Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From UFOpaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Site Backups: Reply to Mike.)
(484 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
__TOC__
+
'''Welcome To All Rookies'''
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
Quick nitty gritty gribbly grabbly notes:
 
  
−
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections.
+
This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them.  
−
* Strategy by terrain notes?
 
−
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map
 
−
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch?
 
  
 +
Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages.
  
−
::Blast! I must really remember to write my thoughts down here as often as possible. I've had many floaty lightbulb moments on what we're currently lacking/missing, and they're all gone.
+
For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.
  
−
::- [[User:NKF|NKF]]
+
To start a new topic simply press the '''edit''' button above. Then place your <nowiki>==Topic Name==</nowiki> like it is written here.
 +
* To add a line you can either type <nowiki>----</nowiki> or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen.
 +
* If replying to an existing topic use colons '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' before your answer
 +
* Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end.
 +
* Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the [[Guidelines to writing articles|guidelines]] page.
  
−
== Site Backups ==
+
That's it. Happy editing!
−
 
 
−
Ok, gents. Here's the scoop - straight from GazChap. The site is backed up every day, so there is basically no worry about losing everything if it should go down. The only thing that may be lost are transactions during that day when it is down. Normally there isn't much activity, but there is the occasional marathon editing session which some people partake in. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
 
−
----
 
−
The server hosting the UFOpaedia experienced a few issues over the weekend, but nothing major. However, I've decided that being reliant on a third-party backup service is foolhardy - consequently I'm going to be installing my own backup solution to the server soon (hopefully within the next few days) that will backup all user-submitted data. If anyone would like to volunteer to receive additional backups via e-mail (no point me just having backups, if I get knocked down by a bus we'd be stuffed ;) ) then please contact me at gazchap at gmail dot com. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)
 
 
----
 
----
  
−
If I could ask one necessary question on this score: Gaz (or others), what might we do, if the site goes down and we can't contact you? Who's the "backup" for you?
+
Old articles have been moved to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive]] for later perusal.
  
−
Why do I ask?
+
__TOC__
−
 
+
==Featured Projects on Sidebar==
−
In mid July the Europa Universalis 3 (EU3) wiki went down (and indeed its location at that time still [http://europa-universalis.kerak.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page is]). On the EU3 [http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314776&page=1&pp=20 forum], I (RedKnight7 there) kept asking when it would be back up. The forum regulars kept saying "the host is on vacation or something and will be back". To make a long story short, the wiki didn't come back up until two months later, at a different [http://www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Main_Page place]And I have yet to post a bunch of nice EU3 reference info because I moved on to other games in the meantime, in part because the wiki was down. (That was real sad because it was "prime time" for EU3... the game had recently come out, the wiki's down for weeks, and everybody's saying, "relax". So I relaxed on to other games.) Anyway. It still begs the question,
+
I was requested on Discord by user [[Ucross]] to add to the Featured Projects section of the sidebar the mod that he is working on called Long War Rebalance, which is a mod of Long War, and thus a mod of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and I refused the request for the same reasons I already presented below regarding the Piratez mod for OpenXCom.
−
 
+
It's arguable for the same reason that Long War shouldn't on that list for the same reason, it being a mod, but since Firaxis gave the official recognition to both Long Wars, and even gave support to Long War 2, that's the difference I see between Long War and all the other mods made for all XCom games, and thus worthy of recognition as significant contributions by and for the community. The same reason behind UFO2000, OpenXCom, OpenApoc and UFO:AI, they are all entire new XCom games built by teams of fans, and the first three are playable, and you can create mods for them. OpenXCom and OpenApoc are in active development.  
−
We luv you for hosting this, Gaz. But can we ask for fallback plans?
+
As for personal projects to be present on that section, I can think of a ton of projects related to XCom that would deserve to be there, and that would make that list endless an unpractical. And at the end, the objective of this wiki is to inform about the games. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
−
 
 
−
Ideas: Ask 2 or 3 of your bros, with server access (at work?), if they can be alternates. Then tell all the wiki admins who the alternates are (contact info) and instructions on just where the stuff is (in a way that makes sense to the alternates). OR, if you entirely trust 2 or 3 folks here give them the location, password, etc. OR, other possibilities are mirrors or access to site backups. OR maybe 2 or 3 wiki regulars are using a crawler (is that the word?) that regularly independently backs up the source. Or maybe even it can all be snagged off Google???
 
−
 
 
−
Something, somehow. For if the wiki goes down and we can't reach the host. It's good to cover all the bases. (Just like in a good game of XCOM.)
 
