Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"
|Line 17:||Line 17:|
:[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:10, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
:[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:10, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
== Site TODOS ==
== Site TODOS ==
Revision as of 13:03, 16 August 2009
- 1 Translation?
- 2 Site TODOS
- 3 Discussion/talk page proposed format
- 4 British vs. American spelling
- 5 XCOM Box Art
- 6 Favicon
- 7 Technical Commentaries
- 8 Game Editors
- 9 Newb questions
- 10 same questions
- 11 Regarding image file formats
- 12 Hosting move.
- 13 500 Internal error
- 14 Proposed top level links
- 15 Terminology
- 16 Humor and Flavour Text
- 17 XML dumps available?
- 18 Stats & Purchasing Options
I just found this ufopaedia and now I'm spending most of my time at work here :-)
In Uruguay there is a very small X-Com community, and AFAIK, I'm the first one to find this site. I was thinking about translating the articles to spanish (very slowly), since most players around here are not familiar with the advanced "tips and tricks". I could also post about the rather poor game translation. Do you think it could be worth it?
Diegoba 06:38, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
- Hi Diegoba. I think those are great ideas. You could even work on an improved SPANISH.DAT. Hobbes posts here frequently and I believe he did the Spanish translation for XcomUtil. If you were translating Wiki pages, I wonder which pages should be translated first? We would need to think about how to structure it. Maybe an /en and an /es path, like Wikipedia does it?
- Spike 13:10, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
Having the /en /es path sounds good. I was thinking about leaving the pages with the most basic info (IE, Geoscape / Base screen description) for the last. I believe that anyone already knows this basics, and are not that hard to understand.
But I really don't know how to get it started. Do I just create an article called "pagina principal" (main page) and then link from there? I guess that page can then be mapped to es.ufopaedia.org
A general dump of to-dos or maybe not-do's. Add any where appropriate:
- Template navigation toolbars for subsections. (Some tests have started)
- 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?
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)
- Works for me, Eth - MikeTheRed 16:47, 9 November 2007 (PST)
British vs. American spelling
Summary: Use which ever convention you want. It does not matter as long as you do not get into petty spelling convention battles.
XCOM Box Art
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. - MikeTheRed 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)
- 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!
- 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. - NKF
NKF - or anybody - can we consider replacing the current main page art, with the XCOM box art? Or a portion of it. I loved the game's intro and in-game "cartoon art", but why not use the game's best image, for our primary Main Page image? (Is there somebody with skills that can clean it up quickly? I'm happy to, but I'm no pics wizard.)About X-COM: UFO Defense...
- I have a sneaking suspicion that we get a ton of lurkers (someone who is there but never speaks) who once played X-COM and came across our page by chance, and would like to relive it, if even for a few screencaps... yet as it is now, our site is becoming more of an in-depth encyclopedia, instead of a "you were once here" kind of place. All us hard core players gravitate toward the encyclopedia - but even if folks who once played it don't stay, if they say, "wow, I remember doing all that" based on a stack of screenshots, that would be good. I'm thinking of easy sections that are light on text (and no Ufopaedia info), but heavy on thumbnails and click-on screencaps (see the image to the right - I love that financier in the background) like:
- My first base - Decisions
- The Globe - Radar alert!
- First contact! Small farm in Iowa, USA
- Managing Research
- Terror in Sydney! (include zombies - squad wiped out - see next)
- Headline: World Council generally supports X-COM efforts - subheadline - Australia may now be under the control of aliens (funding results for a month)
- Headline: X-COM squad impacted by "Blaster bomb" - the world cries (before and after pix)
- The tricky depths of a Battleship
- Elite squad Mind Controls all aliens
- Final showdown: Cydonia
- Each of the sections above might have 1-5 images. Something like that.
- If no one objects, can I ask that anyone who is willing to do it, make a bunch of screencaps, using .pngs and thumbnails as shown above. Then lurkers can "remember the days" right up front. And a few more lurkers than currently breeze through, might stay.
