Mission articles

[Sekoia]

Back in March 2009, I posted this: Ideas for contact/mission articles. Lots of ideas and even some consensus in support of them, but it never really went anywhere.

Well, I'd like to start working on it again. It seemed there was consensus in support of splitting missions out into their own articles. At this point, I'd like to seek discussion and consensus on two points.

#1: Should missions go in the global namespace or should we put them in a new Mission: namespace? The previous discussion seemed to lean towards using the Mission namespace.

#2: What information do we want to leave behind in Contact articles? Is a simple link sufficient? If not, what details are important to keep there?

There's lots more than will need to be ironed out, but those seem like some solid points to start with.

[taosin]

I've no real idea of the impact these changes might have, but reducing page size is a good idea in many cases; and having a Mission namespace sounds cool if it makes the same information accessible via different mechanisms (Indexes, for example).

I do value being able to look at a Contact and see all of their information "at a glance"; I could certainly live with clicking on a link on a Contact's page to go to their story arc or missions (if this is what the outcome of these changes are); although I'd like to be able to "flick back" to the Contact easily.

With the delivery of any new tool that evolves the preferred manner for the wiki to handle things, I'd like to see a brief succinct synopsis for editors like myself (and also newcomers) so that we use the new features "properly" and in the manner intended.

[Aggelakis]

Missions should definitely go into their own namespace. It's the most elegant solution, otherwise you clutter the main namespace with hundreds (thousands?!) of short pages that are intended to function as a "stepping stones" for a contact's story arc.

I would keep the souvenir and an overview of the missions (how many missions, enemies, temp powers granted, badges). Otherwise, hide everything else under a link. HOWEVER... (you knew I would try to make wrinkles in this, admit it)

I think there should be a dedicated page for the story arc so that we still maintain a "full story arc layout" like we do now, with all of the missions listed one after the other. I think the best way to do this is to (<onlyinclude> <includeonly>? I can never keep those straight) the non-{{Infobox Mission}} details and transclude them into the story arc page. (Similar to how we are currently templatizing common missions to include in multiple contacts' pages.)

I know *I* prefer to see the whole list of missions so I can scroll through and see what's all left.

[Sekoia]

I could certainly live with clicking on a link on a Contact's page to go to their story arc or missions (if this is what the outcome of these changes are); although I'd like to be able to "flick back" to the Contact easily.

Yep, that's the direction I'm hoping for. I'm hoping to put some sort of {{Infobox Mission}} on each mission article that includes (among other things) a list of contacts that offer the mission; so that would let you flick back easily.

With the delivery of any new tool that evolves the preferred manner for the wiki to handle things, I'd like to see a brief succinct synopsis for editors like myself (and also newcomers) so that we use the new features "properly" and in the manner intended.

That's something that we often overlook unfortunately. But I think with something of this scope, you're right, it'd be vital.

I know *I* prefer to see the whole list of missions so I can scroll through and see what's all left.

When you're scrolling, what are you looking at? (Or, what aren't you looking at?)

For arcs, I was hoping to put "Previous Mission" and "Next Mission" links in the Infobox for easy browsing. I figured each arc would probably still get its own page, though I figured it'd still serve as an overview instead of transcluding the full thing.

[eabrace]

When you're scrolling, what are you looking at? (Or, what aren't you looking at?)

What I am looking at when I'm scrolling through:

1)  The number of missions in an arc.  How many missions are left in this arc?

2)  Mission objectives.  How long is it going to take me to work through the rest and get on to the badge mission?  How many of the remaining missions are "defeat all", and how many can I short?

3)  Sometimes, notable NPCs.  Am I going to need a whole team to take down an AV?

What I am not looking at when I scroll through:

1)  Dialogue - both contact and NPC.

[Aggelakis]

I'm looking for pretty much everything Eabrace stated. Enemies. Mission types. How MANY missions...does this mission link to the next, or can I take a break? Pretty much everything but NPC dialogue/clues. I actually do look for the contact dialogue (briefings/etc), as that centers me on where I am in the arc more than mission titles (I basically never pay attention to mission titles) or anything else. All on one page, at a quick scrolling glance.

[taosin]

... and if the mission is timed! Highlighted.

