wiki navivigation / finding stuff

[Arjan]

Anybody else having difficulties navigating the wiki?

I find it sometimes quite difficult to find information fast.. even that i KNOW the page is there..

so if other are having the same difficulties, i will see if we can do something about it..

any tips are welcome

[Cuchulainshound]

"key words "should be redirects. I've found some very odd redirects, to pages that may have that term included somewhere in them (buried deep), but really have nothing to do with the topic. Unfortunately, that's a function of previous editors with a weak grasp of what a "key word" is and how it works, or what words might (il)logically be tried to find a related topic.

For instance, a user trying to find information on the military rules might start by searching for "army" (as reasonable as any other) - but that has no redirect, and since the boards only suggest articles on various Domain's armies, that's no help. And so forth.

The solution is for users to add a redirect when they try a word and it doesn't lead where they hope it might. Some words may well need to have disambiguation pages if they are too vague or too variable in reference, but that, again, is a matter for editors to take care of as the need is seen. If two editors have diff ideas on what a key word should redirect to, then it probably needs a disambig page.

(Otoh, some problems also arise from the use of Capital Letters In Everything On A Title Page - but that's a policy decision.)

[Sorontar]

"key words "should be redirects. I've found some very odd redirects, to pages that may have that term included somewhere in them (buried deep), but really have nothing to do with the topic. Unfortunately, that's a function of previous editors with a weak grasp of what a "key word" is and how it works, or what words might (il)logically be tried to find a related topic.

For instance, a user trying to find information on the military rules might start by searching for "army" (as reasonable as any other) - but that has no redirect, and since the boards only suggest articles on various Domain's armies, that's no help. And so forth.

"Tax" is a classic example of a term that has been long recognised as something worth making a wiki link for, but no-one has got around to finishing the link. In case you haven't figured out, I regularly go through new and existing pages and make various text into links. However, I rarely have time to finish off the links. This is because some links just relate to one page, e.g. an NPC. Some links may link to multiple pages but there is a main BRCS page, so that is the clear winner (and the other pages are SeeAlso links from there). Other links (like I suspect Tax) may have multiple suitable pages and thus require a disambiguation page or even a page written for themselves.

Therefore, there are many terms that can and are used as links, but not all of them are finished. You started filling in some of the gaps with the military units, but as I discussed with you, there are other pages that relate to archers, pikeman etc so in the long term your redirects to the BRCS may need to be changed to a new page for each or all the units. It is a slow progress that requires community effort. I have been starting the ball rolling by providing the links. Using facilities like http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Special:WantedPages you can all see which links are regularly appearing in the wiki text.

Of course, other terms can also be added but if they don't appear in the text, they may not have existing links.

Sorontar

[AndrewTall]

I tend to navigate down from the main page which works well for me, but then I know the site architecture and BRCS well. At one point I tried to keep the encyclopedia up to date but in practice that was too big a chore to sustain.

The search function is god, but sometimes my memory of spelling, etc is weaker than it should be - rhoubhe anyone? Redirect's can help, but as Sorontar notes need to be built. Perhaps a 'help' button to ask where something is on br.net? One of us should be able to find the relevant page if there is one already, and could build a redirect as required for future searchers.

Beyond that google is often the way to search a large site, I use it on government websites all the time and it pulls out far more than their own search engines. There comes a point when competing with the pro's is futile...

[Cuchulainshound]

"Tax" is a classic example of a term that has been long recognised as something worth making a wiki link for, but no-one has got around to finishing the link.
Yes, "tax" is actually one that I remember being rather frustrated about myself, but didn't remember that specific example. The concept of "tax" is both vague and varied in its meaning, being a role-play concept (tax collection as a plot complication), a PvP tactic (a realm regent taxing Guilds, Trade Routes, etc) and a game-mechanic (increasing province GB collection via Decree).



Therefore, there are many terms that can and are used as links, but not all of them are finished... It is a slow progress that requires community effort.
Not exactly sure what you mean by the word "finished"; an editor types...
#REDIRECT [[This Article]] ...and we've got our redirect, done.

If (as referred to below) you mean disambig pages covering every possible reference, then, as with the wiki as a whole, that's a process that's never complete. But, yes, every editor should "fix" any search-word they try that leads nowhere, even if it's only a redirect, or to add a simple disambig page if their search-word leads to the "wrong" page (and is a great place for new editors to start!)


You started filling in some of the gaps with the military units, but as I discussed with you, there are other pages that relate to archers, pikeman etc so in the long term your redirects to the BRCS may need to be changed to a new page for each or all the units.
This requires an editorial decision, and the crux is whether to encourage redundant information or not. I'd strongly encourage "no", because without some sort of active mirroring when one body of text (say, "pikeman") is changed, then nothing says that the other (say, "military unit") gets changed to match that new text, and so "redundant" devolves to "contradictory", depending whether "pikeman" or "military unit" is viewed. (Maybe that's a bad example, but the potential for problem should be clear).

Any term worth discussing should be discussed on a single page, not multiple pages. Those pages are determined by the concept and context, not the word itself, because any single word might have multiple, disparate uses, not related to each other (and so have no place in the same article). To avoid redundant, parallel stub articles, all "military" units can be covered on one page, or each on a separate page if there's enough difference in them - but should never be both, with some info on each page.

If that term (like "tax") has multiple possible meanings or contexts, then those different discussions belong on appropriate different topic pages. Imo it's a mistake to have a single page on the various in-game meanings of "tax" just because it's a word - articles should relate to independent coherent, unified topics, not words with variable meanings. Can you imagine what the page on "rule" might look like, if not a simple disambig?

(Another policy to consider is whether "real world" discussions should be invited/allowed into the mix. For example, whether a definition of a pike and a discussion (aka debate aka argument) of how a pike and a pike formation works, what its flaws and strengths are (or might have been), etc etc is "useful" to this site - such certainly can be useful to some, but there are other sites better suited to that particular sort of endless debate.)

[Cuchulainshound]

Just threw out a start to the [[tax]] disambig page, but ran into a problem.

A Search of the word "tax" only turns up one (sadly irrelevant) page - and that's absurd. Not sure why the links ( [[tax]] )are not showing up in the search, but without those it's hard to find the right pages to link to.

(Also, as a suggestion - add a hotbutton for "Redirect" to those others above the Edit window. I think you'll find more users adding redirects (like for misspellings, etc) if they don't have to remember the exact code.