Coppermind talk:Welcome

From The Coppermind
Jump to: navigation, search

Navigation

I really dislike one aspect of the front page: I feel like the current layout is usable but less than user friendly.

I feel like when I go looking for the wiki of a particular book series, rather than the actual Wikipedia, it is usually because I want to read first the article on the book written in more detail, then I want to branch off from there and read about the smaller details on their own pages. Currently, in order to get to the article on a particular book I have to click the book or series name and then click a second link to reach what is essentially the main article.

Can it instead be made so that the front page has for instance a link like "Elantris" that goes straight to the article on that book or links like "Mistborn" or "The Stormlight Archives" which point to those series pages, but also a list of links below them for each link in the series? Aliased (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Design

I've been thinking that this main page is horribly ugly and antiquated for our purposes. For one thing, the "bubbles" surrounding each element look like design elements from the '90s. We probably don't need the Getting Started block either, since that was just there when I installed it. I'll work on this sometime. Any suggestions?

Also, I've been strongly thinking that the Sitenotice thing go away, and just be shown on the main page, and certainly not at the top. We really don't need the site notice on, say, the Edit pages. It takes up space and makes everything look worse. -- Chaos

indeed, it's quite antiquated, though I have not a design bone in my body, so don't be asking me XD. Joe ST 06:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Monkquisitors

A Note From Will: I'm considering making a page for Monkquisitors. Any thoughts?
Note from Kerry: Only if the Ferretchemists and Allimancers get pages too.
Note from Kerry #2: Oh. And the Atium sporks.
Note from Will #2: Well, of course. Can't have Monkquisitors without Atium Sporks. ^^

I am OCD when it comes to wikis so I am moving this discussion to Talk:Main Page. If you want to have an easy way to sign your posts type ~~~~.:) Okay, the demons are being quiet now. What is a monkquisitor? A fandom term? Or just a joke. The only reason I moved this is that we should get in the habit of saving any discussions for future reference. Admittedly this one may not be particularly serious but eventually we'll want to discuss something real and when that happens we'll be ready. On wikipedia the main page is kept only for navigation with discussions taking place on the back end and to my mind this would be a good model to follow. PS Maybe you should protect the main page so people like me can't just wander in and write "Squirrels run in circles chased by binary combinations of sporks." all over it.--Beligaronia 05:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Monkquisitors is an in-joke with me and Kerry. It's a Monkey that's been made into an Inquisitor. This discussion is one that benefits no one, and serves only to amuse us XD --Shivertongue 07:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for the explanation. I apologise for the intrusion.--Beligaronia 09:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Squirrels run in circles chased by binary combinations of sporks." "Squirrels run in circles chased by binary combinations of sporks." "Squirrels run in circles chased by binary combinations of sporks." "Squirrels run in circles chased by binary combinations of sporks." "Squirrels run in circles chased by binary combinations of sporks." "Squirrels run in circles chased by binary combinations of sporks." "Squirrels run in circles chased by binary combinations of sporks." "Squirrels run in circles chased by binary combinations of sporks." -Love: Comatose

Site Notice

There is currently a template sitting at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice. Could the first admin who sees this please review it and, if it meets with your approval add it to MediaWiki:Sitenotice. This should add the banner to the top of every page. (Just generalised spoiler warning and welcome.) Feel free to change the text/colour/entire template should you wish. Or just not add it at all.--Beligaronia 09:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Novels

