[Wiki] Discussion

[~Legend~]

   Wiki Discussion



Idea: Layout & Organisation
One of the main aims in setting up a wiki was to have a single, central area for all Argonath information - a knowledge base. So, unlike some wikis out there we don't just have facts about people, places and organisations, but also helpful guides, rules and script information. With this focus in mind, the Argonath Wiki has come a long way since its beginning and now has some 1000+ pages on there.

However, I think that some of the info could be organised to be more helpful for the community. Right now there is one adopted template for most guides, game locations, clans, groups, companies and so on.
The layout I think works well for things like guides, where it's a bit like a basic walkthrough. But when it comes to more factual pages (like say, Argonath RPG Police Department) it's more like an advert page - the content on there is great, but it's not so easy for people to look around: everything is on one page, but just comes one after the other. Most people would just want to find out some key facts, or they may be looking for something in particular.

So to make the wiki more user friendly why don't we better the layout for all pages about people, places and organisations? We could stick to a more conventional layout like the ones in the pictures below.
I thought I'd put up a topic about it as it will be most useful if all pages follow a similar layout, rather than just a few being changed because the editor wants to, and as a result getting the most attention and views.

Benefits

 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ More user friendly
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ Quicker to find information
     e.g. using a contents table
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ More professional
     e.g. no need for massive banners for logos that take up half the page; not an advert
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ People are already used to this layout: it's what most international wikis use
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ Simpler for editors: wiki's in a more logical layout
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ More players may get involved and edit it as they're already accustomed to this layout
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ More players should visit the wiki
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ Adaptable for all police departments, fire departments, driving schools, banks, businesses, people...
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ You can read as much or as little as you want
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ You can type as much or as little as you want
 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ Overall efficient



Current layout:



  example: http://wiki.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?title=Argonath_RPG_Police_Department








Suggested layout:

[[WS]Jacob]

Updating to a new layout as you have suggested would be fairly simple, it just requires the creation of an infobox which could be edited and add to each page.

[~Legend~]

Updating to a new layout as you have suggested would be fairly simple, it just requires the creation of an infobox which could be edited and add to each page.

Hopefully.

We can just get rid of all the multicolour headers that separate stuff like on a forum and replace them into one flowing page with infoboxes, content tables.

[murdoxix]

Sounds good!

[Patton]

now has some 1000+ pages on there.

There are 315 actual articles, everything above that goes on user pages, categories, file pages and so on; most of these use the system template bundled with MediaWiki.

The colourful scheme and complex layouts were mainly my ideas. The wiki uses the standard template where all pages have 100% width, so multiple columns were introduced to lower the number of words per line and make text easier to follow. As for the colourful scheme, the idea was to visually separate different areas of the wiki — ARPD pages get blue, location pages get green, and so on. Clearly, these ideas are not very applicable now and the design is beginning to show its age — it doesn’t fit well with the amount of content at the moment.

That said, it would be great to have a better layout for the wiki, that uses only the basic builtin markup, instead of custom solutions. There is a few things I’d like to change — making the layout have fixed width and improving the typography (larger line height, better typeface, &c) as a minor change would help make the site easier to read.

Updating to a new layout as you have suggested would be fairly simple

Manually editing 300+ articles is not what I’d call "fairly simple". :P

The problem for now lies in the wiki itself — the new user registrations are disabled, a lot of images are missing (as they were lost during host change), and some client-side scripts are not working (the server-side JavaScript bundler is throwing an HTTP error 500 for some unknown reason). Also, you’ve probably noticed that the site itself is loading very slowly.

IMO it would be better to solve the issues on the backed first before discussing new design.

[murdoxix]

Why the new user registrations are disabled?

[~Legend~]

Thanks for the quick reply Patton.

More than colour schemes, I was thinking the physical layout itself and the way in which content is organised.

I think it might be most efficient if we opted for a more standardised layout, with information boxes (like what Jacob mentioned) on the right for instance, detailing the key information ranging from say the organisation leader to type of organisation and foundation perhaps.

Colour schemes might be great; the international Wikipedia uses schemes in some cases to show affiliations of public figures, such as members of royal families, heads of state etc.

The colourful scheme and complex layouts were mainly my ideas. The wiki uses the standard template where all pages have 100% width, so multiple columns were introduced to lower the number of words per line and make text easier to follow. As for the colourful scheme, the idea was to visually separate different areas of the wiki — ARPD pages get blue, location pages get green, and so on. Clearly, these ideas are not very applicable now and the design is beginning to show its age — it doesn’t fit well with the amount of content at the moment.

That said, it would be great to have a better layout for the wiki, that uses only the basic builtin markup, instead of custom solutions. There is a few things I’d like to change — making the layout have fixed width and improving the typography (larger line height, better typeface, &c) as a minor change would help make the site easier to read.

Utilising a good amount of physical space, having appropriate modern, but simple typography all sound great.

It's really annoying how a lot of things appear broken, images the most noticeable - a problem across several subdomains right now, I guess. Definitely agree that fixing the things that are genuinely fractured would be good.
However, converting pages to have efficient layouts would be advantageous in the long rung, and perhaps a thought for us to bear in mind when creating or editing pages.

