SRB2 Wiki talk:Requests
* (People offering to create the article)
This is a small idea I had, and I wondered if anyone wanted to interject. Basically, whatever request someone feels like taking, they'll put an asterisk by it and their alias in parentheses. This is especially useful if that person is working on long or multiple requests, and the people that made the request won't go "wtf i need this article sum1 do it :(". I'll start off. ~ Blue Warrior 00:40, 1 July 2007 (PDT)
RE:
I think there needs to be a deadline for * (lolperson) to have some sort of update on their task. It's not really helpful to offer to do something if the person doesn't do it. Might I propose that, if a person shows no sign of progress on his task for two months, the * (lolperson) is removed?
To go along with this, perhaps it would also be a good idea for the person to keep along a date next to that name so we can easily keep track of when the task was last updated. ~ Blue Warrior talk contrib 08:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea. –SonicMaster 17:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Add your request below link
Not like it's a big deal, but that link on this page doesn't work. I have no idea how to fix it. –SonicMaster 13:45, 6 December 2007 (PST)
Actually, that's a *really* big deal! Good eye! :)
Anyways, what was going on was that the namespace ("SRB2 Wiki") was missing. The link is generated using predefined variables, so I put the missing namespace variable in and it works! --Digiku talk 14:59, 6 December 2007 (PST)
Not to be a pest but,
Is anyone going to do "Glaber Syndrome"? because I'm missing a few details about it myself.--Glaber 20:44, 13 January 2008 (PST)
What is it anyway? Does it have anything to do with Janfeb 07? –SonicMaster 20:52, 13 January 2008 (PST)
As far as I know it dates back to my first map, Spiral Mountain, and expanded to my other map remakes. Only one map not made by me was classified with "Glaber Syndrome" and it was a remake of a map from Super Mario RPG. then Sometime later someone made a comment that threw me and left me wanting to know more about the syndrome. At this point I do know htat it seems to be about my habbit of remaking maps from other games. Also it originated on the forums. --Glaber 18:41, 14 January 2008 (PST)
I don't particularly think it's worth noting. First it was roboegg's levels, then yours...The person who gets the title usually loses it when another comes around. No, it doesn't really need to be an article. ~DarkWarrior Talk • Contribs 20:59, 14 January 2008 (PST)
Really? So what levels of roboeggs's applied?--Glaber 22:23, 14 January 2008 (PST)
Seriously, what Roboegg levels applied? Also how long did "RoboeggSyndrome" last? --Glaber 00:00, 2 February 2008 (PST)
All of the levels applied. Trust me, I worked on a mod with him. What he had problems with was the size of the levels. It was always too big or too small. I think he would've done better just doing match levels until he got a little better at making levels. ---Cheese the Food 09:21, 2 February 2008 (PST)
Well that answers that, but what level or series of levels got the syndrome named after me? Aside from Battle Woods because I already figure that the zone is a factor.--Glaber 12:48, 2 February 2008 (PST)
I almost want to say it was the January/February 2007 contest. As it says in the article, "Many people criticized this particular contest, due to the lengthy amount of wads from a single user, most of them receiving average to sub-average grades." I would assume that this drew a lot of attention to you and your maps, and thus got a "syndrome" named after you. --Jazz 13:11, 2 February 2008 (PST)
It falls under the larger category that levels that originate from other games generally suffer in size, spacing, and playability. I doubt 'glaber syndrome' was meant to be an actual term, and therefore its not likely to be treated as such. JEV3 14:32, 2 February 2008 (PST)
Well either way I feel this should have a page. "Glaber Syndrome" under its current definition is the equivalent of the Doom Community's "1994 levels".I also feel that the definition is not going to get reassigned to a new term any time soon.--Glaber 19:14, 24 February 2008 (PST)
1.1 Editing Information
Kitsune, I assume that those sections are no longer being made, due to the fact that distributing any kind of editing information on 1.1 results in an instant ban. Just figured I needed to bring this up for discussion, just to be sure, rather than just removing it from the requests list with no explanation. --Jazz 10:13, 5 March 2008 (PST)
Bleh, aprarantly next time I'll save myself the effort and just make the edit myself instead of discussing it. I guess it can always be reverted if an issue turns up. --Jazz 12:52, 5 March 2008 (PST)
Anything 1.1 exclusive should not be written in detail (IE: Thing numbers for new weapons). Basic information on what some of the new stuff is would be great, as long as that in-depth detail is excluded. 1.1 references for currently existing components, however, is fine. ~DarkWarrior Talk • Contribs 18:17, 5 March 2008 (PST)
Adding off-site images
I'm sorry, but I don't quite know. I don't think there's a way to resize them on the Wiki, but if you put the URL in without brackets, it will show up. –SonicMaster 05:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)