148 replies to this topic

[dgelessus]

Made one for modpacks. http://ftbwiki.org/F..._Guide/Modpacks

[Celestial Oblivion]

Ehhh idk, a Trivia section might include an element of "fun" to the article, maybe we could standardize it but note that it is an optional addition?

 

Well, should we put it as an optional section for every article type then?

[felinoel]

Well, should we put it as an optional section for every article type then?

idk about the Block article types but sure for most it might work.

[Celestial Oblivion]

idk about the Block article types but sure for most it might work.

 

Some blocks might have histories worthy of a trivia section. For example, if a certain block had a glitch that made it immune to explosions in a previous version.

 

Also thanks to whoever clarified that items should always use their in game name. I thought it was kind of weird we had to use singular for items with names in the plural.

[Celestial Oblivion]

I'm going to suggest an amendment to the item style guide. In the item template, there is a "Renewable" property in the box. However, sometimes items are renewable in some modpacks because of the other mods installed and not in others. Therefore, I think and item should only labeled as "Renewable" if there is a renewable way to get the item or all of its crafting components from either the mod (or the main mod if the mod is a child mod) the item originates from or vanilla. If the item could be renewable with the help of other mods, this should be mentioned in the article but the box should not say it is renewable.

[felinoel]

I'm going to suggest and amendment to the item style guide. In the item template, their is a "Renewable" property in the box. However, sometimes items are renewable in some modpacks because of the other mods installed and not in others. Therefore, I think and item should only labeled as "Renewable" if there is a renewable way to get the item or all of its crafting components from either the mod (or the main mod if the mod is a child mod) the item originates from or vanilla. If the item could be renewable with the help of other mods, this should be mentioned in the article but the box should not say it is renewable.

I agree, mostly because the Renewable tab is far too confusing anyways, I will remove it from the infobox right away!

Any thoughts on different article types and how they should be written though? Below is a list, you can add some more if you had some more in mind too.

• Items/Blocks
• Mobs
• Mods/Modpacks
• Biomes
• Dimensions
• Concepts
• Weapons

[dgelessus]

Yeah, the renewability was kinda confusing, CO's idea is a good one.

@fel, what exactly are "concepts"?

[timrem]

I believe Concepts are things like Vis from Thaumcraft 3. Something you can interact with, but cannot really see or hold.

[felinoel]

I believe Concepts are things like Vis from Thaumcraft 3. Something you can interact with, but cannot really see or hold.

They are indeed, Vis, Lua, etc

The default article for concept pages will likely have a LOT of optional parts.


EDIT:
If you want to design a Concept page here is a good one in DIRE need of cleaning.
http://ftbwiki.org/Auras_and_Nodes

[Celestial Oblivion]

I agree, mostly because the Renewable tab is far too confusing anyways, I will remove it from the infobox right away!

Any thoughts on different article types and how they should be written though? Below is a list, you can add some more if you had some more in mind too.

• Items/Blocks
• Mobs
• Mods/Modpacks
• Biomes
• Dimensions
• Concepts
• Weapons

 

 

I don't think we should remove it from the item template, it just needed to be clarified in the template documentation and style guide.

 

I feel that we either need a new template for tools, weapons and armor or additional categories in the item tab, those items should have durability and damage/armor rating in the template. Beyond that I think they can more or less be treated as item articles.

 

I can't say I really like any of the mob articles I've seen, and sadly I don't really know enough about any mod mobs to write a decent article. For Vanilla mobs, I think the standard focus on the aspects changed by mods applies (for example, an article on Zombie's should mention twilight forest's zombie scepter and Thaumcraft's angry zombie, but only the basic general knowledge info).

 

Dimension articles are an interesting topic. Some of them like Twilight Forest or perhaps even Aether are basically synonymous with an article about the mod. I guess the Nether and End could use articles detailing the various changes mods make to them (a lot of mods add new mobs/terrain to the Nether, several add ores to them etc.). 

[felinoel]

I don't think we should remove it from the item template, it just needed to be clarified in the template documentation and style guide.

It served no real purpose though, which is why I figured no one would mind if I just removed it.
 

I feel that we either need a new template for tools, weapons and armor or additional categories in the item tab, those items should have durability and damage/armor rating in the template. Beyond that I think they can more or less be treated as item articles.

More categories could work, sure.
 

I can't say I really like any of the mob articles I've seen, and sadly I don't really know enough about any mod mobs to write a decent article.

