Difference between revisions of "Current events"

From Cantr II Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Link Formatting)
(Ban globalmarketing, he is a spammer.)
Line 67: Line 67:
=== Admin tasks ===
=== Admin tasks ===
Ban globalmarketing, he is a spammer.
==== Pages for Deletion ====
==== Pages for Deletion ====

Revision as of 23:06, 20 October 2005

What's going on


I've created a couple of templates for editor use: Template:Stub and Template:Rewrite. Template:Stub is to be used on pages that are missing large amounts of important information - an example is Broom. Template:Rewrite is to be used on less severe cases of missing information, or on pages that merely need rewriting - an example is Alumina refiner. Sho 15:21, 24 Sep 2005 (EDT)

  • Some changes have been made to the templates. From now on all editor templates will be listed on Help:Templates. Sho 14:42, 13 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Weapons category

I've just filled in the entire weapons category from info found IC. Please feel free to check it out, spell check, format etc. Just make sure it's consistent as all the pages now have consistent IC info. Kabl00ey 04:37, 4 Oct 2005 (EDT)

  • We should decide on a template for weapons, among other things. I'm thinking of listing the requirements the same way on pretty much every object type. --Nick Roberts 06:33, 15 Oct 2005 (EDT)
    • All for it. Go ahead and format a weapon, and if it's good we'll slap the format onto all the weapons and tools. The requirements section should be the same for both, and other properties (weight, visibility) are similar - just that tools should have a "uses" section where weapons have "effectiveness." Sho 09:00, 15 Oct 2005 (EDT)
      • Once again we come to the "what's the appropriate format" debate. The weapons category right now just reflects the IC information, and is displayed similarly. The only exception to this is the latter weapons (I started from the end, I have no idea why) where I've been formating for clarity, adding images and OOC info. Kabl00ey 19:34, 16 Oct 2005 (EDT)


Category:Machinery is finally done. Many pages are lacking information, though. Sho 14:42, 13 Oct 2005 (EDT)


To be sure: Kabl00ey is now a full admin on the Wiki, so contact him for any admin interference that is needed. As stated before, most of the moderation of the Wiki will be left to the players at large and will depend on self-organisation, but where admin privileges are needed, or where there are serious conflicts that do not seem to get resolved, Kabl00ey is in charge. He, in turn, has to follow Communications Department / general game administration policy and should create a thread in the CD forum in case of doubt. --Jos Elkink 07:44, 16 Oct 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)

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

  • The category system (tools) is so much clearer and easier to access the information you're looking for, so whilst I understand the Wikipedian urge to split everything, I think that the category system still provides easily accessible information. I cry a little on the inside when trying to find stuff on the seperate system (resources) - segregating the data, whilst easier to categorise and search, adds unnecessary pain in wading through links and editing pages. Kabl00ey 00:07, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)
    • With proper use of categories, I think splitting makes things easier. In Firefox, I can use quicksearches to instantly pull up a page on anything that has its own page, without clicking on any links. I can't do that with a monolithic megapage. In the same way, it's easier to just punch the thing you're looking for into the search box - one click - with split pages. Categories can bring the pages back together anyway. Sho 00:35, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)
      • I agree with Sho, the category system that was used for the resources worked great. I think a similar system should be used for machines, buildings, vehicles, tools, et al. --Nick Roberts 08:53, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)
        • I'm surprised the tool set-up has lasted so long, it was only a copy/paste from an ingame guide I'd made - it looks ugly here. I'd like a segregated set-up there, but not for clothing I don't think, as that'd be no more of a copy of the in-game set-up - I've started discussion on clothing about how I'd like to go about finishing that section.--Hallucinatingfarmer 18:13, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)
          • Yeah, everyone agrees with that HF. It just hasn't been gotten to yet. --Nick Roberts 13:49, 27 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Resource Department disclosure

Long-standing question: Since the repeal of the "find out in game" rule (or FOIG), should the RD be allowed/required to release to the wiki all information that can be discovered in-game?

Since I expect some long-winded responses to this that won't fit in a nested list format (or maybe that's just me), please post responses as subsections. Sho 22:49, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)


The purpose of FOIG's repeal was to remove the effect of certain characters having advantages over other characters because their players knew more than other players. If we restrict RD's release of information that could be discovered IC, it's possible for that situation to arise again - a character gains an informational advantage because his player tried something, with a different character, that no player has posted on the wiki about. There are two solutions to this problem. One is to require that all players wiki any information they obtain in-game as soon as they get it. This is unenforceable and silly. The other is to have RD wiki all obtainable information to level the playing field in advance.

Another reason is, simply, efficiency. Generally those who oppose full disclosure argue that players should work to find obtainable data on their own. The problem is that obtainable data is often not at all easy to obtain. Some data, such as the amounts of resources certain animals drop when hunted, is precisely obtainable, but only if characters spend significant resources to discover them. Do we really need to have a situation where players have to use their characters and significant amounts of their own time to obtain information that could be retrieved in under a minute by RD staff?

There is also some precedent. Resource gathering rates are arguably something that realistically should not be displayed as explicitly as they are in-game; even more so the 20% deviation in output. Building capacity was freely released by RD (even vehicle capacities, which RD is refusing to release, is being witheld not because they should not be released in general, but because they will soon be outdated), even though it is an excellent example of obtainable data that would take colossal effort to discover in-game (to my knowledge no character or player had anything approaching precise values for building capacities before RD released them on the wiki).

Sho 22:42, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)

  • Strictly speaking RD did not release the building capacity infomation. Thses details where released by the Programming Department (ProgD). A bug was discovered which effectively disabled the maximum number of persons . Since correction of this bug generated a number of support queries , ProgD felt that publishing this information would help explain what seemed to be changes in room capacities. --Chris Johnson 05:20, 12 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Disambiguation for tools

There are many cases where projects require either or two tools, such as projects that require a hammer or a stone hammer (but display the requirement as "hammer"). How will we treat these here? I can think of two options:

  1. We could replace every instance of "hammer" in a project requirements list with "hammer or stone hammer."
  2. We could use a special page for those. For example, create the page Hammer (requirement) to explain how the hammer requirement works. If we go with this, the way in which we name these pages (and what we put on them) is up for discussion.

What ideas do people have? Sho 23:35, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)


Admin tasks

Ban globalmarketing, he is a spammer.

Pages for Deletion

Listed on Category:Delete

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)

Pages needing breakdown