Talk:AUTOSTART

From LifeWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

There seems to be an issue with LifeViewer commands being interpreted as links. For example, things like "#C [[ AUTOSTART ]]" are being interpreted as #C AUTOSTART . As a result, this page is the single most common red link on the wiki currently. --A for awesome (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that got mentioned in the Tiki Bar discussion a day or two ago. It's due to an accidental similarity between viewerconfig format and LifeWiki link format. But I'm not sure it's much of an issue -- we can make the problem go away just by putting some text on this AUTOSTART page. Any obvious flaws in that method? Guess I'll try it and find out! Dvgrn (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The only (very minor) downside to having this "article" is that it may occasionally appear as a random page. Apple Bottom (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering all the other things that can show up as a random page, I don't think this is even a minor downside -- though maybe more information and links should be added to the AUTOSTART page. I just clicked Special:Random and got the Tutorials/Scripts page, for example, and the AUTOSTART page seems like it gives, or could give, information vaguely along the lines of a tutorial. Dvgrn (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What would be a good category for this page? 77topaz (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it needs one. It's not even a proper article, as such; its entire raison d'être is to keep it from appearing in the list of wanted pages. We're trying to sweep it under the carpet, as it were (with some provisions just in case someone happens to be looking there); making it more visible in other places on the wiki is pretty the opposite of what we're trying to accomplish. Apple Bottom (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
But now it does appear on the Special:UncategorizedPages list. 77topaz (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure most users -- certainly most readers, those who visit the LifeWiki to get information, not to dive in and edit -- never look at that. Apple Bottom (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
But isn't that argument valid for Special:WantedPages (or really, any special page except maybe RecentChanges or RandomPage) as well? 77topaz (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure! Dvgrn (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Replying to 77topaz -- yes, it is; and you'll observe that it wasn't me who created this page. ;) I would've probably just left it alone (not that I see any harm in having it, mind).
Either way, my point was (is?) that I'd prefer to keep "technical" pages that only exist for technical reasons out of the sight of regular users, so long as said users don't actively go looking for them. Separate the porcelain from the plumbing, as it were.
But I concede that while I was originally thinking about users exploring the category tree, say by browsing the various pattern categories, we do already have "technical" categories for administrative pages, infobox templates and other such things. If you really wanted to, you could probably put this page in one of those; after all, there's a clear indication there that "here be dragons". (I still don't see what categorizing this page actually gains us, though.)
Speaking of "technical" categories, it seems that they're currently all rooted in Category:Toplevel category, rather than in a dedicated root. I'll change that in a moment. Apple Bottom (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)