- To put this in context, CNN recently had a number of articles admiring Commodore 64s (one of them here). X-COM is like that, to me... it lives past its "life expectancy" to gamers, because of how well put together it was, especially including how much it hit you in the gut.
In summary, then. I have one question for us XCOM hardcore (can we change the Main Page image) and one for everybody (want to post a lot of screencaps?). I have made a stub page for the screencaps page. I'll retract it if the hardcore object or there's no response in a couple of months' time. - MikeTheRed 21:44, 14 December 2007 (PST)
I'm perfectly fine with getting the main title changed. Get a few more ayes and we'll make it so.
A screencap section would be nice. I'm quite partial to creating screencap mini-comics (no, not real comics. Just sequential before/during/after images), although I never use them and they just get deleted in the end.
One benefit is that some of the shots can also be recycled throughout the rest of the site to illustrate certain things. Or for an article that's no more than a solid block of text, something to break up the monotony. I'm also always for a few well placed humorous shots.
-NKF 01:02, 15 December 2007 (PST)
- Sounds good, NKF. There could easily be a "comics" page link several ways:
- 1) The new Main Page entry indented under About X-COM: UFO Defense could also have a link to a comics page, but on the screenshot page itself,
- 2) That same new entry on the Main Page could read something like "Screenshots - and Comics!" The concept of the screenshots page is to help folks relive the past. And something just as good as screenshots - or better - is screenshots with humor.
- 3) Or, make a link for it, all by itself, somewhere obvious on the Main Page.
- I think it's a great idea!
- As for the other idea - you said you're fine re: changing the main title. But it's the graphic at the top of the Main Page that I'm talking about. Just to make sure we're clear on that. - MikeTheRed 17:21, 21 December 2007 (PST)
Does the UFOpaedia have a favicon? -- NinthRank 17:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)
- We did have it at one time but I think it disappeared after an upgrade to the wiki software. If you have an idea for a favicon, submit it here. --Zombie 18:21, 6 November 2007 (PST)
Okay, I don't know where that logo in the upper left came from, but after a quick GIMP edit, I came up with this: Media:favicon.zip. I'm not quite sure how The GIMP works with icons, so I also included the .png's. What do you think? -- NinthRank 18:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)
- Not too shabby. Next time I talk to GazChap, I'll run it past him. Any more ideas for a favicon? I'd like to get a few (at least 3) and run it through a vote here. --Zombie 20:28, 6 November 2007 (PST)
- I think you have some great ideas there, but my favicons show as 16x16 pixels. (Is this because I use small icons? I had never heard the the word until you said it, Ninth, at which point I read the wiki entry, and it made immediate sense.) At 162, you have to keep it incredibly simply... having the COM on a big X does that, because it doesn't "waste a repetitive 'X-' across the center", if that makes sense. Another idea is be careful with the X ... I didn't like the X in your 16x16 and 32x32 because it was "narrow" (more vertical than horizontal). I definitely like your 48x48. (I can't tell what's going on with your animated 16x16 .ico, my friend - a 16x16 pic on a 1280x1024 screen (or higher) needs to be real simple. It looks like a tiny pulsing thing, with an X sort of there, overall.) I think the X should be, if not symmetric, then, more wide than high - to me, this implies something "ominous". A true X would have to be "cut off" at the corners to be "wide and fat" at 16x16. This shows more in my second try than the first.
- You can make things bigger than 162, a real plus and you get much more flexibility, but for me, only 16x16 exists.
- My two cents. I love your overall idea, and using navy (or black?) with gold trim. Thanks for signing in and helping out, NinthRank! -MikeTheRed 19:40, 14 December 2007 (PST)
I just thought of adding a specific section concerning commentaries regarding the game, i.e., trying to explain how the weapons/diplomacy/funding/etc. would work in real life. The idea here is not to expand on the canon X-COM material but to describe/explain in a rational way. I've come with this idea after reading Spike's section (on his User talk:Spike page) explaining the economics of X-COM and starting my own section regarding the Council of Funding Nations. I think there is plenty of material available on the Data canisters that could be used/adapted to this. Also, the discussion regarding Elerium (with all those formulas) on the Talk Page is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of.
