Over-bulleting

I actually thought that it was just forgotten. I hadn't realized you removed them and I personally never thought about over-bulleting.

I'm all up for the removal personally and I've really only been following it since it's how I saw every other page in the pre-note section before and thought it was just a set-standard.

Thanks for your response. If no one else objects, I'll continue my program of removing bullets where they seem un-useful.

Bullets don't seem to clutter things, IMO. The purpose of a bullet is to have a distinct list - they should be visual "white noise." and the way the code format works, you can indent consistently as well for vertical list organization. This is useful when things can't or don't fit well into a table, as well as for things that just don't seem to "read well" in a paragraph.

As far as being a standard, many pages had it, some did not, a trillion years ago when pages were being born from the big bang of the wiki. Standards/defaults change as the pages evolve, so, can't really tell if they're a standard or not.

Anyway, it is the wiki, and anyone can edit it. If you feel strongly about the edit, do it - just make sure to follow through completely with such a change (on every relevant page), systematically, as you say. Have fun~

Also: I fully support changing "trivia" to "notes" for everything relevant.

By the way, my work on Category:Allusions has led me to change "Trivia" to "Notes" on all of those affected wiki pages. But there are still many wiki pages that I haven't touched, that still have "Trivia" sections with crazy bulleted lists (not as well thought-out as Dracora-Speaking means). So, everybody, please feel free to implement that change.

I think there should be no paragraphs whatsoever, and that the entire wiki should be made entirely of lists.

One thing that's been bothering me is the "see also" on gear pages (for example, the Sudaruska) - these things seem a bit cluttered to me, and while yes, they're bulleted, it's really its own issue...still, related. I think we could clean up the "see also" template for several different things.

I strongly agree that See Also is often too cluttered. Sudaruska is an outrageous example. Having more links is not necessarily better. Irrelevant links hide the links that are really relevant. We want just the most relevant links.

Also, on Wikipedia there is a policy that if a page is linked in the article, then it should not appear in See Also. Enforcing that policy here should be uncontroversial.

I could imagine Sudaruska having the Swordmaster Guide as its only See Also (and my sword guide, ahem). It doesn't need a link to Sword, because it already links to Category:Swords. It doesn't need a link to Triglav, because Triglav is already linked. On the other hand, it should link to Mighty Great Cleaver, probably in the Notes section.

So outrageous! I'll take a look at it and tweak it, y'all have a looksie later.

I've actually linked directly to the "guides" template for now. This is a bit unconventional, it goes rather smoothly! I just hope that players who are not "logged in" can use it in this manner - I can't test this until the wiki updates itself for everyone and such.

Of course, linking to a new "collection of guides" or "guide category" page would be easy to do, and preferable. But which would be better to link to in the "see also" template?

I am opposed to having Sudaruska link to the Gunslinger and Bombing Guides. Yes, gunners and bombers sometimes use Sudaruska as a sidearm. But if we start following that logic, then we're back to having everything link to everything. It's more likely that a gunner was reading the Gunslinger Guide and then went to Sudaruska, than that he was reading about Sudaruska and then discovered the Gunslinger Guide through it.

Yeah that's the problem IMO - it's an "equipment see also" template that shows up on all gear pages - so if we want to link to specific guides per item, we would have to go through each page and change it to the relevant individual guide, which would be a pain in the armor rear accessory slot. I felt like the best solution was linking to a page that had all the "guides"...so a person could just be like "hmm...I was on a sword page...maybe...I should...go to the...sword guide! yes!" But that's not very "wiki."

If someone knows how to do a nice script switch/reader (idk!) that registers with the iteminfo template, that might work, but that's beyond the coding I typically do.
Notice that the |type = sword (or something else) registers down at the bottom with categories? (This also happens with acc slots on armors/helms/costumes and so on) Something like that might work. *waves frantically to get a coder's attention*

I can look at it but it might blow up.

EDIT:
But at least I tried!

As far as I know, all of the guides are in Category:Opinion. So don't make a wiki page for guides. Just like to that category page.

I see that you've been working on Template:Equipment see also too. That's good.

Regarding your coding problem: I don't know how to do it off the top of my head. I don't have time this week to figure it out.

Linking to the opinion category page would be more confusing (since there's a lot more opinions than guides)...why don't we make a Category: Guides (player-made)? (Or something named similar) - if we can't get the coding to work?

I have put the coding down for now, it's making me sad. There's usually that one little thing that keeps it from working, and idk what that is this time.

Good point. Category:Guides could be a subcategory of Category:Opinion very easily. And then we link to Category:Guides, as you say.

Someone looked very deeply into it, and as of now it seems we can't make it as slick as we want to. So I'm gonna go make that subcategory page now.

EDIT: it seems one is already made, checking though all things tagged with it to make sure they're all "opinions" for the most part, and then we can add the "tutorials" category to the opinion category.

EDIT: actually, here: going to try this: "Category: Guide (Player Made)" and then THAT will be a subcategory of both "opinion" and "tutorials."

Talk about how that feels, I think it's good for what we wanted - a cleanup without too much work.

"Category: Guide (Player Made)" and then THAT will be a subcategory of both "opinion" and "tutorials."

Are there any guides that are not player-made? For example, the Swordmaster Guide is certainly player-made.

