Help with wiki organisation

[SistemaRayoXP]

Sup, we have some little debate about how to organise the wiki. The point are the excessive amount of articles that exist.

Anyone who can contribute anything useful to the discussion please feel free to do so. We want to hear opinions to get this to an agreement.

As you may already know (or if you didn't know), the wiki is completely a huge mess.
The biggest problem to organise it is the large amount of articles that exist there. Most of these "articles" are just "stub" or "placeholder" pages of many Windows builds.

IMO this is a mistake, because we have a dedicated page for almost EVERY single build. This creates organisation and management problems, because we have to dig around a lot of articles, most of which contain few information. The solution, is to merge all the articles into several bigger pieces. Example, all the Longhorn Milestone 4 builds' articles will be merged into a single page, called Windows:Vista:M4. The builds will be structured by titles inside this page, just like for example
this Windows 10 RS4 article

If there's more info about any specific build (E.g. LH 4074), it will have its own page, separated from this LH Milestone 4 page (but linked inside of it)

By the other hand, there's the solution of creating new pages for new builds always. This is easier for listing, but creates more fragmentation and at the end it's inefficient.

Feel free to post any points of view you have, and explanations of why this and why not this.

[LilShootDawg]

IMO this is a mistake, because we have a dedicated page for almost EVERY single build.

Then say bye bye to unleaked builds. As mrpijey said, be consistent. If you are gonna put the builds in separate articles, put ALL of them in separate articles. If you are gonna put them on the OS page, put ALL of them on the OS page. If you have certain builds in their own articles but some on the OS page. That just CREATES fragmentation. EDIT: I would like to share what AlphaBeta said, "you can't lock a section of an article. so if you place it all in a single article and there is an edit war regarding a single build. the whole version/milestone article is paralyzed in the case of a lock."

[SistemaRayoXP]

Unleaked builds can go into their own section. The build war and possible lock is something wiki members should deal with, so there shouldn't be need to lock certain page(s) (This is why the discussion pages exist)

We are talking about different types of fragmentation, because we can't keep all the articles into only one page, some are way large to stay only in one page. It's easier to go this way for the readers, but putting every article in a dedicated page is easier for editors. And we must take in mind who is going to read the article too.

It's easier to read about builds Milestone by Milestone rather than one by one. It improves navigation

[LilShootDawg]

Unleaked builds can go into their own section.

That creates fragmentation.

The build war and possible lock is something wiki members should deal with, so there shouldn't be need to lock certain page(s) (This is why the discussion pages exist)

You do realize that because there is a lock function, that some people don't use the discussion pages.

We are talking about different types of fragmentation, because we can't keep all the articles into only one page, some are way large to stay only in one page. It's easier to go this way for the readers, but putting every article in a dedicated page is easier for editors. And we must take in mind who is going to read the article too.

How is every build in one page easier for the readers? Some of them might be on older computers with slower internet. That would take AGES to load.

It's easier to read about builds Milestone by Milestone rather than one by one. It improves navigation.

Then what's the point of listing every build if you are gonna skip over the majority. And it doesn't improve navigation. You can't just search for the build article in the search box and not have to scroll down 20 bajillion lines.

[SistemaRayoXP]

Unleaked builds can go into their own section.

That creates fragmentation.

And having them all spared in individual articles creates even more fragmentation.

The build war and possible lock is something wiki members should deal with, so there shouldn't be need to lock certain page(s) (This is why the discussion pages exist)

You do realize that because there is a lock function, that some people don't use the discussion pages.

You do realize that we've discussed the last changes in the discussion pages, right? Also you do realize that we are only a few active members who are not vandalizing anything nor taking light decisions, right? You do realize that if needed the pages will be locked to force people to use the discussion pages to get to an agreement and so that a sysop can unlock the page, right?

We are talking about different types of fragmentation, because we can't keep all the articles into only one page, some are way large to stay only in one page. It's easier to go this way for the readers, but putting every article in a dedicated page is easier for editors. And we must take in mind who is going to read the article too.

How is every build in one page easier for the readers? Some of them might be on older computers with slower internet. That would take AGES to load.

1. How many readers does have the wiki actually?
2. How many readers do use an older OS/browser/technology to access the wiki?
3. How are they even accessing the wiki if older technologies that would run slow are not able to run over HTTPS (Which the wiki requires)? how are they even reading anything if the wiki requires new browser capable of reading HTML4?
4. What makes you think that they can even access BetaArchive's forum if it's heavy enough in a slow internet connections?
5. We don't want articles of a quadrillion words long, that's why the builds that have more than 3 paragraphs about them will deserve an article, still don't get it?
6. A 5 MBPS connection loads perfectly fine the wiki. Anybody with a slower connection loads the wiki as slow as the forum itself, there are forum topics that take ages to load, even more than the largest article in the wiki.

