Difference between revisions of "User talk:Svdb"

From Ultronomicon
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 190: Line 190:
::::Well I agree about Home worlds. But you're using images like this for planets like [[Zeta Draconis I]] too. In fact, for homeworlds the entire side bar seems unnecessary to me (although acceptable). — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 23:48, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
::::Well I agree about Home worlds. But you're using images like this for planets like [[Zeta Draconis I]] too. In fact, for homeworlds the entire side bar seems unnecessary to me (although acceptable). — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 23:48, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
:::::I've been torn on the mineral scan being included, which is why I've avoided this debate up till now. However, it is a nice way of making the topographic map more meaningful and differentiating it from the 3D planet image. More importantly, including the scanned mineral/lifeform/energy dots provide a nice way to present something that isn't easily quantifiable - namely the general distribution and quantity and type of "dots" of interest on a planet. That I think is the tipping argument for using a post-autoscan map for me. The purpose of anything we include should be to convey information, and avoid redundancy, and images are still one of the fastest ways convey lots of information within a given amount of space. --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] 00:06, 6 June 2007 (CEST)
== [[Size of the HyperSpace galaxy]] ==
== [[Size of the HyperSpace galaxy]] ==

Revision as of 22:06, 5 June 2007

is there an Editors' Page to discuss changes publicly? if not, can we make one? -SamYeager 10:05, 28 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Go right ahead. I suggest you name it as it is named in the Wikipedia. It might be a good idea to link it from the main page too. Or perhaps from "Community portal". -- SvdB

should we make links to go upwards through menus of items (ie. make a link to "List of Races" from the "Humans" page)? it would make editing many pages easier since we no longer have to backtrack through several pages of blanked-out previews to get to the category we were at. -SamYeager 10:05, 28 Sep 2004 (CEST)

I think the "Categories" concept suffices for this. Put for instance [[Category:Races]] on the bottom of a page to place it in a category. See Special:Categories for all categories so far.
Also, you can select "What links here" in the toolbox on the left.

for the WantedPages, do we view pages that have just 1 link to them? it'd be a good way to find misspelled or misdirected links.

I didn't write the wiki software. It's not a high priority for me to find out where in the code this is handled, and change it.
Minor fix. See 1 Link Pages from Main Page -SamYeager 10:05, 28 Sep 2004 (CEST)
I guess it will do as a temporary solution. --SvdB
I have changed the source to show 1 link pages, and removed your page.


Is there a more effective way to protect the wiki from spammers and vandals other than just ip-banning them and reverting their changes? -Fadookie 11:00, 23 Oct 2004 (CEST)

That's how it is still done on the Wikipedia. Another possibility is to require contributors to make an account, with email verification. You could protect against spam bots by asking them to copy a number from an image when they contribute (but MediaWiki can't do that yet).
Something else we could do is lock specific pages (like the main page), but I don't want to do that until that page has reached a more permanent form. Against non-bots you could put up some idle threat on the home page like "the last person who vandalised a page on this site got his computer hacked and cleared." :) -- SvdB 11:14, 23 Oct 2004 (CEST)
What are your thoughts on creating some kind of blacklist like that described here and here? It might be able to cut down on some of this spam since many of the spam-edits are so similar. --Fyzixfighter 06:13, 9 January 2006 (CET)
I would actually expect that my added checkbox would do the trick. I suspect there's something wrong in my implementation, as I find it unlikely that someone who would go to the trouble of adapting his scripts to work for the Ultronomicon wouldn't notice that all links have rel=nofollow. I'll investigate further later, but I don't have much time right now. — SvdB 14:52, 13 January 2006 (CET)
Well I think you've implemented it correctly — it always catches me when I try and do an anonymous edit. No rush on a fix, I only offered the blacklists as an alternative that might be easier and more efficient, but not being a computer person I really can't give a quality assessment. In the mean time the rest of us will just remain vigilant and undo the spam as it happens. Thanks for that you are able to accomplish! --Fyzixfighter 09:32, 14 January 2006 (CET)

