User talk:SolSys

From AoW: Planetfall
Revision as of 15:52, 13 March 2020 by SolSys (talk | contribs) (→‎Technology tables: Sure)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hi SolSys.

I see we both did some work on skills yesterday. Although considering the amount of work you did I suspect you'd already done most of it and had it sitting somewhere else, considering its length and work in progress state. This is only the second time I'm adding to any wiki so I'm sorry if I just redid something you'd already done. And I did put it in the wrong place, thanks for moving it.

I see we came up with slightly different table designs for our skills tables so I'm wondering if you'd like to come to an agreement on what table design should be used?

As I said, I'm a newbie at this. But it seems to me that we need a page for (active) abilities and maybe unit traits as well. So that these could be linked to the Skills and Units pages and you'd only need to edit one place if there are any balance changes in the future. I'm sure this can be done tho I'm not sure how. My grasp of wiki markup is rather basic atm.

You seem like you know a lot about this so I'm asking for your input.

Thanks //Woolly ~ Woolly (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2019‎ (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the wiki. I'm a bit tied up today, but will get back to you on those tomorrow. As it happens I am looking for editors to this wiki so the more the merrier :) . In the mean time, I left some general tips on your userpage. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Is there a format/coding guide for making links? For example, how can we make links from the technology pages to each of the components of the technologies? Units, mods, tactical and strategic ops, etc? Is there a format key for plugging in the information in the correct spaces so it shows up in a table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatlock (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2019‎ (UTC)

There is the general style guidelines page, but I assume you mean on how to format tables ans similar stuff -- for that you could use this MediaWiki's help guide. As for your main question, you can add individual mod/unit/etc to their respective page and make a redirect to that location using the item's name. For an example, see the fixes I made to your equipment page edit with the "Grounding Harness" to learn how (simply place each piece in its designated place. I've also added a general welcome template to your userpage which you can remove later. In the future, please sign your edits with ~~~~. ~ SolSys (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

New message!

Hello, I'm Supernerd! --Supernerd (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the AoW: Planetfall wiki. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Technology tables

Hey there. I'm new to this wiki but not to wikis in general.

I notice a lot of pages are outdated, so I started updating existing pages with information from the in-game glossary (see Resources). Currently my interests are focused on the technology pages. For these pages I'd like to segment each tech to its own page and fill the tables with transclutions as per the Style Guide. In order to make this easier to do I'd like to create a template, I have a working version of this on my user page:

