FANDOM


  • 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
    • D1g

      If I use comments, article will be incomplete and miss respective content regardless and will create an impression of an unmaintained and incomplete wiki.

      Usage of Template:Stub is intended to address missing content at all incomplete pages.

      For example, you removed template, but section still misses paragraph about Wolfgang#Special_Power.

      Health#Restoring_maximum_health creates an impression that there only 2 ways to increase maximum hp, which is simply false.

      No matter what you do at wiki, incomplete wiki page will be incomplete until somebody writes it. Use comments/use stub templates or comments first/comments during conflicts wouldn't help with that.

      Page or section skeletons/stub pages should be allowed for anything that is not visible as first link from Don't Starve Wiki page.

      I'm not writing text myself because I don't want to create an impression that wiki was created/written by single person, furthermore second person can double-check if everything was right and (what is more important) to add more details.

        Loading editor
    • Read Stl's text more carefully.

      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.

      This is not "only leave a comment and never edit". If you have a complete edit with all base content and information ready and meeting the 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). If you are unsure if what you are adding matches the rules or not, add a comment presenting the information, and someone will add it after rewording it to match the rules.

      The Stub template is designed to mark articles that are short and can be expanded, and not to say that a page is plain incomplete.

      There are only 2 ways to increase max health without the console: playing as Wolfgang and being "Mighty", or playing as WX-78 and upgrading with gears.

      "Page or section skeletons should be allowed for anything that is not visible as first link from Don't Starve Wiki page."

      And what will happen when people search for that page?

      "I'm not writing text myself because I don't want to create an impression that wiki was created/written by single person, furthermore second person can double-check if everything was right and (what is more important) to add more details."

      How will this create an impression that the wiki was created by a single person? If you add an empty section, you've contributed nothing in order for someone to double-check in the first place. Add your text, and the second person will clean it up and do the checking for you. Just make sure the content you add is factual and correct.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      This is not "only leave a comment and never edit".

      That's not what I meant ("Health#Restoring_maximum_health creates an impression that there only 2 ways to increase maximum hp, which is simply false. " - Thread:162050#2) Manual_of_Style has nothing to with missing content at Health#Restoring_maximum_health section. What do you suggest to improve it?

      My example is about **incomplete and otherwise unmarked list** which is now displayed as "regular content" at Health page.

      but don't add an empty section or create a "Red link" (a link that leads to a page that doesn't exist).
      Red links were allowed at every single wiki I know. Thankfully Manual_of_Style#Linking doesn't prohibits red links. Red links displayed in red colour and no user would click it to read information.
      And what will happen when people search for that page?
      They should be presented to skeleton about some dlc/game item.

      ...and if you don't create a stub skeleton, they will get useless "no matching pages" result, without information where this item can be found (game, location).

      If wikia cannot write a separate article about this page over time, no other resource on Internet can.

      Just make sure the content you add is factual and correct.

      That's impossible requirement. Over years, entire community wasn't unable to show that Thermal Stone is a destructible item in DST: "Durability: Has no durability".

      How many editors played all variations of games? How many players played both platforms? How many players know every single mechanic of A New Reign if it is only developed?!

      Incomplete and outdated pages are impossible to fix without content changes. It doesn't matter if you use templates in main namespace or commenting under article about mistakes.

        Loading editor
    • This is not "only leave a comment and never edit".

      That's not what I meant ("Health#Restoring_maximum_health creates an impression that there only 2 ways to increase maximum hp, which is simply false. " - Thread:162050#2) Manual_of_Style has nothing to with missing content at Health#Restoring_maximum_health section. What do you suggest to improve it?

      There are only 2 ways to restore lost max health: Booster Shots in DST, and destroying a built Meat Effigy. Wolfgang doesn't "lose" max health when becoming "Wimpy" in the first place.

      Also, how is my comment there even relevant?

      My example is about **incomplete and otherwise unmarked list** which is now displayed as "regular content" at Health page.

      It is not incomplete. The only 2 legitimate ways are the ones above and in the article. Wolfgang doesn't "lose" max health in the same definition.

      but don't add an empty section or create a "Red link" (a link that leads to a page that doesn't exist).
      Red links were allowed at every single wiki I know. Thankfully Manual_of_Style#Linking doesn't prohibits red links. Red links displayed in red colour and no user would click it to read information.

