User talk:Meco

Structure template
Very good on the Structure Template but what about the Unit Template and all the other Templates found here? Look at the Image at To Tame a Living God to see what I mean.(Saffy Nurbs 00:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Looking through your template code it seems Template:Unit, Template:Structure, and Template:Infobox Battle all handle images differently.


 * Template:Unit


 * To pass an image to Template:Unit you just need to enter the image name, like:


 * Template:Unit always sets the image width to 200px, so size is never a problem. However, this means images less than 200px in width will be stretched and may appear fuzzy.


 * Template:Structure


 * Template:Structure works like the templates we have on the StarCraft wiki. You pass the image to the template the same way as in Template:unit, but Template:Structure uses the image's default size by default unless imgsize is set.


 * What does this mean? It means, compared to Template:Unit, images with a width less than the width of the box will appear at there normal size without being stretched. Images with a width larger than the box need imgsize to be defined, like in RA2:Vacuum Imploder.


 * Template:Infobox Battle


 * This template works completely differently, and I suspect your other battle and war boxes are similar to this one. Passing an image to the template requires the full wiki image link code, like so:


 * This also means the size of the image can be set like this:


 * You can see the template being used in this way at Battle for Ground Zero, and can apply the same thing to To Tame a Living God.


 * That should get you going on how to use images with those particular templates. Meco 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What about Template:Infobox VG? Nobody put up instructions on how to use such template as well as This one ?(Saffy Nurbs 03:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Template:Quote
We now have a quotes template and you can replace the old one with our new Template:Quote/doc template. Just read the instructions on the page to know how to use.(Saffy Nurbs 00:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

You could help replace the old quotes like this one:

"Next time I drive Tank Okay?"
 * Conscript

with new ones like this:

"Next time I drive Tank Okay?"

- Conscript

Try replacing the quotes on many pages because we got a new Template:Quote.(Saffy Nurbs 02:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

If you want to fix up the quotes template then that's fine with everyone.(Kit Cosmos 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Template:Unit
Hi there. The Template:Unit Template needs some fixing, I can't get it to show the country part.(Saffy Nurbs 01:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I think I've fixed the problem. Remember that case sensitivity tends to matter with the wiki software. - Meco (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Promotion.
Ha, thanks, but no thanks. I'm quite comfortable in assuming the sysop role. I've seen some of your contributions and I've come to the conclusion that you on the other hand, are perhaps more suitable to be a bureaucrat. I'm not that much of a computer person. Templates are as far as I can go.

If you want to, that is. AthCom 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Though I think that Mikael is a bit dead right now. D: AthCom 09:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Assignments.
I've done a few things. Though changing the stuff to Help:Contents poses a bit of a problem. It's a redirect and leads to.. Command and Conquer Wiki:How to Edit an Article. AthCom 10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I've seen that Uberfuzzy's undone something. AthCom 10:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiberium.
Okay. (= AthCom 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Charbox
So your main goal is just to make the boxes consistent and customizable. Thats all right with me. :) -Victor-195 04:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :D -Victor-195 03:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC) '''BTW I have been editing the templates and if any of you have any problems/questtions with its format or codes just put it on my talk page. '''

Factionbox
Why all the detail if some aren't even addressed in the game? --Victor-195 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Looks neat BTW!
 * Tkangaru‎ was complaining about me removing a chunk of "real world" stuff from some country articles. I told him if we wanted some place to put that sort of stuff, there'd be a place in FactionBox. I'm hoping people don't go overboard and feel they need to fill in every little field for real world countries. But if it keeps that sort of extraneous stuff out of the text it's a small price to pay. - Meco (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood!--Victor-195 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mergers
Why the hell did you merge the Tanya articles? They are entirely different people. That Furry Bastard 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Then who the hell wrote "She later moved to the U.S. and quickly became a military officer there"? And why was one article more or less a subset of the other? - Meco (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone who doesn't have a clue about the characters. Tanyas in the three RA games are different substantially. Besides, RA3 takes place in 2019 (AFAIR), so that'd make Tanya a 90 year old wheelchair-bound granny with Desert Eagles. Pages are split, will be rewritten. That Furry Bastard 09:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm
Hey I was wondering, is it possible to upload images not releated to the C&C universe to show them on user pages? CKeen


