Archive talk:Main Page/2

From SRB2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive page for the discussion page of Main Page. It covers topics from March 12, 2007 – September 13, 2007.

"Coming Soon"

We really need to kill every single part of the Wiki where it says "coming soon", because it never does, and it looks unprofessional.

Might I suggest using the stub or needs improvement templates instead? -Mystic 15:17, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

New page for Actions

I noticed that the General SOC Information page is starting to get a little bloated with all the actions, it still has quite a few to be added anyway. I'm thinking maybe Actions need their own page. Draykon 15:45, 15 March 2007 (PDT)

No, that just wouldn't work unless you wanted to get into major details about them. DarkWarrior

Unless I'm mistaken (which I just might be, since I'm not the most familiar about SOCs), that's like saying having separate Thing Types pages wouldn't work unless they had major details about them. According to the reasoning described, the Things pages theoretically would've "fit more as one whole page", since, honestly, they don't really have a terrible amount of detail compared to what an Action page might be. Perhaps an Action page can have a description of its action, the vars, and examples?

Again, I might be mistaken. This may really be for the more fluent SOCers to decide. --Digiku 04:24, 19 March 2007 (PDT)

It really depends, I think, on how the pages were written, then. If someone who knew them well could write useful pages on them, then I think it's a possibility. I think that a couple test pages need to be written first, however. ~DarkWarrior

Note about title capitalization

I remember Mystic going on this before and correcting titles to follow Wikipedia's rules of title capitalization. Back in the way beginning (before my huge participation), the wiki did follow Wikipedia's rules on the subject: titles are capitalized exactly as the subject matter would be (barring the first word, which, unless it was specifically lowercase like "iPod", would always be capitalized.) For example, "table of contents" would be titled "Table of contents".

As I understand it, the reason this is done is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia would have these terms exactly as they are capitalized, I'd think. I believe "table of contents" would be headed as such, and a guy with the name "Table O. Contents" would be a completely different subject, and headed like that, too.

However, I adopt a different heading capitalization rule; basically, I title everything as if it were the title of a book (in the main namespace, mind; if you've noticed the heading title of this talk page section, that's really because I find talk pages more conversational and thus my rules aren't as strict.) You guys know that rule, right? "table of contents", as I would put it, would be "Table of Contents". The reason I do this is because I work as if the SRB2 Wiki is a website, really more than a formal encyclopedia. And sections of an informational article in a typical website would have their titles capitalized, would they not? Here's a good example that I just happened to find.

Anyways, that's why I capitalize headings. I just thought I'd clear that up.

--Digiku 04:41, 19 March 2007 (PDT)

"Community" section

Sonic Retro has its own section for Sceners, Sites, History, etc., for the "Sonic Scene", as they call it. A typical Scener page apparently looks like this, or this.

I am really, really fond of this idea, and I'd love to see a variation of it here on the wiki. Basically, I'm thinking of an "SRB2 Community" section, showcasing members of the SRB2 community, as well as any projects they'd like to have a page on in the wiki.

Of course, a section like this would need some rules. To make this section work, I'm thinking of establishing two points:

  1. The "SRB2 Community" section should be seen as a separate section from the rest of the wiki. While the rest of the wiki is strict and informational, providing information based on notable and straightforward facts, the "SRB2 Community" section should really be more of a free-for-all thing. It absolutely shouldn't be considered strictly factual, and it's really more of a for fun, interesting thing for members to show off their stuff so other people can just go to the section and read up on some fun things on other members and also whatever projects there are that have pages.
  2. Members should only be allowed to make pages only of themselves and their own projects, like I could only make a page on "Digiku", "Botanic Serenity", "Contest Maps Made by Digiku", "DMZWADPack 2", etc., and I wouldn't be allowed to make any other pages. This way, the question of notability is thrown out, since it's essentially the owner of their own ideas themselves who decide to make articles pertaining to them, not anyone else.

As for the language style of pages, I'm thinking that they should be on the "encyclopedic" side, as the two Scener page links above show. And as for editing existing pages, perhaps users should only be allowed to edit language mechanics, grammar, and that sort of thing, but not change any of the ideas that the page expressed. (or there's this other idea that I've had in mind, but that I can explain at another time.)

