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

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

Kjeld wrote:

Will there eventually be a link to the Wiki on the main site, maybe up where the tabs or other quick links are?

i think that's the thought from tom's earlier post

Ozyman wrote:

Namespaces are ways to divide the wiki.  Right now if someone create a wiki page about a new  map called 'factories', then we can't have a page on the wiki called 'factories' to describe how factories work.   If we separate the boards into their own namespace, than we can don't have to worry about name collisions between boards and other pages on the wiki.  Plus it looks like we can create a template for new pages within a namespace, so that when a new board wiki page is created it will have some structure already filled in.

So if we have a separate 'thread' - namespace? -for: boards (final), boards (development), play elements (factories, fog, borders, etc), etc; then each could theoretically have their own template right?

could there be a template for a board (final) that has sub-templates for scenarios under that board?

i really think we need to kinda hash some stuff out before we start monkeying (sorry Risky) around and end up somewhere we dont want to be (thats likely to happen anyway) and can't undo.

i'm really an outline kinda guy (which means the sidebar will be helpful to me - if i understand that it will mimic the navigation window in word, where its an outline/table of contents for the whole document) so heres what i'm trying to say above:

- welcome

- best practices

- boards (final) - (i make the distinction between final and dev because in perusing at another site i get really pissed off at trying to flip thru 25 pages of development to find out crap about the final state of the board, either they need to be separate or have a way to update the original post with the final incarnation)
    - board x
         - scenario 1
         - scenario 2
    - board y

- board (development)
     - board deva
     - board devb

- play elements (this copies/improves upon FAQ)
     - factories
     - fog 
     - etc 

- map maker elements (a how to use, workaround, do things)
     - factories
     - borders
     - graphics1
     - graphics2
     - etc

weathertop wrote:

So if we have a separate 'thread' - namespace? -for: boards (final), boards (development), play elements (factories, fog, borders, etc), etc; then each could theoretically have their own template right?

could there be a template for a board (final) that has sub-templates for scenarios under that board?

Some boards don't have a template (main board)

i really think we need to kinda hash some stuff out before we start monkeying (sorry Risky) around and end up somewhere we dont want to be (thats likely to happen anyway) and can't undo.

Undoing is not that hard.  

 

i'm really an outline kinda guy (which means the sidebar will be helpful to me - if i understand that it will mimic the navigation window in word, where its an outline/table of contents for the whole document) so heres what i'm trying to say above:

- welcome

- best practices

- boards (final) - (i make the distinction between final and dev because in perusing at another site i get really pissed off at trying to flip thru 25 pages of development to find out crap about the final state of the board, either they need to be separate or have a way to update the original post with the final incarnation)
    - board x
         - scenario 1
         - scenario 2
    - board y

- board (development)
     - board deva
     - board devb

- play elements (this copies/improves upon FAQ)
     - factories
     - fog 
     - etc 

- map maker elements (a how to use, workaround, do things)
     - factories
     - borders
     - graphics1
     - graphics2
     - etc

..this looks great..

Aside from the organizational stuff, I don't see why we shouldn't be working on a few individual pages though - and kind of let the formatting evolve. 

I'm just throwing stuff on a board page - mostly just to get a feel for how to edit..  It should be easy enough to move, right?

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

Actually, I'm looking at the url and realizing that it doesn't really move.. so I don't see that there's a problem there..

I put up a question regarding problems I'm having with renaming - It can be blown away when resolved. so it doesn't have to clutter this thread.

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

let me try out some namespace stuff, and I'll have a better answer for your M57.

Weathertop - I don't think there is too much we couldn't undo, although  I like the idea of figuring out some structure early on, I also think the structure/content will evolve as we all figure out what to put up there.

Specific comments on your structure:

Welcome - great idea.

Best Practices - what is this?  for the player?  Like try to attack with 3?

"have a way to update the original post with the final incarnation)"  The wiki is endlessly modifiable, so it's not a problem to move pages for boards around once they are complete.

play elements - this makes sense to me & maybe once complete, better to remove the FAQ, or just point it to the more complete one on the wiki.  Maybe start with the text from the official FAQ, but then add examples, clarifications, images, etc.

map maker elements (a how to use, workaround, do things) - there is a lot that will go here.  It will take some work/time to get the content written.  I was thinking to jump start it, copy or link to good threads that cover some of this.

I think that's one place we can start is trying to gather good forum threads.  For example:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3294/Hiding_factories_that_dont_need_to_be_visible_for_gameplay

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3263/Pixel_size_for_unit-count_display

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3297/Board_Design_101

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3219/An_attempt_at_a_greater_understanding_of_Factories

Next step is to categorize/find a good place for these threads on the wiki.  At first we can just put a short summary & a link to the thread, then as time allows, try to synthesize the thread contents into the useful bits and put them right into the wiki.

Ok, here is the basics for namespaces:

You reference them in a link like this:

[[Board::Invention]]

Now the Invention page is in the Board namespace.

I added instructions on how to put your board on the list to the board list page.

