Village Pump (proposals)
Discuss new proposals that are not policy related.
Improve recent changes
sadly, the biki is abused as a BTS for ArmA at this point. yet thats not the topic of this proposal.
however especially the initially very useful "recent changes" page is now being flooded by these entries. first i'd like to suggest to open a section about the "recent changes" page which discusses the possibilities of its customization, importance and overall value to the end user. in my view the recent changes page is one of the main elements to use the wiki effectively. this has to be made clear to everyone and what is related to have it remain like this (minor edits, preview function, edit comments).
secondly, i'd like to ask (request) if there is a filter option available ("as plugin") for the mediawiki engine to filter out entries like sandbox, user pages and other custom defined page edits.
thanks! --WGL.Q 11:24, 25 December 2006 (CET)
- I recently moved the Bugs and Wishlist pages into the Help namespace, to somehow alleviate this problem. It's not a perfect fix, but it helps somewhat.
- Just select the namespace 'Main' when you're on the Recent Changes page, and you will not see those pages anymore (or create a shortcut like this in your browser). (The only drawback is that you also don't see the talk pages if you filter for the 'Main' namespace.) --Kronzky 18:50, 15 January 2007 (CET)
News about BI and this Wiki.
Discuss existing and proposed, new policies.
New proposals that are not policy related.
|Things To Do
Areas of the Biki that need attention.
Request assistance for the creation and update of content.
Technical issues related to the MediaWiki software.
Topics that do not fit into any other category.
Merge some scripting pages
There are some pages such as createUnit and createUnit array that would be better presented as a single createUnit page that describes both forms. I'm happy to merge these but want to check that someone won't take offence. ;-) Sbsmac 20:36, 30 December 2006 (CET)
Seperate info for seperate games?
I would have thought that it would be a good idea to keep seperate reference information for each of the seperate BI games? For example, the Description.ext page contains information that is only relevant to ArmA, which only serves to confuse someone looking for OFP infomation. The scripting commands are another concern, although I am unsure as to whether ArmA has changed the syntax or function of any of the OFP commands. While it makes sense to focus on the new engine, it should not be done in such a way that reduces this Wiki's usability for OFP users.--Ceeeb
- As long as the most info on a page is related to both, I think it is okay. It just has to be clear, which info is only related to one of the games.
- I agree as long as the difference is noted, the description.ext started out as a reference for the OFP one, which was identical to the Elite one with the exception of the header class. In ArmA its identical again with a few more changes. hoz
- In principle I agree that there should be separate pages, but in reality that would actually create quite a mess, as you would either have to go through splitter pages (like this), or give the command a different name (like here in VBS vs. ArmA), to differentiate stuff with identical names.
- I honestly don't know what the best solution would be... My pragmatic approach would be to have separate pages for things are are significantly different among the games, have perhaps a notice on a "shared" page which points out that certain things don't apply to OFP/VBS, and in general, with trivial stuff (like examples) gear it towards ArmA, as that's what the majority will be using the Wiki for. --Kronzky 18:45, 15 January 2007 (CET)
- Could we at least provide seperate notes sections for each game on the same page where there are subtle differences? The problem is this requires that somebody is very familiar with all the engines to know where changes have occured. It gets hard with 5 different versions of the same engine. Since I only have OFP:Resistance, I shall begin any notes or examples I add with a note "In OFP v1.96, blah blah blah". It would be nice to not have try and find out wether any generic information actually applies to the engine I'm using. --Ceeeb
OFPEC TAG register migration
Would it be a good idea to migrate the OFPEC tag register into the wiki since BI has endorsed it and ofpec is so unstable? I think it is an essential good practice that needs to be encouraged before ArmA addons really start getting made. --Ceeeb 16:21, 2 February 2007 (CET)