I don't think there is any sort of approval system to the wiki, but it is easy to revert changes.  If someone is being abusive, I imagine it will be possible to ban them.

Why not  ..

[[Boards:Circles of Death:Scenario1:]]

[[Boards:Circles of Death:Scenario2:]]

I think this is right, but do we even need that last colon at the end?  I think as long as you have a namespace for your map, you can just put the scenarios, etc. at that level.

Also, IMO, I don't think most maps will need a whole page for these things.  If you can fit everything you want to say about a scenario or tips/strategy into 3-4 paragraphs & an image, just put it on the main page.  Seems like extra hassle to try and break everything down to more pages, and it will be annoying if those sub pages are all short.

I would suggest starting without those pages, and then if your main page is getting cumbersome, create the sub-page, and copy and paste the content into the subpage.

M57 wrote:

I've started a discussion page for organizing the wiki..

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=discussion

I see where you are going with this, but IMO wiki's are not that great for discussion.  Better to have the discussion in a forum, which is designed for that.  Create separate threads  for issues if you want to focus on something & you think this thread is too overflowing.

However, I did find a 'discussion' plugin for dokuwiki, which might make discussions easier on the wiki.  It sounds like it basically allows you to add one threaded discussion to the bottom of any wiki page.

https://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:discussion

I think at some point we need to review the various dokuwiki plugins, figure out the best ones for our needs, and make a request to Tom, but first let's get used to the default dokuwiki behavior.

@Ozyman - I agree about discussions.. Better perhaps would be checklists and the like.

tom wrote:

I'll set up a managers group who will be able to Delete articles - who would like to be in this?

I'd be interested, I have some types of Wiki experience and will try and familiarize myself with this one soon.

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:

I'll set up a managers group who will be able to Delete articles - who would like to be in this?

I'd be interested, I have some types of Wiki experience and will try and familiarize myself with this one soon.

I am interested - but it seems like I'm already able to delete just about anything as is -- what's the difference?

M57 wrote:

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:

I'll set up a managers group who will be able to Delete articles - who would like to be in this?

I'd be interested, I have some types of Wiki experience and will try and familiarize myself with this one soon.

I am interested - but it seems like I'm already able to delete just about anything as is -- what's the difference?

my guess: there isnt one set up yet. 

@tom, i'd say all those who've been involved here so far (Ozy, M57, Yertle, Cram, ratsy, Amidon, me, ?)

i think this is going to work the best:

*boards page has:
[[Boards:Circles of Death:Circles of Death]] 

on the specific board page if linking to scenarios:
[[Boards:Circles of Death:Scenarios:Default]] \\ 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

if use this:   [[Boards:Circles of Death]] 

then, subsequent sub-namepages don't appear on sitemap

if use this: [[Boards:Circles of Death:Default]] 

then, scenarios get at the same level as everything else, and you don't know that they're scenarios of the board

UNLESS we stick a 'scenario--' in front of it:  [[Boards:Circles of Death:Scenario--Default]] 

now, when you look at the site map it stands out, but on the main board page it looks a bit silly.

Ozyman wrote:

Also, IMO, I don't think most maps will need a whole page for these things.  If you can fit everything you want to say about a scenario or tips/strategy into 3-4 paragraphs & an image, just put it on the main page.  Seems like extra hassle to try and break everything down to more pages, and it will be annoying if those sub pages are all short.

I would suggest starting without those pages, and then if your main page is getting cumbersome, create the sub-page, and copy and paste the content into the subpage.

Agreed, most everything should be able to fit on one page unless you have a seriously complicated board, but i think scenarios should have their own space and not clutter up the main board

Yeah - I'm only planning to have multiple/detailed pages for two or three of my boards. The rest will get a couple paragraphs. - if I ever get around to them.

This is getting ahead a little, but I think whenever a board is up for Review - it should have to have a page - even if one of the reviewers throws it up there - then the designer could be asked to write a paragraph or something.

