Talk:Suggestion

Verifying information
Just had an idea while looking through some items on here. What would everyone think about possibly adding an additional field to the templates (item, weapon, spells, etc.) that does nothing more than list the date of the last major update OR the last live update that the item in question was actually verified in game. (like what happened when MoTU dropped). I think it would make it much easier to get a sense of validity of the information being looked at at a glance. Sure, someone could dig through any number of historical changes and see if it's pre-MoTU or not.

Another reason that I think it'll be good it that (assuming) a good number of players see the item, look at the last edited date, see that it's within a couple months and assume it's all good. When in actuality, the last 8 changes spanning 3 years(or whatever) were nothing more than grammatical and/or formatting corrections. I don't think it would be all that hard, just add the field into the templates and just edit as you go. No need to make it into a huge overwhelming project.

So... What do you guys/gals think?

EDIT: Damn! This was supposed to be in Village Pump, not under "Suggestion". Can one of you sysop types move it when you get a chance? Ague (Contributions • Message) 15:00, December 3, 2012 (EST)


 * I like it! There is a little thing mediawiki has already at the bottom of the page showing the last edit "This page was last modified 15:02, December 3, 2012 by DDO wiki user Ague." - but this doesn't display what update we were in at the time... Perhaps we could have a small reference template cull time/date data from a small database/table and display a corresponding update. I.e. "Posted during Update 14" "Tauro" (Contributions &bull; ) 20:11, December 3, 2012 (EST)


 * Rather just introduce the function. I have seen this verification phenomena in the old new DDOwiki and it didn't do any good. References are better as found in real wiki's too. BlackSmith (Contributions &bull; Message) 14:09, December 22, 2012 (EST)


 * But what would you reference it to? The game itself?  That's what most people use this wiki for, is a reference to the game.  And the DDO Compendium is about as reliable as MyDDO.  I still think that it would be worth adding a field that displays the Update that the item/spell/etc. was verified.   Ague (Contributions &bull; Message) 16:47, December 22, 2012 (EST)


 * I believe what you are asking for would require a special mediawiki extension to be written using PHP and you would need to convince it was a good idea and to upload/install it on the server.  I'm just finishing up my PHP class in school right now, and I'll tinker with the idea when I have some free time... Maybe I can just do it with a template to modify that line at the bottom, I'll investigate and we will see what can be done.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • ) 21:09, December 22, 2012 (EST)


 * ref extension: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php and references would be to as official-as-it-gets i.o. to change logs, developers Q&A's threads or in last resort, to some players research (that has little verification value) BlackSmith (Contributions &bull; Message) 00:24, December 23, 2012 (EST)


 * So, all you want is something like a template we already have (Template:Quote), that let's you quote change logs, developers, Q&A threads, or some player's research (that has minor to no verification value)?

ShoeMaker (Contributions • ) 08:16, December 23, 2012 (EST)


 * T:Quote is for quotes and it does nothing what ref does, references are not quotes. They are pointers where and who has said the thing and the ref extension collects neatly all the ref's to end of the page. For better illustration for the difference look to any wikipedia/media article that has references or any academic paper.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 13:16, March 4, 2013 (EST)


 * I'm hoping what I implemented today (I expanded the "This page was last modified 15:02, December 3, 2012 by DDO wiki user Ague." to include what Module/Update/Revision the game was currently in (Back to Mod 9 in `09 so far, can go more if needed)), is what you were looking for?

ShoeMaker (Contributions • ) 16:46, December 26, 2012 (EST)


 * That would be a really rough indicator as if someone does a typo correction the timestamp changes. If you make it only follow major edits, then it will more accurate but yet its truly accurate. Thats why you need the C:update X categories to keep track when and that was changed.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 13:16, March 4, 2013 (EST)


 * I'm aware of this limitation, and will look into seeing if there is anyways I can make it only update on non-minor and non-bot edits... I don't foresee it as possible at this time based on my knowledge of the MediaWiki core.  I also don't foresee all of the other editors remembering or willing to manually add a  to every page either.  We do however have a category that most of us use for items that need a new screenshot because they were outdated and we also have Template:Update for people to be able to mark pages that may be out of date or need modification.  I'm afraid that is the best I can offer at this time BlackSmith, at least until I can convince  to install the Symantic extensions...   As far as the ref tag goes, they are simply not needed and redumbnant.  If you want to simulate the effect, I would be happy to create a template to do that for you.  It would be named Template:Cite and contain:

OR you can simply add source ShoeMaker (Contributions • ) 15:14, March 4, 2013 (EST)


 * The Symantic extensions is nice if there are _well_ made templates and structure. I have seen worst case scenarios where the fields do not correspond to the template and the category structure breaks down to wild wild west. Also it really does not work on big pages that are created only trough template. Like the present quest pages.

- We have a situation now that where the editors go remove the T:update and they correct the info to the page. Some good editors keep a version history when and what was changed like in Crystal Cove, but most do not. Now those version and changes are not registered anywhere. You can't tell me if all the changes that came bu U17 are made to the articles. With the C:Update XX you can and you also see what articles need to be looked at.

A reference to its source is hardly redumbnant. Without the ref feature you cant put a source middle of a section or a sentence without breaking it. Also it is redumbnant to show the user the whole quote as if he is interested about the verification information, he can follow the link. The quotes in articles are hardly the verification part as anyone can write anything to the article or quote part, its the link to the source that verifies the info. At the present, the verification part is the link in the T:quote, not the actual text.

That T:Cite is good idea, I make one if we can't get the ref feature that is used in many other wikis. BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 15:57, March 4, 2013 (EST)


 * I already started T:cite because I doubt ref tag will be added.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • ) 17:52, March 4, 2013 (EST)


 * Just let me know if the wiki needs new extensions. The only extension I've been hesitant about installing is the Semantic one, and only because it feels like it would completely change the way the wiki is currently organized. If the wiki at large wants it though, I won't push back. Xevo (Contributions &bull; Message) 21:05, March 4, 2013 (EST)