FANDOM

An anonymous contributor
  Loading editor
  • Again, don't make large changes without discussing it with other users, especially admins. They have more experience with their wiki than you.

    Categories you've created are simply excessive and unnecessary. They do nothing except over-complicate things. It doesn't look like you're here to improve the wiki anymore; it's more as if you want the wiki's structure to be the way you want and nothing else. All you're doing here is create a mess for us to clean up.

    Each wiki runs in a different way for its own good. Just because one wiki runs in a way, does not mean it's the best and that other wikis should use it.

    - Deiaa (Wall)

      Loading editor
    • View all 9 replies
    • (I'm running out of time here, so this is the last message I'll post for today. I also won't place quotes, but will sort each reply per paragraph)

      Interface has some potential, but not much if I may say so. Still, it may have a bigger use in he future (though very unlikely). Menu is just a stretch (and a bit of over-complication) and, as you said, can be gotten rid of in favor of interface. About creating a page for "Interface", the category has some potential, the page however, doesn't, and I personally do not support making a page for it.

      Ah, I see. The recent activity is just clogged up and it's hard to keep track of all changes at the moment.

      Remember I never pointed at these categories badly.

      I can't help but agree with that. Although, a lot of your mistakes are common grammar errors, which is understandable since English isn't your first language; these should probably be fixed by someone else.

      I was only talking about myself; some people will agree and some won't, but you can never say that they agree or disagree for sure, or who agrees and who doesn't before a discussion. In fact, discussions may even give you even better ideas, that's why they exist.

      I'm now willingly removing the block since it was just to get you to stop editing and discuss first, which you did.

      Well, we only have 2 games which are not-so-different but also not quite the same. I personally see the current layout as the best possible.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote:

      I'm now willingly removing the block since it was just to get you to stop editing and discuss first, which you did.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

      Sure thing, I can discuss any of my changes. You can ban/not ban me - I don't really care that much about it.

      There no change that I miss "blue blinking dot" at top of the screen, I'm not using mobile version of wikia.com; I always see notifications and comments of previous editor in edit history (when coming back to this page).

      Well, we only have 2 games which are not-so-different but also not quite the same. I personally see the current layout as the best possible.

      We have many DLCs sold as single never endling game "DS".

      SW is absolutely unique world from DS and DST, so everything can be separated at least by 3.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • The content is in the shadow tab category, it should really be in the shadow tab article (which needs creating). Feel free to fix that, but if you do please make sure the links to it are fixed as well. If you don't want to this change, I'll try to get to that as soon as I can.

      Loading editor
    • D1g

      Personally I don't think that splitting items by in-game tabs is the most usefull (but it is possible as alternative navigation).

      For example, there a table at Category:Tools_Tab that lists all basic tools.

      Shadow tools can be included in "Tools" page or Category.

      I expect Shadow Digger, Shadow Miner and Shadow Logger to be mentioned at Tools page.

        Loading editor
    • Why? They are not tools. If you said mobs, pets, or companions, I can kind of see that, but why tools?

      The tab based categorization helps people browse, since the information in the wiki is arranged the same way it is presented in the game. Creating artificial categorization not based on gameplay, while may appear correct in the abstract sense, are ultimately not very helpful to the readers.

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Stl1234 wrote:

      Why? They are not tools. If you said mobs, pets, or companions, I can kind of see that, but why tools?
      If Companions would provide a separate list/section for Shadow Diggers, Pigs and other resource gathering companions and mobs, yes.

      Stl1234 wrote: Creating artificial categorization not based on gameplay

      Nothing here is artificial and everything is gamed on Maxwell game-play in DST.

      I think Maxwell players would consider them as Maxwell-only tools.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • This means creating broken links or empty sections. Half-edits are extremely lazy, and creates an impression of an unmaintained and incomplete wiki. If you don't know the appropriate content to put in there, you can comment in the article and ask for it to be added.

    Thanks.

      Loading editor
    • View all 24 replies
    • D1g

      Stl1234 wrote:

      With "broken links" he means the link is a redirect or that weird volcano disambiguation page (We should really get rid of that, in favor of see-also)

      You were told that "Volcanic Eruption" was requested by other article/template:

      It wasn't me who requested it in Template:Gameplay. I merely adding pointers to missing content.