By making it part of the review process, designers learn a) that it's there, and b) how to edit a page, no matter how basically.

agreed.

course also i think - with this wiki being in place - we start requiring a map development thread  prior to submitting to review. if we require a couple simple things there then we can alleviate much of the ...stuff... we've had to deal with in review games. and it behooves the designer to get it in early in case things happen that would eventually force them into a rework (better sooner than later - take my alien board for instance being too big for most).

weathertop wrote:

agreed.

course also i think - with this wiki being in place - we start requiring a map development thread  prior to submitting to review. if we require a couple simple things there then we can alleviate much of the ...stuff... we've had to deal with in review games. and it behooves the designer to get it in early in case things happen that would eventually force them into a rework (better sooner than later - take my alien board for instance being too big for most).

Right - In most cases, and with active participation of review board members, the actual Review should be a rubber stamp.

weathertop wrote:

i think this is going to work the best:

*boards page has:
[[Boards:Circles of Death:Circles of Death]] 

btw, from reading that namespaces tips link, I think that

[[Boards:Circles of Death:Circles of Death]]

is equivalent to (i.e. will go the exact same page as)

[[Boards:Circles of Death:]]

which IMO, looks a bit cleaner, and is what I will be using on my board pages, but I don't think it matters any, if some people do it one way, and others do it the other.

yeah, in playing around 

[[Boards:Circles of Death:Circles of Death]]

is equivalent to (i.e. will go the exact same page as)

[[Boards:Circles of Death:]]

with one exception:

[[Boards:Circles of Death:Circles of Death]]

creates a subdirectory under boards in the sitemap which is much cleaner there.

tho i'm not sure why the proving grounds and designer tutorials created a separate link at the top level instead of inside their respective expandable like the boards one does.

oh BTW, i edited those two things to clarify things a bit (as i think workshop/tutorials are step-by-step instructions, so i shortened to tutorials and made a 'proving grounds' section where they actual development thread should go)

UPDATE: seems you need the double name (eg. 'proving grounds:proving grounds') to thread the components in the sitemap. so if we want to clean up the site map we'll need to cluster things a bit better. 
and i'm done playin for the night, so if you decide you don't like what i did - back-up away! 

Ozyman wrote:

weathertop wrote:

i think this is going to work the best:

*boards page has:
[[Boards:Circles of Death:Circles of Death]] 

btw, from reading that namespaces tips link, I think that

[[Boards:Circles of Death:Circles of Death]]

is equivalent to (i.e. will go the exact same page as)

[[Boards:Circles of Death:]]

 

which IMO, looks a bit cleaner, and is what I will be using on my board pages, but I don't think it matters any, if some people do it one way, and others do it the other. 

Consider..

[[Boards:Circles of Death:Tips]]

Obviously this is preferred: Tips is buried - and will not be confused with "Tips" from another board on the site map.

But when you have [[Boards:Circles of Death]] AND [[Boards:Circles of Death:Tips]] in the the site map list, you are going to see the Circles of Death folder that contains Tips, and the page itself.

There wouldnt be any confusion per se; there's only one Circles of Death page, but I would rather that all of the pages for that Board are in one place.

[[Boards:Circles of Death:Tips]]

[[Boards:Circles of Death:Circles of Death]]

I suppose it's not a problem as long as there are no other pages associated with the board that would necessitate a parent namespace, but this way all the pages are in the same place and at the same level.

Ok, this is kind of complicated, and the takeaway is that it's simplest to just use [[Boards:BoardName:BoardName]], but since I think I figured out how it all works, I'll explain.

If there is a Boards:BoardName:BoardName page then [[Boards:BoardName:]] (note second colon) brings you to it.   But if the page doesn't already exist it sends you to Boards:BoardName:start instead. 

So if you created the page first, you could use the shorter link, but it hardly seems worth the trouble.

I've started on a style guide.  What do you think so far?

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=wiki_usage#editing_guidelines

good idea

Ozyman wrote:

I've started on a style guide.  What do you think so far?

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=wiki_usage#editing_guidelines

I added the section on protocol/etiquette - Should we be 'signing' significant edits?

I don't think it's necessary or desired to sign things, since you can look at the page history to figure out who is making the changes.  I think lots of 'signatures' will just make it look cluttered.

I'm wondering about the glossary.  I originally put a couple "originated by" tags for wargear specific terms that were invented by someone in particular,  Maybe "coined by" would have been more clear.  It seems to have turned into people just signing that they added something to the glossary, which IMO is unnecessary.