Talk:Crawl Wiki

From CrawlWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Ideas for the main page

So a couple things about it:

  • I'm not fond of the current design. It's kind of dull and scattered, and also just looks somehow outdated compared to the rest of the site. I'm not exactly sure what would make it more interesting, but before I go ahead and try, I want to know if this opinion is shared by anyone else - if everyone else thinks it's fine, there's no reason to try and think of ways to change it up.
  • About the only concrete idea I have to spruce up the main page is that we could use a featured article, like NetHackWiki or of course Wikipedia. For one thing, I think that it would be useful to show to the people who still think of the wiki as an inferior source of information. Also, it's always good to show off our best work.
  • The link to the old wiki - this should either be removed or made much less prominent. It should still be *somewhere* on the wiki, since it'll always be potentially valuable for its talk pages and history, but it's actually becoming more and more outdated. The average user should not get the impression that this wiki is being rebuilt, and the old one is the canonical source - that just isn't true any more, as virtually every article has been migrated, along with most images. I'm thinking it should be kept either in the Community Portal, or in a separate article about the history of the wiki.

Anyway, what are people's thoughts? -Ion frigate 09:39, 24 March 2013 (CET)

  • You're right: the "main page" isn't a loved one by the active wiki community. Best proof is that nobody cares normally to hold the "News" section up to date. (Or has really nothing happened since last november?) That's the first that has to be changed.
    The reason why nearly none of is much interested in that entry page is that it is constantly the same table you look at. There's neither an "eyecatcher" (images? featured article) nor "useful" or hilarious info, e.g. statistics like an automated "fun table" of most looked up monsters/spells/game mechanics/editors.
    The link to the old wiki is still sometimes needed, yet it must no longer be that prominent at the main page. Just as you proposed, move it to the Community page!
Those are my ideas (on a cloudy sunday morning while the sun peeks sommetimes out). -- Bwijn 10:32, 24 March 2013 (CET)
So I'm thinking a featured article would be a good central element. We could try to do a scheduling thing like NetHackWiki, but the problem there is that a lot of the information will change before the article actually gets featured, so it may no longer be up to date. Definitely a featured article is something we need somewhat broader discussion on, though.
Some changes, off the top of my head:
  • Rearrange the items section, putting the types of items first, then general articles about items (general articles may seem more important, but trust me, most often people come to a wiki looking for specific articles). And give the links images: on one side, the glyph, and on the other side (if possible), a reduced version of the tile.
  • Maybe make the font bold or larger
  • Those background colors. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not fond of them.
And numerous other ideas I'm sure will come to me in the next few days... -Ion frigate 11:35, 24 March 2013 (CET)
As a first step, I'm going to create a sandbox copy of the main page in my userspace - the preview function doesn't let you show things to other users, and I think it's well worth making sure certain changes are approved of before enacting them. -Ion frigate 11:41, 24 March 2013 (CET)
I agree the front page looks a bit blander than would be ideal. What's always bugged me most is the logo we've got there. It's not really reminiscent of the game in any way, and it's not exactly attractive. I'm not sure how long a Featured Article section could be interesting for before we run out of neat articles, and I'd rather not start an idea and then seem to get bored of it halfway through. Editorials or creative writing might last longer, but we're an encyclopedia, not so much a magazine. I think a facelift is a good idea, but I'd like to hear more ideas for interesting content about moving further otherwise.
Also, the news really DOES update that rarely. --MoogleDan 13:26, 24 March 2013 (CET)
A front page redesign sounds like a great idea. Featured articles would be nice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are not necessarily editorial articles, but just featured pages on the wiki. Regarding Moogle's comment about running out of articles, we can always refeature articles after a while, right? As for articles being out of date, they can always be updated. --Flun 15:47, 24 March 2013 (CET)
