Gswiki:Village pump/Archive 003

Cite.php

Here, I suggest, for the use of References, that you put this in KP: Cite.php. Also, Special:Version shows we're running 1.6 alpha of MediaWiki. Wikipedia, itself, is using version 1.7 alpha, though, the MediaWiki Download page only shows version 1.6.7 available for download. So, I'm not quite sure exactly what that all means, but I'm just evaluating what I see. In all honesty, I just want to be able to use the Cite.php thing. -Andy ^talk 16:31, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

Done. See Gswiki:Sandbox#Cite.php. I'll also be updating to the latest version of MediaWiki software later today. I want to set up a decent testing solution first, so I can ensure the transition between versions will be as smooth as possible. - Oliver ^Talk 11:56, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

Combat Maneuvers

I was sitting around thinking about what I felt needed work while adding some stuff to the Warrior page, and it looks like combat maneuvers are nearly universally undocumented. I don't know how most of them function beyond their basic description, so I'd ask that anyone with experience in any particular maneuvers write up a page for it. Hopefully, all the assorted people working will fill in a good lot of them, and the remaining ones can be filled in from there. IRVINETOMOE 20:01, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Krakiipedia Skin

I'm currently in the middle of mucking about with a custom skin for Krakiipedia, which anyone interesting in checking out can do so by setting their preferences to use 'myskin' instead of 'monobook' (or whatever your skin setting may be.) It's a SERIOUS work in progress at this stage, as I'm mainly trying to re-wrap my head around CSS layout. The basic theme I'm shooting for is slightly Egyptian/Lost-Scrolls-of-Alexandria. The Lost Scrolls of Krakiipedia! We'll see how it goes. - Oliver (User | Talk) 16:10, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Mucked about a bit more, and the skin is a bit more 'together' now. In Firefox, anyway. Internet Explorer proves to be the devil, evermore. Anyone have any experience with CSS under IE that might want to lend a hand to making the layout, uh, function? Oliver ^Talk 22:28, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

Notice!

Slackers. -Andy ^talk 21:23, 15 April 2006 (PDT)

CSS files, wikis, etc.

MediaWiki_talk:Common.css. That is all. Well, that and I'd like to investigate the potentual uses of the MediaWiki:Common.css and the MediaWiki:Monobook.css. As I mentioned, I'm not very familiar with either of these objects, but I guess we could use the Common.css to define classes in Krakiipedia. Classes would be... useful for replacing something as simple as the prettytable template, and, defined as a class, one could use the prettytable class and still define additional styles without messing up the entire table (which is why I added the "{{{1| }}}" at the end of the Prettytable template). Anyway, we're geared for growth, and I hear using templates within templates can be harmful to the server.[1] -Belathus 21:22, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

It's late, but we really should start using CSS classes and ids for any templates which involve any markup including custom styling. More to ensure that these templates look right across all skins rather than being able to define additional inline styles. We should be shying away from using inline styles. I started this a bit, since I'm semi-actively working on the new KP skin. I updated some elements on the front page to work as such. - Oliver ^Talk 12:02, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

Reference link inconsistancies

I'm looking for suggestions on which word to use when refering to a reference link: "Resources," "References," or "External links." The most commonly used word, thus far, is "Reference," which would likely be more appropriate if pluralized, even if the article only has one reference link. "References" just so happens to be what I'm leaning towards. -Belathus 07:36, 4 April 2006 (PDT)

I think the section should be labeled External Links, since that's what they are. They're not necessarily references, at least not in the common use of the term. Wikipedia:Lost (TV series) is a good example of how I think we should be handling things like this. - Oliver (User | Talk) 15:16, 8 April 2006 (PDT)

If the links appearing at the bottom of an article are intended to support the facts contained within, then the section ought to be entitled "References," since that is what they are (regardless of their internal/external locations). I could be misunderstanding the purpose of those links, though. Its a bit superflous to have several sections of links at the bottom of each article, perhaps just one or two which are standard and coverall. If indeed the additional links are intended as support for the facts contained within an article, it would be most appropriate to include a "References" and "Additional Information" sections where appropriate. If the intention is simply to list associated links, it would be more appropriate to separate them by their location, having both a "Related Articles" and "External Links" section. *SammichKing*..who?..wha? 23:08, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

Using a References section is fine, as long as proper referential notations are used, otherwise there's little point. Links to other articles in the wiki that atre not directly imbeded into the article itself, such as for guides or saved posts, should be included in a Related Articles section. All other links to be included, but not attributed as references, should be included in an External Links section. - Oliver (User | Talk) 07:17, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Oh, by the way, the reference method that Wikipedia uses, such as that in the Lost article, doesn't work in Krakiipedia. I wonder if there was a software upgrade or something. -Andy ^talk 08:09, 6 May 2006 (PDT)

It looks like it's a MediaWiki extention. I just figured they had a couple of templates for the formatting, heh. I'll look into getting it installed. - Oliver (User | Talk) 08:48, 6 May 2006 (PDT)

The <math> tags also seem to be a wikimedia extention, though, I don't know how useful that'd be. I imagine it'd be at least somewhat useful. -Andy ^talk 08:24, 10 May 2006 (PDT)

A suggestion for the Main Page, and then some

I would like to suggest adding the 'play' button to the Main Page in addition to the verbage required for "all GemStone IV fansites" listed on Play.net... then adding the following at the bottom:

Simutronics® is a registered trademark and service mark of Simutronics Corporation. All rights reserved. The GemStone ® IV game is copyright © 1987-2006 Simutronics Corp. All rights reserved. GemStone ® is a registered trademark of Simutronics Corp. All rights reserved.

