I would like to inform you about sudden change of Infobox style due to inclusion of styles from MediaWiki:PortableInfobox.css to MediaWiki:Wikia.css. The page was created by a user who registered 1 day ago and somehow managed to acquire admin rights already. Please be so kind to promptly check if there was some kind of security breach that allowed him/her to get admin rights on the wiki, because that allows editing protected pages without proper permission. The longer it stays like that, the more harm will be done.
Hey there. I noticed that the wiki doesn't have Discussions enabled, and wanted to bring forward the proposal to you and the rest of the staff regarding it. It is essentially a place where fans of Don't Starve - not just editors - can converse and interact about the game and its expansions. It wouldn't conflict with the wiki's already existing content, rather it would be a social extension to the wiki. Obviously, this is a bit of a different feature so I am very interested in hearing the wiki staff's opinions about this feature. If you have any questions about it, please let me know, and I can try to answer them.
Hi there, I just wanted to follow up with you about this feature, and what the wiki staff's thoughts were on this. If you'd like, I can notify the other admins about this as well so there can be some discussion about this feature. Please let me know what you think. Thank you!
Hey there, sorry for not getting back to you about this earlier.
This community already uses a very active and extensive, developer-maintained forum as its main hub. Additionally, there a multiple Discord servers, a large Reddit community and the Steam forums (that I know of). I don't really see how this wiki would benefit from creating yet another platform for discussing Don't Starve (especially since discussion on this wiki is mostly limited to comments of questionable value which are already a chore to moderate).
I'd therefore be opposed to enabling Discussions for this wiki, but I'd also like to hear what the other admins think about this.
Hey there, thanks for getting back to me, and apologies for the late response.
I completely understand your concerns. My main approach with Discussions is it might divert the article comments to there while also being an inlet of potential editors to the main wiki -- it's worth noting that additional discussion moderators from the Fandom side could be brought in to help moderate Discussions. Additionally, it would all be contained within Fandom so new users would have the convenience of staying on one platform. Discussions could also serve as a place for readers to suggest changes to the wiki, where it might not be appropriate to in the discussion channels that you mentioned.
These are simply some ideas that I just wanted to throw out there. Obviously you know your community best and I will support whatever you guys decide upon. If you don't mind, I have messaged the other admins about this thread for their input and feedback.
While I understand the convenience of staying on one platform, it seems a bit redundant to create another space for discussion when there are already many well-developed ones out on the web.
However, as for benefiting the wiki, the addition of Discussions may bring more users, but nothing is certain. I agree with the statement that more moderators could be brought in to negate the new platform's usage, but it seems to me that not much more can be said on Discussions that isn't already said in comments or on other users' walls.
First off, I'd like to apologize for the late reply.
I share MMueck and Luvian's concerns. The Discussions feature, while it might (might) bring in more users, I do not see any real benefit from enabling it. As MMueck mentioned, the game's official forum is the community's main hub as of now, and there are numerous other platforms that serve the same purpose, and are already well-known and widely used. It seems quite redundant to create yet another one.
The wiki's main purpose is largely just an encyclopedia of everything related to the game. A collection of information presented in a quickly navigable and understandable way, and it pretty much cemented its role as such among the community. The only discussions that really take place in the current wiki forum are almost always about the site and its maintainenece, rather than game mechanics and strategies, and I don't see any real purpose in pushing the wiki to be a platform for those as well.
I believe doing so will most likely either end in it never happening because the wiki isn't as attractive or popular and well-known as other platforms when it comes to this role, especially the official Klei forums, or push the wiki further away from its role as a Don't Starve encyclopedia and from people handling it as such, which might impact its ability to stay up-to-date or general article quality due to the additional moderation required.