- Hobbes 22:59, 10 March 2008 (PDT)
- I don't see any problem with it. Go for it. We've started with a magnificent wealth of knowledge about the game itself (and a bit beyond, with the binary file diving). Theories and explanations of the X-Com world wouldn't be out of place. They'd certainly add a bit of literary colour and interest for those that wish to look beyond the game. There are lots of interesting bits and pieces scattered throughout the articles (like real world equivalents of weapon or tanks, just to name one example) that would probably fit better in a section like that than in the articles. Perhaps a an expanded data-canister like section would be in order. - NKF 01:13, 11 March 2008 (PDT)
I was going to add a link off the Main Page to the Game editors section that I wrote, under Misc. I still have a nagging feeling there is another list of them somewhere, but I can't find it. Any comments?
Also, any additions to the Game editors section are welcome.
Spike 03:40, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
- I don't think we've ever had a particular listing of editors.
- Tell you what, I'll throw these changes in, and we'll see how this works out.
- I'll put the new game editor section onto the UFO main table (I've also renamed the page to stick to the first capital letter naming convention the other articles use).
- I removed XComutil off the main table, since it'll be under the game file section.
- Removed the UBK - it's just a tool for wiki editors and not something that would interest players of the game.
- I might also add the Command Prompt to the game editor section for its notes on using MS-Edit as a binary file editor.
- - NKF 04:46, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
- While I see the validity of adding XComUtil to a page regarding editors won't it make sense to keep a sublink to the page which deals on how to use it, together with MSEdit? I mean, the other editors only have links to them on that page and I think that at least XComUtil deserves main page status because of its notoriosity and complexity. What do you guys think? - Hobbes 14:08, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
a good idea to include the Command Prompt help. How about broadly dividing it into 2 sections: X-COM-specific tools and general purpose tools? Spike 07:08, 17 March 2008 (PDT)
Hello good sirs. Sorry for my bad non-native english. While in total noob in wiki, im relatively for long playd this great games. Great thanks for you for this great site, it really helped me with some ideas, especially with Funding Nation, even dont know how i played it before without it. Now more close to point, i realized what TFTD section here are, say, unperfect, if not somewhat wrong. As i readed somewhere not all play TFTD much, UFO1 instead, so it maybe be the point. Id edit something on it, but im totally dunno how to do it, and my language will have too many mistakes to be proudly presented to people. So id be glade to hear what you may propose for me to do. Again big thanks. Ill wait for answer.
PS Or im searched too badly, or its differ in TFTD (i play only it now) from UFO1, but i cant find here about stunned persons behaviour. Cant find what they awake only if theyr stun is lower then HP's and if only they have awaken person in theyr tile during end of turn. IMHO its important thing to know off, at least for me.
PPS. My friend made great tiny changes to one tiny file, what make FundingNations game way more easy and elegant then described in issue. I can upload it if you need this, tho its for TFTD im sure he can do UFO1 also if its needed. Anyway this game too easy even on FN to play it without it :).
Eh PPPS. Dunno how to properly log on :(.
- Do not worry about the language barrier - sometimes it's harder to understand people who speak English natively! ;) In any case, There'll be other editors who will be able to help fix the article for you if you can get the idea across.
- To get started editing pages, check the Community Portal on the left sidebar. That has links to articles that can help you get started - more or less. One good way to find out how some text is formatted (or anything else you'd like to duplicate) is to edit the page and see how it's done in the source.
- If in doubt, or if you're unsure about editing the article, feel free put your ideas or suggestions in the article's Discussion page.
