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)

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)