 * Uploading user images is permitted. Just not too many of them per user and be sure to categorize them into . - Meco (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Help D:
Hey, do you have Final Alert version 1.02? If yes, could you please give me the link? I'm looking for it from about a hour... I have version 1.01 and I wanted to update it. CKeen

Sorry, I don't mod or create missions. - Meco (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also
If you have the powers to do so, on the sidebar can you please change the Red Alert 2 link located below "Tiberian Universe" and above "Generals" into Red Alert Universe and do the same for "Generals"?--Victor-195 06:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks
BTW can I change the main page to this? "User:Victor-195/Test"--Victor-195 03:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC) It is a lot more organized in code and matches the interface. :D

Permission Required
Can I add another field for the Template:FactionBox that displays an image of the Faction's insignia?--Victor-195 05:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I imagined that's what the existing image field was for. Is there something else you had in mind for the image field? - Meco (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Faction's flag. (its different in some cases)--Victor-195 05:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How different are we talking about here? (Links to examples would be good. ) - Meco (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Like such:

--Victor-195 01:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can get away with just the flag here. I don't see this insignia as holding equal or superior precedence to the flag or containing anything the flag does not. - Meco (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Use the Forum
Don't worry I found out how to make the polls "auto fit" properly and I think it would be better if the poll was still in the main page just for the sake of convenience. Thanks for the image size notification. I'll do it over. :D --Victor-195 08:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ps Try to use the shoutbox widget please, I'm trying to promote people into doing so)

BTW
Do you know why there is a gap in the main page? If you do can you please remove it? Thanks! (:D --Victor-195 08:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Which gap? - Meco (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you use Ad Block? That would cause gaps where ad's should be Dd7900 18:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conscript article
Hey, working on the conscript article, you wrote "Technical skills, such as marksmanship, merited relatively little time in comparison." Comparison to what? Just wanna know what you meant to compare it to before I finished... --PlaidBaron 18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Compared to the theoretical component. In retrospect it may have been clearer if that sentence had been written: "By comparison, technical skills, such as marksmanship, merited relatively little time." - Meco (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That line works much better, I'll add that instead. --PlaidBaron

...?
Hey I haven't visited the wiki in some time, I saw in the logs about the latest modified page that you modified my user page, so I went to see what was modified and I saw the picture area is messed up. Do you know what happened? CKeen


 * I merely put  around the Infobox character template code because that template no longer exists. If you still want the infobox, convert it to CharBox. - Meco (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. CKeen

Images
Well as for the image, I would like to use official images as well but when we don't have them I think it's best to use fan made models. Let's consider two things: A Path Beyond is almost like an official C&C game, it was even sponsored by EA games and appeared in the Command & Conquer TV. As for the Mobile Repair Vehicle in the image there is also the logo of Command & Conquer Reborn which indicates the image was taken from there. Now I was also planning to insert a fan made model for the Grizzly tank. I'll see if I can modify the image description to specify where I took it from anyways. Thanks for the info.


 * No, no, put the notice in the file's description, not on the article talk page. A File has an "edit" function too. And please remember to use descriptive file names. A random jumble of numbers is definitely not acceptable. :)
 * I don't think we can use the Grizzly tank image. I think that one goes under "too much fan interpretation". - Meco (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And another note: if we record the source in the File description we can crop the images. For example, if you had something like the Grizzly image we'd just want the left tank and nothing else. - Meco (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll update the grizzly image then (with a better name). Yeah sorry about the Discussion thing but I couldn't find a way to add a comment the image that I uploaded already. Sorry for all the trouble. CKeen

