View source for Talk:WiseHouse

<h2> Credits </h2>
The tutorial is originally created by [[User:Mark WiseCarver|wisemx]], it is ported from sdknuts.net/wiseHouse to the VDC by [[User:Plykkegaard|Peter [AGHL]]] 20:44, 4 Feb 2008 (PST)

== To do ==
* Sample files are missing from the article atm, I need to upload 'em to a hosting site and create an external link --[[User:Plykkegaard|Peter [AGHL]]] 16:34, 4 Feb 2008 (PST)

== Tables ... ==

Hmm bit odd with this table editing thing
Found a link which explains very well at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Images_and_other_uploaded_files#Gallery_tag.2C_category.2C_table_of_images http://en.wikipedia.org] --[[User:Plykkegaard|Peter [AGHL]]] 04:29, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)
:Experiment with it, but remember not to ''overuse'' tables to format images: in some cases it might be needed, but it's generally unnecessary since the images themselves can be formated using the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax|extended image syntax]]. (I'm not referring specifically to your edits, since I haven't taken a good look at them; just making a general comment)
:Also, most articles (especially tutorials such as these) should always have images for reference, but the '''number''' of images should not be excessive to the point that the article gets harder to read. If the page starts to look "clogged up" with images, consider suppressing a few of them. Another thing to note is: there's no problem if you scale-down an image so that it can fit neatly to the side of a paragraph (even if you can't tell out '''all''' the details in it) because the user can click the image to see it "full size", if the user is interested in doing so. It's more important to have a neatly organized page than being able to completely discern every little aspect of every picture on that page.
:But as I said earlier, don't worry too much about it: if it doesn't turn out okay the first time it can be improved later! ;) --[[User:Etset|Etset]] 04:51, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)
::Thanks a lot, looks a little better with scaled down images (thumbs) --[[User:Plykkegaard|Peter [AGHL]]] 06:32, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)

== Broken links & tutorial guidelines ==
Hmm how do I find broken links to sdknuts - eg wiseHouse? --[[User:Plykkegaard|Peter [AGHL]]] 14:13, 6 Feb 2008 (PST)
:I guess only by searching for "sdknuts" here on the wiki search function. But it doesn't seem to find '''all''' of the articles with SDKnuts links... If necessary, we'll just have to fix those links when we bump into one! One-by-one ... --[[User:Etset|Etset]] 15:11, 6 Feb 2008 (PST)
:: Ok by searching in the talk pages I can find some --[[User:Plykkegaard|Peter [AGHL]]] 15:34, 6 Feb 2008 (PST)
:::By the way, I'm starting to notice that all tutorial titles are similar to "wiseXXXXX". I'm not trying to cheat Mark out of the spotlight here (his work should be credited, beyond a shadow of doubt), but I think these tutorials should have more ''distinct'' names, such as: Creating a house (instead of wiseHouse), Slumped zombie sequence (instead of wiseSeq), Using clips (instead of wiseClipping), and so on. I'm saying this because:
:::#Normally when you search for something you find lots of articles, and it would be better if you could immediately know what the article is about by reading its title (wiseSeq doesn't really do much to tell what that article is about).
:::#When you're searching for articles about a specific topic, you can go to [[Special:Categories|Category pages]]. Categories list articles alphabetically, which would mean that not only would these articles would be stuffed under '''W''', but also that people would probably not be very interested in looking into '''all''' of those articles to find out what they're about.
:::#It goes against all of the other documentation that tries to have clear and distinct titles. That's why people don't choose "Mapping tutorial 1", "Mapping tutorial 2", (etc) as titles for articles, '''because''' it doesn't help people find what they're interested in, nor does it help in maintaining those articles at a later stage ("I know it was a ''wise'' article, but which one?", and so on)
:::I think that any way you look at it you find it's not beneficial to have article titles like that. But that's my opinion. And again, I completely think that all credit for the original tutorial should always be given to the author (personally, I would do so in the Talk page of the article, but again: that's my opinion). What do others think? --[[User:Etset|Etset]] 15:43, 6 Feb 2008 (PST)
::::I have been thinking just about the same ...
::::I'll keep the name of the images as is. Will it be easy to change the title/page name? or should this be done right from the start? Thanks a lot --[[User:Plykkegaard|Peter [AGHL]]] 23:21, 6 Feb 2008 (PST)
::::: Btw is it possible to create a template which explains shortly where the tut is comming from and give Mark due credit at the same time? --[[User:Plykkegaard|Peter [AGHL]]] 00:15, 7 Feb 2008 (PST)
Yes, it is easy to change the page name, I forgot to mention that yesterday. There's a '''move''' button on the very top of each article's page (Categories can't be moved, so there's no ''move'' button on those), right between the '''history''' and '''watch''' buttons. At any point, we can simply click the ''move'' button and type in a new article name, and the article is moved. :) As for doing it from the start or not ... I think that perhaps we should given them the "correct" names from the start, but there's no big problem if this is not done. If the choice is to keep adding the tutorials with "wiseXXXX" titles, then people can also debate what title the tutorial should have :) The important thing is that, at some point, the tutorial gets the name it should ;)

As for the Template thing you mentioned, I think that is a very good idea! I say this because I feel there are no guidelines defined as to how credit should be given to the original author of each tutorial. For example, I've seen tutorials here that give credit in the ''article page'', while other tutorials give credit in the ''talk page'' of the article. I don't know if such template exists (I haven't come across anything like that...not yet at least), but a solution to establishing a set of guidelines would be to:
#Firstly, define either to give credit on the ''article'' page or the ''talk page'' of the article.
#Secondly, decide whether to create such template, which would serve the purpose of "standardizing" the credit given to the original author(s) of such tutorials. Needless to say, if no template is created each person can write what they want to give the due credit, which gives more "freedom" to write but of course doesn't work for standardization.
I like the idea of the template :) However, we need more opinions! --[[User:Etset|Etset]] 04:31, 7 Feb 2008 (PST)
:Ok, where do I start the discussion in [[Help_talk:Editing]], or? --[[User:Plykkegaard|Peter [AGHL]]] 04:49, 7 Feb 2008 (PST)
::Yeah, I guess that would be a good place: [[Help_talk:Editing]] :) Perhaps create a header along the lines of ''<nowiki>== Tutorial credit template & guidelines ==</nowiki>'', or something like that? Go right ahead! --[[User:Etset|Etset]] 05:43, 7 Feb 2008 (PST)