Archive talk:Main Page/3
- This is an archive page for the discussion page of Main Page. It covers topics from September 13, 2007 – November 18, 2007.
- 1 User registration requirement?
- 2 The verification picture
- 3 #srb2fun voice
- 4 What I'd like to see done
- 5 SRB2 Wiki direction
- 6 New CreateRedirect extension
- 7 Here's some food for thought
- 8 Sector-, Linedef- and Thing-Type Article Names
- 9 Appendage to Style Guide: What the SRB2 Wiki Should Not Be
- 10 Now that we've got our new structure up and running...
- 11 Templates notice
- 12 Page Request
- 13 Add the Command Line page to the table of contents
- 14 Oooh... pretty background
- 15 Points of Interest?
- 16 Mystic Temples/Emerald Tokens/Emblems
- 17 Unblock Bot IPs?
- 18 OMG BUG!
- 19 The Infobox CVG should do that remote linking to Wikipedia.
- 20 How was 220.127.116.11 able to make the Main Page redirect to Sonic Robo Blast?
- 21 My crazy idea involving a new category dedicated to the Source Code...
User registration requirement?
Now that we have the login information, SSN has volunteered to write us up an anti-bot registration code. The question hanging before us now is: Should we make the whole of SRB2Wiki registered-users-only-edit, or do we leave it as-is, and find some image verification method for unregistered users to prevent bot edits. Thoughts? Personally, I think it'd be a good idea to have it registered-only. Not only will this allow for less work on bot prevention, but it will also make it easier to maintain, and give appropriate credit to the writer, as opposed to tons of anonymous edits. ~DarkWarrior
- I vote registered only. Not only do I personally despise image verification, it will be much easier to tell who is posting what, because it is shown by username and not by IP.--Spazzo 22:30, 19 July 2007 (PDT)
- I say registered or talk image verification - that is that regestered users can post as normal, but un-regestered users can only use talk pages, and even then they need to verificate that they are not a bot by using a picture. It's just a thought. Ah2190 02:57, 20 July 2007 (PDT)
- Spazzo, there will be image verification - for registering a new account. However, it would be SSN's Sonic verification that is seen on SRB2MB. Ah2190, that's also an option. It's actually not an overall bad idea, but then, in the end, this is a group decision, one I can not make alone. ~DarkWarrior
- While I have seen some smart edits from anonymous users (including BZ4), registered only would be a good idea for the most part, especially since bots seem to like visiting us often. Though, I do think the pages such as the Request page would be better off with some anonymous say in it. So talk image verification sounds fine as well. ~ Blue Warrior 11:19, 20 July 2007 (PDT)
- I guess user registration should come second-nature now, considering how users register for the MB. And MB users probably are the desired source of information. Registered only and image verification. --Digiku 08:38, 23 July 2007 (PDT)
- Digiku, would you, then, be willing to make this so? I don't really know how to do it, but I do know it is possible, and seeing how you seem familiar with Wiki software, I'd assume you'd know. ~DarkWarrior
- Well, now that we have Image Verification working (though I think it should be a little more random than just "SONIC"), this should hopefully get rid of the #1 problem on this wiki, being bots. On the subject of anons, I still think guests should be able to post, with limitations. If forcing users to log in gets rid of all the idiots, then that's fine by me, but there are still some intelligent guests who go to the wiki talk pages, primarily because they need help on a problem, such as fixing an error in SRB2JTE. I'm sure most won't mind making an account (some may prefer to be made entirely anonymous, are uncomfortable with having an account, whatever random reason they hate having one), so, if possible, I'd think it best to let anonymous users edit talk pages only. ~ Blue Warrior 19:32, 7 August 2007 (PDT)
UPDATE: Since it's been about a month since we last voted on this issue, and since DarkWarrior's #srb2fun voice proposal came into play, I think we should reassess our decision to make the Wiki registered-only. Taking a quick scan of the Recent Changes log, I'm not entirely sure if the anonymous users are being harmful, per se. In the past 30 days, I think they've actually been helpful; "harmless" in another sense. Given these ideas, I think we should re-vote on the decision. --Digiku 23:10, 12 September 2007 (PDT)
The verification picture
Since it isnt a random picture every time you register or edit, bot edits can still work if the bots programmed to type Sonic. So I think it should be randomized.--18.104.22.168 08:43, 7 August 2007 (PDT) (Kaysakado)
While that's true, people aren't programming bots specifically for this site. This is the same image that keeps bots off the SRB2MB, remember. At one point, the boards had random images, and the bots got through. ~DarkWarrior
Sounds like DW has a good idea to get more work done here. However, you wrote that the top 5 contributors will change each month. Does that mean that the voice in #srb2fun is only for a one-month period? --Spazzo 19:53, 11 August 2007 (PDT)
Yes. Unless you maintain good contributions. I will be deciding each month who goes on the list regardless of who has/has not been on the list in the past. ~DarkWarrior
Well, I guess I better get cracking again. I'm supposed to be working on an Acid Missile category anyway. ~ Blue Warrior 21:19, 11 August 2007 (PDT)
What I'd like to see done
After the maintenance is complete, there are a few more things I'd like you guys to act upon around here. Bold = Important.
