View source for Forum:Guide namespace

{{Forumheader|Redwood Grove|name=Guide namespace|subject=|notes=|closure=allow|archive=true|date=20 May 2023 04:30|user=BigDiesel2m|type=community}}

<!-- Please put your content under this paragraph.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~᠎~ ~᠎~ -->
'''TL;DR: Let's make a Guide namespace with relaxed style and formatting guidelines to make it easier for people to put information on the wiki for people to see and collaborate on.'''

Right now, most strategy pages on the wiki aim to provide a nicely-formatted guide on how to do certain things, with the text itself being aimed at a wide range of players and styled in a reasonably professional way as per [[RS:STYLE]]. This is a fine approach, but there's a wealth of knowledge about niche techniques, high-level strategies, or more in-depth routes that don't end up on these pages. This information is instead spread across a ton of disparate sources like specific Discord servers, private Google Docs, YouTube videos (sometimes unlisted), etc. '''I propose we create a Guide namespace with relaxed style and formatting guidelines to encourage people to put this information on the wiki, where it can be more visible to people who want to see it and easier to collaborate on for people who want to contribute to it.'''

In the past, we've reached out to some of these communities to try and work with them on putting info on the wikis, but most of these projects haven't really materialized into any meaningful content. One of the biggest hurdles is the formatting and prose standards we like to hold our mainspace pages to, as this adds an extra layer of friction to the process. When these projects do succeed, it's mostly because one person (either a regular editor or a very invested outside person) take an inordinate amount of time to reformat this information to match the existing wiki, which isn't a very common occurrence.

I think our goal with the Guide namespace would be to set the metaphorical bar quite low, and focus more on getting the information onto the wiki than formatting it in any way. If someone wants to just copy+paste info from their Discord onto a Guide page, then that's totally fine. If they wanted to have images that might not meet the standards we expect on mainspace pages, we'd just slap a <nowiki>{{Guide image}}</nowiki> template onto the file and call it good. '''As long as people aren't breaking any rules or doing anything wildly obscene, they'd be free to write and format the pages however they please.'''

From the wiki side of things, the benefits of getting this information onto the site are pretty clear, as there will undoubtedly be information contained within these guides that can be applied to other mainspace pages or more general guides. It would also encourage people to start editing the wikis at a very basic level, and put us into contact with experts on various parts of the game that otherwise wouldn't interact with the wider community. '''From the technical side of the things, we'd obviously need to make the namespace, but beyond that it wouldn't be a ton of work. We would want to look into a good way to embed YouTube videos or other MP4s into a page, and maybe some permissions stuff if certain groups want to limit access to who can edit their guides.'''

==Comments==
I think this would significantly increase our ability to get niche information and more specific guides onto the wiki, where it can be seen and improved far easier than on the many different places that information ends up right now. It would also encourage novice editors and subject matter experts alike to try their hand at editing the wiki, without having to worry about fitting a somewhat rigid definition of what a "wiki guide" should look like. Support. [[User:BigDiesel2m|BigDiesel2m]] ([[User talk:BigDiesel2m|talk]]) 04:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

We Do Raids discord admin here. Our discord is, as far as I know, the largest OSRS discord server by active users. We primarily focus on the OSRS raids but also have the most comprehensive Inferno guide available anywhere. We would like to put our guides on the wiki, but our teaching methods are not necessarily within the style of existing wiki guides. This would be a nice way to get our gear/boss advice available publicly without otherwise spoiling the main wiki namespace.

It is a shame that the best guides are available only via discords (a medium that is not public nor conducive to updates) and youtube videos (which are public but cannot be updated). A wiki is a much better repository for guides. That said, the OSRS Wiki guides target casual players and I feel uncomfortable making changes to existing guides to fit modern methods with BiS gear when I know very few readers of the wiki have the gear and are capable of using/willing to use efficient methods. It feels Sisyphean to hazard changes to wiki guides for better options when they are de-prioritized for simpler/slower methods. A namespace where I am allowed to use less conventional formatting, embed longer videos, include pictures from third party clients, and dedicate an entire page to a single method for an encounter ''will'' get me to use the wiki for our already well received guides. [[User:Qhp|Qhp]] ([[User talk:Qhp|talk]]) 05:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello from the Barbarian Assault community (yes, that exists)! I agree with everything BigDiesel said above; we would benefit immensely from wiki integration (outside of the [[Barbarian Assault/Strategies]] page, which ngl is already a bit of a meme in the community). The BA meta is nothing short of a rabbit hole, and there are literally hundreds of pages of community-generated documentation out there, ''if you know where to look''. Currently, the majority of our (most up-to-date) guides are housed in various Google Docs, YouTube videos, forum posts, etc., with the only real aggregation of these resources being Discord servers. But aggregation without organization ultimately turns these "guides" more into infodumps that are difficult for beginners to navigate and digest, ironically alienating their intended audience. Additionally, not having public edit access to these resources inevitably runs into maintainability issues, as guide makers come and go from the community (or worse, if things get deleted). Transcribing years' worth of community knowledge into a wiki format from scratch is certainly going to require a lot of work (and community feedback), but this will also be a valuable opportunity for us to reorganize everything from the ground up in much more granular, modular, and accessible ways. Big support! [[User:Jlambs|Jlambs]] ([[User talk:Jlambs|talk]]) 06:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