And since this is the sort of thing where vandals can be really malicious, and also due to the rules I proposed, perhaps there could be a sysop that's specifically dedicated to the "SRB2 Community" section? There's a way to restrict sysops to namespaces and certain pages. I can set it up myself, actually; I've been playing around with MediaWiki for the past amount of time now.

Note that I consider this to be different from User pages, as 1. I find user pages to be rather inaccessible, as they have the User: prefix and they're really only used to reference to the actual user in the Recent changes log, signatures, etc., 2. User subpages are equally as inaccessible; there's no obvious directory for them, forcing you to link to the subpage, 3. User pages are really your own personal space, where you can say "I" and whatnot. What I have in mind for the "SRB2 Community" section is articles that speak in the third person, much like the examples above. I don't think user pages would look like the examples above.

I want to see this. If need be, I'm willing to go the extra mile to make it work (though, if my involvement is needed in any way, even for the setup, I think I'll wait until I decide my hiatus is over.)

--Digiku 05:19, 19 March 2007 (PDT)

This, again, is possible. It's all a question of who can set it up. There aren't all that many people fluent enough in any kind of coding to make it work. I think that it wouldn't likely be necessary to have a sysop for those articles alone. Once some new sysops are in place, it shouldn't be that hard to keep an eye on them. ~DarkWarrior

Honestly, I prefer to gravitate to results, not people. For instance, I'd rather have an article on Mystic Realm than an article about myself, with myself being a small footnote in the article about what I've made. Reasoning is that I don't want the entire community going "I want credit for that!" like they so often do in communities of this nature. The last thing we want is a system in place to give people an easy way to inflate their e-penis. If people want recognition on here, have them make something worthy of having an article on it. This community should be about collaboration, not personal accomplishments broadcast to the world. -Mystic 12:46, 19 March 2007 (PDT)

Point noted. --Digiku 15:05, 19 March 2007 (PDT)

I think that it's a question of who is/isn't mature enough on the boards/IRC to actually be allowed to make a page. While it would be a tad bit of work, I think that a user who has been active for at least a year on the forums/chat room could have their own page upon request. Sysops could also make individual people they think should deserve pages despite length of membership at their discretion. Don't know if that is a possibility, but worth throwing out there. ~DarkWarrior

However, why even decide who is and isn't noteworthy to begin with? I don't want an article on myself, and I'm clearly noteworthy in this community. If I did, I'd have made my own user page. I like to think I have enough modesty that I don't need my name plastered everywhere it doesn't naturally get placed, thanks. -Mystic 15:12, 28 March 2007 (PDT)

That's the thing: there aren't any decisions on who is and isn't noteworthy. The person themselves makes an article on themselves and their projects and only themselves. I believe the question of noteworthiness is rather irrelevant in what I proposed. It all depends on enforcing the idea that people are allowed only to make pages pertaining to them. --Digiku 13:02, 4 April 2007 (PDT)

In which case, I support the idea fully. It's not as if someone needs a page, just to put it in if they want. I can't see how this is a bad thing, really. ~DarkWarrior

Exactly my point. The Community section I have in mind is like a free-for-all area which should be considered completely separate from the rest of the internal workings of the wiki, yet still under the same site. Different rules and everything. Also, two major benefits result out of establishing a community section, both involving the recently published Style Guide, specifically the "What the SRB2 Wiki Should Be" section I wrote:

  1. It promotes the goal of the Wiki being an informational resource with content all in one place.
  2. It promotes the goal of the Wiki being something to bring the community together, which includes building a resource where everything — walkthroughs of mods especially, in this situation — can be found in one place. Seeing as such a resource would include walkthroughs of SRB2 and related games, this allows people to be happier by "conquering a Single Player challenge". These "Single Player challenges" include mods. If a mod is big enough to have a walkthrough associated with it, then this promotes people being happier by helping them out on conquering a challenge. I implied this sort of happiness as helping to bring a community together, thus promoting the goal of the Wiki being something to bring the community together. Also, having such walkthroughs under the site — ableit in a different section — would promote having everything all in one place.

