Difference between revisions of "Current events"

Revision as of 04:01, 17 September 2005

Decisions

Formatting

We need to establish formats for different object types. My page for smelting furnace, I will be using as a format for all new machine pages I create, which I intend on making a few of. I'd appreciate if people did the same. I'd like it if tools and resources could have a format that resembles my machine one, although with different properties, for obvious reasons. --Nick Roberts 08:41, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

• I like this layout - it's user-friendly, easy to read, and easy to find what you're looking for. Would it be possible to a.) leave a larger space between the end of one project and the next for clarity, and b.) create a template for this for all users to access? Kabl00ey 00:01, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Language setup

Do you think maybe the different languages ought to have different wikis, instead of being on the same pages? --Nick Roberts 20:30, 12 Jul 2005 (EDT)

• I agree. --Creepyguyinblack 04:50, 13 Jul 2005 (EDT)
• I changed it. --Jos Elkink 05:08, 13 Jul 2005 (EDT)
• Would it be possible to make a true multi-language setup, similar to Wikipedia's? I don't know what's involved in making that work (I have a suspicion that it's not feasile here), but it's kind of annoying when half of the time Special:Randompage brings up a Polish page; also crosslinking articles is rather inelegant with the current system (no framework; also there are some pages like Jeep(pl). Sho
• That would certainly be preferable... and was what I had in mind when originally making this suggestion. I don't like coming across polish articles when clicking on random page, or having search results clogged up with Polish links. --Nick Roberts 08:37, 15 Sep 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
• I agree with Chris, in that I'd prefer to see it so only registered users can edit. It's not hard to register, but we could determine who is making changes they shouldn't be. --Nick Roberts 08:39, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)
• My two cents: I also agree. Registering is easy, and although it doesn't in any way verify the identity of the user, it does add a extra step for anyone wishing to spam. Kabl00ey 23:59, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

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

Tasks

Admin tasks

Spammer IPs

Block the following IPs for spam:

• 69.152.35.94
• 24.202.53.171
• 68.75.27.99
• 66.72.161.240
• 211.117.169.172
• 82.67.192.173

Pages for Deletion

Delete the following pages, which are redundant or meaningless:

• Budynki i meble is covered by separate buildings and furniture pages.
• Coaster Harbour* is empty and serves no purpose.
• Desert Beavers: Need I say more?
• Stormoffires Song stock is empty and serves no purpose.
• Kielnia is covered in the tools page.
• Polish Version is obsolete and redundant.

User tasks

"Stamp of Approval"

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

• 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)