Category talk:Page Annotation

From ErfWiki

Revision as of 05:45, 12 April 2011 by Miment (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Article started on 2009/04/30. -- Muzzafar 10:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Request for discussion cleanup

No idea what parts of this are accurate anymore with the use of the nifty new templates and such. Could this page be cleaned up by one of our more knowledgeable people on the subject? Thanks. --Ichthus (eyeBook) 09:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup would simplify things; OTOH I don't think we want to lose the record of how the wiki's conventions and de facto standards evolved (if only to avoid revisiting ideas that were considered and rejected for some reason).SteveMB 11:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a wiki... it has versioning ;). If people want to see how it evolved, you can link to anchors inside of specific versions of a page. --Ichthus (eyeBook) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage Template

Do me a favor and start adding the following to all /text and /description pages you do.

<noinclude>{{subpage}}</noinclude>

That should add a line of text that will lead the person up to the panel page, but it won't appear when being included on any of the panel pages. However, for it to work, you _must_ have the <noinclude> tags. This will also prevent any of these pages from appearing as dead-end pages --Ichthus 10:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. For those who miss what it does, see TBFGK_27:1/Text. It adds the link back to the panel, but doesn't include it when the text is actually added to the panel page. --Raphfrk 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The template should, technically, work the same with and without the <noinclude> tags now. Also, since people have started using these, we've taken the Dead end page count down to 0. --Ichthus (eyeBook) 09:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Panels

I think we should just make panel numbers bold instead of titles, otherwise it clogs up the table of contents Also maybe a thumbnail of the comic in question with a link to it? --Doran 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Style guidelines

I am not sure whether we should include links or not. -- Muzzafar 10:33, April 2009 (UTC)

With links, it's a useful resource for cross-referencing. Without them it's mostly just an interesting curiosity. Why would you not include them? --> ERK!|eyeBook me 17:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What if we organized it by TURNS rather than by pages? This seems more practical, and would also help to make the plot more coherently game-like. I.E.:

Turn 1, Royal Crown Coalition's turn. Marbits croak Manpower the Temporary. Wanda Firebaugh Uncroaks Manpower and requests permission from Stanley to purchase a Summon spell. Jillian Zamussels and her Barbarians break alliance with the Royal Crown Coalition in order to go on a scouting mission on the following day.

Night, no one's turn.

Turn 2, Barbarians' turn. Jillian Zamussels croaks a Twoll and 3 Uncroaked units in the field.

Turn 3, Gobwin Knob's turn. Stanley captures Jillian Zamussels with a stack of Dwagons, Wanda Firebaugh summons Parson Gotti.

Obviously there'd be more detail per turn, but you probably get the idea. What do you guys think? -- Varthonai 01:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

One option here is to use categories, as an example, I created some sub-categories:
Category:Page_Annotation/TBFGK
Category:Page_Annotation/TBFGK/Turn 1
and added the first 8 pages into them both.
This creates a tree
page annotation -> TBFGK -> turn 1.
Each page would have to be added to 2 categories to make it work. Is it worth the trouble? --Raphfrk 22:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Purpose

This is a lot of work. And is it really of use to anyone? Just link the comics where necessary. Considering how little there is in each panel, describing panel by panel is also excessive. Wouldn't a quick description of the comic as a whole suffice? And before you do this, shouldn't you make sure Jamie and Rob are fine with it? There might be copyright issues. --Kreistor 15:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kreistor, it's Rob's idea, so there won't be a problem with copyright. As for panel by panel, I think a direct transcript section, like Darths and Droids would suffice, and only list individual panels, for direct annotation, e.g. speculation, comments, real world references etc. Rob also mentioned he may give out a lot more world knowledge, so that could be put there as well, if they're not intended to be "toolbox" only. --Doran 16:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Just wanted to make certain. But still, before going all out like this, we should consider a simpler, shorter, and faster format. This is just a huge amount of work.--Kreistor 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
and 2250+ dead links... and a random page generator that now only does panels because there are so many of them. Why can't they just be put them all on one page, like Darth and Droids does, or, even better (!) put it with the comic it's associated with, just like Darth and Droids does, on the website it's posted on! We need to ask ourselves what will benefit those who come here. I do not think that 5 wiki pages (maybe more!) per panel is what they need. Xewleer 06:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit: I feel that this (this) is all we need, just throwing the idea out there.
Two words: Custom Namespaces. If we want this sub-project, but want to make sure it doesn't interfere as much with the rest of the wiki, we could toss it all into a custom namespace. That would keep the Random Page link from finding them as it only grabs pages in the primary namespace which is why you don't get user pages or user-talk pages. However, this takes someone with access to the PHP configuration files to add. It's not just something we can randomly do as wiki users. If we do this, we should probably also add a Fandom namespace as well. Again, for organizational reasons. --Ichthus 06:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this to be a very good thing to do. Anyone know who to talk to?Xewleer 06:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the panel by panel pages are a pretty cool way to read the comic. Also, the 2250 are 'real' dead links. When the annotation is finished, then they should be filled (so they are needed links). (That assumes that the issue where the template was generating fake dead links has been resolved). As for the name space thing, it is probably worth posting in the suggestion forum. Erk posted there to have the parser function extension added. (though they haven't responded to the wiki sub-forum request) --Raphfrk 17:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category!

