Archive talk:Main Page/6

From SRB2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive page for the discussion page of Main Page. It covers topics from October 25, 2008 – April 27, 2010.

Happy Holidays!

I want everybody that worked hard on the SRB2 Wiki a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! - Superchris

Maybe you should say that on the 23rd or something. NOT a week BEFORE Christmas. --Modifier, player, and most other things - SML9999 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


...Is being totally awry right now. What's up?

Also, DarkWarrior's theme is b0rked, if that's relevant. ~ Blue Warrior talk contrib 22:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Peach is not a good colour for the backdrop at all.

Something's gone crazy with logins, too. Time to find DW. --Spazzo 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

New MB links

Since the MB moved, I've decided to update the MB links around the Wiki, but I'm not sure if I got all of them. Could someone else here do me the favour of changing any more MB links so that they are instead of whilst I'm away until tommorow? Thanks. --Monster Iestyn 20:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Search says that you got every single important one. Good job. –SonicMaster 20:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks for telling me. It was a pleasure to help. --Monster Iestyn 17:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Hold on... it seems to me there was some I missed, which others had done for me. Oh well, at least they were changed so they work now.

A page about SRB2 Wiki?

Since Wikipedia has a page about itself, maybe the SRB2 Wiki could have one too? Is this a good idea? --Monster Iestyn 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That article exists already, and it's on the sidebar. –SonicMaster 00:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Never mind in that case. I didn't know there was one already before, as I didn't notice it before. =/

Oh well... thanks for pointing that out to me anyway. --Monster Iestyn 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way...

Is there any way to find out who got the 150,000th hit? ~Kaysakado  •  Talk  •  20:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I got the hit. –SonicMaster 05:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Before you ask, I did NOT hit the Refresh button or Main Page button a bazillion times to get it.

How many unique hits do you guys have? ~Kaysakado  •  Talk  •  15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No clue. But there's probably some random page that tells you how many hits this site has gotten. And refreshing the page DOES NOT give extra hits... I don't think... Destructor of Destroyers, SML879

Can any of you do a huge favor for me?

If any of you folks are familiar with the Level Design Contests, can you point out any of the multiplayer maps that are a specific theme so I can reference from them?

I'm looking for these themes:

  • Deep Sea Zone
  • Castle Eggman Zone
  • Arid Sands Zone
  • Red Volcano Zone
  • Dark City Zone

If you'd tell me any maps with those themes, along with the contest they were in, that'd be great. Thanks! --Digiku talk 14:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


  • Deep Sea Zone - Tidal Palace
  • Castle Eggman Zone - Thunder Citadel
  • Arid Sands Zone - Desolate Twilight
  • Red Volcano Zone - Infernal Cavern
  • Dakr City Zone - UNKNOWN (If the current version was 1.09.4 I could say the Warehouse level.)

Those were all (I think) Match levels. --Sml9999 21:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Digiku means levels that were entered in the ofldc not offical levels.--This was done by Eggmanfan you have been warned 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Then... I can't help you. >_> And stop using that specific signature. You're starting to creep me out...--Sml9999 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding Pages to the Wiki

So let me get this straight, we can add any page we want, right? Violo 06:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Page Mod Listing

I'd really encourage removing the old 1.09.4 mods from the main page until they're updated to 2.0.X. Let's try to get the things linked from the main page updated first, at least. -Mystic 17:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"He or she"

I've been noticing a large number of articles here are having trouble deciding what to put for "generic third person singular" referring to a person. We need to decide a format for this and use it throughout the Wiki for consistency. -Mystic 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Depending on situation and application, we could use the following words: Author, Creator, Artist, (Level/Character/Game) Designer and so on. For instance: "The level designer decided that level should have been done this way, but not that way" --Ezer'Arch 01:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How about just they? It seems to work well. "As a level designer progresses on a level, they may find that earlier sections need to be rebuilt for consistency." Or something like that. -~~ RedEchidna 03:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


I recall the SRB2 Wiki used to have a favicon of its own. What happened to it? ~ Blue Warrior talk contrib 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Chances are, when the wiki switched domains, the favicon went gonzo. But once the mods get to it, it'll probably be fixed, unless they don't want a favicon for this anymore. Destructor of Destroyers, SML879


I have written a new entry for this sight with Google Sidewiki, so if anyone has Google toolbar, they can read it and find out some basic stuff before they start wandering around the wiki! Destructor of Destroyers, SML879

Reorder Main Page

Honestly, our main page is really kinda useless in the Editing section, putting the important material for newbies in the middle of the block and putting complicated reference material that most newbies don't need (the thing/linedef/sector listings) at the top.

