Whoa, new look!

[SuperApe]

Wow, what happened?

(This will take some getting used to.) :D

[SuperApe]

Uh. This may be just the shell shock of the new look, but I can't seem to navigate to ... anywhere from the main page. Is it just the organization, or are we re-doing the structure of the wiki?

[Sir_Brizz]

Redoing the structure (let's hope!) :) The old wiki basically had no structure. It would be really nice to have something like Valve's Source SDK wiki.

[Haarg]

The old wiki was lacking enough structure to properly deal with new engine revisions and games, and there are also licensing issues. So separating the old content from the new was needed. Please leave feedback if you see rough areas though. You'll probably get more responses on the wiki itself than in here.

[SuperApe]

I'm all for progress. While I don't quite agree that the old wiki has "no structure", I do appreciate efforts to make the UnrealWiki more useful, easier to use, more accessible for research.

That said, I'm not sure the change represents a step forward yet. First order of business would be the main page.

Pretend you're an Unreal n00b wanting to know about (insert any typical query for UT200x, UT3 or UT99, such as replication, weapon coding, player character modeling, random class page, etc).

Now compare the old main page:
http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Home_Page

With our new one:
http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/

And try to do the research starting with one, then the other. This should reveal the concern I have right away. Post your results, comments and opinions of this simple test.

[SuperApe]

Login error:
There is no user by the name "SuperApe". Check your spelling, or create a new account.:con:
/after many other purmutations, including Legacy:SuperApe, superape, <my email addy>, ...
:hmm:
Exactly what is better about the change so far?
:rolleyes:

[Sir_Brizz]

I think you'll have to re-register. I'm pretty sure the old wiki provided no way to retrieve usernames and passwords. I could be wrong though.

Personally, I find the new wiki MUCH easier to navigate than the old wiki. For several years I have felt that the old wiki was all but unnavigable, particularly if you were looking for a specific topic.

[Haarg]

You need to create an account for the new wiki.

As far as the front page, that is partly a problem due to the need to separate the old content from the new. We'd like to encourage new content to be created outside Legacy:.

I'd prefer to continue discussing this on the wiki itself, as it is more likely to get seen by others with an interest in the subject. I don't think many people look at this forum.

[SuperApe]

What the F is going on?

New to the Unreal Wiki? Feel free to join the other 44 users by registering...44? Did you guys delete the old accounts?

Now seriously. The UnrealWiki is currently BLANK. Unless you go through the legacy stuff, there is no Unreal info available to research. If there was any plan to this upgrade, it apparently entailed the community riding to the rescue and re-filling the wiki with content before anyone notices.

:y5:

Did you guys just *oops* and broke your wiki?

As far as the front page, that is partly a problem due to the need to separate the old content from the new. We'd like to encourage new content to be created outside Legacy:.I'd like to have a frank and serious discussion with you (and whomever else is responsible for this new plan), on why this is a flawed view of the state of the wiki. In short, there is more to the wiki than the class pages related to specific engine versions, yet as it is now, *anything* that came before April 1st is lumped in a category that suggests "obsolete". So, what about the pages like ... oh, MapDesign for example?

I'd prefer to continue discussing this on the wiki itself, as it is more likely to get seen by others with an interest in the subject. I don't think many people look at this forum.I doubt that, but you should know *this* is the place where comments and questions about the wiki have been discussed in the past. Is this aspect changing as well? (The few links that are active on the wiki now do point to this forum for discussions. See bottom of page: http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Unreal_Wiki:Community_Portal)

Just exactly how are these sweeping changes being expressed to the community that uses the wiki? So far, the only one talking about this is ... me.

[Sir_Brizz]

That's because the only person who uses this forum is you :) We only manage to see you posting here by chance :)

I'm really unsure of what you are arguing about. Part of the reason the old wiki content is in the Legacy namespace is because it has varying licenses. This was discussed on the old wiki for several weeks before the launch actually took place.

The Legacy category isn't "obsolete", it's "we don't know what we can do with this". You're free to copy pages that are obviously free licensed (like the class descriptions) out of the Legacy namespace into the other areas of the site, in fact I'm pretty sure we are encouraging that. We would like it if there were not a Legacy namespace at all.

