Difference between revisions of "Feed The Beast Wiki:Centralized discussion"

From Feed The Beast Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (→‎Against: some UN question form crap I learnt)
Line 148: Line 148:
 
#{{Support}}. Translation markup isn't really that hard, and would be helpful for more efficient work. Also if some things aren't done correctly they can always be fixed, but like Xbony2 stated it happens in rare cases. --'''[[User:sokratis12GR|<span style="color:#4AA02C">sokratis</span><span style="color:#0020C2">12GR</span>]]''' <sup>'''''[[User_talk:sokratis12GR|<span style="color:#9F000F"> Staff</span>]]'''''</sup> 19:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 
#{{Support}}. Translation markup isn't really that hard, and would be helpful for more efficient work. Also if some things aren't done correctly they can always be fixed, but like Xbony2 stated it happens in rare cases. --'''[[User:sokratis12GR|<span style="color:#4AA02C">sokratis</span><span style="color:#0020C2">12GR</span>]]''' <sup>'''''[[User_talk:sokratis12GR|<span style="color:#9F000F"> Staff</span>]]'''''</sup> 19:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 
#{{Support}} for Kyth. [https://puu.sh/uv7lJ/f3a52729a9.png Here's the proof] - [[User:ImmortalPharaoh7|<span style="color:#093">Indestructible</span><span style="color:#E00">Pharaoh</span><span style="color:#FC0">VII</span>]] 14:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 
#{{Support}} for Kyth. [https://puu.sh/uv7lJ/f3a52729a9.png Here's the proof] - [[User:ImmortalPharaoh7|<span style="color:#093">Indestructible</span><span style="color:#E00">Pharaoh</span><span style="color:#FC0">VII</span>]] 14:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
#:: Can confirm I support it. While it adds scope for breakage, the current system means that regular users basically can't edit translated pages at all without admin help (need to be a translator to translate, and the english translation comes from the source page). [[User:Kythyria|Kythyria]] ([[User talk:Kythyria|talk]]) 14:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
   
 
=== Against ===
 
=== Against ===

Revision as of 14:24, 5 March 2017

Random TODO

"Stained clay blocks are renamed from '<Color> Stained Clay' to '<Color> Hardened Clay'."-mcw:Hardened Clay -Xbony2 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Official wiki renaming proposal

I propose for the renaming of this wiki from the "Feed The Beast Wiki" to the "Feed The Beast and Modded Minecraft Wiki" (FTB&MM Wiki for short). Originally when this wiki was created, it was purely an FTB Wiki. This is no longer the case. This wiki has been open for all of Modded Minecraft for a very long time, and I think it's appropriate our name reflects that.

Our rival wiki, ftbwiki.org, did something similar to this almost two years when they turned their wiki into an FTB/ATL Wiki rather just an FTB Wiki. However, I think adding other specific modpack names for us would be too exclusive, as there are many more modpacks and mods outside of Feed The Beast and ATLauncher and other popular mod ecosystems, hence why I'm proposing it be "and Modded Minecraft" rather than "and ATLauncher" or "and Technic" or other options.

According to my survey, 44% of our users don't use the FTB Launcher, 75% don't use Curse, and 30% don't use either. For the amount of users who don't use FTB, you can round that number up a fair amount if you consider that Curse (and also the FTB Launcher) don't exclusively host FTB packs. This wiki is marketed as a "Feed The Beast Wiki", even though it's more of a general Modded Minecraft wiki. Like I've said, we've been very welcome to the documentation of mods outside of FTB for a long time, and I think it's important we reflect that to potential editors and viewers that may not think of us as that.

Lastly, this allow us to do a proper "merge" with Modpedia, which is something that has been discussed in IRC and the Gamepedia Slack for a while but hasn't been done yet.