We should move the Level Design, Character tutorial, and SOC information to the top because those are the most important "first links" for new people to click on.

There are also other rather useful pages, such as the Match strategy guide that shouldn't be embedded so deeply in our navigation tree. The main page here is really in dire need of some reconsideration to put only the content new people would need right at the top. -Mystic 01:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sonic Robo Blast 2


The Community

Building on top of what Mystic said, I propose this as the new layout for that main page thing. I've added the Match Strategy Guide and Official Time Attack Records, since both are very useful/important, reordered the Editing section (removed WAD File because it's linked in the Glossary and Level Header because it's linked in Level Design) and added a "More..." button to the community section, which obviously link to the Community category.

Of course, this is only a suggestion, and I want you to share your thoughts on this. If you have any suggestion on how this box should be ordered, feel free to edit it. After all, that's what the discussion page was made for. --SpiritCrusher 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problems with this, and will fix it tomorrow when my laptop has more than 3 minutes of power on it. ~RobTalkContribs 07:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is much better. -Mystic 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Spazzo?

Whenever I see User: Spazzo but not see it on the wiki, says that the page does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knuckles The Echidna (talkcontribs)

New SRB2 Doom Builder Config

As you all should know, Neo Chaotikal made tons of changes to the SRB2DB config, regrouping and renaming many specials. Our ultimate goal would of course be to be consistent in both the config and the wiki. However, there are two of major problems in doing the same changes here in the wiki:

  • The new config's grouping mixes up most of the numbers. Doing the same on the wiki would result in nothing but confusion. While this is somewhat bearable with the Thing Types, I'm quite unhappy with how the Linedef Types page is currently organized, and we should use only one of the two sortings presented there, not both.
  • Some of the names would cause confusion on the wiki. For example, the Eggman Monitor is now called Eggman, for which we have a disambiguation page at the moment. A lot of other names would also make the article titles ambiguous, which is not what we want. We could either sort this out on a case-by-case basis or deviate from the config and develop a different naming system.

I don't really know how we should deal with this, and there would be a huge lot of work to do in case we adapted the config (renaming and editing hundreds of pages). Before we continue with this, I'd like to have a decision on this. --SpiritCrusher 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply on this in two weeks, I decided to give this a start anyway. I'm currently mostly through the Thing Type pages, and I've decided to mostly adopt the changes of the config, but to make some adjustments where necessary. This includes:

  • Consistency. Some namings in the config makes little sense when used on a wiki, and additional descriptions have been left out completely.
  • Removal of ambiguity. Mostly notable in the Item Boxes section, where every page has an adiitional "Monitor" added on to it. This removes ambiguity that was not a problem in the config but would be on the wiki.
  • More specific groups of the Misc. section. Pushables are part of the Misc. section in the config, but I've decided to group them in one section and give them their own template.

If any question arise, or you disagree with my changes, feel free to edit and discuss. I by no means want to take control, I'm just doing it now because it has to be done. --SpiritCrusher 22:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Usage Notes

Hi guys, I really appreciate the newfound activity I'm seeing here lately, especially since the new Maintainers were put into place! Let me offer my opinions that I discussed with Spherallic some time ago, on how to improve the Wiki:

I have the suspiscions that:

  • Level editing is a highly communal thing, i.e. editors wouldn't come to the Wiki to get specific help for their maps; they go to the EDITING HELP forum to do so.
  • Therefore, people use the Wiki most as a "Quick Reference," e.g. for making Level Headers, looking up linedef types, or skynums

Plus, Wiki articles seem to be divided into three tiers, based on viewer popularity:

  • Tier 1 - "Encyclopedic," game, penis-stretching pages: e.g. Levels, SRB2/JTE, XSRB2, Mystic Realm, Emblem Guide
  • Tier 2 - "Quick Reference" pages: e.g. Level Headers, Cutscenes, Thing Types, SOC
  • Tier 3 - "Tutorials,": e.g. Level Design 101, Egg Capsule Creation, Polyobject Tutorials

Therefore, if any articles are gonna be rewritten, I'd focus on the "quick reference" pages most, then the tutorials. I think tutorials for the most basic stuff (Doom Builder tutorial, level tutorials,) are needed. More obscure stuff (egg capsule creation, polyobjects,) are nice as well. But these tutorials are less important than the quick reference articles.
I'd identify which are quick reference (the Linedefs, Sectors, and Things pages are a GREAT start,) and focus on making those the best they can be.

  • What do I mean, "best they can be?" Well, cater them towards how viewers will use them best! For instance, some level editors learn how to use specials by looking at the official maps. In a linedef page, you can include a screenshot of where the line special is found, as well as coordinates so the player can see for himself. I can draft a sample page to show what I mean.

My opinions only reflect level editing -- I have no clue about character WADding, SOCs, or source code. Some input on those things would be great!

I was going to do a community-wide survey on this, but I'm not sure if this would be effective. Anyways, here's my survey notes if you wanna take a look.

Thoughts would be appreciated! --Digiku talk 06:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input on this, and it's nice to see somebody who doesn't only understand the functions of the Wiki, but also cares to improve it. We already discussed this a while ago (it is possible you mistook me for Spherallic?), but I still have my doubts on what we should actually do now. If you've looked at the Wiki's activity over the last few weeks, you might've noticed that Fawfulfan is currently in the process of rewriting all Linedef/Sector/Thing Type pages, and I am currently in the process of getting helpful example WADs for these on here (yes, I will eventually make some myself). What you suggested (focusing on the quick reference material) is exactly what we're doing here (though we do edit other pages as well).

Bottom line: as long as there are no specific suggestions, I doubt anything will be changed in here. --SpiritCrusherTalkContribs 08:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't mention that I noticed that's exactly what you guys are doing :) Good show! I just wanted to throw my notes out there for you guys to peruse. What do you mean about not being sure what to do? Do you agree/disagree with the notes, or are you just not clear about what to do with it?

I think, beyond the lines/sectors/things pages, it'd be useful to identify all the other "quick reference" pages so you guys can focus on those. I can make example pages. If you gave me time between my finals and my other project, I could probably do that. Does that answer your question? --Digiku talk 15:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I agree, we've discussed this already. The problem was more that I wasn't clear what to do. Example pages would be highly appreciated. --SpiritCrusherTalkContribs 15:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Revamping Proposal

Building on top of the notes above, Digiku and me discussed several changes that we thought would benefit the Wiki and make it a more useful and less "penis-stretching" place. These changes are quite drastic and require a lot of changes as well as the removal of many. They all rely on the idea discussed above: That the Wiki is mostly used as a quick reference resource. This means we want to focus on these pages and improve them, as well as drastically cut down the first tier. I know these proposals might shock and even disappoint you, but if you think about it, they're for the better. Here ya go:

  • Level Pack pages should be removed altogether from the Wiki. Yes, you heard absolutely right. Coming to think of it, are these pages really any useful beyond the aforementioned "penis-stretching"? We think not. The only thing these pages might be good for are the walkthroughs, and I suspect those not be used all that much. Otherwise, they don't tell you more than the descriptions of their respective topics. If somebody of you does find these pages useful, by all means object, but give good reasoning.
  • Character WADs are still prohibited (self-explanatory).
  • Source Code Modifications should stay, but with bigger focus on the documentation of their custom editing features. Stuff like SRB2MFE is not useful and is practically just duplicated information.
  • The names for the editing special pages need a change again: The format will be the following: "LDXXX - Category - Name"; "STXXXXX - Name" and "THXXXX - Category - Name". This will preserve easy maintenance and make the names more helpful for the average level maker. Essentially, this works like the naming conventions for the example WADs.
  • The Linedef Type pages need some change. This includes the removal of wordiness to make the pages more concise (basically continue what Fawfulfan has already started), and additional info tables that shows the properties, for which Digiku will do a template. This means we have the properties for each linedef written out both in prose and in table format, the former for teaching newbies how to use the special, the latter as a quick reference for experienced WADders.

