Dracora-Speaking/Novaster has replaced the content of Talk:Battle Sprite with {{Note-Discussion}}, which tells readers to use Wiki Editors forum threads instead of talk pages for discussing wiki editing.
This seems like a pretty big change to how the wiki operates. It should be discussed.
I'll remove it/change it then, within two days, unless the following changes minds or I get more feedback from in-game. Actual editor feedback is of course preferable.
People were confused by older posts, and Clotho said "leave it to the editors to decide" regarding "can we use a thing like this at all" so I thought it would help, but it was only a few in-game players and my observations on people performing necromancy on the forums (btw, someone has a request on your monster pic thread Glacies). Didn't realize it would be considered a "huge change" cause it was just on the talk pages. As you all know, usually I come to forums unless I think something is standard/miniscule. "It should be discussed." Okay, sure. I've made a number of threads that got 0 replies, so, still trying to find a balance of what is "important." Even if someone does comment, it's usually along the lines of "I suppose it doesn't really matter."
"This seems like a pretty big change to how the wiki operates." Actually, it's not, considering wiki stuff, not just sk's wiki. I suppose it is a large change regarding just SK's wiki, but one I feel would be for the better:
This template is intended to force some consistency regarding talk pages. On Wikipedia (the mother of all wikis), talk is almost always about page format/what should be on page (example), NOT "how can I, as a user of the page topic, do blah blah with page topic" hence the design of the template encouraging users to go to social venues for any clarity that isn't on the page... so I fully disagree with
"The Wiki Discussion page is really just a small form of speaking/discussion versus going on a physical forum and talking."
regarding
"There are plenty of pages asking on "Where can I find this exactly?" or "Whoa, what if [x] is really...!"
...this is just done in a highly unofficial, undesired capacity. Just because people have done it, doesn't mean it's right. Especially something this informal. In a wiki setting, it's outright wrong.
Regarding discussing "editing the page," the template clearly states "put small discussions about it here." I would much rather reword the template to be something like so (vs. remove it):
This is a talk page for editors to discuss page format. If you have a question about the topic itself, and not about the page format (What should be on the page, how it should be arranged, etc.) please go to "forum links blah blah," and do not edit here.
If we don't like using page history, I suggest a makeshift "archive" in show/hide tabs so older editor concerns don't get in the way of new ones, maybe once every six months and/or as the issues are resolved or no longer a concern.
IDK how anything gets done on Wikipedia. Those talk pages argue about every little word sometimes. It's hard enough getting things to be agreed upon with just like, 6 or so people on the SK wiki. It's all mostly good effort though :)
TL;DR:
Template is meant to be a step toward a Wikipedia standard. Talk pages are for editors talking about page edits, not casual article discussion. Please discuss the wording of the template instead of advocating its complete removal, unless removal is what you feel is best (for reasons that apply).
Votes so far:
-Me: in favor of changing wording
-Bopp: ?
-Glacies: opposed to it existing (for incorrect reasons)
-Silent masses: "meh" (as usual)
To be honest, with all the disagreements and politics that goes on with editing the wiki... I've been avoiding editing. I volunteer to do things for fun, not for a headache. Editing the wiki is no longer fun to me. I'm even limiting my forum chatter to a couple threads I have bookmarked.
In fact, this change by Clotho really made me wonder if there is any communication that goes on between editors. I labeled this edit "Mission rewards up to date as of this edit", yet for some reason 7 months later without any changes to the missions... they were not up to date again. [Only to have new missions added so it was technically correct 3 days later.]
====
Moving on.
Forum allows for faster paced communication with players that don't normally visit all the wiki's talk pages.
Wiki talk pages allow for a much better log of discussions and sorting of information.
If I end up editing the wiki ever again, I would prefer a better log and sorting of information.
To me, the warning aspect about "asking questions about a topic" seems relevant [first half of the battle sprite talk page]. However on pages such as Talk:Sword, which also got the template change, I felt that all the contents of the talk page were all relevant to erroneous information located on the page and did not need a blanking or moving to the forums as a discussion.
@Dracora-Speaking
You seem to be conflicted as to whether or not you need to ask about every formatting change you make.
Perhaps the ones that Clotho responds... "That's entirely up to the wiki editors." deserve a bit more thorough conversations with the editing community.
Perhaps the ones that Clotho responds - but only cause I nagged him about it. I'll be sure to go to forums if he mentions "other editors" at all, though, that seems a very obvious guideline I didn't see (I considered it to be a sort of dismissal), so thanks.
It seems that archiving in some appropriate way is the best format option for the template being discussed, since it's easier to access than history.
I wondered about that change - the missions page is huge, even just considering rewards. Like, where is the update needed? Oh dear. But Clotho's a busy guy :P. And he does talk to us at least.