      They are allowed, including here, if a page is in queue of creation, such as when a DLC is released with new content and pages are being created for them, where you can link a page to a page that doesn't exist yet but will be created soon. However, they are not allowed if a link is created simply for the link or if it's for something that is already fully explained in another page, where it doesn't need a page; Volcanic Eruption, for example, is considered an unnecessary page, because eruptions are fully explained in Volcano (object).

      Also, some users do click red links, especially in this wiki, since links are coloured in orange and the difference is only noticeable if you are paying attention to the colours, which is usually not the case, as readers are paying more attention to the content instead, and when a red link is clicked and leads to the screen that says there is no page with such name, the wiki will look lazily made and poorly maintained.

      And what will happen when people search for that page?
      They should be presented to skeleton about some dlc/game item. ...and if you don't create a stub skeleton, they will get useless "no matching pages" result, without information where this item can be found (game, location).

      That's in the case of new/upcoming items, where there is only minimal information known about it. This is not our case; page/section skeletons will do nothing but look lazy and unfinished.

      If wikia cannot write a separate article about this page over time, no other resource on Internet can.

      And why would a seperate article that is only a few lines about a related topic be needed? Volcanic eruptions' info is already merged wuth the Volcano's page. This allows readers to know about both of them without having to hop between pages that are only a few lines.

      And if they search for it, the search engine will use keywords and will give them the main page, which will have all the content they need.

      Just make sure the content you add is factual and correct.

      That's impossible requirement. Over years, entire community wasn't unable to show that Thermal Stone is a destructible item in DST: "Durability: Has no durability".

      How many editors played all variations of games? How many players played both platforms?

      How many players know every single mechanic of A New Reign if it is only developed?!

      Thermal Stones having durability in DST is a true fact. How is it an impossible requirement?

      Some players are sure to have played both - I'm an example.

      Nobody knows every single mechanic by themselves. Add mechanics you know about, others add mechanics they know about, and you'll have all the info gathered up.

      Incomplete and outdated pages are impossible to fix without content changes. It doesn't matter if you use templates in main namespace or commenting under article about mistakes.

      I agree with this, but that is if a page is outdated or incomplete, where there is in fact missing content. We do have some of them, a great example is the character quotes, but have you tried getting each and every single quote yourself? It's a nightmare.

      If a page is incomplete, the missing content is being searched for and slowly being added. Don't add things if you don't know what you are adding.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g
      Volcanic Eruption, for example, is considered for an unnecessary page, because eruptions are fully explained in Volcano (object).
      If you read Volcano (object) carefully it will redirect you to the next page.

      "See Dry Season for more information."

      So, Volcano (object) merely mentions Eruptions and only Seasons/Dry will properly introduce Volcanic Eruption.

      Page should be named Volcanic Eruption, not Seasons/Dry, not Volcano (object).

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Only if Volcanic Eruption was created, you can add one of:

      And why would a seperate article that is only a few lines about a related topic be needed?

      now open Seasons/Dry and count words about "Volcano will start to erupt" - I counted 3 paragraphs at least. Deserves small separate page.

      We cannot mash it under Rain sections anymore.

      Having Rain#Volcanic_Eruption is a lazy klunge.
      Having Volcano_(object)#Volcanic_Eruption is a lazy klunge.

      You should create properly titled page Weather Events and list all of the Frog Rain, Volcanic Eruption, Lightnings and who know how many else effect they will create.

        Loading editor
    • Did you even bother to read the rest of my text?

      First off, you are linking too much. The Manual of Style prohibits linking the same entity multiple times in the same page, unless it's a long page, where one link per section is allowed.

      And why would a separate article that is only a few lines about a related topic be needed?

      now open Seasons/Dry and count words about "Volcano will start to erupt."

      It gathers up to only a few paragraphs, which is a very short page. You are right in that it redirects, but as far as I remember, eruptions were in fact fully explained there. I'll replace the redirect with the info, but leave Seasons/Dry as it is, since users may end up at either one of them, and still get the info they want.

