Archive talk:Main Page/4

From SRB2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive page for the discussion page of Main Page. It covers topics from December 1, 2007 – December 11, 2007.


OMG BUG! (Deja vu...)

File:Deja Vu olololol.GIF

I found that on the double redirects page, and when I clicked the edit button, it took me to the view source page for the Main Page. ~Kaysakado  • Talk 15:45, 1 December 2007 (PST)

Right, the DB has a bugged entry. I was messing around once. I really don't want to dig through the DB and see what's going on, though, so that's going to stay, I bet. I don't consider this a major bug, anyways. :) --Digiku talk 15:51, 1 December 2007 (PST)

The Doom Builder has a bugged entry? *shot* Don't worry, I know it means database... ~Kaysakado  • Talk 16:00, 1 December 2007 (PST)

OMG BU--*maimed*

Read the page. ~Kaysakado  • Talk 07:41, 2 December 2007 (PST)

What page? *shot* ;) Seriously, I'll let this bug slide. We use the SRB2 Wiki: namespace for official uses, but Wikipedia doesn't. The software is tailored towards Wikipedia, and I'm not going to code additional stuff for our own uses if it's just easier with what the software already has. :) --Digiku talk 07:43, 2 December 2007 (PST)

Category listings were revamped

To explain the mass-importing of pages, that's a batch edit covering almost the entire Wiki intended to revamp the category listings. The only changes were that extraneous categories were removed.

An SRB2 page, for instance, would have Categories Sonic Robo Blast 2, Levels, Single Player Levels, and Greenflower Zone. The former category listing followed an inclusive system, where if a page was part of a child category, it was also part of all its parent categories. The changes ensued changed this so a page is only part of its child categories, and that's it. So the page has Categories Single Player Levels and Greenflower Zone only. This was done to simplify category browsing, so a horde of pages isn't thrown towards the reader all at once, just by clicking Category:Sonic Robo Blast 2.

Talk:, User:, and User talk: pages are definitely not affected. Only pages in the main namespace are affected, and only those pages who were under Category:Sonic Robo Blast 2 and Category:Editing. All others are untouched.

If you edited any pages between 12/3/07 7:00PM EST and 12/4/07 5:00AM EST, the edits may not be reflected in the newest pages. Check to see if the edits are applied. Also, some newer categories were created that are redlinked. If you find any, fix 'em! Other than that, I think the rest should be alright!

--Digiku talk 15:19, 4 December 2007 (PST)

How do you check how many edits you have made?

I trieed looking at my contributions page, but I didn't find anything about it there. In unrelated news, maybe we should create another archive of this page? ~Kaysakado  • Talk 19:05, 30 November 2007 (PST)

Not until this page reaches 40KB. :)

Anyways, go to your Preferences page. It says it right there: Number of edits. Mine is 3,881. :) --Digiku talk 19:07, 30 November 2007 (PST)

Whoops, I was planning on suggesting another archive in late October actually, and apaprently, too late to suggest it now, seeing as it has been archived. Carry on then. ~Kaysakado  • Talk 19:08, 30 November 2007 (PST)

Mine is 1,452. ^_^ –SonicMaster 15:53, 1 December 2007 (PST)

Logo touch-up

I'm remaking the logo to, 1. Look nicer, and 2. Be high-res (my new original is 350x350, and our current logo is 128x128.) I can't decide on the text layout, though. Which "SRB2 WIKI" text layout do you prefer: the first or the second?

logo3_testb.png logo3_testa.png

We could also go the no-text route!


Which one is best? (Before you ask, SSNTails gave me the hi-res Sonic head :) )

--Digiku talk 01:28, 7 December 2007 (PST)

I vote for the second one. ~Kaysakado  • Talk 04:22, 7 December 2007 (PST)

I prefer the second one as well, but I personally would prefer the map layout part of the picture be a little more obvious, like our current logo. Right now it's hard to tell that it's even showing a map layout at all in the new one. -Mystic 07:16, 7 December 2007 (PST)

I agree. Maybe just darker lines are all that's needed, but I pretty much have to agree with Mystic's overall assessment. ~DarkWarrior Talk • Contribs 07:24, 7 December 2007 (PST)

How's this?


Yeah, I had trouble with the lines since they're really really thin. Though how's that? Does SRB2 Builder have a line thickness option? 'cause that'd help. --Digiku talk 09:36, 7 December 2007 (PST)

That one's perfect, right there. I love it. ~DarkWarrior Talk • Contribs 10:26, 7 December 2007 (PST)

Actually, I don't like the SSNTails head drawing there. It just...I didn't like it. So I choose none of them. –SonicMaster 12:11, 7 December 2007 (PST)

Aah, never mind; I'm getting used to it. Choose logo3_testb-2.png.