−
 
 
−
- [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Mike: GazChap and myself have been discussing this with Pete from StrategyCore for a while now. The idea is for StrategyCore to host the wiki so that backups are done on a consistent basis and would prevent downtime. (StrategyCore isn't going to disappear anytime soon, so by default, neither should the wiki if it is hosted by them). I'll have to get in touch with Pete again to see how far along he is in the process. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:43, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Slight problem with transclusion tables for main page ==
 
−
 
 
−
Folks, I've noticed a problem with the main transclusion tables for the main page when I was adding a few links to the UFO table.
 
−
 
 
−
The problem is that the tables are classed as ordinary pages. They certainly work with transclusion the same way the template pages do, but there are two problems that they create.
 
−
 
 
−
The first, and most prominent, is that actual main page doesn't update when updates are made to the individual tables. You have to have your browser perform a forced refresh to get the updates to show.
 
−
 
 
−
The second is that the templates aren't listed at the bottom of the edit box when you edit the main page. Having them listed would make it a convenient way to get to them rather than manually type the name into the address bar.
 
−
 
 
−
It's not a major problem, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I'll fix this later when I get a bit of free time. I a fix would just involve moving the tables into the template namespace. If not, well, I'll do a bit of cut and paste wizardry to make everything right.
 
−
 
 
−
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]
 
−
----
 
−
Apologies, yep template pages do update near-automatically so they are a better choice than transcluded pages. I noticed that when you move a page that has a link on the template page and subsequently edit the template to point to the new location that the links on the moved page will not refresh. You must perform a dummy edit on the pages with the template info to update the links accordingly. I'll have to check to see what happens if you rename a template link and then move the page. The same thing might happen. It depends on the software here and if it uses dynamic pointers. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 08:52, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Clean Up ==
 
−
 
 
−
It's just occurring to me that "Community" does not feature the main two actual forums (XCOMUFO and StratCore) that newbies might turn to, right up front. Also, this Discussion page has gotten way long.
 
−
 
 
−
Newbies need that Community connection, since that's the meaning of the word. Never mind that it can be found down around here somwhere, which even I can't find, right off. (It's why I came here, to show others examples of linking, but now I can't find where the heck the forums show up here.) Wikis should appeal to newbies heartily. Links to talk forums need to be "right there".
 
−
 
 
−
Could someone take a hand at making the forums highlighted for newbies. And also, such a dedicated person might cut down this Discussion page tons. The new Style page is a place to put some things.
 
−
 
 
−
Some thoughts - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 23:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
Well, I cut this page down. It was on my list of things to do in the near future anyway.
 
−
 
 
−
Ok, we have 2 "Community" pages right now: the [[UFOpaedia:Community_Portal|Community portal]] page (on the sidebar) and the [[Community]] page. The plain community page is buried at the bottom of the main page and contains the links to the forums. I'm thinking that we just get rid of the community page and add that info to the community portal instead. This way, the info is always near the top of the screen for quick access. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:14, 10 February 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==
 
−
Ok folks, we all seem to have our own ways of adding comments to a discussion page. The way it stands now, it becomes really difficult to follow a discussion when it is broken apart with different formats. What I suggest is this: when you leave a comment use a horizontal line to separate your post from the one(s) above it. In this manner, everything is left justified and the comments are separated. The reason why I do not support the colon as comment separation is that as the discussion progresses you are going to be adding more and more just to get the indenting correct. It also makes it confusing. Another side effect is that once you have a lot of colons present it pushes the text off the page itself and forces a scroll to the right to view. That isn't good.
 
−
 
 
−
I suppose if we really want to use colons as separators, we could alternate the use. If a comment is indented above yours, do nothing. If a comment is not indented, use a colon for your submission. Still, the constant zig-zagging isn't really the best idea either.
 
−
 
 
−
My vote is therefore to stick with the horizontal line (four dashes). If the discussion veers way off course, or if you have a couple questions/comments, break it apart into different headings. And always sign your post too as that makes it easier to follow.
 
−
 
 
−
Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
Works for me, Zombie. Another problem with indentation is that one isn't necessarily addressing only the previous comment, but it could be about the previous one, and tying together things that are 4, 6, ''and'' 12 entries back. Colons are fine for quick rejoinders, but not as a requirement. A potential alternative is to leave two blank lines, as I just did after your sig. This is a fairly clear delineator for folks scanning quickly. However, the horizontal separator is more clear, in general. So I guess I'd vote for the hor-sep for all except quick comments thrown in, which can use colons. And anything that's a new topic or big break should get a new topic, using = signs. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
----
 
−
 
 
−
I've reformatted [[Talk:Exploits#Extra_Ammo_Exploit]] to demonstrate how the indentation style ''can'' work, if done consistently.  I think it's somewhat better than the line-separator style for very long discussions, making the structure a little clearer.  However, if it's sometimes-used and sometimes-not things get messy, as you've noticed.
 
