Forum:Results of the 2nd Fallen London Wiki Survey

Forums: Index > Feedback and Suggestions > Results of the 2nd Fallen London Wiki Survey

Results of the 2nd Fallen London Wiki Survey

The survey has been closed, and you can see the responses here (google forms) and here (google sheets).

Here's a brief summary of the collected feedback:

1. The areas with significant changes mentioned on the survey were overall met with a very positive response. Some points of improvement were provided for each, which will be reviewed individually.

2. The response to editing & SMW 101, communication improvements was more tepid, but I guess those have a more narrow appeal at the moment.

3. Beyond some complaints about individual guides, there were some reports of unintended dark mode behavior.

4. Not unexpectedly, the response to the deeper Discordant Studies ban was very polarized. Unlikely to sway FBG's opinion on the issue IMO.

5. A lot of people were introduced to the FL 1-click Wiki extension.

6. IMO, the existing methods of broadcasting wiki updates don't reach the less attuned wiki users. A sitenotice extension that cycles useful information was proposed on the wiki Discord server as a solution. - TFF (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The single biggest request that I see is being able to distinguish "one-time" vs "repeatable" actions in Item Sources pages. I don't have a good answer for that, beyond just tagging every single repeatable action in the game. The only solution I can think of is better linkage to guides; perhaps Item Source landing pages ought to include a link to Item Grinding Guides when applicable?

On a related note, I'm wondering if there is a way to use SMW to automate some of the guide tagging. E.g. if guides linked to relevant items/qualities with a "Is guide for" property, then templates like {{Item}} could look for that property and add {{HasGuide}}?

The other thing I might want to explore is letting users jump into editing better, by experimenting with mw:Extension:Page Forms. This apparently used to be related to SMW but isn't anymore.

- PSGarak (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm wondering if there is a way to use SMW to automate some of the guide tagging. E.g. if guides linked to relevant items/qualities with a "Is guide for" property, then templates like {{Item}} could look for that property and add {{HasGuide}}?, yeah that sounds really useful. I've been wondering about stuff like that personally as well; using SMW to automatically link Guide <> Game Content seems really useful. --Asarta (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Good news everyone! It turns out this is even more automatable than I thought.

On a guide page, you can #set Is guide for to the result of an SMW query. The Railway Board (Guide) that I was pondering earlier now sets that property for the 300ish pages it relates to. Thanks to CarrONoir's work on the foundational templates, those covered pages should start sprouting guide links soon.

The fine details of that query can probably be packaged up into a template, so only the selection logic needs to be specified on a guide page. Also this means Concepts might get to be useful, which I'm excited about.

- PSGarak (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Just as a notice: In an effort to remove all manual uses of {{HasGuide}} but still retain all the info that we added in the past, I "quickly" stuffed the already existing links into the guides, then unleashed a bot to remove the template in the affected areas.

This doesn't mean that the guides contain all desired links! They simply have what we already had (some of them are likely to be replaced by the use of SMW queries). Some can be simplified, others extended. There is also the question of how much should be linked. CarrONoir (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)