Adminship
Allright, you're a sysop now. I'd like to request a few things, though. One, try not to destroy our previous hard work - we might not be the best coders, but we tried to include as much information as possible. No fact is irrelevant, if it somehow expands our understanding of the universe. Two, leave some real-life information in the articles, I added a paragraph or two where applicable to build a sort of context, to truly create that alternative timeline. Third, have fun, I will rejoin the wiki whenever I replay the C&C titles (and I do that often) :) http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 07:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Template conversion
Hi. I'm terribly sorry, but I don't quite understand what the message you left on my talk page meant. I assume you mean that some image will require resizing when moved to new templates, but I would just like to make sure. Sorry for anyy inconveniance, --EightyOne (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now, thank you for your help! I'll get started later today, I'm trying to do edits in blocks of 30-40 to minimise disruption of recent changes. Thanks, --EightyOne (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm
It says you left a message on my page but... I don't see it...
 * I didn't leave a message. I was eliminating red link. Check the edit history for your talk page, sometimes I leave rationales. If that doesn't work, compare revisions: that usually reveals the method behind the madness. And remember to sign your talk posts. - Meco (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Question of Red Alert
Red Alert is the C&C0 of the franchise, it was always treated as such by Westwood Studios. We follow the the "earlier work overrides the later" method, also used at the Vault, the Fallout wiki. Besides, there's nothing in the games that contradicts such an approach. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 16:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For organizational purposes it is far clearer to make a note where things split in a RA1 article because RA1 is also the basis for the RA universe. - Meco (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

New pages
Hey how is it going? Some time ago I noticed that someone uploaded a screenshot of Yuri's Bio Reactor and today I noticed there isn't a page about that. How do I find the bio reactor image again? So I can make a page about it and if neeeded also about other Yuri buildings. CKeen


 * Well, I got lucky. It looks like I categorized the image in question and, from there, found the article. Yet another reminder how much work needs to be done on the images front (categorization/renaming/etc..) -sigh-.


 * In future, you can try searching through Special:NewFiles (time intensive), Special:ListFiles or Category:Images (hopefully the file has a moderately descriptive name). - Meco (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Skin Idea
Don't worry about if the new skin will be user friendly. The only thing I will change are the backgrounds, colors and such (meaning no messing around with how the system works) And I'm thinking of making the interface a bit darker so it doesn't hurt people's eyes as much while making it look CnCish. --Victor-195 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Futuretech
I see there are two pages about futuretech, and I think one of them is pretty much useless (FutureTech Corporation). Shall I merge the two pages together or leave everything as it is? BTW, I got screenshots of most of RA3/Uprising campaign buildings (I think the only ones that are left are the Yuriko campaign things, the japanese buildings in the allied mission where you bomb japan, and Kenji/Shinzo palaces). Shall I create pages for each building or insert the screenshots into the mission pages? CKeen
 * I'll look into the FutureTech/Future-Tech articles. For now, just add the screenshots to the mission articles. Use Template:UnitBox, we're switching over all unit/structure templates to it. - Meco (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll make a page for the more important structures/units and put the less important ones (like the communication center of red alert 3) in the mission pages.

Quotes
Yeah I know... But for example the Light Infantry quote is "Infantry Reporting!" which is not that different. I was just thinking "Hey, someone like Volkov needs a quote!" but quotes like "Yessir?", "Affirmative", "Of course", or "Comrade?" weren't definitively acceptable. I however thought that "Reporting!" sounded good enough for a quote. (the red alert 1 sound itself is quite cool actually). I think it could stay, also because there's nothing better to put here, and I think a quote is always welcome.

Talking about quotes, I should watch the RA2 movies again and add some quotes from Romanov, Yuri and the likes (because I see there are many quotes from red alert 3 videos but none from red alert 2) CKeen


 * Then remove frivolous quotations. I have been doing so when rewriting articles. - Meco (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much the only one I found, and I think it's okay since there's really nothing better to put there. I've replaced/added some before, but most of them are good. CKeen

Images
No problem, I also updated the Defender VX and the Wave-force tower. I have one problem though, I can't seem to get some of the images to have a good quality. For example, the Defender VX screenshot is of good quality but the website broadens it too much and I can't seem to fix it... I've had problems before with JPGs since they always reduced the quality of the image, that's why I always used PNGs... CKeen
 * This is one of the reasons why we are replacing all of the old unit/structure template infoboxes with Template:UnitBox. Use UnitBox's imgsize field to fix the problem. - Meco (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