−
 
 
−
I'll codify the rules right here (surprisingly, they're not well-codified on Wikipedia itself, despite the fact that it's used quite consistently throughout the site):
 
−
 
 
−
*Add an indent for each reply
 
−
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:
 
−
 
 
−
First person's comment
 
−
 
−
:Second person's comment
 
−
 
−
::Third person's comment
 
−
 
−
:Second person again
 
−
 
−
::Third person again
 
−
 
−
::Third person's afterthought
 
−
 
−
:Second person again
 
−
 
−
::First person jumping back in
 
−
 
−
:::Third person once more
 
−
 
−
::First person again
 
−
 
 
−
*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).
 
−
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.
 
−
*If somebody doesn't know/doesn't use the right indent level, fix it when adding your next reply so the rules become clear during the course of conversation.
 
−
*Likewise, if someone adds a new comment to the top or fails to add a heading when starting a new subject, fix it when replying.
 
−
 
 
−
The problem we've had lately is the mixing of styles, neither being used correctly.  So far it seems that myself, Sf, and NKF have been using indents, you (Zombie) and Mike favoring dashes, and most newcomers failing to use either.  No clear winner just yet. ;-)
 
−
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
:What if you're addressing several and various issues raised before, not just a comment on the previous statement? (And it runs on for four or six paragraphs?) - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
::If you're consolidating a bunch of replies to several earlier points, that's a good time to reset the indent.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 01:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
== British vs. American spelling ==
 
−
 
 
−
:NKF Stealth note for authors or any nosy person reading the source: For those pedantic about the American/British English spelling of Armour/Armor, I used the British spelling because that's how it's spelt in the game when running it in the English text mode. This may not necessarily be the case for the other games in the series or earlier localized releases, but it is very much so in v1.4ce, hence why I'm sticking with it.  I'd also like to add that a section relating specifically for armour is required, with some sections regarding armour management, such as how its distributed and the particulars of armour recovery when a soldier dies or is fired (i.e. none). (Damnit, just added Category:Armor -HeckRuler)
 
−
 
 
−
:We should move this note to the top of the back of Main Page. English vs. USA doesn't matter. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
I moved the above two comments from within HTML comments on the [[Soldier]] page.  Might as well "have a discussion" about it, it's what we do.  Although I'm an American, I favor the in-game (British) spelling, wherever it appears (Plasma Defence, Armour, Cyberdisc, etc.).  I'm, um, pedantic. Or probably just anal-retentive.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 00:58, 10 March 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
: I'm in favour of the UK spelling scheme myself, only due to general preference and because UFO is in UK English (on the other hand, TFTD is in US English). However, I still like to think the spelling is interchangeable, and when it comes to the spelling of the actual article: redirects can do wonders! I actually left that note there as an afterthought in case some authors suddenly decide to do mass edits of the spelling, and others come along and revert the changes, and the whole process repeats itself. I mean, armor &rarr; armour &rarr; armor &rarr; smurf &rarr; armour &rarr; ad-infinitum. Not a nice thought. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]
 
−
 
 
−
It's probably a very small issue on this site regardless.  By comparison, Wikipedia has yet to implement any way for Commonwealth readers to see British spellings while American readers see US spellings.  Instead, they're sticking with the comical compromise of "the creator of the article fates whether it'll have British or American spelling for the rest of its days".  Maybe through Wikipedia's confusion the mother tongue will eventually merge back together. :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 02:24, 10 March 2007 (PST)
 
−
 
 
−
: Agreed. I'll try my best to use the British spellings, but when I get on a typing roll the American spelling is what comes to me first. I usually don't catch it either when I proof read. I'd say redirects would be the best solution, so 'Personal Armor' redirects to 'Personal Armour'. As far as the spelling in articles, I think it's pretty well known the two differences of spelling, though it could be a problem if an article switches back and forth from it alot.
 
−
 
 
−
: That said this affects maybe 3 or 4 Armour articles? I can't think of any other differences that would be in an article, at least as a main subject. Maybe the occasional colour or favour. --[[User:Pi Masta|Pi Masta]] 11:59, 10 March 2007 (PST)
 