On the Tcl/Tk-Wiki at http://wiki.tcl.tk, they try to take away any incentive for spamming the wiki with the setting

<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />

and a note on the edit-pages, as in http://mini.net/pub/nofollow.gif
--HaJo 2006-03-03

And, does it work? (The message that is, we're already using nofollow.)
Many of the spam is automated though. There's no user to see the message.
SvdB 02:11, 4 March 2006 (CET)
As far as I can tell, less than 10 spams during the last half year --HaJo 2006-03-04
I suspect that's got more to do with the fact that that site uses a less common wiki software, and that you need to create a user to edit pages. Still, it wouldn't hurt, so I don't object to such a message on the edit page. — SvdB 07:20, 5 March 2006 (CET)

Corridor Nine

I'd like to merge Corridor 9 and Corridor Nine. I'd like the new article to reside at Corridor Nine (which I think is the better title), but I'd like to keep Corridor 9's editing history (because is the better article of the two). So, what do I do? I can't move Corridor 9 because Corridor Nine isn't empty and I don't want to simply copy & paste the content from Corridor 9 either, because then I'd be taking false credit in that article's editing history. Sorry, if this is inappropriate here, but you were the only Admin with a non-empty Talk page, so I thought I'd ask you. -- Anym 00:11, 5 Apr 2005 (CEST)

Just make Corridor 9 the new page, and when you're done, let me know, and I'll rename it. Just make sure to put in the summary what you have done. - SvdB 00:31, 5 Apr 2005 (CEST)
Been there, done that! There wasn't much information on Corridor Nine to begin with (and most of that was already on Corridor 9 as well), so it was pretty painless. All I did was add a mention of Vela. I forget to write a summary all too often, but this time I tried to make it pretty verbose. -- Anym 01:48, 5 Apr 2005 (CEST)
Move completed

Just testing... I guess we need a sandbox... -- SvdB 20:47, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Search tool

I hope this isn't just me, but every time I try to use the search utility over there on the left side, I get an error message: "You have requested a special page that is not recognized by the wiki." Was the search tool disabled because of vandalism? -Fyzixfighter 20:19, 20 Sep 2005 (CEST)

About a month ago, I changed some stuff in the site config so that 'http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Main_Page' works as 'http://uqm.stack.nl/index.php?title=Main_Page'. Apparently that broke the search. It's fixed now.
Myself, I have an entry for the Ultronomicon in Opera's search.ini, so I do 'ultron bla' to search for bla, bypassing the search box altogether.
— SvdB 01:29, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)

The Captain?

Hey Svdb, what's the Ultronomicon style for referring to the Captain? I've seen The Captain and Captain Zelnick used interchangeably in the text, though the latter is, of course, a redirect to The Captain. If it's the style to use "The Captain" throughout this wiki, I'd like to perhaps create a style guide, (at Ultronomicon:Style guide Ultronomicon:Manual of Style) and mention such style decisions there. As a side note, I've been inactive for a while, but I hope to contribute more to this great project of yours. :-) --Phoenix (t) 23:43, 30 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Most contributors seem to agree that 'The Captain' is the way to go, as the player can change the name, and in the PC version, you would be asked. One contributor disagrees, but I think he has conceded. Old pages probably still contain references to Zelnick. The story with 'The Flagship' vs 'The Vindicator' is analogous. There's also 'SIS' the name used in the code, but it has no place here.

There's a similar difference of opinion on how to describe game events. Some people like these things as things that can or will happen if/unless the player takes certain actions ("If The Captain allies with the Spathi, they will erect a slave shield at their home world"), while others prefer describing things as if they already happened, assuming the most complete, happy ending ("after The Captain allied with the Spathi they erected a slave shield at their home world"). I think the former is better myself, as it is more exact.