Deshiba (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd like to avoid stub articles -- I saw that some were created lately. Is there a specific purpose or goal you can achieve with the above way? SolSys (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Currently when you search for 'aqua' you get auto-suggested Aquatic Deployment, if you do the same with 'front' you get no suggestion for Frontier Facilities. This is because the page doesn't exist, from my end I'd like to prevent creating a ton of #REDIRECT pages for every technology just for search suggestions and find-ability.
On top of that, editing information inside of a table is less then optimal. In the suggested method, editors would just straight up edit the Aquatic Deployment page and all the relevant information would get transcribed to the technology page. (Afterthought, with all the use of section transcribes it should probably be a template)
A third reason for techs having their own pages is suggestions and tips. For example, "Researching Aquatic Development is not advised on a map without exploitable water tiles". These kind of "Tips" have no place on a page like Economy technology, but would be relevant on a page about Aquatic Development. The same would go for a 'synergy' section.
EDIT: a fourth reason is the prevention of content duplication. Primarily Weapons and Mods would be served from this, as some Psionic weapons and mods are unlocked from Celestian tech but would fall under Psionics on the Equipment page. If the mods/weapons are on their own page the content could be transcribed to both pages with interlinked content. This way the weapons and mods relevant to celestians would stay on the celestian page, and the weapons and mods relevant to psionics would stay on the Equipment page.
Ideally I'd use an extension like DPL3 to dynamically generate the entire Economy Technology table from separate Technology page templates. However, I feel like requesting an extension is too much.
Deshiba (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll be honest -- I'm not sold on the idea. I mostly worked with the PDS wikis and the above implementation would be annoying to me as an editor and as a user (though that is circumvented by transcluding all techs to a single page).
  1. You would still have to create a ton of stub pages for each of the techs instead of using a few pages for all of them so I can't view this as a point for/against.
  2. Editing a table may be less than optimal, but I could also say the same about having to editing multiple small pages.
  3. Regarding the tech tips, these can be under the quote section.
  4. We just use links to the tech in question so this can be considered a point for the suggestion.
  5. An extension would be a bit much a this point so try to simulate it using templates.
However, as much as I may dislike the suggestion, I am not an AoW player nor do I have a dedicated editor to handle the wiki. If it will help the wiki grow, I don't mind you using this approach. At most, it will be changed in the future. SolSys (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. However as a frequent Wiki user I'm straight up annoyed by the lack of information PDS wikis tend to have (no offense intended). Take AOWplanetfall's Promethean or Stellaris's Rubricator as examples. There's a lot of scattered information about these core mechanics, in my opinion enough to warrant their own pages. Should every planetfall unit have their own page? Probably not. But for the interest of adding information quickly, easily and in a contained manner I'd like to propose the following.
  1. Add all units/techs on their own pages initially
    • pro: Adding content to a new page is less daunting then editing a 500+ word count page
    • pro: The initial content is self contained and wont break any other existing content on the page
    • pro: Increased amount of search topic, giving better results overall
    • con: There will be more Stubs in the beginning (resolved later)
  2. Add relevant detailed collection pages about a single topic (Amazon,Dvar,etc. / Promethean,Psynumbra,etc.)
    • pro: All the information about a Main topic is collected on a single page, instead of fragmented on the Technology, Units, Skills, etc. pages
    • pro: Trough the wanted pages new editors can easily find missing content and add it (see the red-links on Celestians)
    • con: None as far I can tell
  3. Move the single page content from step 1 to the collection pages of step 3 and leave a REDIRECT to the sub page behind.
    • pro: Less stubs
    • con: Copy pasta and redirect manual labor
  4. Transcribe the relevant article subpart to the generalized topic, with a "main template" callback. (see Celestians#Technology and Secret_technology#Celestian for an example)
    • pro: Removes duplicate information
    • pro: The "main template" will increase interlinking
    • pro: Once completed the technology pages could be locked, as they would simply be composite pages consisting of transcribed content
    • con: More <> labels in content to make the section transcribing work properly.
For the interlinking part it doesn't really matter which pages are the source and which are the transcribe target. Either way would result in cloned content from another page with a callback to the source. To me the technology pages are better as composite pages, due to the fact that they just display technology tables and don't really add other content.
Deshiba (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The Planetfall wiki is not a PDS wiki (its a PDX wiki). That's why I specifically said PDS -- I'm aware of the state of non-PDS game wikis, but one can only have so much free time on its hands.
  1. Don't see the benefit of separating points 1 and 3. Your plan is to create stubs and then copy it (and replace with redirect) them to another page where all info would end up? I don't really see how its easier then adding a new table row -- I'm a big believer of Wikipedia's stub policy (if an article is not big enough to stand on its own add it to a related article).
  2. Points 2 and 4 are a matter of perspective. I prefer it the other way as I view the change you did as fragmenting. For me tech should be with tech and transcluded from there. For you it seems to be the other way around. Again, why the split?
However, as I already mentioned, I can't be on all wikis -- I just cannot afford the time. If you feel that it is easier for you to create content this way then go ahead and do so. It simply may change at some point in the future (if at all). ~ SolSys (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Edit: I'll repeat my disclaimer from above again: I am not an AoW player. If the above way will allow you to truly contribute to the wiki in the long run I will defer to it. ~ SolSys (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright. For now I'll add content as I see fit. It really doesn't matter in what format it is now, or will be in the future. I think we can both agree that stub content is better then no content at all? I'll make sure to filter trough the short pages after the bulk of the grunt work is done.
Can I hit you up for any templates I might make to display content? Or is it better to post them on the talk pages on the main article where they'd be used?
Deshiba (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you are asking about with regards to templates (opinion, style, syntax?), but sure -- if I'll be of help I'll try. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)