Difference between revisions of "UE2 talk:Using the UT2004 mod system"

Latest revision as of 17:43, 28 April 2008

Hey, OlympusMons. Hold up a minute. This is the Legacy page. As far as any plan has been discussed for the new wiki structure, these pages are not supposed to be edited more than minor, minor spelling and corrections. This is not supposed to be changed to fit the new pages. As I understand it (and please, someone / anyone correct me if I'm wrong here), if you want Legacy content on the new pages, copy the content, do not permanently change the Legacy. If I am understanding the intentended methodology, Legacy content will be retained *largely unchanged* to maintain external links and the overall Legacy structure. If you begin to change Legacy pages in the way I see you doing, very soon that Legacy structure will be lost forever. Even if flawed, it's the only working wiki we have atm. The new pages can be whatever you want, but changing the Legacy pages in this way will disrupt that methology. We should revert these changes here and start proper new pages based on this content, yeah? -- SuperApe 07:04 (PST) 26 April 2008.

Correct, these pages should not be modified to fit the new structure. A better thing to do would be to create a Using the Mod System under the UT2004 namespace. UT2004:Using the Mod System. --Sir Brizz 14:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the page name would be something like UE2:Using the UT2004 mod system. There's no "UT2004" namespace, only a UE2 one. "UT2004:..." would simply be a page in the main article space. -Wormbo 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ah, thanks :) --Sir Brizz 18:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh thanks for the reply, well the main reason Im editing the legacy one is cause Im the original author anyways and the old version didnt correspond to the legacy license. Like it has source materials from other sites on there directly copied and pasted which as far as I know goes against what the old license says, so now its more my own words and has a better structure. I am planning to bring it out of the legacy namespace once I know its all okay to do so, which is about now it seems but I would still like to get some thoughts on the new structure of the page etc to see if it conforms to what we are looking to do now. Either way I think the page needed to be brought up to scratch and has been on my todo list so since I havent found anything better to do to help out, I just went ahead and started editing, to note this page can always be reverted once it comes out of the legacy namespace or perhaps I can edit the links in the legacy stuff to link to it under the new namespace. This article/tutorial is some what specific to UT2004 and UE2.5, Im not sure how many other games allow the use of the -mod= commandline switch. So Im not sure if you are looking to duplicate the material for both legacy and the new namespace structure or not, also this page links to alot of legacy stuff which I could help to bring out of that namespace to the new structure also -OlympusMons 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are the original author and would like to relicense the page, it should be moved out of the Legacy namespace as soon as possible. Then others can help with updating it. If you use the move function on the page, it will automatically set up a redirect to the new page. – Haarg 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly want to move it out of the legacy namespace as soon as I can I was just alittle iffy cause this way now people can discuss the layout of the page instead of just going ahead and editing it as they see fit. It doesnt bother me if people want to fix some stuff but I would just prefer to get some dialog going first as the new layouts are largely up in the air atm. Like for eg, something I would like to see is breaks before a Green section so there is a whole line break in there instead of having everything bunched together, another thing I used here was indenting directly after a green heading so paragraphing will look alittle neater. Stuff like that I would like to see done instead of just having walls of text, it just goes to readability I think. Cool -OlympusMons 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually now I think about it... What new structure? Did someone do something and I missed it? Thats the whole reason Im not doing more to help out at this stage is I have no clue what this new stucture is. Oh btw copy and pasting from the legacy content would be a nono unless you are the original author correct? Speaking from a pure wiki code standpoint the old wiki code wasnt displaying the page correctly anyways, there was a glitch with the old light blue box thingos, take a look for yourselves [[1]] -OlympusMons 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For individual pages, the wiki's overall structure doesn't really matter. As long as you are using the right namespace and have an appropriate name, it is fine. As Wormbo said, a name like UE2:Using the UT2004 mod system would be appropriate for this page. I'm not sure what exactly the page was supposed to look like before, but there were likely some bugs with the conversion of the content. – Haarg 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I figured there would be a few bugs but this specifically is what Im talking about:

Doesnt work so well it seems lolz -OlympusMons 23:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. If you see that elsewhere, a quick fix would be to add 1= after innerbox| :

– Haarg 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is in agreement that Legacy pages should be largely left alone and the content moved to the new structure instead. Repeated edits on Legacy pages *has the effect of stating otherwise*. I've already seen other wiki users begin to edit Legacy pages to add content instead of modifying new pages. Let's nip this in the bud, start the new methodology and stick to it to avoid unnecessary confusion and reworking. Even if you are the original author further modifications of Legacy pages will have the same effect as if you weren't. Move this page to continue your work, please. Admins, please catch this stuff as it happens. I'm not supposed to be the cop around here. -- SuperApe 08:35 (PST) 28 April 2008.

Does anyone have anything to say about the layout of the page or would just rather do it yourself? -OlympusMons 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)