Talk:Main Page

From UFOpaedia
Revision as of 02:51, 7 November 2007 by NinthRank (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)

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?

Why do I ask?

In mid July the Europa Universalis 3 (EU3) wiki went down (and indeed its location at that time still is). On the EU3 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 placeAnd 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,

We luv you for hosting this, Gaz. But can we ask for fallback plans?

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.)

- 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. --Zombie 20:43, 21 October 2007 (PDT)

Sounds great, Zombie. It's something hard to bring up - but a responsible thing to do. I was really shocked with what happened to EU3. Only one further stupid question - StratCore and GazChap aren't affiliated, are they? (Not both run off the same company's resources? I don't know who runs either server.) And thanks for thinking ahead! - MikeTheRed 16:10, 26 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.


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)

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.

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.

My two cents. - MikeTheRed 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)

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.
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. - NKF

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.

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. :) --Zombie 07:32, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
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.
I've now e-mailed Pete with all the details he requires to take over hosting. --GazChap 12:19, 30 September 2007 (BST)
Great job, Gaz. Thanks as always for your hosting!! - MikeTheRed 16:21, 12 October 2007 (PDT)

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 (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

Smart Quotes

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.

NinthRank 17:48, 21 October 2007 (PDT)

Well, I can't see any practicality in trying to convert all articles to smart quotes, so I'll clean up the ones that I've done with straight quotes to be consistent.
NinthRank 19:30, 25 October 2007 (PDT)


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: 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)