New Formatting Proposal

[Antvasima]

We need to wait for further staff input first.

 

[Armorchompy]

We have ten staff approvals

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, and I am fine with it, but I do not want to cause a conflict with AKM and DontTalk.

 

[Noneless21]

bump?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Yes, and I am fine with it, but I do not want to cause a conflict with AKM and DontTalk.

Conflict for what? 10 staff already approved it. Like if AKM and don'tTalk are always needed and their opinion overvalue others, then why the voting exists in the first place? I find it unfair against those staff ngl

 

[Agnaa]

Conflict for what? 10 staff already approved it. Like if AKM and don'tTalk are always needed and their opinion overvalue others, then why the voting exists in the first place? I find it unfair against those staff ngl

"Voting" exists so that we can at a glance tell where all relevant members stand on the issue. It's not a rigid thing where every single thread is left up to whichever option gets more than 50% of the "vote".

To flip your question around, what would be the point of Bureaucrats if they didn't have a more valued opinion? They'd just be admins that can't be demoted, which would be pretty pointless.

And that isn't the first point in the wiki where "more valued opinion" pops up. Admins are meant to have more valued opinions than discussion mods who are meant to have more valued opinions than other staff (unless it's something in that staff group's specific domain) who are meant to have more valued opinions than non-staff.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, bureaucrats generally act as the final evaluation safeguard buffers/have the final say regarding important policy revision changes for our wiki as a whole, so nothing potentially detrimental is applied, and although I may or may not technically be the slightly senior bureaucrat currently, I cannot just overrule two others of them, especially as they usually tend to have better senses of judgement than I do in such regards.

 

[Damage3245]

In regards to this, I think it's fair to wait one or two more days.

Then I think it should be safe to apply if there is no good reason not to.

 

[Antvasima]

In regards to this, I think it's fair to wait one or two more days.

Then I think it should be safe to apply if there is no good reason not to.

I think that we should wait a bit longer than that, as @AKM sama and @DontTalkDT are currently very busy.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, from what I've heard, AKM's currently on vacation and not as active in threads, but that should be over soon.

 

[Armorchompy]

Yeah, DT kinda gave his piece already but I'd like to discuss with AKM in depth a bit more.

 

[Noneless21]

Bump?

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT

The others seem a bit impatient for your replies here.

 

[Armorchompy]

DT gave his disagreement already, though I don't agree on the foundation it was based on. As I understand AKM won't be available for a few days but I would like to discuss it with him further yes.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it seems best to check if DontTalk has changed his mind.

 

[Deceived3596]

Don'tTalk has definitely not changed his mind on this topic

This really does feel like stalling Ant ngl.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, in that case it is up to AKM. I am currently fine with this, but I cannot overrule both of the other bureaucrats.

 

[Damage3245]

Just want to say that the Bureaucrats don't have to decide every change to the formatting of the profiles; there is a clear staff majority here, and the proposal is not mandatory.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I agree that this case seems harmless, but the bureaucrats are supposed to act as final buffers for potentially destructive important policy changes, so I would much prefer if we can get a consensus here. Please be patient and wait until they come back.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah, I said what I had to say, I believe.
I'm still completely opposed to this. I think putting the links into references is a perfectly workable solution. And if people have a problem differentiating links and text visually, then we need to change the link color, as that's a problem outside of the P&A as well.

Additionally, this is an actual slippery slope in my opinion. The existence of 2 formats is basically already used to argue that this 3rd format is fine. I'm fairly certain that in the future people will then argue that if we have 3 a 4th format would be ok as well for even more minor reasons. And so on. We're watering down our formatting standards and I don't like it.

 

[Noneless21]

DT, I know that it doesn't sounds too convincing but I wouldn't make this thread if no one's liking it, I made it because there's already a small complaint here and there about the bulleting format plus I had asked a bunch of staffs regarding this and more than half of them say they prefer the bolded but unbulleted format

 

[KLOL506]

I think putting the links into references is a perfectly workable solution.

