Posted under General
post #231448 has no chartag, yet it had a copyright tag. That always looks a little off what I find it but I know nothing about the franchise I wouldn't know how to fix it and topic #4458 is the only previous discussion.
Tagged mahou_shoujo_lyrical_nanoha_strikers and numbers_(nanoha); should numbers_(nanoha) be a chartag or this an identify-able character rather than a generic mook?
Edit: Wow the links in the wiki are utterly useless and empty.
Updated by Toks
post #231448 has no chartag because quattro is an artist for some reason. It should be a character tag instead, like uno and all the others (unless there’s an artist named quattro, in which case some cleaning needs to be done).
For added confusion, numbers_(nanoha) lists her name as Quatro, but that tag has no posts.
I don’t think numbers_(nanoha) should be a character tag because it doesn’t identify a certain character and I’d expect it to be used in addition to the normal character tags. quattro and numbers_(nanoha) would then be two char tags even if there’s only one character.
That said, I question the usefulness of the numbers_(nanoha) tag.
Oh, not all the links are empty. Also the new "here, write a wiki page for us!" thing instead of a simple 1-line "blank page" it's very misleading. If I want to edit a wiki page, I'll have no trouble finding the edit button, and if I don't want to edit it, presenting me with the edit tools won't encourage me to. Though, adding a "this page is blank, fill it" button might help encourage some.
Changed quattro's category to character.
kittey said:
(unless there’s an artist named quattro, in which case some cleaning needs to be done).
It appears all posts currently tagged with it are also tagged with lyrical nanoha, so that seems unlikely.
Serlo said:
Oh, not all the links are empty. Also the new "here, write a wiki page for us!" thing instead of a simple 1-line "blank page" it's very misleading. If I want to edit a wiki page, I'll have no trouble finding the edit button, and if I don't want to edit it, presenting me with the edit tools won't encourage me to. Though, adding a "this page is blank, fill it" button might help encourage some.
I agree with you, although this is Albert's opinion:
I prefer defaulting to a new wiki page form. I'd rather provide better instructions/help than deter users from contributing to the wiki.
Serlo said:
Oh, not all the links are empty. Also the new "here, write a wiki page for us!" thing instead of a simple 1-line "blank page" it's very misleading. If I want to edit a wiki page, I'll have no trouble finding the edit button, and if I don't want to edit it, presenting me with the edit tools won't encourage me to. Though, adding a "this page is blank, fill it" button might help encourage some.
I also agree with this.
Showing opened edit form by default is not only unproductive and inconvenient, it can even be harmful. There have already been cases when people created blank wiki pages just to get rid of that form, but I'm more worried that someone without proper knowledge or understanding will be persuaded by this and makes wiki pages that bring more bad than good. Pages that are misleading, contradict the tag usage practiced up until that point or contain incorrect information. See topic #8354 for an example.
Of course, this can happen regardless of the edit form being open by default or any other form of persuasion. But I view this as another, even if minor, reason why the current behavior is not helpful.
