The three virtues of a programmer: Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. – Larry Wall
Please avoid adding new articles to it.
sweavo: I've been re-categorising the Custom Class pages to reflect what game they are compatible with, but I've struck on an issue. First a bit of explanation:
I've been removing Category Class (xx) from custom classes, because Category Class (xx) is for classes that ship as part of a game. Therefore, no class can be Category Class (xx) and Category Custom Class. A page might carry both tags if it has a class reference followed by some user-contributed extensions.
From that, it follows that custom classes no longer indicate what UT version they are compatible with. So Category Custom Class is now becoming Category Custom Class (xx) where xx is UT, UT2003, UT2004, UT3 (though none exist at UT3 AFAIK).
The issue I have now is whether custom classes should name the GAME they are compatible with or the ENGINE. It's quite hard to differentiate between UT2003 custom classes and UT2004 custom classes, and also AFAIK UT2004 is a lot more popular than UT2003... So then I'm thinking UT2003 and UT2004 are both UT2 so why not use that tag.
A possible reason why not is that a custom class extends a particular class, and that parent may or may not be shipped as part of 2k3 or 2k4. Or are the Uscript codebases of 2k3 and 2k4 pretty close?
I guess my feeling is to treat UT2003 as the "bastard half-brother" and leave it locked in the basement to rot. UT and UT2004 are clearly delineated, and I suspect UT3 will be a whole other beast.
Proposal for Category:Legacy Example:
Tarquin: There are a few practical examples scattered around here – perhaps a Category:Legacy Example would be a good idea?
sweavo: this sounds good, for code snippets that are not whole classes. I think Category Custom Class (xx) should only be used for complete classes that can be cut n pasted. If something is more of a 'howto' than a finished product, it should be in Category Example.
The difference between Category Example and Category Tutorial ? Not sure. Tutorial implies a structured approach, first do this then do this, whereas example is "look, this works". But a lot of the writing on here is so bad that pages are unable to decide whether they are tutorial or reference material.
Application and Third-party Components
Tarquin: Are Application and third-Party Components already those categories? should the content from those be shunted to the category page, or should we consider the exiting pages to be speudo-categories?
What to do with pages that don't apply to the game, but to their engine capabilities (like dynamic array support). Maybe a category like Category:Legacy Engine (Warfare) ?
Proposal for Category:Legacy Topic Page:
Tarquin: though they're all listed on the main page and there's only about 10 of them)
Mosquito: I think we should have categories for every major area of Unreal developement. First of all you should have different categories for the game specific editting such as Category:Legacy UT, or Category:Legacy UT2003. I also think it would be better if you had categories for every aspect such as:
- Category:Legacy Mapping
- Category:Legacy Modeling
- Category:Legacy Scripting
- Category:Legacy Texturing
And then maybe perhaps sub-categories like for mapping, different aspects of mapping:
- Category:Legacy Mapping CSG
- Category:Legacy Mapping Lights
- Category:Legacy Mapping Textures
- Category:Legacy Mapping Tools IE, the tools at the top such as the texture browser, prefab browser, etc.
Just a suggestion.
Wormbo: Wiki:PleasePleaseDontCategorizeEveryPageOnWiki :o
Cleaning up the topic pages instead of creating category pages would be much better. (and probably less work) How many pages are there on CSG and would an average newcomer even know what a CSG category covers? I don't think so.
Tarquin: Yup. Let's clean up the forward indexes!
SuperApe: I'm finding a need to Categorize pages that talk about Modding and Mutator making. There is no Category:Legacy Modding yet and the Category Class tag isn't helpful for these pages that talk about modding concepts and elements without being a tutorial or a custom class. Category Scripting may be a good name too, but I find people come looking for "Modding" stuff just as much, if not more, than they look for "Scripting" stuff. (Scripting can be confused with AIScripting) On another note, I'm voting for no sub-categories as mentioned above. We have Topic pages for those.
Wormbo: We already have a Category:Legacy Enum, so why not make a Category:Legacy Struct for them if we really have that many struct pages, but remember, Wiki:PleasePleaseDontCategorizeEveryPageOnWiki.
Ch3zSeems like there are some pages here that are more geared toward the community of Unreal Wiki frequenters and contributors than toward the reference type of document that is being created here. Some are Mod_Ideas, Map_Ideas, Test_Center, the whole category of personal pages... maybe not enough for a category though. It just seems like if you were to turn this wiki into a book those kinds of pages would be edited out, thus they are set apart from the rest and maybe should be categorized.
Blip2: For solidsnake's tuts :P
Graphik: Erm, we don't have a Category UE1 or 2...
Global Restructure of Wiki (Denied)
Legal: Isn't it about time to split the Wiki for real, that is, www.wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/(game)/(normal subpages)? UT would be www.wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/UT/Mover for instance. It would be easier as pages and sub-pages wouldn't be named (DX), (UT), (UT2004) and whatever. It's getting quite messy knowing what's UT and what's UT2k4 etc for me, and I'm not exactly an all-green mapper. The only downside is the duplicate pages needed for things which are the same, but that's the only thing. How about it?
Tarquin: That would be an almighty task. What would be gained by it? You'd still have to put the game name in the links. We'd still need to spend a lot of time cleaning up, which is all that we need at the moment. Which pages are particularly bad? Could people mark them when they find them, or even better, make a start on cleaning them up?
Tarquin: The real problem is manpower. Your scheme would still require people to put in some work and help shift everything across. I don't see people helping round here :(
Legal: Yeah, guess so... but it would make things more tidied in my opinion. Ah well, guess it's best to leave it anyway.
Tarquin: no, it wouldn't... we'd announce a new organisation scheme, ask for help, make a rough start and then.... it would lie dormant for ages, and even more of a mess. What we need is people to make small changes here and there: it will add up over time :) I fixed a few pages this morning....
Mychaeel: Editing preview shows the #MAGIC line as a single-item numbered list at the top of the page.
Tarquin: Will look into it. Just need to bypass it in some way in the displaying.
This category currently contains no pages or media.