- Because TFTD and UFO share a lot of the same mechanics, there would be a lot of unnecessary duplication if we were to write up articles for it that are already available in the UFO articles. Therefore we mainly include articles that cover topics that are unique to TFTD, like the weapons, door opening, aliens, etc. General mechanics like how damage works or how experience is earned is identical to UFO's, so there's no need to duplicate them. What sections do you think need improving or what sections do we need to add? The more input the better.
- Regarding consciousness, have you checked the Unconscious article? I think we might need to redo that article bit and perhaps add a few illustrations. One note about the difference between UFO and TFTD with the visual appearance of a unit recovered with a medikit needs to go in there too if it hasn't already. Oh well. - NKF 22:54, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
- PS, to sign your messages in the discussion pages, put four tilde's ~~~~ anywhere you want to insert your name and the timestamp.
Thank you for answer. I been somwhat incorrect in my english. I didnt mean what TFTD pages are bad or what they lose reduntand UFO1 information. All they lack are only slightly wrongly described alien's dangers levels (one of most dangerous creatures cant be low treat, and least dangerous one medium) and lack of mission types what only TFTD have. Also i readed "Unconscious@ article few times, stiil cant find only how to use medkit and no word about what generally need for stunned person to rise. From that follow advices to grenade stunned chryssalids and so on.
PS. Oh, yes, and whats wrong with door openings? Derrida 08:59, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
- A unit falls unconscious when the stun bar is equal or greater than the unit's remaining health points. If it's under that, the unit will be awake.
- To wake a soldier up, you have to reduce the stun level by either waiting for the stun to wear off, 1 point per turn, or use stimulants on a medikit. Looks like the TFTD section doesn't have its own medikit page, but UFO's Medi-Kit section explains how to use it, as they are identical. Basically, if the unit is unconscious, the medic must stand on top of the unconscious unit and use stimulants (the second choice) until the unconscious soldier wakes up. When the unconscious unit wakes up, they'll appear to the north of the medic.
- TFTD's stun weapons are much more powerful than in TFTD, so you often have to use a lot of stimulants to wake a person up.
- TFTD's unique because it allows you to open doors by right clicking them - and it's a free action so you won't spend any TUs to do it. UFO cannot do this (except the Playstation version).
- As for the threat levels of the aliens - I agree, some should be reclassified. Personally I'd move the Gill-Men and Calcinite up to medium threat - all the current medium level threats look just about right though. What are your suggestions?
- Hang on, why are there so many references to vibroblades in the overview article? That can't be right. I'll have to update that later on. - NKF 15:05, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
Nonono. I mean what if unit's stun damage falled below it's HP, and no one stand in tile it lying, it will never rise. Medkits not the point. No stunned aliens or soldiers will rise if no one will end turn on it, or take it to inventory/hand. I tried to say this. Maybe it been different in UFO1 (as with doors, i thought what doors always open by right click, and in UFO1 too (btw cant find about door opening anywere in wiki)), but in TFTD it means what you dont have to bother with stunned tentaculats etc to rise after stun if you do not stand on it, or try to move it in backpack/hand. Same with soldiers, you can click zillion turns, but they will never rise until someone stand on it. Without this game must be horrible with all this undying lobsters awake afer you pass them. With danger level id suggest this: Harmless: hallucinoid; deep one; Low: gillmen; aquatoid; Meduim: zombie; calcinite; bio-drone; lobsterman; xarquid; high: tasoth; triscene; What really matters: tentaculat. In line of growing dangerness. Derrida 16:30, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
Regarding image file formats
I'd really like to add a note somewhere obvious about using GIFs for screenshots in the wiki, rather than JPGs. For 256-color images like X-COM uses, GIFs are no larger than JPGs and generally look much better. For example, see the nasty compression artifacts on the terrain maps in the Terror Ship article. PNGs might work just as well, I'm not sure, but we should really avoid JPGs.