−
----
 
  
−
If anybody is still caring about this: I say do what the Wikipedia does, and let the author do what they want. Except when you're tacking a little onto a page that's already big into one way of spelling; then stick to what it's using. I'm U.S. and just want to write, not spend time looking up possible British variants - I'm not even sure what they all are. There are even a lot of acceptable variants in U.S. English already, shrug.
+
: It still would be nice for players to be able to find all of the mods/projects that this wiki hosts.  What about something like: "Other Projects" where it's a page that lists all other projects occurring for other games? Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore me. =D  [[User:Ucross|Ucross]] ([[User talk:Ucross|talk]]) 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  
−
I like the Wikipedia rule since it focuses on getting stuff posted. Yet still in the case of XCOM, there is a real reason for letting British be the standard. I really don't care, but will use U.S. for much of my writing. Still if anybody wants to go through and re-write everything British, that's fine with me. The focus is, posting game info.
+
:: I am rather partial to this solution myself. The wiki does need to keep its main focus tight as far as its main content is concerned. But nothing says we cannot have a page that acknowledges and point to other projects of interest. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 04:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  
−
My two cents. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)
+
==Server Move==
 +
In the near future we're going to move to a new server (hosted by NineX) because of the constant site outages and other technical/security issues that have been affecting the wiki since the last year. NineX currently hosts the OpenXCom forums and site, so I feel that it will be a good move since the OpenXCom community has been the most active in keeping the old XCom games alive.
  
−
: Just do whatever you want MTR, that's how I've been going about it. If later you read through an article and spot these things and decide to change them, then so be it. It's just that it would be preferable for UFO to stick to its in-game language. The same goes for TFTD and Apocalypse, which use the US spelling - hence why I try to use armor for them, but often end up typing armour instead.  
+
However we're still not sure if we're gonna be able to keep the old domain (www.ufopaedia.org) or if it will be necessary to move to a new one, and ask everybody to update their links. We're trying to keep the old domain, but right now the choice is to be between keeping things as they currently are, or get the technical/security issues fixed and get back the wiki properly working, even if that means losing the domain and the traffic.
  
−
:I'm sure we all agree that US and British spelling is interchangeable so this issue isn't really a big one - until we get into little wars where one party is pro one variant of the language while the other party is pro another variant, and they end up at logger heads. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]
+
I personally prefer the 2nd option since we need a wiki that is 100% available for both consulting and editing information, like it did in the past. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 +
==Temporary Domain==
 +
We completed the server move thanks to NineX, who also upgraded the wiki's software. The process required that we moved temporarily to a new domain, ufopaedia.info, but we'll return to our old domain, ufopaedia.org, as soon as the process is complete. Thanks for your patience :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:40, 28 January 2018 (CET)
  
−
== MediaWiki upgraded. ==
+
Migration finished. ufopaedia.info is redirecting to ufopaedia.org.
 +
Mediawiki software have been upgraded to latest version , and whole site audited. [[User:NineX|NineX]] ([[User talk:NineX|talk]]), 13:27, 31 January 2018 (CET)
  