I'm not sure if that was everything, but I think so.

Please comment on these proposals, especially the maintainers. If you object to any of these, state it here and give good reasoning. Remember, Wikis are not a democracy, and if there more people opposing, that doesn't mean anything. We will eventually do whatever is best, so if one of these changes is not helpful, state why. --SpiritCrusherTalkContribs 06:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was everything :)

I wanted to add: Reason why I proposed that level WADs be removed is because, if character WADs can't be on the Wiki, then I don't see a reason why level WADs should be, either. Not even Mystic Realm. I believe it's best to just provide links to the Releases mb section.
SRB2 levels and characters should stay.

Re: The linedef page names: If you'll go ahead with that, ask Neo Chaotikal first whether he's gonna change the config any further. That was a major issue in this whole "names" business. He NEEDS to finish it in stone before you guys do any renaming in vain.
Other than that, the easiest way to rename all those pages is through XML batch edit. I'll probably teach SC how to do it later.

I'll work on the linedef page template ... soon. I've got something really important due on Wednesday, and it's not even halfway done X_X. --Digiku talk 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'm saying you're both crazy for thinking of this with any sort of seriousness. This is an encyclopedia of all things SRB2 related -- think Wikipedia on a smaller scale. To quoth ST218:
[02:43] <ST218> It's a wiki, you have the space. Collect and record as much info as possible and as useful
[02:43] <ST218> as long as it fits with the subject of the wiki, it should be on there
The fact that you seriously have the audacity to suggest removing tons of content solely on conjecture ("Most people use the wiki as a quick information resource" -- I'm sorry, The Mystic Realm isn't a quick information resource, but it's in the top ten viewed pages) is making me seriously wonder "What the hell, you two?" 犬夜叉(Inuyasha) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you two? On almost every game related wiki I've seen, there's been a mod page. It's good for finding info on a mod quickly and a download link in case the user is too lazy to look for one themselves. and why take out the 'wordiness'? What if it can help some people understand what's going on in example screenshots? --User:BlazingPhoenix

Guys, we are not Wikipedia. We do not need to be elitist pricks about what content we should and shouldn't have. We have lots of content here and all your "reform" is saying is to delete a ton of it. That's just dumb. Surely you all know I don't need Mystic Realm on here to support my e-peen, but I think it would be a loss to several of our users if you removed the information on it, regardless of how outdated it is. That's reason enough to keep that style of content, IMO.

Also, why in hell do we keep changing the article names? The article names SHOULD be the name of the thing/special. These are the most useful to someone casually browsing the Wiki. If you care that much about having the numbers redirect, do so, but nobody is going to search for Thing type 406, whereas many people would search for Elemental Shield or Elemental Shield Monitor. This is a retarded naming scheme and I want to know who changed it AGAIN.

The SRB2 Wiki is not broken; do not fix it. The thing the Wiki needs is more of the content we already have, not less. There is more to the SRB2 Wiki than quick reference articles. We have a massive, in-depth article on Level design. We have an in-depth Match strategy guide that explains the finer points of our game's gameplay. These are not articles that are designed as a quick reference like Elemental Shield. These are articles intended to be read and understood to impart their knowledge onto the reader, and these are what we need more of around here. -Mystic 17:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the wiki besides badly written tutorials, and unfinished pages. Why do you need to remove information? It's not like it's hurting anyone. I just don't get it, the wiki is fine the way it is. --Dusk