Okay, at least four of us consent that a refreshed, better design (look and usefulness) of the wiki frontpage is needed. Ions favorite idea is the "featured article". Even although it's not clear what that could mean. Dan favours a "cool logo" that reflects the game. My own prime proposal aims at scripts that "data mine" the page access stats and produce sort of "wiki page charts" of monsters/spells/game mechanics. The popularity of wiki articles are always changing and therefor of longtime interest for most. While no common wiki article could be of "fresh interest" for many users for longer than 3 days, automated scripts that continually collect page access numbers and put them in charts tables (e.g. "Top 10 of user curiosity in Spells") could remain fresh and surprising. - My concept idea for "featured articles" is: at least two responsible volunteers that deliver alternatingly one "fresh frontpage contents" that changes once per week (on sunday?). Best suitable should be a personal commentary - and an internal link to a debate page. - Well, might be that all brainstorms will fail because any novelties would need a lot of work. Who of us has such a cornucopia of free time? We'll gonna see. - By the way, Dan, I believe that the fact that the wiki now has got ~80 "Crystal Ball Articles" is a legitimate news section entry of March 2013. The announced ParserFunctions could be another. Anything older than Octobre (the last stable version apparition; the last tournament) are no longer of any interest. -- Bwijn 16:20, 24 March 2013 (CET)
I personally don't see how an announcement about the crystal ball articles or statistics on page popularity are really going to wow anyone >_> As for the debate stuff, that belongs in the Tavern, not on the wiki. Bwijn, you keep trying to suggest we make this wiki a more sociable place, but it's really just a data depository. There already are debates and discussions going on over at the actual forums. I really don't understand why you don't give them a try! --MoogleDan 17:22, 24 March 2013 (CET)
Form follows function since World War I. But I point at e.g. suburban settlements of single-detached homes: all forms of urban segregation are boring, emotional dead areas. So are websites that are intentionally mostly separating all functions: somewhat lifeless and boring, cemeteries of knowledge. - From real life I know "a little bit" about those things. But you are free not to agree with me. As long as you respect that it is my prefered view, you can stay with your own. And if the wiki community majority speaks out against my ideas I'll respect that too. So don't let us tell each other what "you" should do. -- Bwijn 21:05, 24 March 2013 (CET)
Just a point on featured articles - I should have been clearer, I'm certainly not thinking of having one every day. NetHackWiki does one every month, and I was thinking of that as a maximum rate. We might even change them as little as every 2-3 months. We'd want to agree on a regular time so we don't end up having the same featured article for two years, but we certainly wouldn't be changing them so rapidly that we'd run out of good articles any time soon. And as Flun says, we can refeature articles. -Ion frigate 17:42, 24 March 2013 (CET)


Currently the version thing is in a very strange stage. The main page says that the articles should be up to date with the 0.14 release, but the link to the latest stable release is leading to the version 0,13,2. I think this leads to more confusion then clarifyes anything... --Arcanist

Which link for the latest stable release is leading to 0.13.2? The Current release article redirects to 0.14. --Flun (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (CEST)
Ah I see you meant the site says latest stable is 0.13.2. Yeah, the change on the Wiki to 0.14 was a little early but 0.14 should be coming out soon because of the tourney on Apr 11th. --Flun (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2014 (CEST)

Design philosophies link dead

CDO no longer seems to host the manual. Can the link to be changed to point towards ? --Arvy (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2018 (CEST)

Done. --spudwalt (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2018 (CEST)

Roguelike vs Roguelike [Wikipedia]

Pretty simple question. The roguelike page is something that I am obviously going to be biased in including (as I rewrote it), but the Wikipedia page is also useful; linking it at the bottom of the wiki RL page isn't really "enough" justice, I feel. The other problem with the wiki RL page is that it repeats what's said in the wiki blurb, intentionally so, so may feel redundant to read. --Hordes (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2022 (CEST)

The roguelike article looks pretty good. We should use it instead of linking to the Wikipedia page. Ge0ff (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2022 (CEST)