And you don't use SRB2 Doom Builder? For shame!  :P XD –SonicMaster 12:27, 7 December 2007 (PST)

SRB2 Builder, not SRB2 Doom Builder. :P The former is a really new map editing program; it's circulating in semi-privacy right now. WadAuthor's been my favorite to use, though, although it's really starting to show its age. (At least it doesn't outright break on me.) --Digiku talk 12:31, 7 December 2007 (PST)

I like the second one the best, although to get the map part to show a bit more, maybe something like this:
I think the other ones would look better, although this one would do well if you wanted both parts to show a bit.---Cheese the Food 13:14, 7 December 2007 (PST)

Looks good, Cheese, but it makes it seem like all it is, is a level WAD tutorial. Oh, and, Digiku, WadAuthor = heresy. XD XD *stabs Digi for heresy* JUST KIDDING! But seriously, WadAuthor was incredibly frustrating for me. –SonicMaster 15:02, 7 December 2007 (PST)

How 'bout this for it:
It still doesn't look that great, but it improved. ---Cheese the Food 10:54, 8 December 2007 (PST)

I'll be honest: it looks better without those. –SonicMaster 11:47, 8 December 2007 (PST)


Personally, I like this one, but my tastes don't tell me that the black-on-white map layout looks cool blending into the actual map. I think it look cooler to use Doom Builder's (or SRB2DB's, assuming it's similar) white-on-black map layout instead. I would try and toy around with a logo, but I'm not sure if I'm up to doing any tooling around with graphical effects in Fireworks at the moment. ~ Blue Warrior talk 15:49, 8 December 2007 (PST)

Well, Digi, let's see what that looks like! –SonicMaster 16:18, 8 December 2007 (PST)

logo3_testb-2.png logo3_testb-3.png logo3_testd.png

Personally, the black just doesn't seem user-friendly at all. Regardless, which one do you think is best? (Disregard the artifacts on the third one; those I can fix up)

Btw, BW: If you have/are willing to install Paint.NET, I've got the 350x350px original on me. :) --Digiku talk 16:46, 8 December 2007 (PST)

Can I have teh original? ~Kaysakado  • Talk 16:48, 8 December 2007 (PST)

Vote and I'll upload it. :P I think the third one isn't all that bad, actually (this wasn't a real vote.) --Digiku talk 16:50, 8 December 2007 (PST)

I can't choose between the middle and the one on the right. ~Kaysakado  • Talk 17:05, 8 December 2007 (PST)

Blue Warrior surely knew what he was talking about! Choose the second one! –SonicMaster 17:56, 8 December 2007 (PST)

The black does blend better, but I'm more concerned about user-friendliness. Black maps, as accurate and "default" as they are in consideration of mapping programs, don't really fit the SRB2 tone very well, imo. --Digiku talk 17:59, 8 December 2007 (PST)

Aw...DANGIT! Then choose blue to blend in, because it displayeth the SKY1 texture although it's somewhat biased towards WadAuthor backgrounds. –SonicMaster 18:07, 8 December 2007 (PST)

That's it: We're done. I applied the final tweaks to the main page styles. It's now live, along with the new logo. I'm not convinced about black, and we have better things to do than concern ourselves with the visual style to worry about either the black logo or the third logo (sorry, Cheese!), like me finishing Graphics. So unless BW's going to come up with something on his own, I'm done.

Here's the logo original in Paint.NET format. --Digiku talk 18:39, 8 December 2007 (PST)

You know, I think the reason why the logo you picked bugged me was that the map layout blended in too slowly with the actual map. Now that the blend was sharpened, it looks a lot better.

Great work, I'm not even going to bother trying to top it off. =P ~ Blue Warrior talk contrib 19:16, 8 December 2007 (PST)

Is there anyway for a template to, like, be raw?

I want to be able to format the time and date in my sig by changing my sig to this: {{User:Kaysakado/SigTest}} , but in that page, at the final part, where it has the five hypens to post the time only, with nowiki tags, it shows up as 5 hypens, and without wiki tags, it shows up as the time I made the template, not the time I posted the post. Help? ~Kaysakado  • Talk 06:29, 9 December 2007 (PST)

The way you worded it was tricky to understand, so I'll help you out this way: I assume you want to format the date and time, right?

Well, five hyphens isn't a substitution syntax. So what you can do is replace the ~~~~~ with {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC). Remove the nowiki tags.