Note: Editors, etc, refers to SRB2 editing, not the Wiki.
I am of the opinion that the Wiki is indeed not as useful as it could be at the moment. However, I don't think deleting mod pages, etc, is the way to go here. The Wiki isn't just for editing, guys. We went over this way back when. Many people use these for emblem locations, secrets, list of map numbers, etc. As for SOCs: We should have one big list of SOCs page. Each SOC in the releases section of the SRB2MB (This includes SOCs released with level packs, etc, even if that level pack already has a real page) would have a section with a small sentence describing what it does, and a chart similar to the Technical Data section for maps that lists the frames, objects, and custom sprites used. It should become a standard on the SRB2MB to not conflict with a prior SOC to be moved to the releases section. Of course, a SOC that's meant to build on another would be allowed to overwrite one of the latter SOC's states/objects, although I've never heard of something like that. EXE Mods would have the same sort of page, except with versionnumbers to go with the MS reform. Characters? Characters can go suck cocks, but if you insist, you might want a page with their OBJCTCFG (did i spell that right?) IDs, although I don't know if any problems are actually caused if two overlap.
EDIT: As an afterthought, have another page like this for level packs so they don't overlap.
As for part 2 of my super wall of text, what I believe should actually be done to assist in editing:

  • Every linedef and sector should have a redirect page like LD123 or ST456 (I think we might have this already, I can't be bothered to check). This is so that if an editor already knows the special they want, they can just type in the URL.
  • Never redirect a user to another page for information on how to use a special. For example, chains should have information on how to be made on both the linedef page, the sector (do chains use sectors, i forget) page, and the thing page. In some cases, there should be a more detailed tutorial with its own page, but it would be with the short tutorial on the specials page as a "See also:"
  • The Main Page should have a drop down menu for linedefs, sectors, and things. This should be arranged by what the special does - editors who already know the linedef number can just use the URL or the Go function.

I think that's all I have for now. ~Kaysakado  •  Talk  •  17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you guys had to drag me into this. Here's where I stand: I agree and disagree at the same time. If a user is primarily editing the wiki for the sake of editing pages relevant to them/their modifications (Glaber, I'm looking at you). However, there's no reason to go around removing information Wikipedia-style when there's a laundry list of other things you guys could be doing.

  • The level creation guide is incomplete.
  • Troubleshooting is incomplete.
  • Earlier this month, I wanted to look up information about lvlconv (I had forgotten about the board topic). Nothing came up.

I disagree with "The SRB2 Wiki is not broken, don't try to fix it", as Mystic said above. There's a gauntlet of information that still hasn't been edited to reflect the current vesrion of SRB2, and you guys having nothing else to do but to talk about renaming all of the linedef pages again? Priorities, people, priorities!

If you're going to do anything at all, stop worrying about STYLE and start worrying on CONTENT. Every single SRB2-related inquiry -- with editing information as top priority -- should be answered on this Wiki. Stop concentrating your edits on making sure the page about your mods is 100% accurate and improve the wiki as a whole. There's a damn good reason why I deleted my own user account page.

Long story short? Stop caring about level packs and work on making this resource qualitative first. ~SpazzoTalkContribs 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My angle's aligned with Spazz's somewhat. I'm most concerned about this Wiki being a good editing resource. While the other pages are good, the fact is that nobody else is writing for the Wiki. I suppose it's not that productive to disallow pages, nor to disallow users from making those pages. I can agree there.

But I propose that we need an editing resource. And yet the staff -- possibly the only people working on the Wiki -- wastes a lot of time making pages that are not editing resources. Good points, though.

I would have appreciated proving my hypothesis that "the wiki is only used as a quick resource," except I know that this community would not be enthusiastic about a survey. As far as "style" goes, I suppose that's just paying small attention to detail. Maybe we don't really need to worry about that.

To summarize: The main controversy here seems to be about removing the content, and how elitist it seems. And I agree: Mozilla's Alex Faaborg wrote an article on it recently. Basically, developers often talk about users authoritatively -- "the user should expect this from Firefox." But you end up getting a lot of things wrong that way, so his solution is to go by established paradigms. What this means for us is to do what any good team does: Prioritize, prioritize. I'll change my angle regarding page deletion: The aforementioned things (not sure which) can be kept, but we need to prioritize on making an editing resource, and stop wasting time on other pages. That's originally why I wanted to delete everything else. Not sure what your opinions are on that? --Digiku talk 17:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with making it a strong editing resource, but I also think that our tutorial content for explaining how to start editing in the first place should be a massive priority. The SRB2 Doom Builder tutorial should be our absolute, number one priority around here, and yet it's still just as awful as it was months ago. -Mystic 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tutorials are fine -- we just need writers. Actually, you're probably one of the best writers we've got because you know about brevity :) We could prioritize on quick-refs and tutorials equally -- but then there's another problem: Who's gonna write all these pages? --Digiku talk 18:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if at all possible, can we remove the /wiki/ so that URLs are simply things like ~Kaysakado  •  Talk  •  18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. *shrugs*