To clarify, this is a request to change the website name and how we refer to it. This does include this namespace (we'll probably make "Feed The Beast Wiki:" redirect to "Feed The Beast and Modded Minecraft Wiki:") and how the name will display in certain places (like the "wikis" section of the Gamepedia main page) However, I do not want to change the url of this wiki and the location of the main page (although I would like to update as well as improve the main page). -Xbony2 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't like to change the name since it is too long (that is my first opinion without thinking much about that subject). -IndestructiblePharaohVII 14:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that too, but it's not like "Feed The Beast Wiki" is already pretty long. You can still call it the FTB Wiki, or the FTB&MM Wiki, or the Modded Minecraft Wiki, or whatnot, it's just that we'd refer as the Feed The Beast and Modded Minecraft Wiki formally. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with changing the wiki name, however I'd strongly prefer something that isn't too long. Also, we'd need to have it approved by FTB to make sure they're okay with it. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 15:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
We should be either FTB/Feed The Beast Wiki or MM/Modded Minecraft Wiki, not both. Also what Peter said about talking to FTB (mainly Slow, Quetzi, and Tfox). -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 04:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Combing them both allows us to still have a focus on FTB while at the same time not being exclusive. I don't see why it has to be either or :P I do get that it's rather long, there's not many wikis that we can compare with. It's worth investigating if we can use something smaller, like "Feed The Beast Wiki and Modpedia", but I don't really like the sound of that. -Xbony2 (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably more like Feed The Beast and MineModPedia Wiki? (I know I am good with coming out with names :P). IndestructiblePharaohVII 07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That sounds rather silly :P -Xbony2 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm just curious about why do we even consider a merge on a wiki that has ~200 articles (compared with the 13k articles on here), and the last edit was made about two weeks ago. On the other hand, I don't agree that the wiki should cover all the mods for minecraft, as there's problems even covering the ones that already are available on FTB alone, such as forestry or Thermal Foundation are kind of outdated, with no mention on popular but not so complex mods such as Extra-utils or decocraft, that integrate most of the official Modpacks of FTB, but yet we don't have pages for their mechanics or items that come with them. Frenchiveruti (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
We already DO aim to cover all mods for minecraft. That's kind of a pillar of this wiki, although FTB is somewhat of a focus (or it should be, ultimately people document what they want to). We're never going back to the dark ages of being only FTB :P Anyway, the reason I want to merge the Minecraft Modpedia with here now, even though it's tiny, is because it would very much easier to do now, while it is easy to do and small, instead of when it has a large content base, since it would be very complicated to do so then, which could potentially happen if we don't do this now. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting "merging" at this point basically means making the entire wiki redirect to this wiki, since there's no content worth moving over :P -Xbony2 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I see, well, what about if instead of naming "and modded minecraft" FTB, like separating the terms, we integrate the fact that the modded minecraft experience it's intrinsic to FTB, as Modded minecraft probably wont be able to distribute its mods in other platform that it isn't curse. Just to be clear on what I mean, FTB IS modded minecraft, but modded minecraft isn't necessarily FTB as there are mods that don't form part of FTB official packs. Frenchiveruti (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what you mean :c -Xbony2 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record both DecoCraft and Extra Utilities have some very basic documentation here. I started DecoCraft a while ago, but it was really redundant and boring so I stopped. ExU was being documented by someone who I can't remember off the top of my head. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 18:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It was Warlordjones, although other users have contributed a bit here and there. Currently nobody caries that torch, although I might aim to document Extra Utilities 2 since it's very different. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki renaming proposal 2

Yes, I'm going to revive this proposal. Most of you guys opposed the original on the account of it being too long. Although, I have another opposition to add of my own- being FTB-focused. If we were, say, going to collaborate with another major modpack, they might not want to be under that banner. Not saying I have something planned, but who knows what is in store for the future? Anyway, that's why I propose this wiki be renamed to the "Modded Minecraft Wiki". It's short. It's direct. And it doesn't hurt that it might be the first thing that comes up when you google "modded minecraft wiki" :P certainly is pretty marketable.

