Talk:Main Page
Quick note for future revisions of subsections:
Template navigation toolbars for subsections.
- NKF
Site Backups
Does this site receive perodic backups? I'd hate to see all our work vaporize because of a disk crash or if the hosting company folded or if the aliens won... --Ethereal Cereal 10:23, 14 May 2006 (PDT)
I would assume it does. I'll contact GazChap to find out though. --Zombie 20:01, 16 May 2006 (PDT)
Zombie, did you want to check with him? I (or someone else) will ask in a few days if you don't get around to it --MikeTheRed 10:33, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
An email was sent. Just waiting for a reply. Will let everyone know of the policy soonish. --Zombie 22:11, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
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)
Excellent news. We'd all hate to see years of work go up in smoke. :P Thanks very much for checking, Z! GazChap is the best... free provisions with zero supervision, lol.
I suppose we can edit this little discussion down to a nub that says the site is backed up.
---MikeTheRed 19:49, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
Thanks for checking into it, Zombie -- very reassuring. While I'm here, may I ask what's incomplete in your alien stats research? It's one of the last major things I think the wiki needs. I'd be willing to finish it up and format it for the wiki, I just don't want to duplicate efforts if you're mostly done with it.
- (alien stats question subsequently answered -- thank you, Zombie)
--Ethereal Cereal 21:34, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
Main Page design
Well, here's my ideas for the Main Page. I think the top-level organization should be like so:
Aliens
Alien Life Forms
UFOs
Missions
Logistics
Soldiers
Base Facilities
Crafts
Craft Armaments
Equipment
Weapons
HWP
Miscellaneous Equipment
Technical Info
Bugs
Data Tables
Game Mechanics
Formulas
Game Files
Terrain
Scoring
Combat Tactics
Field Manual
Missions
Game Strategies
Base Management
Economics
Research
Interception Strategies
General Info
X-COM Game Info
Links
Site Info
Contributors
and I'd like to implement it mostly via Category pages, which are easier to maintain. It's probably going to involve little changes (navigation/links/categories, mostly) to lots of pages, so I can't prototype it very well -- once I start experimenting with how to implement it, it'll be under way.
I think the current Main Page format looks good, it's just missing a good organizational schema, like (I hope) the one I posted above.
--Ethereal Cereal 08:57, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
I was thinking that we could have a mock main page where we can fiddle around with the structuring to our hearts content, and replace the real main page every so often.
- NKF
Very cool NKF, thanks for that. That should help here. If the mock Main Page (MP) catches on, we should replace this (true MP) Discussion with something that says "Post questions for the wiki in general here. However, for comments or suggestions on main page webmastering, see [Mock Main Page]." This should help clarify that general noob questions can be asked on the MP Discussion, but "webmaster" stuff about MP should go to the mock page. (Did that make sense? Sincere noobs must always be taken into account.)
Ethereal C, I love all the work you're doing around the site. You're probably the best technical (re)writer we've ever had. I love how you've tightened up many pages, including mine.
However, I don't see your MP logic, help me here. Both newbies and hardcore must be kept in mind, with newbies always coming first if there's any gray area. What follows is comments off the top of my head about what I don't like about your version. But please keep in mind, I'm just me; your opinions are entirely as valid as mine, etc. etc. And the final call goes to, who puts in the work, assuming there are no major objections. And I have no major objections. And esp. if you do it Mock first, what's to complain about. That said,
- General Info should be first (but not nec'ly what you include). It should be truly general info on XCOM for the newbie, not "miscellanous other" - how to run the two main versions of the game on WinXP, where one might get it, etc. This area has always needed a lot of work, since only the hardcore work on the wiki (and the front-side issues are long past for them). The very first menu item, whatever it's name is, should hold out a great big hand specifically for newbies. In short, let people who have accidentally come here (and will quickly leave) get a quick answer, and those who remember XCOM from the past and want to get into it again, have their stuff be top, front & center. (If we ever start thinking this place is only for 'us', that's what it will become! I think NKF has worried over how to handle this... it's hard for any of us hardcore players to relate and spend time on the wiki for it.)
- "Logistics" is not a term used in the game. Of course the game has many logistical issues. But why use a word that never appears in the game, for a MP entry? MP entries should be chosen with great care, IMO. There should not be more than 12. (You have 6; currently there are 13-18, depending on how you want to count.) Terms on the MP should immediately strike anyone as something they've seen in the game. (Of course, there is no pre-defined order; these are just thoughts....)
