FANDOM


  • D1g

    Could you please comment how your edit here corresponds to Don't_Starve_Wiki:Manual_of_Style or Don't_Starve_Wiki:Rules.

    I'm not able to find single section where it is covered.

      Loading editor
    • You are absolutely right, the common sense section is missing. I'll fix the oversight. Thanks for reporting.

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Stl1234 wrote: You are absolutely right, the common sense section is missing. I'll fix the oversight. Thanks for reporting.

      You're welcome. Stub pages and red links are used by power wiki editors to indicate importance of the page at wiki.

      They use Special:WantedPages to display all requested pages and fill them as quickly as possible.

      Red link threshold is set per each wiki. Usually anything below 5K counts as "red link" or blank page. Details about wikia.com administrative settings may be different.

      Section about "common sense" to place red links at wiki whatever appropriate is not necessary, it as implmented in wiki software we are all using.

        Loading editor
    • D1g wrote: Stub pages and red links are used by power wiki editors to indicate importance of the page at wiki.

      There are appropriate uses for creating links to pages that will exist. We do this, when there is a large amount of content that needs to be added quickly, which helps tracking what is missing. This happens with large updates to the game or DLC. This is fine, as the incomplete looking content is actually incomplete, and being added very shortly.

      And then, there are inappropriate uses, such as adding a link for the links sake. Not only these do not add value to the wiki, they also make it look like things are missing, while in fact they are not. Users browsing the wiki see it as incomplete, which makes it "bad" in their eyes.

      I understand that you have been working in wikis that have little to no content oversight, and you have opinions about how everything should work. Unfortunately, things do not work the way you want them here. Whatever you think the norm is, you may be surprised to find out that in over a year, you are the first person with whom this kind of discussion was required. Maybe this little bit of information could put things in some different perspective for you?

      I think you may have great contributions here in the future. I'm sure you have great ideas on how to improve the wiki. However, I also think you need more time to adjust your approach to the style and methods of this particular wiki. Experience in other wikis is great, but not everything is same everywhere. Wikis of different communities, and different sizes have different priorities.

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      You shouldn't point readers to disambiguation pages, they are the most useful for editors who seek for appropriate page or section of the page. Why red link was removed from disambiguation page?..

      Single red link was created with clear purpose to request article about this topic and not about "a link for the links sake".

      Eruption or Volcanic Eruption are still not written, so why single red link at this wiki was removed?

      Yes, I don't understand why Volcano Altar‏‎ has 13 links pointing to it Special:WhatLinksHere/Volcano_Altar, but there shouldn't be single request for Eruption or Volcanic Eruption

      Especially when we have written content about Rain and Frog Rain.

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Users browsing the wiki see it as incomplete, which makes it "bad" in their eyes.

      What makes you think so? You are the first user in last 10 years who so insisting on it that makes wiki guideline out of it.

      You shouldn't remove red link to Volcanic Eruption if it placed at appropriate place at wiki.

      Volcanic Eruption may be placed at Volcano or Volcano (object) page.

      I understand that you have been working in wikis that have little to no content oversight, and you have opinions about how everything should work. Unfortunately, things do not work the way you want them here. Whatever you think the norm is, you may be surprised to find out that in over a year, you are the first person with whom this kind of discussion was required. Maybe this little bit of information could put things in some different perspective for you?

      I think you may have great contributions here in the future. I'm sure you have great ideas on how to improve the wiki. However, I also think you need more time to adjust your approach to the style and methods of this particular wiki. Experience in other wikis is great, but not everything is same everywhere. Wikis of different communities, and different sizes have different priorities.

      This is irrelevant to questions in Thread:162074#1, Thread:162074#3, Thread:162074#5.

        Loading editor
    • D1g wrote: You shouldn't point readers to disambiguation pages

      This is exactly why you shouldn't change existing redirects with hundreds of links to them to disambiguation pages. There is nothing ambiguous about them.

      D1g wrote: , they are the most useful for editors who seek for appropriate page or section of the page.

      No, they are most useful for people who are searching for information but not exactly sure what exactly to look for.

      D1g wrote: Why red link was removed from disambiguation page?..

      Red link is removed because it is not making a positive contribution to the wiki. You are literally creating problems for other people to fix. You are basically saying: "This page should exist. I'll create the link, meh, it's now somebody else's problem to deal with. My work here is done."

      D1g wrote: Single red link was created with clear purpose to request article about this topic and not about "a link for the links sake".

      Eruption or Volcanic Eruption are still not written, so why single red link at this wiki was removed?

      Eruptions are explained in the Volcano article. If you want to create an expanded article for eruptions, go ahead, create that article, explain the eruptions, put detailed information. Then it would be linked from relevant places. If you don't know what to add, then there is nothing to add, there is no page to be created.

      D1g wrote: Yes, I don't understand why Volcano Altar‏‎ has 13 links pointing to it Special:WhatLinksHere/Volcano_Altar, but there shouldn't be single request for Eruption or Volcanic Eruption

      The broken links in the wiki are almost all about image links. Some should be redirects, some require changes to templates.

      D1g wrote: Especially when we have written content about Rain and Frog Rain.

      How exactly is this relevant?

        Loading editor
    • D1g
      Eruptions are explained in the Volcano article.
      Volcano?

      Are being serious? It was you who removed single remark of this topic at wiki

        Loading editor
    • D1g wrote:

      Eruptions are explained in the Volcano article.
      Volcano?

      Are being serious? It was you who removed single remark of this topic at wiki

      I should have figured that I needed to be more explicit with you. See Volcano (object). The thing you've just added a header to. Do you see it now?

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      You are missing point, Volcanic Eruption should lead to content page or at least section first, because Template:Gameplay was requesting it for years Template:Gameplay?oldid=264264

      I fixed everything with kludge.

        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.