This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums

Contents 1 General discussion 2 Mod article requirements proposal 1 2.1 Type A 2.2 Type B 2.3 Additional idea 2.4 Comments 2.4.1 Dzylon's Comments 3 August

General discussionEdit

I've been thinking through some of the latest Mod namespace submissions, namely the Toparia mod, "WonRak" mod and a couple of others that I can't seem to find and have probably been removed (Edit: Was mainly meaning this one). Due to quite vast differences in code, I do think that we need to define a standard to follow when making new Mod parent pages. In addition, it would probably be in our best interests to implement a Mod Submission process, so as to not clutter the wiki up with mods that we could call "non-approved" and instead keep it nice, clean and consistent. In saying that though, we would also have to likely write up an official page detailing which mods are allowed to be posted on the Wiki.

• The submission process itself would likely be rather simple, quite similar to the current Admin and Bureaucrat Nominations system that's already in place. Of course, the final call could instead fall to a majority vote by the admin team, while also taking into consideration any community input.
• Mods that have been submitted without being approved would likely result in a warning being given to the person who posted it, as well as running the risk of being removed from the Mod namespace.

Anyway, that's all I've got to say for now. Opinions are greatly appreciated. :)
  Pathos | Talk Page | Wed 4 July 2012, 07:10

I think it's a good idea! That way we could also set a quality standard of the information given in the mods' articles, which would generally improve the quality of the articles, while hopefully ruling out any possible misinformation. Another reason I support this proposal is that it's important that the creator of the mod makes as good a first edit to the article as possible, as they may not make any further edits on it after creating the page.

The Dragon's Tooth mod includes only one weapon and that's it. That's why I moved it to the user blog namespace, and I just said it wasn't qualified to have its own article under the main namespace. That's just my opinion though, as we don't have any policies stating anything about this, and it would be better to have a tribunal to deal with these cases.

I think it should be done in a similar fashion to the "Proposed Videos." However maybe make it so that the approval of two admins, instead of one, is enough? Just a suggestion. The approved proposals would be made into articles the same way they were proposed (the edit should stay the same.) This way we could also specify that we may disapprove of the mod based on too little information given and such.

Edit: Btw, we wouldn't necessarily need to "reject" the proposals; if we felt the mod looked acceptable, but the information given about it could be improved, we could just ask them to improve it before we cast our votes.
HHHHHLeet-PeteHHHHHHHHHHH✉HHHHHHHHHHH19:17, 4 July 2012HHHHH

I agree with everything Leet-Peet stated above. Some mods lack alot of content and in my opinion would better fit in a blog. Mods should only be approved if they meet certain requierments, thus providing the best content to viewers. I like the method of the admin and beruacrat nominations for approving mods. I feel that it would be the easiest and most pain-free way.

Dak47922 Talk 22:10, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Full agreement with Pete's suggestions. :D
  Pathos | Talk Page | Thu 5 July 2012, 08:31

(Reset indent) I'd rather not see any sort of formal approval process. It's become apparent I think that the video policy doesn't work: nobody wants to review videos or has time for that really. I'd favor more of a simple, less formal approach.

1. Let people add mod content to the mod namespace. If they want to add a single page for some obscure mod -- let them.
2. Make sure the page gets categorized in Category:Mods and possibly Category:Needs Attention.
3. If there are multiple pages, make sure they're named appropriately, categorized and linked to the main one for that mod.
4. If there is no download link for the mod, ask the person who created the page where it can be downloaded. Tell them that if the mod can't be played, then we're not going to document it and the pages will be deleted.

Mathmagician ƒ(♫) 22:33 UTC, Thu, 05 July 2012

@ Math: To be honest, I'm a little bit surprised that you think we should simply allow people to add any kind of mod that they want to the wiki. Even though the mods use the mod "namespace," they are under the main namespace of the wiki, and I really think we should have some kind of quality standard over what's added to the main namespace.

