User talk:Plykkegaard

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello there, and welcome to the VDC! It's safer here :) Good idea on bringing SDK Nuts tutorials to the VDC, and thank you for that! It's a shame to see that site go, but perhaps others might be created! In what regards to editing pages, I have two suggestions:

  1. If you want to easily sign your posts, you can write the following characters after your text: --~~~~. Your signature will appear in their place. Alternatively, you can click the "signature" button (the penultimate button), and those same characters are automatically placed in the editing box. You should always sign your posts on talk pages and (generally, apart from a few exceptions) never on article pages.
  2. Always remember to use the Show preview button more times than the Save page button, to prevent "flooding" the Recent Changes page!

Enjoy your stay here on the VDC! --Etset 13:38, 4 Feb 2008 (PST)


Sample Maps and Credits

Hmm should we add credits (to eg sdknuts/wisemx, see Animals_and_Creatures) when linking to downloads/sample maps? It conflicts somehow with the nature of the wiki --Peter [AGHL] 12:49, 14 Feb 2008 (PST)

Perhaps not...I think it would be best if the downloaded files had some sort of readme.txt (or equivalent), to state who created it, how you can use that file, etc. If that is not the case... then I guess you could add a little note in each of the links, such as: Filename.ext (by wisemx) or something like that. --Etset 13:35, 14 Feb 2008 (PST)

Tutorials

Hi, I used to visit SDK Nuts quite often, and when the site went down for the first time, Nicadeamas and I took some time and ported all of the tutorials by Mark over to PHP (with his permission), and hosted them on my site (type3studios.com). The reason I'm here is that I've heard that Mark "officially" handed the tutorials off to you, and so I have some questions regarding them. The Developer wiki is a great place for them, but it is limited in formatting, and as such I was wondering if you minded me bringing the tutorials back online at Type 3. Here is an example: Displacement Basics As you can see, We've already put the work into formatting the tutorials, checking the links, and even have all of the downloads associated with the tutorials already available. Bringing them back up could also save you some time on this effort, as you could link to my site for the downloads, or it could even save you from having to port them at all if you just wanted to link to the tutorials here. at any rate it is up to you. I'll try to look here for a response, but if you could email me at vecima.k(at)gmail.com, i would appreciate it. thanks. --Vecima 12:09, 8 Feb 2008 (PST)

Don't get me wrong, but really why do we need these tuts on here to begin with? There awesome, if not awesome sauce, but if its on the SDK nuts site, then we won't really need it here, as this is all basic construct tuts anyways.--Gear 16:06, 8 Feb 2008 (PST)
On another note, which You may have noticed, the site is down, but for now you wont have to port them all over to here, we never have anyways. We can wait and see if it comes back up. Rather than jumping the gun.--Gear 16:07, 8 Feb 2008 (PST)
I don't think the site will ever come up again, or let's say I'd be more than surprised if the site is ever opened again, the source code is in my hands now and Mark told me that putting it on VDC would probably be the best thing to do
A lot of people have enjoyed the tutorials, but if you don't want them here it's fine with me, I have tons of other stuff to work with.
Hmm btw you have the all right to have your opinion and no offence taken! --Peter [AGHL] 16:35, 8 Feb 2008 (PST)
Yeah those tuts are good, But sure I want them, I just Wasnt too sure if we should all dump em here just yet, as man there are a lot, but hey if Mark said go, well then, have fun, and if you need help, come ask ;_)--Gear 21:18, 8 Feb 2008 (PST)
...sure I do need a couple of hands and more. I can easily port them to the VDC. First one wiseHouse took some time as I neededto get en idea of syntax/formatting etc. The latter I am opening in notepad to delete/change HTML tags and apply wiki formatting, credits etc - eg WiseWaterGlass --Peter [AGHL] 00:57, 9 Feb 2008 (PST)

I think perhaps Gear is not up-do-date on this: a few days ago it was announced that SDK Nuts was going to be closed. The site was going to be used by ... some other beloved benefactors ... Although I think the site was supposed to maintain some of its content until the 15th February, it seems to already have been taken by its new owner, take a look: http://www.sdknuts.net. So basically the tutorials needed to find a new home (not that there aren't enough sites wanting them), and Mark gave his permission to post the articles here on the VDC, which I find to be an excellent idea, provided that due credit is given to the original author :) By the way, thumbs up to Peter [AGHL] for his work! --Etset 03:49, 9 Feb 2008 (PST)

