GenieWiki talk:Community Portal
From GenieWiki
Contents |
Spacing
I much prefer no blank lines between (all) paragraphs, but Anastasia prefers them there. You others have any opinion? --DiGiT
- A single blank line is used to separate paragraphs pretty much universally, if that's what you mean. In the old days they used to have no line and an indent at the start of a new paragraph, then since computers became widespread they switched to a line in between for ease of typing, which has then been applied to normal writing since. For general style guidelines I'd just go with what they do at Wikipedia. Richard 02:31, 30 May 2006 (CDT)
I don't think the single blank line is anywhere near universal, as all the essays I wrote for high school used an indent to mark paragraphs. However, by "no blank lines" I meant the MediaWiki default of the half a line or whatever it is. I just don't like the extra space. --DiGiT
- Well, without the space I don't really see how you can tell if it's a new paragraph or not when the period is near the end of a line. Richard 03:06, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
Hi people, I had a good look at the Wiki yesterday and added some bits & bobs in the Effects section. It's all looking good. I'd go with a blank line after each para. I noticed there are one or two other formatting issues, e.g. inconsistent use of bold. I suppose they don't matter greatly but might be good to encourage contributors to be consistent. StephenR 05:22, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
- I say blank lines, that's what I've always used. What do you mean by "inconsistent use of bold", Stephen? Am I bolding too much (I've been working on Effects as well)? Or too few? Cesar
I'd say you're bolding too much. But about the lines, what we have between these paragraphs is a half line (which is what I like), as opposed to an extra one, which I guess makes 1.5 lines. So which is better? --DiGiT
0.75 line, if possible. I'll try to slow down on the bolding. Cesar
- I'd strongly recommend just to go with MediaWiki formatting defaults and such for minor stuff like that. As for bolding, I'm not sure exactly when it's appropriate to bold, but we always bold the subject title each time it is used. Richard 03:07, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
Cite extension problem
It seems installing Cite.php has messed up the wiki a bit. If you get a "call to undefined function: array()" error, that's the problem. I'm working on it. --DiGiT
Logo
I have uploaded the new logo DiGiT. So go and see if you like it. It based around an isometric tile as the Genie is an isometric engine. In future I will add a tree or something to the logo. But what there should do for the mean time. Also, hope you like the gold text.
By the way Digit, can you make my background tiling to the left instead of it stretched and squashed. :) Tropper
Namespaces and ugliness
OK, I realize some of you have a problem with the namespace page-naming solution, ie, where a page on the units of AOK would be called AOK:Units. I realize that this is uglier than Units (AoK) or Age of Kings Units, but it is less typing, more standardized, and easier to search. I created this wiki primarily as a resource for third-party developers like me, scenario_t_c, and others (Steven now :)) though I am more than happy to have people use it as a general resource for the three games. With its original intent, however, I personally think that locating information more quickly and reliably is preferable to have better-looking page names. This isn't Wikipedia, it's not trying to prove anything, it's just a resource for us all.
If you really disagree with me, please post your reasoning here. Just don't try to battle the namespace system by renaming pages; let's have a standard that we all live by. --DiGiT 10:57, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
If the pages are set up properly couldn't we just use the "In: AOE AOK SWGB" buttons bellow the search box? Personally I don't care as long as we can make a great resource for modders and scenario designers alike I am happy. ;-) OT: BTW DiGiT good to see you back. Darky 17:36, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
Heh, well I can't promise to spend a lot of time here, but I'll try. :) On topic, though, that is the primary reason I want to use namespaces. All the search checkboxes select that namespace and the general one, so yeah, if a page is named with AOK: in front of it, checking the AOK box will make it a lot easier to find it. I can't setup an automatic system like that (or at least not without a large amount of effort) if we just call pages "Age of Kings Buildings" or "Buildings (AoK)". I also dislike the latter because people capitalize AoK differently. --DiGiT 19:40, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
G1ggy is now a sysop
Everyone welcome G1ggy as GenieWiki's new sysop. His promotion is due to his valuable contributions and attempts at moderating even without access (:P) while I've been inactive, and he'll now be able to officially help out when I don't have the time (read: all the time). Thanks for your help, G1ggy! --DiGiT 19:49, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
Namespaces
Please stop renaming pages away from the namespace solution to custom ones that you think look better. To discuss this, please see the talk page. --DiGiT
- Oops, sorry about this. I wasn't aware they were namespaces, thought they were just prefixes. I'll go undo my moves then. Giggy Talk 20:02, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
Featured article
I think we should start thinking about having a featured article section on the main page - each month or so we could select a new article that represents the very best of our work here on the wiki, and have a small showcase of it on the main page. This would encourage editors and improve standards. What do you think? Richard
- I think we should wait until we have a few more high quality articles. Giggy Talk 20:18, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
Image:Swgbbox.jpg
I noticed that this image is used on the Main Page, but that Image:SWGB Saga.jpg is used in the article. I think we should use the same image throughout (as is done with the images for the other two games). Opinions? Giggy Talk 20:18, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