I realize that there is more to the wiki than the class reference pages, however it is also important that someone coming to the wiki the first time probably doesn't care about really advanced topics that were scattered all over the old wiki. They are probably looking for very basic information and discussion. The structure of the new wiki, if maintained, should make that much easier.

[Haarg]

It's not that the old accounts were deleted, it's that they weren't converted. If it even would have been possible, I don't think it would have been worth the effort as they barely had any information attached to them.

The need for the Legacy namespace isn't because of the lack of organization (which is obviously subjective), but because the old license was mostly incompatible with the new one. As far as I'm concerned, the old license was incompatible with the idea of a wiki, and there were likely numerous violations of it within the wiki itself.

The page pointing to this forum should probably be adjusted. I think that MediaWiki provides enough areas to include discussion and keep it in one place.

[SuperApe]

Okay. Before you aim your sights at my head, please take this discussion seriously. Take into account my long-standing contributions to both the wiki and this forum (and many other community sites). This is one wiki user speaking up. Please address these concerns from that standpoint. I don't bring this up lightly. Now then...

Apparently, there was a discussion for weeks somewhere about how this was going to go down. Can you please point me (and anyone else looking here for information on this) to that discussion? If this forum used to be the place to discuss such things, why hasn't it been brought up here? If this isn't the place to discuss things, why did that page I linked to above point directly to ... here?

To clarify, what I'm discussing at this point is, What is the plan from here? I see the current changes and I'm well aware of the previous wiki's organization. I simply don't understand the logic or reasoning behind the latest changes yet. I would like more information on how to reconcile the usefulness of the Legacy content with this blank current content.

If the rationale was to lump everything before April 1st, including class pages, tutorials, broad concept topic pages, topic hubs, personal pages, etc, into one category called "Legacy" because "it has varying licenses" (btw, please explain what that means, where is the problem?, wasn't the wiki always dealing with varying licensed content?), then some future plan must include re-integrating that content which *does not have* license material in it. No? What exactly is that plan?

Just a minute...

The Legacy category isn't "obsolete", it's "we don't know what we can do with this". You're free to copy pages that are obviously free licensed (like the class descriptions) out of the Legacy namespace into the other areas of the site, in fact I'm pretty sure we are encouraging that. We would like it if there were not a Legacy namespace at all.SirBrizz, I respect you and recognize you've been a BUF member for a long time. But let's go over that line of thinking:

*Everything* that was on the wiki is now legacy, and you'd like the community to copy individual contents back out of legacy? Does that mean there was an assumption that "Most likely everything before April 1st is not relevant to what we'd like on UnrealWiki"?

If so, this seems to suggest that a) UE3 is so different than any previous version of the engine that we can assume old engine info is more than likely irrelevant, b) UnrealWiki is has a particular focus on UE3, forsaking all previous versions and content, and c) content on the wiki before April 1st mostly consists of specific licensed information related only to previous versions of the engine.

I plainly submit that all three of the above assumptions are false. However, I do expect that there is a rationale for this and so I'd like to stop here and listen to what that discussion was/is now. Please make your case clear to anyone reading this thread.

[Haarg]

I'm certainly not dismissing your concerns.

The content in Legacy isn't depreciated, and we don't want to lose it. But the conflicts in the licenses are real. The old license basically stated that once information was added, it could only be modified in terms of small formatting changes or other small changes. I'm pretty sure that was violated in plenty of places.

If it was possible to reconcile the licenses, I would not have had everything labeled Legacy. The reason Brizz says "we don't know what we can do with this" is because what is allowed with the content is solely at the discretion of the original authors of the content. We'd prefer that content be moved into the main namespace, or the various engine namespaces, but we can't relicense it without the author's approval.

When you say the wiki is blank, I think you are overstating things. The old content is still there. There should be links to the legacy content where appropriate, and there is obviously still some work to be done in that area.