Establishing a Community section would give community members a place to publish information on their works, much like the SRB2:FFH is for people to upload their wadfiles. Actually, think of the Community section as something similar to the SRB2:FFH — anyone can upload anything regardless of notability on the FFH so said person can reference to it. The Community section I have in mind is much the same. From the rest of the Wiki, it's a different section, having different rules. One can publish information on their works there and only there without regard to notability, since they're the ones who are publishing the work in the first place. --Digiku 01:26, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

Clear Discussion Page

Should the whole discussion page be cleared? All the comments before March of this year are old/useless. This would leave the page open for fresh comments, and not be so cluttered. ~DarkWarrior

Sounds convenient - if anyone wants to scrummage through old comments, they can just look through the discussion page history, so I don't think it would be of any loss. --Blue Warrior 12:34, 24 March 2007 (PDT)

Done. -Mystic 15:14, 28 March 2007 (PDT)

Ok, I joined the wiki, and I'll start making that Red XVI page... once I figure out how. >_<

You know, you could do what Wikipedia does and move old topics to Archives pages. Make subpages to this discussion page, like "Talk:Main Page/Archive 1" consists of the topics that were just recently cleared. --Digiku 13:01, 4 April 2007 (PDT)

Old topics moved to Archive 1. This was done for reasons pertaining to user-friendliness, plus Wikipedia does it. I find it just easier to go to an Archive page rather than having to look through History to get what one needs. --Digiku 00:46, 5 April 2007 (PDT)


What exactly is the focus of the Wiki these days?

From my observations, it's the playable aspect of the game. I understand why this happens, though: it's because a good lot of people know how to play the game, know what the levels are like, and know some strategies to follow to fill up the Map pages.

However, I have to wonder: why aren't we working on the editing pages? As I recall, the main point of the Wiki is to serve as a resource for those needing help in editing. Actually, that was the original purpose of TNG2W. I believe STARS added the playable aspect of SRB2 to the Wiki's scope of articles. Not to downplay on the playable aspect of the game (I do mention it in "What the SRB2 Wiki Should Be", after all,) but I think some focus needs to be returned to the editing pages. As I stated in the Style Guide, the main source of editing help comes from within the community; asking people and getting answers. It still is that way because the good lot of editing articles here (namely the Linedef and Sector pages) aren't adequate enough to provide help.

Before I jump to conclusions, though, I'll be fair and ask: why aren't the editing pages worked on as much? Is it because not a lot of people know how to edit the game fluently? Is it because there's really no solid standard for the Linedef and Sector pages? Let's put it in a different perspective: is the reason why all the Things pages are done is that I did the sheer majority of them and I'm just so super-awesome?

One of things I want to do before the end of April is establish solid standards for the Linedef and Sector pages. I want opinions, here: would more Linedef and Sector pages be completed as a result of there being solid standards, or is the reason behind the misplaced focus something different?

--Digiku 00:56, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

I think a lot of the problem isn't that people don't know how to use them (However, I am an exception. I honestly have little clue how 90% of them work.), so much as it is the people who do know simply don't bother to work on the Wiki. Several times in #SRB2Fun, I have distinctly said something to this effect: 'Look, the Wiki needs work on linedef and sector pages. Those of you claiming to be bored know how most of these work. You should really be helping on this." Essentially, it's a problem of people who do know being lazy. That's why I was ably to start doing the THINGS pages later on. I knew how they worked, and I can't say the same for linedef/sector types. I've gotten SSN's permission to port the SRB2 Specials list to here, however, so at the very least, I can get those in soon as "filler" pages. ~DarkWarrior

Your actions on filling up the remaining Specials pages are much appreciated. I'd imagine them to be more comprehensive than what was formerly on the pages, so they do help at least quite a little bit. And moreover, they would indeed help me out once I get around to writing the remaining Specials pages. --Digiku 14:26, 7 April 2007 (PDT)

Main Page features

A lot of wikis practice having a daily feature of sorts — Wikipedia has its "Article of the Day", the HRWiki has its "This week's featured article." Perhaps the SRB2 Wiki could follow suit?

