Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Editing User talk:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha

Discussion page of User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 16: Line 16:


(Unindenting, but still related to the MA thing). Over at MA, they've already [[Memoryalpha:Template talk:DidYouKnow|run into this issue]]. Currently the English MA site is still manual, I believe. The German language site, though, has a template for each week, and kind of like the "Quote of the Day". So the code on the main page would access the current week's DYK's, and users can go as far ahead as they want to lay down future DYK's that will automatically be highlighted when that week comes around. Sort of a compromise on the automation vs. human quality. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:56, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
(Unindenting, but still related to the MA thing). Over at MA, they've already [[Memoryalpha:Template talk:DidYouKnow|run into this issue]]. Currently the English MA site is still manual, I believe. The German language site, though, has a template for each week, and kind of like the "Quote of the Day". So the code on the main page would access the current week's DYK's, and users can go as far ahead as they want to lay down future DYK's that will automatically be highlighted when that week comes around. Sort of a compromise on the automation vs. human quality. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:56, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
== Alphabetical Categories ==
 
I don't really mind the MA design, but it doesn't really address what I think is the number one problem navigating this site, and that is the distance (in terms of clicks, page scrolling, etc.) between the front-page visitor and as quick an understanding as possible of the categories and types of articles there are available. For an example of a page that I think works fairly well in this regard (not a wiki) [http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/ go here]. Notice that in the sidebar I have easy and immediate access to both an alphabetical listing, 'latest entries', 'maps', as well as divisions naturally suggested by the subject matter like 'Races' and 'Places'. Also notice the way the list is designed as a tight compromise between comprehensiveness and my ability to take in all of it in a single glance. They don't give me a full alphabetical list to page through, nor do they give me a link that says 'alphabetical index'. Instead, they give me 26 links for 26 letters. This two-tiered approach to categorisation is superior, because it's a manageable list that leads to a manageable list. It's a good lay of the land. I want to be able to look at the front page and get as good a 'lay of the land' as possible in a single glance. For example, I don't want to see a link that says 'Characters'. I want to see a section called 'Characters' followed by a set of subcategories (Pilots, Soldiers, Command Staff, Government, Civilians), all on the top of the front page among the other second-tier indices. I would even say that it would be an improvement to turn the Memory Alpha organisation on its head. Put the index stuff at the top (but organised more along the lines of the Encyclopedia of Arda, perhaps in two columns to allow even more categories than Races and Places). And put these bells and whistles which are really just icing, at bottom 'below the fold', so that as people scroll, pure hard information starts to fade more into entertainment. That would be my ideal set of priorities for the front page, so take it for what it's worth to you, I will support whatever design the group settles upon.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 15:26, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
I don't really mind the MA design, but it doesn't really address what I think is the number one problem navigating this site, and that is the distance (in terms of clicks, page scrolling, etc.) between the front-page visitor and as quick an understanding as possible of the categories and types of articles there are available. For an example of a page that I think works fairly well in this regard (not a wiki) [http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/ go here]. Notice that in the sidebar I have easy and immediate access to both an alphabetical listing, 'latest entries', 'maps', as well as divisions naturally suggested by the subject matter like 'Races' and 'Places'. Also notice the way the list is designed as a tight compromise between comprehensiveness and my ability to take in all of it in a single glance. They don't give me a full alphabetical list to page through, nor do they give me a link that says 'alphabetical index'. Instead, they give me 26 links for 26 letters. This two-tiered approach to categorisation is superior, because it's a manageable list that leads to a manageable list. It's a good lay of the land. I want to be able to look at the front page and get as good a 'lay of the land' as possible in a single glance. For example, I don't want to see a link that says 'Characters'. I want to see a section called 'Characters' followed by a set of subcategories (Pilots, Soldiers, Command Staff, Government, Civilians), all on the top of the front page among the other second-tier indices. I would even say that it would be an improvement to turn the Memory Alpha organisation on its head. Put the index stuff at the top (but organised more along the lines of the Encyclopedia of Arda, perhaps in two columns to allow even more categories than Races and Places). And put these bells and whistles which are really just icing, at bottom 'below the fold', so that as people scroll, pure hard information starts to fade more into entertainment. That would be my ideal set of priorities for the front page, so take it for what it's worth to you, I will support whatever design the group settles upon.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 15:26, 7 April 2006 (CDT)


