Difference between revisions of "Talk:Unana"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Categories and templates == | == Categories and templates == | ||
Revision as of 21:13, 5 September 2005
Contents
Categories and templates
It would make things a lot neater if we could use categories and templates to standardize the presentation of items and such. Virtually all of the information in here right now is begging to be categorized. I can't do it myself, not having any experience actually creating those, but does anyone else? Sho
- I'm putting the vehicles in a category system. This will eventually mean tearing down the Vehicle page, but for now I'll just make nondestructive changes. Sho
Agglomeration vs. subdivision
Some categories of items, such as tools, have all of their elements listed on the same page. Others, such as resources, have separate pages for everything. My gut instinct (as a Wikipedian) is to split everything into separate pages and use categories to tie them together (it makes it easier for people to just type what they're looking for in the search box), but I can see why we might want to keep things in big metapages - it's similar to the format found in IC guides, often the individual data aren't big enough for individual articles, and it would be loads of unrewarding data-entry grunt work. Anyone have any opinion? Sho
To Do List for Admins (jelkink and Jos Elkink, ha)
- Deal with orphan pages - I've eliminated a bunch, but there are still a lot of pages that need deleting, which I can't do. Sho
- Decide on standards - stuff like capitalization and hyphenation has been causing some trouble with duplicate pages. Sho
- It's not clear how much of the stuff here is data from Programming or Resources Department people (and therefore probably complete and correct) and how much is contributions from players like me (and therefore likely to need verification). For example, I'm not sure how much to trust the data on the ability of certain boat types to dock to each other; I feel that it looks like some types were left out, but I can't be sure. Some way of, say, putting a stamp of approval on information would be excellent. Sho
"Stamp of Approval"
A good idea would be to add notes into the discussion pages stating the information added and from what department.
Personally, I've added the information for vehicles and animals, and so should be 99.9% accurate.
--Anthony Roberts 22:59, 16 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Spam
- At the moment Spam is at low levels - just a couple of pages have been targetted - Should we consider only allowing entry by registered users ? --Chris Johnson 14:41, 30 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- That would be good. It would also make it easier to communicate with some of the users who have been doing a fair amount of work but haven't registered. On the other hand, it would probably be just as effective to block the IPs that have been spamming, and maybe also lock Talk:Equipment, the page that's being spammed. Sho