- Your menu is a varied mix of basic line items for newbies, and then very selected items for the hardcore. There are many things not present at your level 2 that should be for the hardcore, IMO. Like Experience, Damage, Explosion. This site should appeal to two audiences: newbies, and hardcore. Both should have most everything they need within 2 levels, no fuss no muss. Locations should be clear. If I could only see your top level 1 entries (there are 6), where is Damage in that? Not just as an L2 entry, but with a person able to reasonably guess where it is when they can only see your 6 L1 entries? See? In what I had been talking to NKF about months ago, I wanted it at the top of the Combat stuff currently on the MP. Since it's a purely volunteer effort, and I didn't do it while at the same time I asked NKF to... shrug, hehe. BTW the previous MP was starting to look like an index to everything XCOM... as with e.g. speeches, it is in truth harder to make a short speech than a long one.
The current MP structure is an approximation of that which NKF put a lot of time into. He did not work in all my suggestions and recently said he's at crossroads on what to do. I didn't help by having strong opinions without actually editing it any myself.
If you're going to use the Mock MP, do anything you'd like. But consider the balance of having both total newbies and hardcore, have every major topic within 2 levels (1 level off the MP), and it's clear where they are. In two seconds' glance, without looking under all the MP topics. That's the goal, in any event.
If interested, there's more to see in the old Discussion on the MP, before we wiped it (it got real long). Maybe Decemberish?
You've taken a shot at restructuring the MP. It's a lot to think about. We all want it to be the best it can be. All of us who care about the wiki truly appreciate that someone is seriously considering rewriting the Main Page. This wiki has gone from a few off-the-cuff comments, to some seriously deep pages... with lots of gaps in between.
---MikeTheRed 23:52, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
I did fail to mention that the above outline is not a complete one -- it's just my initial thoughts on what the top-level structure should be. A lot of the "hardcore" pages (which are of course my favorite) would be under Technical Info or Game Mechanics; I'll certainly fill it out if I start implementing it for real.
I'll concede the structure would be best if it started with an "Overview of X-COM" page. The wiki doesn't have such a page right now. The General Info page doesn't qualify, but with a rewrite, it might. Right now it's just a scattering of technical factoids: it opens with "Nomenclature", of all things. It's certainly not newbie-friendly.
To fix that, we could copy a lot of the X-COM entry from Wikipedia, with a link back to it to satisfy their copyright requirements. Links, Site Info and Contributors should remain at the bottom, IMO.
I'd like to keep first and second levels of the heirarchy on the Main Page -- the highest levels as I chose them aren't really pages in their own right, just organizational categories. The word logistics isn't a word mentioned in the game, but I want a "stuff you have to administer" category, and that's logistics. As long as the second level (soldiers|base|crafts|equipment) is on the Main Page, its meaning should be immediately obvious.
I prefer that approach to a division into Geoscape and Battlescape topics; although the game is played in those separate domains (and Geoscape is really two things, Geoscape and Base Management), all the logistical stuff exists in both domains: you buy/sell/build/plan stuff in the Geoscape, and use that stuff on the Battlescape.
As for newbies -- I was a newbie to the site quite recently, if not the game, and the first stuff I wanted to see was in-depth information. If you've played the game at all, you know the basics -- you don't need a reprint of the UFOPaedia. (If you haven't played the game at all, you need a better Intro page, as I mentioned above.)
Unfortunately, about half the pages linked to from the Main Page are stub pages in some way. Linking to a stub page from the Main Page immediately signals to me, "this site is useless". I must've come across the Main Page three times while hunting for X-COM information before I realized the site actually did have good information. (We're still lacking a lot of very specific tactical tips, although that stuff is harder to generate than a page of stats.)
The most useful ones (IMO) are pages which link to a lot of other articles. Some of the other pages are vague, obvious, or borderline fiction -- a lot of the Field Manual is this way, for instance.
Frankly, I find the Main Page frustrating in its current implementation. I'm gonna stop talking about it and just change it (via the Mock page). Hopefully you'll see my reasoning as I implement it. It's gonna be like sorting a deck of cards -- easy to do, tedious to describe.
--Ethereal Cereal 11:10, 27 May 2006 (PDT)
Sounds good, Ethereal! A lot of what I said is just so you know how things got the way they are and/or for your consideration... they're not granite rules. What you say sounds good, too. And it's a good point that actually, by now, probably few will be true newbies (although hopefully this site will have plenty of new veteran-XCOM visitors.) Anyway, the proof is in the pudding and the mock page is for testing anyway... so I'll see ya over there! (Sooner or later!)