Line 28: Line 28:
|}
|}


:::I like it, Steelviper. It gets the job done. Minor criticisms: (a) When I pick 'R' if there is room it includes 'S' and 'T', which might be useful in some circumstances, but the trouble is that it forces me to scroll further to get at all the 'R's. Since I just clicked 'R' to deprioritise some of the 'R' entries in favour of some 'S' entries which appear at the top of the results, doesn't make much sense. I don't know if this is imposed on you by the wiki tools, or if this is a matter of choice, but it would be better to use all three columns for 'R's, and then to start another 3 columns below that for 'S's, etc. If the only way to achieve three columns of 'R's is to have only 'R's on the page, then I think that would be preferable. (b) I find the distinction between subcategory 'R's and article 'R's to be confusing, and a bit annoying in that it pushes the actual 'R' articles further down the scroll. There aren't that many subcategories, but in the future, there could be. There could be so many subcategories that none of the actual 'R' articles are visible without scrolling, and then you've got a another real problem with deemphasising the most-looked-for results of the click. Not knowing whether this is easy to do, my ideal layout would be: three columns of 'R' articles at the top; scroll down to reveal three columns of 'R' subcategories; scroll drown to reveal three columns of 'S' articles, and then another three columns of 'S' subcategories. That's assuming that we'll keep all the same information on that page and just change the layout. I would not have problem with removing everything from the 'R' page except the 'R' articles proper, and listing subcategories elsewhere in a more conceptual organisation. Alphabetical is alphabetical, and categorical is categorical. There seems to me to be limited value in hybridising them like that by alphabetising categories. Once again, my standard disclaimer: feel free to completely ignore me.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:30, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
:::I like it, Steelviper. It gets the job done. Minor criticisms: (a) When I pick 'R' if there is room it includes 'S' and 'T', which might be useful in some circumstances, but the trouble is that it forces me to scroll further to get at all the 'R's. Since I just clicked 'R' to deprioritise some of the 'R' entries in favour of some 'S' entries which appear at the top of the results, doesn't make much sense. I don't know if this is imposed on you by the wiki tools, or if this is a matter of choice, but it would be better to use all three columns for 'R's, and then to start another 3 columns below that for 'S's, etc. If the only way to achieve three columns of 'R's is to have only 'R's on the page, then I think that would be preferable. (b) I find the distinction between subcategory 'R's and article 'R's to be confusing, and a bit annoying in that it pushes the actual 'R' articles further down the scroll. There aren't that many subcategories, but in the future, there could be. There could be so many subcategories that none of the actual 'R' articles are visible without scrolling, and then you've got a another real problem with deemphasising the most-looked-for results of the click. Not knowing whether this is easy to do, my ideal layout would be: three columns of 'R' articles at the top; scroll down to reveal three columns of 'R' subcategories; scroll drown to reveal three columns of 'S' articles, and then another three columns of 'S' subcategories. That's assuming that we'll keep all the same information on that page and just change the layout. I would not have problem with removing everything from the 'R' page except the 'R' articles proper, and listing subcategories elsewhere in a more conceptual organisation. Alphabetical is alphabetical, and categorical is categorical. There seems to me to be limited value in hybridising them like that. Once again, my standard disclaimer: feel free to completely ignore me.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:30, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
 