[Zombie Man]

When using a Wiki article to follow along an a TF, e.g., I really want to quickly scan the page to find the objective I see in my navbar both outside the mission and inside (that text changes) so I know I'm looking at the right mission. Then, I want to see the objective(s) of the navbar as seen inside the mission. Then, I want to see the Editor's Comment that clarifies the objective.

So, e.g.,:

Mission 1: Go and investigate the warehouse and see if anything tries to kill you.

Navigation Description: Investigate Warehouse.
EdNote: Zones: Kings Row, Galaxy City, Steel Canyon.

Mission Description: Scour Warehouse for Clues
Mission Objectives: Search 3 Desks
EdNote: Though it doesn't say so, this is a kill-all mission.


Mission 2: etc....

[Sekoia]

This is pretty big in scope, so it's probably best handled in steps. As a first step, let's move all of the Missions to a new Mission: namespace.

I've configured the wiki to add the Mission: namespace. This namespace will be included in searches by default. It's also configured as a content namespace, so Special:Random will land there sometimes and Special:Statistics will include it in its numbers.

Here's what I propose we do: simply move existing missions to the new namespace, and update the old articles to transclude them. So for example, Azuria has a mission "Take on the Hellions and show them they aren't welcome". This would get moved to an article "Mission:Take on the Hellions and show them they aren't welcome". Then the Azuria article would transclude it as {{Mission:Take on the Hellions and show them they aren't welcome}}.

This single step will consolidate all of the mission material into a single namespace, and will drastically shorten the contact articles' internal representation making them more manageable for editing. However, the contact articles will otherwise look the same.

I think this is a solid step to make. Even if we never progress past this step, it's still worth doing. And if we do progress past this step, this is something that would have to get done first; it's better to do it first, than try to do too many other (more complicated) things at once along with it.

I haven't moved any missions around yet. Are there any objections to moving ahead with this particular step?

[eabrace]

Sounds like a good first step to me.

Should we tag them with any categories?  For example:

Code: [Select]

<noinclude>[[Category:Azuria Missions]]</noinclude>
Other tags we might use:

Code: [Select]

[[Category:Story Arc Missions]]
[[Category:Non Arc Missions]]
[[Category:Task Force Missions]]
[[Category:Strike Force Missions]]

[Sekoia]

We should probably categorize them, but I'm not sure how. We currently have some categories started for missions under Category:Mission Templates:

http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Category:Badge_Mission_Templates
http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Category:Common_Hero_Mission_Templates (has subcategories by level)
http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Category:Introduction_Mission_Templates
http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Category:Mayhem_Missions_Templates
http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Category:Safeguard_Missions_Templates
http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Category:Story_Arc_Templates

For now, I'm inclined to hold off on small specific categories like [[Category:Azuria Missions]]. That's going to create a ton of categories, and it's likely to get handled by templates later. (If we put an infobox or something similar on the page, it'll likely have fields for contacts. Those can trigger such categories, if we want them.)

A few high-level categories do seem appropriate though. More specific categories can be migrated in later.

[Aggelakis]

Item the first
So what happens when a bunch of contacts have the same mission name? e.g. "Get him!" from Bob Dole and "Get him!" from Jim Bean and "Get him!" from Aunt Jemima.

Instead of specially flagging conflicting missions only, I propose instead to incorporate the Story Arc name into every mission.

[Contact: Bob Dole]
Mission: Without Wit - Inventing the internet
Mission: Without Wit - Get him!
Mission: Without Wit - Let's pretend he never said that

[Contact: Jim Bean]
Mission: It's Happy Hour - There can be only one
Mission: It's Happy Hour - Jim Bob Billy Joe Jedediah
Mission: It's Happy Hour - Get him!

[Contact: Aunt Jemima]
Mission: Makin' Pancakes - Get him!
Mission: Makin' Pancakes - These pancakes taste great

This has the possibility of creating long page names, but it won't have duplicate mission names except for the very few times a story arc will have missions with the same name. Those we can solve with "(#)" on the end, for duplicated mission names after the first one (so "Get him!" "Get him! (2)" "Get him! (3)")

For missions that exist outside story arcs, I suggest adding the contact name instead of the story arc name -
Mission: Aunt Jemima - Bake those biscuits!
- and for missions outside story arcs that are common to multiple contacts, go with similar to what we've been doing -
Mission: Common - Talk to the Security Chief (Atlas Park)

Item the second
What are we designating a "mission"? For instance, The Pilgrim has a one-mission story arc that involves eleven different mission parts.

