ZDoom

As per the discussion in this thread, I've come up with an idea that I think most of the ZDoom forum community would like... a mass updating of the Wiki,-- maybe even continual updating,-- and possibly a thread (I would think this one ) relating to the updating. Most of us are aware that the Wiki lacks many things that are known quite well at least by one person, and some things in the Wiki are incomplete or inaccurate. I'm wondering if we can create a concerted effort to change these two facts. If this 'project' were to be done, I would think this thread could be used as a common ground to link to a thread where information can be found; ie, 'this thread over here has info about this feature and how to use it, so I'm going to add the info to the Wiki'. That way this thread can be used to easily find the original information. The caveat to this is that this thread would need to be as devoid as possible of 'this is how it's done'/''no, this is how it's done' discussions; I would hope it could be limited to linking to threads where such discussions take place. Another possibility is that, when linking to a thread, the poster of the link could paraphrase the linked discussion (Method A was suggested but does not work, Method B does work but is rather 'hacky', and Method C is a feature added after Method B became widespread). This way, people would be aware of all three methods, the lack of function of Method A, the hackiness of Method B, the subsequent addition of Method C, and the fact that Method C is favorable over Method B.

First, before this can even be considered, it would be beneficial to know how much disk space is available for the Wiki, and how much of it should be used (ie, if it's on the same disk as the stuff in the Downloads page, the downloads would probably take precedence, and thus the wiki might have 10GB available, but it would be preferred to stay under 5GB).

Also, being that I'd like this to be a concerted effort, I cannot and will not do it myself. The more working on a project, the less required of each individual, and the less likely each individual is to screw up, misinform the public or do something else they didn't intend to do. If no one else wants to help, I'll add what I know to the Wiki, but that will be the end of it.

I will note that you do not necessarily have to know something to add it to the Wiki; you can search for it on the forums yourself, but remember that I want to limit this thread to linking to and paraphrasing the 'this is how you do it'/'no this is how you do it' discussions. If you do not know yourself how to do something, and you cannot find some resource that at least describes the currently accepted way to do it, do not put it in the Wiki; you may, however, link to and paraphrase the thread in this thread if it has at least one method of doing it, for two reasons,-- a) just in case a way is found or created to do it hackily or officially (ie Methods B and C in my earlier example), it might happen to be posted in that thread that you've linked to; otherwise, you'll have to add a link to and paraphrase a new thread that does discuss the hacky/official method(s) if you can find them,-- and b) so that others will be aware of what methods have been tried/suggested and do or do not work.

If this idea garners a fair amount of support, I will make a list here in this post of the people known to be helping.

Another couple of quick notes: You may want to consider signing content you add to the Wiki, so others will know what you've added; and you may want to link to and describe the thread(s) with the 'this is how you do it'/'no this is how you do it' discussions pertaining to the subject you're editing. These are just suggestions, you do not have to do these things; it would just be a nice idea.

I find it hard to read your post; it's a bit of an incoherent jumble, and the ideas don't really seem focused, nor do I forsee them being effective.

I have already put forward a proposal to the moderators regarding the updating of the wiki... Probably best to see what comes of that first.

Krillancello wrote:a thread (I would think this one ) relating to the updating.

Recent changes page. There's no need for a thread. If you really want to place to discuss changes, edit the user's talk page and ask them there or decide on another discussion page on the wiki. There is nothing to this idea that can't already be done at the wiki, rather than dragging it to the forums and making it more complicated than necessary.

Another couple of quick notes: You may want to consider signing content you add to the Wiki, so others will know what you've added

Where did you read that signatures were ever intended to be used on an article? I will quickly say that users should never sign their name on a wiki page unless it is a discussion page. If users want to know what you've added, they can simply consult the history page or the recent changes I linked to. At best, doing so would quickly clutter up the article and confuse new users who don't understand what the names are about.

The references system was set up to avoid giving credit right in the middle of the page, and even then it was only intended for referencing information you have gotten from others, rather than anything you added yourself.