I agree that a style guide is a good idea, but what we could perhaps use more, to come to such a guide, is a discussion area where we could discuss things like this, like the "Village Pump" at Wikipedia. I had been planning to introduce something like that, but I've been planning a lot of things. Feel free to create it yourself if you like. — SvdB 00:52, 4 Oct 2005 (CEST)

Yeah, I also posted this question in Ultronomicon talk:Community Portal, though I don't know if that area is very active anymore. I'll probably create the page and put up that it's a work in progress, similar to the "Proposed process" dialogue box in Wikipedia. As for how to describe game events, I think I've been doing the latter, but I agree, the former is probably better. It also makes me wonder how to edit, for example, the Member of field in {{RaceBox}}. For instance, with the Spathi, there would be a couple of options:
  1. Hierarchy of Battle Thralls
  2. Hierarchy of Battle Thralls,
    New Alliance of Free Stars
  3. Hierarchy of Battle Thralls,
    New Alliance of Free Stars (can join)
Given your opinion about game events, we should probably go with the third option. --Phoenix (t) 14:46, 4 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Here's another idea. In certain places where the actions and fate of the characters are largely dependent on player actions (such as Tanaka), how about placing a tag similar to the {{spoiler}}, but read something like "the following events are largely dependant on player actions, and may not occur" (or something similar). This kind of a tag would probably require a beginning and end tag. --Phoenix (t) 15:05, 4 Oct 2005 (CEST)
I agree that something like "(can join)" would be best, but I don't like the exact phrase. It's a bit unclear imho. I'd personally prefer "(optional)", or "(at the player's choice)".
As for the tags, I think that if the relevant text is phrased appropriately, such tags would be unnecessary.
SvdB 20:46, 8 Oct 2005 (CEST)
I'll put "(optional)", for now. --Phoenix (t) 19:47, 10 Oct 2005 (CEST)


How do I make templates like PlanetBox to list the amount of resources? I have been exploring the map and have a table of data for the various planets that is better than the spreadsheet that Now and Forever offers in their file page. We already have a list of constellations, so adding a box for the recources on the different planets would be a help, I think.

--Cosumel 20:23, 30 Oct 2005 (CET)

This goes beyond the scope of the Ultronomicon (there's been a discussion about this, but I can't find it right now). Also, it's easy to generate a list of minerals from the source, which would be more reliable than anyone could manually compose. — SvdB 17:46, 3 Nov 2005 (CET)

Debate on source code

I only created Talk:Source Code because the forumers are no longer being helpful, and I really wish to get the help I need. If you're going to delete that, at least be courteous enough to direct me to where I need to go. "the forum", I tried that.