−
I've upgraded MediaWiki to the latest version, although I'm afraid I don't know how to prevent spamming etc. If anyone can point me in the direction of something about this I can take a look at it, but now that it's upgraded and I have backups I should be in a position to allow Pete at SC to take over hosting.
+
==Piratez in featured projects?==
 +
It seems out of place that piratez has it's own table on the UFOpedia, and uses (Piratez) to distinguish its own pages, but is not listed on the featured projects.  Going to add it if nobody objects.  The rationale for adding Long War in this talk pages history (Huge makeover of the original version) pretty much goes doubly so for piratez.  [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (CEST)
 +
:Only admins can edit Featured Projects. And I object to it.
 +
:I proposed to add Long War because it was the only major mod available to EU/EW, and even got recognition and compliments made by Firaxis (with Jake Solomon joking that he was the guy that designed LW's beta), which was then extended to hiring the LW team to make official XCOM 2 mods for the game's release. So LW is really something special that deserved to get its own recognition.
 +
:Piratez is just one of several total conversions available for OpenXCom, and the intent is not to list all mod projects on Featured Projects, Because then X-Files, Hardmode or Area 51 would also qualify, being also expansions on their own right, although without Piratez's popularity.
 +
:Not to mention that there are other current XCom games like XCOM 2 that have also their own mods. So, if Piratez is added, what happens if someone else from another XCOM game, or current projects being developed like OpenApoc, decides to ask for his major mod to be added?
 +
:The primary intent of this wiki is the XCOM games, and Featured Projects is a way to recognize the hard work and dedication of a few fan projects, OpenXCom being one of them - and if you add Piratez then you're basically saying that Piratez is at the same level as OpenXCom, when Piratez wouldn't exist if there wasn't OpenXCom to begin with.
 +
:Finally, pages with their own suffix (Whatever) don't necessarily translate into Featured Projects, check the existing Interceptor and the Enforcer pages, it's more of a matter of internal page categorization. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (CEST)
 +
::: Ah okay, but I'm not really convinced, this feels like a matter of scale.  I'm not trying to get it added as a featured project because I'm a fan, it just doesn't seem right to not have it there regardless of those reasons.  If you look at something like UFO:AI or OpenApoc, on the main featured bar, they're almost completed unupdated and tiny.  If the idea is that Piratez should have it's place on this wiki, and not on it's own wiki, then it really should have a place on the main page.  If it's not, why is it even on here with hundreds and hundreds of pages?  I type in just about any search for x-com related things and see a bunch of piratez pages in the autocomplete.  If X-Files, Hardmode, Area 51 had hundreds of pages on the wiki, I'd recommend adding them as well, though they don't.  Anyways, just my thoughts, I won't push this anymore.  [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:53, 6 May 2019 (CEST)
 +
:::Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan explains the argument more.  It The piratez main page is a huge presence on the wiki, and is essentially unaccessable on the wiki.  Which is just not what wikis are about. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:59, 6 May 2019 (CEST)
 +
:::: There are a lot of interesting points in your reply, that I'll try to answer separately to those, since some I have already considered myself.
 +
:::: UFO2000 and UFO:AI are dead projects, UFO2000 had its glory days more than 10 years ago (I was heavily involved with it) and it is playable (although hardly anyone plays it) and UFO:AI was never finished, so there's really an argument there whether both should still be on Featured Projects. OpenApoc on the other hand is actively being developed right now, they have their own Discord channel and it might take a while, but the general feeling is that one day it will reach 1.0 status, like OpenXCom did.
 +
:::: Piratez section on its wiki grew up by itself out of the OpenXCom until now, Dioxine or anyone ever asked permission, that I recall, but since we got the space and it is XCom related, no one objected, and the community is pretty supportive of each other's projects.  
 +
:::: If by Auto-Complete you mean Google's search bar then the reason why you get so much Piratez results associated with XCom is because it uses your past search history and page views. I don't get any Piratez results when I search for XCom things because I don't play Piratez (and I don't play LW or LW2 also, but I suggested that they should be added because of their importance).
 +
:::: And this brings me to another important point, which is that Piratez includes content that some people don't really think belongs in an XCom game, namely it being about space pirates, slaves and mutants against aliens, and with the nudity involved. I know it takes place in an alternate universe where XCom lost the war, but if Firaxis announced that XCOM 3 followed Piratez setting, there would be a huge fan backlash because XCom has almost always been about an international, semi-clandestine organization of humans fighting aliens, and never required nudity to be atractive. Piratez setting and aesthetics appeal to a lot of people but to a lot of others it doesn't, even inside the OpenXCom community.
 +
:::: And for instance, I'm the lead developer of Area 51 that was mentioned before, and while it expands the base UFO: Defense game like EW or LW did, if not more, I do not think it should be on Featured Projects because of all the reasons I mentioned before. As a developer I'd love it to be more publicized, but here I need to think first as a wiki administrator, and like I said before, this is an XCOM wiki since it was created 15 years ago, not an OpenXCom one. If this was a wiki dedicated to OXC, then Piratez, Area 51, Tech-Comm (another total conversion I'm working based on the Terminator universe), Warhammer 40k, Dune, and all other major projects, XCom based or not, would belong here, but it isn't.
 +
:::: Finally, we're not talking here about a single orphan article. Orphan articles mean that they can only be accessed by searching the wiki since there aren't any links to them anywhere. Piratez can be accessed through here https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Mods_(OpenXcom). The issue really is that you think Piratez should be more advertised on the wiki by adding it to Featured Projects, but as I said before, it is questionable whether it deserves to get that sort of attention on an XCOM wiki. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 05:37, 6 May 2019 (CEST)
 +
::::: Heh, well in any case, looks like someone else added it to featured projects about a year ago: it's just on the featured projects at the very bottom of the page, along with all the other featured projects but with piratez squeezed in haha.  Somewhat tangential but a bit on topic:  Maybe the front page should just have a section at the top listing all the relevant games on the wiki?  I remember like a decade ago when it was just the 1994 version/TFT and Apoc and the main page was very organized and clear, but it's really not now what with the tables of nearly every game on the wiki on the main page and some random lists in random places.  Case in point: Piratez is already considered a featured mod by someone and neither of us noticed until this point, nor did I know even enforcer or these other spinoffs existed that you mentioned earlier existed or were on the wiki at all.  In any case, glad to have talked this out.  [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 11:21, 6 May 2019 (CEST)
 +
::::: Bluh, one last point, I promise.  I think maybe your having made/worked on a huge mod might be influencing your decision: you make it sound like it'd be a bad thing if all OpenXcom mods were featured and I don't think this would even be bad at all.  E.g. a lot of games wikis list basically all the relevant large mods for the game in a very visible place.  Example: https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page has a link to a list of pretty much every major mod visible up front without needing to scroll down.  To me it just seemed odd specifically for piratez here since it also had a huge space on the wiki, but I don't see an issue with Area 51, Warhammer 40k, etc having a visible place.
  