Already explained why that's problematic. Multiple scans from the same chapter could be used for multiple powers, abilities, resistances or anything else. Linking one scan into that same chapter name prevents the chapter being used as a single reference like we do with the </ref> method, which is considerably problematic and requires multiple references to be made for absolutely no reason at all. References should not have the scans linked unless the entire chapter is required to be viewed (Which, let's be honest, is almost a rarity).

I already proposed a much better solution than this: Only link the key words of the action being carried out by said power or resistance, don't link the entire goddamn sentence.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Seriously. Any additional context to the feat in question can be and is ignored. Only the important text (i.e., the description of the feat in question) should be hyperlinked (ex.).

 

[DontTalkDT]

Already explained why that's problematic. Multiple scans from the same chapter could be used for multiple powers, abilities, resistances or anything else. Linking one scan into that same chapter name prevents the chapter being used as a single reference like we do with the </ref> method, which is considerably problematic and requires multiple references to be made for absolutely no reason at all. References should not have the scans linked unless the entire chapter is required to be viewed (Which, let's be honest, is almost a rarity).

Don't feel like that is a problem. In my opinion, making one reference per set of relevant scans is fine. A scan is essentially nothing but a reference to a particular page, after all.

I already proposed a much better solution than this: Only link the key words of the action being carried out by said power or resistance, don't link the entire goddamn sentence.

Personally, I would still prefer references, cause less blue words, but yeah also a step one can take to make things readable.
Generally, I'm of the opinion that if you want to make something readable, the current format gives enough liberties to realize it one way or another.

DT, I know that it doesn't sounds too convincing but I wouldn't make this thread if no one's liking it, I made it because there's already a small complaint here and there about the bulleting format plus I had asked a bunch of staffs regarding this and more than half of them say they prefer the bolded but unbulleted format

That really doesn't address my concerns tbh. (and how many were asked regarding options of the current format that ivolve just not making the entire explanations blue with links, while still including all links?)

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Readability is only part of the equation. The other part is accessibility, and placing all of the relevant links at the bottom of the screen in the References header significantly diminishes accessibility, rendering the point of readability practically moot. No reader wants to have to click on a reference, get sent to the bottom of a page, click on a link, analyze the scans, then return to the page and have to jump back to their previous spot; hence why justifications are hyperlinked. Click, read the scans, close the tab, already back where you left off.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Oh, this is a staff thread.

 

[KLOL506]

Readability is only part of the equation. The other part is accessibility, and placing all of the relevant links at the bottom of the screen in the References header significantly diminishes accessibility, rendering the point of readability practically moot. No reader wants to have to click on a reference, get sent to the bottom of a page, click on a link, analyze the scans, then return to the page and have to jump back to their previous spot; hence why justifications are hyperlinked. Click, read the scans, close the tab, already back where you left off.

Agreed.

 

[Armorchompy]

References in scans are apparently a very annoying thing to deal with on mobile so they're absolutely not a good solution. And yes, it's just generally annoying to use, you're pushing for a format of your own that doesn't have a tenth of the support this one has.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Yeah, I said what I had to say, I believe.
I'm still completely opposed to this. I think putting the links into references is a perfectly workable solution. And if people have a problem differentiating links and text visually, then we need to change the link color, as that's a problem outside of the P&A as well.

Don't feel like that is a problem. In my opinion, making one reference per set of relevant scans is fine. A scan is essentially nothing but a reference to a particular page, after all.

Personally, I would still prefer references, cause less blue words, but yeah also a step one can take to make things readable.
Generally, I'm of the opinion that if you want to make something readable, the current format gives enough liberties to realize it one way or another.

Mind reading this

About the links in the references and mobile, as someone who the last months were visiting the wiki only with mobile and tablet, I can confidently say that seeing references is actually hard in those, so I generally believe would be better to not put the scans in inside them.

References in scans are apparently a very annoying thing to deal with on mobile so they're absolutely not a good solution. And yes, it's just generally annoying to use, you're pushing for a format of your own that doesn't have a tenth of the support this one has.