[Patton]

Why the new user registrations are disabled?

Because there’s no protection at the moment. If it was enabled, there would be dozens of spam bots registering each day.

[murdoxix]

Because there’s no protection at the moment. If it was enabled, there would be dozens of spam bots registering each day.

Ohhh okey... Anyway I'm registered

[SugarD]

Because there’s no protection at the moment. If it was enabled, there would be dozens of spam bots registering each day.

If I can get my server running again, I'll try to find the mods I was using on my install of MediaWiki and pass them along to you. They were blocking the bots quite well when I had them running. A few would still get through here and there, as expected with any anti-bot system, but the majority had a tough time.

There are 315 actual articles, everything above that goes on user pages, categories, file pages and so on; most of these use the system template bundled with MediaWiki.

The colourful scheme and complex layouts were mainly my ideas. The wiki uses the standard template where all pages have 100% width, so multiple columns were introduced to lower the number of words per line and make text easier to follow. As for the colourful scheme, the idea was to visually separate different areas of the wiki — ARPD pages get blue, location pages get green, and so on. Clearly, these ideas are not very applicable now and the design is beginning to show its age — it doesn’t fit well with the amount of content at the moment.

That said, it would be great to have a better layout for the wiki, that uses only the basic builtin markup, instead of custom solutions. There is a few things I’d like to change — making the layout have fixed width and improving the typography (larger line height, better typeface, &c) as a minor change would help make the site easier to read.
Manually editing 300+ articles is not what I’d call "fairly simple". :P

The problem for now lies in the wiki itself — the new user registrations are disabled, a lot of images are missing (as they were lost during host change), and some client-side scripts are not working (the server-side JavaScript bundler is throwing an HTTP error 500 for some unknown reason). Also, you’ve probably noticed that the site itself is loading very slowly.

IMO it would be better to solve the issues on the backed first before discussing new design.

It sounds like a removal of all mods and a fresh reinstall is in order. (Obviously that would also mean restoring the unmodded database after, and then reinstalling your desired mods fresh out of the box).

What version is the wiki also running now? I know it can be a pain, (especially on modified ones), to update all the time. The issues it is having now could be some sort of bug in that version with the hosting service we now use, or even a mod incompatibility with the host's settings. If it all isn't on the latest version, upgrading to that, and reinstalling the latest versions of the mods too, may fix some problems.

That being said, have you been able to pinpoint which client-side/server-side scripts are specifically causing it to error?

[Patton]

It sounds like a removal of all mods and a fresh reinstall is in order. (Obviously that would also mean restoring the unmodded database after, and then reinstalling your desired mods fresh out of the box).

Wiki is running on vanilla MediaWiki without any mods installed already. The only changes to the original install are a few lines in the configuration file, nothing else.

What version is the wiki also running now?

<meta name="generator" content="MediaWiki 1.21.2"/>

The issues it is having now could be some sort of bug in that version with the hosting service we now use, or even a mod incompatibility with the host's settings.

Probably. From what I saw, the site is running on IIS on Windows, so any of that could be true.

That being said, have you been able to pinpoint which client-side/server-side scripts are specifically causing it to error?

The PHP script that bundles MediaWiki’s JavaScript is yielding HTTP error 500. I’m guessing it’s because of some cache file/directory permission issues which I couldn’t solve over FTP since the server is running on Windows, and therefore incompatible with some of the FTP commands.

[SugarD]

Wiki is running on vanilla MediaWiki without any mods installed. The only changes to the original install are a few lines in the configuration file, nothing else.

Ah. I thought you guys were using something special since you mentioned the scripts.

The PHP script that bundles MediaWiki’s JavaScript is yielding HTTP error 500. I’m guessing it’s because of some cache file/directory permission issues which I couldn’t solve over FTP since the server is running on Windows, and therefore incompatible with some of the FTP commands.

That may be a difficult one to fix, but it should be possible. Windows is really *****y about permissions in regards to hosting websites, but it is possible to configure. It is just mostly a lot of trial and error. I'd recommend shooting Gandalf a message and see if you guys can figure out which files need which permissions fixed.

[Patton]

It is just mostly a lot of trial and error.

Or taking a look at the server’s error log and seeing where PHP is trying to write files, but doesn’t. It should be there even if the warnings are suppressed with error_reporting(false), as far as I know.

[SugarD]

Or taking a look at the server’s error log and seeing where PHP is trying to write files, but doesn’t. It should be there even if the warnings are suppressed with error_reporting(false), as far as I know.

I've learned that PHP on Windows can be a bit of an odd ordeal to use. Most of the errors I've gotten when developing sites on a Windows machine never seem to report to the error logs for any of the applications being used, PHP included.

It is definitely worth a try, and I agree that it should be the first step. Just be prepared, as it may not always be reliable. Either way, I hope you guys can get this resolved soon. I know it can be a bit frustrating when things don't work as intended, and you lack the access needed to find out why.

[Patton]

I guess a lot of stuff mentioned here can be considered fixed now.