- Check page content
- A small percentage of it might be broken in some way due to how I imported the DB text, but it should be fine. Don't inspect this actively; just, if you find something out-of-place, message me.
- Test anti-bot code
- I tested this myself, and everything seems to be working. The only thing is failing the confirmation when page editing. It works, but it prints an irrelevant message. Was that the intended behavior? I never tried it myself in the old software.
- Test new page links and overall software reliability
- I switched the Wiki to the pretty URLs ("http://srb2wiki.sepwich.com/wiki/Main_Page" rather than "http://srb2wiki.sepwich.com/index.php?title=Main_Page"), but the way I implemented this might not be water-tight. For example, I've encountered isolated blank page loads. Page links in general seem to work fine, and pages for the most part load reliably. Again, I don't think this needs to be inspected actively, but things can go wrong. If you see anything out of the ordinary, message me.
- Move the
Thing Type xxxxpages to the Things' names. For example, Thing Type 3004-> Blue Crawla. Overwrite all existing pages (they should be redirects anyways.)
- Use their name specified in the
Thing Typeslist as a guide. I know we tried to make a new naming spec in the past; we can figure out specifics later. Just use the list.
- Use their name specified in the
- Do the same for Linedef types and Sector types. Again, use their respective lists.
- Reassess anonymous user situation
- See topic above.
- Decide: Do new user registrations need to be logged? I installed an extension to do this, and it's enabled. Arguments to do it are for records. Arguments to not do it are for privacy reasons. Should they be logged?
- Decide: Should users be able to edit only their own User: pages? Users can still edit each others' Talk: pages. I found an extension to do this; whether it may actually be implemented is another story. (Don't consider this point when deciding.)
- Decide: What is the SRB2 Wiki's direction?
- This seriously pisses me off. Shuffle once brought up a really interesting point, where he said the Wiki's editing pages should be a "reference", while I have a conflicting viewpoint saying it should be a "tutorial". How in-depth should the Specials pages be? Should they be more technical and expecting in reference, like the official SRB2 Specials List, or should they give a bone to the beginners just a little bit, or more?
- Also, where is our focus? Most of the Wiki's content is in the game itself. Should we be downplaying that? Should we declare ourselves as more of a game resource, or should we be focusing more on being an editing resource? That's another issue I have.
To discuss any of the above points, please start a new topic on it. I'd appreciate it if you guys got to this list, especially the bolded stuff. Oh yeah, here's one more thing software-wise:
- If you see anything out of the ordinary (glitches and all,) post a message on my talk page. Changes to the talk page are emailed directly to me, so I can respond (or at least be aware of things) quickly.
--Digiku 23:42, 12 September 2007 (PDT)
- For bot code: It was supposed to go to a preview page unless the code was correct
- Page links and whatnot all seem fine to me so far
- Things pages moved. I'll get to the lists & templates when I can.
- Sector Types & Linedef types, same as lists & templates for things.
