Good job spotting the typos in old articles. Welcome to the VDC! --Tourorist 02:48, 25 Dec 2007 (PST)
- Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm currently keen on contributing to VDC, whilst trying to absorb the everlasting pool of knowledge that it contains (its quite a lot, I know!). Hopefully someday I can create something with it! I'm still trying to understand how to work with the wiki itself though (mainly writing and editing, using templates, etc). I'll soon get the hang of it, I hope :) --Etset 08:52, 26 Dec 2007 (PST)
Happy newyear 2008!!!
Happy 2008 guys! Wish you all the best of success in both professional and personal life. Cheers!--Etset 15:50, 31 Dec 2007 (PST)
- Indeed, have a good year!--Gear 15:59, 1 Jan 2008 (PST)
Issue 1: Category Organization
Categorizing articles a little while ago made me think about how to structure the whole thing a bit better... But before going on an editing rampage, I thought it would be best to show what I mean first. Basically the idea is to try to reduce the number of categories an article is "under", by establishing a hierarchy on the whole category structure in a balanced and sound way. I think this (crappy paint-made) image explains my idea well enough. "Links" in red are those "links" that are, at the moment, established but I think should be removed, to promote a better sense of hierarchy and organization of information. "Links" in blue are those that would need to be established to conform to this idea. (I'm only referring to these specific categories, but it's a general notion...).
I believe that we should go for a more tree-like structure with the categories, to "fix" this issue. A couple of examples:
- Currently, the category Mod Entities is a sub-category of Level Design. I feel this is slightly redundant (hence, painted in red.), since Mod Entities is (I think you would all agree) a sub-category of a larger category which is Entities, which in turn is a sub-category of Level Design. This redundancy might be unnecessary.
- Currently, numerous entities are listed under the Entities category. While it might seem harmless at first, this actually destroys the whole purpose of having sub-Categories such as: Counter-Strike: Source Entities, Half-Life 2: Deathmatch Entities, Half-Life 2: Episode One Entities, Portal Entities (to name only a few). Because, what's the point of having an entity article placed under both the Entities and Half-Life 2: Episode One Entities Categories? Does it make it easier to search for it, or get information related to it? I really don't think so. On the other hand, if the goal really is trying to list all entities under the Entities category (while still listing them under their respective Mod/Game Entities category, which is redundant) then I have two remarks:
- That goal is somewhat illogical, because it brings no gain of information nor does it provide a user with easy to use/search information. If a particular user, for some reason, is looking for a full list of all the entities he can get his hands on, see remark number 2. An example of this is the worldspawn entity article page, which is placed under both Entities and DOD:S Entities categories, while being described in the article as being available in all of the Source games. Confusing for new-comers, is it not? Yet it is very simple information and it should be made simple to interpret.
- There are currently articles which already contain massive lists of entities for a bunch of games. And in my opinion such comprehensive lists should indeed exist in the form of articles, since they are usually pretty static, in the sense that entities aren't constantly added/taken from a game engine. These articles are sufficient in providing lists, while categories are (should be) a way to sort out and organize articles into logical sections, like files (articles) and folders (categories) in one's computer file system.
However, to conform to this idea, all of the base entities ('func_detail', for example), would be placed under a new category with that name: Base Entities. This would effectively shrink the Entities category, but wouldn't render it useless since it would still "link" to all of the sub-categories Mod Entities, CS:S Entities, etc..., thus effectively organizing information into coherent and non-redundant sections.
The way I see things is: articles are like books and categories are the sections of a library. Usually you place a book under one section rather than spreading it all over the library. The latter only makes things harder when someone wants to use that resource. If there is a "better" (this is subjective, of course) category in which to put this, then we can put it (if possible, only) in that category. I believe things will be better organized that way. I also believe that in some cases it might be hard to discern what category/categories one can place an article under, to avoid this kind of redundancy, but we don't have to get it right the first time! :) That's what wiki's are strong at.
And that is why I believe I've made a mistake with the edits I made earlier today, because I did the exact opposite of what I just described... but at least it made me realize that this might be an issue worth discussing, for the sake of the wiki. Hence, I though it'd be best to hear some more opinions before heading off trying to change the world...
TLDR: My opinion is that we should aim to restructure the use of Categories, to structure information in a more user-friendly way. Feel free to read my (rather long) rant, though! ;) --Etset 10:03, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
- The rant and picture are a little confusing, but I think I agree with your principles. :P
- From the looks of it:
- The "Mod Entities" Category could just be eliminated altogether.
- The various "list of xxxmod entities" pages could be removed, and replaced with "Category: xxxmod Entities" pages where they : don't already exist, to keep it standardized.
- All of the "Category: xxxmod Entities" should be subcategories of "Category: Entities".
- The Entities Category should be empty, except for subcategories. Even Source Base should be a subcategory, etc.
- All of the "Category: xxxmod Entities" pages should link to those other Entity subcategories to which they have access, such as the Base Source subcategory. Exceptions should be listed where the mod breaks the functionality of an inherited entity, somewhere near the link.
- Sound right? --Daeval 11:02, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
- Yes, that pretty much sums it up, except in my description:
- The various "List of XXXMod Entities" articles could still be kept, it really doesn't matter I guess. Since they already exist, I guess there's no point in deleting them, but we would switch them to their specific category.
- The Entities Category could, eventually, contain any article that didn't fit into any specific sub-category, for example an article such as "How to add your coded entity to an FGD" (it's a general article regarding entities, so it doesn't really fit into any game-related or mod-related sub-category). Otherwise, content more specific to a game/mod would preferably be placed under a sub-category, yes.
