Experimental Templates

[z929669]

Easiest to maintain for the Wiki means that articles use wiki syntax. It's much easier too change the skin too reflect changes wiki-wide and pesticide consistency than it is to have to deal with massive edits due too over use of html.

 

Templates also make things easier by keeping the more complex coding as a resource, where edits can also be applied to multiple consumers. Both of which will be supported by the visual editor, further making it more accessible to those that don't want to learn wiki syntax, but would still like too contribute.

 

Consistency in presentation is also a key factor, though we will need to come up with a solution to support games beyond Skyrim, which will include providing alternate, and somewhat unique, styling.

 

Templates are definitely the way to go too avoid storage messes among other things, so you're doing good.

Your mobile user dictionary needs a lot of help!

 

Agree, templates are the way to go, but probably best to determine exactly what kinds of templates we really can use and make accessible to the public (because they serve a site-wide purpose) versus those that are experimental. I think that we would be better off fine tuning our existing templates rather than developing a bunch of new ones ... unless the new ones are flagged as 'experimental' and use discouraged outside of testing grounds.

 

In other words, we need to bring a dev wiki online for 'experimental' development. This way, our creativity creates less chaos, and the general public won't have an opportunity to run rampant with something that is not necessarily needed or finalized.

 

I also want to see what we can accomplish using behind the scenes style sheets before we go building look/feel templates that could either become obsolete or incompatible with any future skin alterations.

[Proton]

As long as the team is consciously developing the aesthetic and not just running with random ideas, I don't think there's a way to really mess it up. It just needs to be written down and then applied. I think the core reason there's so much article inconsistency is because people will mimic what they've seen before they go looking for a style guide, and no one really went through and made the current set of pages consistent.

 

I mean, background color, accent background color, body text color, and a handful of semantically-associated accent text colors (like the blue/green/red/etc. we're already using) are really all you need, and we already have that much. What remains to be designed exactly? I think a dev wiki is a little overkill for these purposes.

[z929669]

The dev wiki is necessary for Semantic wiki dev and generally good for novice wiki editors to practice. It is also a better place for things like Template:Heading, which, when implemented, is a real PITA to undo without reverting changes. Reverting is fine unless there are several 'good' edits interleaved with those changes.

 

If a bunch of templates that we don't want get used a lot, undoing is an inconvenience.

[Proton]

Okay. Where could one find the most current draft of a STEP style guide? The aesthetic should be developed first, and then an implementation developed to associate it with the desired semantics. This ought to help make sure all relevant templates are designed in parallel and ring with a sense of unity.

 

That came out a little more poetic than I intended.

[Greg]

Some of the information can be found on Guide:The STEP Wiki.

[z929669]

Okay. Where could one find the most current draft of a STEP style guide? The aesthetic should be developed first, and then an implementation developed to associate it with the desired semantics. This ought to help make sure all relevant templates are designed in parallel and ring with a sense of unity.

 

That came out a little more poetic than I intended.

You should know the style guide ... you made some good edits to it a couple of days ago. It's the STEP Wiki Editing guide (link on MP).

 

Feel free to make other edits to that as you see fit, adding things we have not yet covered. Right now, it is a place where we (mostly me) jot things down so that we can begin some semblance of editing standards. The principles in there are what we want, but much is still lacking, and org could be better. That guide itself does not adhere to the writing style it posits, which is one of the biggest problems with our wiki in general ... writing style is kind of all over the place. I have made many revisions to correct, but only piecemeal ... lots left to do :/

 

We need more proactive wiki editors! (I will add you to that forum group, BTW).

[Proton]

I figured it was that style guide, but I wasn't sure if you perhaps had a separate draft being worked on in secret or something.