I don't think it's a good policy to spread around links to tutorials on various pages of the wiki. Links, especially those on the == See also == categories, are supposed to give the reader some additional information, and are closely related to the article in which the link appears. In the case of tutorials, it's normal that a tutorial needs to talk about brushes, entities (numerous entities...), models, materials, etc... One shouldn't add a link to that specific tutorial on all of those other pages, just because it is something referred to on that tutorial. Otherwise, it's going to be == See also == rampage madness, with links flying around and being added when there is no real need to.
Remember: see also sections are for links to articles that are closely related, and tutorials are related to lots of things but don't always provide specific information about each, so that link is really unnecessary. I really don't think it's a good policy. --Etset 14:47, 11 Feb 2008 (PST)
Removed ...
You have a point :) - I have often been on a reference page and missed samples on how to actually use the darn thing. But as you have written we could end up with a couple of hundreds links in the See Also section - not that interesting --Peter [AGHL] 15:23, 11 Feb 2008 (PST)
But, but why? :s If not in the "See Also" section, then where are the tutorials supposed to go? I get if the tutorials didn't have anything to do with the page, but I haven't seen any page with too much tutorials. What is this? --Andreasen 16:04, 11 Feb 2008 (PST)
Any "global" page where we can discuss this? Thanks in advance --Peter [AGHL] 16:13, 11 Feb 2008 (PST)
Global? Is the Steam forums considered global? (You can PM me there if you want - my name is Andreasen there too.) If you are concerned about a discussion taking up space here, you can always create a link such as User talk:Plykkegaard/Tutorial Discussion, or perhaps create an archive (history) link. Of course there is such a thing as too many tutorials - it just sounded like some sort of a request of total ban on tutorials in the See Also sections. --Andreasen 17:27, 11 Feb 2008 (PST)
Global as in getting attention from more users and a proper (broad) discussion, I don't mind "giving" the space just wondered where these discussions on the wiki/VDC are held, on the page in question? eg Talk:Phys_motor --Peter [AGHL] 17:39, 11 Feb 2008 (PST)
In the case of this particular tutorial, I've read WiseWindmill now, and as it's not dedicated to explaining the entities it uses, I agree with you. In the case of tutorials in general (such as tutorials dedicated to explaning entity functions) being listen in the "See Also" section, perhaps Talk:Tutorials is as good as place as any to discuss. There is no general discussion area here (that I know of). If you want many people to read and participate in the discussion, I guess you are better off writing a thread in the Steam forums about it. --Andreasen 18:14, 11 Feb 2008 (PST)
Ok, ok, I knew this wiki would be a bit slow to deal with :) --Peter [AGHL] 00:55, 12 Feb 2008 (PST)

I don't think there is a better place to discuss this here on the wiki. Steam Forums wouldn't be a good option since perhaps lots of people there don't even visit this wiki (or vice-versa, which is my case), so discussing this there would probably be a pain, since it mostly concerns wiki documentation maintenance. In any case, this discussion might already be getting a lot of attention, because of the Recent Changes page.

Ahh, yes "recent changes" makes it easy see whats going on doesn't it? - very good and thanks for the heads up. Also a very good reason why I shouldn't save frequently, but use preview ... --Peter [AGHL] 04:28, 12 Feb 2008 (PST)

While I'm not proposing a total ban on == See also == tutorial links (far from it), I can't help having strong feelings about not rationalizing these links. What I don't want is to get to a point when something so simple as an article about one specific entity links to a plethora of tutorials, some of which might only mention that entity vaguely, but "since other tutorials were doing the same, why not do it too?" == See also == sections exist in order for readers to complement their knowledge with articles closely related (follow-ups, if you will), after reading an article about one specific subject, particularly in the case where additional information can be given to the reader about that specific subject, in conjunction with other subjects (hence that information being in a different page). This means that articles that are marginally related should be "avoided" as candidates for See also links, unless there is a reason not to do so.

I would agree to adding a link if the tutorial were an example of implementation of the specific subject to which the "preceding" article pertains, but I would think it over if it were not (not necessarily reaching the conclusion that the link shouldn't be added: it would need to be considered and thought over). In this particular case: I realize documentation on the phys_ entities is relatively scarce, but from the perspective of a reader that is looking up, say, the phys_motor page and then wants more information about it, this specific tutorial doesn't go to great lengths to provide that amount of additional (generic or specific) information. It does, of course, provide an example of implementation of said entity, but would that make it an immediate candidate for the phys_motor See also section? My opinion is: no, it wouldn't. In fact, the tutorial simply says what attributes the entities should have and nothing else. So, again from the point of view of a reader trying to get information about that entity, this link will not be helpful. Other tutorials, in different situations, might be more relevant, but that's where the whole rationalization part comes in. As long as we "keep it real", everything is fine and well documented.