::::I was mainly following the example that I found [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Category#Large categories here]. From that page it looks like I can specify a "From" as a starting point, but not a "To" for an ending. So basically you end up with all those "unwanted" entries from other letters crowding the screen. This APPEARS to be a technical limitation of the wikicode. The only way around it that I can think of off the top of my head is an '''ugly''' hack. (Tagging each article with an "alphabet" category (Category:A, Category:B), so that the category listing would ONLY show that letter.) Same goes with showing the subcategories (other than evaluating which subcategories should actually be subcategories of A to Z). If the "hack" were implemented, you could omit the subcategories and be left only with articles. Hopefully this is just a case of ignorance of wikicode on my part... and I'll continue to look around to see if I can find a way for "R" to just serve up "R" articles with no subcategories. I'm not that hopeful though, as the code above is swiped directly from the category navigation at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia usually has the latest and greatest widgets at work. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:57, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
 
::::Also, I suppose if Mediawiki doesn't do what we need it to, we can [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NiceCategoryList_extension change it]. The linked extension isn't exactly what we need (lists the whole category, not a specified subset), but it does provide a good example of generating a page based on the category info. If I can't find anything further I may look at modifying that code to do what we have discussed. Do you think the columns are the way to go, or would a flat (vertical) list like the one this extension generates is good enough. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:34, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
 
:::::Wow.  SV, if I could vote for you for Administrator again, I would!--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 15:36, 13 April 2006 (CDT)


== Alignment ==
== Alignment ==
Line 44: Line 38:
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/DidYouKnow&action=edit Did You Know] - a trivia section (see discussion above)
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/DidYouKnow&action=edit Did You Know] - a trivia section (see discussion above)
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/ArticleOfTheWeek&action=edit Article of the Week] - a featured article section (would need some procedure/policy), and maybe automation
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/ArticleOfTheWeek&action=edit Article of the Week] - a featured article section (would need some procedure/policy), and maybe automation
* Template:Article/Spoiler-free - this is the "news" template from the current main page (anything you do to this will show on main page as well)
* [[Template:Article/Spoiler-free]] - this is the "news" template from the current main page (anything you do to this will show on main page as well)
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/PagesofInterest&action=edit Pages of Interest] - highlights popular pages and pages that need work
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/PagesofInterest&action=edit Pages of Interest] - highlights popular pages and pages that need work
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/Encyclopedia&action=edit Encyclopedia] - exposes the categories currently. Uses actual category names instead of going to hub pages like the memoryalpha version.
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/Encyclopedia&action=edit Encyclopedia] - exposes the categories currently. Uses actual category names instead of going to hub pages like the memoryalpha version.
* Template:Content/Menu/Box4 - used in "community", "The Community" on main page
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box4]] - used in "community", "The Community" on main page
* Template:Content/Menu/Box5 - used in "community", "The Fan Stuff" on main page
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box5]] - used in "community", "The Fan Stuff" on main page
* Template:Content/Menu/Box6 - used in "community", "The Wiki" on main page
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box6]] - used in "community", "The Wiki" on main page


That's it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
That's it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

To edit this page, please enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):

Refresh
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

  [] · [[]] · [[|]] · {{}} · · “” ‘’ «» ‹› „“ ‚‘ · ~ | ° &nbsp; · ± × ÷ ² ³ ½ · §
     [[Category:]] · [[:File:]] · [[Special:MyLanguage/]] · <code></code> · <nowiki></nowiki> <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> · <syntaxhighlight></syntaxhighlight> · <includeonly></includeonly> · <noinclude></noinclude> · #REDIRECT[[]] · <translate></translate> · <languages/> · {{#translation:}} · <tvar|></> · {{DEFAULTSORT:}} · <categorytree></categorytree> · <div style="clear:both;"></div> <s></s> Welcome message: {{subst:welcome|{{PAGENAME}}}} (signature added automatically) Spammer blocked message: {{subst:spammertalk}} (signature added automatically)


Your changes will be visible immediately.
  • For testing, please use the sandbox instead.
  • On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).