IMO, all of the eleven parts should go in one mission page; they're simply parts of the mission "Join Ouroboros".

However, they are all missions in and of themselves, and as such could technically all be separated out into individual Mission: articles.

For a less extreme example, Azuria's first mission is a two-parter, a defeat some Hellions mission and then a door mission. It's followed by four more single-serving missions. Would this mini-arc be five Mission: articles (the two parts of the first mission all in one article) or six Mission: articles (separating the two)?

Keep in mind that you only get the Briefing text at the beginning of the first part of the multi-part missions. Otherwise, calling/visiting the contact between missions only gives us Unnecessary Solicitation.





(which btw, only somewhat related, we totally need to rename "Unnecessary Solicitation" to something less weird sounding, like "Unsolicited Exchange")

[Sekoia]

Item the first: I can get behind those suggestions.

Item the second: Yeegads, that's an ugly question. I'm inclined to keep multi-part missions together, but I can see an argument for the other direction as well.

(which btw, only somewhat related, we totally need to rename "Unnecessary Solicitation" to something less weird sounding, like "Unsolicited Exchange")

Honestly, I think both of those sound weird. Mission Architect calls this "Still Busy Dialog", I believe.

[eabrace]

"Still Busy" isn't a bad idea.  Makes it easier to figure out if you're familiar with AE, too.

[Aggelakis]

I thought of Still Busy, but in the wiki context and the general game context (outside of MA), being "busy" generally refers to being completely full of missions ("too busy" subheader on every contact page). Do we risk the confusion?

[Sekoia]

Okay, I drafted something that coveres article scope and naming. Please give feedback!
http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Paragon_Wiki:Mission_articles

[eabrace]

Looks pretty good.  The explanations laid out are short and concise and (at least to me) convey all the necessary information for how to name a mission article.

[eabrace]

On a related note:

I was looking at the TipChoice template after trying to iron out Alignment/Tip terminology.

Shouldn't it be possible for characters to have up to three options on a tip?  For example, shouldn't a Vigilante have Hero, Vigilante, and Villain options from the same tip depending on where they open it?  Or are you not able to open a tip obtained in the Rogue Isles when you travel back to Paragon City?  (Still figuring out some of the specifics of the system myself.)

At any rate, if there is a possibility of three options per tip, this might come in handy.

Code: [Select]

<includeonly>{{#if: {{{align3|}}}
|{{{!}} align="center" width="90%"
{{!}}-
{{!}} align="center" width="33%" {{!}} {{divbox| {{#switch: {{{align1|}}}
| hero
| Hero  = blue
| villain
| Villain = red
| black
}}|[[File:Align Status {{ucfirst: {{{align1|Missing Input [align1]}}} }}.png{{!}}24px]] {{uc: {{{align1}}} }}|''{{{choice1|Missing Input [choice1]}}}''}}
{{!}} align="center" width="33%" {{!}} {{divbox| {{#switch: {{{align2|}}}
| rogue
| Rogue  = yellow
| vigilante
| Vigilante = yellow
| black
}}|[[File:Align Status {{ucfirst: {{{align2|Missing Input [align2]}}} }}.png{{!}}24px]] {{uc: {{{align2}}} }}|''{{{choice2|Missing Input [choice2]}}}''}}
{{!}} align="center" width="33%" {{!}} {{divbox| {{#switch: {{{align3|}}}
| hero
| Hero  = blue
| villain
| Villain = red
| black
}}|[[File:Align Status {{ucfirst: {{{align3|Missing Input [align3]}}} }}.png{{!}}24px]] {{uc: {{{align3}}} }}|''{{{choice3|Missing Input [choice3]}}}''}}
{{!}}}
|{{{!}} align="center" width="90%"
{{!}}-
{{!}} align="center" width="50%" {{!}} {{divbox| {{#switch: {{{align1|}}}
| hero
| Hero  = blue
| villain
| Villain = red
| black
}}|[[File:Align Status {{ucfirst: {{{align1|Missing Input [align1]}}} }}.png{{!}}24px]] {{uc: {{{align1}}} }}|''{{{choice1|Missing Input [choice1]}}}''}}
{{!}} align="center" width="50%" {{!}} {{divbox| {{#switch: {{{align2|}}}
| rogue
| Rogue  = yellow
| vigilante
| Vigilante = yellow
| black
}}|[[File:Align Status {{ucfirst: {{{align2|Missing Input [align2]}}} }}.png{{!}}24px]] {{uc: {{{align2}}} }}|''{{{choice2|Missing Input [choice2]}}}''}}
{{!}}}
}}
</includeonly><noinclude>{{Documentation}} [[Category:Alignment Templates]]</noinclude>