M57 - you will need to do like I did.  Create a new link with the Board namespace.  Then copy & paste everything from your old page to the new page.  Then delete everything from the old page (this deletes the page).

M57 - If you want to create a separate tips/strategy page, try putting it under a war of the roses namespace.  I think that should work & keep it from colliding with other tips/strategy pages for other boards.

If this works, please add some instruction/example of how to do this to the 'How to add your board page' page.

As for templates.  As this relies on Tom to get automatic templates working, and we know how busy Tom is, I suggest this workaround.

We can create a template page of our own.   I currently put one for boards at:

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

Feel free to edit that, It's just a skeleton.  When you create a new wiki page for a board, just copy from that link above and paste into your new page, then edit and save.  (p.s. these instructions are in the 'how to add a new wiki page for your board link')

@OZY

Why did you use

[ [Boards::Invention]]

and not..

[ [Boards:Invention]]

??

Both work..  I think

OK - I just moved the board pages deeper into the namespace because when you create "dedicated" links to that board with common names like "Strategy and Tips" - they all show up in the same parent namespace on the site-map..

I have no idea what the best convention is - but this seems better to me..

It looks like when you change a namespace location - all links do not follow on the site map - you have to recreate all  links with updated namespaces and delete the old.  It's potentially a huge PITA, so probably best to get it right out of the blocks..  I'm using the double-colon thing Ozy started with - but I have no idea why.

* [[Boards::Invention::Invention]]

* [[Boards::War Of The Roses::War Of The Roses]]

Now..

 * [[Boards::War Of The Roses::Strategy and Tips] and * [[Boards::War Of The Roses::War Of The Roses]]  show up in the WOR folder on the site map.

PITA example - when I moved Invention -I  had to change the pointer to it in Ozy's bio as well. 

Links are going to be EASILY broken.  Any thoughts?

M57 wrote:

@OZY

Why did you use

[ [Boards::Invention]]

and not..

[ [Boards:Invention]]

??

Both work..  I think

You're right, should have just been one colon. I'm used to programming languages where you usually use two.

https://www.dokuwiki.org/namespaces

If no one else fixes it before tonight, I'll edit my stuff to use one colon.

>Links are going to be EASILY broken.  Any thoughts?

I think that's right.   It looks like there are doku plugins (a whole 'nother  topic for discussion), that can fix the links for you when you move a page, but it's not clear if they work and I don't know how to get them or anything.

I think even though it's kind of a PITA, it won't actually be that bad.  Certainly no more tedious than some of the stuff we map makers do to create a board.

Here's another tip I found:

-------------

Namespace Default Linking

foo:bar:$conf['start']
foo:bar:bar
foo:bar

If no one else fixes it before tonight, I'll edit my stuff to use one colon.

I've been using two all over the place per your example (including bios, etc.) - get ready to fix a lot of broken links -- and the site hasn't been up for 24 hours!

Vandalism and abuse are not an issue, yet.. I'm guessing it's easy enough to revert when it occurs, but I was wondering if it might make sense to limit access to Premium members.   Not so much as an incentive to upgrade as for the above reasons.

I am sorry if I missed this if mentioned before, but do the edits / additions to the wiki need to be approved?  To me this would be the best option, to allow edits by all but require approval by a select group before the edit is implemented.  This allows unlimited contributions while avoiding vandalism and chaos.

SquintGnome wrote:

I am sorry if I missed this if mentioned before, but do the edits / additions to the wiki need to be approved?  To me this would be the best option, to allow edits by all but require approval by a select group before the edit is implemented.  This allows unlimited contributions while avoiding vandalism and chaos.

maybe at some point in the future, but as we're just getting started and trying to get a feel for things, i don't think that we should limit it (other than to premium members or map makers maybe)

I've tried to put up a board and it's scenarios, not sure its setting up the way we want? 

should it be:
[[boards:boardname:scenario:scenarioname]] 
instead of: 
[[boards:boardname:boardname:scenarioname]]

i like how the sitemap lays it out with the scenario instead of boardname

weathertop wrote:

I've tried to put up a board and it's scenarios, not sure its setting up the way we want? 

should it be:
[[boards:boardname:scenario:scenarioname]] 
instead of: 
[[boards:boardname:boardname:scenarioname]]

i like how the sitemap lays it out with the scenario instead of boardname

Why not  ..

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

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

I was thinking that one level would be enough to bury all related COD pages deep enough to not clutter the site-map, but..

SquintGnome wrote:

I am sorry if I missed this if mentioned before, but do the edits / additions to the wiki need to be approved?  To me this would be the best option, to allow edits by all but require approval by a select group before the edit is implemented.  This allows unlimited contributions while avoiding vandalism and chaos.

At this time,to my knowledge, no.. 

an approval process sounds like a nightmare - but I have no idea how these things work.. 

In a 'relatively' closed community you would think the honor system should work.  ..and maybe locks could be put in place eventurally,  or certain pages get an extra layer of password protection (by moderators or something), but there's not a lot of teeth to it if someone can just join as a Standard Member and go for an editing joy ride.