27 replies to this topic

[Dauth]

Its very simple, should unhosted modification teams, which cannot be reliably updated, be listed on the FSDB.

I want to say no, because we try to make sure everything is correct and the unhosted teams have no way of being verified. This would mainly affect SWR, but also NLS since their presence is based on Master Chief's modifications which are based on C&C3.

[CodeCat]

I would say yes. FSDB isn't a FS-only wiki, even if it is aimed primarily at FS. We should cover other topics, so that the scope of information we have attracts other people from outside FS. Maybe it can become an important community hub for many people.

[Pav:3d]

I say yes too, more the merrier. But there would have to be some ground rules, so its not brand new mods with no content.

[Dauth]

I'm not about to go and get the list for every modification we have hosted, I'm not going to even bother updating the list for the no FS modification members. If the job is to be done then someone has to do it and as you have all noticed, I don't have the time.

[TheDR]

The bigger it gets the harder it is to keep it tidy, keep it looking nice and make it suitable to reflect the staff teams image. So on that reason i say no, its unfair to put a burden of work for something the community isn't involved in, we could also end up with loads of unwanted crap.

[Destiny]

I'm stuck in between yes or no. If unhosted teams are listed, when they make updates the unhosted teams should edit their article(s) but if they don't, things will go outdated and become inaccurate and as TheDr said, work for something we're not related to and unwanted crap.

I personally know that the SWR manuals are edited whenever information about them are released, but I have spotted inaccuracies and forgotten stuff when I go on random wiki-ing on some occasions.

[CodeCat]

That's just the nature of wikis, but that didn't stop Wikipedia from getting big. Wikipedia contains some inaccurate or badly-styled articles about stuff that is rarely viewed. But eventually someone always comes along and fixes it. It would be the same for FSDB.

[TheDR]

CodeCat, on 22 Nov 2009, 21:22, said:

That's just the nature of wikis, but that didn't stop Wikipedia from getting big. Wikipedia contains some inaccurate or badly-styled articles about stuff that is rarely viewed. But eventually someone always comes along and fixes it. It would be the same for FSDB.

Wikipedia works to some extent, but thats because it has millions of users. Maybe perhaps in the future the FSDB could be expanded, but we just don't have enough people viewing it for the normal Wiki system to work.

[CodeCat]

I think it defeats the point of a wiki if we exclude things that fall inside our cover area just because the articles won't be edited quickly. Remember that users come because we have useful information. If we start removing information we're creating a vicious circle of users not being interested in editing because of the lack of information.

Edited by CodeCat, 22 November 2009 - 21:45.

[Shirou]

TheDR, on 22 Nov 2009, 21:53, said:

The bigger it gets the harder it is to keep it tidy, keep it looking nice and make it suitable to reflect the staff teams image. So on that reason i say no, its unfair to put a burden of work for something the community isn't involved in, we could also end up with loads of unwanted crap.

The community part that's not interested in SWR mods will not edit them anyway. However, there are enough people on these forums also involved in the SWR mods, and anything that happens to them will surely be updated.

Secondly due to the fact that development on SWR isn't going so fast anyway, there won't really be much of a 'burden' to update. I can see how the Staff can't be bothered with it, but they do not need to.

Edited by Shock, 22 November 2009 - 21:58.

[Dauth]

The team article for SWR is massively out of date, I figure the same is true for NLS, pretty much everyone else is hosted and thus the admins can keep a check on who is where. I'm not saying remove the page, far from it, just remove the list of members from the page.

[WNxMastrefubu]

people still want it, untidy > nothing

[Chyros]

Well if people want it, they should go for it, which is kind of the whole point of a wiki .

[Dauth]

Current : http://wiki.fallouts...os.net/wiki/SWR

Suggested : http://wiki.falloutstudios.net/wiki/User:Dauth/test

[CodeCat]

Lists of staff are not suited to a wiki in general due to their frequently changing nature. I would almost say this includes FS staff, as well. If such a list is made at all it should be in a separate article.

Edited by CodeCat, 23 November 2009 - 18:41.

[Dauth]

I am not about to give SWR an extra article when we have that right reserved specifically for hosted projects.

[CodeCat]

Hence 'if such a list is made at all'.

Edited by CodeCat, 23 November 2009 - 20:08.

[H4mm3r]

Well from my point of view, as a mod leader, I like Moddb just fine, adding another site to update and keep track of could be a hassle.

[Dauth]

In that case, change made.

Edit: We may have to round up orphaned pages as a result of this.

Edited by Dauth, 25 November 2009 - 13:24.

[H4mm3r]

Wait what are you saying?

[Dauth]

I have removed the list of members from the SWR page. This just means its a more compact page and less likely to be outdated.

Edit: I have added {{Warning|This page is Orphaned, unless a viable link can be found it will be deleted in one week}} to any pages which have been orphaned by the process, I don't want to have to delete pages but the structure of the wiki must be preserved.

Edited by Dauth, 27 November 2009 - 08:39.

[CodeCat]

I think deleting them is overboard. Just leave them.

[Dauth]

As moribund pages that are impossible to access? Don't think so mate. The only way a wiki works is if everything is properly linked together, otherwise we might as well just give up on the project as it will spiral into uselessness.

[CodeCat]

Remember that orphaned pages aren't truly orphaned if they still appear in a category.

[Dauth]

There are pages that only exist as a link from a category or a series of redirects. We would not make a page under those terms therefore we should not maintain a page under those terms.