145
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 151:
Line 151: + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
::::Of course! Mexico! Thanks. It's back up. [[User:Giles|Giles]] ([[User talk:Giles|talk]]) 18:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
::::Of course! Mexico! Thanks. It's back up. [[User:Giles|Giles]] ([[User talk:Giles|talk]]) 18:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Wahoo!! I'm really relieved. ''Someday'' when more pressing projects are finished, I'd like to overhaul the villagers' schedules, and that website will be a valuable resource in doing so. [[User:Margotbean|margotbean]] ([[User talk:Margotbean|talk]]) 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Wahoo!! I'm really relieved. ''Someday'' when more pressing projects are finished, I'd like to overhaul the villagers' schedules, and that website will be a valuable resource in doing so. [[User:Margotbean|margotbean]] ([[User talk:Margotbean|talk]]) 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
== Wiki Alternatives==
[[User:Margotbean|margotbean]] It seems you're trying to maintain "total editorial control" over the content here, as though this were official documentation (rather than community). Have you considered software specifically designed for that scenario, rather than wiki software? Where I work there is a ton of official documentation where we need to guarantee quality for the reader. Publication can be controlled Git, combined with DocFX (there are similar technologies as well). Given how you run things, I suspect this would make your life much, much, much easier and is a better fit for what you're trying to accomplish. The flow requires contributors to do a "pull request", whereupon it can be discussed/approved/rejected. You would no longer be on the hook to "react" to changes made in the visible articles, since the pull request requires your approval before any change is made. This is vital to maintain one's sanity. Seriously, I can't believe you actually watch the page all day and react to everything. Impressive and dedicated, yes, but if I'm being honest, it's quite stifling. I feel like I'm trying to contribute to "your" documentation project.
You could probably continue with the wiki approach if you really want to, but at the very least I would advise canonizing a lot of your opinions into the Help:Editing section, so that people know what to expect. For example, wikis typically need to repeat information in multiple pages for ease of reading, but you would prefer to have each fact presented only in a single article (presumably for maintainability/translation reasons), and this may be another sign this wiki may have graduated a public editing stage, and is instead more of an official docs site. I was also confused as to why we're not allowed to guide the player in any way. Seems inconsistent, as tons of pages on this site offer various "advice" and "tips" that help new players understand the thinking of a more seasoned player. Whatever the scope of the documentation (be it "fact dump" or "Helpful tips"), the intended scope should be explained somewhere. Canonizing those expectations fosters discussion on the guidelines. I'm sure some people want the "facts", other folks want help playing the game, or there may be other viewpoints that we don't know.
In any case, I'd never have expected to see such pushback on me cleaning up 5-year old articles that seem abandoned and uncared for. At least on the articles I'm editing, so far I am seeing very little community involvement, it just seems like you locking it down "because no one had a problem with it before". You're likely to push away your average wiki contributor this way, but I suspect that's intentional given the scope of expectations you want to maintain regarding the 12 languages. I appreciate the scope of this undertaking, but it is not really a wiki at this point, so I can't really fulfill any of my visions and there doesn't seem to be much community on the older pages either, so I'll probably try bringing the Fandom Stardew Wiki up to speed instead. Good luck!