- Anonymous users: Will address in-depth with Digiku on IRC when we next meet (unless he has MSN or something, he can email me that. He knows the address)
- Wiki's direction: Same as above, only I can safely say that I think that the Lines & Sectors should be both a tutorial and a reference. Basically, explain simply how it works on top. If the linedef/sector has any advanced functions, a follow-up tutorial should below it. There are exceptions and the like, but again, that's in-depth. I'll wait until I can talk with Digiku about it.
While I would like to take a bit more responsibility for this, I'm not capable of very creative thinking. That is to say, I'm unable to actually think outside a given format. Meaning I need some direction of where to go. Which is why I need to discuss things like the above with Digi. ~DarkWarrior
That's why we work as a team. :) --Digiku 06:47, 16 September 2007 (PDT)
Oh yeah, thanks a lot for doing the pages, DW! That's substantial. --Digiku 06:50, 16 September 2007 (PDT)
SRB2 Wiki direction
See above. Spazz and I talked about this briefly and I'm documenting this for our benefit. Ritz remarked that the "Wiki is almost of no use to experienced wadders.", as in <Ritz> how do I make transparent textures? <someperson> check the wiki <Ritz> Hell no
I said the focus is too saturated; probably the one thing that "crippled" STARS and this Wiki is the decision to make it an "all-around resource" for SRB2, including full level walkthroughs. Spazz and I followed this lead a little bit; almost all of the editors edit just the game pages. We considered splitting the general game pages and the wadding pages into two wikis, but that wouldn't solve the problem as all of the editors would still flock straight to the game topic and there wouldn't be enough to take care of the wadding topic. I said that if we want to be a respectable wadding resource, we have to toss something out. I'm thinking of tossing levels entirely as one could just write a FAQ on their whim. The general SRB2 info, like the Console and
Command Line can stay; Spazz called them the "essential stuff". Honestly, this would bring the count here to literally ten pages. Spazz still wants to have very light level stuff in here, however. The focus and the audience we want to capture is still sketchy.
At the very least I want DW to be a part of the discussion. Other mods would be great. Talking it over live on IRC seems to work really well, actually, and I want to stick to that. Where's he been, anyways? --Digiku 12:28, 15 September 2007 (PDT)
Funny, I wouldn't have expected anyone to notice that I was gone these past few days. :P Yeah, I'd love to discuss it too, but I'm awfully busy for the next month or so. I only get tremendously small periods of free time, and most of that away from the computer. Things'll calm down within the next month...But anyways: To business. Personally, I don't think it's a wise idea to toss all level-related information away. The SRB2MB will get flooded totally with "HELP! EMERALDS! EMBLEMS! CAN'T FIND!!!" As well as other little tidbits of information contained in those pages. I'm more for making the level pages Sysop editing only, or, if possible, a special group of editors for them. However, if this isn't a viable option, I'm certainly open to other ideas. ~DarkWarrior
I'm strapped on time, myself. Thanks for letting me know. That'll help me out. As for discussing the topic, I think "whenever we get the chance" works, on some chance that I see Spazz around; you being there would be a bonus or something.
Of course I would've noticed you were gone, DW. I'm not that insensitive. ;) --Digiku 06:49, 16 September 2007 (PDT)
Here's an excerpt that's useful in the "technical reference vs. tutorial" mishap:
Penopat: The lower byte of the ANGLE field specifies the waypoint's number in the sequence, and the upper byte specifies the sequence that the waypoint belongs to. Penopat: help plz how do i know what the upper/lower byte is
--Digiku 16:14, 16 September 2007 (PDT)
I believe that what needs to be done is to have the basic description of a thing/linedef/sector type the highlight of the page. Basic use should come next. Then, case pending, a tutorial for use. A perfect example of why there needs to be a tutorial is what you just posted. But not everything needs a tutorial. Think: Gargoyles and Rings. They have simple use, so a tutorial would just look ridiculous. I think that this really needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, not something mandatory for all articles. The point of the Wiki is to target all audiences. That being both newcomers and experienced editors. For general purposes, a technical reference works better as a highlight, because most people already know the functions of basic objects. ~DarkWarrior
New CreateRedirect extension
I developed and made live a special page which provides an easy way to make redirects. I think we have a lot of use for this. In most pages, a quicklink to this Special page can be found in the Toolbox on the menu. --Digiku 01:08, 18 September 2007 (PDT)
