Guidelines – Bohemia Interactive Community talk

From Bohemia Interactive Community
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk Pages

Should we put a note in here (or into Getting_Started_with_BI_Community_Wiki_Editing) to let people know that the discussion pages are supposed to be for discussions about the project page, and not for discussing the technical issues related to the subject, or ask technical questions, etc.?
--Kronzky 08:44, 20 July 2006 (CEST)

Kronzky, I used your suggestion in the guidelines. Thanks
hoz 15:42, 20 July 2006 (CEST)

Wiki Sysops

There are several references in here to Wiki Sysops.
But who are they, and how do users find/identify/contact them?
--Kronzky 15:29, 20 July 2006 (CEST)

We will compile a list of sysops today. For now they can be found looking at the userlist. hoz
Browse to Special:Listusers and select the sysop group. Shinraiden 15:44, 20 July 2006 (CEST)


Image Restrictions

I'm thinking we will need to limit the number of images Mods' can have per page to prevent a mass uploading of images. I'm thinking about a number of of 5 - 7 images limit. Assuming 1 -2 pics for logo, 4 pics max for screen shots. It isn't a problem yet, but could in the future. Thoughts? hoz 17:00, 20 July 2006 (CEST)

Sounds like a good number. But can that restriction be limited to just Mod pages? After all, I could imagine somebody putting up pages listing all units, with descriptions and pictures, etc. (like [this one] for VBS1), which could be quite useful. --Kronzky 17:23, 20 July 2006 (CEST)
Yes this would apply to the user pages as well. Again these are just thoughts. Thanks for the input. hoz

Talking about images - what would the chances be of allowing other content to be uploaded (e.g. PBOs, P3Ds, SQMs)?
It would be quite useful for examples and tutorials, so that one wouldn't have to rely on outside sources.
Of course, the danger would be that this could turn into an addon-depository... --Kronzky 18:14, 21 July 2006 (CEST)

IMHO PBOs aren't common part of tutorial, so they shouldn't be upoadedable. All other file types you listed above are simple text - probably uploading compressed files (zip, rar, 7z, not PBO - other formats are more easy to manipulate with and we don't want be addon repository) can be useful. Size limit for this archive must be strict, I think < 30KB should be enought for scripts. (100 lines of code - 1.3K zip archive, 2000 lines - 26K). How for P3Ds? --Djura 20:35, 23 July 2006 (CEST)
The reason I was suggesting PBOs was that we could be sure that their content would be OFP specific, whereas with zipped formats people could be uploading all kinds of crap. Via a PBO you could upload mission files, addons, or even islands. And since tutorials should only use standard textures anyway, all an addon-PBO would contain would be the P3D and config file anyway.
If you do wanna use zip files for uploading P3Ds you would probbably need a size limit of at least 10K. I just checked a few of my very basic test vehicles (that are really' bare bones platforms), and they compress to between 10-20K --Kronzky 23:38, 23 July 2006 (CEST)

Downloads - category, list or anything else?

I'm confused about Category:Downloads. In my first idea it should be only list of link to pages, witch use Template:Box Download. If we want special page with all downloads, it shouldn't be category page, it should be sipmle list. IMHO the best solution is to have download boxes at pages witch offer download, category Downloads shoul be category for this pages and all downloads have at Download list too. Do you agree? --Djura 19:26, 23 July 2006 (CEST)

move talk converation to here, no need to bug Suma's talk, we can discuss here and try not bug BI when they can be busy building ArmA, from my understanding we are to try and run the wiki as a community and BI will guide us if we need guideance. On the note of download links, I'm not sure we want the Wiki to be come a respository of download links that maybe prone to failure. There are other sites that host missions and addons. Just some thoughts. hoz 19:57, 23 July 2006 (CEST)
Wiki should descript products and allow possibility to retrive them. I don't want create huge link repository... --Djura 20:05, 23 July 2006 (CEST)
Yeah - There are enough addon-sites out there already. They're doing a pretty good job, and I don't see why we should be duplicating their job. There's also enough redundance so that even if one goes down, most addons would still be readily available from others. --Kronzky 23:49, 23 July 2006 (CEST)