'''Support''' - second best thing we can do, right behind de-Fandoming GameFAQs. {{Signatures/InvalidCards}} 07:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

'''Support''' - Moving information off of mediums that are not easy to access, have poor ability to update, and are less available to the input of everyone has been a major interest of mine for a while both as a player and an editor. As time goes on and guides develop I think we can collectively decide what we want to do, but the biggest thing of all holding back progress is simply getting text on the wiki, which is why this should happen and it should be [[RS:UCS]] for rules. Style guide adherence is nice, but I would not even recommend it if it gets in the way of adding information. Guides/info for content are the biggest lacking thing on the wiki and this is the best way to get them started. {{User:Fjara/Signature}} 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Also in case Gau is not able to comment on here, from discord messages he suggested "the namespace should be "UserGuide" or something like that" {{User:Fjara/Signature}} 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

'''Comment and Support''' - I feel like there will start to be confusion between mainspace guides and Guide namespace guides. Therefore I would prefer the new namespace to be something akin to UserGuide: or something. This makes the distinction between the official guides and the user guides more clear. Otherwise I support. [[User:Gau Cho|Gau Cho]] ([[User talk:Gau Cho|talk]]) 00:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
:I've been thinking about the name for this namespace a lot. "Guide" is the simplest, easiest to understand, and probably the best from the SEO perspective, which is relevant when one of the selling points of this namespace is increased visibility for the information. "User Guide" (camelcase is ugly and also bad for SEO, so I'd want a space in the namespace title regardless) fits the more casual vibe of the namespace, which feels more like an extension of userspace (with its relaxed style guidelines and more flexible customization) than an extension of mainspace. However, I think "User Guide" reads a bit weird when in theory we want these guides to be editable by many different users. We could split the difference with a namespace like "Community Guide", which I think does an okay job of distinguishing the page as being different from a regular wiki guide, without some of the odd connotations of "User Guide". Anybody else have thoughts on this? [[User:BigDiesel2m|BigDiesel2m]] ([[User talk:BigDiesel2m|talk]]) 07:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

'''Support''' - I think this will serve as a great way for folks to experiment and make guides, some of which could lead to the movement out of this separate namespace and back to main. Additionally, I second what Gau mnentioned with naming, UserGuide: seems great. --{{User:Legaia 2 Pla/Signature}} 22:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

'''Support''' – I think this is a great initiative, allowing communities with specialised knowledge to manifest themselves on the wiki in a fashion as streamlined or byzantine as they see fit. I look forward to the obscure guides on speedrun routes to Zamorak's teddybear in the Slayer Tower, how to prod infected sheep across the White Wolf Mountain, efficient Scrubfoot sled racing and one-note-per-tick clan hall piano technique. And high-level PvM guides would be cool too I guess. [[User:Ostentatio|Ostentatio]] ([[User talk:Ostentatio|talk]]) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

'''Question – Would communities be given the option to curate the contents of their guides through the restriction of editing access, or to what extent would the pages in the guide namespace be subject to the regular practice of community editing?''' As I understand it, the value of some repositories of information outside of the wiki consists in part out of their highly curated nature, whether it be equipment lists or descriptions of methods, often composed by one or several members who are generally regarded as authoritative sources. Hence if a community would wish to restrict editing to a page in the guide namespace to a limited group of editors, would they be given the means to do so? (So for example, if this would be deemed proper, could someone watching the recent changes queue be able to tell if an edit to a guide page was made by someone from a limited group?)
:According to what was discussed in Discord, editing restrictions wouldn't be considered unless there was a reason to start doing so. I think we are reasonable at catching vandalism and they can very easily tell us if someone is repeatedly messing something up. If there is a concerted effort to "ruin" one of the pages, then I think it would be considered. Could also include talk page reference at the top saying FAQ/issues or whatever to redirect common issues or whatever to the talk page {{User:Fjara/Signature}} 17:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
'''Question – To what degree would the pages in the guide namespace be kept separate from mainspace pages, or in what instances would it be appropriate to link to a guide page from a mainspace article?''' Given the proposed laxer standard for a guide transposed on the wiki, the transition from the one to the other could occasionally be quite abrupt, or as Gau Cho put it, confusing. On the other hand, if they are kept fully isolated, some of the benefits a wiki can provide in terms of accessibility and visibility is lost. Would it for instance be acceptable to link to guides on a strategy subpage, or could some other compromise be found?