−
: See my email Gaz. We'll get this fixed yet. The only problem I noticed with the upgrade is that the logo in the upper left isn't linked to the correct picture. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 07:32, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
+
== XCOM 2 section problems ==
  
−
:: Fixed the logo, and I've also added a CAPTCHA extension. You'll be prompted to enter two words if you try to: create a new account; add an external link using an anonymous account. I'm now going to look at trying to give Pete at SC FTP access to the server without inadvertently giving him access to everything else I have hosted on there. Sometimes I hate these web control panels.
+
Hi guys,
  
−
:: I've now e-mailed Pete with all the details he requires to take over hosting. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 12:19, 30 September 2007 (BST)
+
I've noticed that there's loads of problems in the XCOM 2 sections - misspellings, orphan pages, a lack of organisation, and so on. Even the term "MEC" was spelt wrong in a page title. I've been tackling a few of these issues, but I'm just thinking that this isn't worth having because Fandom have their own wiki at [https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/XCOM_Wiki] and they've got nearly everything down already.
  
−
:::Great job, Gaz. Thanks as always for your hosting!! - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:21, 12 October 2007 (PDT)
+
What are we trying to do here - dedicate this wiki to the old X-COM and a few mods (ahem, Long War), or adding in Firaxis's new XCOM grouping?
  
−
== XCOM Box Art ==
+
Just a question in editorial direction.
  
−
Someone (NKF? Danial?) once asked if anybody could scan XCOM's box art, so that they might e.g. put a better graphic on the main page. I just uploaded a 300 dpi scan of all four sides as [[Media:XCOM_UFO_Defense_DOS_US_Box_Art.zip]] (3.2 MB). The box is not in mint condition (see the ReadMe), but a little tweaking by somebody with skillz (Danial) could easily spruce it up. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)
+
--[[User:SpeedofDeath118|SpeedofDeath118]] ([[User talk:SpeedofDeath118|talk]]) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (CET)
 +
:I think the question is more, what are you interested in doing? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (CET)
  
−
: Was it me? Hmm. Can't remember. I did think to just grab the cover for the PDF version of the X-Com Player's Handbook (US version - with the Mars/Super Avenger cover), but it's black and white. Could've sworn I've seen a copy in colour somewhere. Not that sepia version wouldn't look great though!
+
::The Wiki was set up long before the reboot series, so you could say the classics were its original focus. However it would have been remiss to not accommodate the new games as they appeared. However the wiki thrives or declines entirely on the input of the people that make use of it. If the interest and willingness is there, the sections will grow. If not (looks at the early spinoff titles), then perhaps not so much. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (CET)
−
: Oh hang on, I don't think it was for the front page graphic in particular, but we did want to get various versions of the box art for the various games. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]
 
  
−
== Smart Quotes ==
+
== Enable dark mode theme? ==
  
−
Do we use them? When I write up articles in MS Word, it automatically uses "smart quotes," i.e., “this.” I can imagine that there could be some benefit to keeping it all consistent.
+
Would it be possible to add a dark mode option to this wiki? Something like these:
 +
https://help.fandom.com/wiki/Converting_to_hydradark
 +
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless/DarkCSS
  
−
[[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 17:48, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
+
I see a "Skin" option when I navigate to Preferences > Appearance (https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering ), but no options other than the default appear.
 +
-[[User:JimmAYY2|JimmAYY2]] ([[User talk:JimmAYY2|talk]]) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:38, 23 October 2021

Welcome To All Rookies

This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them.

Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages.

For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.

To start a new topic simply press the edit button above. Then place your ==Topic Name== like it is written here.

  • To add a line you can either type ---- or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen.
  • If replying to an existing topic use colons : before your answer
  • Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  • Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the guidelines page.

That's it. Happy editing!

Old articles have been moved to Talk:Main Page/Archive for later perusal.

Featured Projects on Sidebar

I was requested on Discord by user Ucross to add to the Featured Projects section of the sidebar the mod that he is working on called Long War Rebalance, which is a mod of Long War, and thus a mod of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and I refused the request for the same reasons I already presented below regarding the Piratez mod for OpenXCom. It's arguable for the same reason that Long War shouldn't on that list for the same reason, it being a mod, but since Firaxis gave the official recognition to both Long Wars, and even gave support to Long War 2, that's the difference I see between Long War and all the other mods made for all XCom games, and thus worthy of recognition as significant contributions by and for the community. The same reason behind UFO2000, OpenXCom, OpenApoc and UFO:AI, they are all entire new XCom games built by teams of fans, and the first three are playable, and you can create mods for them. OpenXCom and OpenApoc are in active development. As for personal projects to be present on that section, I can think of a ton of projects related to XCom that would deserve to be there, and that would make that list endless an unpractical. And at the end, the objective of this wiki is to inform about the games. Hobbes (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It still would be nice for players to be able to find all of the mods/projects that this wiki hosts. What about something like: "Other Projects" where it's a page that lists all other projects occurring for other games? Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore me. =D Ucross (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I am rather partial to this solution myself. The wiki does need to keep its main focus tight as far as its main content is concerned. But nothing says we cannot have a page that acknowledges and point to other projects of interest. NKF (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Server Move

