Wiki Proofreading Mk II

[Pumpkin]

Map Style was my daily duty toward wiki.

"daily duty toward wiki"... Why does do I keep repeating this sentence over and over?

Anyway. While my poor English is improving slower than my AI War skill (I don't know if it's really a bad thing... My English teacher may have an opinion about that...), I, again, require proofreading regarding grammar.

"require proofreading regarding grammar"... I swear I don't do it intentionally (unless for "grammar"... it was too tempting)

Thanks in advance.
Oh, and additional comments about each map style is more than welcome!

[Draco18s]

"daily duty toward wiki"... Why does I keep repeating this sentence over and over?

Just as an informative:
"Why do I..."

[Mal]

Great job Pumpkin, I gave it a once over and it looks good! This is inspiring me to do some "daily duties for the wiki".

This is a great resource and very informative. Thanks again.

[Pumpkin]

So I won't make a new post each time I update the wiki.

So this one is about Hacking. Nothing fancy, just a reorganization and some redundancy hunted down.

[Aeson]

If you're updating the wiki and correcting grammar, you might want to make the following changes:

Devourer Golem description, second sentence:
Its attack power is so high that it will insta-kill most ships, but it will only attack non-mark-V ships that are both mobile and which have attack power (or are scouts).

Spire Destroyer description, second sentence:
Its primary armament is actually a shorter-range, higher-power version of that on the Spire Frigate, but it also has several hardpoints capable of mounting a variety of weapon modules.

Spire Cruiser, Spire Battleship, Spire Dreadnought, Spire Super Dreadnought descriptions, second sentence in each:
Its primary armament is a short-range, high power photon bombardment cannon designed for engagements with other large craft.


The bolded words have been corrected; the wiki pages use the contraction it's rather than the possessive its. These errors also seem to be present in game, so I'll put it in the bug tracker, too; if you're using a script to create the pages from the game files, then I'd suggest waiting to fix these

[Captain Jack]

Aeson, you should be registered to the wiki yourself, it's a shared system with the forum. If it doesn't recognize you try a password reset. Worked for me.

Pumpkin, I'm not sure if you're still making an effort on this front, but if you want feedback or editing feel free to PM me, I like to think I'm good at it.

[Pumpkin]

Pumpkin, I'm not sure if you're still making an effort on this front, but if you want feedback or editing feel free to PM me, I like to think I'm good at it.

I'm still working on the wiki, I just have no big project on the desk. Though Fallen Spire needs work (too many pages, needs a bit of merging) and the golems are in the MF page and have their own page; I don't know how to handle them but one day I'll give them some worktime.

I'll post there if I make some writing of my own; when merging and copy-pasting I don't write anything new.
If someone want to give me a bit of help, Watashiwa or someone else, please tell me what you think about FS and golems' pages.

Oh, and I would love to get rid of all that questions and make the wiki more objective, more informative and organized, but it's such a big work and I'm not sure if both the community and Arcen staff (Chris/Keith/...) would be ok.

[Captain Jack]

I'm all for those changes if it helps. It should have an FAQ section where at least some of those player questions belong. All of the non-8.0 compliant material needs to go, like the mechanics differences pre- and post-4.0. EDIT: We should make and upload a text document for the comprehensive change explanation, for the interested. It just shouldn't be on the pages proper. Changelog should remain untouched.

I think we could compress a lot of the current pages, since there isn't enough writing on individual pages to merit one for every ship type. Put all the Golems on a longer page for example, and merge fleetcraft into a basic page and grouped bonus ship pages.

Just a fair warning, once we've cleaned up the main AI War page I'm liable to switch TLF.

[Pumpkin]

I'm all for those changes if it helps. It should have an FAQ section where at least some of those player questions belong. All of the non-8.0 compliant material needs to go, like the mechanics differences pre- and post-4.0. EDIT: We should make and upload a text document for the comprehensive change explanation, for the interested. It just shouldn't be on the pages proper. Changelog should remain untouched.

I think we could compress a lot of the current pages, since there isn't enough writing on individual pages to merit one for every ship type. Put all the Golems on a longer page for example, and merge fleetcraft into a basic page and grouped bonus ship pages.

