So it sounds like you want--

[[Boards:Boardname:Boardname]]

I started at Z and was working backwards - got lazy and finished the last half with the Boardname:]] type.

So the ":" needs to replaced with another "boardname," right?

..I think I'm done - can someone else do it?

M57 wrote:

So it sounds like you want--

[[Boards:Boardname:Boardname]]

I started at Z and was working backwards - got lazy and finished the last half with the Boardname:]] type.

So the ":" needs to replaced with another "boardname," right?

..I think I'm done - can someone else do it?

Do we even want a bunch of links that go nowhere?  Why not wait until some one is ready to create that page before creating the link to it.

i already fixed it M

Ozyman wrote:

M57 wrote:

So it sounds like you want--

[[Boards:Boardname:Boardname]]

I started at Z and was working backwards - got lazy and finished the last half with the Boardname:]] type.

So the ":" needs to replaced with another "boardname," right?

..I think I'm done - can someone else do it?

Do we even want a bunch of links that go nowhere?  Why not wait until some one is ready to create that page before creating the link to it.

- we could create the page  and load it with a template.. but that's not what you mean I'm sure - besides, I think seeing your board in red, clicking on it and then seeing nothing there is incentive to do something with it..

It IS call the "Complete" board list.

We could create a separate list of "active" board links.

I added some stuff for HexGear. Was pretty quick and easy, really. I used some of WT's Circles board as a guide, though the pictures were still a bit tricky (especially the sizing).

updated the board template using CoD. was going to use M's WoR, but that's so different (yet works well for how he's laid it out...)

Kjeld's War of the Rings entry looks great.

I think having the pages pre-placed on the board list is a good idea - they're in the right place for starters. 

On the other hand, I see no problem with letting designers format their own pages to taste. 

and a board template is a great place to start..

M57 wrote:

Kjeld's War of the Rings entry looks great.

I think having the pages pre-placed on the board list is a good idea - they're in the right place for starters. 

On the other hand, I see no problem with letting designers format their own pages to taste. 

and a board template is a great place to start..

The pre-placed board links is a great feature, and far less intimidating for a board designer. All I have to do is make two clicks, and I can start editing the board's page! An optional template would of course be helpful, as well, since some things -- like making an internal link to a new page, e.g. for a Strategy and Tips section, are not obvious.

Also, is there a place to add tips on how to use the wiki? I found that taking screenshots (using a Chrome app) in the board explorer was a quick and easy way to get good pictures for the different scenarios, and thought I could share the tip somewhere. But I don't see a place to do that.

Kjeld wrote:

Also, is there a place to add tips on how to use the wiki? I found that taking screenshots (using a Chrome app) in the board explorer was a quick and easy way to get good pictures for the different scenarios, and thought I could share the tip somewhere. But I don't see a place to do that.

we could create a link off here:
http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=wiki_usage 

I started a page on "Other Types of Continents" in the Designer Tutorials to go into more detail on bonus structures like hordes, anarchy, collector continents, and so forth. I've put some stuff in, but encourage others to take a look and help flesh it out.

I'm a bit confused as to which wiki thread to post in since there seem to be several active right now. But I'll try here.

How do you get a table of contents on a page? I've seen it on some of the other pages, but couldn't figure out how to do it for some of the pages I started working on from scratch.

it's a default setting to a page. you have to have 3+ headings it's generated for you. 

see: http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=wiki:syntax for more. it's been a big friend to me for this.

weathertop wrote:

it's a default setting to a page. you have to have 3+ headings it's generated for you. 

 

see: http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=wiki:syntax for more. it's been a big friend to me for this.

Second all of the above..

..additionally those headings have to have be level 4 or larger..

I'm pretty sure === Heading === will not do it.. Minimally, you need

==== Heading ====

Can someone check/edit my work (and math) on the Luck Stats page?

M57 wrote:

Can someone check/edit my work (and math) on the Luck Stats page?

There's some math-babble in there, but little in the way of equations - It's mostly examples from play - either real of fictional.

In fact, it may make sense to push the geeky stuff to a separate page.  I'm thinking for a top level page, simpler is better.

It looks really good from what I can see. I'm wondering if some of that material (or related material) could be put into the Dice Probabilities page? I added some stuff about simulgear probabilities, but only put in a link to Ozy's simulator under the versus-dice heading.

Kjeld wrote:

It looks really good from what I can see. I'm wondering if some of that material (or related material) could be put into the Dice Probabilities page? I added some stuff about simulgear probabilities, but only put in a link to Ozy's simulator under the versus-dice heading.

I've been meaning to do some kind of a writeup for my simulator/calculator, but haven't found the time.  I will add something eventually.

I edited the page on the Review Board Criteria and Protocols (though I think it should be titled simply "Review Process Protocols"). I worked with the standards a bit, and created a section on protocols that should be reviewed by other members of the board to see if it is acceptable.

Kjeld wrote:

I edited the page on the Review Board Criteria and Protocols (though I think it should be titled simply "Review Process Protocols"). 

I made it up originally.  Honestly, I didn't put that much though into it - I was just trying to get stuff up with the intention that people would edit it. - so I changed it to your suggestion..  I'd say in general, at this point, you can be heavy handed - certainly with my stuff..