"the forum" really is the place. You may want to give it a bit more time; you only posted your most recent question yesterday.
The reason I personally am not replying to your posting is that I've seen it all before. It's obvious that you've never done anything like this before, which means you'd need a lot of help, and I'm not prepared to spend that time right now. I bet a lot of the others who know what they're doing feel the same way.
Usually the sequence of questions goes something like this:
  1. "Where can I find the code that does this?"
  2. "How do I make this code do what I want?"
  3. "How do I compile the game?"
The last step always ends up in taking the one asking the question through each of the steps, and there are a lot of steps.
Now if you come back when you've managed to compile the game as it is (without modifications), then we can talk about changing things.
What also helps when you ask questions about how to make your compiler do what you want, is to specify what compiler you are using. If the people you're trying to get help from first have to ask you questions just to understand what you're talking about, they're not going to be very anxious to help you.
And it would also help if you'd read the documentation that comes with the source.
Also, in your experience, does calling people a jerk often work to make them more cooperative?
SvdB 04:24, 19 Dec 2005 (CET)
Well if you weren't trying to be rude, I sincerly apologize. But "This is not a help desk" does come accross as rude. That and you'd be surprized how often game designers actually are jerks. Hideo Kojima for instance, directs great games, but is a pompous jerkoff who cares more about his fan's money than his fans. Although I may as well take responcibility for not signing my user nic up here, thus keeping you from officially helping my on my user discussion page since my firewall keeps changing my ip's. I was kind of hoping for answers that tell me what kind of directories to look for to place files and and what kind of function within my compiler to look for. I could specify which compiler it is, but it's not very common, thusly not likely anyone would be familiar with it. Though I do know someone on another board who can answer this, he doesn't always respond to pm's.
When someone posts something where he knows it doesn't belong, just out of inpatience, I'm not going to waste much words on him. I'd normally say "try the forum", but you already did that. I had nothing else to add. My message was intended to be succinct (it was in the summary, which turns up in the Recent Changes list). I guess I could have said it more friendly, but I really didn't want to spend much time thinking about wording.
I also don't want to waste my time looking up your answers in the source code, when it's still the question whether you'd actually manage to compile the source at all.
As for compilers, it all depends on what you are talking about. If you have a stand-alone compiler and can't use the build scripts, you'd be on your own. If you have an IDE which isn't msvc, you'd have to build your own project file.
This is another instance of the wrong way to get answers. People are more likely to give you answers if you give them enough information to work with. If they'd have to ask (is it a stand-alone compiler, or are you running from an IDE) or provide all the possible answers for each of the possible cases that may not be relevant, they're more likely not to bother. And this is more so the case the more people are involved with the project, as they tend to be more busy, and get a lot of questions. And these are exactly the people that could help you.
SvdB 06:29, 20 Dec 2005 (CET)
Ah but you see I didn't know that. I knew better than to post something like that on an article, but not a discussion page. Even if it was a newly created one. That said, it's definitely not visual C++, but rather something called borland turbo C++ which I have found out is IDE. So that does help a lot. More than anything though, it's the dll files that confused me. I pretty much know(or could figure out) what to do with the rest.
A compiler is just a program that makes binary code from source code; IDE stands for "integrated development environment" and includes things like an editor and debugger, and a graphical interface to the compiler flags.
DLL files are shared libraries of compiled code.
But I really don't want to have this conversation here, where noone else will contribute to or benefit from it. If you ask your question on the forum, I will reply, but I won't take you through everything step by step (but perhaps someone else will).
SvdB 08:46, 23 December 2005 (CET)

Planet/Homeworld images policy

I couldn't find a better place to say this, so...

I've made screenshots of all known homeworlds, also writing down the number and types of their satellites. These screenshots show exactly the entire screen shown AFTER scanning the respective planet (without the menu and the UQM title bar, of course), with the planet shown from an interesting angle (that shows as many features of the planet as possible).
The current policy is, it seems, to photo the 3D image and write the scandata below, ignoring the map; however, this has a few inconvenients:
  1. The scandata written below is harder to read and doesn't look that good.
  2. The planet geography is not seen entirely.
  3. It is harder for the uploaders of the photos to trim the 3D planet than to trim the entire relevant part of the screen.
So what do you think? In what form should I upload the screenshots? Valaggar 20:03, 29 April 2007 (CEST)
EDIT: Perhaps it would be a good idea to include both? Full images instead of the racebox used presently, and the raceboxes go to a single page; that way, readers interesting in a comparison of the homeworlds will be able to see everything more clearly and to copy the scandata using copy&paste, not manual transcribing. Valaggar 20:12, 29 April 2007 (CEST)
Screenshots uploaded (full version and 3D version). I've found out that the full version does not look good (you need to make it really big to be viewable, and this doesn't look particularly well); my new plan would be to use 3D images in the planetboxes and also add the 2D planet map in the planetbox. And also make an article consisting of a table made of all the planetboxes. Valaggar 11:00, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
OK, maps uploaded. Valaggar 11:27, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
Everything was updated. A question: Should we remove the in-game grayish border from the maps? Valaggar 14:49, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
If I could throw my two cents in here, I like the idea of adding the topographic-type map, but it needs to be smaller (the planetboxes are way too dominating now), and without the border and mineral/bio/energy dots on it. Also there is the problem of resolution. I think the reason that the 3d images look fuzzy is that the game's image resolution is adjustable. It might take some playing around with the various settings to get something that looks nice, and we should standardize it like we've done with other images. I would reccommend rather than attacking all the planet pages, pick one, mess with that one until it looks nice, then see what the community thinks. This could also be done on your user page, explicitly writing out the new table code for the planetbox rather than making a new template and making it available for everyone to see before implementation. That gives some of us who are busier with real life a chance to look, ponder, and weigh the idea, rather than forcing us to take a side when we see what appears to be someone riding roughshod and making unilateral changes. --Fyzixfighter 09:15, 1 May 2007 (CEST)
The 3D images are taken at the highest resolution. They can't look better, since the texture (the topographic map) has its resolution limit.
Other than that, I, for one, do not want to re-take all the screenshots, so we'll stick with the dots until someone offers to re-take the shots. Until then, I can help with the border removal. Map already resized to 300px - the smallest map that still fills all alloted space in its cell. I'm toying with the idea of resizing the 3D image. Valaggar 09:57, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