Here's some food for thought
I drew up this diagram to replace the Info Table on
Colormap. The above is a PNG image of the diagram; the second link is the original SVG image. Mess around with it if you'd like. Give thoughts. --Digiku 17:30, 20 September 2007 (PDT)
Honestly, while it's a good idea, it's too heavily detailed for the average user to understand. The way I see it, if a value to a linedef does nothing, it shouldn't be noted. Take away all that redundancy, and you've got a good idea there. ~DarkWarrior
Sector-, Linedef- and Thing-Type Article Names
Does anyone think it would be worthwhile renaming all the articles for particular types of linedef etc. from, say, Linedef Type 16 to Colormap? I think it'd be more natural, and most importantly would make searching much easier and more effective. Redirects could be used for the old-style titles, of course (which would allow automated lookups). It'd be a substantial task, but it needn't be done in one go. Any thoughts? --Oogaland 08:23, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
Actually... this has been suggested. I do have some problems with that. Most notably on the FOF types. We'd wind up with very many pages of massively long titles. (FOF; Shadowcasting; Solid; Translucent)...Yeah, I'm not sure I like that all too much. But anyways, yeah, I'd like to do that, but I'd love some solution for that, really. ~DarkWarrior
Whoops, didn't realise this issue had already come up; sorry about that. One other thing that has since occurred to me is that thing/ld/sec numbers are changing in 1.1, so something's going to have to be done... Concerning the FOFs -- somewhat tangentially -- do you think it'd be worth combining similar FOFs into single articles (w/ appropriate redirects)? It'd avoid the long title problem; and, indeed, in general, something that would have a long title suggests that the article is overly-specific. --Oogaland 09:12, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
You mean like Platform, Solid, and what-have-you? Yeah, that might work. Also, yes, I dread 1.1 for that very reason. I've been considering what I want to do when it actually comes out. I think I'll just make a blank HTML page the way Digi did until I can redirect everything the way 1.1 has it. ~DarkWarrior
I think there's lots of similar names that might not be possible to have a simple name. I think the way it's setup right now seems easy enough to find, specially with the linedefs that contain a picture. If you guys still want to do it, maybe it's best to put the name on the right side of the page. ~Chaos Zero 64
Appendage to Style Guide: What the SRB2 Wiki Should Not Be
I wrote up an article I would like to add to the Style Guide, and would like input on how it is currently. What SRB2 Wiki Should Not Be. Is there anything missing? Is it too strict? Also, there are articles linked there that I haven't fully written yet and do not have enough content to make a preview page. I'll add those when possible. Thoughts on this would be nice. ~DarkWarrior
Also, I just made another article that would probably not appear on Style Guide, but is included in What the SRB2 Wiki Should Not Be. If I could get comments there too, that'd be great. Userpages: Free use of SRB2 Wiki ~DarkWarrior
Cool. I put some comments on that page's talk. --Digiku 21:25, 9 October 2007 (PDT)
Now that we've got our new structure up and running...
I hope we can do something to shape up the Wiki. :) We have three main focuses for pages:
|Levels||Mapping (Things/Linedefs/Sector Types, Tutorials)||Locations (Srb2.org, the MB, #srb2fun)|
|Features (Multiplayer, Console)||Character WADding||Culture (STJr, Level Design Contest)|
Which one y'all would like to focus on is up to you.
But, for the sake of discussion, which ones should be focused on the most? This is more of a "suggestion" thing. The Levels pages are pretty mature, I think. Personally, the SOC pages could definitely use some work. Shaping up the Linedef and Sector Type pages with example wads, for instance, would be swell, too. Of course, level tutorials are always up for grabs. --Digiku 19:56, 8 October 2007 (PDT)
Heh, you know I'm grabbing the level tutorials. I don't think I have enough editing experience to take up sectors, linedefs, states, or any of that other crap. But I know there are plenty of levels waiting to have their articles completed. I mean, just look at Category:Unfinished. ~ Blue Warrior 00:59, 9 October 2007 (PDT)
The problem with SOCs (and I do agree that those are badly needed...) is that you have to actually know how each thing works. Not too many people do, meaning the few that do need encouragement to work on the pages here. Community section, I think, is currently pretty well covered, save for mods, which I generally would prefer if the author wrote the article, as they know more about the subject. I also intend to do linedef types (and finish sector types...) when a decision can be made on how exactly to proceed.
