Main Page – Talk
The talk archive can be found here
Discussion
I would suggest to remove the 'Addons' item from the 'Editing BI Games' group, as the target article isn't about creating addons, but about using them (and that already has a nice, appropriate link in the OFP article --Kronzky 20:32, 20 July 2006 (CEST)
- I agree the Addons pages are a mess, they are very popular though Special:Popularpages. hoz 18:11, 28 July 2006 (CEST)
- Perhaps we should move the link to the "Getting Help With BI Games" section (where it would fit in nicely with "Troubleshooting" & "Walkthroughs"). Since the target page is about the use of addons anyway, and since I somehow suspect that people are probably looking for info on how to use or find them, rather than how to make them, that might be a better place. --Kronzky 19:15, 28 July 2006 (CEST)
Virtual Tool Kit (VTK)
Are you going to add a VTK section?
- I'm not sure what VTK is? Link? Don't forget to sign your posts hoz 16:40, 7 September 2006 (CEST)
- Virtual Tool Kit [1] is the expansion to VBS2 that BIA is developing for the USMC. Dinger 17:02, 7 September 2006 (CEST)
- Thanks for that Dinger, there isn't even a VTK page yet. So putting it on the main page is out of the question until there is some article with some substance. By all means go ahead and create a stub article and expand on it. hoz 18:08, 7 September 2006 (CEST)
- Page built: Virtual Tool Kit - snYpir (Lead Developer VBS2) 23:26, 7 September 2006 (CEST)
- Thanks for that Dinger, there isn't even a VTK page yet. So putting it on the main page is out of the question until there is some article with some substance. By all means go ahead and create a stub article and expand on it. hoz 18:08, 7 September 2006 (CEST)
Wiki Reorganization
Ok. I did the first part of reorganization and wanted to discuss here what to do next.
The current organization structure of the Editing parts looks like the following:
Should we move the Mission Editing, Addon Editing and Terrain Editing sections together and only mark special articles with "ArmA:" or "OFP:" ? In the category Scripting Topics it is already this way, and I think it's quite fine.
I think we could save a lot of organization work and double articles this way.
What do you think? Ok? Other suggestions? Leave it as is? --hardrock 02:47, 23 December 2006 (CET)