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
IMO the wiki is pretty disorganized right now. For a new guy, it is hard to impossible to find some specific information.
This is partially because categories are mixed up with articles and partially because in the categories themselves, there is no clear structure to navigation through.
First of all, categories should not contain anything more than the links to their parent category, their sub categories and their articles. From a webdesigner's point of view, navigations are the sitemap. They are used when someone wants to find some information not using the inline links (f.i. in articles) but by the topics the information belongs to.
Second, within the categories there should be a much clearer structure. I've shown on the pictures below what I mean by that. They show only a part, but clarify pretty well (for a start) what I mean. (arrows point from children to parents)
File:suggestion category projects.png
File:suggestion category arma.png
File:suggestion category editing.png
So what we can do is not that hard. We only have to reorganize the structure and move some information out of categories into seperate articles. To differ a bit more between categories and articles, we can, like on wikipedia, color the background of categories.
What does the rest here think? IMO this step is badly needed, so that the information stored here now and in the future gets really accessible for the ones who search it.
--hardrock 22:09, 18 December 2006 (CET)
Ah, I hoped some of the sysops would come to that idea, because a reorganisation is definately needed and the structure you suppose is fine for me. --T_D 22:18, 18 December 2006 (CET)
- I agree wholeheartedly. The BIKI is only usable via recent changes and the search feature at this point.
- Great initiative hardrock - --WGL.Q 22:22, 18 December 2006 (CET)
Well, in case we really start with this, there are more questions:
IMO every article of a game section should be prefixed, like it is already the case for many ArmA articles (e.g. "Armed Assault: Scripting"). Should we leave this prefix being "Armed Assault" or shorten it to "ArmA" ? Or should we move it in the end at all ("Scripting (Armed Assault)") so that if one enters "Scripting" he gets the alternatives? --hardrock 22:28, 18 December 2006 (CET)