As far as main focus, I think that's a bit more difficult to implement. Some people may know a lot about one subject and not another, while some people may know general things on every subject. Personally, I think it may be better to ask people to add what they know as opposed to a single subject alone. ~DarkWarrior
Until a main "Templates" page, category, and organization is made (and it's not really high-priority, so I probably won't do it,) I figure this is a good place to put the following notices:
- Templates should follow a standardized look:
- Informational messages affecting only the article content (i.e. Main article:
Levels (Mystic Realm)or "Crawla" redirects here. For the Red Crawla, see Thing Type 9]].) should be in plain, indented italics, unless they're really important. For example, spoilers get a box template.
- Messages directly affecting Wiki operations, such as editing pages, style policy, deletion, etc., should be in box, following the color code:
- Notice only: Gray -
- border: 1px #AAAAAA solid;
- background: #F2F2F2;
- Medium importance (most maintenance actions fall under these): Orange -
- border: 1px #FFA500 solid;
- background: #FBF9E7;
- High importance: Red -
- border: 1px #FCF1E6 solid;
- background: #FF0000;
- Notice only: Gray -
- Informational messages affecting only the article content (i.e. Main article:
--Digiku 05:24, 14 October 2007 (PDT)
Hey! Can some1 add an article for DK64SRB2?? I work with Mod Mania and DK64SRB2 is our most finished mod currently. Go to The Mod Mania Message Boards :: Forum Index for more info.
No. There's not even a release. Mods need to be at least released and notable in order to get a page. SRB2Wiki is not free advertisement for wads.
Read up. ~DarkWarrior
Add the Command Line page to the table of contents
Plzkthxbai --Kaysakado 10:58, 14 October 2007 (PDT)
Command Line is unsupported KTHXBAI. ~DarkWarrior
How is it unsupported? Anyways, I noticed someone already put it, so meh. --Kaysakado 16:43, 15 October 2007 (PDT)
It was a joke, silly. :P --Digiku 17:08, 15 October 2007 (PDT)
Oooh... pretty background
Is that supposed to be GFZGRASS? I'm pretty sure it's not. Change it to GFZGRASS. NOWZ!--Kaysakado 15:06, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
You do not want GFZGRASS for a background. I suggest you recheck what that texture is. =P And personally, I love this new one. ~DarkWarrior
It's ShadowBlaze's ripped SA grass. Somehow, I don't think SA grass should be used to represent SRB2Wiki. ~Boinciel
I recognize it as a texture from SRB2Xmas, myself. It was used in the Emerald Coast secret. --Digiku 15:15, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
Oh, I meant FLOOR_03, not GFZGRASS. :p Anyways, I agree with Boincel, SA grass shouldn't be for the Wiki.--Kaysakado 15:36, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
I have to agree. Use FLOOR0_6 instead. It's associated with SRB2 about as much as GFZROCK is, and is a heck of a lot more original than ripped SA grass. -Mystic 16:10, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
Gah, I meant 0_6, not 0_3. I'm getting my flats/textures mixed up. More descriptive names kthxbai. *heads to 1.1 suggestions topic* --Kaysakado 16:24, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
While I understand what you're all saying, the idea here was to provide a nice looking background to this, moreso than bring it closer to SRB2. FLOOR0_6, in my opinion, is ugly. I just do not like it. Though that may just be only my opinion. This subject was brought up in #SRB2Fun a couple of times, too, to find what the userbase feels would work. Needless to say, we didn't get all that much feedback. But I would suggest you consider what the site would look like with FLOOR0_6 (or any other background), if you haven't already. It'd actually probably be a good idea to make a mockup first, see if it really works. I personally feel that at least with this background, SRB2 Wiki looks good. ~DarkWarrior
So... Mock-up, kthxbai? EDIT: Ooh, pretty crystally GFZROCK. Yayz!--Kaysakado 04:22, 22 October 2007 (PDT)
I can hardly see the current one... Maybe it should have a liiiiiittle more contrast? The colors need to be consistent, which was the problem with the green BG. It also needs to be decorative and noticeable enough to add to it without being redundant which is the fault in this one. Just my input... JEV3 13:00, 22 October 2007 (PDT)
Cool! I just noticed the background change, and I like it. Personally, I think it doesn't need much contrast; a little more would be alright, but not so much that it makes the upper-right text on the page hard to read.
