1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Whoa, new look!

Discussion in 'Wiki General' started by SuperApe, Apr 1, 2008.

  1. Sir_Brizz

    Sir_Brizz Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    25,992
    Likes Received:
    72
    That's really what bothered me the most about it.
     
  2. Wormbo

    Wormbo Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    5,913
    Likes Received:
    36
    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. ;)
     
  3. SuperApe

    SuperApe Registered Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2008
  4. tarquin

    tarquin design is flawed

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    3,945
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :)
     
  5. Sir_Brizz

    Sir_Brizz Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    25,992
    Likes Received:
    72
    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.
     
  6. haarg

    haarg PC blowticious

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,927
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 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.
     
  7. SuperApe

    SuperApe Registered Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  8. haarg

    haarg PC blowticious

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,927
    Likes Received:
    0
    For content that can be moved out of legacy, yes, redirects should be put in place.
     
  9. MonsOlympus

    MonsOlympus Active Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  10. Wormbo

    Wormbo Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    5,913
    Likes Received:
    36
    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.
     
  11. SuperApe

    SuperApe Registered Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. MonsOlympus

    MonsOlympus Active Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  13. SuperApe

    SuperApe Registered Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
    (see Recent Changes 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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2008
  14. Sir_Brizz

    Sir_Brizz Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    25,992
    Likes Received:
    72
    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.
     
  15. tarquin

    tarquin design is flawed

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    3,945
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed.

    Someone could just notify OlympusMons on his talk page perhaps?
     
  16. SuperApe

    SuperApe Registered Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    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".
     
  17. Wormbo

    Wormbo Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    5,913
    Likes Received:
    36
    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.
     
  18. SuperApe

    SuperApe Registered Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  19. SuperApe

    SuperApe Registered Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay. Let's tackle this another way.

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

    SuperApe Registered Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page