      Frog Rain is a rain event. Lightning is a rain event. Volcanic Eruptions are a seasonal event related to the volcano. Why would listing Volcanic eruptions as part of the Volcano's page or listing frog rain as part of the Rain's page be a "lazy klunge"? In fact, I think it's more helpful for readers, since they can read about everything they need to read about without/with minimal hopping between pages.

      No. Volcanic eruptions are not a weather event, and all other weather events are only related to Rain. Simplicity is sometimes for the greater good of the wiki.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g
      First off, you are linking too much. The Manual of Style prohibits linking the same entity multiple times in the same page, unless it's a long page, where one link per section is allowed.
      Any example? Which of the

      D1g wrote:

      was inappropriate or completely irrelevant?

      In fact, I think it's more helpful for readers, since they can read about everything they need to read about without/with minimal hopping between pages.
      Assumuning that they want to read or skip every detail they don't want to read... Yes. Instead of hopping between pages you present them articles that never end and require excessive scrolling and jumps to sections in the middle of 10k long page.

      Is there page view stats on this wiki? What is readed the most? Complete pages or just frontages, outlines with few "complete" links?

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote: There are only 2 ways to restore lost max health: Booster Shots in DST, and destroying a built Meat Effigy.

      Well, "restore" was too narrow, "affect" will be proper word.

      And I think there at least 3rd way is a Wolfgang special ability.

      Wolfgang doesn't "lose" max health when becoming "Wimpy" in the first place.

      Pretty sure you explain image below when numbers go from "300" to "200" to "150" to "0":

      Wolfgang drain slow

        Loading editor
    • D1g wrote:
      First off, you are linking too much. The Manual of Style prohibits linking the same entity multiple times in the same page, unless it's a long page, where one link per section is allowed.
      Any example? Which of the

      D1g wrote:

      was inappropriate or completely irrelevant?

      I meant if both are written.

      In fact, I think it's more helpful for readers, since they can read about everything they need to read about without/with minimal hopping between pages.
      Assumuning that they want to read or skip every detail they don't want to read... Yes. Instead of hopping between pages you present them articles that never end and require excessive scrolling and jumps to sections in the middle of 10k long page.


      Is there page view stats on this wiki? What is readed the most? Complete pages or just frontages, outlines with few "complete" links?

      Yes, there is. If there is info you don't want to read now or already know about it, just skip its section - This is why sections exist. And no article is never-ending, some are just long.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • I said "in the same definition". You don't read text carefully, do you?

      "Losing max health" is having a black area on the health bar. I see no black areas in this gif.

      Wolfgang's ability is more health when having a more filled belly, not lose max health with a more emptied belly.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Well, Wolfgang is off-topic here.

      Deiaa2002 wrote: I said "in the same definition". You don't read text carefully, do you?

      "Losing max health" is having a black area on the health bar. I see no black areas in this gif.
      Should I ask Klei to add black background to his icon?
      Wolfgang's ability is more health when having a more filled belly, not lose max health with a more emptied belly.
      "affect" will be proper word. - Thread:162050#10
        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote:

      D1g wrote:
      First off, you are linking too much. The Manual of Style prohibits linking the same entity multiple times in the same page, unless it's a long page, where one link per section is allowed.
      Any example? Which of the

      D1g wrote:

      was inappropriate or completely irrelevant?

      I meant if both are written.

      In fact, I think it's more helpful for readers, since they can read about everything they need to read about without/with minimal hopping between pages.
      Assumuning that they want to read or skip every detail they don't want to read... Yes. Instead of hopping between pages you present them articles that never end and require excessive scrolling and jumps to sections in the middle of 10k long page.


      Is there page view stats on this wiki? What is readed the most? Complete pages or just frontages, outlines with few "complete" links?

      Yes, there is. If there is info you don't want to read now or already know about it, just skip its section - This is why sections exist. And no article is never-ending, some are just long.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

      Exactly in the same way, nobody forces you to click every single separate topic if you don't to read details about respective topic, links were created for this.

      And you haven't answered which of the links were inappropriate in Thread:162050#9

        Loading editor
    • Looks like I have to take every word you say and write every word I say very literally.