- As for the last item, I'm not quite sure what you mean, but my idea is to prevent "loops" within the hierarchy (like what happens in a tree structure), which means that the "lower" categories cannot have Sub-Categories that are, in fact, categories of a higher-level. Imagine these categories are the folders of your file system and you "browse" to the following folder:
Level Design\Entities\Day Of Defeat:Source Entities\. In this "folder" (category) there shouldn't be a link to the Entities "folder" (because Entities is above it). If there is such a link, then this is not a tree, because lower nodes/leafs are connecting to nodes that are above them in hierarchy.
- Plus: I hadn't really though about eliminating "Mod Entities" altogether, but I seem to have done it unconsciously in my picture :P Seems like a wise enough choice, though. --Etset 11:55, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
- Yes, that pretty much sums it up, except in my description:
- Wikipedia's categorization page has a lot of useful information. Highlights:
- Categories do not form a tree! - Although I understand their point, there's nothing wrong in making your categories follow a tree-like structure, since it only promotes a sense of hierarchy, which is clearly defined in some areas, whereas in other areas it's impossible to create a hierarchy because of the natural way things are interconnected. The latter is usually the rule at Wikipedia, them being the "book of knowledge" of the world and all :P
- Cycles should usually be avoided! - Here's what I was talking about, regarding the organization and hierarchy of information (whenever possible...).
- When it comes to organizing categories they say: "Another possibility is dividing the category into several subcategories. Note that there is no technical consideration, policy or guideline requiring that large categories must be divided into smaller subcategories. When creating subcategories, group similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way that will make it easy for readers to navigate later." - So they also don't have guidelines on this, it's all about common sense! :) --Etset 12:25, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
- Wikipedia's categorization page has a lot of useful information. Highlights:
- The "List of XXXMod Entities" articles are essentially the same information as entity categories, right? So, if someone wants to add an entity, for example, they have to know to add it in both places, etc. If all mods are given an entity category, these lists would be completely redundant and I think they should go.
- As for the last item, the "loops," I didn't mean subcategories, but rather something like a "See Also.." section that would just link to the other categories of ents that are inherited by the mod. This way, a user interested in mapping for a mod would know which sets of ents are available just by looking at the mod's ents category page. Does that make more sense? --Daeval 13:27, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
- I just noticed that the "list" articles are divided by entity type, which is useful information. If that can't be done on the category pages, we should link to the "list" articles from the category pages as "List of XXXMod Entities by Type" or something similar. Ideally, all other links would just point to the category page, rather than to the list. --Daeval 14:21, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
Yup, now I understand what you're saying :) I believe "See Also.." links would to the trick perfectly, for example ;) So instead of placing every mod/game's entity pages under the Base Entities category (because they all have the Base Entities!!), they would simply "link" there, for reference. Like you said, for a user to know which sets of entities are available. Regarding those "link" articles ... I don't know HTML and I'm "new" to the whole wiki scene, so I don't know of a way... The only thing I can remember (ghastly idea really...) is to put the actual list on the Category page, but that would be very unaesthetic: the category page would be enormous and all the links to articles under that category would be the very laaaast thing on the page. Not even an option :P Apart from that ... beats me! --Etset 15:19, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
Issue 2: Re Category Organization
(Continuing from Issue 1) While sorting out my ideas about the whole issue, it came to my attention that there are some categories that are actually quite badly maintained and, in my opinion, fail at attempting to organize things, which is the reason why categories are used in the first place. These could use some maintenance and a lot of patience. Examples of this are some of the <Language> categories where each translated article just gets tossed into. It would eventually lead to a point where that category becomes an index with all articles (translated to that language) available on the wiki. What's the point in that? That already exists, for that matter.
Since minor-editing dozens upon dozens of pages just because of this is something that can be seem "not ok", I've come to ask for opinion. Is it ok? Are there any guidelines on this sort of issue? If not, should we write a brief article on how to take full advantage of the whole category system, and organize information? Of course, this is assuming that someone agrees with my point of view :P --Etset 10:03, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
Issue 3: "Category:NPC:ru" versus "Category:NPC (ru)"
(Continuing from Issue 1) This one is easier: I also noticed that there are two categories named NPC:ru and NPC (ru). The first clearly follows wiki recommendations regarding translation but has no articles under that category. The second has some articles, but all of them end in _(ru) instead of the usual :ru termination. Perhaps the NPC (ru) category should be deleted and all the articles should be renamed to conform with the recommended pattern. Just to normalize things. If no one has anything against it, I'm more than happy to do it myself :) --Etset 10:03, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
- This is not a question, if you have the time, please do it. --Baliame (talk) 10:31, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
- I'll start working on it ASAP :) --Etset 11:58, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
Done! Thought it wouldn't take so much time ... took me around 50 minutes! I'm seeing :ru everywhere at the moment! My apologies for the inconvenience I might have caused (quite a lot of edits...). I double checked almost everything, so I think I didn't make any mistakes. --Etset 18:19, 7 Jan 2008 (PST)
Why are you creating language templates which end in lang1:lang2? We just use a single language for language templates, no need to make templates for each language containing each language. Solokiller 09:34, 15 Jan 2008 (PST)
- Actually if you notice some of the pages I have edited earlier, some templates that where being used didn't exist. For example, in French pages you could have a "otherlanguage" link to a Traditional Chinese page, but the template itself did not exist, so I created it. Sorry if it bothers you. In any case, I don't think you're correct in what you said about what "we use". If you take a look here, you see that it's mentioned that there are es:<lang> templates, just as well as there are en:<lang> templates, or, for that matter, <lang1>:<lang2> templates. In fact, if you read further down, you'll see that that article explains how to create an "xx:yy" template, which is exactly what you said "we don't use here". In short, I'm just trying to help out anyway, but I think you're mistaken. Cheers. --Etset 15:15, 15 Jan 2008 (PST)