 

[Agnaa]

Readability is only part of the equation. The other part is accessibility, and placing all of the relevant links at the bottom of the screen in the References header significantly diminishes accessibility, rendering the point of readability practically moot. No reader wants to have to click on a reference, get sent to the bottom of a page, click on a link, analyze the scans, then return to the page and have to jump back to their previous spot; hence why justifications are hyperlinked. Click, read the scans, close the tab, already back where you left off.

You can click on links in references by hovering over it, as that shows a preview of the reference text.

And there's other improvements in accessibility that references give; you don't have to hunt for where new links start in a sea of 4 scans in a row, you can jump to everywhere that a particular scan was used within a page, and you can open up all evidence used for a page just by clicking through the references box. I can understand you preferring the advantages of inline scans, but it's not an objective thing.

References in scans are apparently a very annoying thing to deal with on mobile so they're absolutely not a good solution. And yes, it's just generally annoying to use, you're pushing for a format of your own that doesn't have a tenth of the support this one has.

They are not annoying to deal with on iOS; they work the same as on computers. From what I've heard, the issue with "references on mobile" is more the issue with "references on android" (or maybe only some versions of it?), which is something that should be reported to Fandom to be fixed. I would do this myself if I knew enough about the issue to report it.

 

[Armorchompy]

You can click on links in references by hovering over it, as that shows a preview of the reference text.

That's annoying too, it takes a moment for them to show up.

They are not annoying to deal with on iOS; they work the same as on computers. From what I've heard, the issue with "references on mobile" is more the issue with "references on android" (or maybe only some versions of it?), which is something that should be reported to Fandom to be fixed. I would do this myself if I knew enough about the issue to report it.

Until then, it remains a serious issue.

 

[Antvasima]

Readability is only part of the equation. The other part is accessibility, and placing all of the relevant links at the bottom of the screen in the References header significantly diminishes accessibility, rendering the point of readability practically moot. No reader wants to have to click on a reference, get sent to the bottom of a page, click on a link, analyze the scans, then return to the page and have to jump back to their previous spot; hence why justifications are hyperlinked. Click, read the scans, close the tab, already back where you left off.

I personally agree with this. My apologies, DontTalk.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, given that DontTalk opposes this revision, and does have a valid point about that we may approach too many different alternative formats, I suppose that it is up to AKM to decide what we should do here then.

 

[Damage3245]

There is a way of making it so that we aren't changing from two formats to three formats....

Just make it so that all abilities need to be bolded going forwards, regardless of whether they're in a list of not, and gradually the existing pages will be updated whilst new pages will be made with the new format.

That way there'll still be "two formats" and the point of "too many different alternative formats" is solved..

 

[Armorchompy]

Just make it so that all abilities need to be bolded going forwards, regardless of whether they're in a list of not, and gradually the existing pages will be updated whilst new pages will be made with the new format.

Sorry but I have already explained why this might not always be ideal.

That said, I really don't agree with people seeing bolding P&A as a new format of its own. It's just a minor variation on a pre-existing format.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Bolding the powers would just be a variation of the original format.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, as I said, I do not mind if this is applied anymore, but important wiki-wide policy changes need a clear staff consensus in order to be accepted.

 

[Damage3245]

Staff consensus means more than just the Beaucrats consensus. The majority of staff here are fine with it.

 

[Deceived3596]

Well, as I said, I do not mind if this is applied anymore, but important wiki-wide policy changes need a clear staff consensus in order to be accepted.

There's been a clear staff consensus.

Only you, Don'tTalk and AKM disagree with this, literally everyone else agrees with it

 

[Antvasima]

Staff consensus means more than just the Beaucrats consensus. The majority of staff here are fine with it.

Yes, but the bureaucrats should preferably be onboard with it. Acting as buffer evaluators for/potential veto users against site policy revisions is a very important part of our job here.

There's been a clear staff consensus.

Only you, Don'tTalk and AKM disagree with this, literally everyone else agrees with it

No, DontTalk and AKM are currently against it. I personally do not mind either way. It no longer seems like a big deal to me. I just do not want to try to overrule the other bureaucrats.