Page model suggestions
This is my first time on a Wiki discussion page, so be nice :P I'm Zenith, and I'm new. I really like this Wiki now that I've taken the time to look around - it has a lot of potential. I feel at home here.
Now, onto my proposal. I am rather well versed in web design, coding and what works and I would like to see some minor changes added to the layout models for books and characters. In my opinion, the current models lack real structure (please take no offense, I understand this is still a small Wiki). For characters, I will use my first contribution, Sister Armel as an example. I included a detailed story, a description of her appearance, related characters and books she appeared in. However, I didn't know about categories, and I didn't have an image of her. The current model doesn't allow for appearance descriptions and related characters and such. I propose that the new model look something like this:
- 1. Image, if available (right alignment, with description)
- 2. The character's story
- 3. Description of physical appearance, and maybe personality
- 4. Related characters (keep it to a minimum, maybe only relatvies and close friends)
- 5. Books appeared in (LIST form)
- 6. Categories
As to right alignment of the image, I say that because that would be more functional instead of scrolling past a rather long image and then reading the article. It also looks neater and more professional.
For book pages, these are in real need of structure. I suggest applying right alignment to all covers and images, to give conformity. The statistics such as ISBN, page count, maybe chapter count, publishing year, illustrator, etc be put into a list instead of loose paragraphs willy-nilly. So I propose that the new model look something like this:
- 1. Covers: US and UK, both aligned right
- 2. The statistics in list form: Year, book number, chronological order (from off. site), illustrator, hardcover page count, chapter count, ISBN...
- 3. Detailed summary
- 4. Awards (if applicable)
- 5. Books template
Giving the templates structure makes it easier for visitors to find the information they need, and hopefully encouraging them to come back. I will very gladly keep expanding pages, but I don't want to go outside of the model. I hope I don't come off as too bossy or commanding, I'm only trying to help. I will happily vote for this Wiki as Wiki of the Month. So, what do you think?
Oh yeah! I added this Wiki as a link at my fanlisting :)
Zenith 18:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Zenith, welcome to the Redwall Wiki! I'm glad you decided to join the site and help out. I have no real problems with your structure suggestions and you can feel free to implement them if you would like to, however there are some minor issues:
- 1. On pages with more than 1 character image, the <gallery></gallery> tags are used, and those really can't be aligned in any given direction.
- 2. The concern I have with the "character story" is that it's almost like repetitive plot summary from the book. Imagine reading the book's plot summary, then 20 characters that repeat the same thing. Book plot summary in character description seems awkward to me. Also I'd like to avoid as much editorial as possible, that is sticking exactly what BJ described characters as, etc. if that makes sense.
- I hope I'm not coming off too harshly or strongly here, I like to think I'm a fairly reasonable guy :D --LordTBT 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, hi! Hehe, no problems at all. I guess I should say that by "detailed story" for character would be more than "Sister Armel was a squirrel, and married Tam." More like, her part in the story. The book summary is the entire summary, each character's summary would be their storyline (watered down a LOT, though. including only the important parts - not every reference in every chapter to the character.). Because surely the book summary can't include every character's contributions. And as for description, just a simple sentance describing the character. So, for Doogy Plumm it would be "He was described as short, fat with a broad Highland accent, and rather riery temper if angered." Nothing more than that, keeping it simple. We know there is lots more to Doogy Plumm's characteristics, such as he's sarcastic, impatient and fiercely loyal. But yeah, I don't mean an entire book on each character xD.
- I will have to find an example of <gallery></gallery>, because I've never seen that before. (Except maybe on Wiki Commons or something). I guess what I meant though was, for the book pages both covers are listed on the page. So if like.... one or two images are used, the images should be kept to the right, but for galleries no sweat. (*hopes she's making sense*)
- (just edited to say that I agree that providing character stories and book summaries might be a little redundant, so we must use discerrnment on what to and what not to include for each :)) -- Zenith 19:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you! I understand now :)
- -- Zenith 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
In the Style tips section, shouldn't there be a phrase saying:
- Bold the first mention of a character or object in the article.
... or something like that.