Then, in your "Custom Signature" options box, put this: {{subst:User:Kaysakado/SigTest}}. That tells the software to directly copy over the content to the page text, not just reference it a la a template tag. So it'll show up like this: ~Kaysakado  • Talk 06:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A disadvantage to this method is that your signature in each page won't be updated every time you change the signature page itself. Also, you'll have to sign with three tildes, not four; otherwise, a second date text appears. Regardless, that's how you can format the date text. --~Kaysakado  • Talk 06:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (PST) (only kidding! :) )

Whoops, that wasn't correct. --~Kaysakado  • Talk ~~~~~ 15:08, 9 December 2007 (PST)

Digiku, actually, I tried, it, and it worked. ~Kaysakado  • Talk 06:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that the time in question is actually the current time, not the time of the post, so in that sense it's actually broken. :P --Digiku talk 15:52, 9 December 2007 (PST)

I see. w/e. It's not like anyone actually looks at the times. *shot* But yeah, I'll fix it. Also, look at what category this page is in. ~Kaysakado  • Talk 06:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. --Digiku talk 16:03, 9 December 2007 (PST)

I think I've fixed the time bug now. It's the moment of truth: ~Kaysakado  • Talk 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I have. Wanna know how I did it? I set my custom sig to say this:

{{SUBST:User:Kaysakado/SigTest}} <span style="background:#4040FF;color:#FFFFFF">''{{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)''</span></nowiki>

This previously unsigned post was made by ~Kaysakado  • Talk 00:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Post in five minutes and see if the time is any different. I actually thought of that, too. --Digiku talk 16:07, 9 December 2007 (PST)

Why UTC? You told me you're in the Eastern Time Zone, Kaysakado. –SonicMaster 16:08, 9 December 2007 (PST)

Because that's what the timezone the Wiki posts in when you do {{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}} ~Kaysakado  • Talk 00:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that syntax does work, then. Good show! It's weird: The parser seems to evaluate template and subst tags at the time of inclusion...? I can't wrap my head around it, but at least it works. :)

SonicMaster: The time displayed is in UTC. There's no way to get it to be EST. --Digiku talk 16:10, 9 December 2007 (PST)

I know you said we weren't going to make it not redirect on that editing help page, but I still want to know the syntax.

If it's possible, I mean. ~Kaysakado  • Talk 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the SRB2 Wiki:Requests page does that. However, it has to be formatted as an external link:

[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:SRB2|redirect=no}} No redirect]

No redirect

--Digiku talk 17:33, 9 December 2007 (PST)

User page guidelines

In light of User:SEOI67, we need to identify what really belongs on a user's talkpage.

  • As DW likes to say, "anything" is pretty much the key word -- within moderation.
  • Within moderation, any content that fits on the user page, and an unlimited amount of subpages, is allowed.
  • Showing off projects or files on your user page is allowed, but we are unable to host them for you. Upload them on your own webspace. (This is my new idea.)

--Digiku talk 18:26, 18 November 2007 (PST)

Just wondering, if our user page was deleted because we deleted all the text on it, can we re-create it? I don't really have anything really useful to put on it, I just don't want to always be a red name. --Cheese the Food 16:02, 19 November 2007 (PST)

Yeah, sure. Actually, I don't understand myself why a blank user page is problematic. Ask Spazz about it, I suppose; he's the one who deleted it. --Digiku talk 17:05, 19 November 2007 (PST)

It's not problematic, it's just weird to have a link that shows content to a page that has none. ~DarkWarrior Talk • Contribs 19:19, 19 November 2007 (PST)

But why is it weird with a user page? I understand a regular page, but shouldn't a user page not be a "problem"? --Digiku talk 17:04, 20 November 2007 (PST)

It's not a problem, it just looks weird. :P Especially on the Recent Changes list. ~DarkWarrior Talk • Contribs 10:48, 21 November 2007 (PST)

My meaning of "problem" and your meaning of "problem" is probably different. By "problem", I mean "anything that warrants a page delete." And if it "looks weird", and you'd like it deleted, then I consider "looking weird" a "problem" in my definition. :P --Digiku talk 10:52, 21 November 2007 (PST)

I personally consider a "problem" something that goes against rules/guidelines. The rest is just personal preference. :P ~DarkWarrior Talk • Contribs 11:31, 21 November 2007 (PST)

Main Page needs to be updated now that we have Help:Editing

"It also includes primers on wiki markup, which is an easy way of formatting pages on the Wiki, as well as prospects that you may like to follow when you edit articles here." No it does not, good sir. ~Kaysakado  • Talk 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not finished yet. I'll update it when it's finished. :) --Digiku talk 14:30, 10 December 2007 (PST)

Update'd! --Digiku talk 03:43, 11 December 2007 (PST)