The plan from here is that new content is only added outside of Legacy, and where possible content is moved out of Legacy. Edits to Legacy are still allowed, but only in terms of edits for formatting or typos or other things of that scope. That is all that was allowed by the old license anyway.

It would be easier to address your concerns if you had proposals for things that could be changed.

I'll say again that I would prefer to continue this discussion on the wiki itself.

[Sir_Brizz]

The reason Brizz says "we don't know what we can do with this" is because what is allowed with the content is solely at the discretion of the original authors of the content. We'd prefer that content be moved into the main namespace, or the various engine namespaces, but we can't relicense it without the author's approval.
Again, this content is not considered unusable or outdated by any means. The conversion was part of 1) recognizing a need for something more robust (aka MediaWiki), 2) a desire to make the wiki more manageable by the BU staff, 3) a need to make the wiki perform better on BU's server, 4) an interest in providing information in a more straightforward way (the organizational complaints are my own personal beef and not really a reason for the change). As Haarg has said, if it were up to us we would have just merged the entirety of the old wiki into the main namespaces of the new wiki, however the license provided by the old wiki does not allow us to do that.

[SuperApe]

I'm certainly not dismissing your concerns.Thank you. I will also make every effort to understand your positions.

The content in Legacy isn't depreciated, and we don't want to lose it. But the conflicts in the licenses are real. The old license basically stated that once information was added, it could only be modified in terms of small formatting changes or other small changes. I'm pretty sure that was violated in plenty of places.

If it was possible to reconcile the licenses, I would not have had everything labeled Legacy. The reason Brizz says "we don't know what we can do with this" is because what is allowed with the content is solely at the discretion of the original authors of the content. We'd prefer that content be moved into the main namespace, or the various engine namespaces, but we can't relicense it without the author's approval.Why does it sound to me like you're treating the content on the wiki as if it were created in a place other than a free and openly editable space ... like a WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki). Here you've said that the content is purely controlled by the original authors, only allowing minor (spelling, grammar) edits by those other than the original author. That simply is not what a wiki is. It's clear now you're not talking about Epic's, DigitalExtreme's or other company's content. It appears you're talking about wiki user's content, which belongs to all wiki users and is not owned by any one person (or company). I *must* be misunderstanding your meaning here, so please explain to me what "license" you're referring to and who holds that license.

When you say the wiki is blank, I think you are overstating things. The old content is still there. There should be links to the legacy content where appropriate, and there is obviously still some work to be done in that area.I am overstating things a bit to make a serious point. I see the old content, but it's not obvious to someone visiting the main page for the first time. What the average unreal-researching wiki user will see on the main page is a table of links, most of which are not yet active, which eventually lead to blank pages, with requests for content. This isn't just confusing, because of the "professional-looking" style of the website, this simply looks empty. That's a serious problem, unless the aim is to exclude those who aren't aware of this change and the plan for the future.

The plan from here is that new content is only added outside of Legacy, and where possible content is moved out of Legacy. Edits to Legacy are still allowed, but only in terms of edits for formatting or typos or other things of that scope. That is all that was allowed by the old license anyway.I would plainly disagree with that. The old wiki allowed for any edits at any time. Are you saying there was some violation of the law with that? (perhaps we should inform Wikipedia and all the other wikis) Exactly how would pages be put together then: all at once, complete and done, or not at all? Several wiki pages I contributed to were born from a need, whereby a placeholder page was created, then after some research and work, filled in properly, perhaps going back again later for formatting and minor corrections. Are you suggesting that this is somehow improper and that things will have to be done as whole complete pages when created?

It would be easier to address your concerns if you had proposals for things that could be changed.Looking at this from my perspective, a few days ago, our wiki was running along, then a change happened that makes the site less useful. I do not yet have a comprehensive suggestion to make, partially because I feel I'm still in the dark about how this is meant to work out, what the original problem was, etc, and partially because from my perspective, this is a monumental problem. Creating the vast content on the old wiki took hundreds of wiki users several years. If you think I'm going to say, "oh yeah, just move page X and page Y out of Legacy and it's all good.", you're not understanding the scope of the problem I see.