Anyway, just to extend this a little bit, I'd like to propose a little something more. To keep the FTBness of this wiki, I'd like to suggest the addition of a "Portal:" namespace. The main page we currently use would be moved to "Portal:Feed The Beast". Potentially there will be other portals too- I definitely have "Portal:ATLauncher" and "Portal:Technic" in mind, but there's also potential for portals for specific mods or maybe other future concepts. The regular main page would include a blurb about modded minecraft, a few links to the main portals, and an expanded mod list. I'll try to make a conceptual version in my userspace I suppose. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I have any say in this but here are my two cents anyway. I discovered this wiki (well, I discovered the unofficial one first) not because I was playing an FTB pack (it was an unofficial technic pack), but because I was playing with a mod that I wanted to learn more about. What was the first thing I found when searching for that mod or item in the mod? These FTB wikis. They generally seem to come up as the only wikis pertaining to Modded Minecraft unless the mod itself has a wiki of its own. I feel like this renaming would take that extra step to place the wiki in the spotlight of the Modded Minecraft community forever. Crazierinzane (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I am personally fine with the name "Modded Minecraft Wiki". I really do not want to name it "Modpedia" (Benjamin mentioned that in a private convo I had recently; that name sucks). We have to talk with the Gamepedia people (really we should just talk to Benjamin about it). Benjamin said he would "put out some feelers and try and get some info from within Curse" and the Curse people that work with the core FTB team. We also have to discuss this with Slow though I doubt he'll care one way or the other. I can do that if you don't want to. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 00:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I really have no idea what to expect from slowpoke or the FTB team. It would be good to do it as a team (multiple people arguing can create a very good persuasive effect), but if you don't think he'll get in the way you can take care of it. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It's hardly like they're very attached to the wiki, we're very infrequently mentioned (if at all by FTB itself). It's not even like we even focus on documenting the mods that are in FTB packs anyway. Chocohead NagEditsStaff 02:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I probably would document their mods if they ever gave a shit about us. We've never been mentioned in their news (even when I explicitly told them every time we had newsworthy shit happen), and none of the important things I've requested (giving us easy access to up to date MineTweaker scripts without having to download their entire modpacks, attempting to get editors, etc.) have ever been done. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
We'll still serve as the Official FTB Wiki, it's just that we'll be more :P -Xbony2 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A new main page might looks like this, btw. Obviously I'm not a web designer, but you can at least get the idea. I'd like it if the links at the top were images instead of just text, but maybe that can be done later. The main portals put forth are "ATLauncher", "Feed The Beast" and "Technic", the most biggest modpack groupings. I wouldn't add any more, unless something else becomes especially popular in the future or if we partner with someone. -Xbony2 (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to rename and remarket our wiki, we're going to need a new logo. If anybody wants to play around and design something, go ahead and throw it here :P -Xbony2 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Give me a general theme/concept and an idea of what sort of color scheme you'd like to see, and I'll see if I can cook something up. Do need at least some starting point for an idea from the rest of you. DSquirrelGM𝓣𝓟𝓒 02:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, since I can't seem to get any suggestions on the logo, let's try a different approach... Which of the following ideas would you prefer to see?
  1. Design based on an anvil with text stamped or chiseled into it
  2. A representation of various production machines stacked side to side or staggered like stairs
  3. Command block as a background with various tools and weapons in the foreground
Or suggest some alternative based on these suggestions. DSquirrelGM𝓣𝓟𝓒 03:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
All my ideas involve rabbits. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 03:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Renaming the wiki to the "Modded Minecraft Wiki" vote

I think everybody agrees with it (or doesn't care), but because it is a big change, I'd like to do this the formal way. This vote is on renaming and remarketing the wiki from the "Feed The Beast Wiki" to the "Modded Minecraft Wiki". Keep in mind this not a change in policy- this wiki has long been more of a general modded Minecraft, and it's allowed for non-FTB mods for years now. A large amount of our users don't play FTB modpacks at all, and I'd say most of our editors don't either. This change should allow us to be more marketable to potential editors and partners who don't want to be under the FTB banner. For a bit more on that, go through the #Official wiki renaming proposal discussion and #Wiki renaming proposal 2 discussion. This vote will end in one week. If passed, we'll send a message to Gamepedia to proceed.

