I've received this message on my message wall from a member of the Fandom's Editor Experience team, asking if our community would like to take part in the new Advisor Program that it's being tested.
I personally think that our community is too small and we don't get enough new users that can benefit from this program, and we have very few active users as well. So I think this program is not really for our community. But I wanted to know your opinion about this before giving an official answer.
I'm late, but I've blocked that user (for the second time, the previous block from another account expired) so hopefully there won't be more problems in the future.
By the way, this page, which was created by this same person too (the one deleted was written as "Alchemist" and this was written as "Alchemists"), also needs to be deleted. I'd do it myself, but bureaucrats can't delete pages.
Moviesign wrote: Bureaucrats have all the privileges that admins have, so you should be able to delete pages. Give it a try and let me know if you have trouble.
Hey Moviesign, I've checked again and no, I don't have the rights to delete pages. I have the "bureaucrat" user rights but not the "admin/sysop". So the things I can do is blocking and unblocking users, rollback edits and change users rights. Technically, I could grant myself the "admin" rights (they would be useful for some things such as being able to delete pages or rename files), but I'd only do it only if Nixerix is OK with it.
Heh, I guess I've never seen a bureaucrat that wasn't also an admin, since they can grant it to themselves. If you've been entrusted with the bcrat privilege, then you are certainly trusted with admin/sysop, but I'll leave it up to you folks to work out.
I've noticed that we have different approachs on how this section should be edited. I think we should talk about it and decide a format to stick to it. Currently, in the style guideline, there is a single "battle" section where everything related to it goes. That's the format I've been following: a general overview of the character in battle and joining condition, weapons, armors, items they can equip and then skills they can use in battle (in different tables/sections according to if they are active, passive or chain skills, this being a topic we already talked about).
From what I've seen, you prefer considering the skills a separate section from battle. I personally think that, since skills are part of the battle, they should remain in the same section, inside each game sub-section. I'd like to know what's your argument about why they should be separate. Is it because a lot of sub-sections are made?
Another completely different option that I've seen in other wikis is that a new page is made inside the character's page to have the battle information there. A good example of this is Cecil Harvey (which is a character that is playable in more than one game) from the Final Fantasy Wiki. So, for example, there could be a "Wilbell Voll-Ersleid/Battle" (for example) sub-page to have there only the combat information. This makes more sense in already long entries, but maybe is an option to add here for characters that are playable in more than one game (so for a character like Regina Kurtis, which only appears in one game, maybe is not needed).
In any case, as I said, we have to decide a format and stick to it to have the same style across the character entries.
I've been trying to help make pages more uniform. I'm sorry if I was acting against what you've been doing with battle sections. I was using Escha Malier's page as the example for the skills/battle when I was editing other pages. Because she's a main protagonist and the information was all there, I thought this was how we were doing things. I figured for characters with a lot of skills (with tons of subsections being made), this would be the neatest and cleanest way to do it, according to Escha's page. But I suppose you're right and that it doesn't make sense to do it one way or the other. We do have it a couple of different ways.
Escha's page, Wilbell's and Awin's page all have different lay outs. Which do you think is best? You've worked most on implenting tables and things like that and putting this information in, so I think you'd probably know best.
For shorter characters, like Regina, do you think it's preferable to have Battle as the larger setting with weapons and skills inside of it, rather than having weapons/skills as their own large headings? That's definitely something that can be done to be uniform with the rest of the pages. There just wasn't much information, and I worked largely on Atelier Ayesha on my own for the smaller pages, so that's what I had done at the time, similar to the Atelier Meruru pages.
I'm seeing that Escha's page was edited recently and the layout was changed (it waslike this previously, basically the same format as Wilbell's page for example). But certainly, before my edits, that entry had the battle and skills sections separately (see here). I started using the format of having all the battle information in one section since then, and I've been using if for Dusk and Mysterious characters, which are the ones I've edited. Most of the articles didn't have any information at all in that section, though. For Arland characters, for example, I didn't touch anything since they were already complete, so things should be different there.
I certainly understand your point about that many subsections make things not very clean. But I also think that having the skills in a different section than "battle" can give the idea that the skills aren't part of the battle system, if you get what I mean. From an "encyclopedia rather than database" point of view, at least, which is what I think wikis are.
Analyzing the three layouts...:
-Escha's is probably more clear in how the different kind of information is presented, since it doesn't have really long sections with 4 levels of subsections.
-Wilbell's present the information by game rather than by type. So you can read all the information from one game after the other, unlike Escha's case. So if you want to read the battle information for Atelier Ayesha, you can read it together without needing to go down to the skill section in the page.
-Awin's is actually the same as Wilbell's, but since he's a character only playable in one game, there aren't subsections from different games like in Wilbell's case, so things are more clean.
So, thinking about it, I don't know what is the best. In a page like Regina's, I think being similar to Awin's is the best way. But then again, all the entries should follow the same format to maintain an uniform style across the wiki.
I also like the idea of a separate subpage as an annexe like they use in the Final Fantasy Wiki (the example I linked to before). There we could have all the tables (not only skills, but weapons, armors... and even stats if we had that info) and have a more "database" feeling, so the main page remains more text-oriented. It's just another option, I don't know what's your opinion. In any case, this would only be necessary to characters that appear in more than one game.
We also have the skills pages that you made for the Arland games. Another possibility is making these kind of pages for the other games and have there only the tables, so for the character's articles we can have a description and then a link to the skill page instead of inserting the tables.