I think its great that Coppermind tries to build a comprehensive wiki for all of Brandon Sanderson novels, but I think it would be better if some of the novel content would be separated. For example, right now reading about a character from Elantris I cannot explore and find other articles about character from Elantris, because clicking the article category will spam me with other book character articles. --Mbg (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See Special:MultiCategorySearch --Joe ST (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I can also go to Elantris and use what links here, considering that most of them linked in via the "appeared in" link, but neither are reasonable solution for the average user. The whole point of categories is to allow a quick and easy way to browse sets of related pages, not just an editors tool. --Mbg (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally 'Stormlight Archive' planed to have 10 volumes, thus in the end it will drown all other content. Because of this I suggest that a similar model to tolkiengateway wiki will be consider as plan for the future. It both offers comprehensive info on the universe and each novel on its own. For example considering my example above, we can alter the character template to auto categories by appeared in field, thus making the process of finding relevant info far easier. --Mbg (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't want a category for each of the books and each of the categories in the side bar (eg Characters in The Way of Kings). We have the race categories which may be expanded to replace the 'unknown' ones with the <world>ian words. --Joe ST (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
All this seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The series infoboxes at the bottom of pages should provide much of the navigation necessary. Secondly, Mistborn is a trilogy of trilogies and as such will have plenty of information as well. Under this system, would a character that appears in every Stormlight book have a category that says he is in every book? That makes no sense. For a large amount of content it seems much more reasonable to use the series identifiers and use the infobox for navigation. It seems odd to me that I would want "let's find every character in Elantris!" That doesn't seem like a thing average readers immediately want to know, and if they did, we can use Dynamic Page List to generate such a list within the strictures of our categorization system. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
In the end we all want to find/explore relevant information, which is usually related to the book/series we are currently reading. As noted before, the current system is both a possible a spoiler hazard and confusing, providing a spam of irrelevant results and it will only get worse with time. The system I suggested is a simple widely used solution to address this issue, I think we can iron out an implementation that would make the most sense to us all. As to your question, there is no need to go per book level, per novel series will suffice(you can see one such implantation in the wiki I linked before, I suggest browsing to the characters pages to get the hang of it). As for navigation boxes(at the bottom), they have their purpose but they are not meant to replace the category system. Never the less, I already added links to one of the navbars, to make the best use of them.--Mbg (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean, "per novel level"? You know novels are books, right? I suppose I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it gains much more utility. It opens the door for categories like "All places on Sel" and such. I don't want to open endless permutations of categories. I don't really think it's much of a spoiler hazard (as on the main page, we pretty much say there are spoilers. Not a big deal). Is this really such a big deal? I understand you want to help and you're enthusiastic in doing so, but I think for large level wiki structure issues, go to the Coppermind forums and we can discuss it here and get more input. It may not be the best idea to change long standing structure things, like categorization, because one person wants it. Not saying this is bad, necessarily, but I can't really say this system is inherently better. We should discuss it, and be careful before changing this stuff to fit someone's whim, you know? Persuade me this is better. I'm not very compelled at this point. Hopefully I'm not coming across as too mean. But I do think we should slow down here, dude. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You shouldn't worry about discouraging me, there is no harm in voicing your opinion. As for the rest I think that you put the cart before the horse here, its a suggestion for the future... and big one at that, obviously it will require discussion and eventually agreement of our admins. As for which system is better, it is obviously depends on what are your goals. If it is supposed to be used for the purpose categories were created and used across all Wikimedia projects i.e. navigation aid, then what I suggested is better. Otherwise if they are just away to parameterize a search function, that the vast majority of users are not aware of, then better make them hidden. --Mbg (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Um, dude, I appreciate your effort, but I sort of sense a lot of... I don't know, sarcasm? Certainty that your way is right? It's aggravating and probably not the best way to join a new community. No offense. I don't know, man, that's not the reason why we categorize it this way. It's a perfectly reasonable tagging structure. I still don't believe that a vast majority of people use the categories to find the content they want, and you don't make a very good case for it other than assuming that it is so. Furthermore, I was more worrying that, with some arguing about the templates going on, there wouldn't be consensus before things were altered. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, this is a wiki. There are going to be spoilers. Everyone knows that; it's a hazard with every wiki from every fandom ever. There's even a warning on the frontpage, just in case. Also, I'm not convinced of the benefits of putting everything in separate categories by book. That's just needlessly complicated and creates too much work for editors and end users alike, especially in a fandom featuring a shared universe. For example, Hoid would have to be added to the Elantris, Mistborn, Warbreaker, Way of Kings, and - technically - Emperor's Soul categories. And every other Cosmere series after that. It's just ridiculous. I can see the benefit of having that information listed, but I can't stand the thought of implementing it at the base category level of the wiki. We can just generate the pages containing the desired information and link them where we feel appropriate. It's that simple. Kchan (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a really good point, actually. It doesn't make sense to segregate characters into their own categories when characters themselves break those boundaries with worldhoppers. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
For clarification, I used Elantris(stand-alone novel) because it was the first in on of the category I was browsing and in my previous post it suppose to be series rather than novel(similar to the way it is shown in the example I provide), overall I am more concerned about the larger series. This combined with fact that this can be achieved through auto categorization, this should address your concern about needless complication.