Support

  1. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport. -Xbony2 (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport. Then no problem with that :P -IndestructiblePharaohVII 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport. --sokratis12GR Staff 10:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport. -Moritz30German translator 18:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport I spoke with Benjamin from Gamepedia a while ago and he says the Gamepedia folks support the change. It would require a complete overhaul of the main page, which Benjamin briefly described in private with me. Slowpoke also supports it, basically as long as we don't document the Jadedpacks– fortunately those were never intended to be documented here, but instead to just link straight to Jaded's wiki. It should be stated somewhere on the main page that we are still the official source of information on FTB content, though. I propose we change the name of the wiki to "Modded Minecraft Wiki" and the URL to "moddedmc.gamepedia". Once this is all done (as in, the wiki is renamed and the main page is redesigned), we can begin working with Lordofediting and the rest of Gamepedia to transfer any content from modpedia that was not copied from here over here, and then deprecate/delete that wiki to prevent segregation. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    *cough* sample-ish main page here.
    I want to argue against the subdomain "moddedmc.gamepedia". "MC" just seems like a shitty partial abbreviation. Maybe "moddedminecraft.gamepedia" (15) is long, but it wouldn't be the longest subdomain- pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com (17), totalwarwarhammer.gamepedia.com (17), strongholdkingdoms.gamepedia.com (18), orcsmustdieunchained.gamepedia.com (20), civilizationbeyondearth.gamepedia.com (23), everybodysgonetotherapture.gamepedia.com (26), legostarwarstheforceawakens.gamepedia.com (27), loversinadangerousspacetime.gamepedia.com (27) to name a few. Other alternatives could include "mm.gamepedia.com" if we wanted to go short, maybe "modminecraft.gamepedia.com"? (I really don't like that one tho) -Xbony2 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    I think all of those URLs you proposed are ew. Perhaps we should see what Gamepedia people think? -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    Aye, and/or if anybody else has any ideas. I'm learning towards "mm" myself, although I will admit I am not 100% satisfied with that option either -Xbony2 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    I'd lean towards moddedminecraft.gamepedia.com. CrsBenjamin (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport. Slowpoke is okay with it, Gamepedia is okay with it, therefore I am okay with it. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 21:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport I'd lean more towards "minecraftmods.gamepedia.com" for domain name. DSquirrelGM (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think "minecraftmods" is all that accurate because we document, and plan to document, quite a bit more than just mods. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 18:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    True. I thought about that name myself, although I didn't suggest it because it doesn't match the name of the wiki as a whole (Modded Minecraft Wiki), which I think is important. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport T3==ThaumicTechTinker, Urey.S.Knowledge Welcome back, commander 23:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  9. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport. Good idea ! --LuminousLizard FTB Wiki Staff de-N / "en-2" (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

  • I'd rather we confirm whether FTB peeps are okay with this before making a decision here. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 21:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Against

Discussion

Would we still be the Official FTB Wiki? Meaning that we are still FTB's official wiki? -IndestructiblePharaohVII 10:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes (unless they change their mind, but I doubt that they will be dicks about it). -Xbony2 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I still have not talked with slow or tfox or anyone high up in the FTB bureaucracy about it. Bony did you or are you just assuming they'll be fine with this? -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 21:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I am saying if they do not agree that it will not be their call. Nowadays, they don't host us or manage us any more than Microsoft does the Minecraft Wiki. Now, I don't want to be a jerk to them, but we will be jerks if necessary. But I don't think we'll have to. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
And an update on this- slowpoke has stated he is okay with this, as long as we generally focus on FTB modpacks (which I generally plan to do), and also that we don't include modpacks that contain mods without consent from the mod author(s) (with a few exceptions for the historical Technic packs), which I think is reasonable. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
What about creating a new wiki as modded Minecraft wiki? -Moritz30German translator 18:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, take all the years of hard work and start over at a new wiki. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 18:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe one could copy articles over but I think this wiki should still be focused on FTB modpacks and not small mods. Documenting small mods is good, however I don't think it should take place in a large scale here. This wiki is optimized for FTB modpacks and large mods but not really for small ones. -Moritz30German translator 19:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Creating a new wiki just segregates the community even more, makes it a royal pain in the ass for users to find documentation, and doesn't even make sense because we've already been documenting non-FTB mods for at least a year. The wiki isn't "optimized" for any specific set of mods; it works fine for any number of mods. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's optimized for all the mods \o/ -Xbony2 (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
BTW what will happen with the old existing links and pages that linked to this site ? will the other URL redirect them here ? --sokratis12GR Staff 12:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
If the url is changed, the old url will redirect to the new url. Links will not be broken. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 12:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Final Decision

