Wiki administraton[]
Hi,
Thanks for deleting spam pages. I saw you also removed some {{Delete}} tags. Although I may understand for some of them (such as redirects from misspelled pages), there are others I can't see why:
- List of Artifact Scrolls: "Artifact" was a speculative name of a scroll type. Now that the type is visible on scrolls, it turns out that all "artifact" scrolls were actually structure scrolls.
- Template:Infobox/Row and Template:Infobox/Row/doc: I am the person who moved Template:Infobox row to Template:Infobox/Row and I'm the only contributor of the doc page. A few days later, I realized they would be better named Template:Infobox/row and Template:Infobox/row/doc for consistency with other sub-templates names, so I moved the pages. Moreover, no one else used Template:Infobox/Row so I don't know why not deleting them.
- Template:Infobox common and Template:Infobox row: Is it really useful to keep these template redirects?
By the way, there are a few other things that need to be performed:
- The main page is no more accurate. Would you consider syncing it with the edit copy page? I've created a message box with a direct link for comparing the 2 pages. (Of course, the
{{Edit copy}}tag is not to be copied into the main page.) - Some high-use templates may be semi-protected because they are the target of vandalism since a few days. I'm particularly thinking of Template:Scroll page, Template:Scroll infobox, Template:Scroll table and Template:Scroll table/row...
- I added
{{Delete}}tags on other spam talk pages that I had previously blanked so you can see which ones have to be filtered and deleted (BTW, I replied to your message on my talk page). - Subcategories of Category:Candidates for deletion are also to be deleted. Some are categories I created by error, some are inaccurate categories (such as Category:Artifact Scrolls, Category:Siege Scrolls, Category:Wall Scrolls and Category:Unit Scrolls since scrolls pages should rather be added to the corresponding Category:Structure scrolls or Category:Creature scrolls), and some have been "renamed" to comply with capitalization conventions.
-- fomtg 11:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to have just arbitrarily determined these "conventions" without a word to anyone. Considering I set up the structure of this wiki, it would have been better etiquette for you to present your ideas for discussion rather than simply making the decisions. Whatever your "conventions" may be, they may not be what is actually appropriate. Don't get me wrong. Your efforts are appreciated, but, this is not a "one man show". I am pretty adamantly against templates such as
{{Scroll page}}. Also, given there is no documentation accompanying it, it's virtually impossible for anyone but you to use. I would much rather you set up just the infobox and provide an example page structure as part of a style guide. Page templates are too inflexible, and generally make editing more difficult for novice users. Also, the entire template/doc set up is not one I generally foster, there are easier ways to do it. --Wynthyst 11:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding conventions, I actually wrote Scrolls Wiki:Naming conventions, I wrote about its need to be a consensus in its talk page and I added a link to it in the Requests for comments section of Scrolls Wiki:Community portal. I don't know how I could do more... But since I'm the only contributor really active at the moment, it's quite hard to reach a consensus...
- Regarding Template:Scroll page, I do understand your arguments. I'm not saying I have the best solution, but the only feedback I'd got so far (before your message) was a positive one, by EMIBH, so it didn't encourage me to take a new look at it. When 128.84.125.187 criticized Template:Scroll data, we talked about it and we reached a consensus where we implemented his/her better solution. In the case of Template:Scroll page, you're right, it would be better to use it as a page structure to be substituted or preloaded rather than transclude the whole pages. I'll work on it.
- By the way, I was (and I'm still) planning to add more documentation and help pages. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to do it at the moment.
- Finally, regarding template documentation subpages, I'm curious to know what are your easier solutions. This structure is widely used in wikis, and I don't see any major downsides compared to advantages it brings.
- -- fomtg 13:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- The easiest way to document a template is simply add a usage section on the page rather than create a second page, that then needs to be transcluded.... it becomes overly complicated for novice wiki editors, and is too easy to say... I'll do it later. I or anyone should be able to go to any template page and have a copy/paste version of the code readily available with some basic instructions as to the possible options for each variable. I'm sorry if I seem crabby, it's just I have to look out for the ease of use of everything on this wiki while it's in this developmental stage. While some things may seem best to you, a more advanced user, well versed in wiki coding, for a rank beginner (of whom we will eventually have ALOT) it needs to be ABC simple to encourage them to participate rather than phD intimidating. I also just don't like surprises. And while I have been checking in here, I frequently don't have time to do more than check RC for obvious spam activity, so I was a bit taken aback to see so much of the structure I initiated had been reworked. (I don't react at my best to surprises, but this time I seriously have no one to blame but myself) The way the scroll page template is currently set up, even I would not be able to easily add a new page since I have zero understanding of what variables to use, or what exactly does what, so that seriously needs to be simplified or very thoroughly documented. --Wynthyst 07:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)