I'll say again that I would prefer to continue this discussion on the wiki itself.I'll say again, please LINK to the discussion place you'd like to point (anyone reading this thread) to. For now, I'm happy to keep the discussion going here. I don't see the harm in that.

...As Haarg has said, if it were up to us we would have just merged the entirety of the old wiki into the main namespaces of the new wiki, however the license provided by the old wiki does not allow us to do that.Ah. So the old UnrealWiki actually has a license and this is an attempt to navigate that legal obstacle? So, this isn't an upgrade for the old wiki as much as a recreation of the wiki under new control? Yet, the old content is still allowable, if copy/pasted out of legacy and into the new wiki? Do I have that right?

[Haarg]

Why does it sound to me like you're treating the content on the wiki as if it were created in a place other than a free and openly editable space ... like a WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki).Because the license as stated on the old wiki means that it isn't free and openly editable. The license as I outlined it is what is defined on the old copyright page (http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Project_Copyright). It is in my opinion (and yours it appears) very opposed to what a wiki should be. And although it wasn't enforced technically, yes, it does mean that many of the edits to the old content were probably illegal.

The original author maintains copyright of the content they contribute on both the old and new wiki. However, the only additional rights granted by the old license however are distribution and minor edits. The new content is covered under a license that allows freely editing content.

The reasons for the change, as Brizz outlined, are technical, legal, and to enable better organization. As I've stated though, the reason for the Legacy namespace is solely legal.

Since you obviously have comments regarding the main page, the Main Page discussion page (http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Talk:Main_Page) is probably the place to start for this discussion.

Also, the new wiki currently doesn't allow anonymous edits. That could be changed easily though, and is another area that's open for discussion.

[SuperApe]

Apparently, I have a lot of reading and catching up to do, which should signal to all those involved that this change was not as transparent as suggested.

Before this discussion continues (and it will continue here where it is visible and out in the open, not on the site that no one is using atm), I will need to navigate your previous discussions on license and copyright.

But on the surface, it appears that (by licenses and copright) we're talking about protecting the wiki from having its content ripped and sold as someone else's original content, not protecting the old wiki (which is now gone) from the new wiki.

Again, I will have to do more research before I can contribute any further to this discussion. Until then, I hope the new UnrealWiki begins to take some shape. I have already run into instances where people used to referencing the wiki have been unable to find what they need.

[Sir_Brizz]

Why? The search goes through the Legacy namespace and all of the pages that existed on the old wiki are on the new wiki.

What you don't seem to understand is that a lot of the editing that took place on the old wiki WAS ILLEGAL based on the copyright license of that wiki. The old license was very restrictive (probably for commercial reasons).

The new wiki has all of the content of the old wiki, however we are unable to automatically merge that content into the main namespaces because they were created under the restrictive license of the old wiki.

As we have said multiple times we would love if all of the content in the Legacy namespace was moved into the main namespaces. To me, it seems like that is the only solution that is acceptable to you. If that's the case, then go ahead and begin the exciting job of tracking down every single content author and getting their permission to move the pages under the new license in the main namespaces.

Also, this forum is NOT very visible to people who use the wiki. Just look at how many posts have been here before this thread was started.

[tarquin]

Ok.
SuperApe has asked me for my opinion.

I've had to skim through parts of the above because it's all getting too much.
But here are my thoughts.

1. License.
You guys have done exactly the right thing. Creative Commons didn't exist when I set the wiki up, and it's just the ticket. My original intention was basically 'share-alike, non-commercial'. I tried to express this in the project copyright statement... I probably didn't get it right :)
Getting the new wiki on a CC license is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we can't retroactively apply it to old material -- we'd have to get permission from every single contributor, and we'd never be able to find them. Plus UseModWiki only keeps details on the past 10 or so edits for a page...

2. Organization
I too disagree that the old wiki was totally disorganized. There was a clear plan at least for the first few clicks from the home page. Maybe the way we sliced topics up wasn't to everyone's liking.
Again, though, a lot of it grew organically. Every few months it would need a clean-up.
A LOT of people kept saying that we needed to rethink the wiki's structure from scratch. Well, here's that chance :)

2b. Still on the organization...
We DEFINITELY needed a way to separate stuff for each generation of the engine. Doing that in UMW wasn't working, and people weren't happy. MediaWiki has good solutions for this.