This has been supported unanimously. It'll take a while to fully update everything, and for Gamepedia to do their part. In the meantime, we can probably work on making some base documentation on other modpacks or making new portals or whatnot. Also above this, we need to decide on a logo (I really don't like Modpedia's logo, no way we're going to be using that) and other stuff. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a list of things that need to happen:
  1. Decide on Wiki Name
    This seems to have consensus as "Modded Minecraft Wiki"
  2. Decide on URL
    There seems to be some discussion, but best practice would be to use the wiki name, so moddedminecraft.gamepedia.com
  3. Create a logo
    I can get assistance from Curse's design team if its necessary, with about 1 week lead time. But there would need to be a fairly clear idea of what was wanted.
  4. Mock up new main page
    I think someone had started on this, but happy to get some help from our wiki team as well if its desired.
Once all of these things are ready, then we can set a date to make the changes, which we'd be happy to support via social media, etc. We're excited about this. Even though the wiki has covered mods of all varieties for some time, I think this change will be a great move towards making it really clear what the project's mission is. We get not infrequent requests for wikis for minor mods, and its been a little confusing to people sometimes for us to send them to "FTB Wiki". CrsBenjamin (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
CrsBenjamin- I'd rather not set a date currently so we don't have to rush. I'd like to work a bit more on making a few pages to bind everything together before calling one. By the end of the month is entirely possible, though. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. But yeah, definitely no rush, I just mean once everything is ready we'll want to coordinate. CrsBenjamin (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Guide credits

I really don't like the fact that we put "credits" at the tops of our guides. In many cases that information is accessible via the history. Furthermore it creates a sense of ownership on the articles, potentially discouraging new users from editing it. See also: Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The only case I can see this making sense is for guides which were written by someone, but then put on the wiki by someone else. I don't have a proposal for that situation, but I do propose that for the other cases, we do not put credits on the page. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 20:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As a general principle we should only include credits when content was written by someone not on the wiki and then copied over to the wiki. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 22:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The thing I don't like is that it gives more respect to guides that were created elsewhere rather than made by the editors here. I'd be okay with it, however, maybe if the note was at the very bottom of the page (ex wikipedia:Foreign relations of Armenia#References, although probably a bit large than that) instead of blatantly at the top (change would be like this). -Xbony2 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. It's not the best format but it's definitely better. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought on this, what about having a fixed-position small link image, or even just an "@" character, in the bottom right of the content area that links back to the original source in this sort of case? Not too intrusive, and easy enough to write a template for. DSquirrelGM (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Not all of them have original sources, like Getting Started (Flaxbeard's Steam Power). I think something that links to the original source for those applicable could be useful though. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 18:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Or, we can add credits but the ones made by the editors should have the name of "Made by the community" or "Made by FTB Wiki Team" or something. So it's enough to say that it was made for this wiki but not too much sense of ownership. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 17:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's on the wiki so it's obvious that it's made by the wiki community. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 22:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

When two items are merged in one

Ender IO in 1.10 has removed Redstone Conduit and given what used to be Insulated Redstone Conduit (the version that handles bundled redstone channels) that name. What's the correct way to handle the pages? Lady Oolong (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Chocohead described the solution in the Gamepedia Slack
Different sections for different versions most likely

The page would describe the latest logic then have a section below it describing legacy

-Xbony2 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Giving editors translators markup rights

Hello, it's me ImmortalPharaoh7, and I have something that has been bothering me and I want to change it; markup rights for editors translators. Benefits:

  1. Allows editors translators to be able to markup pages and not wait for an admin to mark it up after adding tags.
  2. For lua navboxes, marking it up will allow editors translators to see their changes without having an admin to be around and pushing that one button.