And, uh, the "cool" thing wasn't meant to be a pun. :( ~ Blue Warrior 15:30, 22 October 2007 (PDT)
It's too plain. More contrast/sharper, please. :) --Digiku 18:13, 22 October 2007 (PDT)
These two have also been taken into consideration... I'll let all of you decide what you want done. I'm going to try and set up my own personalized skin on this anyways, so the decision here won't bother me. :P ~DarkWarrior
I, personally like the current one, although I would still be fine with the slightly purpler version you posted above. And, I'm guessing we should bold our votes so you can easily see them when tallying them? EDIT:My previous vote has now been replaced.--Kaysakado 12:29, 23 October 2007 (PDT)
The blue in the current one is good; it's just faded to the point where it's not even there. There's no "presence", so to speak. Personally, I'm thinking more like the Xmas GFZROCK, or something noticeable. Something like this:
--Digiku 02:20, 24 October 2007 (PDT)
We could also use GFZGRASS scaled down by 50%. SRB2 used to do that before the high-res flat sizes were supported:
I particularly like that one. --Digiku 02:22, 24 October 2007 (PDT)
I like the one with the filename bg5. By the way, is there any way for them to be links instead of automatically becoming pictures? --Kaysakado 04:24, 24 October 2007 (PDT)
Points of Interest?
Well, I looked at the points of interest in GFZ and I noticed that they were the same things I put in my walkthroughs in five equals headers. Are they more for areas like in SPZ with a separate area or like the emblems in the other walkthroughs with useful items in certain areas? I just kinda want to know how they work and how to work them in level pages. Thanks! JEV3 11:56, 16 October 2007 (PDT)
... Was I supposed to add this to the bottom? I'd still like some clarification in any case. I want to know a little about the general format the levels are supposed to be in so I can be sure to make pages that are in that format. JEV3 19:39, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
I think GFZ1's format is pretty much what the rest of the level pages should be. Though it is missing Knuckles' emblem... :\ ~DarkWarrior
I'm sorry, I meant I want to know more about the formatting and what each thing is for. From what I understand, the walkthrough goes through the level as well as power-ups almost directly on that path. Points of Interest would be for out of the way areas, usually containing emblems and strong powerups and the like. Then there is the tech info where you open up DB and count the the things and add it to the graph template.
For some of the Emerald Stages though, everything is pretty straightforward and there are no out of the way areas. (Except MKZ, TCZ and SPZ AFAIK) In which case the emblems and stuff with them should be the only points of interest if for nothing else but consistency's sake? Is this the way it is supposed to be or are points of interest anything important whether out of the way or not. JEV3 12:57, 22 October 2007 (PDT)
So what is going on with these, are we going to stop putting them in order and get rid of the numbering? The images are all numbered too... so to put them out of order would be quite confusing. JEV3 14:24, 11 November 2007 (PST)
So what. People who look at the Wiki don't care about the image numbers. They just want the right ones. –SonicMaster 14:36, 11 November 2007 (PST)
Mystic Temples/Emerald Tokens/Emblems
Should they be their own page? Or should they be integrated by level? JEV3 13:04, 22 October 2007 (PDT)
Mystic Temples/Emerald Tokens/Emblems should be listed in the level pages. I'm hesitant to delete the Emblem location page, though, until they're all decently documented in their appropriate levels. ~DarkWarrior
Honestly, I'd suggest having them be in BOTH places. Convenient list of all of them with short descriptions, and link to the level pages for specific information. -Mystic 19:47, 23 October 2007 (PDT)
Unblock Bot IPs?