I don't think there's really an incorrect way on saying what the discussion page should be used for but Skeptic pretty much said everything I wanted to just better.
A lot of the problem is that although the Wiki is officially on the Spiral Knights site unlike various others there is absolutely no interaction with the players and Gamemasters. Back when I was one of the few people editing the wiki I often tried to get the Gamemasters to actually communicate with the players. However, whatever happened to Equinox has left the wiki and its editors in quite a mess.
Equinox often gave their opinion on various things but I have no idea what happened to them. Not saying Clotho isn't doing a good job but we really do need much more interaction from them.
As for the monster thing I do have something in progress to be testing eventually which should appear one day.
I think if wikipedia has an article directly stating "don't do this" you shouldn't use what it says to not do as support in a debate :P. In this context, it is pretty..."wrong." You have to draw a line somewhere between opinions/majority/theory vs. fact etc. How have we been left in a mess? Really don't see it that way. It kinda makes current editors sound bad, when we all work pretty hard and it's all very nice volunteer work, and we get a lot of positive feedback, and that's really why I continue to edit. Your first comment sounded nothing like Skepticraven's post, maybe work on wording things the way you want before posting them. This is coming from someone who does 10 billion micro edits per edit. For those wondering, yes, I do know what a preview button is. But it's a good thing we can make our edits minor by default :P
Back on topic - I'll touch up the template tomorrow, please feedback when that's "done."
I come to editing SK's wiki from editing Wikipedia for about 10 years, so let me make a few comments.
First, Dracora-Speaking is exactly right that Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the editing of the article, not general questions/comments about the article's topic. Sometimes the line blurs, because if a common question is not addressed by the article, then the article should probably be edited to address that question.
I did not understand that {{Note-Discussion}} had anything to do with this. {{Note-Discussion}} seemed like Wikipedia's talk-archiving feature, which hides old discussions so as not to distract from current discussions. Also, {{Note-Discussion}} recommends Wiki Editors, which seems wrong to me. For example, if you want to talk about swords, then use Arsenal forum, not Wiki Editors. If you want to talk about the editing of the article Sword, then use Talk:Sword.
Secondly, I called it a "pretty big change" because talk pages are kind of sacred on Wikipedia. For example, you are not supposed to edit your comments after they are posted. Mischievous editors could alter what others are saying. Even well-meaning editors could disrupt the logic of the conversation. (The leadership of Wikipedia has funded multiple projects over multiple years to replace talk pages with some better discussion system. All have failed for various reasons.)
Thirdly, Wikipedia grew explosively in its first few years because editors were focused on adding content. The wiki concept is good at this. Now that there is a lot of content and the rules are better constructed, there are more arguments over the right way to say something or the right rule to follow. The wiki concept is not good at getting people to agree on nit-picky details. Is this what Skepticraven finds un-fun about current Spiral Knights wiki editing?
My solution is to stay focused on accumulating content. For example, the status pages don't list immunity thresholds, even though players have run extensive tests on those. That's one of my immediate projects (although I have little time currently).
@Bopp
"Is this what Skepticraven finds un-fun about current Spiral Knights wiki editing?"
No. I'm going to avoid pointing fingers, but it has more to do with being told my efforts have already been done before and being dragged into the heated nitpicky discussions that I don't particularly care about. After all, I still maintain and enjoy contributing to the long-term heated forum discussions on rarities striving for better information and less anecdotal evidence.
@Topic
Looking at the conversation here, there are multiple aspects of this:
1. We seem to be in agreement that questions and opinions about a wiki page do not belong on the wiki talk page.
2. The disagreement is how the directing of editors should be handled.
Dracora-Speaking is in support of throwing a warning template on all talk pages carefully worded enough to direct such conversations to the forums.
Glacies and I appear to support handling this on a case-by-case basis without having to update the entire wiki's talk page collection with a template.
I would also be in support of the idea that existing infractions of this idea be edited out of current talk pages to not give the appearance that it is the correct place to make these comments.
3. Archiving talk pages.
I don't think this should occur. What should occur is readers and editors become keen with understanding how to read page history and looking at dates of comments there [using signature timestamps]. For excessively giant talk pages... like Clotho's... exceptions can be made for moving older discussions to provide a less cluttered look.
Okay. How's this:
I will remove the template, restore the talk content of various pages that were affected, and try to add sigs via {{unsigned|name}} for editors who neglected to do so (as I see them, this isn't worth our time really). Instead of using the template as I have, I'll reword it - feedback on it please. It should be good...but... IMO, we should slap this on the User:Talk pages now, not the talk pages of articles themselves...which would mean rewording the template even more betterer. Thoughts? And maybe just keep an eye out on recent edits and talk pages as well as "fix" these as you see them?
