User talk:UristMcSparks

Dead redirects

Hi, after looking at a few of the old documentation pages that have been deleted, I found out that a lot of them can show up in the search, or navigate straight to the dead page. For example: searching "rotate" currently loads a redirect page which redirects to "RBX.lua.Rotate_(Object)", which has been deleted and is now in the new "name space and template."

These pages should probably either be deleted, changed to redirect to the new documentation, or in the case of the "rotate" page, I would like to make a disambiguation page for the different possibilities. After all, users need to be able to find the content they are looking for on this Wiki and I really think this would help.

What do you think to this? — Procedural (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I realise that I'm not LSparks, the best thing to do would be to fix the redirect or create a disambiguation page (if you see fit). However, in the case of 'Rotate', there is no page to redirect users to (as API:Class/Rotate doesn't exist). So if you do redirect it, make sure to create API:Class/Rotate.
Also, could you give an example of documentation that's showing up in the search (despite the page being deleted)? Unless of course I'm completely misunderstanding you. -- Quorum (Talk) 18:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I could have worded what I said a lot better. The deleted pages don't show up per se, but instead pages redirecting to the deleted pages do show up (therefore showing up to a certain extent). But yes, the actual deleted pages themselves do not appear in the search.
I don't have a complete list of the pages that need changing, but the AwardBadge_(Function) page redirects to a now deleted page, when it should – as far as I know – redirect directly to AwardBadge or be deleted, as it seems to just be a redirect that was not removed when the redirect page was deleted. There seem to be a few instances where this is the case and they appear in the search as a search suggestion and sometimes when searching for pages "containing...".
If you want to take a look at some of the problematic pages, the BrokenRedirects page appears to have all of them listed, although there will probably be a lot of other junk in there as well. I think the real problem appears when these pages have been recreated in the new documentation, and the old redirects reduce the accessibility of the new content. Where possible, I believe it would be a good idea to delete the old pages, redirect to the new pages, or create a disambiguation page when necessary.
As for Rotate, I was already aware there is a page for it in the API waiting to be created, but I wouldn't know what content to add to create it. Because of this, I don't want to create a page for it, but I do want to make a disambiguation page where I can link to Studio#Tools just in-case someone is trying to find information about Studio's rotate tool. At the same time, however, I don't want to create a disambiguation page because I don't want a "redlink" to the non-existent API-based rotate page. — Procedural (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Pages like AwardBadge_(Function) shouldn't exist as redirects, simply because nobody is going to be searching that (and thus not using it). So, in that case, it should really just be deleted. You need to remember that the old pages were deleted based on the category they existed in, rather than their name. This means that, inevitably, some pages would be missed. If you do come across a redirect like that, your best option is to just add a delete template to it. However, I've had no problems with these redirects getting in my way when searching the Wiki, because who, realistically, is going to search "AwardBadge_(Function)"?
As for the 'Rotate' page, you might as well create a disambiguation page linking to both the page you want (regarding studio) and the page that hasn't yet been created. It is likely that the latter will be created in due time, though this is just my personal opinion and I'm sure other people will have different views on this. If you really don't want to redlink it, just create the API:Class/Rotate page and give it a plain description such as "There is no description available at this time" or what not. --Quorum (Talk) 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
"This means that, inevitably, some pages would be missed." In this case, this means every page that was a "...(Function)" page redirecting to a "...("Method)" page is left over, so there are a lot of pages that need deleting. They DO appear in the search and can impede someone's access to the up-to-date content. Yes, you might not click on it, but it shouldn't be there because any visitors looking for information on "AwardBadge" may click on the old and broken auto-fill search suggestion as it appears in the search box; being greeted by a redirect page isn't exactly pretty or helpful for that matter.
I really do feel there is an accessibility issue here, for example: anyone looking for information on the Changed event is in for a hard time. Changed is a dead redirect and needs to be moved to the new API documentation. I will fix that now, but there are numerous other examples with this problem. I think it could definitely take a while to fix all of them. — Procedural (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If someone is searching for AwardBadge, they won't be presented with the results of their search, rather they'll be automatically redirected to the correct page. The only way they'd find a redirect, like that, is if they were to complete muck up their spelling or AwardBadge or if the search didn't work for some odd reason.
Also, I do know of the hardships of these redirects. I have fixed the vast, vast, majority of them. So I'm incredibly sorry if I've missed one or two, but after the 700th redirect fix, you get kinda numb to the whole process. Though, despite this, I completely disagree with what you've said. There are not a ton of them that require fixing still. If anything, the old redirects (those ending in things like (Function)) need to be deleted, but other than that there's really not that much left to fix. -- Quorum (Talk) 20:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleting some of the old redirects is still fixing the issue. When I said "fixing" in that context, I meant deleting or redirecting depending on what the situation calls for. I did not mean to imply that all the old "...(Method)" links need to be changed to redirects (yes, I am aware people won't search for them). This is, assuming that you are disagreeing what that, and not disagreeing with the amount that may need fixing.
Here is an image of the search issue as I see it:
Searchissues.png
Just typing award into the search box brings up 4 choices, two of those choices are outdated, one of them is a dead redirect. Please enlighten me to how this is not an issue. It is very easy to expect someone who is not a regular to click on the incorrect choice. For me, these choices appear for multiple different articles where the dead links do get in the way. It would be logical to expect the "...(function)" links to navigate to the right page, but they do not so they need to be removed and by Jove there are a lot of them.
But let's not argue about this, I feel we would both gain from someone else providing their thoughts on this issue. — Procedural (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Death of Roblox Wiki:General discussion#

Now that the sidebar has gone, and the link to Roblox Wiki:General discussion has gone from the dropdown, it's really hard to discuss things with a larger audience of wiki users. Can this at the very least be added back to the dropdown?
NXTBoy (talk • contribs)
15:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dead-end tutorial pages

A lot of your new Making a ... pages contain no links at all

Could you try and link to api members when mentioned using {{api|CLass}} and {{api|Class.MemberName}}, rather than just bolding them? It's hard for beginners to learn more when every tutorial is a dead end.
NXTBoy (talk • contribs)
23:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a link so they don't have to go back to tutorials, but in the intro tutorials there should be no links to API pages. Those are super confusing to new users. What I'll add in each tutorial is a link to the next one so that they can be done in series. UristMcSparks (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Couple of suggestions to aid new users from being confused by API pages:
  • Mark api links inline with text as obviously so (color, icon), to teach new users what a confusing link looks like so that they don't click it
  • Keep pages unlinked within the main text, and add a "Relevant API pages" section (or maybe just See also) at the bottom, so that users who do want more info can get it, but those who do not are not confused mid-read
    • Might be worth having an {{api nolink}} template that still gives the hover-text behaviour that {{api|BasePart.Velocity}} -> Velocity has
Re prev/next links - that sounds like a good candidate for a lua module that loads an index page and generates next/prev links
07:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced of the value of adding copious links in this particular context. For higher level articles that expect some experience that is fine, as we want to make sure users can drill down to what's going on, but for these I feel links that bounce the user around the wiki will distract from the content we want presented to new users.UristMcSparks (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Special pages are broken

See http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=Roblox_Wiki:General_discussion#Special_pages_are_broken
NXTBoy (talk • contribs)
17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

I wrote a couple of proposals that I was hoping you could have a look at:

I'd like to get your feedback on these and hopefully get them started soon. Thanks! MemoryAddress (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)