With the SONIC verification, it doesn't seem likely that they'll start editing the wiki again. Also, some other user might by using one of those IPs by now, and it might confuse them to be blocked without reason. :p ~ Blue Warrior 16:47, 22 October 2007 (PDT)
As you can see, I'm logged in, but the verification still appears on the redirect screen. While not really a bug, as much as you guys forgetting to set it to only show to logged out users, it should still be fixed. --Kaysakado 07:20, 27 October 2007 (PDT)
You're aptness is commendable. :) And my negligence is pretty noticeable there, isn't it? :D I actually coded that page myself, and merely didn't bother to implement the login toggle for the confirmation over there. I thought I was the only one using it after all. :)
I'll get around to it. --Digiku 07:46, 27 October 2007 (PDT)
Fix'd! --Digiku 09:08, 27 October 2007 (PDT)
How was 22.214.171.124 able to make the Main Page redirect to Sonic Robo Blast?
Was it a bug that got fixed when you simplified CreateRedirect? Also, in another news, I have a custom signature! :D (That was blatently modified from DW's. ~Kaysakado • Talk 09:05, 5 November 2007 (PST)
Yeah. User permissions weren't being checked, hence the anonymous user (me) was able to edit Main Page. That was fixed. :) http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CreateRedirect --Digiku talk 09:28, 5 November 2007 (PST)
My crazy idea involving a new category dedicated to the Source Code...
To be honest, I really don't think the wiki has enough information on the SRB2 Source Code. So, my idea is for a new category to be created titled 'Source Code' containing resources such as a list of what each file in the source code contains, I know it would take a while but it would be pretty useful for any coders wishing to edit the source code. Something else I'd like to see in the category is the inclusion of tutorials giving you a detailed explanation of how to edit the basics of SRB2, such as changing the version string and adding new menu items, all little tid-bits that could be useful. Advanced tutorials could also be added detailing how to do some more complicated stuff such as editing character abilities.
So guys, what do you think? I'd be willing to spend some time typing up tutorials and other resources.
We would, of course, need a criteria for tutorials, such as using one line comments (// text) to detail what each line of the code does, etc.
I agree that the wiki should have more information on the source code. --Turtle Man 14:03, 17 November 2007 (PST)
Actually, I quite wouldn't mind that. We could even upload the source to a directory and provide links on the relevant pages here! :)
The thing is: what's the demand, and who's going to write pages? 'cause I could upload the source files, but my personal focus is on topics other than the source. If other people will write up pages, then fine! Make an MB topic and ask people if they'd like to see source code info on the Wiki. If you're asking on IRC, provide a log. A vague "Everyone says 'yes'" summary isn't gonna do. --Digiku talk 14:39, 17 November 2007 (PST)
Better question: Who understands the source code enough and is actually willing to write nice, clean, concise articles on each and ever source & header file? I'd imagine that those who do understand it wouldn't want to bother writing pages on it. I agree it's a good idea, but in practical terms, it's just not feasible to make it a real focus point right now. ~DarkWarrior Talk • Contribs 14:44, 17 November 2007 (PST)
Copy editing is a piece of cake. Logan and/or Alam could even write a few pages and someone else (even me) could organize the info into clean English (sorry to use 'em as an example!) Case in point: Sonikku didn't know about making Wiki lists, but SonicMaster fixed that right up. Good as that is, it'd still be nice to know who's going to write these pages anyways. --Digiku talk 14:56, 17 November 2007 (PST)
And what of the tutorials, Dark Warrior? You mentioned my first idea, but nothing of the second, which was the reason the first popped into my head. There are plenty of people who know enough about the Source Code to create tutorials and it's not as though they would have to create the entire list. People could just add information over time as they wish, the end result would be a slowly built but informative list of every single source and header file that exists. --Cueball61 Talk 0:56, 17 November 2007 (PST)
Again, I have nothing against it. You can start doing it, Cueball! :) Start writing pages yourself so others will follow that. Like this, almost! I started making the damn Sector Types pages on my own discretion. It's easy: Just type the page title in the search box; if it doesn't exist, the top of the page will say to create a new page!
Also, tutorials is a rather sketchy area, tbh. Just come up with a sample for one file and we can take a look at it and improve from that. Honestly, most of our formats were polished by doing just that: posting a sample first, and then taking a look at that. It's free game. Start with inline (even block) comments. --Digiku talk 08:55, 18 November 2007 (PST)