      Wolfgang is on topic here. Thread:162050#10

      If a character loses max health, their max health value is actually the same, but they can't heal past the penalty. This is not Wolfgang's case; Wolfgang's max health value changes according to his hunger. So, no, Wolfgang's special power is not a 3rd way to restore max health.

      Making a small page just for the sake of linking it Also creates too much page hopping. Balance links and merges according to sizes. If a page is going to be small to the point that it can be read without touching the mouse, it's probably better to merge it with another page about the same entity ("Volcano" and "Volcanic Eruptions" is an example), but also don't jam everything together just because they are related. This both minimizes link-hopping and doesn't make page sizes excessive.

      And again, I said if both were on the same line. Here's an example of excessive linking.

      Pigs will eat <food item name> off the ground. Players should try to kill the Pigs before they can eat the item.

      In the above case, "eat" and "kill" are very obvious and don't need linking in either cases. "eat" and "Pigs" are also linked again later on, but in the same paragraph, and if "item" in this example was linked earlier in the page, it shouldn't be linked again in this paragraph.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote: And again, I said if both were on the same line. Here's an example of excessive linking.

      Pigs will eat <food item name> off the ground. Players should try to kill the Pigs before they can eat the item.
      In the above case, "eat" and "kill" are very obvious and don't need linking in either cases. "eat" and "Pigs" are also linked again later on, but in the same paragraph, and if "item" in this example was linked earlier in the page, it shouldn't be linked again in this paragraph.
      I asked example where I made excessive linking at this wiki.

      Furthermore, I never link twice - only as oversights and I would never use pages about Food for players (Food) for Pig food text.

      "Food" page title is just terrible. Compare to: Pigs will eat <food item name> off the ground. Players should try to kill using Weapons or other means the Pigs before they can eat the item.

      in the above case, "eat" and "kill" are very obvious and don't need linking in either cases.
      Linking of verbs will never work in Games, I never pretend it. I create many links for objects and subjects and their various groupings, but never-or-veryrare for verbs.
      Vulcanic Erruption is a Weather Event.
      Rain is a Weather Event.
      Frog Rain is a Weather Event.

      How this example have something to with "First off, you are linking too much." - Thread:162050#8

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote:

      And why would a seperate article that is only a few lines about a related topic be needed?
      Because it creates new perspectives on things and aids navigation (that "hopping").

      As was said already Categories and content structure at http://dontstarve.wikia.com/wiki/ is not good compared to other wikis.

      Small stub pages will/can "replace" them until we clean-up mess if it is here or add more structure in categories.

      Movement Speed contains not 1, but 6 items that were never covered together before.

      Similarly, if I create

      and place them in one category, they be glued back by next person who hates Categories.

        Loading editor
    • Did I ever mention an edit where you did this? I directly meant in this thread. Again, apparently everything must be literal for you to understand.

      You link a little bit too much in your posts, half of which are broken links, which you add just for the sake of the link in that case. This is alright, since this is not an article, but it could reflect on your editing.

      We follow what's best for our wiki, and we don't care about other wikis. If there's something good at a wiki that inspires us, it's alright, but we don't copy/paste another wiki's style.

      6? I only see 4 (5 if you want to separate Walk Speed and Run Speed, which are still a mob's movement speed).

      And if you create those separate pages, they will be merged not because someone "hates categories", but because all of these pages cover a similar topic with only minor differences. Again, to minimize hopping between pages without making a page too big.

      Also, creating a whole new category/list for just a single thing is not allowed ("Transports" will only include Beefalo, and even then, it's only in DST and not DS).

      It appears you only want things to go your way, and not by discussions. That's not how this (or any) wiki works. Get used to the rules and style of a wiki first, and discuss major changed while actually taking into account agreements and oppositions.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g
      6? I only see 4 (5 if you want to separate Walk Speed and Run Speed, which are still a mob's movement speed).
      I should definitely be more explicit; you know.

      Movement speed of the player is covered in Character stats and Items that affect Charater movement speed, so two pages instead of "..."

      hey will be merged not because someone "hates categories", but because all of these pages cover a similar topic with only minor differences
      This is allowed at wiki, isn't?

      If you thing that difference between

      • Speed of playable Characters
      • Movement Speed of Mobs
      • Movement Speed of Transports
      • Movement Speed of Boats

      is minor it's matter of time when there will more updates and new items.