In the near future we're going to move to a new server (hosted by NineX) because of the constant site outages and other technical/security issues that have been affecting the wiki since the last year. NineX currently hosts the OpenXCom forums and site, so I feel that it will be a good move since the OpenXCom community has been the most active in keeping the old XCom games alive.

However we're still not sure if we're gonna be able to keep the old domain (www.ufopaedia.org) or if it will be necessary to move to a new one, and ask everybody to update their links. We're trying to keep the old domain, but right now the choice is to be between keeping things as they currently are, or get the technical/security issues fixed and get back the wiki properly working, even if that means losing the domain and the traffic.

I personally prefer the 2nd option since we need a wiki that is 100% available for both consulting and editing information, like it did in the past. Hobbes (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Temporary Domain

We completed the server move thanks to NineX, who also upgraded the wiki's software. The process required that we moved temporarily to a new domain, ufopaedia.info, but we'll return to our old domain, ufopaedia.org, as soon as the process is complete. Thanks for your patience :) Hobbes (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2018 (CET)

Migration finished. ufopaedia.info is redirecting to ufopaedia.org. Mediawiki software have been upgraded to latest version , and whole site audited. NineX (talk), 13:27, 31 January 2018 (CET)

Piratez in featured projects?

It seems out of place that piratez has it's own table on the UFOpedia, and uses (Piratez) to distinguish its own pages, but is not listed on the featured projects. Going to add it if nobody objects. The rationale for adding Long War in this talk pages history (Huge makeover of the original version) pretty much goes doubly so for piratez. Greep (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (CEST)