I'd like to see a regular "Featured article" feature. We select an article whose content adheres exceptionally to standards, like Greenflower Zone Act 1, and put it up on the Main Page for some time before the next featured article can be put up. The reason I want this is mainly to provide examples as how to edit, write, and format articles. I want to highlight what is seen as articles which follow commendably the guidelines set up by the Style Guide. Perhaps we can call it the "Bi-weekly Featured Articles", as a humorous nod to the bi-monthly level design contests? :)

Although, knowing the volume of pages we have, we might not be equipped for that right now. However, I definately want to do a "Recently finished articles" list, as seen on the Click Wiki. I'm a particular fan of this. This highlights recently finished articles, so they'll get a lot of attention. This can boost morale around here, I think, as authors would typically want to write up pages that would be featured.

I can understand not doing a regular "Featured article" feature, but I want to see a "Recently finished articles" list. The latter is particularly easy to do. Just pinpoint pages which have been written up to a good standard and put it up on the list, with a date and everything.

--Digiku 01:07, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

I suppose it's worth trying, at the very least. I can't see it being particularly beneficial, but I don't see how it can hurt, either. ~DarkWarrior

The Style Guide for Editors

I just published The Style Guide for Editors, a resource on language style and page formatting that I feel should be guidelines to be followed on the Wiki. I thought it be about time that we got some actual guidelines around here.

The reason I bring this to attention is that I'd like a moderator-wide consensus on these guidelines. The Style Guide is not complete. A lot of the guidelines are rather hazy (such as the capitalization rules, which I don't even follow myself sometimes,) and I almost guarantee some will need reviewing. I request that the guidelines be reviewed, and neccessary changes such as the addition, removal, and modification of guidelines be discussed in Talk pages and done on the guide pages.

Again, before making these guidelines official, I'd like a moderator-wide consensus on the Style Guide. Even just opinions — an "okay" or some input on certain guidelines, or what ideas to add — are fine. I can make the changes myself if need be. Feel free to make such changes as I specified.

General discussion on the Style Guide added to this topic on this discussion page is fine. However, I request that discussion pertaining to specific guidelines be put on the guideline's discussion page, preferably, or on the Style Guide's own page.

--Digiku 00:15, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

Well, you can find my comments on what needs changing in the discussion pages for each individual section. If I find issues later, I'll be sure to list them as well. Articles I see no issues with don't contain a comment. As far as the whole of the idea goes, I concur with the use of these guidelines. Also, I think they should be protected pages. ~DarkWarrior

Your comments are much appreciated. I thank you for that. On protecting the pages, that's still up in the air, I think. Wikipedia allows modification of their guidelines pages by regular editors. This may be so modification to the rules is free and open, given some discussion.

On the other hand, if we want to affirm these guidelines strongly, then that's a valid reason to protect. I don't really know what I want to do, myself. Vandalism is pretty easy to spot in Recent Changes, so that wouldn't matter in the decision of protecting the guidelines pages. I think it all really boils down to how open we want the interpretation of guidelines to be. If we want them to be open, we don't protect the pages. Otherwise, if we want them to be strict, we protect them. --Digiku 14:22, 7 April 2007 (PDT)

I think that the general tone of the SRB2Wiki is strict enough to warrant a protection. I mean, sure it's easy enough to rollback a vandalism, but the fact that it's open for anyone to debate/change at any given time sure seems a very different concept and practice than what the rest of the community generally possesses. I mean, sure, the Wiki is a bit different from the rest of the community (Boards/IRC/SRB2MS), but I think a solid set of rules would be more beneficial. ~DarkWarrior

On the count that no replies of objections to the Style Guide have been made after a period of time, I believe it to be fair to assume consensus on the guidelines. The Style Guide for Editors is now official policy of the SRB2 Wiki, and is, as such, protected from anonymous and user edits and acknowledged as policy to be followed. --Digiku 23:45, 19 April 2007 (PDT)

SRB2 screenshots guideline

I'm almost ready to make the Style Guide go live. However, there's one more crucial thing that I think needs major input.