I've always been opposed to the inclusion of information per planet; this sort of stuff fits itself more for an automatically generated database than something user-maintained. That said, I doubt this is going away, so I'd say go for whichever is best looking. I'm actually in favour of including the dots for the minerals etc. in these images; it would make these boring images a bit more interesting. — SvdB 14:57, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

After looking at some of the images in question, I do have one additional comment: don't use .jpg format. .jpg is lossy compression and it will result in loss of detail and "smearing". .png is the prefered format (no .gif either). — SvdB 15:03, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

About .jpg: Yes, Fyzixfighter said the same... however, I have to re-take the screenshots and I can't right now.
About dots: Dots are really suffering from the random generation (remember the "In addition to the Yehat, five non-sentient Whackin' Bushes inhabit this world."?), and they damage the clean look of the map (which isn't really boring, in my opinion). Valaggar 20:24, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
Unless I missed something, Fyzixfighter said something different; he blamed the fuzzy look on the resolution, while I blame it on the .jpg format.
I don't think I've seen that remark about Whackin' Bushes. But the bio and mineral generation should be completely deterministic. Only if the dimensions of the surface are changed should you see anything different, and then only the locations of the minerals; not the types or quantities. So yes, they could be different if you compare UQM with the PC or 3DO version, but I don't see a problem with having images that come from UQM.
Regarding "boring", consider how much these images add to the pages. Will someone actually look at those images? Perhaps the first few times. But if these images showed what there is to get from those planets, they would suddenly be a lot more interesting. — SvdB 23:23, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
Not to belabor the point nor flog the non-living equine, but I said both. My main concern was the resolution and the scalar, but as an afterthought I mentioned the png/jpg thing (having recently encountered the problem at work) [1]. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion. --Fyzixfighter 00:53, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
here's the Whackin' Bushes remark. More funny edits on User:Valaggar#Funniest/Most Interesting Ultronomicon Edits.
As to the images - they look good as an ornament, as a decoration, something to make the article more lively. And the quantity and types of resources are, as you know very well, easy to determine from the planet type. Plus, they don't fit the colors of the rest of the map (and of the 3D image). Anyway, if someone is to re-take the screenshots, he will decide if the dots should be included or not. Valaggar 14:14, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
  • I don't see how the Whackin' Bushes remarks ties into this discussion.
  • There is some (pseudo-)randomness involved in the quantity and types of resources. There are large differences between planets of the same type. And there are other factors that come in (such as temperature).
  • Why would the fact that the colours don't match be a reason not to include the dots? They are supposed to stand out.
  • And we should figure this out before someone redoes the images, to prevent wasting his/her time if we decide we want it otherwise.
SvdB 16:14, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
  • The Whackin' Bushes are a good example of considering the dots a representation of the actual location (and type) of the creatures of the planet.
  • Anyway, nobody is interested in learning that the Yehat homeworld fields, for example, eight kilotons of easily retrievable bismuth; I guess it's a simple aesthetic problem.
  • They break the style of the maps, which look good as they are - or at least they do this in my view, this should differ greatly from person to person.
You know, we can't come to a compromise, obviously, so we will just need to see how many editors are on each side (by the way, I was pro-dots at first, but Fyzixfighter converted me). Valaggar 17:51, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
