vanSulli wrote:
You can donate them to the less fortunate.

p0rtalplayer wrote:
All right, t3x and kek, I trust you guys. Go ahead and make accounts on the wiki and I'll promote you to admins.

Avatar very much related --->

p0rtalplayer wrote:
- We have some articles with some good content that isn't on the VDC

If you have content that isn't on the VDC, isn't it more prudent to put it on the VDC where the information will reach the broadest audience possible?

msleeper wrote:

p0rtalplayer wrote:
- We have some articles with some good content that isn't on the VDC>

If you have content that isn't on the VDC, isn't it more prudent to put it on the VDC where the information will reach the broadest audience possible?

And if said information is not on the VDC, what is preventing others from doing something similar on the VDC?

msleeper wrote:

p0rtalplayer wrote:
- We have some articles with some good content that isn't on the VDC>

If you have content that isn't on the VDC, isn't it more prudent to put it on the VDC where the information will reach the broadest audience possible?

In that case, why don't we dismantle the fan forums and go to steam?

Variety. That is why. To build a community in which the users choose the atmosphere they believe a community should have, with moderators supporting and understanding the community.
Having a wiki is but an expansion of the nice, light hearted, supportive and community oriented forum atmosphere that exists here, which is oh too scarce in gaming communities.

groxkiller585 wrote:

msleeper wrote:

p0rtalplayer wrote:
- We have some articles with some good content that isn't on the VDC>>

If you have content that isn't on the VDC, isn't it more prudent to put it on the VDC where the information will reach the broadest audience possible?>

And if said information is not on the VDC, what is preventing others from doing something similar on the VDC?

That is to say: msleeper has a good point. If we want VDW-esque formatting and information, why are we using ours instead of it?
HINT: Its that thing I said earlier about how we are able to specialize in parts of map, mod, and addon-making that aren't part of the VDW arsenal.

vanSulli wrote:
That is to say: msleeper has a good point. If we want VDW-esque formatting and information, why are we using ours instead of it?
HINT: Its that thing I said earlier about how we are able to specialize in parts of map, mod, and addon-making that aren't part of the VDW arsenal.

There were four main points our Wiki expert, who has managed 27 successful wikis, suggested:

• Need specific rules for guide structure, and a unified naming system
• Main page with a listing of all the articles
• Interwiki links
• If we do affiliate, make sure there are linkbacks

all of these are dubious if we use the VDC solely. the last, we will get laughed out of it.
However, if we WERE to affiliate or make our own, all of these issues are solved with no dubiousy.

Plus, the community has unanimously agreed through two polls, we do not want to simply link to a wiki. we want our own, or an affiliate, with a few links in the articles if necessary. To appeal to the community should be the site's #1 goal to prosper, no?

Kizzycocoa wrote:

vanSulli wrote:
That is to say: msleeper has a good point. If we want VDW-esque formatting and information, why are we using ours instead of it?>
- Need specific rules for guide structure, and a unified naming system
- Main page with a listing of all the articles
- Interwiki links
- If we do affiliate, make sure there are linkbacks

None of those things show why we should use our own wiki instead of the VDW. I see where you're headed, but msleeper's point is still valid.

vanSulli wrote:
None of those things show why we should use our own wiki instead of the VDW. I see where you're headed, but msleeper's point is still valid.

The fact that the community, based on polls is dead-set against using a non-affiliate, favouring an affiliate or our own, should be a valid point in of itself.

Unless of course, we do another poll, based off what MSleeper said. But if I may talk buisiness-wise as well, to move to a wiki that does not link back, all because our tutorials would benefit them, is quite honestly the worst move we could take. I naturally know no-one cares for that side, but it is a valid point as well.

Community-wise, we do not want it. Buisiness-wise, it would be illogical.

Kizzycocoa wrote:

vanSulli wrote:
None of those things show why we should use our own wiki instead of the VDW. I see where you're headed, but msleeper's point is still valid.>
The fact that the community, based on polls is dead-set against using a non-affiliate, favouring an affiliate or our own, should be a valid point in of itself.

Unless of course, we do another poll, based off what MSleeper said. But if I may talk buisiness-wise as well, to move to a wiki that does not link back, all because our tutorials would benefit them, is quite honestly the worst move we could take. I naturally know no-one cares for that side, but it is a valid point as well.

Community-wise, we do not want it. Buisiness-wise, it would be illogical.