Then write a standard for a Vanilla mob, or not on any mob at all but how a mob's article should be written.
 

For Vanilla mobs, I think the standard focus on the aspects changed by mods applies (for example, an article on Zombie's should mention twilight forest's zombie scepter and Thaumcraft's angry zombie, but only the basic general knowledge info).

That seems like Trivia info to me more than the main focus...
 

Dimension articles are an interesting topic. Some of them like Twilight Forest or perhaps even Aether are basically synonymous with an article about the mod. I guess the Nether and End could use articles detailing the various changes mods make to them (a lot of mods add new mobs/terrain to the Nether, several add ores to them etc.).

To be honest, I considered merging the default Dimension article with the default Biome article... they seem pretty similar in terms of content and how their articles should be structured to me.

[ostPavel]

Um, guys, this thing: http://ftbforums.org...be-on-the-wiki/ happened yesterday and I noticed that http://ftbwiki.org/F...locks_and_Items doesn't have a section for videos =\

How about we add video section right above See Also section in the guide?

[felinoel]

Um, guys, this thing: http://ftbforums.org...be-on-the-wiki/ happened yesterday and I noticed that http://ftbwiki.org/F...locks_and_Items doesn't have a section for videos =\
How about we add video section right above See Also section in the guide?

Yes of course!

How could we forget videos!?


Also I made a mobs one based on the wisps article because I really liked the design on that article, any changed anyone?
http://ftbwiki.org/F...tyle_Guide/Mobs

EDIT:
I've updated the (now three) expanded style guides for various types of articles to include videos, and I upped the amount of allowed videos to four because a maximum of two seems too minimal for such a large wiki, thoughts anyone?

Also I have to question the rule about videos are not allowed to ask for likes... most people won't click the like button unless they are reminded of it and unless someone is annoyingly bothersome about it I've never seen a problem with it?

[timrem]

What article could possibly need four different videos to supplement it? If that's the case, either the article should be expanded to give more thorough coverage of the topic, or those videos should not be included because their quality is too poor to sufficiently cover the topic. In my opinion, most articles require 0 videos; some others benefit from having 1 video to demonstrate the use of a complicated item, etc; a rare few have legitimate cause to have 2 videos, one for a basic introduction and another for in-depth coverage of a particularly complex topic. A four-video limit just sounds like an invitation for people to add videos for the sake of adding videos.

[felinoel]

What article could possibly need four different videos to supplement it?

MFFS articles (this needs a billion videos and I STILL won't understand it), nuclear reactor articles, modular power suits, maybe some beekeeping articles... maybe...

If that's the case, either the article should be expanded to give more thorough coverage of the topic, or those videos should not be included because their quality is too poor to sufficiently cover the topic.

Some people learn better by watching it done and most videos aren't entirely perfect in every way.

A four-video limit just sounds like an invitation for people to add videos for the sake of adding videos.

This is a good point... how about we bring back the two video limit then but leave the option for four videos available but requiring a community discussion (on the talk page or forums) for it first?

[timrem]

Exception-after-discussion sounds perfect.

[ostPavel]

Yeah, not sure why you went ahead and did it so quickly without discussing, fel. Esp. with like vast majority of articles having a 2 video limit...

 

Can I edit it and reword to make it obvious that 4 videos per page is a rare exception? >_>

[RZR0]

Felinoel, please don't change important existing guidelines like this without first discussing it. Four videos on a page is a massive clutter.

[felinoel]

Yeah, not sure why you went ahead and did it so quickly without discussing, fel. Esp. with like vast majority of articles having a 2 video limit...

Can I edit it and reword to make it obvious that 4 videos per page is a rare exception? >_>

You can indeed, I only edited it so quickly because I thought a lot of pages already had four videos and that no one was policing it and because of how dead this thread has been making me think that the topic is not of interest to much anyone.
 

Felinoel, please don't change important existing guidelines like this without first discussing it. Four videos on a page is a massive clutter.

felinoel*
Not the way they are on the pages that I've seen it, they take up the same amount of space, less even.
As I said though, I had figured no one cared about the style guide. I was apparently wrong in that assumption.

Exception-after-discussion sounds perfect.

Does anyone disagree?

[dgelessus]

The reason why there are pages with 3 or 4 videos is because a lot of people just don't care about guidelines. And if nobody notices that there are more than two videos it will just remain that way. It's not supposed to be that way though. So I don't see why we should adapt our guidelines to people who don't bother reading them.