User talk:Etset

From Valve Developer Community
Revision as of 18:02, 26 February 2008 by JurgenKnops (talk | contribs) (Spammer markings)
Jump to: navigation, search


Thanks for the welcome message. I'll try to contribute to this Wiki as much as possible.

I agree about that line. The only reason it was added in the first place was to prevent changes while I was still working on it (ironically). Now that it is complete, I can remove it. Thanks for reminding me.

And I'll be sure to use "Show Preview". Sorry, I forgot about that. ^_^ --£cho 15:16, 13 Feb 2008 (PST)

No problem at all! The VDC wiki is always eager for new users and more contributions! :) Check your talk page, I left a follow-up message there too ;) --Etset 15:28, 13 Feb 2008 (PST)


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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
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)
  • 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)

I don't like the idea of deleting sublinks. A category page can still have multiple parents. Also, I wouldn't bother so much about naming. --Baliame (talk) 10:30, 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)

You're doing an awesome job cleaning up the stuff :) --Baliame (talk) 00:04, 13 Jan 2008 (PST)
Thanks! Trying my best to tidy things up so the VDC can become that much easier to use! :) --Etset 02:52, 13 Jan 2008 (PST)

Language templates

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)

Spammer markings

Thanks for that. I'm a bit lazy sometimes when it comes to marking the spammers I was gonna come back to it during my next break, but its not like the user accounts will be used again anyways :) --Angry Beaver 15:57, 15 Jan 2008 (PST)

Hey, no problem! :) With a trustworthy multi-tabbed Firefox by my side, I can open and run through all of the user pages, just pasting the "spammer" template on each one :P Kind of irritating to have "them" ("him/her" is more likely...) around though... --Etset 16:10, 15 Jan 2008 (PST)
Yeah Firefox doesn't work with any of my work applications and they wont upgrade to IE 7 so no tabs for me. And it wa spretty hilariosu to see Jeff's BanHammer flal right after that with 40 people gone XD --Angry Beaver 16:28, 15 Jan 2008 (PST)
Very amusing indeed :D "Jeff's sappin' them spammers!!!" (that phrase has become a classic!) --Etset 16:42, 15 Jan 2008 (PST)
As we see on the Recent changes, you've done a great job again with al the ban markings :-). --Jurgen Knops 17:02, 26 Feb 2008 (PST)

hovis and the (non)disambiguation

Thanks for your help, and the links. It's good to see people who care! --Hovis 10:23, 20 Jan 2008 (PST)

No problem ;) Glad to help! --Etset 10:45, 20 Jan 2008 (PST)

Cleanup work

Thanks a lot for helping clean up the wiki. I used to do it a lot but I've been too busy lately to get around to it, though I've had some free time tonight. We should discuss some things, like how almost every mod page needs to be tagged (and therefore fixed) with the cleanup template, since almost none of them follow the format for mod pages. There are probably a lot of dead mods as well as plenty of unnessicary redirects around, too. --AndrewNeo 16:27, 30 Jan 2008 (PST)

Hey, I was just writing you a message! :) Thanks for the help with those pesky double redirects! ;) There were some issues along the way though, like pages (now marked for deletion) that still had other pages link to them. I fixed some of the links, but I'm not sure I got them all.
I've been trying to lend a hand here and there and would be happy to continue helping out! MODs and redirects, plenty of work to be done indeed!
There's so many other things to do here on the VDC: Category:Cleanup, Category:TODO, Valve Developer Community:Wiki To Do, etc... and so much more content waiting to be added! This wiki also needs more life and members contributing to it, and if it's kept "clean and tidy" it becomes that much more user-friendly and invites new users to join it. That's my opinion, at least.
For the time being I'm off to bed (GMT timezone), I'll be back tomorrow! :) Thanks again!
PS: Tell me what you have in mind to discuss ;) I'll reply tomorrow!--Etset 16:48, 30 Jan 2008 (PST)
No problem. Two big things that need to be done right now I think is to look through the All Pages list and find what isn't really nessicary, as well as going through All Images and putting up the ones that are no longer in use up for deletion. Also, the Steam Store pages need to be cleaned up horribly.. or deleted, since they serve no purpose on a Developer wiki. --AndrewNeo 16:50, 30 Jan 2008 (PST) (P.S. You edit-conflicted me to tell me to tell you what to discuss as I was trying to tell you!)

