FANDOM


  • You need to talk to the community before making massive changes.

      Loading editor
    • D1g

      Okay, anything specific you want to discuss? I do talk in my edit comments Special:Contributions/D1g.

      BTW, don't you think that "discussion before edits" are against ordinary wiki-principles?! Not specific to Wikia or this wiki (Don't_Starve_Wiki:Rules). D1g (talk) 03:26, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

      Ban (Special:Log/block?page=User:D1g) was unnecessary, you can simply discuss changes with me, as you request! D1g (talk) 03:26, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • You need to talk to the community, and admins *before* making massive changes like changing categories, creating the structure of the wiki. You are changing the top level categories randomly with what you like. That isn't acceptable.

      Ban is there to make sure you see this, and gives me time to review the changes.

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Stl1234 wrote: You need to talk to the community, and admins *before* making massive changes like changing categories, creating the structure of the wiki.

      Do you think there special about Don't starve wiki that should be discussed beforehand?

      I think other wikis contain much more content and we can simply copy what they did (WOW wiki is a good example).

      You are changing the top level categories randomly with what you like. That isn't acceptable.

      What is not acceptable? To have an opinion what should be in top level categories?

      Klei games Category:Games and mods should in top-level category. Do you thing it is randomly selected content?

      Ban is there to make sure you see this, and gives me time to review the changes.

      OFC I do. My Category:World changes are correspond to Category:Gameplay tidying. Many pages were thrown under Category:Gameplay but they are not about player-world interaction (game mechanic is about this).

      Does it makes more sense now?

      Regarding "top level categories".

      Yes, Category:Servers with only 2 articles was too early for top-level. They can be placed in Category:guides.

      Similarly you removed my category Category:Source code in plain English without any meaningful comment. I think there enough Category:Guides about source code topics, isn't? I don't think this helps with "discussions with community" part.

      As you can see, sometimes I was patient not to place it in top-level, but you corrected it with top-level cat just in the next edit D1g (talk) 03:45, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • Do you think there special about Don't starve wiki that should be discussed beforehand?

      Nothing special about this wiki, you should discuss big changes in ALL wikis before doing them.

      What is not acceptable? To have an opinion what should be in top level categories?

      It is acceptable to have an opinion. You then create a thread in the forum, we discuss it, once decided, it is implemented. what is not acceptable is one person making massive changes they like without talking to anybody.

      I don't think you understand the issue here. This isn't about what is top level or what is not. You have zero edits in the last 2.5 years, then you come one day, without any notice of any kind, start changing things. Your changes indicate that you lack the general knowledge about the current structure of the wiki.

      The content and the structure in the wiki is by no means perfect, but if everyone just made massive edits as they like it, it would be chaos. And it is my role as an admin to prevent that chaos.

        Loading editor
    • See recent examples of how talking about changes worked out: Thread:155057 Thread:156555

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      I didn't any changes because 2,5 years ago Klei made only 1 game and there was nothing to correct at wiki (thus no edits).

      Now there 2 games (DS, DST), 3 DLC (only to DS), 1 total conversion (DS).

      All I want is to have usable resource for other players when they play specific game. Maybe we want to add location-specific categories (Caves items, Ruins items).

      As you know, not all items are accessible in across games. We should address this in Templates and Categories.

      This transformation (single game -> group of games) is not unique to this Wikia; see Witcher wiki for example. But if it is necessary, we can discuss them beforehand.

      making massive changes they like without talking to anybody.

      Somewhat agree with

      Stl1234 wrote: See recent examples of how talking about changes worked out: Thread:155057 Thread:156555

      True, I was clueless about these discussions. I will spend some time reading these discussions first.
        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Stl1234 wrote: See recent examples of how talking about changes worked out: Thread:155057 Thread:156555

      Did you move my proposal to forum or simply removed it as "housekeeping"?

      Housekeeping: Not really a template, but a suggestion for a template, this should be a forum post instead.

      Then you claim at my talk page that it was me who doesn't make suggestions/discussions first?! D1g (talk) 04:26, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • I removed it because it doesn't belong to the main content space of the wiki. Threads have a special format, this cannot be simply moved to the forum. You can create a thread with the information you want.

      I have no problem with looking at categories and templates and updating them to in a way that makes the wiki easier to use for the people. I'd like to re-emphasize the issue here isn't what you want to do, it is how you attempted it. 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. For the DLCs, and dst/ds, the wiki currently has a format to deal with differences between them, see Manual of Style for more information. 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. 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.

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

      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.

        Loading editor
    • 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
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.