Talk:Editor:Wanted Pages

Current Token

With a whopping 73 links(Current Token 37 / Token:Current Token 36), it seems obvious we could clean up a lot of our 'red' links by creating this page. In the meantime though, I'm going to go through the Special:WantedPages and clean up red links that either point to the same conceptual target in different ways, or point to a target that exists already under a different name. zEal 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have a feeling this will be one of the Short Pages mentioned below, but I can write a short and sweet page defining "Current Token," no problem. Do we want to fix the namespace first? Should I just create a new page called "Current Token" without the "Token:" namespace? Rumble 21:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going through and changing all the red links that point to the namespace version. zEal 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, Current Token is written. I find that it's a lot harder to explain clearly than you would think. Suggestions and revisions are welcome. Rumble 22:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to Lighting and Vision

This one is all the way at the bottom of the list, as it looks like a planned article that Rumble is going to write. As much as I like the title, would it be better to try to remain semantically correct(in the context of MapTool) and call it Introduction to Lights and Sights? zEal 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For purely aesthetic reasons, I think it should be Introduction to Light and Sight, but otherwise, the name change is fine - I try to make sure I use exactly the same wording that MapTool does. I don't always succeed...but I try. Rumble 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I really don't use light and sight much at all when we play, so I'm probably not the best person to write this tutorial. Is there any brave soul willing to dive in? It will be image heavy and probably laborious. Rumble 17:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand (replying to my own comment), sight/light are changing rapidly at the moment. I wonder if holding off on that one is a better idea, at least until 1.3's light stuff stabilizes. Rumble 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Short Pages

Rumble and I had a brief exchange in revision comments about if a short page like Halo is necessary given the Glossary. Instead of discussing that single article's potential, I think we would benefit more from discussing how short a page should be allowed to be. I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with short pages; although headings help a lot, they don't completely overcome the "Wall of Text" effect that a user might encounter if they were looking for a relatively short explanation of a particular concept, and all they could find were some of our (very well written) lengthier introductions/tutorials. zEal 21:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Branching and Looping Tutorial

I think something to put on the plate is an actual tutorial on branching and looping, especially with regard to using the CODE: option, because that comes up frequently on the forums and it's not particularly transparent in use. I can work on one - in fact, I have a series of macros I wrote for Dorpond that might be a perfect step-by-step (as the conversation on the forum progressed, the macros got more complex). Rumble 01:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, I had already planned on breaking up the roll options into more syntactically focused individual articles(mimicking the function articles in scope), and your idea compliments that well. I recommend you use the new roll option template I just created when writing it, you can find basic usage details on the Help:Editing page. zEal 01:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the code template, and I find that it doesn't handle an equals sign gracefully (or maybe I'm doing something wrong) - if I write {{code|myHP=30}}, I end up with {{{1}}}. However, if I put a code bit in that doesn't have an equals sign in it, it's fine. I assume that has to do with the template looking for equals signs to tell it what to place in the template. Rumble 12:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there are a few nuances(annoyances) when it comes to using templates, but most of them are easy enough to work around. The major two is that | and = are special characters within a template, so you have to use special templates to display them within another template, {{!}} and {{=}} respectively. The broken bar(pipe) normally only comes into play if you're trying to create a table within a template. This isn't a problem exclusive to our wiki, it's a problem with the way MediaWiki parses templates: Wikipedia:Template:! Wikipedia:Template:= zEal 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)