Hi MMueck! My name is Shrev, and I’m the Fandom Wiki Manager for Don't Starve game Wiki. I am here to help the community and be a liaison to full-time Fandom staff. If you ever have a question or issue relating to the wiki, editing, styling, infoboxes, templates, etc., please feel free to contact me on my message wall, or on Discord at Shrev64#0089.
the thing is that the games don't really have biomes, but rooms. Rooms are usually way more specific than what we would call a biome, for example the Grasslands biome includes a huge amount of rooms which differ slightly in content (more flowers, more moleworms, ...).
You can find all room descriptions in the files under "data/scripts/map/rooms/".
I guess, for the wiki it has become customary to group rooms together that are almost indistinguishable for the players. That's admittedly a bit inaccurate, but practical. :) And because turfs are a very good way to distinguish rooms, the biomes have been named after their respective turfs most of the time. For Hamlet, this worked quite well.
For the new DST biomes in particular, I thought going with "Rocky Beach" would be fine considering the turf is called "Rocky Beach Turf". For the other ones it was a bit more difficult so I have taken some liberties. There is even another room called "Baths" that has the same contents as Lunar Forest but has Hot Springs and Saladmanders additionally.
If you are unhappy with the names or have suggestions for changes, please let me know!
So TL;DR: To my knowledge, there are no official biome names in the files. The names in the wiki are community-chosen and usually inspired by the respective turf.
Thank you for the reply! Do we have a template to signify pages with fan-created names? I think that would be helpful in this instance. I'm fine with the name Rocky Beach btw, but I did have some issues with other names:
The page Biomes itself... I think generally page names should be singular.
Hey Bluegeist, sorry for the late reply! I have been thinking about this for a bit.
I completely understand your interest in choosing more accurate, original page names. The only alternative I can think of would be to use the room IDs, such as "BGForest" and "BGCaveNoisy". That wouldn't be very pretty in my opinion. However, we could certainly create a maintenance category for articles with community-chosen names.
Using plural for the Biomes page is in line with other overview pages such as Mobs, Items, Boats, etc. Would you be in favor of changing those too?
For the Painted and Cultivated biomes, I just found it very weird to have a single adjective as a page name (although we already have that for Sacred, as I just noticed). Maybe that's just because I'm not a native English speaker. What would you think of something similar to Painted Terrain / Desert / ... and Cultivated Terrain / Lands / ...?
Stalagmite Biomes should definitely be replaced, but it needs to be distinguishable from the Stalagmite objects.
No, I agree, the chosen names are more aesthetically pleasing. I just would like something to tell readers that the name is not canon, so as to avoid confusion (like I was experiencing, trying to find them in the code).
Oh, I did not notice that the plural thing is a naming convention. I would be in favor of changing them all to singular then, but not without other's input (like yours), I'm partial to keeping titles singular but I don't wanna impose y'know
I'm fine with single adjective titles, I think it sounds cool.
I agree with changing Stalagmite Biomes name, but I don't know what to replace it with yet..
1. There are no specific rules for which quote to choose. Personally, I focus on creating as much variety as possible (for example, not choosing the same character twice for related features or if there are multiple quotes templates on a page), on selecting the most informative quotes, or on special individual connections between characters and features (for example character-specific items, Wortox -> Krampus, etc.). This should probably be clarified in the Manual of Style.
2. Another good question, that needs clarifying in the Manual. I'd prefer avoiding the differences whenever possible, and fall back to US English if not possible.
An addendum as I've just patrolled your recent edits: We generally prefer creating links in this style [[Backpack]]s instead of [[Backpack|Backpacks]]. This makes the text shorter and more easily readable in the editor, while the syntax allows for the added letters to be combined in the link so there are no noticeable differences in the article.
Unfortunately, we can't actually do that. We cannot control what the visual editor outputs in source code, as that editor along with its UI is exclusive to Fandom (the service used to host this wiki) and can only be altered by its staff.
I agree the visual editor is intuitive and easy to use, especially for newer contributors, but it has some bugs and there are a few problems when you get into more advanced editing and formatting. I highly recommend getting the hang of using the source editor at some point, it actually becomes easier to just write a template's code directly instead of filling parameters in the visual editor.