LOLWUT
Nod campaign for red alert 3: uprising? :D BTW I think the soviet campaign is canonical, as it doesn't influence the Allied campaign at all. I think the only non-canonical campaign in Uprising is the imperial one: even the Yuriko one is canonical... CKeen

Uncommitted System Operators
Hey Meco. I understand that you are a bureaucrat thus you have control over other system operators and administrators. This user User:Simongoldring has only made few edits and the last time he logged on was 06:07, 31 December 2005 (according to the site statistics) yet he is still a system operator. I am unsure if this user will ever log back on again. I know that there are probably more valuable users that might better fit the position as a system operator than those types of admins (with all due respect to them) and I am suggesting that (if possible) you relieve them of their position for the better progress of this Wiki. --Victor-195 08:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Red Alert 1" tag
It's unnecessary. Red Alert is all that's needed. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply
This is not Wikipedia, this is a fan Wiki. Any style guidelines at WP are of no importance, the articles should be informative AND look good, not be just informative. Trim down articles, but with reason, arbitrarily cutting out 95% of it just because you don't like it is not reasonable. We are not bound by anything here, especially not [reference needed] tags. If an unit is capable of bringing down entire bases alone, it is, essentially, an ultimate in-game weapon.

Second, terminology. Links wiki-wide refer to Red Alert as Great World War II, to separate it from WWII of our timeline and basing off of the name of the First World War, also known as the Great War or Great World War.

Last, in-universe was abolished by me some time ago, it became too hard to write. Presently, it should be a mix between in-universe (description of the unit, it's effectiveness) and RL info (everything else), kind of like in the Mendoza article. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That it is a fan wiki makes no difference; it should still strive to be as well written and organized as possible. I do not deny that it's going to take a lot of work whipping the wiki into shape, I said that at the very beginning when I got started. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. This has everything to do with making the information as accessible as possible, something that wiki falls far short in achieving.

As for referencing, that's a labour saving tool. Not everybody remembers where every detail came from. It also helps weed out speculation and fan fiction. Otherwise this may as well be the CnC fanon wiki.

Contrary to what you may think, I have not been "arbitrarily" condensing. If so I have been "arbitrarily" condensing articles in exactly the same way, in which case no doubt you will want to revert them back to the inferior forms they were in before. If there was more information to add, like in Volkov, I did if I knew of it. If not, I left it in the initial condensed form. In the case of the destroyer, there was nothing more to add except cruft, which was what I removed.

If you are going to insist on re-adding cruft, then say so now and I will let the wiki be. Improvement means work, and it would be pointless for me to keep making those improvements only to have them wiped out.

Moving on, as for the world wars naming scheme: an institutionalized bad practice just means it needs work to be changed. You may not realize it but the current naming scheme is not scalable. With already three Third World Wars, and three Second Word Wars, it can only become more ridiculous to add more arbitrary identifiers with each new repeat.

Actually, the Mendoza article is along the lines of what I want to achieve: in-universe sections separated from out-of-universe sections. My concern with the war naming scheme was they could be more "in-universe" than they already are, and use a more standardized scheme. Saying that, it seems the cruiser revert violates what you want by mixing in-universe and out-of-universe in the same section (something I had fixed). - Meco (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that, on a fan wiki, cruft is everything (M'Atra, how I hate that term), at least according to Wikipedia. I do not deny that some articles may be a bit bloated, however, I am against condensing them to the point where from a two paragraph article it becomes a two sentence paragraph. Optimizing, yes, deleting, no. I'm not saying that the two reverted articles are great, merely that some cruft, within reasonable limits (e.g. Mendoza) is acceptable. I'll show what I mean by rewriting the Destroyer article. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 08:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology
Oh yeah and, uh, sorry for being an ass, I'm going through some hard times and I have the habit of taking it out on innocents. After all, you just want to help. So, sorry again for my attitude, let's make it the best dang C&C resource on the web :) http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 06:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If things went a little awry then I'm also responsible and I apologize for that. - Meco (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You Ruined My Account
You need to fix my account because it is broken thanks to you. My info is not showing except as restore my account. User:Premier Solivoda 11:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting images
Don't delete images before fixing the articles that use them. Leave a redirect when moving images., the wiki automatically forwards them. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