Can a category be a subcategory of multiple categories?

yeah there were a few that are either hybrid player-made, or something similar, even with "official documentation" category tags on some of them. I don't want to mess with that - just check out some of the pages in the Tutorials category. And yes, a category can be a subcategory of multiple categories.

Just decided to get the "trivia+other inconsistent ToC things" turned into "notes" today for accessories. I also added a nice acquisition column for all of 'em - pending on confirmation for a few. That...took a good while and involved Color Style (if anything with that seems funky, see the discussion page for color style). But it's done! yay! Editors: Please fix if you notice anything I missed.

That's a lot of work. Great.

At the risk of being a downer, there still seems like work to do. For example, Birthday Candle is a bit messy, with its empty More Views section, etc.

Bleh...that's another project all by itself. Probably needs its own thread. But since you mention it, I'll summarize what's up with it so far:

I'm not sure how we should go about this project consistently, so I left a few visual examples around that I think could work, but each have issues:

1) For types like auras and Unique types of acc, I've made a column in the tables themselves for overworld views - though atm only Auras are "finished" (of course there will be more in the future). Might add in this column type for the "Special" style dragon wings since some of those have their own special effects. This column could be used in a few other places too. Obviously this column is excessive for the bulk of acc out there: For most other accessory types, only one overworld view is needed - since they're all the same in behavior and form, only the color is different. But...

2) the APNG (animation) option. For most images, this is fine. I've left an animation of the "Grand Topper" in the More Views section (yes, atm it's a .gif) - for an example. An APNG is present on the "Writhing Tendrils" page, again, in the More Views section. Obviously, we want the APNG more than the .gif. This is just another small comparison point.
Problem: APNGs are great, but do bolted vees and maid headbands need APNGs? Noe.

Problem: keeping the dimensional size the same for these can be a hassle depending on your APNG generation technique. Bear in mind, resizing animations on this wiki makes them not animate directly on the page. Advantageous in some situations, annoying in others. The column style of "more views" has users click on the image to see it animate, instead of having all of them animate on one page. This makes browsing easier in general. Anyway, I ramble.

3) A "multiple overworld and inspect window views" thing I designed - example on the "Dapper Combo" page. Problem: APNG is vastly superior to a static image, but for things that don't need APNG to really get the behavior across, this is fine. Obviously an APNG for the dapper would be better, this is just an example. Another image of this kind is on the Glasses page.

4) The "rebreather" has something in the "more views" section, but I don't really like this style...just my opinion. Overworld is the whole point, cause accessories can be very different in the overworld.

Really what inspired the "more views" section was my first experience putting glasses on. I was like, WHOAH, these look WAY different in the overworld! Over time I've met dozens of other players who also want overworld previews...until that's officially implemented in-game, we'll have to figure out how to provide this "overworld view" as best we can on the wiki.

A fifth option is a "random" gallery of whatever is available - started something like this with the Scarf. A disconnected collage, if done properly, can look formal. If I had all the time in the world, I'd probably end up happiest with this option. Consistently random!

Consistency...consistency...

Anyway...there's the options I've come up with. Each page could display the option that caters best to the item type...but...imo, being consistent across the wiki is so much better. So which one should be used? Or any other ideas? Despite the problem of being "too much" for things like headbands, I think an animation image is the way to go... unless the gallery just really works out. Again, some items..like, say, Knight Vision Goggles, would need two, since the prismatic behavior is different from the rest...hence gallery...

Consistency issues with animation content: knight height, and how that influences what the accessory looks like in the real world on whatever armor they've got it on. Not a huge deal. Knight behavior: rotating in place? Bad animation looping for "random movement" accessories can make an image look cruddy and informal. If a good loop just can't be made, either have a static multiple views image, or have the image fade in and out to black with a title on it - but that is a lot of work for something that isn't official in-game. And again, this isn't consistent.

And what would be easiest for future wiki editors that take up the volunteer work if we're ever gone? Which we eventually will be cause of old age and whatnot. But for real...gallery would help with this issue. If you can't have a clear-cut cropped dimensional thing like we have with the blueprint mouseover, accept whatever images any user can provide in the gallery (so long as they are of decent quality and accuracy, of course).

I'm hesitant to put a ton of effort into it too (despite the user/personal desire for it), in case SK suddenly comes out with some sort of official Overworld previewer like they did with the blueprint bodies. If people agree with this last point ("random potential sk overworld view update unknown"), we'll just take out the blank "more views" sections (or all of the ToC-related ones - obviously the column type can stay). Also, it would be nice to have lore/tooltip descriptions of accessories, like we do for most other items... But that's just a hope of mine for the future of the game.

TL;DR: Options and Examples
1) Overworld view Columns in the tables. Great for individual, unique accessories, too much for simpler accessories. Example good: Auras. Example bad: bolted vees.
2) A single animation that portrays the behavior of a group of accessory types on that accessory type's page in a "more views" ToC section. Example good: writhing tendrils. Example bad: bolted vees.
3) A single, still image (regular .png) that shows different overworld angles and a wholistic inspect window view in its own ToC section. Example good: bolted vees. Example bad: anything that moves.
4) A single image showing different angles as a "close up" in its own ToC section. Example good: rebreather. Example bad: anything that's not really that detailed, or that moves, or that behaves at all differently in the overworld.
5) Gallery of random but highly informative images, a sort of collage of views/perspectives/stills/animations.
6) Do nothing. Wait for official in-game overworld views, like what we got with the blueprint body mouseover preview.

giant blocks of text.