Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From UFOpaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New section: MediaWiki upgraded.)
m ((added user name etc. to my addition so you all know who I am :P))
Line 121: Line 121:
== MediaWiki upgraded. ==
== MediaWiki upgraded. ==
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.
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. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 11:00, 28 September 2007 (BST)

Revision as of 10:01, 28 September 2007

Quick nitty gritty gribbly grabbly notes:

  • Template navigation toolbars for subsections.
  • 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?

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.

Site Backups

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. ;)--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. --GazChap 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)

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.


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. --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 - 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 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. --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.--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. - 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. ;-) --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?) - 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.--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. - 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.--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 → armour → armor → smurf → armour → ad-infinitum. Not a nice thought. - 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. :-) --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. --Pi Masta 11:59, 10 March 2007 (PST)

MediaWiki upgraded.

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. --GazChap 11:00, 28 September 2007 (BST)