I do think a small amount of formal data is useful – this is what the inset info box is for. I think this can be left as it is now, but with a link to the work’s IFDB page added at the bottom of the box. (While I’m dreaming, wouldn’t it be cool if the info could be automatically retrieved from IFDB?)
From a quick look, I think the IFDB URL uses the TUID. It would be trivial for the IFWiki template to expect a TUID, and to create the correct IFID URL based on that if present. If the TUID is absent then it could (as CASA maybe does) instead automatically create a link to the IFDB search page for the IFWiki page title. The IFDB URL system may have more intricacies than I realise but I’m sure they could be handled.
If we were to add the Page Forms extension – which creates a data entry interface not unlike the one on IFDB – then the data entry form could link to the IFDB search page for the particular game and encourage editors to look there and enter the game’s TUID.
Edit: There’s already a template (Template:Babel) that does something similar to this, but it’s based on the IFID and it seems that the idea is to add it manually to a game page when the IFID is known.
What I meant was if the data in the box, like release date and authoring system, could be automatically queried from IFDB, maybe using an IFWiki template supplied with the TUID. But I suppose that data doesn’t change very often.
Sorry for misunderstanding. If IFDB has an API that would return that information then it could be displayed on the IFWiki page. The same would apply to anything else like the summary or number of stars. As long as the information were presented clearly as straight from IFDB it wouldn’t really be duplication.
I’ve edited those templates but the main page isn’t any different, what am I missing? (I moved some stuff from “What’s New” to “Still Going Strong” and added some new stuff to “What’s New”. BTW, I added Gruescript, and wanted to add an impressive similar system that somebody posted here about the same time, but I can’t find that one. EDIT: found it, it was Mikael Lindqvist’s system; I’ve messaged him to ask if he gave it a name!)
I had to open “Template:Feature article” after editing “Template: State of the Scene 2016” to get it to update the content, does someone with rights have to do the same for the main page?
EDIT: yeah, going to the (inferred) URL for editing the main page tells me I don’t have rights.
I purged the Main Page and your edits show up now. The way that MediaWiki caches pages is one of its idiosyncrasies. To purge a page you add action=purge to the URL where you’d see action=edit if editing.
On the main page, what about putting a blurb/intro paragraph front and center, that mentions the types of things you can find on IFWiki? And maybe also mention something about this:
And in the intro, maybe “interactive fiction” could be hyperlinked in case anyone is wondering what that means.
Also, what about putting other things besides lists of “feature theme” games on the front page? Especially articles of the type that are unique to ifwiki, like the “Golden Banana” article.
Go ahead and make those changes! I see you are an administrator so presumably you can edit the main page.
Incidentally, I don’t understand the word “unfeatured” in “Unfeatured article”. Is it some sort of in-joke? If you can edit the main page, would you be willing to get rid of that? It doesn’t make sense above a quotation and list of pages. Not that it would make sense anywhere else
If I had to guess, I would say it was a jokey way to distinguish it from the “featured article” on the right. Which is actually a list of articles, but whatever. If it’s an in-joke, it’s one I’m not in on.
I also think the FAQ section could stand to be less wordy.
I am not sure of the best way to word all these things. I could try to come up with something, but if anyone else has ideas, that’s fine too.
I thought it might have been from the Uncyclopedia but checked and they don’t use it there either!
Maybe come up with a master plan, and describe it on the Main Page’s talk page in case anyone has ideas? I’m not steeped in IF (I wish I were and maybe in the future I will be!) but could comment on what’s technically feasible.
I had a look at that earlier today. It’s a rotating set of themes based on the date of the month. Make this part of your Masterplan (describe what changes you want to make) and I’ll help you implement it.
Someone with technical expertise would need to volunteer to handle operations for IFWiki, under the auspices of IFTF. (That includes launching the new site, keeping it up, maintaining backups, etc.) For IFDB that was me, but I’m not volunteering to do that for IFWiki.
The current site owner would need to agree to do a transfer.
IFTF would have to agree to do the hosting.
In particular, what we don’t have is an IFTF “technical team” who could just absorb additional sites. Zarf definitely did essential work here, setting up the machines and certificates and helping with stuff I don’t have credentials for, but he kept his involvement limited; he only agreed to do it because someone volunteered to be the point person.
Regarding #2, that was a challenge for IFDB. Folks nagged MJR on and off for years about this, and then he finally agreed to do it at the end of 2020. He said in October at that time that he wanted to transfer the site “urgently,” so we prepared to accept the transfer right away after that, but then we nagged him monthly for another three months just to get the files he already had on his machine. (Once we got the files, it was another month before we were ready on our side to do the transfer.)
It’s not even clear to me who’s hosting IFWiki right now. WHOIS indicates that Dave Cornelson owns the ifwiki.org name (which is a separate matter from paying for hosting the site); he presumably at least knows who’s paying for hosting, if it isn’t Dave himself.
The big requirement for adopting the service is getting together an active group of wiki editors and contributors – people who are modernizing the wiki and keeping it up to date. That’s the problem at hand. I think that this thread is making a good start at that, so let’s focus on that for the moment.
Here’s an interesting aside from @David_Welbourn from back in 2013 on the wiki:
Back in the day, I was resisting having article pages for games at all, because I felt that was the purview of Baf’s Guide. I wanted IFWiki to say things about IF that Baf’s Guide couldn’t: the features of IF games, such as ask/tell conversation, pathfinding, compass roses, the parser, colour usage, ASCII art, etc. Every game page I have to create takes me away from even thinking about working on any of that.
Don’t worry, I’m not arguing for deleting them all now! I just found it interesting to see that this debate isn’t a new one at all.
He said as much in the thread I linked to above (when I quoted bg).
That’s probably a good idea. I think it was always implicitly allowed, because of the relatively small size of the community, where it can’t be taken as given that there are enough uninvolved bystanders to fill in the blanks.
Also, the generally sober, factual, list-oriented style was and is probably a decent safeguard against crass self-promotion.
Nothing wrong with informing people about your contributions to authoring systems, games, reviews/articles, testing and so on.
I was always under the impression that @David_Welbourn started IFWiki and @DavidC currently has ownership, although I could be wrong on both counts. I have no idea who pays for the running costs.
IFWiki is a great resource. I am happy to help with contributions to content, but I don’t want to be involved with the technical side of things related to hosting, software updates, backups and so on. Obviously, any changes in that area would have to be discussed with the current owners anyway.
That’s an easy observation to come to. I bought the domain, installed mediawiki, made a few pages, then publicized it. David Welbourn took it and ran, loading it with a ton of information and regularly updated for years. I hosted it for many years, then baf (Carl) agreed to host it.