The SRB2 screenshots guideline. In light of the SRB2 community's recurring division between use of Software mode and use of OpenGL mode, I figured this needed a look. Currently, the guideline calls for, in all cases, 640x400 Software mode screenshots. Now, I know that a good lot of SRB2 community-goers prefer and use primarily OpenGL mode. However, my reasons for recommending Software mode is that 1. it's the default mode, and therefore the mode that will be seen first on a default SRB2 configuration, and 2. being the default mode, and also by the fact that STJr does not officially support OpenGL mode, one can assume that 640x400 Software mode is the video mode that is intended to most accurately represent SRB2's visuals.

My reason for endorsing that the default settings be used for screenshots is mainly for the newcomer audience. The screenshots that would be on this site would be consistent with what they would see with their (assumedly) default settings. However, I see the argument for endorsing OpenGL screenshots as well. The majority of SRB2 community-goers enjoy OpenGL mode, so, really, it depends on what is really the majority of our audience, and who we should cater to. Should we cater to the group that uses SRB2 as its default-configured self, and thus, the group that primarily uses Software mode? Or should we cater to the group that primarily uses OpenGL mode? Moreover, which group is the majority? And should we cater to the majority, or should we stick to apparent standards and take screenshots in Software mode, regardless of the majority?

I'd like some comments on this. We could also use an opinion from someone deeply involved in SRB2 development, mainly to answer the question, "which is the standard video mode for SRB2?" Where has Mystic been? I know he's gone on Fridays and Saturdays, but I haven't seen him all week. I'd imagine SSNTails can answer the aforementioned question on a standard video mode, too. --Digiku 14:19, 7 April 2007 (PDT)

Heh, you've touched on a very sensitive issue on that. Actually, I myself was going to recommend using those specifications for SRB2 screenshots. As far as for those involved in development go, Alam is in support of OpenGL (His compiled 1.09.4 bugfix EXEs do not include "OpenGL is unsupported", and he himself specifically said he supported it), and SSNTails is against it. So, even the programmers differ on the issue. =P ~DarkWarrior

Honestly, the differences between the renderer engines are small enough that it honestly doesn't matter. I would suggest turning off coronas if you are using OpenGL, as that is currently the default behavior and it causes small amounts of lag when the feature is on, so we don't want all the n00bs turning on coronas without knowing. Also, please use the 640x400 resolution regardless of the renderer you use. -Mystic 22:23, 9 April 2007 (PDT)

Given these agreeable ideas, I decided that I'd personally allow to more of an extent OpenGL screenshots on the Wiki, given additional provisions. Note that I still promote Software mode as the preferable renderer, as it is the default. However, I noted that I'll allow OpenGL screenshots as well. I figured that would be better than being all strict about it. :) Here are the updated SRB2 screenshot guidelines. --Digiku 07:26, 11 April 2007 (PDT)

See above. The Style Guide is now official policy, on the count that no replies of objections have been made after a period of time. This includes the screenshots guideline. Thanks for your support! --Digiku 23:45, 19 April 2007 (PDT)


We need to start using Categories. Seriously.

It always struck me as weird why pages don't have Categories marked on them. Using Categories promotes organization, which in turn makes the wiki much easier to navigate. Truth be told, the Table of Contents page is totally pointless, as nobody really updates it regularly (I don't, even.)

Before we all start adding categories, though, I did prepare some time ago a web which shows which categories to use. Therefore, I ask: don't add categories yet until I present the web I worked on. We can make decisions based on that.

For now, though, thoughts on starting to use Categories?

--Digiku 01:12, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

I'm bumping this topic back up because I prepared a diagram of Categories to use for the Wiki.

Please observe User:Digiku/Category Hierarchy. Basically, under the "SRB2 Wiki" site, I see there to be two main divisions: Sonic Robo Blast 2 and Editing. The former goes over how to play the game, while the latter goes over how to edit the game. The pages are divided as such. You may also take a look at User:Digiku/Category Hierarchy - with Examples, which is a page basically identical to the diagram on the former page, except there are examples provided on which pages would go where.

You may also notice that certain categories for the pages currently under the "Community" block on the Main Page are missing. This is because I'm currently putting decision-making of those pages on hold while I'm determining the suitability of my proposed Community section on the Wiki. I'm currently drafting up rules for it. If we decide to keep these pages on the main space, I'm thinking they might go under the Sonic Robo Blast 2 division.

Comments or suggestions on this selection of categories?

