Discussion:Lets test it out

Back to Main Page → Meta Pages → Discussions

--Kydo (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2016 (MDT)

I am making some revisions to the discussion preload to include an inputbox which allows users to create comments in the correct format at a single click of a button for ease of use.

--Kydo (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2016 (MDT)

How does that look? Is everyone OK with it? I can't figure out how to make it put comments below each other, but above the breadcrumb, so I moved it to the top of the page.

--Kydo (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2016 (MDT)

If it doesn't work for you guys, please feel free to revert Template:Forumheader/Discussion to the December 2013 edit by SgtLion.

--Kydo (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2016 (MDT)

WTF is up with this... Weird header tier variation. Cant find cause.

--Kydo (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2016 (MDT)

did it work?

--Kydo (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2016 (MDT)

No... For some reason the comments default down to == instead of === regardless what I enter in defalt=...

header trial

what happens if I do it manually?

AHA! That's the problem! The header line disregards header tiers entered into it, and defaults that line to ==! Now, how do I bypass it... --Kydo (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (MDT)

--Kydo (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2016 (MDT)

Well frick, I can't even find evidence for that alt-+ tab even existing, let alone documaentation on how it works!

SgtLion (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2016 (MDT)

Yay, I'm helping!

Marasmusine (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2016 (MDT)

The city... as if it were unborn. Rising into the sky with fingers of metal, limbs without flesh, girders without stone. Signs hanging without support. Wires dipping and swaying without poles. A city unborn. Flesh dissolved in an acid of light. A city of the dead.

--Kydo (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2016 (MDT)

So I guess everyone is OK with conversation headers being bumped up to == then?

Green Dragon (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2016 (MDT)

Lets test this. Great if it works. I agree that the whole discussion area is rather confusing at best, and only partially relevant to lots of people so if this works its a great step already!

• Notes: Title size too large (unless this is a new standard).

--Kydo (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2016 (MDT)

Yes, I know. I can't fix the header tier. The comment bar defaults header to == rank, regardless what I put in the default line, or even what is manually entered there. Is there a way around it? If not, we may either need to go back to the old method, or just accept == as the new standard.

--Kydo (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2016 (MDT)

I'm trying to clean up a lot of the references around the wiki. I know the wiki was originally only 3.5e, but it has grown since then, and a lot of things, like certain breadcrumbs, and really old meta, still reference users back to 3.5e for no reason, just because they were copypasta'd up to the next edition. For example, up until a moment ago, the forumfooter template on every single discussion contained 3.5e homebrew as a step in its breadcrumb progression, which is silly, because this forum has more to do with the wiki than any specific edition.

One particular mess is the jumbled relationship between Meta Pages, DnD Guidelines, and Help:Portal. A lot of that stuff is editionless, but contains references to 3.5e. Some content, like the preload for guidelines, specify 3.5e but no other edition. There are instances throughout the wiki where DnD in a template or category means 3.5e. That should be fixed. Those three pages need to be cleared up. Meta pages page should be primarily for management purposes, not directly linked to from the sidebar. We should replace meta with Help:Portal in the sidebar, (A task I have no idea how to accomplish) and clean up the portal to include all the useful editionless stuff from meta and guidelines. Then, on the help portal, include links to meta and guidelines as "see also".

Green Dragon (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2016 (MDT)

Changing the breadcrumb to link to Meta Pages was a good idea. You are probably right about the link to Meta Pages on the sidebar. Right now it is useful for people to get quick access to the improving, reviewing, and removing templates and the to-do lists, but when this jumbled relationship has been sorted out then this change will make a great difference.

--Kydo (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2016 (MDT)

OK. Here's my beef. I get that 4 or five years ago, you guys had some big ragequit nonsense and it eff'd things up a lot. That's fine. Communities have ups and downs. However, you guys who saw it and stuck around, (GD, Marasmusine, Jazzman, etc.) this wiki was in your hands at the time. None of you are even vaguely incompetent. In fact, all of you make me look like a damn toddler whenever I try to do any real wiki code work. So I don't understand this: Why? Why does it seem like maintenance of the wiki's policies, referencing, and communication tools, suddenly came to a screeching halt? Why have new editions been added, but the core organization of the wiki never updated to adequately reflect that? Why were new editions added, but old editions are still neglected? (Isn't this the "D&D Wiki"? Why are we only accepting post-millennial material?) Why do we have unwritten social rules? Why do we have a couple of very brief and eloquently phrased temper-tantrums written into policies? It's not like you guys were incapable of dealing with any of this. It isn't even like it's hard! And with a smaller community, it should have been far easier to achieve consensus! Whenever I come across these artifacts, I get this really bitter aftertaste from the wiki, a whiff of lingering apathy and frustration. That kind of residual social horse-$#%* has a subtle and widespread effect on the attitude of the community. That kind of thing, written directly into the help pages and guidelines, can easily give people a sense that this community cares very little about/for itself, and gives new users absolutely no reason to think that they should care about it either. The devil is in the details... Until the details get read, then he's everywhere.

So I'm just going to start fixing that stuff. I'm going to start with help. Then I'm hitting the guidelines. After that, I'm purging extra-editional references from all 5e content. If you disagree with my changes, fix them. "Be the change you wish to see." as Ghandi said. The only way we can go from here is up, so I'm not to worried about ruining anything in this regard, and nobody seems to have the time/interest to pay attention and get involved when I try to do it the "right" way. I have a 30 minute lunch now. If you have any warnings for me before I get to work, and happen to see this, please feel free to tell me.

SgtLion (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2016 (MDT)

I appreciate you clearing things up Kydo, and we certainly all do! During the great schism, by chance, we largely lost the people who had done a lot of documentation and meta page upkeep, and the core users who made it by have had no real reason to go over the old help pages, 'cause we know it all, and at a vague glance, it all looked satisfactory. Realising the help pages needed revamping is something that relatively fresher eyes (as your own) was needed for, I suppose. Also, I'm going to play around with this code a little and see if we can get the old discussion headers back, 'cause while these are fine (and a worthwhile tradeoff for the handy button), I do think the older ones were better. I've been looking over your help page edits, too, and they all seem good.

--Kydo (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2016 (MDT)

Please, please, please find away around the subject/headline issue! I've been searching all over the internet for a way to bypass the silly thing! It's driving me insane. The old comment headers were far more attractive, and did a better job of visually separating comments because of the tonal contrast they contributed.

Regarding the help pages, I made the help portal into a template containing DPLs of dedicated help topics that pages can be grouped under. In the future, it should be much easier to modify and improve the help portal as demand arises. Simple enough that even a new user with very little experience could figure it out, without wrecking the portal. --Kydo (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2016 (MDT)