User talk:Mmrnmhrm

I upgraded the mediawiki software. Special:Uncategorizedpages should work now.

Awesome! Thanks. It's a very useful tool.

Mmrnmhrm 15:51, 8 Oct 2004 (CEST)

General open discussion: Locations, I think there's enough to warrant a new category. Between stars, planets and costellations (which could even be subcategories) there's more than enough. (You can all thank the "uncategorized pages" link above for this revelation.)

Should we bother? I know that some people have been actively deleting links to specific stars or planets for fear that we'll end up with a bloated catalog of space. Even if that happens (which I doubt it will) would that be so bad?

Discussion welcome. Bring it on!

Mmrnmhrm 17:23, 8 Oct 2004 (CEST)

---

Except for a few special planets, I think that all common stars and constellations could be placed together on a few pages. What's there to tell about them anyhow? I don't object to a Locations category though, even if it would contain only a few places. -- SvdB 19:58, 8 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Done! Welcome to Category:Locations.

Mmrnmhrm 00:22, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Are we done?

The pace of editing is slowing down greatly of late. It's not for a lack of caring, I think it's just that the wiki is nearing completion (in as much as such things ever do). Most topics have been covered, corected and reformatted. I keep looking for something to add or change, and it's getting harder and harder to find anything that needs work.

So like, congratulations to everyone. I'm sure there's more, but it seems that the vast majority of our task is done here.

Mmrnmhrm 19:46, 13 Oct 2004 (CEST)

The Utronomicon is definitely out of its infancy, but it is certainly not done growing.

I still think there is plenty of work to be done. There are still many stubs that could be expanded into full articles, and the wiki is visually sparse, with only a few images in use. I think now we can focus less on raw content and more on asthetics- formatting, adding pictures, and ensuring a consistent tense/point of view. Also, there are lots of personnel who deserve their own biographies. -Fadookie

---

A new page with a basic description can be added very quickly. Writing a thoroughly researched article about some subject takes a lot more work. This may be why the editing appears to be slowing down (I haven't noticed it myself). There may not be much new pages left to add, but there are certainly a lot of subjects that could use a lot of attention. -- SvdB 08:22, 14 Oct 2004 (CEST)

reverting

How does one perform an automatic revert? When I was correcting the vandalism on the front page, I copied the code from the history page into notepad, corrected the html, and pasted it back in to the edit box. -Fadookie 19:31, 22 Oct 2004 (CEST)

re: reverting

The "correct" way, as it was explained to me, is to go to the history view, click on the link for the old edit (it will be a date) and save. It will give a warning saying that it's overwriting with an older version. What ever you did, there was some text missing and some of your html was off (I saw a <;tr> in there) Mmrnmhrm 22:08, 22 Oct 2004 (CEST)