each mission will only be listed once even if there are subpages for tsw. The category link will get created for the main page (typically SWL) and then from there users can click the link to the TSW version if there is one. We can probably do something similar for other pages like monsters, abilities, etc Sojourner (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

SWL content / TSW Content Templates

Ready for archival, expand to see discussion

Inline template for content that's only in The Secret World.
Inline template for content that's only in Secret World Legends.

Proposals:

It would probably be best to merge the Swlbox, Tswbox, Tswexclusive and Swlexclusive into a single template with some parameters. Although mediawiki template language doesn't seem to be very sophisticated. But maybe something like:

{{Contentbox
|swlpage=yes
|tswpage=no
|swlcontent=yes
|tswcontent=yes
|}
That should be doable with something like this - Template:Contentbox Sojourner (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
These templates are no longer needed, as per the Mainpage / Subpage discussion

Merged Template Discussion

Ready for archival, expand to see discussion

Speaking as a software engineer even with split subpages (/tsw) I think having single template capable of handling content for either version of the game is the best way to go. (An exception might be if the presentation needed to be radically different.)

Templates for rewards/faction reports/etc could be set to only show a particular game's rewards/content but it would be calling the same template. (Perhaps a show-as=tsw or show-as=swl could tell it which game's rewards to display, for example.)

(Having said all that, if the template language in mediawiki can't handle that type of branching then splitting the templates makes more sense.) --Skolia (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I've created merged versions of the Template:Missionbox, Template:Journal, and Template:Report. There is a new parameter in them "content=". For now it defaults to "content=tsw" and you can set it to "content=swl" for SWL specific stuff. We should be able to use those templates for all mission pages, regardless of TSW or SWL and just set that content flag to the appropriate value Sojourner (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Idea for Story Arc Navigiation

I've been thinking about having a navigation tool (perhaps part of the missionbox template) for story arcs within the game. I've prepared a quick and dirty mockup:

Mockup