MediaWiki was definitely the right choice. Adding all those features for things like images, etc, would have taken us ages in UseMod. Might as well use something off the shelf that works well and has a HUGE user base.

3. User accounts.
Yeah. Shame about that. But heh. People can very quickly create a new account. :)

Anything else?

PS. Oh yeah -- great job on converting it all to MediaWiki! :D

[Haarg]

As for the wiki's organization, I know there was various complaints, but it obviously worked well enough for some people. The fact that it needed improvements was part of the motivation for the change, but doesn't relate at all to the creation of the Legacy namespace.

Organization is still a work in progress on the new wiki. The wiki is a community project, so having everyone able to contribute to that is needed.

As for this forum, so far the only people who have posted here are you, someone you asked to look at this, and two BU admins who have to keep an eye on the whole forum. Having this discussion on the wiki would encourage anyone who visits to contribute, and they may have more insight on improvements to be made.

[Sir_Brizz]

2b. Still on the organization...
We DEFINITELY needed a way to separate stuff for each generation of the engine. Doing that in UMW wasn't working, and people weren't happy. MediaWiki has good solutions for this.

MediaWiki was definitely the right choice. Adding all those features for things like images, etc, would have taken us ages in UseMod. Might as well use something off the shelf that works well and has a HUGE user base.
That's really what bothered me the most about it.

[Wormbo]

Apart from what Haarg and tarquin already stated, some old content can be moved, if all contributors of the affected pages agree. It just can't be done automatically due to the license issues.

That said, you need to remember that with MediaWiki everyone can move pages. The original page becomes a redirect, so all links will continue to work.

Unreal Wiki may have been a good reference site, but in terms of UnrealScript tutorials it definitely lacked organization. The "reboot with backup" now gives us a great chance to do a lot better. If you liked the old wiki structure and want to continue using it, just bookmark http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Home_Page. You could even create a user script (a subpage of your user page with the name Monobook.js) to replace the target URL of the Unreal Wiki logo link. ;)

[SuperApe]

I appreciate the responses and the explanations. This information should have been made abundantly clear on the wiki. Perhaps a huge banner on the main page (before the change) that a change was about to occur, why, where to find the discussion, etc.

If it wasn't obvious by my confusion displayed here (and the confusion I'm hearing from other community members), the lead should have been taken anyway to ensure this change and the reasons for it were clear and obvious to anyone visiting the wiki on a regular basis.

Some may wholeheartedly disagree that this is a valid discussion forum for the wiki, so I do suggest a proper discussion place be assigned and (again) advertised to anyone who visits the wiki on a regular basis.

I also would at this early stage (for me) suggest that the Legacy pages link from the main page be made bold, red, flashing, whatever, so that those who are not used to simply using the Search field have some signpost indicating where the old content lies. (indicating clearly that the old content still exists)

All that said, I do worry about this change. It may have been necessary for legal or logistical reasons, but there has been a consistent cry that the old content was disorganized; far too disorganized to be fixed, that it must instead be completely reset. I strongly feel that the saying it was beyond repair is overstating it quite a bit and that resetting is a task that will likely go undone. (especially if we do not make strong efforts to keep the wiki community we have well informed and supported)

I hope that this discussion does not cast a bad light on me, as my tone and efforts have been simply to disclose this information and the plan going forward for all wiki users to see.

Thank you for your input in this discussion. Here's to seeing the wiki reborn.

[tarquin]

resetting is a task that will likely go undone.

Yeah, I worry about that too.
That was one of my reasons for not doing a clean sweep & reboot -- that the old material that we're meant to be cleaning up and tidying will just lie in a heap and be left to rot.

But moving to MediaWiki and changing the license meant we had to have one. So let's make the most of it.