Oops, sorry about that. :P Regarding All Pages, I believe there are some people who wouldn't like to see some of the "redirect pages" go away. My opinion is that some redirect pages make sense, and others don't. Redirect pages whose title a normal person could probably search for, should perhaps stay because it helps people that are searching for a specific page to get redirected there, even though they don't know the exact "title" of the final page. But indeed, I believe there are a lot of pages that are simply useless and either shouldn't exist, or should see a name change (pages with the most horrible names, or even names that don't have anything to do with their content! And to top it off, some of them don't even have other pages linking to them and/or are not even categorized), or should be merged with other pages. A lot of cleanup to be done. Still, I believe it's a lot of work for just one or two guys, and not only would it be preferable to have the whole community get involved in this, it would be for the better to have a set of guidelines, or a philosophy if you will, so that a particular user isn't systematically undoing the work of other users.

Regading All Images, again a good idea, less critical perhaps, since what we're mainly after is images that aren't being used (those don't bother the regular wiki user, since they are nowhere to be seen!) or images that could be updated (a higher priority, perhaps?), to reflect the current state of what they portray. For those images that are not being used, one could also search for articles in which they could be used (without overdoing it ...) and if no place is found then the images should indeed be deleted. It has also struck me that most images don't carry a description, let alone credit the original author (most of them are created by the person who uploads the picture, but it wouldn't hurt to say that in the description, right off the bat. Basically, very few people are adhering to the Image use policy...).

Regarding the Steam Store, you are referring to all of the "Trailers" and "Other Games on Steam" articles, right? I'm not particularly bothered by them, as long as they don't affect (negatively) the rest of (read: the important part of) the wiki. So many articles and templates are already created for that purpose (Steam Store) that probably most people wouldn't want to see their work thrown away. What I mean to say is, if the solution is to get rid of (delete!) them altogether, then there should be a consensus to do so, meaning that the users here should make their opinions heard regarding this matter. I think everyone would agree that this specific content is not really relevant to this wiki, but like I said I don't mind if it is there as long as it isn't there to "work against" the wiki, somehow. Having said that, and until we get more attention to this matter, cleanup seems like a feasible solution, but perhaps at a lower priority than other (more important) issues. --Etset 04:11, 31 Jan 2008 (PST)

Spigot Thanks

Unfortunately I'm not too good with navigating the wiki yet - thanks for the advice :)


No problem ;) By the way, you can easily sign your posts by writing the following characters (at the end of your text): --~~~~, or clicking the "Signature" button at the "editing bar" (the penultimate button). ;) --Etset 20:20, 1 Feb 2008 (PST)


Thanks for advice and support! :) --Government-man 06:32, 14 Feb 2008 (PST)

No problem at all ;) I'm always glad to be of assistance! If you have any other question, feel free to ask. I must admit: I don't know anything about the Russian language, and perhaps some Russian pages that already exist out there on the VDC could use some proofreading to check if they are correctly translated. Your help is always welcome ;) Cheers! --Etset 07:36, 14 Feb 2008 (PST)

Image Deletion

So, I would like to delete an image our group is no longer using so it's not wasting space on the wiki, but I can't figure out how to delete it. I'm sorry to bother you about something so trivial, but apparently either I'm retarded or the wiki is difficult to navigate.

--RigorMortis 20:47, 16 Feb 2008 (PST)

No bother at all! Just add {{delete}} or {{deletebecause|This picture is no longer being used.}} to the description of the image, and it will be marked for speedy deletion. It's likely that the deletion itself might only take place in a long time from now (when an admin decides its time to actually delete pages that are marked for deletion), but that's not a problem. As long as it is marked for deletion, that's what matters. :) --Etset 10:54, 17 Feb 2008 (PST)

Thanks for the Advice

Will do and thanks for the advice!!!--Csteinhoff 19:16, 20 Feb 2008 (PST)

No problem, glad to be of assistance ;) Just please remember to use the Show preview button more often! --Etset 05:13, 21 Feb 2008 (PST)

Category:Official Mods

You requested deletion of Category:Official Mods, but this page has active links. I agree that this page serves no useful purpose, however. --JeffLane 13:54, 22 Feb 2008 (PST)

Sorry about that, I completely forgot to check for links to that category! I'll get right on it. --Etset 15:11, 22 Feb 2008 (PST)