[Aggelakis]

There is one tip option available to heroes: hero/vigilante.
There are two tip options available to vigilantes: hero/vigilante, or vigilante/villain. There is never a triple option; tip missions obtained in Paragon City will be hero/vigilante, tip missions obtained in Rogue Isles will be rogue/villain.
There are two tip options available to rogues: hero/rogue, or rogue/villain. (Same as above.)
There is one tip option available to villains: rogue/villain.

[taosin]

Okay, I drafted something that coveres article scope and naming. Please give feedback!
http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Paragon_Wiki:Mission_articles

Very clear and Concise, I like it.

Perhaps create a category for editors to read that includes all the guides and canon for editing the wiki and creating new articles, and have this article as part of that?

Is there anywhere written how to see a list of mission templates and then create the appropriate mission article? (I may be missing something here)

[Sekoia]

Given that there's no objections to what's been drafted, I think we can go ahead and start moving articles to the Mission namespace. There's already some tip missions that have been created in it, I'll fix their names. I'll also start moving over the missions from the Template namespace. That at least will be a start to the process.

Perhaps create a category for editors to read that includes all the guides and canon for editing the wiki and creating new articles, and have this article as part of that?

That's a good idea. Though at the moment we really don't have many such articles, unfortunately. :/

Is there anywhere written how to see a list of mission templates and then create the appropriate mission article? (I may be missing something here)

I'm not sure such an article exists. I vaguely remember seeing something like that ages ago, but when I tried to find it I couldn't. So maybe I was imagining it. 

[Aggelakis]

I updated Azuria to the new templates. I threw her missions in [[Category:Azuria Missions]] (which in turn went into [[Category:Hero Missions]] and [[Category:Starting Contact Missions]]) just to get them categorized for now. I know we intend on putting in some kind of template that will do that automagically, I just didn't want them to be hanging out uncategorized.

http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Azuria

[Aggelakis]

Cough cough. That was kind of a prompt for input. :p

[Sekoia]

/thumbsup

It may be a while before we come up with the templates. No harm in going ahead and categorizing. Though we should probably discuss what kind of categories we want.

Since all of Azuria's missions will be on Azuria's page, I'm not sure we need categories like "Azuria's Missions". The article already organizes them that way, and anyone who wants to see Azuria's missions can go there. Categories should be useful. This category seems completely redundant.

"Starting Contact Missions" also seems dubious. I can see the point in categorizing the contact as a starting contact, but the missions are just level 1-5.

Conversely, a category like "Hero Missions" is much too broad. It will end up with so many missions as to be useless. It's a good parent category, but I don't think we should be putting missions directly into it.

There's a number of ways we can categorize missions:

• By level. Either by level range or by individual levels. We do contacts by level range, but that's sometimes awkward since a lot of level ranges overlap or start/end at different places. We could continue that, or we could have 50 different categories, one for each level. That's 50 categories as opposed to 15 (based on how many categories contacts have). This can easily be templated so that you can put something like {{leveled cat|Hero Missions|1|5}} and have it yield "[[Category:Hero Missions Level 1]] [[Category:Hero Missions Level 2]] ... [[Category:Hero Missions Level 5]]".
• By alignment. This is likely to get used in conjunction with other cat types though anyway (such as by level).
• By type: newspaper, police radio, tip, story arc, etc.
• Probably would be helpful to have cats for tutorial missions and event missions.

.
And probably some I'm not thinking of. But let's discuss this and come to some consensus on it.

[eabrace]

I guess I can see how 50 different level categories might eliminate overlap.  I'm not sure it would be more useful though.  Not that I really have a strong opinion in either direction.

Alignment seems like something that will probably be useful.

Type is also probably rather useful.  I would include Tutorial and Event categories for appropriate missions.

[Aggelakis]

Had some time and threw together an infobox for a mission navigation template. Comments, suggestions?

{{{contact}}} and {{{badge}}} could be used to auto-populate mission categorization.