As for spoilers, I think you confuse the spoiler advocacy(spamming every page with spoiler tags like we are mindles infants) and basic expectations. Expectation that when I read/explore the 'Mistborn trilogy', I will not get a plot summary of 'stormlight archive' using te system which is a de facto standard for almost anyone who ever used any wikimedia project. --Mbg (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You wont get spoilers like you're suggesting, as you should look at the series category (like Cat:Stormlight Archive, Cat:Elatris, or Cat:Mistborn Adventures) rather than the Cat:Characters, Cat:Places or Cat:Events and Eras categories, which deal with cross-cosmere stuff. If you really want Cat:Characters in Elantris, then maybe we can settle for Elantris/characters which transcludes Special:MultiCategorySearch I dont see why the solutions available are not reasonable for average users. You are the first person to point this out, and you're obviously quite capable at wikiying already. --Joe ST (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I can only assume that you guys really got used to Special:MultiCategorySearch, because I am baffled by the suggestion that it is "reasonable for average users". Anything inside 'Special pages' is an advanced tools, especially when its a custom addon used on this wiki.(No one should check the "specs" under the hood, to be able to use basic navigation functionality). Regardless, I don't think it is an either situation, both system can be used, in fact both system already n use. Since the main page links directly to Category:Books, so it suppose to be for navigation.(though the rest..) I suggest that similarly to help:templates a help:categories page should be created, that explains the categories use and hierarchy/relation, to make both editors and admins work better on the organization front.(plus from experience the process will help ironing out several issues I encountered, way better than me listing them here).--Mbg (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I just don't think anyone uses the Categories as navigation. At least the ten people I've talked to don't. Also, to address the concern about character categories, you can now find all characters on a given world with Category:Scadrian and such, which should now be rolling out. Honestly I think you're blowing this issue out of proportion, since I don't know of many people (or really, anyone) who uses it much for navigation. If you have large scale organizational issues, why not make a topic in the Coppermind forums about it? What are all the organizational issues? -- Chaos2651 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
As I just noted Category:Books is the second link on this wiki main page. --Mbg (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware. So, what are your organizational issues? -- Chaos2651 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I help edit the Coppermind on occasion, have done for awhile, and I've found no significant issues with the access of information and navigation. As a user I've never used Categories since the search bar provided me with the simple navigation I needed, and I'm sure anyone who comes on here does the same to find their way around; the "average user" comes to the wiki, or any wiki for that matter, with fore-knowledge of what they're looking for. Any extraneous information they may need while reading an article is more often than not linked in the article itself.
If we need to discuss a problem and make amendments there's the forum as Chaos has pointed out. You'll find a section on 17S entitled "Coppermind wiki" if you have any concerns. Please post detailed information when describing the problem when you do, so that we may address it properly. If an admin disagrees with you, however, don't push the issue as it's something we've been comfortable with for a long time and aren't looking to change unless the majority of our users have a problem with it. --Lyrebon (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
As I hinted to Chaos, these is your opinion and personal preference, the fact that the main page links to a category makes it irrelevant. Similar regarding your search preferences and reason to come here, there is obviously a need for additional navigational aids, which is the reason why most of the major articles on this this wiki include navigation bars. Also please don't talk in the name of the majority of users, when you include only the couple people who frequent recent changes, I assure you that while our contribution is great, we are a drop in the ocean of people who use this wiki to explore Brandon Sandarson's books. So I'd appreciate less "I am comfortable with"s(this is not a poll) and more pro/cons or suggestions to address the issue like the one mentioned by Fbstj(p.s. I haven't missed it, I just don't have answer atm). --Mbg (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there obviously a need for additional navigational aids? Search is also there for a reason. And, okay, you bring up what is good for the majority of users too. What makes you think you know best? The same argument you just made can be used against you, because you also claim to speak for the majority of users. I could say the exact same argument to you. And I don't like your attitude of joining a few days ago and pretending you know what is best. So, with that out of the way, I ask you exactly what navigational issues exist, and what do you want to do to fix them? Then we shall decide what to do. We added the Scadrian, Rosharan categories. What else is an issue with categories? Because honestly, I do not know what the problem is. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, I have to add to Chaos' post that we editors don't need to be following you through the articles you edit and fixing your broken grammar, bad spelling, and claims you make as fact. Please take care with your edits and use correct English. Also, understand what you're writing is backed up by fact or use theory tags to indicate it's speculation. --Lyrebon (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
True but as I explained the only way to explore through search and find something relevant is by using Special:MultiCategorySearch, which is not available to the average reader. Also this suggestion does not represent what I need, I know how to find my way around, those are issues and a suggestion to address them, that IMO would help improve the "layout" if taken into consideration in the future design. In large they are based on several design guidelines on Wikipedia and considering it serves hundreds of millions of people and probably had more debates on the issue of navigation, than all the content on this site together, I feel that my claims such as saying that a hidden, special function, specific to this wiki is not reasonable for the average reader is more than just my opinion. --Mbg (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll be honest I find the last two post irrelevant to the topic and pointless, but yes Lyrebon, my English grammar was always a failing of mine for the past several decades, but we all contribute what we can. Also like I noted in the previous post this is not a forum, unless you have additional pros/cons solutions, please keep your adhominem argument and any personal issues with my "attitude" to my talk page --Mbg (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
My point was we have standards to adhere to on this site. We're an information database providing knowledge to interested parties and we carry the semblance of professionalism that reflects in the articles we write. If you're unsure of your English then ask someone to proofread and correct your mistakes before editing an article.
OK, but scanning through Mediawiki reveals that even the paradigms you suggested have flaws in them. And our code is specially decked out in a specific way according to Fbstj's design. Again, if you have concerns about the current layout, post in the 17S forum and provide us with clear details as to the issues you're having. --Lyrebon (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