And as it's a wiki -- let's write some explanations on the wiki of the change and why it's been done :)

[Sir_Brizz]

You keep saying that lots of people are complaining about this change, but I'm not seeing any discussion of that on the wiki or here on this forum, so where are these people complaining? Directly to you? That doesn't seem like it will get anything accomplished.

[Haarg]

Part of why we were avoiding linking into Legacy heavily is that it isn't obvious when viewing those pages that editing them is strongly discouraged. Given this conversation though, I'm going to look into how to better deal with that again. I could lock Legacy from all edits, but I don't feel that's a good resolution. I'm going to try to add a large warning to the top of Legacy edit pages so people are clear on the licensing issues.

Once that is done, we should be able to add more links to the Legacy content, as that is where the vast bulk of the information is currently.

I have to say, this conversation has been somewhat frustrating for me not because of the criticisms, but because I'm having trouble figuring out exactly where you think the problem areas are. I feel at this point we've explained the reasoning for most of the decisions we made, so hopefully with that in mind you'll be able to better make suggestions.

I'd suggest the Main Page discussion page (http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Talk:Main_Page) as the best place to discuss these issues, as many of them center on the front page's content, and it is perhaps the most visible discussion page. If you could point the other people you know with concerns to that page as well, we should be able to better work out solutions to the problems they are having.

[SuperApe]

I see there are some questions for me here. But before I go into that, I have a critical question:

As we create a new page and move legacy content out of legacy, is the legacy page supposed to be redirecting to the new page or does it remain as is?

... or should it be removed? (which would cause broken links galore from external sites, for example, forums all across the unreal community map editing/modding forums like this one, where friendly people like me have linked to what is now directing to legacy content)

My point is this: As content moves out of legacy, you will want to retain linkage while directing to new content, right? What is the plan there?

[Haarg]

For content that can be moved out of legacy, yes, redirects should be put in place.

[MonsOlympus]

Ummz so like, I seen the update the other day! I think its good to get onto mediawiki finally although I am finding it alittle confusing, I'll sort it out though. So yups its all good and creative commons sounds like the way to go (didnt realize there was a problem with the old lisence).

So whats the go? Where can I help? I dunno WTF Im meant to be doing :lol:

[Wormbo]

First we need to come up with a new topic structure, the old one was seriously lacking. Everyone is invited to help, but I recommend discussing this part on the wiki itself, particularly under "General layout" on the Main talk page (http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Talk:Main_Page#General_layout).

[SuperApe]

First we need to come up with a new topic structure, the old one was seriously lacking. Everyone is invited to help, but I recommend discussing this part on the wiki itself, particularly under "General layout" on the Main talk page (http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Talk:Main_Page#General_layout).

I think we can now all agree this should have been discussed openly and decided much earlier, before the switch to MediaWiki and the subsequent "disconnect" with Legacy content. This discussion will likely last a while and not get the input of the entire wiki community. 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. Good luck.

[MonsOlympus]

Well the legacy content is still pretty organized, there was alot of improvements I saw done from when I joined to this switch over. I think the main thing with that is that some content is more organized than other bits which can make it alittle inconsistant.

Some content hasnt been touched since it was put up basically and doesnt even conform to any of the known page structures, I think thats important this time around. If we do catch anything I would say itd be best to leave a note for the author and then if nothing is done someone can go in and get it sorted asap.

That will save work later like what happened with alot of the legacy stuff where it was let go and ended up in a mess for someone else to clean up later, which is less than ideal. Its bound to happen occasionally though! I would suggest making it obvious where the page layout guides are in any content which talks about making new pages or adding content.

Im still not entirely sure what I can grab from the legacy stuff and move over actually, I have written some stuff but alot of it is based on other documents or is edits of others pages. Bit confused on that whole dealy :cool:

[SuperApe]

Please do not think of me as an authority on the current plan or state of the wiki, but ...

I don't think we're supposed to be changing the Legacy pages in this way:
Legacy: Using The Mod System In UT2004 (http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Using_The_Mod_System_In_UT2004)
(see Recent Changes (http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Special:Recentchanges) on this page)

Won't this kind of work on Legacy pages soon break the old wiki content structure?