Just wanted to add to my previous point re: who'll edit? -- I think the issue is that all of us have better things to do. It's totally typical, since SRB2 is our leisurely activity. Who wants to work and write during their leisure? :P We work on other personal leisurely projects, like my Win7 utility or Inu's XSRB2, because it's fun. Writing's not fun.

Is there a way we can stimulate editing activity? Bulbapedia has these "editing drives," for instance. --Digiku talk 18:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Voice on #srb2fun! :D ~Kaysakado  •  Talk  •  18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The main wiki idea is about relevance: if something is relevant to the community, it should be included in the Wiki. Removing everything that is not related to the Editing and SRB2 itself is a limited approach of what the Wiki is for. Removing, for instance, Mystic Realm and Acid Missile just because character WADs aren't allowed in the wiki is a wrong approach because characters don't have the depth that a legit level pack does.
The 2nd idea is accuracy & organization, so any help that makes the search and the reading nicer and satisfactory is most welcome.
I think the maintainers should make a list of "10 priorities of the Month" as an achievement and put it on the Main Page. My impression is that editors' effort is dispersed, so they start editing the pages randomly.
Another thing I'd like to point out: if ego boost is a problem, maintainers should have a look in some users here who use the wiki solely as personal page.
Besides, saying something like it's not a democracy(*) and your opinion doesn't mean anything is deeply discouraging. People join the MB and the Wiki voluntarily and make stuff (wad's and exe's) voluntarily. If they feel their opinion and their works are not relevant, they can voluntarily stop making stuff and can voluntarily leave the community too.
(*) - We do know it's not democracy, but the way how we deal with people can make a world of difference, for good or for bad. It doesn't mean that maintainers/leaders must obey the members (or this will become a big mess), what I meant was about how to listen to people's opinion and how to deal with it.
The Wiki does need a revamp for "more", not for "less". I wish you all the best. --Ezer'Arch|עֶזֶר'AρχTalk 18:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a democracy != you have nothing to say. You have just as much to say as I do, but your opinion doesn't matter, your arguments do. --SpiritCrusherTalkContribs 18:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this issue to its conclusion in #srb2fun. Basically, we decided on the following:

  • The Wiki, level pages, etc., will be kept as-is, no deletions.
  • Thing/Linedef/Sector pages will be renamed to more "user-friendly" names.
  • Let users edit as they will.
    • By this, I mean "if a user will edit and improve the Wiki, then let him do so." But we (read: I) shouldn't be so caught up about making the Wiki "the best it can be." Because if we're not getting additional writers, then the matter is totally moot. It can certainly be made better, but as Mystic said, it's a matter of "getting it done very slowly, if even at all."

From here on, I'd still suggest continuing to prioritize with level editing pages -- quick-refs and tutorials -- but just watch yourselves when you start to stagnate :P To his credit, that's exactly what SpiritCrusher was doing. I managed to steer him off track by this afternoon of arguments. At least item #2 (renaming) was decided upon :) --Digiku talk 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the /wiki/ stays Kaysakado, removing it is a bad idea LoganA 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, so much ado about nothing. And once again, Digiku, I don't blame you. Let's just continue how we used to, I can only barely imagine how many times these discussions have been taking place in the past. After all, experience has shown that people still don't the Wiki all that much and probably never will. Problems are most easily resolved though the Editing Help forum. --SpiritCrusherTalkContribs 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Thing/Linedef/Sector Pages

I seem to be the only one pushing for the Thing/Linedef/Sector Type Pages to be named according to their number, rather than the name of the effect. SpiritCrusher is the only person I've debated this with, so I've been pretty quiet on this issue so far.

