кто здесь объективно прав: Noug4at 11:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC+7:30)

What's wrong with the changes? The questionable is a highlighting of the text in a different color, indicating the opportunity of creating different game configuration. In addition, when you indicate your profile on another site, which is probably more like advertising. So I changed it to a link in your profile to VDC instead. (so that it is in the Wiki space;like in classic wiki) External links. You should look at how other similar pages are designed, what you are guided by when canceling such changes.

Besides, the information section is a rather inaccurate name where the details are listed. Please, if you cancel, explain your reasons or point out specifically what is doubtful. Because such behavior is unacceptable, because it does not allow us to understand anything.

In your article, I did some standardization, added a couple of templates and renamed the sections. I don’t see that you edited other tool pages besides yours. I just want to say that even if it is your own tool, you cannot apply your own rules to page about it. Just write what the problem is and we will find a compromise.



Drinkly 17:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I've rolled back all of your changes because I believe they're not improvements, but rather the opposite. The reason I didn't explain why I did this is that I consider it quite obvious. However, since you don't understand them, I will detail the reasons point by point below:

You renamed and moved the download links section to the very bottom, below the See also section. In my opinion, sections should be arranged in descending order of importance, and the section with download links cannot be less important than the See also section. Fancy infotables with their Download buttons were added not so long ago, so the average user will specifically look for the section with program download links. For the same reason, renaming the section to External links and changing the text of hyperlinks from "Download from ..." to "... mirror" can be misleading. Additionally, you also removed the quick link to this section, further complicating the process of downloading the program for those who aren't interested in reading about its features and information about it and who simply want to download it.

You changed the link to my Steam profile to a link to my profile on VDC, even though this link is necessary for users who've found any bugs in the program or have questions or suggestions regarding any features, to be able to contact me. There's no contact information in my VDC profile, so you completely removed the possibility of contacting me, as I visit VDC much less frequently than Steam. You may say that it was my oversight that there's no contact information in my VDC profile, but it's not necessary when it was on the page of my tool. Also, the fact that you called it advertising is completely illogical nonsense. Advertising what? Am I asking users to "subscribe" to my profile so I can somehow earn more money? Or is there some advertising in my profile for which I receive money? As I mentioned before, this link was a means to contact me, it can be considered an alternative to leaving an email address. Another argument against your action is that if someone created a tool page whose author is not registered on VDC, it would simply be impossible to leave a link to their VDC profile, so there's no point in doing so.

In the See also section, you replaced simple hyperlinks to the VIDE and Pakrat tools with corresponding templates ( VIDE and  Pakrat). Why didn't you do the same with all the tools on the Third Party Tools page? Either because your hands haven't reached there yet, or because it's clear that turning a simple and convenient list of links to tools into a colorful mishmash of icons and colors of different brightness and saturation, some of which blend with the background, will worsen the readability of the page. The See also section is the same Third Party Tools page, but smaller in size, so replacing hyperlinks with teamplates is not acceptable in this case.

You also highlighted the first line in the Usage with hammer section in bold, and I can't understand why. Perhaps it's because you removed an empty line between it and the subsequent list for some reason, and therefore decided to emphasize it. However, this disrupts the consistency of the page, as the beginning of the Options section looked similar to the beginning of the Usage with hammer section, with the first line having some text followed by an empty line, and now they look completely different. Additionally, removing empty lines in the latter mentioned section worsened its readability, as the text, having slightly different meanings, became concentrated in a smaller area.

You replaced the text stating that the user can create their own game configuration or edit existing ones with the tip template, and also noted that before editing, highlighting this text with a different color was doubtful. I somewhat agree that changing the text color is not a standard action, however, I resorted to it because the wiki's features, such as templates, could not make this information really stand out from the rest. Tip template appears less noticeable compared to text with changed color. Also, in the previous version, this hint was part of a list, which also subconsciously helped the user understand that the list of supported games is not limited to just these (three, at the moment) games.

And the last thing you changed was the title of the Information section. Renaming it to Details might not be helpful because the word Information covers a broader range of content than Details does. Details implies a narrower focus, possibly indicating specifics or finer points about the program. However, the section includes not only detailed aspects but also general information and instructions regarding the program's usage, requirements, and functionalities.

Nevertheless, considering this is the only page on the Internet describing this program, it gives me some authority to apply my own rules and preferences in terms of page formatting, especially since I believe they are more appropriate than yours. I hope you will reconsider your decision to rollback my rollback.

Tip:

Don't insist on being right about your changes if there are no globally accepted formatting rules for the wiki regarding some, if not all, of your changes.

Note:

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.




Noug4at 1:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC+7:30)

Regarding advertising, I have already made some clarifications so that the link to the creator of the program is in the Wiki space. This makes sense because you can list different ways to get in touch on your profile.

On Wikipedia, it is common practice to place external links after the "See Also" section. This is usually done to provide the reader with information related to the topic of the Wikipedia article initially, and then offer additional resources beyond that.

Regarding the "Information" section... Okay, maybe "details" are no better here. The title should clearly reflect the content of the section so that readers can easily understand what exactly they will find in this part of the article. For example, "Functions" would be more appropriate than "information," which is too generic and could refer to the entire article.

It's best to use standard formatting, such as italics or inline quotations, etc., to maintain a consistent style.

Otherwise, I agree that my changes, such as bolding the first sentence in the "usage hammer..." section/ Adding templates for Vide and Packrat , may have been unnecessary. Additionally, I didn’t design the external links section very correctly; it would have been more appropriate to create a sub-section called "Download."

I understand that there is some anarchy here in the VDC, but it seems to me that changes should be reverted with justification. Overall, you are mostly right, and I've noted the questions that remain.

P.S.: If the article already contains other colorful templates related to games, then replacing simple hyperlinks to the VIDE and Pakrat tools with corresponding templates seems like a logical step to maintain a consistent page design style...

Let's strive for uniformity in posting guidelines to ensure a standardized approach. There is no need to set any own rules, otherwise we will never get rid of this mess in the VDC, where each page has its own design principles.