--Digiku 07:41, 11 April 2007 (PDT)

No posts of objections means more or less that I can assume agreement on the categories. I'll start incorporating them into the articles when I can.

--Digiku 16:02, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you on this. I essentially agree with a lot of those categories. One thing, though, is that you have "Linedef" under "Documentation". And, while that works, I suppose, I do think that the category "Map Component" would be just as viable - if not more so - a category to use it. Though, I suppose the idea here is to make general categorization, and minor things like "Map Components" would be used differently. ~DarkWarrior

Of free-editing the Techniques section in maps

I have looked at some of the map pages for SRB2's multiplayer rotations, and the Techniques sections virtually never follow the current Style guide. They're deplorable at times. I hate to suggest it, but I think it's possible that we need to protect the map pages. Or, at least, set up a system like Wikipedia has, of having only registered, active users with enough edits to warrant access be allowed to add these. People can still offer Techniques in the discussion pages, but having them edit the pages freely is clearly a bad thing. Thoughts? ~DarkWarrior

Personally, I don't have anything against the pages being editable by registered users only, but I don't think it would be necessary to completely protect it. As far as I'm concerned, we have less of a problem with members editing pages over anonymous users, and pages such as the Special Stages and CTF maps lie almost solely on one or two of the same users editing it. Normally in this case, I would think it better that users just edit the pages themselves than put it in the discussion page and wait for us.

Then again, I haven't been here frequently lately, checking for miscellaneous updates from others, so that might be why I see it as less of a problem. Either way, I'm fine with it being registered users only, but full page protection doesn't sound ideal to me. --Blue Warrior 14:27, 28 April 2007 (PDT)

Change the --Types pages' names

Check it out. With the "Thing Type ####" names, you can't really tell which is which without the names right beside them. I mean, I memorized that the Ring is type 2014, but what the hell is Thing Type 38? I had to look to answer that.

Mystic proposed changing the map pages because "their MAP numbers are not permanent". Same thing with all these specials. They're going to change come 1.1, actually. And I'm pretty sure people just don't go by the Thing Types' numbers and memorize them; I'm pretty sure they go by their names.

Also, a more critical display is Category:Editing. You can't really tell which is which, I don't think.

Shall we change the page names? --Digiku 07:50, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

I think that would be a wise idea, yes. I also think the things pages needs to be less of a purely vertical list, but how that would be accomplished is beyond me. But I don't like scrolling through a whole page of stuff to find what I want. The menu may be there, but still. Also, if we can reach a quick agreement on this, I'll move them all, if anyone wants. ~DarkWarrior

I've come to learn here that no further replies after a week or so more or less means no discrepancies among the other sysops, and therefore, mutual agreement. We could pull the action off now, I bet.

I'm actually working on a local copy of the Wiki on my computer. I'll test it on my own copy, and then tell you about whether the change is worth it or not before you do it all, if you'd like. (Don't worry: I'm enjoying myself here! It's just that I get bored pretty easily and the Wiki's pretty much the sole "spare time" thing that I brought with me. :) ) --Digiku 18:39, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

Actually, another thought: maybe we should change the Thing names. I originally named all the Things after the Wadauthor config, though the SRB2DB config calls the Things different names. Though SRB2DB is more or less becoming the de facto standard (as I see it, at least,) I don't agree with some of the SRB2DB config names, either.

We can either totally change the SRB2DB config to match the names that we use here, or we could do it the other way around and change the names here to match those of the SRB2DB config. Or, we could create a totally new listing and change both groups of Thing names so they're identical. I'd like to see uniformity with all of the listings, actually -- Things, Linedef Specials, and Sector Specials; name them so the groups with this site and the SRB2DB config are identical. It sort of creates a feeling of integration, I think.

I believe it all depends on how willing people would be to adopt a new SRB2DB config, and how easy it would be to distribute such a thing. Tell me your thoughts. --Digiku 20:03, 17 May 2007 (PDT)


Here; look:

  • User:Digiku/Things_List_Wadauthor
  • User:Digiku/Things_List_SRB2DB
  • User:Digiku/Things_List_New
  • Thing Types (current list)

"New" is the proposed Things list I have in mind, different from both the Wadauthor and SRB2DB lists. Adjust it as you see fit, and I can check back on that. I ultimately aim to make all three lists -- the SRB2 Wiki's "Thing Types" list, the Wadauthor config, and the SRB2DB config -- the same for reasons of consistency and standardization. We just need to select which names to use, first.