Despite the fact that this isn't a democracy, it is certainly true that if the entire community is demanding the Maintainers to do something, they would be well-advised to do it. So I'm likely going to be overruled on this issue, but I feel as though I should at the very least get a chance to explain my reasoning for why I believe these pages whould be named this way.

  • While it would be more user-friendly in theory to name them according to their effect, this is actually not necessarily the case. The way it's set up now, most pages are named by the effect number, but they ALSO have a corresponding redirect page in case anyone tries to search by typing in the name of the effect. So there's really no difference in user-friendliness; either way we choose to name the pages, there will be redirects which ensure people will find the pages no matter how they look for them.
  • Naming the pages by effect number is the best way to account for future config changes. In updates to the SRB2DB configuration files, the names of the effects constantly change, but their numbers remain constant. If we were to name these pages according to the name of the effect, we would have to change several of them every time a new config comes out. If, on the other hand, they are named according to their effect numbers, we would only have to tinker with the redirect pages a little bit.

So, basically, renaming the pages this way will make very little difference in user-friendliness, but it will make LOTS more work for the Maintainers.

I know you guys are pretty adamant in your demands, so we're probably going to do what you're asking. I just urge you to think hard about what I've said. Fawfulfan Fawful Laughing.gif Want to talk? 15:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand the reasoning behind naming the articles after ID numbers, but I completely disagree. The main reason is that the user doesn't need to see some kind of redirect to something they would never type into the Wiki in a million years. Nobody would type Thing Type 406 into the search box, but they certainly might type in Elemental Shield. Hell, to drive home the point, nobody even noticed that thing type 406 doesn't redirect (because nobody ever searches by thing number). I agree that some linedef types, especially some of the FOF types, would end up with really long names. This is because all the linedef type does is set a few variables for the basic FOF. They probably don't need their own article at all and instead could use a basic "Floor over floor" article that would describe them all, using separate articles for things like Quicksand Block that have their own settings.

If the names of some objects are causing trouble, we can change their names. The name of almost every object is just the first thing that was written down into a WadAuthor config in 2002. If it's necessary to clean up our config's names, I have no problem with that (in fact, that would probably help everyone down the road). I just have an extreme dislike for article names that are completely useless for everyone but the wiki maintainers. To give an example, I'll use the Elemental Shield again. This is the current opening text of the article:

Thing Type 406, the Elemental Shield Monitor, is a monitor that gives the player the Elemental Shield upon destruction. It is an all-purpose shield that protects against lava, slime, electricity and drowning, and also creates a damaging flame trail when spindashing.

Why can't we have this?

The Elemental Shield is an all-purpose shield that protects against lava, slime, electricity and drowning, and also creates a damaging flame trail when spindashing.

Put the text about monitors granting the shield status later in the article, because it's really not important. Anyone that cares about the distinction between monitor and shield will be fully able to read an entire paragraph instead of the opening sentence. Also, this removes the thing type from the article entirely, putting it in the info table where it belongs. The only reason it's in the article at all is because the name of the article is thing type 406. -Mystic 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mystic, that article is about the monitor, not the shield. It is about the exact object that is placed onto a map and gives the shield when opened. Otherwise, I agree with you, but someone will need to change all those names to something useful as well as modify the config. Also, the thing type number has been mentioned in the first sentence long before the title was changed to it, and I personally think it should stay there.--SpiritCrusherTalkContribs 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Linking to the website

I noticed that something's missing on the Main Page: a simple link to I'm not sure where it could be placed, but I guess it's kind of needed. Espyo 16:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

40KB - time for another archive?

That seems to be the standard, but I don't know if I have the authority to do it myself. >_> ~Kaysakado  •  Talk  •  00:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to be sure this whole discussion is over before I make one. If there's no further discussion on the above topics for three days, I'll make another archive. --SpiritCrusherTalkContribs 08:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: You know what? I don't think there's anything more to discuss about these topics. If there is, people can copy it out of the archive anyway. Also, for future reference: While you technically can create archives, you can't lock them, so it's best to leave that work to Maintainers. --SpiritCrusherTalkContribs 14:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)