Rather than have a manually entered list of pages at the bottom, I think that this should be made a category. After all, listing pages is exactly what categories were made for. Perhaps ':Category:Annotated Pages' or similar. :)RevenantTalk 16:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The current category is just the few pages of the first stab at it, which was superceded by the current (mostly-done as of 6/1/09) project. The new pages ought to be tagged ASAP; I can do that when I get a chance unless somebody has a better suggestion. SteveMB 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lister Template

I have created a lister template, while will allow these pages to use the same text as the panel by panel pages created by Erk. It just requires {{Lister:page number}}. -- Raphfrk 18:40, 8 May 2009

Ok, great! Good job! Why don't you put it on new pages that were not described yet? I suppose we should leave the text that is already there and decide what to do with it together. Is that ok with you? -- Muzzafar 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind. Whichever is easier. I was trying to keep the 2 sub-projects the same. I was concerned that people might be making edits to both sets of pages (which contain the essentially the same info), which is just wasted effort. However, now that I look at it, there isn't a flood of new annotation pages/edits to the old ones, so it's probably no big emergency. Erk has updated the panel by panel pages up to page 4 to the new format. Also, I don't agree that the template is 'broken', it is correctly pointing to the right pages, they just don't exist yet :). Anyway, I probably should have only updated pages 1 to 3 as they are the only ones currently fully filled in. --Raphfrk 21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Annotation Integration

Stuff needed to be decided:

  • Page Naming Conventions
  • Template design for parsing comics
  • Direct links to the comic in question
  • Integration via templates from panel by panel into comic page,
    • would need to be editable from there

Hey guys, I think we need to discuss how to successfully integrate the panel by panel stuff from Erk's wiki with the page by page annotations here. Both are useful, in different contexts. Until we decide a conseus, and have fully workable templates, it would be probably best for both projects to run side by side for now. --Doran 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to explain how the system works. I modified Erk's paneler template so that it inserts the text from TBFGK <pagenumber>-<panel number>/Text and the description from TBFGK <pagenumber>-<panel number>/Description. This means that this info is available for use by the page annotation pages. I also created a lister template which searches for TBFGK <pagenumber>-<panel number> and if it exists, includes the text. This goes through all panels from panel 1 to panel 29 and formats them the same was as the annotation project.
So for each panel there needs to be
TBFGK 1:3 -> this is the main panel page (this calls the paneler template)
TBFGK 1:3/Text -> this contains the Text for panel 1:3
TBFGK 1:3/Description -> This contains the Description for panel 1:3
If TBFGK 1:3 exists, then the lister template will include that panel.
Once it is done then the page annotation page just needs to say:


Part of [[Page Annotation]] project.
==erf0001 (Title page)==


{{Lister|TBFGK|1}}


and the lister template will include all the text from the panel by panel pages. --Raphfrk 21:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool idea, but the template needs to make the included panel annotations in the page editable sections, otherwise if you try to edit the annotations on the 'per comic' page, there's no way to do so. Each of the panel pages probably needs a link to the main 'per comic page', and also possibly vice-versa.
Maybe: [[View this comic as a whole]] and [[View this comic panel by panel]] --Doran 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that's a good point :). Ok, what about this:

This is the lister template for page 1

You can click on the panel to take you to the panel page

This is the panel by panel page for panel 1:2

I updated the paneler template so there is a link to the text and description from there. Also, I updated the lister so that there is a link to the panel by panel pages.
This means that it is possible to edit all the text and descriptions. However, it can require a few link presses. --Raphfrk 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sections have their own edit link to the side of them, could you create a version of that for the Panels sections on the main comic page that will link to the Panel/Description section e.g. http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php?title=TBFGK_1:2/Description&action=edit --Doran 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, done, see TBFGK 1:1 etc. It isn't quite the same as a section break, but at least it saves one click --Raphfrk 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool! could you repeat that for the Lister template? So the edit link to the description also shows up beside each panel section. -- Doran
Done --Raphfrk 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent!, it may make sense to merge the /description and /text pages to avoid having to edit too many pages whe creating a new page/panel

So just have one e.g.