Where would be the best place to mention this? I'm thinking near the top of the main page for visibility, but that might be more clutter than people want. Phasma Felis 23:59, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
- It's been dealt with here that PNG is the preferred file format of the wiki; however, where to note this...I honestly don't know. Arrow Quivershaft 00:37, 12 June 2008 (PDT)
- PNG's reduced to 256 or less colours can be quite the space saver for X-Com screenshots. You can go the extra step and run them through PNG compression programs and somesuch - but they're pretty good as-is. Jpgs should be reserved for images with a broader range of colours. One place the note could go is in Guidelines to writing articles. In fact, that section could do with a few extra additions in any case to expand is to that it's not just covering the composition of the language of the articles, but to cover the creation of the articles. - NKF 03:04, 12 June 2008 (PDT)
Hi guys. It appears I'm still hosting the UFOpaedia - I did discuss moving it to StrategyCore with both Zombie and Pete a while ago and I think I gave them copies of what would be required.
Anyway, I'm moving hosting servers so the UFOpaedia is going to move too. I'm aiming to carry out the transfer on Sunday September 28th at about 8pm GMT+1. Any changes made between this time and the time that the transfer completes may be lost, but hopefully not. Just thought I'd give you guys a bit of notice.
I should point out that I still have no objection to hosting the UFOpaedia on my servers, it's a great project and you guys have done a bang-up job with it, it's far surpassed my original intentions :) However, if StrategyCore want to take over hosting to remove the potential "failure point" (i.e. me) then that's fine and we can give it another shot?
GazChap, 25th September 2008 12:50 GMT+1
- Thanks for the heads-up Gaz-Chap! Sure, StrategyCore is still willing to host the UFOpaedia. Sorry things didn't quite work out the last time we talked. Pete needs to be constantly reminded to do things as he's easily distracted. I'll try and start a fire under his bum to get the ball rolling again. --Zombie 07:14, 25 September 2008 (PDT)
- Hosting has now been moved to StrategyCore. Cheers to Pete and Zombie for sorting it out. GazChap, 11:28, 1 October 2008 (GMT+1)
- There may be a slight problem with caching of the temporary holding page ("coming back soon". On some browsers I'm using (not all), the temporary page is still up and you can't see the UFOPaedia site. Spike 17:48, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
- The new website address is quite likely still propagating out through DNS, since we moved hosts. So that's just the nature of the internet and should be gone in a day or two. Arrow Quivershaft 19:06, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
- Most browsers seem to allow a full page refresh via Ctrl + F5. There's also an option re caching under the Misc section of your Preferances - I had to disable it ages ago 'cause it was always failing to show me page changes... - Bomb Bloke 21:54, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
Sorry about the downtime everyone. The bandwidth limit wasn't set high enough after the recent change in hosting and basically didn't allow access. I contacted Pete and he fixed the issue. Good to catch these issues earlier rather than later. --Zombie 15:11, 15 October 2008 (CDT)
14 March 2009
Zombie mentioned that Pete may be moving the server this weekend. I'm getting lots of errors and more or less unable to make updates to the site. Probably this is to do with the server move. Spike 19:14, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
- Apparently the move has been complete most of the day. So if you guys continue to have problems, please contact me and I'll relay it over to Pete. I'm not experiencing any problems though. --Zombie 21:34, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
500 Internal error
This seems to occur whenever I edit a subsection on a page, and I click the edit button on the TOP of the page instead of the edit button next to the subsection title. So, if you wanna avoid this error, try using the button which only edits that subsection... Jasonred 05:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
- Already been tried. Doesn't work any better. UFOpaedia admin is on it, I've been told. Arrow Quivershaft 12:05, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
- Pete's finished his latest round of changes. Give it another go. - Bomb Bloke 22:12, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
I've written some pages which I'd like to be proposed be linked to the main page, unless anyone can suggest where to put them (careful now!).
I'd like to link Fictional Equivalents to the main page.