      Probably single table at Movement Speed may work for not prolonged periods of wiki editing.

      But as Borderlands expiriense shows, tables as useless when you have well scoped pages and maintained categories.

      This is not the case of http://dontstarve.wikia.com/wiki/ where everything is mashed together for sake of not having multiple perspectives. Which is sad as least.

      Deiaa2002 wrote:

      Get used to the rules and style of a wiki first, and discuss major changed while actually taking into account agreements and oppositions.
      Thank you, but I will not follow rules that being written on the fly for sake of argument in discussion as "me being against the rules".

      I'd rather create pages for myself at user space and will never touch wiki again.

      Deiaa2002 wrote:

      half of which are broken links
      Did you count red links as "broken"?
        Loading editor
    • D1g wrote:
      6? I only see 4 (5 if you want to separate Walk Speed and Run Speed, which are still a mob's movement speed).
      I should definitely be more explicit; you know.

      Movement speed of the player is covered in Character stats and Items that affect Charater movement speed, so two pages instead of "..."

      I see. But again, these two are about the same thing with only minor differences.

      hey will be merged not because someone "hates categories", but because all of these pages cover a similar topic with only minor differences
      This is allowed at wiki, isn't?

      If you thing that difference between

      • Speed of playable Characters
      • Movement Speed of Mobs
      • Movement Speed of Transports
      • Movement Speed of Boats

      is minor it's matter of time when there will more updates and new items.

      Probably single table at Movement Speed may work for not prolonged periods of wiki editing.

      The differences between each thing are still very minor, and in this case, are unlikely to change, and if they do change, the difference will still be minor. That's just how this game works.

      But as Borderlands expiriense shows, tables as useless when you have well scoped pages and maintained categories.

      This is not the case of http://dontstarve.wikia.com/wiki/ where everything is mashed together for sake of not having multiple perspectives. Which is sad as least.

      First off, what is your definition of "well scoped pages and maintained categories"?

      The main page looks tidy to me. It gathers up community features to let everything be easily accessible to the user, again, without too much link hopping.

      Deiaa2002 wrote:

      Get used to the rules and style of a wiki first, and discuss major changed while actually taking into account agreements and oppositions.
      Thank you, but I will not follow rules that being

      written on the fly for sake of argument in discussion as "me being against the rules".

      I'd rather create pages for myself at user space and will never touch wiki again.

      The rule about red links was discussed long ago, but was not added to the rules because editors didn't seem to ever break that one rule, resulting in users forgetting about adding it. You reminded us about it.

      The rule about large structural changes is a standard; it doesn't need a special mention. But it turns out, it apparently does.

      Deiaa2002 wrote:

      half of which are broken links
      Did you count red links as "broken"?

      Yes. Red links lead to nowhere, and as such count as "broken".

      We have discussed categories, and how creating a whole new category for only one thing or a few things just for the sake of the categorization is not allowed. As such, I'm letting you know that I'm deleting the Movement Speed category and the Movement Speed page, since both are unneeded and unnecessary.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote: The rule about red links was discussed long ago

      Could you please link to this discussion if it really had place.

      The rule about large structural changes is a standard; it doesn't need a special mention. But it turns out, it apparently does.

      You are very repetitive, this is not acceptable.

      All proposed changes were explained long time long, before questionable "rule" was added.

      Deiaa2002 wrote:

      Yes. Red links lead to nowhere, and as such count as "broken".
      Is it your opinion or was discussed before?

      Again, I don't think that makes sense at all.

        Loading editor
    • Unfortunately, I can't. It was buried in the forum, and I can't find it. Wish I could search in the forum the same way as searching for articles.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "repetitive". Can you clarify?

      I have to remind you that we follow a different style. This is not a large wiki (well, compared to some other wikis at least), so some things won't work as well as they do somewhere else. We try to keep things from becoming over-complicated.

      Isn't a red link a broken link? Or is that a different definition? Genuine question here.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • Sorry I don't have time to read everything in this thread (and most of it looks like repetition of "Why? it's not like this in other wikis" anyway). Create a new message in my wall if something needs replying.

      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), based on the references he has for "fixing many broken links in one edit".

        Loading editor
    • 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
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.