1deano1
ok i'll bear that in mind

(still trying to get the hang of this wikia thing) User:1deano1


 * No problem. You'll find different wikis have different policies. Some, like Halopedia, allow both British and American English. Other wikis insist on being more consistent and prefer one. Also be sure to sign your talk page posts with ~ . It helps everyone keep track of who's saying what. Cheers! - Meco (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, my mistake
http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Artemis_Precison_Bomber. CKeen
 * We have a template for this sort of thing. :) - Meco (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Image moving
Please, for the love of god, check whether or not images that you move are used in articles and if they are, either correct the articles or leave an image redirect in place if you CBA to do it. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think I don't know the B-3 image is in use, and what makes you think I'm not working on it? - Meco (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't taken the 20 seconds needed to correct the link in the page. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 16:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Which I may as well couple with the overhaul of the page. - Meco (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why
I see in many, I mean many pages (raging from heavy tank to tank destroyer) you removed about the 70% of information present on it. Why? Seriously, I think this wiki needs to improve, and I don't think removing useful information about units improves it. CKeen


 * I take you have not considered that I may have been removing speculation and fanon? I also take you have not been considering the questions, when adding content and claims, "how do I know this?", "what is the source?", "is this the only interpretation?" I take you have also not been considering that gameplay mechanics may not make good "in-universe" exposition, and are probably best put in the game play section? - Meco (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But if removing fanon sections means deleting the 80% of the information present in a page then it'd better stay there. Besides, I don't see what was so "fanon" about my canceled modifications, just to mention one. I really don't understand all this hate towards fanon - this is probably the only wiki to refuse it. I think it is too attached to the "events are threated as if they were real" attitude. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of threating things as if they were real, but hell, there isn't even a page about Frank Klepaci, the one who composed the music for most C&C games, and the page about Westwood Studios should be bigger than the one on Wikipedia. Even the inclusion of Sole Survivor wasn't seen as a good thing apparently because "it doesn't have a plot" and therefore "it is not canonical to the C&C Universe". Personally I think every little additional word is essential to the survival of this wiki, and it doesn't really matter if that is not written in some official text or something. The bigger it is, the better it is. In my point of view every unit page should be similar to this one. It has the basic information about the unit, size, firepower, etc, plus the tactics on how to use it and how to defeat it, and also the history of the unit (When was its first deployment on the battlefield, etc). The only thing that page lacks is probably this:

(Of course with the overlord data on it). I would enhance as many unit pages as possible, but if my additions end up being deleted because considered to be "fanon" (for reasons I still don't understand), then I don't see the point in doing it. CKeen

Size does not equal quality. Quality is determined by accuracy of information and smoothness of presentation. None of this requires fanon/speculation. Look at it this way: when somebody needs info on the C&C universe to base their fanon on, this is where we want them to come. We don't want to be inadvertently, or otherwise, foisting our own/somebody else's fanon on them.

The survival of a wiki, any wiki, is based on whether people can trust it as a source. Right now, there is no such trust. It is not a good sign when people can say "the wiki is untrustworthy" and get away with it. You have not seen this opinion pop up about the C&C wiki on forums? I have. It has happened at least three times this month, twice on the official C&C forums (by the same person), and once on another who rightfully pointed out that an unsourced bit of info was useless to him.

What I want to see is somebody say "the wiki is untrustworthy", and another person be able to counter with "wiki says it got it from here and it's right". The C&C wiki has a long way to go before it becomes a reliable source, vigilant against fanon and speculation, and appropriately fortified with references.