- Signed,--Lord Mactalon 16:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Fixed. --LordTBT 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is automatic for a link to the same article. For instance, the link Redwall Wiki talk:Manual of Style shows up as bold here, even though it would look like a link on any other page. So using a self-referential link is probably the "right" way to do this. 126.96.36.199 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In the academic world, literature is always discussed in the present. What is the official Wiki policy? I believe in using the literary present because the book's events happen every time a new reader opens a book. —This unsigned comment was added by Zian (talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 May 2008. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
- The academic argument is that in fiction the world is 'timeless', so it's appropriate to use the present tense. The Redwall Wiki is different than academic papers because generally those consist of an analysis of some sort, and would involve a sentence like "Martin the Warrior is the main protagonist in 'Martin the Warrior'." In articles here, obviously the books aren't referenced because that's just silly given the category and template structure. Given that the Redwall Wiki and other similar wikis are more history-related in that they are chronicling spans of time within the series, the past tense for character articles is appropriate. --LordTBT Talk! 07:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah i have something
how do i edit my signature to make it... you know... fancy (like the picture issue)? —This unsigned comment was added by Sambrook the otter (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 September 2008. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
- This is answered in the FAQs on the Community Central page. --LordTBT Talk! 04:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Alirght, thank you much! I didn't know whether it was on the wiki, or just where to look. thanks again Sambrook the otter 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Everything related to FF is covered on that page just fine. --LordTBT Talk! 00:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
More clarification nessesary
Should there be a list of known, friendly, Redwall-oriented RPG sites? Or, if the owners of these sites concur, would this be under the "Friends of the Redwall Wiki" section of the "Info" page? --Martin2 Ninja Stew...
i'm just wondering i am working on making my signature "all fancy-like" and i cant figure out how to put a picture in it and it just doesn't look right without one|see what i mean--->Lordsunflash Naught can stop the badger lord 21:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
- This is explained in the "Customizing Your Signature" section of the page. -- LordTBT Talk! 23:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I think we should be a little less strict on what is defined as "chat" I completely agree that we should keep this site Redwall only and keep out non-Redwall related discussion and as such chat. But I don't see why we can't discuss Redwall itself or the fan fictions we post here, it is not harming the wiki and we are still keeping it Redwall. Actually this would improve the site as the fan fictions we have here would be of greater quality and the community would most likely be more active. I am not saying we turn this into a social networking site, only that we be allowed to discuss in whatever form we wish the topic of this site. Corbus May The Wind Be At Your Back, Matey 16:15, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
You can discuss all you like, just not in a chat format. It is harming the wiki by clogging the Recent Changes/My Home feeds, and requiring further moderation. The community is quite active, in fact this past year we've reached some of our highest traffic levels. If you want to chat, find another way to do it. The options are numerous. -- LordTBT Talk! 17:19, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
How is it clogging the recent changes? The change is recycled so it is not like it is making a long list of edits/messages, only one edit/message is shown as being made. And all recent changes to articles are shown on the right side so we still know when article changes are made. Corbus May The Wind Be At Your Back, Matey 17:35, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
- If one views the RC that way. That's an option. Some choose to view the RC as line-by-line, so it does in fact make a "long list of edits/messages." -- LordTBT Talk! 18:53, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
Well from what I can see a majority, if not all, of the members here do not select that option. So it does not really apply to most of the people who frequent the Redwall Wiki. Corbus May The Wind Be At Your Back, Matey
- Unless you somehow have access to several hundred Wikia accounts, don't make unfounded, sweeping statements like that. It's not going to make this site a place for chatting. In the past, Wikia had a function called the Shoutbox here, that basically did allow people to chat. A topic that rarely came up was Redwall, or anything related to this site. It's been tried here before, much to my chagrin and something I tried allowing, and it failed. Once again, find another option that works for you. There are many out there. -- LordTBT Talk! 20:48, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
- No reason? Not true at all. Each time the files have been deleted, you've been directed to read the image guidelines in the Manual of Style. These same important guidelines appear on the upload form itself. Clearly you are not doing something very important. Nor have you read the guidelines. Have you figured it out? -- LordTBT Talk! 08:11, April 24, 2015 (UTC)
I am following the instructions! I called it something reasonable, I mentioned the artist (me), and I am the artist who drew it, not someone else. Yet it still won't work. Why can't I just post it from my Pictures on my computer and leave it alone??? The pictures seem just like EVERY OTHER PICTURE POSTED ON HERE. If it was posted different, it would look different and something would happen to it. As I already said, it looks just like all the other fan art.--Alderjack the Treescamp (talk) 01:44, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
- Alderjack, it has nothing to do with your art specifically. I am not an art critic. You seem to be missing this statement. Please acknowledge you are the creator of your artwork by selecting "This is my personal fan art" under the Licensing options. Failure to acknowledge yourself as the creator will result in the deletion of the image. This is very important for legal purposes. Please do this going forward. Otherwise, deletion is going to keep occurring. You are not being singled out. -- LordTBT Talk! 01:54, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
Ok! I have tried acknowledging the creator (Me) but it still doesn't work. I am sorry for being ignorant and impatient, and I'll try to follow your code.--Alderjack the Treescamp (talk) 15:49, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I'm doing anything wrong now, but I have been trying to post it properly under the same name as before, and its not letting me post it. Should I just take another picture of the same drawing and post it correctly?--Alderjack the Treescamp (talk) 16:33, April 25, 2015 (UTC)