Wikis / Unreal Wiki / Unreal Wiki talk:Task list

Regarding this blurb from the project page: "Don't just copy pages from the 'Legacy:' namespace. Make them better by rewriting them in you own words, restructuring them or even approaching the topic from a different point of view." Doesn't that fly in the face of the new rules, which as I understand them are to *not* change the content unless you are the original author? Clear up this ambiguity on the project page, please. -- SuperApe 13:39 (PST) 21 April, 2008

And while we're at it, "Establish a good topic structure - the old Unreal Wiki seriously lacked in this department". Let's be extremely clear as to how the old wiki seriously lacked structure, specifically what was missing and what to do to follow the new and improved structure. This has never really been discussed or designed, only to say, "the old way sucked". So here's the chance to outline what sucked and how to make it ... not suck. Let's see a very clear plan on the project page, please. -- SuperApe 13:44 (PST) 21 April, 2008

Well I was kinda liking the basic proceedure thing that was starting to happen and wrote the Legacy:Using_The_Mod_System_In_UT2004 according to that somewhat. Its not exactly on the standard layout though, so Im wondering what would be the way to join a list of basic procedures into one tutorials would be. Like for eg making a mutator class would be a basic thing and hello world mutator would expand on that basic procedure. Im also not sure what to bring over myself, its obvious class pages will make their way over with the new wikifier but for other pages I had alittle input with Im not even sure who the original creator was anyways. Perhaps basic procedure could be listed on this task list as well if its still the way things are going. -OlympusMons 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally thought the one or two tutorial series were neat. They took the user from Hello world to making a weapon in just a few short tutorials. -DalinSeivewright 05:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions now we got a Basic Procedure Category going? Im not sure how simple things are meant to be but stuff like create a class, create a function, using objects or stuff like that. I dont have a clue where to start on this stuff myself. Alot of that type of basic stuff though would link to the UnrealScript Reference stuff. -OlympusMons 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The old Wiki was a mess. Lengthy discussions could be found on the majority of sites pages, as well as detailed problems that had been abandonned while still being unanswered. The general layout of pages often changed from author to author and so it was sometimes difficult to find what you were looking for. The only thing about it that I truly liked was the Category layout and the UnrealScript reference. I think as a general rule we need to keep lengthy paragraphs to a minimum unless absolutely neccesary and keep things clear and straight to the point. I also believe there needs to be a standard format we need to develop and work towards, which will take some time to work out. There needs to be a useful purpose served by a given page. The old wiki had a lot of 'junk' - pages that were just a waste of space and had no clear reason for its existance.-DalinSeivewright 05:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make this any clearer: We need to outline what to *do* not what not to do. Dalin, I know you're contributing and trying to help. I'm not bashing you. I'm trying to help clarify the "the old sucked" and form a comprehensive, or at least cohesive plan of how to move forward from here. To that end, let me "translate" your last paragraph of comments into something action-able, ignoring those comments which cannot help to form the new organization plan (i.e., "The old Wiki was a mess"). 1) "Lengthy discussions could be found on the majority of sites pages" : Our discussions have now been relocated to a special Discussion tab for each page; nice and neat. 2) "detailed problems that had been abandonned while still being unanswered" : (not sure if there is anything to do except) ask all wiki users/contributors to be vigilant in responding to questions asked on various pages. (?) 3) "The general layout of pages often changed from author to author and so it was sometimes difficult to find what you were looking for." : (not sure if you mean to say that individual page format varied, or the structures of different sections of the wiki varied in organization format) Either way, the solution is again to ask wiki users to be vigilant in conforming to a set organizational structure on pages and in groups of pages. *And this is of course why* I'm turning these loose complaints into something actionable, so that an organizational structure can be developed. 4) "The old wiki had a lot of 'junk' - pages that were just a waste of space and had no clear reason for its existance." : Perhaps then this is an extra step; to evaluate new pages as they are created, and judge them for usefulness and content. This list of things I extracted from the previous paragraph boils down to: (discussion already moved), ask wiki users to be vigilant, perhaps judge content as its created, ... and that's all. This is *not* an organization plan! Does all this make sense? Avoid rantish complaints and come up with some organizational plan any wiki user can clearly follow. So far, I've been watching what's going on here and I remain wholly unconvinced that any such plan exists, and further, I doubt a comprehensive organizational plan will emerge in the near future. I don't want to see the wiki suffer and fade out of use because no one paid attention to this problem. That is why I strongly urge active contributing members to get it together, forget the past, and get an organizational structure together as soon as possible. -- SuperApe 09:03 (PST) 22 April, 2008

I was merely stating my thoughts on the matter and not attempting to create an organizational plan. I was also responding to your first question about identifying what was wrong with the Wiki. Perhaps you should create a simple organizational plan yourself, post it here or somewhere on the wiki and we'll contribute and we can work towards a semi-final draft of what we're looking to see in general. My only specific organizational thoughts are on the class pages such as Pawn Factory where all the variables and functions are described along with their definitions. Following that the Source code with the class hierarchy just above it. This was very similar to the class pages of most (if not all) of the old-wiki class pages. Whats semi different is that, besides the introduction section, its straight to the point. The seperation of the main page and the talk page help is a lot. -DalinSeivewright 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have said in other discussions here on the wiki (which is another large problem here: there is no single place for discussion defined, so this organizational conversation is disjointed among several different pages), "Seeing as I was an instrumental contributor of the old organization (which has been widely criticized as poor or no organization), I will step back, keep an eye on the progress and wait for the dust to settle." That is why I'm not proposing an organizational plan myself, but that was a very good question. Hope more chime in on this topic soon. -- SuperApe 14:09 (PST) 22 April, 2008

I stumbled upon this while looking for ways to give newcomers to the Unreal Wiki more pertinent information before they start contributing: Unreal_Wiki:Style_guide. I don't think its exactly what you're looking to see, but then again its something to work off of. As for this organizational plan that you are looking to see, it isn't clear to me what you're wanting. Then again, I guess you're not clear on the new vision for this site either, so I guess you might not know what you are wanting to see. Just thought I'd 'refresh' this discussion (which could probably use some refactoring/deleting ;) ) to see if we can get others discussing this. -DalinSeivewright 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to post some more thoughts soon; I've been rather busy. I'm not of the opinion that the old structure needs to be abandoned entirely, so I think the first step would be to lay out exactly what the old structure was in a reasonable format. – Haarg 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Ive seen that page myself but it doesnt actually provide any basic layouts its just guidelines for writing structure on the most part, which is certainly helpful. What I would be looking for myself is a set of templates which cover basic outlining of different types of pages for consistency. I guess that page itself has a nice structure to it, perhaps thats what I should be aiming for when I make a page. There is however no blue headings on that page which seems to create more entries to the contents, Im not sure if anyone agree's but perhaps we could cull that green headings only, there is another bold heading though, maybe its a bad idea. -OlympusMons 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)