{{{zone}}} COULD be used to auto-populate categorization ([[Category:Missions in {{{zone}}}]]), but many missions are located in multiple zones, so would need to add optional extra zones ({{#if {{{zone2|}}} | [[Category:Missions in {{{zone2}}} }}, zone3, zone4, etc.).

{{{level}}} COULD be used to auto-populate categorization by alignment (would need an {{{align}}} option which doesn't exist as of this writing)/level, as suggested above by Sekoia.


edit: Created some example mission pages here.
edit2: Incidentally, the example mission pages shows a flaw in {{Mission Briefing}}, in that it doesn't properly float left and allow stuff on the right to adjust its width. However, my tinkering with float:left didn't yield any results (they all pushed the briefing text down as if using {{clr}}).

I R CONFUZT.

[Sekoia]

I made a few change to the template. Most were minor. The only visible one is that I allowed the prev/mission/next parameters to use the full width of the infobox, rather than just the right 2/3. This will look a lot better on missions with long names.

I believe I've fixed the problem in {{Mission Briefing}}. I had to ditch the table and use a two-column div approach.

Looks good so far. /thumbsup

[taosin]

Noice!

I'll play with them (learn how they work!) and start using them on the Grand Wheel of Updates and Edits.

One thing: I would prefer to see Previous Mission, Current Mission and Next Mission left justified.

[Sekoia]

One thing: I would prefer to see Previous Mission, Current Mission and Next Mission left justified.

They should be left justified. What are they showing as for you, and on what page? What browser are you using?

EDIT: Oh! Do you mean the titles for those sections?

[Aggelakis]

Noice!

I'll play with them (learn how they work!) and start using them on the Grand Wheel of Updates and Edits.

Don't play with them just yet - they're not in official namespace (they're in my user space) and the bits and bobs haven't been pinned down yet.

One thing: I would prefer to see Previous Mission, Current Mission and Next Mission left justified.

That was one of the pieces I attempted to get. However, changing the style for those headers also changes the style for the "Overview" header, so I have no idea how to do it.

However, now that I've been playing around with it for a while, I don't think I would like them left-aligned; it looks a little weird having one header be in the middle and other headers be left.

[taosin]

Sekoia wrote:

> EDIT: Oh! Do you mean the titles for those sections?

Yep.

Agge wrote:
> Don't play with them just yet

Even better! <<Taosin=Procrastinate=1>>

> I don't think I would like them left-aligned

Ahh, must be my down-under sensibilities differing from you northerners. I'm happy with how they turn out.

[Felderburg]

Hey, the link in the first post here is missing, so I was wondering: what exactly is the reason for moving all the missions into their own articles?

Also, in this thread, someone mentioned an easy/fast way to flip back to the contact from each mission article - there is currently no way to do that.  I don't recall which one*, but a mission was linked to in another article, and rather than taking me to the contact's page, as I expected (and preferred), it took me to the individual mission page, with some more clicking to do before I got to the contact.

*I'm pretty sure it was a Maria Jenkins mission, but there's no easy way to find out which one, without going through every mission article's "what links here".

[eabrace]

I've created a rough Infobox for missions.  I've included it in the Mission:Common - Talk to the Security Chief (Atlas Park) mission as an example.  Thoughts?

Hey, the link in the first post here is missing

Yeah, that post was made on our old forums (pre-Titan).  The site Tony hosted for them has since been taken down.  I think Tony still has an archive of them somewhere, though.

[eabrace]

Ah, right.  I'd forgotten about this:

For missions that are only offered by one contact, the category of the mission already indicates the contact.

reference

The only missions we should have to tag with the infobox are the ones that are "Common" missions like the Security Chief missions and missions shared by multiple contacts (like the ones shared by Sgt. Suzanne Bernhard and Karen Parker).

[Felderburg]

So...  what is the reasoning behind giving missions individual articles?  Is it to reduce contact page sizes?  I guess if there's some sort of behind the scenes tech reason that makes sense...  but if it's an issue editing contact pages, I don't get it, since you can edit individual sections.

Or can someone give me a link to that archive?

Ah, right.  I'd forgotten about this:

For missions that are only offered by one contact, the category of the mission already indicates the contact.

That's true, but it's still extra clicking, or even typing, for an article that should be just one click from the individual mission article.