      AND fixed nearly everything by myself

      while some users doensn't even to care to participate in discussion, but to repeat very same statements:

      Sorry, but nothing of above is about
      (and most of it looks like repetition of "Why? it's not like this in other wikis" anyway).
      as you claim in Thread:162050#23
        Loading editor
    • D1g
      I'm not sure what you mean by "repetitive". Can you clarify?
      Sure thing, please avoid this again

      eruptions are fully explained in Volcano (object)

      First you stated:

      Volcanic Eruption, for example, is considered an unnecessary page, because eruptions are fully explained in Volcano (object).
      in Thread:162050#5, but you were corrected just in the next message Thread:162050#6

      Only after my recommendation you have moved missing content to Volcano (object) page

      Your statements in Thread:162050#5 were plain wrong Thread:162050#8, but this was fine. Thank god I was online to correct this, I corrected redirect to the proper place

      "prohibited" and discussed red links ("broken" links)

      Then, you continue to repeat your arguments about prohibited red links (or "broken" links as you name them afterwards Thread:162050#21) first stating in Thread:162050#3:

      Manual of Style's requirements, go ahead and edit it, and others will clean it up if necessary, but don't add an empty section or create a "Red link" (a link that leads to a page that doesn't exist).

      Then quieting discussion when asked when it was discussed Thread:162050#21 mentioning Thread:162050#22 - a discussion which may happened, but maybe not.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • You should post the ideas in the Forum, people cannot edit or comment on the pages under user page. Or you can do Blogs. Either way would allow people to comment.

      Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • You need to talk to the community before making massive changes.

      Loading editor
    • View all 10 replies
    • D1g

      Stl1234 wrote: I removed it because it doesn't belong to the main content space of the wiki.

      It was well written documentation about Template, yes I had no time to write Template itself or apply 100s-1000s of respective changes across wiki.

      It should be moved from (Template:Games) to Template:Games/docs or to forum or my user sandbox; it was simply removed instead - isn't this the worst possible approach?!

      Anyway, it is here again: User:D1g/Support_multiple_games.

      You can create a thread with the information you want.

      I got a message that I cannot create forum thread and that I should "try again" (repeatedly). No idea why.
      I know a lot of other people have ideas about the topic as well. We should come up with something that we all agree is a good structure.
      Many other wikis already did it, years ago. Long before some admins were registered at wikia.com space.

      Speaking of Category:Games as top-level... Yes, it may be unnecessary: simply place all 2 or 3 games in Category:Content.

      But it isn't huge problem I would ever contest. I made Category:Games because it aids editing process within every game. I.e. it will help at least me personally to have Category:Games as hidden category.

      But for readers we can show a separate category (simply Category:Content) and not to show Category:Games anywhere for readers.

      Categories are not really good way to capture this information, as they are invisible for most users, and do not really offer a good way to discover the topic or see how something fits into the bigger picture.

      Categories are great. Borderlands wiki would be useless if we hadn't separation per game/addon.

      That restless editor in 2010 is me :) It took years of community effort to develop what I started.

      Futhermore, this was supported and re-implemented again:

      More, it was me who suggested the only working categorisation that will stand 10 years of development

      I actually have a prototype of what we may want to do for different content, but didn't have a chance to work on it recently. See here: User:Stl1234/PileOfAsh. Doesn't really work well, but it is a good example of demonstrating the idea.

      Problem with this page that it gives no hint about multiple pages.

      We should clearly indicate that there 3 (more) versions of this page: "Base Game" "Reign of Giants" "Shipwrecked" - is simply unformatted table, it should look like this at least: Don't Starve variant, "RoG variant", "SW variant"

      Also Rules is likely a good page to check out as well. Things have changed a lot in the last 2 years.

      I remember how this wiki was created and was half-empty, nerveless wiki editing rules/Code of conduct is universal.

      Right now, there no rule "discuss huge changes beforehand", but instead I see "Repetitive edits to maintain high quality content (e.g. resize images, add new images, make several edits because of huge content). "


      I think we're at a good point, so with good faith I'm going to remove your block. You should create threads in the general section for different things you'd like to do, and provide examples of how they'd look like. Let me know if you have questions.
      Thank you, but I still think it is unnecessary prohibitive.

      OFC, I will lower my edit rate or wait for discussion if there negative feedback or comments.

      It may be that I will make small edits in huge bulks (100s), I will try not to make them too frequently/often... and of course I will communicate using every method possible (except for chat/IRC). D1g (talk) 06:32, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • We can take the conversation about the changes you are proposing to their respective posts/threads.

      Also, you should still be able to access the history of the pages that were deleted, most of them were categories, so there isn't anything there, you can copy the content to appropriate places.

      Just to underline it again, the problem is not the number of edits, the problem is the nature of edits (making big, structural changes, without any sort of discussion).

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • Hi, welcome to Don't Starve game Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the File:Sleepingspiders.png page.

    Please leave me a message if I can help with anything!

      Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.