Only admins can edit Featured Projects. And I object to it.
I proposed to add Long War because it was the only major mod available to EU/EW, and even got recognition and compliments made by Firaxis (with Jake Solomon joking that he was the guy that designed LW's beta), which was then extended to hiring the LW team to make official XCOM 2 mods for the game's release. So LW is really something special that deserved to get its own recognition.
Piratez is just one of several total conversions available for OpenXCom, and the intent is not to list all mod projects on Featured Projects, Because then X-Files, Hardmode or Area 51 would also qualify, being also expansions on their own right, although without Piratez's popularity.
Not to mention that there are other current XCom games like XCOM 2 that have also their own mods. So, if Piratez is added, what happens if someone else from another XCOM game, or current projects being developed like OpenApoc, decides to ask for his major mod to be added?
The primary intent of this wiki is the XCOM games, and Featured Projects is a way to recognize the hard work and dedication of a few fan projects, OpenXCom being one of them - and if you add Piratez then you're basically saying that Piratez is at the same level as OpenXCom, when Piratez wouldn't exist if there wasn't OpenXCom to begin with.
Finally, pages with their own suffix (Whatever) don't necessarily translate into Featured Projects, check the existing Interceptor and the Enforcer pages, it's more of a matter of internal page categorization. Hobbes (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (CEST)
Ah okay, but I'm not really convinced, this feels like a matter of scale. I'm not trying to get it added as a featured project because I'm a fan, it just doesn't seem right to not have it there regardless of those reasons. If you look at something like UFO:AI or OpenApoc, on the main featured bar, they're almost completed unupdated and tiny. If the idea is that Piratez should have it's place on this wiki, and not on it's own wiki, then it really should have a place on the main page. If it's not, why is it even on here with hundreds and hundreds of pages? I type in just about any search for x-com related things and see a bunch of piratez pages in the autocomplete. If X-Files, Hardmode, Area 51 had hundreds of pages on the wiki, I'd recommend adding them as well, though they don't. Anyways, just my thoughts, I won't push this anymore. Greep (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2019 (CEST)
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan explains the argument more. It The piratez main page is a huge presence on the wiki, and is essentially unaccessable on the wiki. Which is just not what wikis are about. Greep (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2019 (CEST)
There are a lot of interesting points in your reply, that I'll try to answer separately to those, since some I have already considered myself.
UFO2000 and UFO:AI are dead projects, UFO2000 had its glory days more than 10 years ago (I was heavily involved with it) and it is playable (although hardly anyone plays it) and UFO:AI was never finished, so there's really an argument there whether both should still be on Featured Projects. OpenApoc on the other hand is actively being developed right now, they have their own Discord channel and it might take a while, but the general feeling is that one day it will reach 1.0 status, like OpenXCom did.
Piratez section on its wiki grew up by itself out of the OpenXCom until now, Dioxine or anyone ever asked permission, that I recall, but since we got the space and it is XCom related, no one objected, and the community is pretty supportive of each other's projects.
If by Auto-Complete you mean Google's search bar then the reason why you get so much Piratez results associated with XCom is because it uses your past search history and page views. I don't get any Piratez results when I search for XCom things because I don't play Piratez (and I don't play LW or LW2 also, but I suggested that they should be added because of their importance).
And this brings me to another important point, which is that Piratez includes content that some people don't really think belongs in an XCom game, namely it being about space pirates, slaves and mutants against aliens, and with the nudity involved. I know it takes place in an alternate universe where XCom lost the war, but if Firaxis announced that XCOM 3 followed Piratez setting, there would be a huge fan backlash because XCom has almost always been about an international, semi-clandestine organization of humans fighting aliens, and never required nudity to be atractive. Piratez setting and aesthetics appeal to a lot of people but to a lot of others it doesn't, even inside the OpenXCom community.
And for instance, I'm the lead developer of Area 51 that was mentioned before, and while it expands the base UFO: Defense game like EW or LW did, if not more, I do not think it should be on Featured Projects because of all the reasons I mentioned before. As a developer I'd love it to be more publicized, but here I need to think first as a wiki administrator, and like I said before, this is an XCOM wiki since it was created 15 years ago, not an OpenXCom one. If this was a wiki dedicated to OXC, then Piratez, Area 51, Tech-Comm (another total conversion I'm working based on the Terminator universe), Warhammer 40k, Dune, and all other major projects, XCom based or not, would belong here, but it isn't.
Finally, we're not talking here about a single orphan article. Orphan articles mean that they can only be accessed by searching the wiki since there aren't any links to them anywhere. Piratez can be accessed through here https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Mods_(OpenXcom). The issue really is that you think Piratez should be more advertised on the wiki by adding it to Featured Projects, but as I said before, it is questionable whether it deserves to get that sort of attention on an XCOM wiki. Hobbes (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2019 (CEST)
Heh, well in any case, looks like someone else added it to featured projects about a year ago: it's just on the featured projects at the very bottom of the page, along with all the other featured projects but with piratez squeezed in haha. Somewhat tangential but a bit on topic: Maybe the front page should just have a section at the top listing all the relevant games on the wiki? I remember like a decade ago when it was just the 1994 version/TFT and Apoc and the main page was very organized and clear, but it's really not now what with the tables of nearly every game on the wiki on the main page and some random lists in random places. Case in point: Piratez is already considered a featured mod by someone and neither of us noticed until this point, nor did I know even enforcer or these other spinoffs existed that you mentioned earlier existed or were on the wiki at all. In any case, glad to have talked this out. Greep (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2019 (CEST)
Bluh, one last point, I promise. I think maybe your having made/worked on a huge mod might be influencing your decision: you make it sound like it'd be a bad thing if all OpenXcom mods were featured and I don't think this would even be bad at all. E.g. a lot of games wikis list basically all the relevant large mods for the game in a very visible place. Example: https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page has a link to a list of pretty much every major mod visible up front without needing to scroll down. To me it just seemed odd specifically for piratez here since it also had a huge space on the wiki, but I don't see an issue with Area 51, Warhammer 40k, etc having a visible place.

XCOM 2 section problems

Hi guys,

I've noticed that there's loads of problems in the XCOM 2 sections - misspellings, orphan pages, a lack of organisation, and so on. Even the term "MEC" was spelt wrong in a page title. I've been tackling a few of these issues, but I'm just thinking that this isn't worth having because Fandom have their own wiki at [1] and they've got nearly everything down already.

What are we trying to do here - dedicate this wiki to the old X-COM and a few mods (ahem, Long War), or adding in Firaxis's new XCOM grouping?

Just a question in editorial direction.

--SpeedofDeath118 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (CET)

I think the question is more, what are you interested in doing? Hobbes (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (CET)
The Wiki was set up long before the reboot series, so you could say the classics were its original focus. However it would have been remiss to not accommodate the new games as they appeared. However the wiki thrives or declines entirely on the input of the people that make use of it. If the interest and willingness is there, the sections will grow. If not (looks at the early spinoff titles), then perhaps not so much. NKF (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (CET)

Enable dark mode theme?

Would it be possible to add a dark mode option to this wiki? Something like these: https://help.fandom.com/wiki/Converting_to_hydradark https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless/DarkCSS

I see a "Skin" option when I navigate to Preferences > Appearance (https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering ), but no options other than the default appear. -JimmAYY2 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=103953"