Anyways, the infobox looks good, although for most of the common missions, they're in a specific zone, or have a specific guy (Atlas Park chief, in your example).  Why not include the location/NPC coordinates required in the box as well?  Or is that redundant with the article itself?

Edit:  I should also note I use contact pages mainly for story, especially on TFs.  Sometimes, with a team, the dialog/writing gets lost, and I use the wiki all the time to read it (added since I noted some people mentioning what they use contact pages for in this thread, and it was definitely the opposite of me).

[eabrace]

So...  what is the reasoning behind giving missions individual articles?  Is it to reduce contact page sizes?  I guess if there's some sort of behind the scenes tech reason that makes sense...  but if it's an issue editing contact pages, I don't get it, since you can edit individual sections.

Partially (but not entirely), it helps maintain some of the low level hero contacts since each level range has about four contacts for each origin in each level range that all offer the same missions.  If you have to edit one contact, you have to edit four of them.  We were ending up with a lot of inconsistencies between contact pages that should look identical.  And when we went to add merits in the articles... well, things started getting complicated.

Or can someone give me a link to that archive?

Like I said, I think Tony has the archive.  I don't think it's anywhere on the internet.

Why not include the location/NPC coordinates required in the box as well?  Or is that redundant with the article itself?

For starters, the contact for that mission is not the Atlas Park Security Chief.  It's Azuria.  And prior to I21, the MAGI contact in Galaxy had the same mission.  So you'd have to give coordinates for both of the contacts that offered the mission.  (And that would only get worse when you ran into articles like "Be introduced to Jim Temblor".)

And yes, it's redundant to the information on the individual contact pages - which do include the contact's coordinates and zone.

[SaintNicster]

Like I said, I think Tony has the archive.  I don't think it's anywhere on the internet.

http://oldforums.paragonwiki.com/
Is that what you're talking about?

[eabrace]

Well, how about that.  (I hadn't had a chance to ask Tony yet.)

Thanks, Nicster!

Original discussion thread.

[Felderburg]

For starters, the contact for that mission is not the Atlas Park Security Chief.  It's Azuria.  And prior to I21, the MAGI contact in Galaxy had the same mission.  So you'd have to give coordinates for both of the contacts that offered the mission.  (And that would only get worse when you ran into articles like "Be introduced to Jim Temblor".)

And yes, it's redundant to the information on the individual contact pages - which do include the contact's coordinates and zone.

I meant the coordinates of the Security Chief.  If people are going to be looking at that individual mission page, it's be much easier for people to find the Chief if his coordinates are right there, rather than going to his page.  Same for people like Wincott.  Also, although the Zone is pretty obvious in that mission, "Talk to David Wincott" is not as apparent, so why not add a spot in the infobox for the zone (Hollows in that case)?

[eabrace]

I meant the coordinates of the Security Chief.  If people are going to be looking at that individual mission page, it's be much easier for people to find the Chief if his coordinates are right there, rather than going to his page.  Same for people like Wincott.  Also, although the Zone is pretty obvious in that mission, "Talk to David Wincott" is not as apparent, so why not add a spot in the infobox for the zone (Hollows in that case)?

If you're on the mission and in Atlas, the Security Chief is your waypoint marker.  If you aren't in Atlas, the mission location says "Atlas Park".  If the mission is "Talk to David Wincott," the mission location will say "The Hollows" and Wincott will be your waypoint when you enter the zone.

[Felderburg]

That is true, I didn't think of that.  I just wanted to make the infobox as comprehensive as possible. :shrug:


Edit: I see that Azuria has her missions all in the new format, but it seems to me like her article is just as long.  Is she just not finished?

[eabrace]

Edit: I see that Azuria has her missions all in the new format, but it seems to me like her article is just as long.  Is she just not finished?

Azuria's page appears the same on the surface now as it did before the missions were moved to the Mission namespace.  That's intentional.  Casual users won't have to adjust to anything new.

The changes are all under the hood.  Before moving missions to their own namespace and transcluding, the source of the page was 11,452 bytes.  It is now 3,145 bytes.

[Felderburg]

Azuria's page appears the same on the surface now as it did before the missions were moved to the Mission namespace.  That's intentional.  Casual users won't have to adjust to anything new.

The changes are all under the hood.  Before moving missions to their own namespace and transcluding, the source of the page was 11,452 bytes.  It is now 3,145 bytes.

