|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Decisions ==
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==== Language setup ====
| |
| − | *Do you think maybe the different languages ought to have different wikis, instead of being on the same pages? --[[User:Nick Roberts|Nick Roberts]] 20:30, 12 Jul 2005 (EDT)
| |
| − | **I agree. --[[User:Creepyguyinblack|Creepyguyinblack]] 04:50, 13 Jul 2005 (EDT)
| |
| − | **I changed it. --[[User:Jos Elkink|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)]]. [[User:Sho|Sho]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==== 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 ? --[[User:Chris Johnson|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. [[User:Sho|Sho]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==== 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? [[User:Sho|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. [[User:Sho|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? [[User:Sho|Sho]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Tasks ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Admin tasks ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * 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
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * 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. [[User:Sho|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. --[[User:Anthony|Anthony Roberts]] 22:59, 16 Aug 2005 (EDT)
| |