Krillancello wrote:First, before this can even be considered, it would be beneficial to know how much disk space is available for the Wiki, and how much of it should be used (ie, if it's on the same disk as the stuff in the Downloads page, the downloads would probably take precedence, and thus the wiki might have 10GB available, but it would be preferred to stay under 5GB).

Since I GUESS (whois) that randy has chosen a hosting plan from ICDSoft.com, there's not several fixed disk drives available.

Sir_Alien: I don't see any evidence of your 'incoherent jumble' or 'unfocused' remarks, so I can't comment on them at the moment.

If this is the proposal you mean, the idea is the same; the only real difference being that I don't see the need for a "Wiki admin." You do not need an admin for coordination. Spearheading a reorganization process does not require Wiki proficiency so much as organizational skills and an ability to read the coherency of an article. Even someone with a great amount of knowledge on Wiki editing can create an article that doesn't have a coherent, logical flow to it; and someone with just enough knowledge of Wiki editing to put things together can create an article that flows logically and coherently. Of course the organizer would be expected to do some of the editing themself, but that doesn't mean they have to be a master Wiki editor.

On a completely off-topic note, the Custom Hud Wiki article you link to in that post hits close to home for me; I was the one who originally started the discussion that led to the discovery of Barista's use of that particular SetFont application (a discovery I made, coincidentally o_O). I just thought it funny that it was that 'feature' that you used as your example.

DomRem: I know I'm not the most Wiki-proficient member of the ZDoom community; I've learned what was necessary to do with the Wiki what I've done thusfar. I'm more than willing to accept suggestions to change the idea of how something like this would be coordinated. I understand your points, but your wordings are a wee bit harsh when they need not be.

The references system would probably be a good way to follow one of my guidelines, which was to link the Wiki article to the 'this is how it works'/''no this is how it works' discussions and paraphrase the different methods and their viability. This would likely work especially well if there are multiple methods to do something, but they are not discussed in the same thread.

jallamann: The hosting solution isn't exactly pertinent; I simply want to know roughly how much disk space the Wiki can take up, because such knowledge is necessary to know if it would be feasible to have a demonstration wad for everything that could have one, or not.

http://icdsoft.com/hosting.php reveals two possible answers: 1000 or 2000 MB total storage capacity.

A demo wad for every feature of zdoom wouldn't occupy an amount of gigabytes with a non-zero number before the decimal separator.

Krillancello wrote:If this is the proposal you mean, the idea is the same

So what's the point of posting the same idea twice? And in my opinion, your "plan" is simply summarising the way things are now... The Wiki is already updated by knowledgeable people, all you're saying in your plan is "put in more effort", and...

Krillancello wrote:I cannot and will not do it myself

If you are unwilling to perform a task you have "assigned" to the public, what hope is there anyone else will..?

Of course you don't see the incoherent jumble, you wrote it... I can see it plainly. But I won't go into that anymore, as Dom has already succinctly pointed out the flaws in "your idea."

jallamann wrote:Since I GUESS (whois) that randy has chosen a hosting plan from ICDSoft.com, there's not several fixed disk drives available.

You should do an actual IP check before you make that assumption. I have 5 gigabytes of space available for everything, and the wiki currently occupies a pretty insignificant portion of that. The largest non-download space-user is the forum with over 100 megabytes of database content.

Well, I did write guess

Sir_Alien wrote:

Krillancello wrote:If this is the proposal you mean, the idea is the same

So what's the point of posting the same idea twice? And in my opinion, your "plan" is simply summarising the way things are now... The Wiki is already updated by knowledgeable people, all you're saying in your plan is "put in more effort", and...

Krillancello wrote:I cannot and will not do it myself

If you are unwilling to perform a task you have "assigned" to the public, what hope is there anyone else will..?

Of course you don't see the incoherent jumble, you wrote it... I can see it plainly. But I won't go into that anymore, as Dom has already succinctly pointed out the flaws in "your idea."

