Forum:CharmLogUpdateGuide

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > CharmLogUpdateGuide
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 April 2010 by Liquidhelium.

Per Forum:Charm log vandalism, three templates were added to deal with charm logs in a way similar to the GEMW. Two of them were warning templates, which I think is a perfectly good idea. However, the third, [[Template:CharmLogUpdateGuide]], was simply a clone of Template:CharmLogHelp.

The CharmLogUpdateGuide template was added to the top of every single charm log page, inside a noinclude tag. This means that it only shows up when somebody is viewing the log directly. There are a few problems with this. First, this would have been more easily done if included in the charm data template used to actually enter and display the charm data (and it could easily have been restricted to the charm log pages). Second, there was no need to create a new template, when the old one was sufficient. Finally, and most importantly, this template already appears at the top of every page when editing the charm logs.

For a simple example of my third point, try any page such as Bloodveld, scroll down to the drops section, and click on "Please add to the log". You will see two edit guide templates.

The first template, that which appears above the preview bar, is included due to a parameter in the URL which is added by the charm template, and will appear to anybody and everybody who clicks the link. The only time it will not appear is if users manually navigate to the page, and then choose to edit it via the "Edit this page" link.

The second template is the one that is actually part of the page. Users will only see this if they have preview on first edit turned on (which is off by default, and for anybody not logged in). They will, however, see it (under the previous condition) regardless of how they get to the page.


I propose that the template be removed from the direct coding of the charm log pages, as the way it is already shown is simply more effective. It is also a closer parallel with the Exchange pages (which was part of the reason for the change to the template in the first place), as the Exchange pages also use this URL parameter to determine an edit intro.

My suggestion for how to implement this is simple: soon (and yes, I really do mean soon) TLULbot will be mass-editing these pages to clean them up, and then protecting them (see Forum:Preventing charm log vandalism for details). In doing so, its current programming will automatically remove this template, and I propose that this effect be left unchanged.


Support It just makes sense. I would like to add that when your bot is ready, before it begins moving charm log data to the new page or however, that the data is first verified by some (I imagine it will take many of us) member of the community to verify there is no apparent vandalism or other mistakes.--Degenret01 11:43, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I never realized that the template has already appeared when I added all of those to the charm log code. I still don't see it, but I guess that's a problem with my personal settings. --LiquidTalk 11:57, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it won't appear if you edit the pages by visiting them first, then clicking "Edit page". That's a shortfall of not having the charm logs in their own namespace (an idea which was shot down for various reasons when they were first implemented) - we can't customise the edit link. However, the "Add to this log" link should show the template just fine =) I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC) 

Comment - This thread needs more activity in order to be closed, as I don't feel it can be unless we have more than three supports. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:05, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's redundant. --Iiii I I I 01:09, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - TLUL has already said he will remove it. --LiquidTalk 01:09, April 29, 2010 (UTC)