Such a big work incoming. Also, having such a responsibility when taking big decisions about the wiki... I wish someone say me "it's okay, you're in charge, do it", but the wiki belongs to the community and I feel really uncomfortable when editing the main page, for instance. I still feel guilty when I see how "my" part of the list is discordant with the rest ("game setup"), with no question-title.

I've just got an idea: I'll make a new page that will be my proposal for a new organization of the main list. Let's do this!

Just a fair warning, once we've cleaned up the main AI War page I'm liable to switch TLF.

I won't follow you in the TLF switch, sorry; I'm not that involved into this one. It's an Arcen title, so I love it (yep, that's mathematical deduction: Arcen = Love) but I don't spend as much time as I spend in AI War, and consequently I don't know all its deep secrets and strategies.

[Pumpkin]

Oh, a page for me alone that I can do whatever I want to!

And so many pages full of (outdated) shiny facts, hidden so deep in the wiki...

Ahem, I'm getting distracted.
The point is that I wish to have more facts and less strategy on the forum. I don't mean to remove strategy guides from the wiki, just put them aside and make room for facts. I just pointed out what bothered me about the titles being questions: they are subjectives advices, not objectives facts. The main page is cluttered by "how to?" and "how does X works?". So many things can be sorted out, organized into a hierarchy of topics.

I come to the wiki for facts. But I'm not the only person to visit the wiki. So, the big question is: "Should the wiki contains facts or strategy?" (and by contain, I should rather say "highlight")
What do you think? For what do you search the wiki? What do you want to be clearly listed?

[Captain Jack]

Well like I said, I'm all for the changes you're proposing, and until anyone complains we have carte blanche to do as we desire. No one else seems to be working on this in any serious capacity, so... let's go with facts and put strategy on its own page.

One thing that I don't see listed on your outline is expansion information. I think grouping content by expansions is a great organizational method, even though we can assume that most players will own every expansion due to Arcen's bundling strategy. Thus what you're talking about with FS would be split between the Light of the Spire page and the dedicated Fallen Spire critical path page. Same with Ancient Shadows and the Nebula Campaigns (wonder if we can get people to call these the Shadow Campaigns instead? Makes for a nice Babylon 5 reference) and Destroyer of Worlds and the Exodian Blade.

The "how does X work?" stuff on the main page is actually fine FAQ material, though it needs reductive editing. I'll try taking a whack at that over the weekend.

(And if you cringe when you see your edits, think about how I feel as I plan to suggest changes to the wording in AI War's tip of the day. Almost all of them.)

[Pumpkin]

Thank you, Watashiwa. Maybe all I needed was some pal to say me "Wana go? Let's go!"

However... >D
About you idea to sort things regarding expansions, I agree to you up to a point.
(My uncle once said this is the British way to say "I disagree" )
Joke aside, I think the game is complete with all the expansions. Moreover, I think that AI War is such a hate/love game that it would be unlikely to have a player with not all the expansions. However, I fell that just reminding what belongs to which expansion is enough. An expansion-based ordering would make distinctions where in the game it's all mixed and combined. IMO.
I prefer a thematic ordering, as I proposed in my personal page. And you're right, I forget to add the "what was added in expansion X" list. Though, I think it would be enough to keep this list and the occasional references like "require expansion X".

Gathering "how does X work"/"how to deal with X" topics under a FAQ would be a great idea.

I'll lack worktime this week-end, but I promise I'll dive in it as soon as possible. (Even so I may do some things this week-end)

[Captain Jack]

After a few minutes of thinking an even better idea occurred: split craft types by racial origin. Human, Zenith, Neinzul, Spire, experimental (AI).

Each expansion should get an overview similar to its store page. Explain the expansion's premise and theme, list what was added (units/music/AI behavior), and include a link to the AI War collection on Arcen's storefront. When we're talking about individual units though we need to note the expansion that has them.

[Pumpkin]

Something like that?

[Captain Jack]

Something like that?

You know, I only just found them this morning. It's odd how the unit pages have their own reference card, such that you can't even see the other two.