At this point you're just becoming antagonistic. You have yet to explain how it's an "incoherent jumble," therefore there is no proof that it is such. If you want to make a statement, you must give proof or it is nothing but an opinion. This you have failed to accomplish. I would advise that in the future you refrain from employing such an attitude as that you think you are right, and therefore I must accept your opinion as fact.

As for the "I will not do it myself" statement, which you have expectedly taken out of context, the extended meaning is that I will not go through the Forums searching for actual information on all the various ZDoom features and update/add every Wiki page myself; ergo, doing it all myself. There are people who know enough about most features or capabilities to be able to do so for the particular feature without searching for the information. Secondly, the way I have put forth my idea differs from the way you had put forth your idea,-- I have provided a more in-depth elaboration than you had, to explain it further and give others a better idea of what it actually is. As for DomRem, he didn't point out flaws in my idea so much as flaws in methods I suggested of fulfilling my idea. Even supplementing his suggestions in place of my own, it would still be the same concept; it would simply have some differentiation in methodology.

--

randy: Yeah, I figured the database would occupy 100-200MB. 5GB will probably still be more than enough for everything you have up (that I know of), even a good distance into the future. Thanks for the clarification, though.

I only understood what the thread was about because I snapped it up from IRC. Otherwise I'd probably waste more time trying to understand.
Just use the wiki like a wiki and not a petty sheet of paper. Problem solved.

Krillancello wrote:At this point you're just becoming antagonistic. You have yet to explain how it's an "incoherent jumble," therefore there is no proof that it is such. If you want to make a statement, you must give proof or it is nothing but an opinion.

Oh FFS... Of course it's an opinion... But my conceit is that your first parapgraph just runs on... and on... and on... And I find it difficult to read because you ramble a bit, especially in the second half.

Krillancello wrote:As for the "I will not do it myself" statement, which you have expectedly taken out of context, the extended meaning is that I will not go through the Forums searching for actual information on all the various ZDoom features and update/add every Wiki page myself; ergo, doing it all myself.

Well, that's not what you said originally. And even if your above elaboration is the case, what exactly are you offering that I am not, particularly when I have said I will go through and do it all myself, even if no one is willing to help me...

Krillancello wrote:There are people who know enough about most features or capabilities to be able to do so for the particular feature without searching for the information.

So, you're saying, you won't do it yourself..?

Krillancello wrote:Secondly, the way I have put forth my idea differs from the way you had put forth your idea,-- I have provided a more in-depth elaboration than you had, to explain it further and give others a better idea of what it actually is.

How was my idea not succinct? Here it is in point form:

• 1. I will clean up the forums and update the wiki.
  2. See 1.

Krillancello wrote:As for DomRem, he didn't point out flaws in my idea so much as flaws in methods I suggested of fulfilling my idea. Even supplementing his suggestions in place of my own, it would still be the same concept; it would simply have some differentiation in methodology.

What I should have said was that Dom has pointed out why we'd need someone who has thorough knowledge of wikis to implement a plan like this, since your initial scheme has already been proven to be convoluted.

Again I ask, despite the similarities / differences in our plans, what exactly do you feel makes your superior to mine and thus worth posting a second thread for?

This all seems really pointless to me. Only a very select knowledgeable few actually edit the Wiki (on subjects that matter). Everything submitted is subject to peer review. And more often than not if something is posted incorrectly, it is fixed by another member, or by one of the developers. I could see why more demos should be added to the Wiki, but I don't see the need for all this fuss and muss.

As Sir_Alien has mentioned, there is a very concerted effort already being submitted to the higher powers. This discussion has already taken place.

I'll admit, there is a certain "getting friendly with the ZDoom Wiki" time that has to take place in the beginning, but after you figure your way around (which doesn't take long) you should be able to find information on most anything you want. If not, ask about it on the forums, and perhaps the resulting discussion can be used to update the Wiki.

But there are still plenty of red links at the wiki. Especially the classes page.

Red links and a lack of information.