The talk archive can be found here
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)
I see the site is running a very old version of mediawiki, v1.6.7 released over four years ago. Can this be upgraded to the newer 1.15.4? The new version would provide better PHP security and many new features. The newer releases do require PHP 5 versus PHP 4; is this a difficulty? I have been running a local gaming-related wiki site since version 1.11, and recently upgraded to 1.15.4. --Grenadier f 21:48, 7 July 2010 (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  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)
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)
I like the idea. --raedor 20:55, 23 December 2006 (CET)
- I think we should leave it the way it is, and concentrate on the content, rather than the structure.
- With all this reshuffling every other week, nobody dares to touch any of the articles anymore. Nobody knows what's gonna happen to their contributions at the next shuffle, and nobody knows where the correct place is to put anything anymore.
- Yes, the current structure may not be "perfect" - but it is good enough for most people to understand, and that is all we need right now.
- There is more harm done in constantly changing things trying to improve to "perfection", rather than having some stability, and giving people a chance to familiarize themselves with it - to actually use it, and start submitting to it.
- But that is something that just won't happen unless there is some permanence. --Kronzky 00:25, 24 December 2006 (CET)
- I agree with you, and this is even my motivation for these reorganizations. Right now, not many people are actually used to/using/editing the wiki. This would IMO be the optimal time to improve its structure to its best. Of course this is confusing for the few people who are using the wiki right now, but that's it. Once there are (much) more people using the wiki, the chance is over. One might be angry about the structure then, but you won't be able to change it anymore because of the amount of articles and amount of people used to the structure. --hardrock 10:35, 27 December 2006 (CET)