This site has grown very organically according to volunteer interests, commonly in bursts of activity... a problem (esp. for newcomers) is that the majority of wiki-ers work on what they're interested (myself definitely included). Some spend time on overall organization, but they're the exception. NKF and Danial did quite a bit this past winter, but plenty more could be done. Anyway... please go for it! :)
---MikeTheRed 15:47, 31 May 2006 (PDT)
There are 2 sections (or subsections, whatever) that I probably could be added as well:
- Modding (with separate sections for terrains/maps/etc., probably including there the main software such as Daishiva's programs and hatfarm's editor). I have started writting a section concerning map editing but never finished it. - How To Make The Game Harder (for true veterans).
Hobbes 19:30, 31 May 2006 (PDT)
The completed prototype is at mock main page, check it out.
- I did put the general info link first.
- It's now an index to Everything X-COM -- but I think that's good; this is basically an encyclopedia, and the Main Page is now a Table of Contents.
- I made no specific effort to accomodate newbies or hardcore players. I hope a sensibly-organized index can serve them both.
- I managed to include just about everything on the MP, except for articles that are part of an obvious group (the individual Alien pages, Equipment, Field Manual, UFOs, etc.)
- I didn't attempt to re-do the TFTD index, as I haven't tried TFTD yet.
- I still haven't come up with a better name than "Logistics", but with the pages grouped under it, its meaning is clear.
- "Modding" and "How to make the game harder" both sound good -- two articles, I'm guessing, which have yet to be written. If you write 'em, they can easily be added to the redesigned MP.
--Ethereal Cereal 12:14, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
I replaced the Main Page with the new design from the mock main page. Give a holler if you think it should be changed in any way -- or change it yourself.
--Ethereal Cereal 15:08, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
Mike: I did a little sorting of the subcategories according to "importance", although that's entirely subjective. For instance, I put Scouting and Reaction Fire Triggers and Sweeping the Battlescape first under Tactics because they cover really fundamental tactical points. I prefer a subjective order to something like alphabetical order -- feel free to sort things according to your own tastes.
As I've stated before, I prefer discussion to remain in place, unless it's right on the article page. This is how Wikipedia does things, and it's useful for quickly assessing what's been going on with the article. Keeping topics segregated by headers (not just lines) helps to organize the discussions. If the whole page gets too long, then it can be archived.
--Ethereal Cereal 10:10, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
Sounds good. Let me take some time to work with it and see if I have any ideas. The only other immediate thought is that a few places could probably be tightened up, e.g., Research Tips is probably largely under Research. Anyway, it's great for the time being... much more at your fingertips than with the previous version. I'll make a note or take a whack at any thoughts that arise. Meanwhile, I'm doing a little more testing on visual range. Good idea, categories here on the Discussion page will keep things organized and accessible.
---MikeTheRed 10:33, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
UFO2000 Section
OK, Gazchap has given its OK. I am going to start working on the page for UFO2000.
-- Hobbes 06:45, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
Excellent! All us here on the XCOM wiki send UFO2000 the best wishes. I've been meaning to check it out myself when I get finished with XCOM... but I never seem to get finished, lol.
---MikeTheRed 10:33, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
One thing I'd like to ask: right now I've started naming the pages as "UFO2000 whatever". However, I've noticed that this limits the category pages (all entries are in the U letter). Any problem if we start naming them like "whatever (UFO2000)" since that seems to be the format to differenciate between games (such as "Aliens (TFTD)", "Aliens (UFO Defense)) ?
--- Hobbes 12:17, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
Makes sense to me. Another option you have is to pipe your category links: [[Category: UFO2000|Aliens]] will make the link will appear on the Category page under the "A" heading as "Aliens".
--Ethereal Cereal 13:05, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
Excellent. Thank you very much.
Hobbes 15:42, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
Hmm, I misspoke. Pipes will change the sort order, but the original page name will still be used on the category page, so a page named "UFO2000 and X-COM" with the catlink "[[Category:UFO2000|Quick Start Guide]]" will be sorted under "Q" but still called "UFO2000 and X-COM", which looks quite strange. You'll probably have to select your page titles to accomodate this -- but at least piping can be used to keep everything from being sorted under U.
Incidentally, you don't need two [[Category]] links -- just one will do, with or without a pipe.
--Ethereal Cereal 16:08, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
I started noticing that something was not right ;)
I've just finished renaming all the pages. It fits better with the page naming of the rest of the ufopaedia.
--- Hobbes 16:13, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
Does anyone know if we can adjust those main navigation links (upper left of each page) so that we can add a link to the UFO2k Main Page? I think that would be appreciated by them. But I have no idea where that's accessed... maybe the managers have special areas?
