 |
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
|---|
I've been working on a replacement for {{section}}. While it's useful to show that the content of a section is missing, people usually forget to remove it once the section has been filled in and its category (Category:Section needed) is quite overcrowded, making it less than useful.
Instead, I've been trying to create a JavaScript-based replacement. Basically it automatically inserts a short "add me" text in empty sections, without the need to add and remove a template manually. The script is restricted to articles (should also work when previewing an edit), and should only insert the text in sections which are followed by a headline of the same or a higher level (i.e. an empty section beginning with a level 3 headline should only be tagged if the next headline is either level 3 or level 2).
I'm looking for people to help me beta-test the script. If you'd like to help, go to Special:MyPage/wikia.js, Special:MyPage/monaco.js or Special:MyPage/monobook.js (depending on the skin you use) and insert the following:
importScriptPage('MediaWiki:Common.js/SectionNotice.js', 'fallout');
I'm particularly looking for instances where the text is inserted when it shouldn't be and vice versa. Don't worry about the orange background color for the text, it's only there to make the notices easier to see during the beta.
Feedback is also welcome, of course :) -- Porter21 (talk) 18:22, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Great idea, works fine too. --Light Daxter - Talk 19:30, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a bot be a better idea that simply removes/adds a section templates based on the criteria? GhostAvatar 20:29, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
- This is just my view, but in the interest of user accessibility not all end user have javascript enabled on there system. So if the script is going to be run client side then it will serve no purpose. Also the missing sections page does serve a purpose and can still be maintained if a bot is used, after looking only about 1 in 6 are people failing to remove the section tag with the rest actually needing content. Also a large amount of it is new content related to New Vegas, so it has become bloated in that respect. GhostAvatar 21:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, you have a point in that not all users have JavaScript enabled. We're relying on JavaScript for other functionality already though (e.g. the game icons), and Wikia itself relies heavily on JS for the skin alone (e.g. all the pop-up menus in the new skin do not work if JS is disabled). Personally, I'd rather view this script as a drop in the bucket of things which do not work properly when JS is disabled.
- What I meant with "nobody uses the category" is that I don't think many people (if any at all) actually go there and say "let's look for pages which have a missing section and add it". Of course, that's just my opinion - if people come out and say that they do use it for this purpose, I'll happily admit I'm wrong.
- Finally, the main problem I see with using a bot is that there's basically only one bot which is somewhat continually available at this wiki: mine. Since it is as of yet unsure whether I'll continue contributing to Wikia-hosted sites past Nov 3, I think you can understand why I'm hesitant when it comes to creating tasks which require a bot.
- If people say they'd rather not have this script and stick to using
{{section}}, that's fine with me, too. I'm merely offering an alternative which requires less maintenance ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 06:18, October 30, 2010 (UTC)- I like the current
{{section}}template.--Gothemasticator 11:50, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I like the current
Well I have just gone through all the pages listed under {{section}} and found that roughly 50% of them link to new content for FNV of which about 1/4 of that where people failing to remove the tags after adding content (which I corrected along with other formatting issues). With the other 50% there was a very big portion used in van buren articles that will most likely never be filled. So I would probably suggest a dedicated {{section}} for van buren (might want to extend that to {{image needed}} and {{Incomplete}} as well) to help cull the amount of content within the sections needed page. This would then actual make that page more helpful as the content left could actually be filled.
But I understand what you say about making it easier, my only concern is that it is making it easier by sweeping the issue under the carpet and hiding the need for sections that actually need content. Also if no one is using the page, then what harm is there in leaving it just in case in the future someone does come along and actually contribute via this tool.
As with the bots I could have sworn I saw 2 for this site, one run weekly and another run on request. But it does surprise me there are so few bots here, especially anti vandalism bots that automatically revert obvious edits. On a side not with the van buren articles, I did notice a large amount of character articles had images for Dukes of Hazard, Mad Max. Didn't really look into them to much as I don't know what going on with them.
GhostAvatar 01:21, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying about making the issue less notable, but I would suggest that the
{{stub}}templates already serve pretty much the same purpose, i.e. marking pages as requiring expansion.{{section}}was introduced when we added the "preloaded layout" functionality to the site so people wouldn't remove empty sections that are required per our layout guidelines, and I think the script could provide this functionality without the added hassle (and having to plaster pages with mboxes). - The stub templates have the added advantage of being game-specific. I agree that having game-specific versions of most article management templates would probably be more workable - it's something I've been considering as well, but there were always more "pressing" things to do ;)
- Regarding bots, there are 4 user-run bots which are "registered" at this wiki: PorterBot (mine), H4rkn355, Agricola and HeliumBot. Other than mine, none of these have been active in last 5 months, with their owners being inactive as well. I guess you probably read the outdated notice at the top of Category:Verification overdue; I've updated it.
- Concerning Van Buren articles, the images from movies and other sources were used by the devs in the leaked VB design documents to illustrate what they imagined the character to look like. Since VB was never released, there are naturally no ingame images available, so these are the only images we are able to provide for readers. As for sections in VB articles being "unfillable", there's actually plenty of relevant info in the design docs for most of them; it's just a few for which there is no info available at all. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:35, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
Possible compromise solution, use JavaScript to to replace the outputted {{section}} template HTML using document.getElementById etc. and replace with simply text as suggested above. This still keeps the integrity of the {{section}} template to be used by those who wish to, also a fullback method for displaying sections missing for those users who don't have JavaScript enabled. While those with JavaScript enabled are not plastered with loads of mboxes throughout the article.
But I still think the way forward is to have a game-specific option switch for {{section}}, that not only puts it in the cat for sections needed but also a sub cat for sections needed for that game. Would help {{section}} management a lot.
GhostAvatar 23:03, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
If the aesthetics were my primary concern, I could simply change the appearance of the template and wouldn't need JavaScript at all ;) I'm using JS so people don't have to insert/remove the template manually, not as an end in itself. Plus the point remains that {{section}} is redundant with {{stub}} in my opinion. As far as people who have JS disabled go, I doubt that's a significant portion of the viewership to be honest. Wikia relies heavily on JS; its sites are barely usable without it. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:25, November 1, 2010 (UTC)