I am also hesitant in adding the link to the prop_physics page, mainly because that entity is already well documented, and again the tutorial doesn't provide any additional information.

I wasn't trying to be harsh or anything. I'm simply trying to make a point, and yet the whole issue is rather harmless. I'm not going to get in the way of anyone that doesn't agree with me on such trivial matters, and that's mainly why I didn't remove the links myself without explaining. I felt like giving my opinion, backing it up with what I think is a well structured policy of documentation maintenance, and wait to see what other's might think about it. If I didn't think it was for the best, I'd have kept my mouth shut (or rather, my fingers away from the keyboard)... --Etset 04:10, 12 Feb 2008 (PST)

No offense taken at all, I'd rather say thank you for pointing me in a better direction, as I wrote earlier I havent' done anything like this before and this will probably not be the last "mistake" I do.
Hmmm, question? Let's say the windmill tutorial has been extended to go more in depth with the enitites like phys_motor etc, and I thought it could be nice to have a link on the phys_motor page, I can start a thread on talk:Windmill and this will appear in "recent changes" page?. Looks likke the best way to discuss the proposed change? - thanks --Peter [AGHL] 04:28, 12 Feb 2008 (PST)
Every edit (whether it be in article pages, talk pages, user pages, user talk pages or other wiki pages) appears as an item in the Recent Changes page, so yes it would appear there.
If the windmill tutorial did get expanded with additional information on one entity (or more), it might automatically make sense to put the See also links back again, without having to discuss it further I presume (but yes, I think Talk:Windmill would be the place to start such discussion) If that were the case, I'd definitely agree with it, to help provide further documentation and examples on those entities. --Etset 04:40, 12 Feb 2008 (PST)
Ok, thanks. I am planning on extending the articles as some of them are a little short in some cases. That was part of the reason why I added them in the first place
Section name? "See Also" or "Articles"? --Peter [AGHL] 05:17, 12 Feb 2008 (PST)
Section name for the discussion? I guess whatever title you like best will be fine, it's not extremely important. :) Extending the articles with more information sounds like a great idea, too. --Etset 05:28, 12 Feb 2008 (PST)

Dead links to sdknuts.com

Thanks for the update on the dead links :O --Peter [AGHL] 13:05, 13 Feb 2008 (PST)

Glad to be of assistance ;) There are probably more links out there... but at least these don't have to be hunted down later :P --Etset 14:29, 13 Feb 2008 (PST)

Dead links to type 3 studios

Note:We should check links to type 3 studios as the folder structure on the site has changed --Peter [AGHL] 15:05, 13 Feb 2008 (PST)
I've even noticed a couple of buggy links there, too. Watch out for that! --GreyMario 16:07, 13 Feb 2008 (PST)
On Type 3? - Send me a notice if you find 404's and I let 'em know that they need to fix it asap
Disclaimer: I am not part of the team running type 3 studio, just an ordinary member on their forums :) --Peter [AGHL] 01:23, 14 Feb 2008 (PST)

See also versus Articles

It's ok to move the link to section "See also" where it was previously :)

Just wondering from a standardization point of view, which is preferable: "See Also" or "Articles"? Eg ref Glass & Windows and if both are ok when to use which? Thanks --Peter [AGHL] 12:24, 16 Feb 2008 (PST)

The most used section header titles for these kinds of links are See also (for inter-wiki links) and External links (for links to websites outside the wiki), much like what is done in Wikipedia. I would also say that a very large percentage of articles (both on the VDC and at Wikipedia) use See also, so I guess it would be best to stick with it. There are probably some articles (I don't recall any specific one at the moment...) that perhaps have chosen to give another title to this "inter-wiki link section", but what doesn't seem consistent (from my point of view) is having two different sections for the same thing (Articles and See also sections), and that's why I changed it. In my opinion, I'd simply stick with See also because it's already very used and it has the following effect: "after reading an article, be sure to also see these other (related) articles right here on this wiki". By saying they're simply Articles would be stating the obvious :P --Etset 13:35, 16 Feb 2008 (PST)
Ok, thanks for clarifying ... - I'll stick to "See also" then. Should I change section name from "Articles" to "See also" if come across this to keep consistency? I have seen it a couple of times in the Abstract Mapping series. --Peter [AGHL] 14:19, 16 Feb 2008 (PST)
It's not extremely important unless there is inconsistency within the article itself (having both Articles and See also sections would be an example of this). But yes, it should be changed in the long run (for consistency purposes with the rest of the wiki), at least in my opinion. So, if you feel like doing it, please be my guest :) --Etset 15:27, 16 Feb 2008 (PST)

Article names

Here's a list of (my) suggestions for the tutorial article names:

Those not listed are the ones that I agree with your suggestion.