As long as anyone's editing that, it could be cleaned up a little... do we really need e.g. Current Events, and Donations? Although maybe GazChap likes that last one, hehe.
---MikeTheRed 07:14, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
Image Types
I was fooling around with images today and decided I should show everyone what an image looks like in a particular format. Just for this example, I used the Level 0 view of the Small Scout. Here are the images (don't peek, just look at them and try to figure out which is which for now):
From what I can tell, the image quality of a GIF and a PNG is minimal. Both look very good. The PNG image seems a tad bit lighter over the GIF, though. Not bad. But compare either a GIF or a PNG with a JPEG and there is a huge difference. The JPEG has "artifacts" strewn all over the place and has a "mottled" appearance. Ugh! Terrible! That's all for the image quality aspect. (So does anyone know the technical difference between a GIF and a PNG? Please explain.)
Let's move on to size. The GIF image is usually the largest in size. In this case the GIF image of the Scout example is 7897 bytes. The JPEG is 6784 bytes (or 86% of the GIF) while the PNG is 6090 bytes (or 77% of the GIF).
Finally, compare size against image quality. PNG wins hands down. Not only is it smaller in size, but it also has an image quality equaling that of a GIF. JPEGs are smaller than a GIF but the image quality sucks. Granted, in some instances a JPEG is fine (especially if the background is a dark color), but in all the comparisons I did they were bad.
So, have you figured out what is what? The first image is a GIF, the second is a PNG and the third is a JPEG.
I implore everyone to consider uploading either a GIF or a PNG image type over a JPEG. The quality is better in those formats. If you have a choice, PNG is better because of the size on disc. --Zombie 19:40, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
The most important difference between PNG and GIF is GIFs can only use 256 colors. I think most graphics from Enemy Unknown are in 8-bit color, so it doesn't cause a problem, but if you ever converted a normal photo to GIF, it'd look horrendous. PNGs can handle "truecolor" (24-bit), and as you said, they tend to compress better too.
JPGs can have different "quality settings" which reduce the artifacts but increase file size. JPG tends to compress photos better than PNG, but PNG is great for non-natural images, such as cartoons or computer graphics. For graphics pulled from X-COM, PNG is probably best.
--Ethereal Cereal 21:43, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
PNG's can vary in size depending on the size of the palette used. A standard 256 colour image would allow PNGs to be more or less the same if not better than GIFs. 'True Colour' PNGs are generally abominations.
For more information on the PNG format: Portable Network Graphics
GIF and PNG provide lossless compression while Jpeg's offer lossy compression. GIF and PNGs are best used when the image is generally small and contains a limited number of colours. X-Com screenshots fit this bill perfectly.
Jpegs tend to lose image accuracy every time you save the image and it gets worse the higher you set the compression. However, that said, Jpegs are best used when your image is full of colour and minor losses in image quality will not matter.
For example, the above pictures are best done with GIF/PNGs (especially if you intend to include transparent pixels). However if you had a cut out shot of the action in the battlescape, it probably wouldn't matter too much if it were saved as a Jpeg.
Now if you want an image with transparency pixels, you will most definitely pick GIF and PNG. I actually hadn't realised the PNG format allowed tranparencies, but it does.
Just use what's best for the occasion.
- NKF
In Which an Uneccessary Discussion of Formats Ensues
PNG's not only do transparency, but they are capable of doing alpha channel-- that is, partial transparency. A GIF can only do normal colors (completely opaque) or complete transparency. PNG's can do all this, as well as allowing color that are partially transparent (say, a red tint with the background showing through).
I put this in mostly to hear myself talk. There are two limitations to these neato PNG effects:
- For X-Com screen shots, it's not needed-- X-Com 1 and 2 never did such fancy tricks.
- Alpha channel PNG's are, last I checked, not supported by Internet Explorer-- IE will let PNG's mimmick GIF-style transparency (that is, an 8-bit palette with all-or-nothing transparency), but nothing more sophisticated. Firefox and the Mozilla-derived browsers can do them (including Safari, I think), but it's not much good when most of the traffic is still using IE. Yes, I'm bitter about this.
PNG's are in every respect superior to GIF's. In matters of compatibility and filesize, the PNG can be set to work just as well or better than GIF). The only reason you use GIFs is to cater to people with seriously archaic browsers. Widespread PNG support has been around for several years now.
Edit: IE7 does complete support for PNG alpha, but of course it's still in beta testing. Even when it's out of beta, sensible web designers will have to wait until the majority of users switch over to it to start designing with it in mind.
--Papa Legba 20:36, 14 June 2006 (PDT)