Then! We could add Krakiipedia as a fansite page on play.net! Whoo! and all that. -Belathus 01:30, 4 April 2006 (PDT)

We actually already have the copyright notice on the Krakiipedia:General_disclaimer page, which is linked from the bottom of every page, so we're covered there (the guidelines don't appear to require that the message be on the main page). - Ildran 10:32, 4 April 2006 (PDT)

Well, I guess now all it needs is the 'play' button. -Belathus 15:48, 4 April 2006 (PDT)

More thoughts on Templates

Since the Weapon tables are used rather often and each weapon may be refereced multiple times, I'm thinking of just making a template for each specific weapon type. IE, Template:Weapon table sai for the sai. It'd replace all those Template:Weapon table entry and Template:Weapon table simple references I have, and it'd allow for quick corrections, should some data be found wrong. -Belathus 17:46, 2 April 2006 (PDT)

That would work beautifully. I see you've figured out that you can include templates from other templates, so I don't need to suggest doing it that way :) - Ildran 10:25, 4 April 2006 (PDT)

Profession training template

Okay, I've been messing with this for a while, and... I think I'm finally satisfied with it being on the sidebar like it is -- it's just a really long sidebar. Now, my thought is to add this template to Template:Profession. Any thoughts or objections? -Belathus 14:29, 2 April 2006 (PDT)

Looks fantastic! I would definately like to see this in use on each of the profession pages. It would also be interesting to create a table which cross-references all the professions and TP costs of their skills for comparison sake. It could go on the skills page. *SammichKing*..who?..wha? 22:37, 2 April 2006 (PDT)

Essays on the KP

I found a post somewhere on the forums asking the policy of essays and suggesting a disclaimer that states that the essay may be objective in opinion or might generally not have a NPOV. Seeing as they are listed as essays, generally, I'm not terribly worried about their existance, but, well, we could discuss it. -Belathus 07:25, 1 April 2006 (PST)

I think essays are fine. The entire site should be considered unofficial information anyway. As well, we're not Wikipedia, there's no NPOV policy here, especially as IC matters are concerned (though for OOC pages, they should generally be information without commentary, if only because that makes it a more useful reference). If someone wants to put up an essay by their character that says that dark elves are scum, that's cool with me, though it probably should be clearly marked as IC material rather than OOC. Perhaps we should make a template that says something along the lines of "The text on this page is written from an in-character point of view, and as such may be subject to in-character prejudice or inaccuracies."? - Ildran 11:10, 1 April 2006 (PST)

I would guess that IC and OOC articles are, for the most part, easily identified, and don't require marking as being an IC or OOC article. Generally, though, we know that certain categories are IC and others are OOC. However, I wouldn't mind having a tag for articles that don't generally meet a NPOV. I know this isn't Wikipedia, but damnit, what value is a resource that is full of opinions? I like the POV disclaimer idea.

I would also like to state that I'm amazed at just how many profession pages have absolutely nothing in them! -Belathus 20:30, 1 April 2006 (PST)

For the most part I try to only put information out that will absolutely not need to be adjusted. Though I have felt like writing and posting descriptions, I worry about the possibility of plagiarizing and generally the scrutiny of others. I'm not quite as worried about writing in the discussion of pages as it is merely suggestions I wish to add. I leave it up to someone else to finalize it in the main page.

CANNOND 23:33, 3 April 2006 (PDT)

Eh. I see it as, if I do something that someone doesn't like, they'll change it, or tell me about it. Though, Ulthripe and I talk about potentual changes that we have questions about through IM's/IRC rather often. For example, not to long ago, U and I had a rather long discussion about the Status article. The IRC server we're on is the one listed at the bottom of the Main Page, in the channel #GemStone. Through AIM, and just about everything else, I can be contacted by this screenname, Belathus. You're welcome to contact me, and you're welcome on the IRC server, Dustin. -Belathus 23:44, 3 April 2006 (PDT)

I guess I could point out that the IRC server is currently unavailable... -Belathus 23:46, 3 April 2006 (PDT)

Yeah, that's generally a good way to look at it. If you screw something up, someone will fix it. Don't worry about submitting something that's not perfect, the whole point of a Wiki is that everyone gets together to create information. As the Wikipedia folks say, be bold!. - Ildran 10:36, 4 April 2006 (PDT)