Difference between revisions of "Talk:Game Variations"

m (Splitting the page)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]]: Why is Labyrynth not in Core? It's just a map...
===Splitting the page===
===Splitting the page===

Latest revision as of 14:12, 8 November 2006


Luke-Jr: Why is Labyrynth not in Core? It's just a map...

Splitting the page

Lucifer: Can we cut out variations that don't exist in the base distribution? If a variation requires a patch or is not in any public release, it needs to be put on a different page. This page should be limited to game variations that someone who downloads a stock server can use.

Wrtlprnft: I think separating the page into two sections is better. I did that and added links where to find the hack needed. —

Lucifer: I'm still inclined to put it in 2 pages, but I guess I can do that.  :) We can have this page transclude two different pages, but that might make it hard to edit. I'm happy with it now, though. We can get all psycho with classification when this page is a lot longer.

Luke-Jr: We seem to be accepting DTDs in the repository that require patching, thus expanding our "supported" range to patches. It makes sense to apply that to this page as well.

    • Lucifer: What the repository takes doesn't have any bearing on what this page is about. A patch is an unsupported feature, plain as taht. If the server has to be recompiled for a variation, it doesn't make sense to have it on this page.


Your mom: I saw you guys goofing with formating how about making sig before comments the proper way to add comments/discuss things mabey even get a wikibutton to add ~~~: at the beggining of comments. Makes things easier to read at least imo

Wrtlprnft: But that loses both threading and timestamps, both of which I think are important.

  • Your mom 11:37, 27 August 2006 (CDT):How about this?

Your mom 11:37, 27 August 2006 (CDT): Well you could add titles to seperate discussions the timestamps tend to add clutter as well imo but i guess you could keep those ~~~~: Also you can still use * ** *** for direct responces

  • Well, this still uses definition lists that just aren't appropiate, and the date in front really clutters things up.

    The real problem with normal unordered lists is that mediawiki's syntax doesn't allow them to be longer than one paragraph, at least without ugly tricks like this.

    Having the signature at the end doesn't seem to be a big problem: The bullet marks the beginning of a post, and if you want to know the author you just have to look right before the next bullet, and the blue links stick to the eye anyways. —Wrtlprnft 11:51, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

    • Test reply —Wrtlprnft 11:51, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Your mom 12:07, 27 August 2006 (CDT): I have no objections to proper list usage. but what stops it from getting out of control? ex
      • your responce(delete this before you make it worse when you reply)
        • my responce
          • luci chiming in etc
      • There's the option of only going to a new level when adding something in the middle, or when things are already significantly threaded. Not quite perfect, but it might work considering relations are usually not all that strict. —Jonathan 12:44, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed. —Jonathan 12:44, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

Your mom 12:07, 27 August 2006 (CDT): luci the default skin isnt displaying lists properly.