Regarding archiving: I've done something on the talk page for Sword. It is not a true archive, but I think it's a nice middle ground between access/organization/efficiency/clarity etc. Feedback please.
I will also stop being lazy using talk pages as mini sandboxes and instead make a small sandbox (like Exploration/Sandbox), which I know I should do, but I've found that users have a lot of trouble with the concept of a sandbox as well as getting to a sandbox, so I was abusing the talk page for convenience/thought it was at least mildly appropriate.
Hurray for sudden huge discussions on things!
TL;DR:
-please review most recent revision of the {{note-discussion}} template by Novaster
-please review this revision of the talk page of "Sword" by Novaster
-please pretend the world is perfect and have a nice day
How big is this problem? Given the lack of activity on the forums these days, and the lack of activity on my watchlist, I'd be surprised to hear of rampant mauling of talk pages.
If this is a small problem, then I recommend that we do nothing --- no notice of any kind anywhere. Let's get back to collecting minerals for Wegner.
If this is a big problem, then it's fine with me to place a notice on any talk page where the problem has arisen. So I would agree with Glacies and Skepticraven.
In the notice, I don't like the word "format", because it seems to exclude content. My proposed rewrite is...
This talk page exists for wiki editors to discuss edits to the article. It is not a discussion board for questions or comments about the topic. For such discussion, go to the relevant forum instead: [forum links here].
Finally, Talk:Sword does not need a notice or archiving. I'm not aware of a talk page on this wiki that needs archiving. If Clotho's does, then that's up to Clotho.
I don't use the word "format" anywhere in the current revision of the {{note discussion}} template, so I am somewhat confused by your feedback. I think I know the problem though. I linked to the edit history, which is just for archive purposes in this forum thread (I notice a lot of links break/become obsolete over time if you don't link to edit history), please see the most recent revision according to the more recent edit in the linked-to edit history.
Opinion on current revision of sword's talk page? It's not a true "archive," it's more of an organization format. A lot of the edits were not ordered in a timeline (2011 before 2010 and so on) and I found one unsigned. To make new edits easier, I could actually do a sort of template that shows the content on the page but doesn't really get in the way of editing, so new edits don't accidentally mess up what's in the show/hides.
And no, it is a puny problem IMO (if even a "problem"), which is why I didn't go to the forums in the first place :P
EDIT: made the template thingie.
Compare:
Current revision of sword talk page
to:
using a sort of "family" of "visual archive" templates similar to this. I like this idea, because we can even force the show/hide to be open by default, so old issues can be read even more easily, but they don't get in the way of editing, and it's clearly "this was so 2011, get with the recent edits." I'm in favor of having them collapsed. If we use this at all. Thoughts?
Of course, only use on longish and ancient (not just "ancient" haha, I mean 2011 type stuff) talk pages/as you see fit. IMO, once a year as January visits us should be fine (I mentioned 6 months earlier, but that's annoying to type as a date, a year is not as annoying).
I was reading your proposed text in bold in post #2. Now I am not. The current revision of the notice is okay.
I am not in favor of the show/hiding, because that page is not long enough to merit it. But this is a long-standing difference of opinion between you and me.
If we did decide to go with show/hiding, then 2014 should not be hidden only two months into 2015. It's quite reasonable for someone to continue a conversation from late 2014 well into 2015. I would not hide 2014 until the end of 2015, say.
Your archive pattern makes sense. My main concern is necromancy-type stuff really getting in the way of new edits. Which isn't usually an issue going December into January and so on. I would be in favor of archiving as issues are resolved into the year they started in, in general. Usually wiki doesn't have issues for that long, haha - it's on the forums in that case, as far as I can tell. I'll let this sit for a while to get more feedback.
EDIT: as of now, the template is unused, just linked to in Clotho's archive.
History has been restored as it was (no cleanups by me regarding ordering/unsigned sig fixes/"fake archiving") on all pages except the sword talk page. Awaiting more opinions on talk pages (based on current format of sword talk page) and what to do about {{note-discussion}} - delete it, or slap it on user talk pages as a helpful "warning" or "advisory" type thing? If so, I need to make documentation. If not, well, then we delete it. Or just let it sleep until this "problem" becomes an actual problem if it ever does.
Personally, I dislike it. The Discussion page isn't just about what should or shouldn't be changed. Discussion on a wiki is literal: Discussion.
There are plenty of pages asking on "Where can I find this exactly?" or "Whoa, what if [x] is really...!" topics. I've been browsing various wikis from games and I'm suddenly realizing how inconsistent the Spiral Knights wiki is.
The Wiki Discussion page is really just a small form of speaking/discussion versus going on a physical forum and talking.
So in short I believe this really shouldn't exist.