It's easier to read about builds Milestone by Milestone rather than one by one. It improves navigation.

Then what's the point of listing every build if you are gonna skip over the majority. And it doesn't improve navigation. You can't just search for the build article in the search box and not have to scroll down 20 bajillion lines.

Where did I stated that every build is going to have an article for itself and to be inside of a larger article at the same time?
You misunderstood me:
The builds

• Are listed with a little description about them if they are no more than 3 paragraphs long
• Are listed only as a link to a bigger article if they have are more than 3 paragraphs long

[LilShootDawg]

And having them all spared in individual articles creates even more fragmentation.

What? How does it create fragmentation? It fragments the site layout and SURELY doesn't create consistency.

You do realize that we've discussed the last changes in the discussion pages, right? Also you do realize that we are only a few active members who are not vandalizing anything nor taking light decisions, right? You do realize that if needed the pages will be locked to force people to use the discussion pages to get to an agreement and so that a sysop can unlock the page, right?

main page change was discussed? no
also avoiding AlphaBeta's points? Yes

1. How many readers does have the wiki actually?

lol

2. How many readers do use an older OS/browser/technology to access the wiki?

I don't know
You don't know
You have to account for that.

5. We don't want articles of a quadrillion words long, that's why the builds that have more than 3 paragraphs about them will deserve an article, still don't get it?

It's called "exaggerations"
And you are still creating fragmentation and no consistency

6. A 5 MBPS connection loads perfectly fine the wiki. Anybody with a slower connection loads the wiki as slow as the forum itself, there are forum topics that take ages to load, even more than the largest article in the wiki.

yea but if you put every single other build in the OS page it takes more time to download the data which would be bigger

Where did I stated that every build is going to have an article for itself and to be inside of a larger article at the same time?
You misunderstood me:
The builds

• Are listed with a little description about them if they are no more than 3 paragraphs long
• Are listed only as a link to a bigger article if they have are more than 3 paragraphs long

That's called no consistency and fragmentation

[SistemaRayoXP]

Explain yourself, you are making conclusions out of nowhere but your thoughts, and I can't read minds yet

Do you even understand what do I mean with fragmentation?

List the points AlphaBeta did.

Users with older technologies can't access the wiki, because it needs certain stuff that only new tech has (HTTPS, HTML4 support, etc)

Explain how is it inconsistency and fragmentation. You are clearly just spitting out words without a base for them

What makes you think that wiki pages should be small? Wikis are for info. Even the largest wiki page would take less to download than what your average YouTube does.

Give real arguments that have basis, don't just spit words without a context or a reason.
EX PLAIN YOUR SELF

[LilShootDawg]

I literally just did. Also Alpha's points, "you can't lock a section of an article. so if you place it all in a single article and there is an edit war regarding a single build. the whole version/milestone article is paralyzed in the case of a lock."

[SistemaRayoXP]

And again, we are civilized people. If there's an editions war, it should be discussed in the page's discussion

You have not made clear your points. How does that make inconsistence? How is that more fragmentation?

Explain yourself with pears and apples, I still don't understand what do you mean

[MrBurgerKing]

Unleaked builds can go into their own section.

That creates fragmentation.

And having them all spared in individual articles creates even more fragmentation.

No, having half the builds in one place and half the builds in another is confusing. It's a better idea to organize consistently.

We are talking about different types of fragmentation, because we can't keep all the articles into only one page, some are way large to stay only in one page. It's easier to go this way for the readers, but putting every article in a dedicated page is easier for editors. And we must take in mind who is going to read the article too.

How is every build in one page easier for the readers? Some of them might be on older computers with slower internet. That would take AGES to load.

1. How many readers does have the wiki actually?
2. How many readers do use an older OS/browser/technology to access the wiki?
3. How are they even accessing the wiki if older technologies that would run slow are not able to run over HTTPS (Which the wiki requires)? how are they even reading anything if the wiki requires new browser capable of reading HTML4?
4. What makes you think that they can even access BetaArchive's forum if it's heavy enough in a slow internet connections?
5. We don't want articles of a quadrillion words long, that's why the builds that have more than 3 paragraphs about them will deserve an article, still don't get it?
6. A 5 MBPS connection loads perfectly fine the wiki. Anybody with a slower connection loads the wiki as slow as the forum itself, there are forum topics that take ages to load, even more than the largest article in the wiki.

I think that the wiki should strive for a clean, logical layout regardless. One huge central page is more cumbersome than a few separate pages. And to give some builds an article, but others a summary creates confusion.