However as some tricky template work is involved, I'd rather not make these links myself for fear of screwing up the main page(s). Thoughts? Spike 11:20, 14 November 2008 (CST)
- Feel free to edit the templates - as long as the tables look okay when you preview them, they shouldn't break the page. The templates are standard pages but with a fancy prefix to their file name to categorize them as templates. This was needed so that any updates to them would show up on the main page right away without forcing the viewers to force-refresh the page. - NKF 12:46, 14 November 2008 (CST)
- Well it covers the Research Tree bugs but not any of the other TFTD-specific bugs as far as I can see. Still that's a good starting point, thanks AQ! And thanks Zombie for adding the links. Spike 17:34, 14 November 2008 (CST)
- Maybe TRTBAG should just BECOME the "Known Bugs(TFTD)" page. Arrow Quivershaft 17:36, 14 November 2008 (CST)
- Because TRTBAG is such an excellent self contained guide, and well written, and quite long, I think it should be separate. I will link to it under the Known Bugs (TFTD) page. I suggest the main page link to TRTBAG be remained "Research Bug Avoidance Guide". Probably the TFTD Alien Glitches page can be gotten rid of. It only mentions one bug, which is not a bug at all. Spike 06:16, 15 November 2008 (CST)
I remember reading about this discussion before and if something concrete comes out I think it should be added to the Guidelines to writing articles. Do we have set a proper spelling to refer to the organization? IIRC the game uses X-COM/XCOM/X-Com/etc. Should we set a standard for the Wiki? Hobbes 07:52, 21 November 2008 (CST)
- It's a good idea to agree on a single standard spelling for the Wiki, if only to keep links consistent and prdictable. But it's a shame if there is no clear canonical spelling though. Spike 12:28, 21 November 2008 (CST)
- From what I recall there isn't a standard followed on UFO Defense, where you have X-COM/XCOM/XCom/etc. Apocalypse might be more consistent and I have no idea for the other games. I try to use X-COM and I've done some edits to follow this standard spelling but I'd like to read more opinions Hobbes 17:43, 22 November 2008 (CST)
- I've had a check through the in-game strings and most if not all of them say "Xcom", which is my least favourite spelling. :( I think X-COM has the best flavour. Spike 19:41, 22 November 2008 (CST)
If any of you folks here have been following what I've been up to lately at the StrategyCore forums, you'll see I have been amassing a collection of most of the game versions in the series. Checking my UFO Game Versions site page, you'll see that the original European release used XCom while the budget releases used X-Com. Other than that, those spellings quickly fell by the wayside as MicroProse decided on X-COM which quickly gained approval and remained the standard spelling throughout the series. (You can't really go by in-game text as those were not checked for consistency). Anyhow, I'd opt for the same route MicroProse took: X-COM. --Zombie 20:33, 22 November 2008 (CST)
Capitalization guidelines/rules for the wiki
Another thing that crossed my mind are guidelines/rules tossed in to prevent overcapitalization.
Specific ingame terms/names should be always capitalized:
- Weapons (Boomeroid, Elerium, Entropy Launcher
- Alien Races (Sectoid, Lobsterman, Skeletoid, etc.)
- Organizations (MarSec, General Dynamics, Council of Funding Nations)
- X-COM Crafts (Skyranger, Manta, Dimension Probe)
Generic ingame terms/names (that already exist in English) should be capitalized the first time they are mentioned on a wiki entry. Some examples:
- Weapons (Plasma Rifle, Torpedo Launcher, Vortex Mine, etc.)
- UFO types (Large Scout, Dreadnaught, Alien Mothership, etc.)
- Soldier Attributes/Agent Stats (Stamina, Psi-defense, etc.)
- Base Facilities
Wiki terms should be capitalized the first time they are mentioned on a wiki entry:
- Game Mechanics
A few other rules to prevent overcapitalization and make a smooth reading:
- After the 1st mention, generic ingame terms are not required to be capitalized. As an example, after the first mention of a Laser Pistol, any additional mention(s) to them can simply use the term pistol(s).