You make it sound like we're in a war with the VDW; we're not. If anything we're in a pseudo-war for [[redacted]] with [[redacted]].

In any case, the wiki situation needs to be resolved otherwise it's just a waste of space with our label on it.

Sven wrote:
You make it sound like we're in a war with the VDW; we're not. If anything we're in a pseudo-war for [[redacted]] with [[redacted]].

In any case, the wiki situation needs to be resolved otherwise it's just a waste of space with our label on it.

It's not a war. Is the simple fact the community want a wiki, rather that to link to one. As a very community-oriented person, to the point that I've been demoted for being as such, I feel their voices are being squashed here.

As for the redacts, I could happily fill in the blanks to accurately state what pseudo war we're in, even at this very moment. But I shall not. This is not the place to duke out further arguments over old territory.

This is basically the new site's equivalent to mAL's "Articles" tab. It's just got a different name.

In fact, I'm gonna change the header icon to reflect that. Should it be "Articles" or "Tutorials"?

p0rtalplayer wrote:
What if we don't call it a wiki, because that's not really what we seem to be going for here.

This is basically the new site's equivalent to mAL's "Articles" tab. It's just got a different name.

In fact, I'm gonna change the header icon to reflect that. Should it be "Articles" or "Tutorials"?

This, I have been feeling for a long time.

Yes. Some form of collaborative article system would work. A wiki could work, but it would be a lot harder to maintain.

Perhaps a separate news site where anyone can post news, as well as a front cover anyone can edit, would be appropriate.

I have heard nothing but tutorials since day 1 of this wiki. As far as i know, we do not plan to go any more in-depth than that. Perhaps it is the chosen layout of a wiki itself, which is causing the issue here.

p0rtalplayer wrote:
What if we don't call it a wiki, because that's not really what we seem to be going for here.

This is basically the new site's equivalent to mAL's "Articles" tab. It's just got a different name.

In fact, I'm gonna change the header icon to reflect that. Should it be "Articles" or "Tutorials"?

Collaborative Article Subdivision sounds like something Aperture would use.

Camera wrote:

p0rtalplayer wrote:
What if we don't call it a wiki, because that's not really what we seem to be going for here.

This is basically the new site's equivalent to mAL's "Articles" tab. It's just got a different name.

In fact, I'm gonna change the header icon to reflect that. Should it be "Articles" or "Tutorials"?>
Collaborative Article Subdivision sounds like something Aperture would use.

That's a little long to fit in the header. 'Articles' works well for me.

Kizzycocoa wrote:

p0rtalplayer wrote:
What if we don't call it a wiki, because that's not really what we seem to be going for here.

This is basically the new site's equivalent to mAL's "Articles" tab. It's just got a different name.

In fact, I'm gonna change the header icon to reflect that. Should it be "Articles" or "Tutorials"?>
This, I have been feeling for a long time.

Yes. Some form of collaborative article system would work. A wiki could work, but it would be a lot harder to maintain.

Perhaps a separate news site where anyone can post news, as well as a front cover anyone can edit, would be appropriate.

I have heard nothing but tutorials since day 1 of this wiki. As far as i know, we do not plan to go any more in-depth than that. Perhaps it is the chosen layout of a wiki itself, which is causing the issue here.

I don't see how it would be hard to maintain. Start and finish article, make sure it's accurate (it's a freakin' step process, you can't exactly ruin placing a light_spot) and then lock the page from edits.

Sven wrote:
I don't see how it would be hard to maintain. Start and finish article, make sure it's accurate (it's a freakin' step process, you can't exactly ruin placing a light_spot) and then lock the page from edits.

1 rule of collaborative editing - never lock pages without reason

Kizzycocoa wrote:

Sven wrote:
I don't see how it would be hard to maintain. Start and finish article, make sure it's accurate (it's a freakin' step process, you can't exactly ruin placing a light_spot) and then lock the page from edits.>

1 rule of collaborative editing - never lock pages without reason

Locked page from editing (reason: "Cave Johnson, we're done here").

Sven wrote:

Kizzycocoa wrote:

Sven wrote:
I don't see how it would be hard to maintain. Start and finish article, make sure it's accurate (it's a freakin' step process, you can't exactly ruin placing a light_spot) and then lock the page from edits.>>

1 rule of collaborative editing - never lock pages without reason >

Locked page from editing (reason: "Cave Johnson, we're done here").

The best reason, because it means Cave Johnson read your page