:The {{T|HasStrategy}} template can probably be adapted pretty easily to allow a parameter for linking to user guides from the main topic page. Probably the biggest hurdle there is making it distinct and look good at the same time. Could probably phrase the prose for something with both along the lines of "'''This article has a wiki {{Colour|#87b9f6|strategy guide}} and a user {{Colour|#87b9f6|strategy guide}}.'''" Alternatively, a separate template could be made, but I think using the same one is preferable to keep wiki guides and user guides grouped together. Also, '''Support''' -- [[User:F-Lambda|F-Lambda]] ([[User talk:F-Lambda|talk]]) 02:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
:I would personally only put links on strategy pages at most, but not on the primary pages. {{User:Fjara/Signature}} 17:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

'''Support''' - This would be great. Although, as someone who primarily edits by doing anti-vandalism, I'd love to hear some thoughts on how we can enforce a specific group being "allowed" to edit community-specific guides. I expect we're not going to create whitelists that just disallow every other editor, after all maintenance work would still need to be done by "regular" editors on these pages regardless of the content on them. {{User:Crow/Signature}} 08:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:Forgot to add, I have no strong feelings on the name, although there might be an argument that we'd want out current guides in a future "Guide" namespace, but that's prob not worth arguing about since that's not a thing at this moment and might never be a thing anyways {{User:Crow/Signature}}

'''Support''' - I've finally been spurred on by the recent reddit discussions on the wiki's strategy pages to actually remember to post my thoughts on this topic. I think that a new namespace with relaxed formatting standards would be quite helpful in broadening the usefulness of the wiki's guides. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot of sentiments elsewhere in the OSRS community that the wiki's guides don't always appropriately address the super bare minimum  for what's viable for an activity or the really advanced techniques a lot of higher level players seeking high efficiency are after. These players tend to look elsewhere for their content, whether that's someone's YouTube channel, a Discord server like WDR, or somewhere else. Partnering with these resources, or just opening up a more relaxed namespace for this information to be posted would help quite a bit in making the wiki an even better player resource.

Re: The name to use for the namespace - I'm personally a fan of "Community Guide" as it helps clearly mark the distinction between mainspace strategy pages and that's a good distinction to make if standards are being relaxed. I would also propose adding a header template to put on these pages, with a note marking them as being community pages with different standards than the wiki as a whole, and potentially mentioning a community that we worked with to get a specific guide written. While "User Guide" is a more concise name to use, I worry it could lead to confusion with some of the guides that have been included as part of various people's userpages, such as [[User:Pharros/Zulrah/Strategies/Mage_Only]].

Re: Linking to community guides from topic pages - I agree with Fjara on this count, and I think linking to community guides on strategy guides but not on main pages is probably the move. Instead of modifying the {{T|HasStrategy}} template, maybe there could be a "HasCommunityGuides" template to add a header that links to any relevant guide(s).

<del>Re: Limiting access to editing these guides - '''Strong oppose''' - If a community puts out a guide and wants to maintain a certain standard above and beyond whatever the agreed minimum guidelines end up being for this new namespace, it should be on the members of that community to police that. In my eyes, locking out others from editing feels decidedly un-wikilike and goes against [[RS:OWN]] and [[RS:AEAE]].</del> [[User:Duralith|Duralith]] ([[User talk:Duralith|talk]]) 17:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:<del>'''Comment on my last point above''' - Regarding the last point of my earlier post, I suppose I was really bad at conveying the point I was trying to make. Ultimately I'm not a particularly big fan of the idea of locking the ability to edit community guides to members of that community, although I recognize that such communities will likely want some sort of control over guides they've put their name on. I'm not personally sure what a good compromise between the two would be. [[User:Duralith|Duralith]] ([[User talk:Duralith|talk]]) 22:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)</del>

Now that I've spent a bit more time in the broader wiki community as a whole, I'd like to amend parts of my above comment to a '''Support''' - I think this would bring a lot of really solid content to the wiki that's currently missing, in a way that would still preserve things being friendly to more casual players. While I do still have some concerns about how the list of editors who could edit what pages in that namespace per Crow above, that might have to be something that gets worked out as needed. [[User:Duralith|Duralith]] ([[User talk:Duralith|talk]]) 00:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

'''Closed''' - The namespace has been created, with the project outlined at [[RuneScape:Supplemental Guides]]. Thank you to everyone who gave their feedback, suggestions, and technical support to make this happen! [[User:BigDiesel2m|BigDiesel2m]] ([[User talk:BigDiesel2m|talk]]) 04:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)