It's easier to read about builds Milestone by Milestone rather than one by one. It improves navigation.

Then what's the point of listing every build if you are gonna skip over the majority. And it doesn't improve navigation. You can't just search for the build article in the search box and not have to scroll down 20 bajillion lines.

Where did I stated that every build is going to have an article for itself and to be inside of a larger article at the same time?
You misunderstood me:
The builds

• Are listed with a little description about them if they are no more than 3 paragraphs long
• Are listed only as a link to a bigger article if they have are more than 3 paragraphs long

Again, presenting half of the builds one way on one tree level and half the other way in a different level makes finding and updating stuff confusing.

Also, even if a build's page has only a few sentences, one major part of them is the screenshots. Consolidating everything onto a single page would either make it huge, or cause a loss of detail.

Personally, I think the best way to organize everything is to do both. Have a quick summary on a parent page, with a link to a daughter page with more info. It's also easier to reference from other pages.

[SistemaRayoXP]

@MrBurgerKing
You are referring to have a page per build + a "father" page that has every build listed with a little description and a link, no?

[Maza]

I am hoping that you are not just wanting to summarize as per your example with RS4 in the original post. I would much rather not have the legitimate contributions go down the proverbial drain. I believe that separate articles for builds are necessary because all of the information in a build cannot possibly be condensed into a summary without removing a vast majority of content, which actually defeats the purpose of the wiki in the first place.

[SistemaRayoXP]

I'm seeing some people agrees that we should have instead an article per build. So it's going to stay the same. But there are some points that can actually help. The summarizing example was meant only for builds with short info. While builds with a lot of info would get a little resume and a link to its own article.

However this plan has changed and the new plan is hard for me to explain right now (because I am on the phone). Tomorrow I will show you an example of what I have in mind. I'll link the page with the changes here, so everyone can tell me what do they think.

[AlphaBeta]

Having a summary of the entire development in the main article won't be a bad idea if it looks like the Development of Windows XP or Development of Windows Vista articles on the English Wikipedia. However, I believe that removing the individual pages would just create confusion.

Having a "ten sections rule" might discourage potential contributors, who don't write books on a daily basis. Another thing you don't seem to think of are screenshots - a build just might not be that interesting to deserve ten paragraphs of text, but might have introduced a major feature or a visual change - where would you put screenshots of that?

[SistemaRayoXP]

I never mentioned screenshots, but I thought in including all of them in a centralized place. And you are right with the paragraph rule. I think I'll change these things.

I was thinking on articles more like The Development of Windows Vista-style, where the info is resumed.

[WILSON2bGg]

Despite the wiki being equivlent to a student's messy desk, the build system is fine as it is. I don't believe we should fragment everything by separating unleaked and leaked. We are here since we are trying to preserve, not lose stuff. Separating would be doing a disservice to the overall goal of BA; preserving. EDIT: What is the point of preserving part of history? Thats what removing unleaked would do along with fragmenting.

[SistemaRayoXP]

My idea wasn't to delete anything. You all have misunderstood my earlier idea. The idea was to move stuff to different places, not to delete it. Example: all the information in the Whistler builds that have little info about them should be moved to a bigger Whistler Milestone X article, altogether with the screenshots and everything.

But with this raises a point to take in mind, a possible edition war. It could lead to a lock of the entire Milestone article, which would affect the other builds contained there too.

The leaked builds weren't going to be erased from the face of earth, they all would be moved to their own section. But I think this can be changed; instead all the unleaked and possible builds will be assigned into their own category.

The main idea was to reduce the amount of articles by moving the little info on little articles to bigger articles; this way all the info could make a bigger article, while on its own was article was just a stub.

But as I've said it was the idea. Now I see people not just didn't understood me, but also don't like this new structure. I am going to respect that. I just wanted to make clear my system and my points before getting a positive/negative answer from the community.

[WILSON2bGg]

Why did you call this topic "Help with wiki organisation" if you plan on moving everything into different places? That's what seperating unleaked from leaked would do. I don't think you understand that the build lists are really fine. Windows Vista and below really don't need to be touched

[WILSON2bGg]

Why did you call this topic "Help with wiki organisation" if you plan on moving everything into different places? That's what seperating unleaked from leaked would do. I don't think you understand that the build lists are really fine. Windows Vista and below really don't need to be touched

[SistemaRayoXP]

Again, I said it was before . The topic name includes any kind of restructuring, be it moving or renaming. At the end is organisation

When did I said I was going to do what? Everyone twists words to their convenience

[WILSON2bGg]

Well, I don't think much of that is really needed for Vista and below. Windows 7 and above need some serious work. MacOS needs pages.

Offtopic: wasn't trying to post 2 of that.