- When refering to similar names/terms, it is advisable to capitalize both when they are mentioned. Eg. "Auto Cannon, unlike Heavy Cannon, allows for automatic fire" "Large Scouts are more dangerous than Medium Scouts".
- The same applies to wiki terms.
Hobbes 16:54, 23 November 2008 (CST)
Humor and Flavour Text
GEH!!! This whole issue is taking on a life of it's own. On one hand, yes, I can see the allure of ufopedia being a serious informative site. On the other hand, there's the "fun" factor... When you get right down to it, Xcom is actually a rather simplistic game in terms of storyline, and storyline interactivity, so we REALLY have to make up our own, otherwise the game degenerates into "capture this technology, research research, shoot shoot. MC = win game". The ingame UFOpedia is great, but it's limited to several paragraphs to describe an entire race of creatures, and 2-3 lines to describe the horror of Blaster Bombs and such. ... I vote that this online UFOpedia becomes everything that the ufopedia in-game was missing... let's have something that ENTERTAINS as well as giving good accurate information!
I'll wait for the votes to come in before touching anything else. I agree with you guys, the Lobstermen and other aquatic aliens getting eaten is something that is VERY much a part of the X-com community's culture... it should go into the UFOpedia. Jasonred 04:00, 13 March 2009 (CDT)
- I've nothing against humour. All for it. In fact I'd very much like to see more of that so that definitely gets my vote. A few light hearted moments in between all the seriousness does wonders. Perhaps not when you're getting into the particulars, but the descriptions or opening paragraphs that don't get into deep detail could be livened up a little. In moderation, of course!
- However, the hard part is deciding on the line between being humorous within the confines of what's available (yes, funny discussions amongst the troops about eating lobstermen after battle instead of selling it could count towards that), and then there's making stuff up. Apologies to Morken for borrowing an example from his on-going graphic novel: explaining the alien's general idiocy/sportsmanship through their strong belief in the tenets of Amgoth. Highly amusing, but not part of the story. Granted, I don't think we've got anything like that on the wiki, but you never know.
- In any case, a good mental exercise for the writers. -NKF 05:14, 13 March 2009 (CDT)
My two cents then: I like the humour, anecdotes, flavour and fan fiction but I think the main purpose of UFOPaedia is informational and that should not be compromised. I like the little touches of humour, and I've been known to attempt them myself. But humour and anecdotes should be kept brief and supplementary - e.g. one-liners and wry observations at the end of a section. Non-canonical flavour text and fan fiction (especially) should be kept clearly separate and distinguishable. Someone reading the site with no prior knowledge of XCOM should be able to tell right away what is factual vs what is humour or speculation/imagination. Not quite sure how to do that - maybe by using sidebars, the Humour category... ok ran out of ideas there already. Maybe we need an "official" font for reproducing canonical, in-game flavour text, so it stands out. Not sure.
Also, humour, anecdote and flavour are much more subjective than fact. What one person thinks is funny, others may not. So non-factual content may just get edited out unless a lot of people agree that it's funny/cool/interesting etc - in fact that's probably already happening. Maybe a good idea is to make the jokes on the Talk pages, and if they are found to be universally funny, move them on to the main articles later - pretty much the same as factual content in fact? Spike 05:19, 13 March 2009 (CDT)
- I'm certain that we would all agree that the wiki is first and foremost an informative site. We needn't go so far as to point out to the readers what is or isn't. That would be overdoing it. A dash of humour anywhere we can get away with it without compromising the message, facts or turn it into fan fiction is really all that's required and can be more effective. Like spices, the right amount can add to the flavour of a dish. Too much and it just ruins it.
