User talk:ZombieLawnGnome

From PZwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hmmm... I am such a mediawiki newbie... I had no idea you could create a personal sandbox. I have to look into this later...

Why not integrate data immediately?

Why are you placing this information in the discussion page, rather than just integrating it into it as you find it? --Connall (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Because I have style questions, and also I'm working on a template to hold all the different permutations of cooked/freshness. What do you think of it so far:

User:ZombieLawnGnome/Sandbox

Fair enough, looks pretty good. If you're putting that into the individual item pages then feel free. Thumbs up. Just remember to move it to a template page and out of sandbox. :p --Connall (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll get started on some of it in just a little while. --ZombieLawnGnome (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's looking good. Only thing is I wouldn't bother doing Version Category, just use {{VersionNotice|version}} notice at the top of the page instead. Looking great though! :D --Connall (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I was doing it for two reasons:
  1. Following the already present style
  2. Because I had planned on using it as a crude system to see which articles may be out of date. (I got the idea from the Dwarf Fortress wiki) --ZombieLawnGnome (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll probably see about altering the template so the notice then categorises the page the notice is displayed on. --Connall (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to code query.

The reason as to why coding snippets are added to the item pages (at least my reasoning) is more of just legacy support. I wasn't the admin to decide to implement codes in item pages, but I continue to keep implementing them unless people feel that the support should be stopped. When I make design decisions regarding the wiki, I usually try to get a general guide on how people would feel about it. Now of course that varies based on the type of design, a minor design change I just change, but anything big I usually hold off on until I have a sounding board for that sort of thing. I consider item page codes to be one of those things. Technically we don't support history section in items anymore for somewhat the same reason as you feel we should get rid of coding (though not exactly.)

While admittedly the admin who most likely decided to implement these is probably long gone, I usually maintain the belief they had a reason to include it so just keep up the tradition. As for code for items? Does it have a use? Admittedly I'm not entirely certain on it myself.

So what usefulness could it have, the only thing I could think of usefulness wise is certainly curiosity, but it does provide certain information on what stats it affects (though this information is presented through tables as well.) Allows the user to see how the code is set out, or know what naming convention it uses in the code. The eventual plan is also to have the wiki become a developer resource as well, which I suspect is partially I reason I never removed it, since the code allows people to see how different items coding is set out in relation to others etc. I may just ask around regarding peoples opinion on the section and remove it if people feel strongly enough. --Connall (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for the long reply. It's commendable what you're doing, and I'll see what I can do to support that in the near term. In the long term though, "It's just always been done that way" is the reason that's been given for a lot of silly things that have been done in human history. It seems like there should be a consensus formed about who guides the wiki layout (Admins, TIS, both?) and then have that person or working group make decisions about these kinds of questions.
I say this because I work in a documentation-heavy environment, and I can tell you that those code sections will quickly become obsolete, and technical documentation that is unreliable is nearly useless except sometimes for academic historical value. Your volunteers have a finite amount of time and enthusiasm to dedicate to the wiki and those in charge need to decide where they'd rather see that time and effort spent for the greatest effect.
Administrators guide the wiki layout and users are able to inform and guide the administrators. (as you have just done) ;)
Regardless just because I'm an administrator doesn't mean I'm just going to cut a section on a whim. I'm going to go talk to people get their opinions on it, "Do you use thing x on page y" what do they say? Is there people who do use it and if so should we accommodate them in some way? Things like a removal of Code & History blocks are big things when it comes to changing the layout of the wiki. While I would love for discussion to happen on the wiki, for the most part it doesn't. So I go outside of the wiki (which I feel is best since there is where the majority of users who read the wiki are.) see what the reaction is and decide my course of action. For example I felt the History blocks on pages were idiotic things, did I delete them immediately? No, I had discussions with users to see what they thought of it. Did they have any interest in these sections? If not then shall I remove them?
My last paragraph was a bit stupid. I guess what it just comes down to, I may be an admin, but I'm not going to throw that power around without input. Your final paragraph is a bit of a moot point, it's already been done. Code & History sections have been removed from items pages (I've seen to that.) Hypothetically though, lets say code sections were kept in. Just because a section like that was kept in doesn't make it a waste of time. Users in the end need to decide what they feel is the most pressing page to be updated should be, if they want to update the code section let them update the code section. In the end though it should be up to them what pages they wish to update. It's better for them to be updating pages they are passionate about rather than updating a page because it's just a job. While I do point out sections that can be fixed up, for the most part I just let people go about their business. I guess what I'm ultimately saying is I shouldn't be the guy who dictates how their time is spent. They should be the ones to dictate that themselves. --Connall (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)