<- To much indenting ---
I believe that it was already established that we are using a tagging system, that has a benefit when used with Special:MultiCategorySearch. Here is a summary of the issues I raised so far:

  1. The vast majority of users has no knowledge and/or never use Special functions, and has no way of knowing about this custom addon. Even if they did, it is not easily accessible and without documentation/list of possible parameters its usefulness becomes marginal.
  2. The tagging system drawback, that the categories are simply to broad to be useful to anyone navigating them.
  3. The navigation hierarchy is inconsistent to say the least.

Possible solutions, I suggested so far: 3. We need to document the category system hierarchy, it will iron out any logical problems, create a consistent guideline toward which we can all work together(also useful for new editors, sintead of baby siting them) overall help organizing things, which especially important for a big project.

2. We can have both tagging system from the sub categories categories. It can be all made automatically using template. For example Character will be categorized in [[Category:Characters on {{world}}]] as well as in [[Category:Character]] allowing to both using normally and special function. Also categories that are made purely for tagging should be hidden. __HIDDENCAT__, this will reduce category spam on the pages, leaving only categories that are meant to be used.

1. Several possible solutions

  • Start incorporating the Special:MultiCategorySearch into the navbars, like I did with stormlight archive navbar. It simplifies the process and place additional wealth of information one click away from you.
  • Documentation will allow people to know which parameters are available( and return better results, once they start giving it more attention) and iirc it might possible to add drop dwon list to the page. I think it will be better to be able to pick the book from the list.
  • You can add the link to the wiki sidebar(would be more useful than random page)
  • something else that I can't remember... I hate when that happens!

Overall all of it will take a long long time, but this something to start with. --Mbg (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Canon

Looking at the material used for references in the wiki.(Category:Sources) I am wondering, in contradictions, how we determine which source is correct? --Mbg (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Depends. Usually there is very little contradictory material. Typically we will default to the latest one. Otherwise we would analyze it on a case-by-case basis. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Rithmatist

Shouldn't "The Rithmatist" been added to that line about the books "Elantris ... Warbreaker ... ..."? And I'd suggest to change the sentence "Looking for something in a specific series? Check out:" to "Looking for something in a specific book or series ..." **Meg (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)**

Agreed on both counts. However, I'm actually going to add a new line, because in addition to Rithmatist, we'll also have to add Steelheart eventually. One line will be too packed. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps cosmere books on one line and non-cosmere on the other, for now? --Windrunner (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition: Shouldn't "The R." been added to that sentence: "Want to know more about the Stormlight Archive, Mistborn, Elantris, Warbreaker, the Alcatraz series, and Brandon's numerous short stories"? And, please don't *bash* me, but that two lines with the books are very patchy and thus disorderly.**Meg (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)**

Lime light

In steelheart there is a fake epic used by the reckoners known as Limelight. Should there be an article on him and/or an article about the steelheart hit. Something to explain the aspects, planning, roles, and events of it.

That's a good question. That information definitely ought to be somewhere. Let me talk to the other admins and get back to you (It's been a while since I've read Steelheart). If you don't hear back from me (or one of the others) soon, feel free to pester me about it. KalynaAnne (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2015 (MDT)