- Now a little creative writing to make the articles (with or without the humour) more captivating to the reader and less like text-books will certainly go a long way. But then again, I believe that we've always attempted to do this. -NKF 06:04, 13 March 2009 (CDT)
- I agree with NKF's point here regarding humor. But, concerning fanfic, to make up and add things that aren't on the original UFOPaedias or the History distributed with Interceptor is to take too much liberty with the original material (in regards with fan fiction). Just because it gets discussed in the forums at strategycore or xcomufo or that it is mentioned in someone's fanfic doesn't mean that it should be taken as a fact, regardless of the argument that the game story belongs to its fans/players. The game belongs to all of them and quite frankly we are quite a minority (although a very loyal one) regarding that. Hobbes 21:58, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
I personally hate the in-game perspective of some articles. I come to this page mainly to get information, not cheesy stories somebody made up. How about splitting it into two wikis? A serious one in the style of a guide book and a fan-fic one full of funny stories and made up background information? RedNifre 07:55, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
- That's why we've got the Field Manual, which is all fiction. The rest should be as fan-fiction free as possible, and any light hearted bits in the non-essential text shouldn't affect the game mechanics explanations (which I feel is the wiki's star aspect). Much of what fiction there (all the non-canon stuff) is a throwback to when we first started and were populating the wiki before we started developing article standards. If you think there's anything that can be done better, we can easily sort that out. -NKF 08:53, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
XML dumps available?
Hello guys! Kudos for creating this amazing wiki!
I have some ideas and I'd like to test them on an XML dump of ufopaedia, since it's a small but interesting wiki. Do you offer the dumps for download somewhere (like wikipedia does)? That would be absolutely fantastic. :) RedNifre 10:23, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
- I'm not sure if that export page does the job. It seems that it only allows downloading a list of articles I have to type in. What I want is ALL articles of Ufopaedia in XML, be it one file per article or one file for all articles(which I would prefer, since that is what Wikipedia provides and I'd like my software to work with all wikis). You can see what Wikipedia offers here [] and here []. Thanks! RedNifre 23:19, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
- Never mind, I just entered all the relevant categories into the export page and got the XML file I was looking for (Downloading only the files relevant to playing X-COM 1 results in 1.5MB of XML). Thanks! RedNifre 11:21, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
More problems! Since "Special:Export" seems to only allow categories it is impossible to download articles that have no category (e.g. "civilian"). I see two ways how you could fix this: Add an option "Include all uncategorized articles to export" to the export page or put every article in categories. Or run a script that puts every article without category in a "Other" category. RedNifre 07:26, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
Stats & Purchasing Options
Two wildly different subjects here, but worth mentioning:
1) Are any of the Wiki overlords interested in gathering Wiki usage statistics using something like Google Analytics? I just fished about in the server logs and it may interest you to know that the Wiki gets 6,000-8,000 unique visitors a month with anywhere from 13,000-25,000 visits a month from those visitors. With Analytics plugged in (which would take about five minutes from me) then interested parties could keep an eye on what's getting the most attention and, possibly, what people are searching for most (as in things that they're looking for that may not be covered). I'm new to MediaWiki though so I have no idea whether it's got some level of reporting built in?
2) Is it worth putting a link in the menu to the left to a page with more details on buying options and what's in the "complete" collections (as they're not totally complete technically, and people may not be aware that they can buy just one of the games if they want)? I would imagine it's something that quite a few people would be looking for, though admittedly without the detailed stats it's hard to say. Just pretend I don't have an interest in affiliate linking with this question too - I'd thought about it before putting my business hat on, honest! --Pete 17:58, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
- 1 - MediaWiki doesn't have much in terms of stats so it would be great if you could install that for us. Would be a handy tool for all sorts of things.
- 2 - Good idea. If someone creates such a page I'll add it to the left menu. :) --Zombie 20:11, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
- I like both ideas as well Hobbes 20:30, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
- That is a decent number of UVs and well worth monetising just to defray the costs a bit, which is all it would do. I guess you are talking about some Adwords and affiliate links to Steam? Fair enough. I don't pay for the site and it has to be paid for somehow.
Interesting stats though. So there are 6 to 8,000 people viewing and what, at most 10-20 people posting regularly? That's a pretty high "lurker ratio". :) Spike 21:18, 23 June 2009 (EDT)