I disagree with the statement that the video policy doesn't work, although I know what you mean; there are a lot of video proposals that stay unanswered. However, it is a lot better than nothing (which includes unprofessional videos floating around and/or a lot of time and effort wasted on dealing with them). This is a wiki after all, and in my opinion, most articles shouldn't even have embedded videos, as most things can be explained in text. In some cases they are indeed useful (like when showing how to defeat a boss), but sometimes they just repeat a lot of what's already explained in the article, along with explaining personal opinions (and some times regarding them as facts), which really has nothing to do on a wiki's main namespace.
HHHHHLeet-PeteHHHHHHHHHHH✉HHHHHHHHHHH01:31, 6 July 2012HHHHH

Sorry for my delayed response, I've been away from my computer for a few days. I must say I agree with Math here. Mod article publication should be a free process (to an extent), not a heavily regulated one. I say this not due to stress on the admin team, but due to my own opinion that anyone should be able to add any legitimate mod to the wiki. I believe we should have only a few regulations in place:

• Of course, no content in the mod should violate any of our own policies (no pornography, et cetera).
• The mod should be maintained. If a mod remains incompatible with the latest version of tConfig or is otherwise broken, it should remain separate from those that remain functional. For example, a notice at the top of the page. We could link to a tutorial for rebuilding the mod yourself, which is actually quite simple. A hovertip implementation could also be used.
• Mod articles should be held up to the same quality standard as the rest of the wiki. If nobody else is willing to clean up miscellaneous mod articles like that, I could take up the work.
• I feel that tConfig mods that do not work with the latest version of Terraria (1.1.2) should be deleted. Other standalone mods that only work with earlier versions should not (for documentation purposes).
• Having so many mod articles may clutter up Special:Randompage, but we could specify the namespace as main (in the navbar, where the function is almost always used). In addition to that, we could have another link to Special:Randompage/Mod.

To conclude, I don't at all believe that any interpretation of "good" or "popular" should be used to determine what can be documented here. Videos may be one thing, but I find mods to be another. My position here is to take all comers, under only a few stipulations. Dzylon  Talk  02:23:35  July 06, 2012

@Leet-Pete: "Mod" is actually a custom namespace that I had Wikia set up a few months ago. E.g. http://terraria.wikia.com/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=114 So, it really is separate from the main content pages of our wiki. However, like the main namespace, the mod namespace is set up to be a content space. Just like the main namespace, Mod: pages have comments enabled, and they show up in default search results and in Special:Random. That setup is customizable with community consensus and an email to staff.

@General discussion: Generally speaking though, it's not that I'm against policies and guidelines -- I just don't like things that restrict people from contributing. In the big picture, emphasis should be placed on the continuing improvement of content, not necessarily on the finalized presentation of content. I really don't see a problem with allowing people to write about whichever mods they wish (so long as it works + has a download link), and then trying to improve the article.

If we want to focus more on the quality and standards side of things, I feel that a different approach would be better. E.g. implement "featured articles" and "featured mods", or some other promotional thing so as to highlight certain mods which are well documented -- rather than outright preventing the addition of "poor content" to the wiki. Mathmagician ƒ(♫) 03:44 UTC, Fri, 06 July 2012

I agree with the non-rejection approach, though I do have a suggestion in relation to that: Templates that state if a mod is in need of a cleanup. If not a specialized template or notice, then a policy that states something like: "If an article in the Mod: Namespace is in need of a cleanup, or in need of more information, remember to add the {{Wikify}} template to the top of the page." With the Wikify template looking similar to this one. In addition, maybe another Template for use on mod pages that are still specified as under construction or are a WiP. Thoughts?
  Pathos | Talk Page | Fri 6 July 2012, 07:33

How about something like this? Dzylon  Talk  01:36:02  July 07, 2012

(Reset indent) That's pretty much exactly what I mean. :)
  Pathos | Talk Page | Sat 7 July 2012, 01:42

@Math: Aha! I wasn't aware of that (that there was a mod namespace). That's cool. I thought you guys were referring to it as a namespace because the pages start with "Mod:". Well that changes my perspective on this subject quite a bit.