Here's a few suggestions to roll with, just to begin with:
Making the format similar to Awin's for characters where the character only appears in one game (like Regina) instead of having weapons/skills in two separate large headings. I will make these changes for Atelier Ayesha and the Arland series to start, since that's what I'm most familiar with and have done a lot of work for already.
Although I'm still not sure which layout I like best, I do think that maybe Wilbell's page is preferable for characters who have multiple appearances. It doesn't have TOO many cascading subsections and still looks fairly neat and organized by game, like you said. If we are finding the page to contain too much information, perhaps we can do a sandbox test page of sorts to see how it would look to make the information on a separate page, similar to that of Cecil from Final Fantasy like you showed me.
For characters like Ayesha Altugle who have separate skills NOT related to battle, I like the idea of having the 'alchemy' heading with the alchemy skills underneath.
I still like the idea of color coding tables according to the game. It gives the tables a bit of distinguishing nforamtion. We haven't talked about this, but I hope you're OK with keeping table colors for now.
Ok, I'm ok with doing that for now. If we want to change it in the future, at least it will only be necessary for characters that are playable in more than one game rather than all of them.
The color coding for tables is something I still like, of course. I still have to finish some tables from the Mysterious games that doesn't have color yet. Also, I have the skills from the Atelier Shallie characters in a document since a while ago, that's something that I have pending to do as well. For Lydie & Suelle, I have to play more before adding them since there are a lot of skills (more than any previous game, from what I know).
Hi! My name is Moviesign, and I’m the Fandom Wiki Manager for Atelier Wiki. I am here to help the community and be a liaison to full-time Fandom staff. If you ever have a question or issue relating to the wiki, editing, styling, templates, etc., please contact me on my message wall / talk page.
Here are some handy links for help with wiki features:
I've been contributing here since this last month, doing various things like adding categories to articles, creating pages, correcting other things... I don't have any specific project for the Wiki, I basically edit any kind of content from the games that I've played or that I'm playing at the moment.
Anyway, seems that there aren't many active users here lately, and you seem to be the only active admin for a while. I've seen that there are some maintenance measures that should be undertaken, like deleting pages marked as candidate for deletion for years, updating the upper navigation bar (and maybe making it more useful) and renaming category pages so that they are written in sentence cases (which seems to be the standard English orthography) rather than title cases (example: Category:Atelier Totori Locations should be Category:Atelier Totori locations). I could do it myself, but I don't have the editing privileges to do then. That's why I was wondering if you could grant me admin privileges so that I can do it; if not, then I ask you if you can do it yourself.
There are other things that can be made, like updating and expanding the manual of style so that we have a standarized format for each type of pages, but this doesn't necessarily require admin privilege but community consensus.
I can certainly begin with going through the deleted pages, thank you for bringing that to my attention. It's been a long time since I've played Atelier of any kind which is why I haven't been contributing. But I am still here!
I personally like categories in all caps, and it seems that all categories are laid out in this way and would probably be more convienent just to keep it like this for now. I'm not sure how much work it would be to manually rename the categories, even if it was just doing something simple like uncapitilizing a letter.
Feel free to add something to the style manual. Just please summarize your changes so that they are easy to spot and easier to change if the changes somehow do not feel justified. I can also update the upper navigation bar; how do you mean "more useful" though?
I've added Atelier Lydie & Suelle and Atelier Firis to the upper navigation bar. I've also changed the heading to "games" so its easier to see. I agree that the 'directory' heading wasn't very helpful so I removed it. The 'explore' tab is a wikia default and cannot be removed. If you can think of anything more helpful to include on the nav bar, lemme know.
About the titles in caps, they don't look very natural to me, but maybe it's more because I'm influenced by my mother tongue (Spanish), in which we never write titles like that. Anyway, I've checked and it's not possible to rename a category like normal pages, the changes need to be done manually in each of the pages of the category (a bot could do it automatically, though).
About the style manual, thanks for the changes you've already made, I will certainly add other things there :)
And about the navigation bar, now looks better. The only thing I've thought is to add a "categories" tab after the "games" tab, with a link to Characters, Gameplay, Items, Locations, Monsters, Shops. I think all of the articles can be found in one of each of these categories (or subcategories), and having them in the navigation bar would make them more accessible.
Also, if you need or want to share the admin work here (even if it's not that much), I'd like to reiterate my offering of becoming an admin myself. I know I've been here for less than a month, but at the moment I think I'm the only active user here (even if others like you still come from time to time, by active I mean that I edit everyday), and I plan to stay here for a while. Haru hasn't done a single edit in two years and maybe it's positive for this Wikia to have another more active admin.
I came to ask you if I could create templates for skills, battles, inventory, etc. I am pretty good in creating them, and it is also better to have an unique style for the wiki and also better to use them.
But if you think that it is unnecessary then I understand.
Sure. A nice template beats a plain table if you can make something that would fit with the rest of the wiki. :) A lot of skills are different from game to game.. so good luck. Would you make one table for each (item, skills, etc) or use multiple tables depending on the game?
Currently this wiki is facing some tabber issues which shows the second parameter in the tabber non-functional. It only function if the contributor sees their edit before they will publish it. However, I figured that by removing the tabber code in common.js will make the extension functional.
I came here to ask if you could remove the coding from common.js, just only of the tabber.
I can see the problem. Thank you for pointing it out. I've tried to change some of the values and delete some of the code but it doesn't seem to be fixing the issues. I reverted it for now, I can keep trying though.