Description: Edit


Narrator: It's the little things which make a difference sometimes.

Three Titans of Ark, enormous godlike beings that look a lot like Elvis Presley, are wandering around in a field of mist, the crest of the Minty Mountains. One of them is putting the finishing touches on a mountain jutting out of the fog. Overhead, a green dwagon is dwarfed by the mass of the Titans.


That would require that we go back and re-do all the ones that have already been created (effectively a 3rd pass). One option for the unwanted links is just to create blank pages for them (well assuming that the text is blank). I realise that this would mean clutter though, but at least the are all sub-pages. Also, it means that different formatting can be applied to the text and description text by using the template. --Raphfrk 18:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, any thoughts on naming? We could have "TBFGK 15:4" for panels and "TBFGK 15" for pages, or "ERF:1:15:1" for panels and "ERF:1:1:15" for pages, and merge the erf00001 etcs into the panels, and put any per page annotations into the page by page ones. This way the panels annotations could point to the page by page, by deleting everything after the last semicolon ----Doran 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think putting everything in one page is a bad plan. Modularising it like Raphfrk has done is a bit more work in creation, but makes it easier to pull stuff in for page templates and modified structure and whatnot. Further, description and text are distinct: The text is canon, direct quotes from the panel. The description is more on a Proposed Canon level: it can have errors, because it's what we see in the panel.
Naming is something we need to explore. I, for one, don't like calling everthing "erf". I like TBFGK# and TBFGK#:# and Klog# and whatnot, because it's more similar to the naming Rob and Jamie are using, but I am open to better ideas --> ERK!|eyeBook me 17:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The one reason I'm shying away from modularisation, is that I feel it will difficxult for just anyone to edit, or create a new page, meaning the rate of page annotations could decrease. Therefore before it is sorted we probably need clear guide on how the template work, how and where to add stuff, and how toadd a new page or panels, and what order to do this in.
For example when we get to the point, where we're creating new annotation pages for comics as they're being released, it may be best to created the main page first, upload the comic for the page, and add a blank lister template with the number of panels, then create the panel pages from there. {{Lister}} seems to have a bug in it so that pages not used (e.g. 1:23) still appear on the Special:WantedPages, not sure where it is.--Doran 17:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is caused by the insert text effect. If you say ((:page_name)) (with curly brackets), then it inserts the text from page_name into your page. However, even if you use ((#ifexist: page_name | ((:page_name)) )), then it still counts as a link even if page_name doesn't exist (even though the text won't be inserted).
I am not sure of a good way around it though. --Raphfrk 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
One option would be to include the sub-templates, for example

((Lister unit|20|5|TBFGK))

means display page 20 panel 16 and gives

Panel 5

Parson frowns slightly as he ponders the scenario.[edit]

Stanley the Plaid: Oh.

Does it?

Parson Gotti: It's something I've studied a lot, lately.

It might be winnable, or survivable, if I knew the details.
[edit]
I could change the parameter order and make it so that an annotation page would be something like

((Lister unit|TBFGK|20|1))

((Lister unit|TBFGK|20|2))

((Lister unit|TBFGK|20|3))

((Lister unit|TBFGK|20|4))

((Lister unit|TBFGK|20|5))

((Lister unit|TBFGK|20|6))

The number of panels in each page would be set manually, with 1 line entered for each panel.
Also, the other 2 lister templates would be disabled. Sound reasonable? --Raphfrk 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems good, although eventually replacing it with a loop template would be useful as well. Also maybe the templates "5 lister units" and "10 lister units" to reduce the templates needed --Doran 20:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It either has to be single "lister_unit" templates or might as well just use the lister template directly. Any 'ifexist' calls will result in a 'fake' link.--Raphfrk 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made the parameter changes to the lister unit template.

This is an example of the using the lister unit for page 1

--Raphfrk 11:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Page Annotation #2

If you know that panel 13 exists, so does panels 1-12, I just feel it'll take up less space having {{list10|1|TBFGK|1}} {{Lister unit|1|11|TBFGK}} {{Lister unit|1|12|TBFGK}} {{Lister unit|1|13|TBFGK}}
Than listing the same template 13 times, where list10, has 10 lister units increasing +1, from the last parameter. --Doran 16:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point. I guess it is a matter of preference. It is a pity that the ifexist function doesn't allow impossible branches of the if tree to be ignored.
I have finished the page 20-146 panel by panel images.
The "prev" option in paneler used ifexist, so I have reduced its effectiveness. On panel 1 of each page, it goes to panel 1 of the previous page.
One option would be to have a page for each page which just contains the number of panels, i.e.
[[TBFGK 1/panelnum]]
would contain a number.
Alternatively, something like Template:Tbfgkpanellist could be used. --Raphfrk 17:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have figured out how to get around this whole linking thing.
Rather than having a list of the form:


(( #ifexist: panel1 | <link to panel1> ))

(( #ifexist: panel2 | <link to panel2> ))

(( #ifexist: panel3 | <link to panel3> ))

(( #ifexist: panel4 | <link to panel4> ))

(( #ifexist: panel5 | <link to panel5> ))

(( #ifexist: panel6 | <link to panel6> ))

(( #ifexist: panel7 | <link to panel7> ))

(( #ifexist: panel8 | <link to panel8> ))

(( #ifexist: panel9 | <link to panel9> ))


I changed it so that the link is determined based on the result of the test, so each line has the form:

(( #ifexist: panel9 | <link to ((#ifexist: panel9|panel9|panel1>)) ))

(This means, if panel9 exists, create a link to panel9, otherwise, don't display a link to panel1.)

The problem is that saying "don't display the link if the target doesn't exist" doesn't work. It still considers that a link.
However, you can use the ifexist to determine where the link is targeted. In effect, if panel9 doesn't exist, it doesn't display the link *and* re-targets the link to panel1
Since every page has a panel1, this doesn't cause links to fake pages to be created.
In principle, I could go back to the old way, using this system, but seems to much work (at least at the moment).
So, I have updated the lister template, see Category_talk:Page_Annotation/Lister_page_temp_test_new. It just requires the page number and the number of panels (up to a max of 16). --Raphfrk 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Character To Be Named Later...

After doing the transcriptions/descriptions for the pages where Parson talks to Misty, it occurs to me that the "not yet named character" issue briefly came up there, and will come up in a much bigger way with Jack. Thoughts on whether his speeches should be left attributed to "Foolamancer" until the page where his name is actually revealed, given that it's an actual plot point and not simply a minor delay in the name being mentioned?

Being as it follows a fairly decent plot point that no one knows Jack's name for a bit, I think 'Foolamancer' and such should be used until their names are revealed. --Ichthus (eyeBook) 09:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] References in included pages

I tried to add a reference to the recently annotated TBFGK87 and it didn't go so well. Putting the referenced {{note}} in the description/text page between <noinclude> tags and then having to copy-paste the referenced url in the panel page and again for the whole page is pretty annoying. It's not just boring, it's pretty awkward and I don't think most users will think about it.

Also, reference numbering is broken if references are added in more than one panel description. In the case of 87 Kreistor had put a reference in panel 7, so adding one in panel 8 would make it the second ref in the page. But when viewing panel 8 it is the first one...
Things are mostly ok if the reference numbering is restarted at 1 for each panel. In the whole page view, mediawiki is clever enough to display the reference number 1 from panel 8 as reference 2 since there was another reference before. However the link is NOT fixed ! Thus, while the link for the {{note}} in panel 8 is labeled 2 it actually points to the note number 1 from panel 7.
Numbering everything as reference 2 as I initialy tried seemed to confuse mediawiki too...

For the record this is not currently a common problem because there are few references in the annotated pages (except for klogs which have only 1 panel). Starting at page one, the first page where the problem appeared was 64. Also, this is not wikipedia, references are not so capital here. Still I'd expect the problem to grow since spell names are a very common source of real world references and as the story progress we are going to see a lot more of thoseErf-b1-p095Same-site.PNG,Erf-b1-p126Same-site.PNG.84.102.17.134 15:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the Wikimedia Help page for footnotes, it looks like the current setup supports footnotes in the style
{{ref|name}} (superscripted number-pointer in the text)
{{note|name}} (the target of the above-described pointer)
but not in the style
<ref name="name">Text that will appear in the footnote.</ref>
<references/> (the indicator that the list of footnotes goes here)
The latter may be more useful (it looks like it would let each note be entered just once, in the relevant Text or Description page, :and would then carry over to the frame and fullpage views, each of which would just need this
<noinclude>
== References ==
<references/>
</noinclude>
at the end of the page. SteveMB 00:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I figured out how to make this work.
That help page you linked confused me even more, but I finally saw the light by reading the wikipedia help on the ref template.
We were calling the ref template with {{ref|1|1}} But the first parameter doesn't need to (and shouldn't) be a number ! That's just a name to give to the reference which should match the parameter in the corresponding {{note}}. Using numbers here is just asking for troubles even when the page isn't included with other pages using references[1]. Using meaningful names like the word/expression explained in the reference is better and has a lot less chances of name collision. (e.g. {{ref|dr_evil}} )
Also, the second parameter of the template is the label which should appear inside the brackets of the link; but it doesn't seem to have any effect on this wiki (e.g. {{ref|X|Y}} gives [2]). It's probably a special extension activated on wikipedia but not on default installs. Anyway, it's useless and putting numbers there would create the same kind of troubles as for the first parameter.
OTOH, there's still the problem of having to copy-paste the {{Note}} in three different places. Like you pointed out the <ref>URL</ref> + <references/> system of cite.php is a lot easier to use and would have avoided all this discussion. The <references/> could even be automatically inserted by the paneler template.
IMO, the ideal solution would be to add support for the <ref>footnote text</ref> + <references/> system (assuming it doesn't put a strain on the server or pose some other problem); the next best would be to at least reduce the cut-and-paste problem by only notating the page and frame pages and skipping the text-entry page. SteveMB 11:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
^ what if you want to add a reference before others ? renumber everything below ? That's not a human's job ! That's a computer's job !
84.102.17.134 11:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Naming should help with the collision problem, at least. As for cut-and-pasting, I'm not sure there's really a point in including the footnote text is the Text/Description page -- those are for inserting the raw data; the Frame and Page views are the ones designed to actually read. Also, inserting the footnotes in the Text page under a "noinclude" tag seems to create an extra gap between the Text and Description of the frame page, which looks odd when flipping through frame pages. SteveMB 12:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Another possible solution is to simply include the footnotes in the Text/Description page using an indent (i.e. put : or perhaps :: before the footnote). I've annotated TBFGK28 in that style (using a double indent) as an experiment. The main advantage is that it avoids any need for multiple cut-and-paste (which would make the pages and frames a pain to maintain, since the two would keep diverging when people edited one and forgot that the other was independent).SteveMB 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I found all these problems long ago. The numbering not working has actually worked out for pages with multiple references in different panels. What I do is:
1. {{Ref|X|X}} for the panel.
2.Create
<noinclude>
==Real World References==
X. {{Note|X}} Stuff.
</noinclude>
3. Copy all of 2. and place it in the Panel page.
4. Copy it to the Page page. If a previous Reference exists, I delete </noinclude> through <noinclude> which lines up the References. I then renumber the Note line. This ensures that there is only one Reference on the Page page, and all the referneces number correctly.
If someone makes {{Ref}} work right, then someone will have to go back and renumber the references so that the Panels don't all start at 1. Right now, Reference 1 on panel 8 might be Reference 5 on the page. Page 114 is the best example of this at work. It has references from many panels.

--Kreistor 07:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm leery of relying on a work-around that requires repeatedly cutting and pasting at least two copies of each footnote. (Even if you skip the Text/Description page and just do the two that are actually designed to be read, that only reduces the problem.) IMO we want it to be easy to add and edit footnotes, so the wiki can grow into a concordance for the pop-culture references, etc. In the test examples I did on page 28, I just punted on the numbering issue, figuring that it wasn't going to matter much unless there are lots of footnotes for the text or description of one frame. SteveMB 11:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


I saw those. There is no clear indication that they are References. Further, there is a difference between references and Real World References. When Parson makes a statement about something from our world, it really is about our world because he knows it exists. When Wnada wears clothes similar to MJ, that's no the same. She doesn't know MJ exists, and so that is Erfworld making reference to the real world. When Parson makes a Reference, I call it a Reference. When Erfworld makes a reference, I've been calling it a Real World Reference. I know the difference is subtle, but I personally think it deserves to be acknowledged.
I don't mind doing all of the references. Just post to my page which pages need them done and I'll do the work.
Or, someone could actually create in the Template a References list. Somehow it would need to be optional for pages with no references.
--Kreistor
I'm not sure it's workable to separate "Real World References" from "References" from "Other Notes" (such as pointing out how something was significantly foreshadowed a few dozen pages ago) for purposes of footnoting mechanics (though they would call for different phrasing of the footnotes).
Also, I did a little more looking into the {{ref|name}} and {{note|name}} footnote style, and found that preceding the footnote with the # sign automagically generates the next number.SteveMB 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Raw Entry Done -- Next: Formatting & Cleanup

It looks like all the Book 1 text and panel descriptions are done; now, it just needs a bit of cleanup for consistent formatting, typos, and such.

I did a few "cheat sheets" on my user talk page for the proposed standard I've been using; obviously they can be modified if the final consensus calls for different style choices.

Addendum -- I've put the nucleus of a proposed formatting style guide for the Frame-View and Page-View pages on my user talk page.
Go To:
Personal tools