  • I still don't know what your point is wrt the Whankin' Bushes
  • I would say that knowing what there is to get from a planet seems to me to be the only reason anyone would be interested in looking at that image.
  • What style would that be?
  • Fine with me
SvdB 21:08, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
  • My point with the Whackin' Bushes is that the dots are clearly impossible to be taken as canon, since that would imply that there are only five bushes on an entire planet (sic!) and that the few kilotons of the non-diverse resources found on the planet were extracted in a single moment. And that, for a reason or another, all races seem to build their cities in ocean just as well as on land.
  • You mean that the maps don't make the articles more beautiful? Valaggar 14:53, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
  • Ah, so that's what you mean. Well, you don't have that problem with images. You see the same thing as in the game, whether that means a simplified representation of life, minerals, or energy on the planet, or really the absurd literal things.
  • Yes, they make the page more beautiful. But if you included the dots, they'd be more beautiful *and* more useful. — SvdB 15:28, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
  • Well, I could bring back the argument with colors - you see, without dots, Beautiful=2, Useful=0. With dots, Beautiful=1, Useful=1. And I'm not sure if it's worthy to dump 1 point of beauty for 1 point of usefulness. Of course, this beauty is subjective. I still wonder what the opinion of the other editors is. Valaggar 16:01, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
Even as decoration, it will just help for the overal impression of the page; people will not closely examine the images after the first few, if there's just the planet surface. And a few dots don't harm the effect when the image isn't directly looked at. — SvdB 16:40, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
The dots really harm the image, at least in the view of some people, while in the view of all people, the usefulness increase is insignificant, since all those planets are inhabited (usually until the Death March). Valaggar 17:10, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
Well I agree about Home worlds. But you're using images like this for planets like Zeta Draconis I too. In fact, for homeworlds the entire side bar seems unnecessary to me (although acceptable). — SvdB 23:48, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
I've been torn on the mineral scan being included, which is why I've avoided this debate up till now. However, it is a nice way of making the topographic map more meaningful and differentiating it from the 3D planet image. More importantly, including the scanned mineral/lifeform/energy dots provide a nice way to present something that isn't easily quantifiable - namely the general distribution and quantity and type of "dots" of interest on a planet. That I think is the tipping argument for using a post-autoscan map for me. The purpose of anything we include should be to convey information, and avoid redundancy, and images are still one of the fastest ways convey lots of information within a given amount of space. --Fyzixfighter 00:06, 6 June 2007 (CEST)

Size of the HyperSpace galaxy

  1. Please put the deleted article at User:Valaggar/Size of the HyperSpace galaxy.
  2. Also, it's not "100% jumping to conclusions". Exactly what part can be interpreted otherwise, just show me? Notice that I've always used "at least". Valaggar 18:54, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
  1. Done.
  2. You start with assumptions, and arrive at your conclusion through a chain of uncertainties. — SvdB 21:15, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Caught some vandals on Ultronomicon talk:Manual of Style

A lot of spam is occurring at Ultronomicon talk:Manual of Style (most of which has the edit summary "Unknown"). I suspect that anonymous users should be blocked from editing that page. Valaggar 19:49, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

I think the amount of spam is quite managable at the moment. Spam like this is usually automated, and if you block one page, the spam just goes to another. Also, this version of Mediawiki doesn't support semi-protection. — SvdB 21:22, 4 June 2007 (CEST)