Don't we need that structure for use as reference while building up the new wiki content? Won't changing the Legacy page's links, etc begin to dismantle the Legacy structure altogether? Won't that begin to break external links as well?

Aren't we supposed to be instead *copying* content to new pages, not permanently altering Legacy pages to fit the new wiki structure?

Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Admins, step in and begin directing these changes, or start explaining the plan clear enough so that changes like this don't propagate.

Please.

[Sir_Brizz]

I don't see any reason to make big edits to the old content. You could spend about the same amount of time rewriting the content in your own words on a page in the correct namespace.

[tarquin]

Agreed.

Someone could just notify OlympusMons on his talk page perhaps?

[SuperApe]

So, it's been a month now. How do you all feel this is going? What are the concerns? What initiatives are being undertaken? This is a "check in".

[Wormbo]

We now even have description pages for all classes in Unreal/RTNP, UT, UT2003/4, Unreal 2/XMP, UE2 Runtime and UT3. Documentation has been generated from the source code comments, so it's probably quite incomplete.

Currently the wiki is rebuilding subclass lists for all classes, this process should be completed soon.

[SuperApe]

I've noticed the class pages filling up, Wormbo. Nice work indeed.

Now...

The real disputes over the old wiki organization (I believe) had more to do with the non-class topic pages (hubs, overviews, lessons, tutorials, etc). I did much of the organization on those for the old wiki, so I've been reluctant to just move that work over to the new wiki. (If that old organization was so objectionable, I don't want to cause more objections.) That said, this is obviously the biggest missing piece of the wiki puzzle atm.

I'm talking about things like:

- The Artificial Intelligence family of pages (Trigger Systems, etc)
- The Mapping Topics family of pages (Map Design, Map Flow, etc)
- The Bot Support family of pages (Bot Support, Testing Botplay, etc)

Suggestions? Thoughts? Discussion?

[SuperApe]

Okay. Let's tackle this another way.

Do the primary leaders of the wiki's new look have any *requests for help*?

[SuperApe]

It's been four months. Does anyone else miss having a wiki that looks good and functions without having to find Legacy content? All those who have commented on this thread, told me to calm down and wait, let's hear what you have to say at this point. At least give us an indication on what you need help with.

[Sir_Brizz]

Why doesn't the wiki look good? It essentially has the same visual style as the old one.

[SuperApe]

Um. I don't give a crap how it looks. I don't think anyone goes to a wiki to see how it looks. Is that what you thought I was talking about?

Content! Organization! (heaven forbid) A plan!

Is that clearer?

[Wormbo]

There is no plan. And basically no contributors.

[SuperApe]

Would it be inappropriate to suggest we simply begin moving the old content to the new pages and worry about re-organization later?

If the organization of the old wiki was so horrible, I would have expected at least some discussion (here, there, anywhere) about ideas for a new organization. After four months, I have not heard of any such discussion nor have we seen much progress in reintegrating the old content.

I think re-organization is a fine idea, but it's the sort of thing that will take time and effort. An organizational discussion should begin by those with ideas and drive, or at least by those with comments and opinions. In the meantime, we can all benefit by integrating the content we have with the new structure.

I'd be willing to take a few pages a day. After a while, I suspect others will join in once work starts going again.

Thoughts?

[neilthecellist]

Hmm... The new look is nice, but what about the actual content on http://wiki.beyondunreal.com ? It seems harder to find information on anything with the new wiki layout. Using the search box doesn't get me anywhere now, I have to use the Offline Wiki to get around places.

[SuperApe]

First,

This link currently results in a database error:
Bot Support (http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Bot_Support)
EDIT: So does this one:
Strategic Bots (http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Strategic_Bots)

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "MediaWikiBagOStuff::_doinsert". MySQL returned error "1213: Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction (christy)".

But also,

How's it going? :)

[Wormbo]

If that error doesn't go away, ambush Haarg on IRC (I think he's on the ETG #unrealwiki channel, otherwise on #beyondunreal) and tell him.

And that other thing: People should really start contributing. It's a wiki, FFS! You (the community) are the authors. I don't know what people are waiting for.