If you want to see where such a philosophy works, look no farther than the StarCraft Wiki. Like the C&C wiki it has few contributors (always has, really), but the quality is significantly higher. (Well, at least the lore parts. The whole gameplay/strategy angle is still a mess, but that's because such things are nearly impossible to source and everybody has an opinion on how best to use something. This is a problem shared by C&C as well.) And no, the SC Wiki is not dying.

It is my desire to see the C&C Wiki elevated to the same quality as the StarCraft Wiki, instead of continuing to be a miniature version of Halopedia, which is a mess. I accept that this is going to be the work of years, made worse by the inevitable release of more C&C products. We will be struggling to fix things even as we wage a parallel war to incorporate new content. But it must be done. Failure to do so merely perpetuates the wiki's current state of untrustworthiness, and from there it is not far distant to irrelevance.

On the other note, I don't see anything wrong with articles on major C&C personalities, like Kucan and company, or other real-world C&C related objects, like Sole Survivor and that sort of thing. But I imagine they wouldn't have much in them since a link to Wikipedia would cover most of it. We are, after all, not here to provide a comprehensive life-to-death biography of, say, every notable Westwood employee. Just saying what their significance to C&C would be appropriate. - Meco (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I've received praise for the wiki's style and contents. Isolated forum posts are not a reliable reference for gauging the rating of the Wiki. Put up a poll on the frontpage and instead of liberally deleting everything you deem non-canon, make liberal use of the Template:Sources, noting that should the contents be not fixed in, say, a week or so, they will be deleted.


 * That and I still don't like forcing your standards down everyone elses throats. And focusing on minor issues (images) instead of major ones (content).


 * I've also checked statistics and, well, your theory doesn't quite fit. Since November 2008 (eight months) our content pages jumped from 378,000 pageviews to 650,000 pageviews. If we were really considered untrustworthy, then the amount of pageviews would be decreasing steadily, not increasing by 60%.


 * Last, I understand you love your wiki, but really, The Vault is of much, much better quality. And has 30 milion pageviews monthly. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 20:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am no concerned about the normal user who, frankly, would simply say "wiki says this" and take it as gospel. I am not concerned about page views since this is a matter of advertising (this is one of the major reasons Wikia changed to the latest skin, to attract more views.) I am concerned about more discerning users, because if we can satisfy those then we know we've done a good job across the board.

What is wrong with attempting to attack multiple issues at once? Images, contents, categorization, etc..? All of these must be dealt with, and ideally, they would be dealt with simultaneously to save time.

According to the Wikia Statistics page, Oct. 2008 was 534 k, Nov. 2008, was 773 k, June 2009 was 632 k. But as I said, I am not concerned with the numbers.

Template:Sources isn't a bad idea, but a bit broad in mandate. One that adds inline "citation needed" notices would be better because we can then indicate specifically what is in question. I am working to compile a list of references for general use to make reference implementation easier for everybody.

As for the Fallout Wiki, not knowing what goes on over there, I trust they have a robust system of referencing and auditing. Referencing for an RPG must be interesting given how events may change depending on quest results. - Meco (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I sound hostile, but I must stress that you look objectively at the matter. The Vault references what needs to be referenced, such as more obscure facts or what most people don't believe is true (such as Vault City getting Uranium from Broken Hills, it's a single reference in a single dialogue file I digged up), striking the best middle ground between totally unsourced articles and Wikipedia's obssessive adding of citation to absolutely everything.
 * More discerning users are a problem, though, since C&C doesn't have set canon and is full of contradicting information. I can bet the person complaining about the wiki was [CNC]Cypher, the famed author of the first synopsis of the Tiberian universe storyline up to Firestorm... one that involves a lot of fanon added on his part. He will never be satisfied, as he doesn't consider the Wiki as a viable method of compiling a compendium of C&C lore.
 * Our objective should be thus - create a robust, easily used referencing system, reference what we can, agree on the canon policies and fix navigational issues before C&C4 hits, when we will see a surge of activity.
 * I will work on the Sources template a bit more, to provide a variable for adding issues that need to fixed in the disputed section. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 10:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)