Ok, that's good, because as a semi-casual user I prefer the way contacts look.  However, I have to note that in the original archived thread, it looked like the intent for this change was to make the actual appearance short and more streamlined, so I was just wondering about that.

Also, to satisfy my curiosity, is the change in bytes really important?  I mean, don't the new mission articles + contact articles add up to the same amount (or more) of bytes?  I know enough to know how to edit an article, but I'm no computer person, so that reasoning will need to be explained.

Additionally, this format change really out to be publicized.  I had seen individual mission articles, but had no idea what they were meant for, or that the contacts' articles were being changed to transclude until it happened to be brought up in another thread.  For example, Lt. Harris' article was just finished, but it was done in the old format.  Additionally, a casual user seeing a typo or something will have to know to edit the individual sections of a contact, rather then the main edit button, otherwise they'll be wondering what the heck is going on when they don't see the dialog they wanted to edit.

[GuyPerfect]

The data size issue was how much text was being loaded into the edit box at once. That's generally not a problem nowadays, but older browsers (I think IE6 among them) would stop loading characters at 32kb and you'd lose article data.

[eabrace]

Additionally, this format change really out to be publicized.  I had seen individual mission articles, but had no idea what they were meant for, or that the contacts' articles were being changed to transclude until it happened to be brought up in another thread.  For example, Lt. Harris' article was just finished, but it was done in the old format.

I have to admit I've been guilty of adding new contacts and missions without using the Mission namespace myself quite frequently.  I need to be more conscious of that since it's a matter of habit for me to do it the old way.

Additionally, a casual user seeing a typo or something will have to know to edit the individual sections of a contact, rather then the main edit button, otherwise they'll be wondering what the heck is going on when they don't see the dialog they wanted to edit.

In my mind (emphasis!), as soon as a person clicks "Edit" for the first time, they've stepped from "casual user" to "semi-casual user" or "casual editor".  So, when I mention casual users, I'm speaking specifically about people who only look up information on the wiki for reference, not anyone who actually enters or corrects information.  I know most of my SG members would often point out things on the wiki to me if they found errors so that I could fix them, but not one of them ever registered a Titan ID or considered editing a page themselves.  Those are the kind of people I have in mind when I say "casual user".

Your definition of casual user is probably different from mine.

That being said, I think in most cases that if someone spots an error, they're going to click on the nearest, most convenient "Edit" link.  And most of the time, that's not going to be the one at the top of the page.  If they click the "Edit" link at the top of a mission, they'll be taken to the Mission's page to edit, which is where they want to be.  They'll only end up looking at a transclusion reference if they click the "Edit" tab at the top of an article.

[Felderburg]

Your definition of casual user is probably different from mine.

That being said, I think in most cases that if someone spots an error, they're going to click on the nearest, most convenient "Edit" link.  And most of the time, that's not going to be the one at the top of the page.  If they click the "Edit" link at the top of a mission, they'll be taken to the Mission's page to edit, which is where they want to be.  They'll only end up looking at a transclusion reference if they click the "Edit" tab at the top of an article.

You're probably right about our definitions.  At any rate, in my personal experience, when I started editing the wiki, I used the top page edit button.  I still tend to use it most often, rather than section edit buttons.  I don't know why that's the case, but it is what it is...  and I operate under the assumption that if I do something, at least a few other people will as well.  Which is why this change needs to be publicized.

Now, getting to definitions...  I would say I categorize people into readers, casual editors, and editors (more of continuum than three distinct groups, but this'll work for now).  A casual editor is someone who, seeing a typo, or something missing, or whatever, says "I can fix that!" and proceeds to do so.  They generally don't create articles, they don't frequent the forums, they just fix minor things.

Now, when someone starts moving up to full on editor, they start creating pages, making larger edits, contributing more.  However, they haven't seen the forums.  So, in the case of Lt. Harris, for example, the user creating that page may not* have seen the forums.  They saw an article that they could contribute, and decided to add it.  They've only seen the majority of contacts, still in the old format, and thought "Hey, if I just copy this, and put in the correct info, I'll be done!"

So that's why this change needs to be publicized.  How?  I don't know, but it ought to be done, to prevent more articles being created improperly.

*I don't know if this is actually the case with the two people who worked on that article.