I don't see any inconveniences with not giving it to editors translators since they are basically like delete and move rights, you need to be responsible to use them; which editors translators are. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 20:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport x 100^100. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 20:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport. People can already add translation markup and do it wrong, it hardly happens, but it's not like it's making the situation worse if it does. I suspect most editors won't use it at all if they don't know how to, similar to tilesheets and ore dict and all that rubbish. The main reason why this has been brought to attention is to alleviate the issues with Lua navboxes. I recognize it's not a perfect solution, but I really don't see how it hurts. If we give editors (this vote is for editors, not translators btw, that's a not a group) that right and it turns out the entire wiki blows up, we can take it away and all make fun of me later for being wrong, but I really don't think that's going to happen. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    How are we defining blowing up? Chocohead NagEditsStaff 01:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    Causes a mess and everybody says "damn we shouldn't have done this". -Xbony2 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport. Translation markup isn't really that hard, and would be helpful for more efficient work. Also if some things aren't done correctly they can always be fixed, but like Xbony2 stated it happens in rare cases. --sokratis12GR Staff 19:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting support.pngSupport for Kyth. Here's the proof - IndestructiblePharaohVII 14:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    Can confirm I support it. While it adds scope for breakage, the current system means that regular users basically can't edit translated pages at all without admin help (need to be a translator to translate, and the english translation comes from the source page). Kythyria (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Against

  1. Pictogram voting oppose.pngAgainst Translation markup is confusing. I don't even do it right usually when I get sucked into doing it. I'd rather not have translation managers/admins have to spend time fixing messed up translation markup. Also if a page is not ready to be marked for translation, but it gets marked, then admins have to deal with un-marking it, which is annoying. I'd rather this be left entirely in the hands of translators and translation administrators. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Ok, so if the editors get changed to "translators" you would support? -IndestructiblePharaohVII 20:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Not necessarily. It seems like the coordination between translators and translation admins works fine enough. The only time it doesn't work is for Lua modules. I'd rather we fix that issue instead of adding a band-aid solution. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 20:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    You know that xbony2, the translation admin, lives on the other side of the planet for me, meaning that we don't really talk to each other that much. -- Preceding unsigned comment was added by ImmortalPharaoh7 (talkcontribs)
    I mean the difference between our timezones (mine and yours) is even greater. Also User talk:Xbony2 is a thing :P -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 21:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    And we have been talking like 2 messages everyday using LittleHelper and that affects the communication between the translation admin, you, and myself. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 21:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting oppose.pngAgainst I'd much rather see a proper solution to making the translation system easier, especially when it comes to lua modules. Simply giving editors the ability to mark up pages for translation isn't going to help, because translation markup is hard to get right. If an editor is skilled enough to markup various articles templates and modules correctly, then they're likely skilled enough to be an admin. Move and delete rights, on the other hand, are not particularly difficult to use correctly, you just need to understand the basic guidelines of what articles should be named and have a minimum level of responsibility. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm somewhat skilled enough to add translation markups, even ask xbony2, yet you keep telling me that you highly doubt of supporting me if I apply for one. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 21:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting oppose.pngAgainst All this is doing is perpetuating the current translation system which is definitely not what we want. If you want to be useful, keep pestering xbony2 to actually do T3, so that translation is generally much better than what we've got now (especially for modules). Chocohead NagEditsStaff 14:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    Don't you think that what is xbony2 doing is a large project and requires some time and effort while just giving editors (and translators) the right to work without the need of an admin to be needed is better and easier and a temporary solution till he finishes T3? -IndestructiblePharaohVII 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion