So I have found some redundant entrys in the wiki mainly rebrands and popularity. This was exact reason why the Fandom wiki was replaced. I don’t want it to go down like my wiki did a while ago
Adding onto this, using the ampersand should be avoided as much as possible. It’s fine in infoboxes for things such as candela settings, but in the article itself should be used near zero percent of the time.
One issue i’ve found is it seems users can edit other peoples userpages. This should not be allowed.
Idk what you mean I don’t see how its “redundant”, the rebrand parts should definitely be there in my opinion, I think you’re talking about the popularity section on the advance page, which could be added to the main text but in my opinion, I think its signifcant enough to have its own section on the advances. Having a sentence about something in the main paragraph and then a section diving into detail is not redundant, and I don’t get why having a small bit of redundancy will kill the wiki. So I dont get what you mean here maybe if you explain it differently.
I can see why info on popularity is not necessary, but I think having the info on rebrands is useful in some cases since it might clear confusion up in some cases. But maybe its not really worth it on the advance series since there’s not really any rebrands of them only advances sold under other companies names. But I think for products with lots of rebrands like the Wheelock stuff, having at least a brief section on the rebrands would help.
About the BG12 page, I dont see know of any information on it that is not factual or needs changing in my eyes, if you know anything that’s wrong then I recommend adding something about it on the talk page, I’m trying my best to cite the sources but I heard about most of this info years ago so its hard to find the sources. If I write something that’s not true, its not because I’m trying to spread misinformation, its because either I was given the wrong information, or I dont know enough about the topic (which is why most of the articles I’ve been writing is about stuff I know a lot about). I’m gonna add some sources to the BG12 page so I wouldn’t change it until I do so then yall can decide if you wanna redo the page or improve on the way it is.
I personally belive that we need to develop a system as a community for the wiki on stuff like this, since not everyone does not agree on stuff, I think we should have some kind of system that makes it fair for everyone while still being able to agree on one way of doing things.
Even if contributors don’t agree with each others ways of doing things, hopefully these disagreements will help us decide whats best for everyone, including the readers.
And about grammar problems, I’m not very good at my grammar sometimes, but I’m trying my best to improve it, if you see a grammar problem, there’s no problem with quickly going in and fixing it real quick.
I’m gonna stick to only making articles on stuff I fully understand enough and I will also take in feedback from the community about stuff that may be redundant and etc. I know the wiki is supposed to be for only useful information, which I’m doing what I can to ensure I only put in factual and useful info, but sometimes I have misinformation, but im doing what I can to prevent this and will fix and remove any misinformation that I find and this is why I will avoid putting in information that I dont know that is true. I will also try to save my sources since that help other members find out if information is true or not
I want to start adding infoboxes to the Wiki, But I don’t know if the Wiki is configured for that, Is it?
Thanks…
Im not really filmar with infoboxes but I’m trying to figure out how they work
Current infoboxes are https://wiki.thefirepanel.com/Template:Device and https://wiki.thefirepanel.com/Template:Company, feel free to create more by using those as a point of reference.
I’ve also updated the wiki to show a notice about our style guide, which will mostly just take from the English Wikipedia’s MoS.
Yall probably won’t agree with this, but I think youtube should be a allowed source to cite. While youtube is not always a reliable source, if used right, can show proof that something is factual. But I understand why this would be problematic. I think taking screenshots and uploading them as a source would also work fine.
Is the concern with pages that redirect or actual that have similar information?
Not really but there was some information that was on the Wiki which was unnecessary.