[eabrace]

So, in the case of Lt. Harris, for example, the user creating that page may not* have seen the forums.  They saw an article that they could contribute, and decided to add it.  They've only seen the majority of contacts, still in the old format, and thought "Hey, if I just copy this, and put in the correct info, I'll be done!"

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, really.  It's not that much work for someone who spends a lot more time editing and is more familiar with the state of where we're headed (probably because they frequent the forums) to come along and polish the article into its final form by moving the individual missions to the Mission namespace.  Honestly, the hardest part in creating a new contact article is just getting all of the info down.  Formatting's the easy part.

So that's why this change needs to be publicized.  How?

The easiest way I can think of would be to leave a note on the contributing editor's User Talk page to make sure they know about the newer format.  But since we still haven't gotten all the old articles converted, it's not that big of an issue yet.

I don't know, but it ought to be done, to prevent more articles being created improperly.

As long as people are adding the info, I'm not that worried about format as the new info is being introduced.  The only clear case I can see where I'd actually step in and interrupt (for now, anyway) would be if someone started converting an article from the newer format to the older format. 

[Felderburg]

Honestly, the hardest part in creating a new contact article is just getting all of the info down.  Formatting's the easy part.

Fair enough.  Thanks to everyone who explained stuff to me in this thread; I'd been away from CoX and the Wiki for a while, so I didn't know what was going on.

[eabrace]

Fair enough.  Thanks to everyone who explained stuff to me in this thread; I'd been away from CoX and the Wiki for a while, so I didn't know what was going on.

Welcome back. 

If nothing else, bringing up the subject for further discussion reminded me that we never got very far converting all of the existing content into the new format. 

[eabrace]

Quick general question on missions regarding story arcs:

Do we also intend to move the Souvenirs to the Mission namespace?  I ask because I noticed that the Division: Line souvenir is currently located in the Mission namespace and categorized under Angus McQueen Missions.  By contrast, the souvenirs for the other arcs I've run into so far (A Faultline in the Sands of Time, A Hand of Iron, The Library of Souls, The Tsoo Coup, The Vahzilok Plague, and The Wheel of Destruction) are located in the Main namespace and categorized under Souvenir Templates.

I don't have a problem with it if we want to move the souvenirs as well, but I'd like to straighten that out while I only have to backtrack through a handful of arcs so I can hit the rest as I go.

In either event, I don't know that I agree with categorizing them under "missions".  If we want to move them to the Mission namespace, I would suggest a "souvenir" category.

[Sekoia]

I really don't think Souviners belong in the Mission: namespace; that's the first step towards completely undermining the point of having a separate namespace for missions. Let's keep them in the Main namespace.

For that matter, those story arcs you link to don't belong in the Mission namespace, either. If we want a separate article for an arc, it should go in the main namespace. (ie. "A Faultline in the Sands of Time" instead of "Mission:StoryArc A Faultline in the Sands of Time")

The Mission namespace is intended for missions. Neither souvenirs nor story arcs are missions.

[eabrace]

I agree on keeping the Souvenirs in the main namespace.  I just wanted to bounce it off of everyone else rather than making a decision on my own.

I suppose I can see your point on the arcs.  I had moved them to the Mission namespace because - in my mind, at least - an arc is simply a collection of missions, so it made sense to me.  But I can move them back without much effort.

[Sekoia]

Story Arcs and Task Forces are in the same boat as collections of missions. In fact, I would say that a Task Force is a specialized kind of Story Arc. So wherever we put Story Arcs, we should also put Task Forces, IMO. Or vice versa.

If we want to separate out arcs from the main namespace, then I'd recommend we create a special namespace for them of their own -- distinct from the main and Mission namespaces. I'm perfectly content keeping them in the main namespace, but am not opposed to a special namespace if we can come up with an appropriate name that works for the different kinds of arcs.

Somewhat moot if the articles get moved, but still worth noting: The Mission namespace is an article namespace, not a template namespace. (The naming scheme you used with the StoryArc prefix feels very templately to me.) Even though we transclude from it, those are still all articles of their own right. They come up in searches and everything. (In fact, that's part of why I feel the namespace should be restricted to only missions. If it were a supplemental template namespace, I wouldn't really be as opposed to stuffing mission-related stuff in it.)

[eabrace]

StoryArc templates have now been moved back from the Mission namespace to the Template namespace.