So the questions are:

  1. Which list to use?
  2. If we want to use the "New" list, is it okay as is, or can we better organize it and rename some things? And if so, how?

Also mind that we can do the same for the Linedef and Sector specials, too. I'm just focusing on the Things for now.

--Digiku 22:06, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

I think that the new list works best. While most people seem to use SRB2DB now, there are still some who don't, and using the new list seems to work as some "middle ground". Also, while most of the new list looks fine, one thing bothers me. The Chaos Mode Enemy Spawn Point is deprecated. I know that it exists, but the effect is useless. I really don't like it being referenced when the current version doesn't support it. ~DarkWarrior (Not logged in)

I'll play around with it a little more, then. Thanks for your support.

I can make updated config files; that's easy. The thing is distributing these new configs, and whether we could do that easily or not. And as for the Chaos Mode Enemy Spawns: the way I see it, they're listed so as to not make ~1.08 maps look broken. Since these Things were very common in Match maps, etc., it probably would've made more sense to keep the entry in the config there, so you don't get sixteen "broken objects" and the wadder also has the responsibility of knowing that these Things don't have any effect at present. --Digiku 20:41, 19 May 2007 (PDT)


  • User:Digiku/Things List New
  • Diff between older version
  • Older version

The biggest change is that some of the "Miscellaneous" items were merged to the "Emeralds" group to create the "Other Collectibles" group. I didn't like how the Emeralds had a group of their own, and I thought some of the other items could be with those to make such a group. These include the Emerald Hunt Locations, CTF Flags, Special Stage Tokens -- and also the Air Bubble Patch, Star Post, and End Level Sign. I thought the last three were common enough to be there, though they do also count as "Miscellaneous" items, I guess.

Thoughts? --Digiku 22:46, 19 May 2007 (PDT)

Actually, that is a better looking list. I do think, however, the things should be listed either numerically or alphbetically for their respective category. I'm willing to resort them, but the question is whether or not the organizing should actually be applied. And if so, which method should be applied? ~DarkWarrior (Not logged in)

Fury Of The Storm as a mod?

Can somebody list it after I make the article? Crüsäder

Not sure it's far enough along to count for much Draykon 17:57, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

Command Line article?

If there isn't one already, could someone with enough knowledge on the subject write it? - I'll Begin 07:18, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Why'd you write a page on something you didn't know? Also, please refer to the Style Guide before editing a page. ~DarkWarrior

Mediawiki software update

An announcement: Spazzo, SSNTails, and I have received login details for the Wiki's account. This means database details and FTP details, so we pretty much have access to everything, now.

The current version of Mediawiki is 1.10.1. Ours is 1.5.0. A new branch, 1.11, is purportedly debuting in a week or so, so I'll hold off updating the Mediawiki software until 1.11.0 is released. --Digiku 18:14, 19 July 2007 (PDT)

I got it too, you know. >_> Anyways, out of curiousity, what immediate benefits will we see here? ~DarkWarrior

Tons. First, the obvious are tighter security, bugs fixed, new features (some of which are useful,) etc. Internal configurations are almost much improved, speaking from experience using 1.9. The most important, I see, is that we'll be able to use third-party extensions. Extensions which don't support 1.5 (i.e. all of them) will almost certainly work with the newest versions of Mediawiki. Moreover, the ideas we've been talking about -- custom user privileges, for example, -- are easily done using these extensions. There's some really useful stuff there that a new version would allow us to have.

Of course, if Tails would like to write anti-bot code himself, I'd be more than welcoming for him to do so. Actually, and I'm not lying or exaggerating here: I'm a little eager to see what he can come up with. --Digiku 08:31, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

I know a lot about most of the Commands/Variables, but I don't know the regulations on the style guide. 22:21, 25 August 2007 (PDT)Dreamcaster

The style guide is to the left. Also, I can see your IP in the recent changes list. It's how we ID anonymous edits. ~DarkWarrior