However, I'm still a little bit uncomfortable with that in theory, someone can spend five minutes in tConfig, mess with some random codes, call it a mod, and then be protected by this idea of "we accept anything." We deny the addition of "poor content" to main namespace articles - why should this be different? The fact that we even let users showcase their mods on the wiki is just an addition (not something that should be taken for granted), so we shouldn't have any reason to feel bad about making rules or setting a standard for what may be added, in my opinion.

Anyone is free to rename the User blog:ConveX/Dragon's Tooth Mod back to the mod namespace again.
HHHHHLeet-PeteHHHHHHHHHHH✉HHHHHHHHHHH03:44, 7 July 2012HHHHH

The "poor content" that is not allowed on vanilla pages pertains to files and text, rather than the subject of the article itself, while the "poor content" you're speaking of involves the mod being documented (rather than text and images used in the article). I'm fine with "poor content" regulations involving the articles, but not the mods. As I said, canon/non-canon articles remain very separate. What's the harm in allowing lower-quality mods on the wiki? Dzylon  Talk  05:24:10  July 07, 2012

Mod article requirements proposal 1Edit

Type AEdit

If an administrator doesn't *feel* these requirements are met, they may delete the article at their discretion -- but preferably, beforehand, should place a {{delete}} notice on the page and contact the author and ask them if they can improve the article.

1. The mod needs to be playable, it can't just be a bunch of ideas.
2. The mod must be vetted by at least 1 "reputable" external resource, e.g. a Terraria Online forum thread.

Type BEdit

Articles which don't meet these requirements should have a {{cleanup}} notice placed on them, and they should be steadily improved to meet these requirements.

1. {{Infobox:Mod}} should be used.
2. The article must have a working download link to the mod.
3. The article should present installation instructions.
4. Proper grammar, links -- the usual.

Additional ideaEdit

For tConfig mods, we should create a template that has a notice like "This is a tConfig mod, it may need to be rebuilt with each new version of tConfig. See the tConfig Wiki for details."

CommentsEdit

Propose changes in this section. Mathmagician ƒ(♫) 00:33 UTC, Sun, 08 July 2012

Dzylon's CommentsEdit

"The mod must be vetted by at least 1 "reputable" external resource, e.g. a Terraria Online forum thread."
This may need to be defined in a clearer way. Terraria Online rarely features mods, so I assume you mean that it must be vetted by users there. If so, how many? And, then, what defines such users as "reputable"? I believe a better rule would be that it must have a release thread/post/document at a reputable site.

What I meant: If the external reference seems good enough that you'd be willing to cite it with <ref></ref> tags, it's reputable. e.g. a forum thread on Terraria Online such as this one is a perfectly good reference. A wall post on Facebook is not. I leave the interpretation of "reputable" up to the admin in question. Use common sense. Does it have a reference that you think is good enough? Okay. If it doesn't? Put up the {{delete}} notice. Mathmagician ƒ(♫) 01:58 UTC, Sun, 08 July 2012

"The article should present installation instructions."
I added Template:tconfig to the wiki recently, which should work great for tConfig packs (unified instructions rather than something different for each mod).

Per the "additional idea" above, we could use this template or something similar to it. It checks to see whether or not the current tConfig version is up to date, and if not, a notice is displayed. I implemented it as an example on the Obsidian Mod and Omnir's Mod pages. Dzylon  Talk  07:15:14  July 09, 2012

AugustEdit

Hoping to get this discussion going again, and out of the way - I put up a policy proposal on Terraria_Wiki_talk:Mod_Article_Editing_Policy, so please change that up to whatever you think it should be changed to (or discuss it here). By the way, I don't think this should be integrated into the manual of style as was once planned - it's a large enough part of the wiki to warrant a dedicated policy, and it has several concise rules that go beyond what would typically be found in a manual of style. Dzylon  Talk  12:29:34  August 24, 2012

Hmmmm, I can't say I particularly disagree with anything or have any good ideas for changes. It looks fairly good to me. On the point of keeping it separate from manual of style for the rest of the wiki, my opinion now leans in the direction of agreeing with you.
Mathmagician ƒ(♫) 07:56 UTC, Tue, 28 August 2012