Generally, article names shouldn't be very long or complicated (nor extremely precise, e.g. titles such as Full guide to building a house in the Valve Hammer Editor should be avoided) and that contains words that any user would normally search for if they were looking for an article about that subject (e.g. Police rappel is less likely to be searched than NPC rappel). --Etset 14:08, 25 Feb 2008 (PST)

Thanks - please feel free to comment on titles/article names on my user page --Peter [AGHL] 16:02, 25 Feb 2008 (PST)

Improvements needed on wise tuts

I can see that the articles need a little brushup here and there to conform to VDC standards and improve the quality

  • Rewrite to thirdperson
  • Add additional descriptions or link to other articles (I'm enabling hyperlinks on all entities etc)
  • Proper article name
  • New larger screenshots (I have the sample maps)
  • And probably more

Thanks in advance --Peter [AGHL] 00:55, 9 Feb 2008 (PST)

Templates

Ahh these templates look just marvelous

{{entity-output-start}}
{{entity-output||OnTrigger|npc_zombie_prone_1_ss|BeginSequence||0.00|Yes|}}
{{entity-output-end}}
My output Target entity Target input Parameter Delay Only once Comments
Entity-output-icon.png OnTrigger npc_zombie_prone_1_ss BeginSequence 0.00 Yes

Idea taken from Npc zombie prone, I wonder if there's similar ideas for properties? --Peter [AGHL] 13:18, 20 Feb 2008 (PST)

Check 0.51's user page. There are (at least) three types: entity-output, entity-kvalue and entity-flag templates. --Etset 05:26, 21 Feb 2008 (PST)
Found 'em yesterday. Btw entity-output and -flag looks sweet but -kvalue is a little ... urghh, I'll probably start a discussion on the template talk page when I come around to it :) --Peter [AGHL] 06:06, 21 Feb 2008 (PST)

Capilization and titles

Hmm lowercase second and subsequent words in titles refers to name of the page and the nature of the search engine used in wikipedia/mediawiki

I have learned to capitalize in titles, according to these rules http://www.sc.edu/webpresence/editorial_guide/capitalization.html, when writing in english

Another page: wikipedia:Capitalization somehow supports my point, but however this page uses what is referred to as sentence-style capitalization, which is also how it is done in danish (my native langauge) .... - I'm confused :)

Anyways should I always use sentence-style capitalization in both pagenames and headers for chapters/sections? - thanks --Peter [AGHL] 17:01, 14 Feb 2008 (PST)

In what concerns page names, I would say it really doesn't matter much, because like they say on that first wikipedia link: "upper and lower cases will (both) direct readers to the same page". Of course it would be best if it followed the same rules as the rest of the capitalization made in the article itself, no doubt about that. Regarding those very rules, I would say that both your link and Wikipedia's Capitalization link are pointing at pretty much the same thing (which is also my point of view): in all titles for chapters/sections, like in a normal text, one should not capitalize words that do not need to be capitalized. I.e. (for section headers) instead of "Step Number Two", one should write "Step number two" and instead of "Additional Considerations Regarding The Source Engine" one should write "Additional considerations regarding the Source engine" (note capital S in Source).
That second Wikipedia link (in its whole) refers to capitalization in the article "body" itself, but the section "Section headings" refers to what we're discussing here: capitalization in section headings.
Also, the body of the article (the rest of the text) should obviously follow these rules too. For example, too often I see something like "now we're going to do something AWESOME" or "this is VERY VERY IMPORTANT!" written on an article. This is very informal and doesn't look good (usually those articles are already marked for cleanup anyway...). --Etset 04:53, 15 Feb 2008 (PST)

Signatures

When you write someone else's nickname and link to it, there is no need to include two hifens before it, such as: --wisemx. You can simply write: wisemx. It looks better too :)

When you are signing your own post on a talk page, you can use the --~~~~ characters to quickly insert your signature, but the hifens are only there to separate the text from the signature itself. In fact, the signature itself appears due to the four tildes (~~~~), which means you can actually sign your posts with any other string of characters (that includes four tildes), for example:

signature:~~~~

results in the following: signature:Etset 14:05, 9 Feb 2008 (PST)