The wiki has lots of tutorial pages, but they are not very easy to get to. I propose a Template:Tutorial to be added, which could be on applicable pages. This could be placed under the infobox of most pages, or at the top of a section. I have created a draft at User:Plighting Engineerd/sandbox4 which takes a parameter for the tutorial name (for example, Defeating a monument), fits under infoboxes, works in dark and light mode, changes its title based on the namespace, and has a 'section' option. On the right, you can see how this template would look on its own as well as in the context of a page and a section.
A couple notes:
I created it as a template that could be on the right of the screen because the top of an article is already quite cluttered with various message boxes, while the right is more empty.
This template would not have to be added to articles for which the tutorials are not done or are stubs.
Update: I have made it so that on mobile, it displays as a much less intrusive hatnote-style message under the infobox, while on desktop, it stays to the side where there is space. See the image below:
👁 Image Strong support - This would help unexperienced users who can benefit from tutorials find them. This would also help make editors more aware of tutorials and hopefully (eventually) make the tutorials better. --Simanelix(T|C)19:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
👁 Image Comment You probably know my opinion on namespaces. And even though that "max 3 NS" myth has been invalided, I feel like that less is more.
This topic has been brought up so many times and we gathered so many responses to the point we can create some sort of documentary on how we've been discussing creation of the Tutorials namespace 😅. I know that over the years the situation has changed a lot, and some of the people participating in these discussions are long gone, while others are still here.
While I am still sceptical of the idea, I'll 👁 Image Weak support it, at least for some selected articles. However, there has to be an increase in accuracy, so I would be really grateful if we had some sort of style guide/clarification for tutorials. --TreeIsLife (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, now I've realized I misread tutorial template as namespace.
Anyway, my points are still valid. Tutorials need some sort of guidelines, and their quality has to improve, otherwise it doesn't make sense to promote "shitposts". I also think the template should be used only on select articles, with the tutorials being up to date. --TreeIsLife (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that links to tutorial pages should be more obvious, though I'm not sure if the current wording stands out too much. How should this handle articles that have multiple relevant tutorials (which admittedly is probably not many, but might be the case for some redstone pages)? –Sonicwavetalk18:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sonicwave: It seems like all of those cases of multiple articles per feature have an overview article (for example, Tutorials/Redstone and Tutorials/Advancement guide). Even if there is not an overview for a specific feature, either one could be created, or a seperate tutorial template could be put in 2 different sections of the feature's article. As for the wording of this template, could you elaborate on your concerns? 👁 Image plighting_engineerd (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
It's probably the exclamation mark that seems flashy to me, the mobile version's wording doesn't stand out as much. I share some of TreeIsLife's concerns about tutorials often being lower quality and containing more subjective information, and while this doesn't apply to all tutorials I'm not sure if they're good enough to "advertise" on the main article, rather than just adding links to. –Sonicwavetalk04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I removed the exclamation mark. Also, I made some draft documentation for this template which can be seen at User:Plighting Engineerd/sandbox4, and I've included a note about only adding this template to pages that have a tutorial of a good enough quality. I would have preferred a more objective criteria for that, but we don't have anything like a content assessment scale, but it is pretty easy to see which tutorials are good quality and which aren't at a glance. 👁 Image plighting_engineerd (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
