User talk:OGuutan

From Traveller Wiki - Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far future
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit Request[edit]

Hi Peter. Could you do your magic and please update this file: Challenge75? Thanks. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

By the way, thank you for all the hard work you do. You are doing a much better job than I am capable of... Thank you very much. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

Is it needed soon, or when I reach it as I work across my bookshelves? OGuutan (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

No hurries and no worries, mate. Thanks. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

Article Leads[edit]

Hi Peter AKA User:OGuutan, I thought you might want to be aware of these pages. They have data along the lines that you have been updating. Hope they help. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2015 (EDT)

Thank you, Oguutan![edit]

Thank you, Oguutan! Your hard work is noted and appreciated. Updating publication entries can sometimes be a thankless job, so your focus on making the GURPS articles up to date, is especially appreciated. Thank you again! Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

It seemed a reasonable place to start!
There's a couple of things I'm a little confused by, perhaps someone can let me know if there are any answers.
I've uploaded some images for the covers of the Deck Plan SJG Booklets that didn't have them (now 1-4 and 6 e.g. Deck Plan 1: Beowulf). I can get the images to show up on the entries for the booklets themselves, but I can't see how to then get the image to show up on the Steve Jackson Games page. As far as I can tell, they have the same content and Categories as Deck Plan 5: Sulieman and its image. The lists seem to be generated by templates, but I can't work out how the templates pick up the right items.
The list is generated by a wiki process called Dynamic Page List (DPL). In order to conserve processing power DPL caches results for some of the lists which don't change often. The Book Image List template is one. I can manually force the list to update, otherwise the internal processes update the list sometime in the future. If you notice another template like this which should be updated, let me know and I'll give the process a push. Tjoneslo (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2015 (EDT)
The second item is how/why the sub-headings are done on articles. I've tended to do them however the existing article was marked up, but I don't really understand why each sub-heading includes the full name (and more) of the article. Surely that is redundant information that just adds to the bulk of the page. It also makes it more difficult to use the headings in the "Contents" list as anchors on the page to direct links in from outside as a link could be something like Zhodani#History & Background (which only takes you to the top of the page as the subheading is not complete) but instead would have to be Zhodani#Zhodani (Sophont) History & Background (Dossier)(which will take you to the desired location on the page).
I've added a Forum:Page layout templates and formats page for discussing this further. Tjoneslo (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2015 (EDT)
I'm not trying to throw my ideas around as a newcomer. I'm sure there is a reason for doing it the way it is, so I'd appreciate it if somebody could explain it so that I can better implement the style. OGuutan (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2015 (EDT)


Hi Oguutan! I will respond to your inquiries later when I have more time. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

Hi Oguutan.

The heading system, which is very much a work-in-progress, works as following:

SUB 2 hierarchy -- ARTICLE (category) [2-word title such as 'History & Background'] (clarification) --

SUB 3 HIERARCHY --- ARTICLE (One of the two word titles) [area title] ---

SUB 4 HIERARCHY


[area title] ----

There are four SUB 2 HIERACRCHIEs common to most articles:

  • Synopsis
  • Description
  • History & Background (Dossier)
  • References & Contributors (Sources)

The above four SUB 2 HIERARCHIES govern most articles, but specific layouts exist for articles, which benefit from other categories.

So, for instance, publications use two different version of the basic SUB-2 HIERARCHY:

  • [Book title] (Book) Synopsis
  • [Periodical title] (Periodical) Synopsis

They both add a category for: [Book title] (Book) Credits

And that's it in a nut shell.

The system was originally developed by intelligence agencies such as the MI6, CIA, KGB, GRU, etc. Hence, the word "dossier." I'm a former military guy and I used similar systems in the two militaries I had experience serving.

It is now also used in many Wikis, particularly those for younger readers, who grew up with electronic information devices, "Handcomps" in Traveller parlance, and do not have the willingness to read long tracts of expository writing.

This system breaks down those expository whales into smaller, more digestible pieces and allows readers to pick out what they are most interested in... This often leads to the reader deciding to read the rest of the article.

It also makes it easier for active users to see what's missing from an article and could be added to, such as "History & Background", a GURPS World Paragraph, or other "holes" in what's available.

Since the system has been implemented in January 2015, I have been non-scientifically monitoring the articles and their access counts. Pages with the layout schema are overwhelmingly being read more. This could be due to many factors, but I think at least one contributing factor is that the pages are more organized and it's easier to access the information.

I don't know what the community will, in the end of ends, decide to go with, but I do very much think that the pages could use some kind of organizational schema.

That's my two cents! Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for the detail, Maksim-Smelchak.
I don't have any problem understanding the benefit of subheadings. The point I find odd is the fact that every subheading has the name of the article in front of it when that is obvious from the fact that it is on that page. A set of subheadings that are individually concise are still helpful in subdividing the bulk of an entry (although they can still be a bit much in something that is only going to be a sentence or two long anyway). So using subheadings (with further subdivisions as appropriate) in the fashion:
  • Synopsis
  • Description
  • Meta-History & Background
  • Credits
  • Contents
makes a lot of sense to me. But when this is added to the article GURPS Traveller: Alien Races 4, as an example, and then you use:
  • GURPS Traveller: Alien Races 4 (Book) Synopsis
  • GURPS Traveller: Alien Races 4 (Book) Description
  • GURPS Traveller: Alien Races 4 (Book) Meta-History & Background
  • GURPS Traveller: Alien Races 4 (Book) Credits
  • GURPS Traveller: Alien Races 4 (Book) Contents
you have massively increased the word content in the subtitles with no benefit, and you have reduced the effectiveness of the subheadings as navigation link anchors. About the only useful bit to my mind might be the (Book), which could be added as a single line at the start of the article to indicate the category it falls into if it was felt necessary to do so.
How an individual looks at categorisation of information probably depends on their experience. I have worked for a long time in technical marketing, writing detailed technical data sheets, product performance recommendations and technical papers. In all those cases, short, concise subheadings clarify the divisions in the document without adding unnecessary overhead.
I'm happy to implement whatever is agreed as a method, but given a vote I would go for simplicity as an aid to clarity.
OGuutan (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Smelchak Contact[edit]

Would you please contact me off-board using E-mail at "Maksim_Smelchak" at that Yahoo place. Thanks! Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2015 (EDT)