Editing guide

[Guest]

Do you realize this is only something that affect the logical (as in mental way to organize things) side of writing fixes?

I do. But as I see you don't realize none of this will be properly discussed or considered until the new editing guide is migrated from the dev site to the main site, I'll just wait until it is.

 

It's a good argument, Mirh - I'm not saying it isn't. It was just brought up too early.

[Guest]

Is the sample article no longer included?

[Mirh 102]

Just a quick thing that come to my mind.
 
Open source should be {{++}} a positive point
Free to play should just be {{ii}} info point
 
Makes sense for you?

 

EDIT: another thought: what if DRM restrictions can be chosen? And what if DRM is present at launch but last patch removed it?

Edited August 24, 2015 by Mirh
I damn hate IPboard and its annoyances

[Faalagorn 5]

When I started following the editing guide creating a new page and saw some inconsistencies between the sample article and editing guide, I saw some differences between the two and made a thread about it in sample article's page.

 

However, I started seeing more differences and inaccuracies between the two, so I thought a forum may be a better place to discuss it.

 

I'm going to list what caught my eye, but I'll also list the things that should be fixed in both of those places, since both of them are for view only:

• "wikipedia" and "winehq" places are swapped in infobox; it's in different order in sample article's cheat sheet than it is in editing guide
• "steam appid side" parameter is missing in the sample article's cheat sheet
• square enix cloud syncying option is missing in save game cloud syncing table in sample article's cheat sheet
• API and middleware tables are missing in the sample article's cheat sheet, seems it was already mentioned before, but not answered AFAIK. They are in the base article body though and editing guide does not say anything about the tables being optional
• Sample article's cheat sheet for series pages uses {{SUBST:PAGENAME}} while the editing guide do not use it
• Sample page's "genre information" links to the now-dead Style Policy page
• links in "General information" in sample article does not match what the editing guide recommends (i.e. GOG links should be over Steam links). Editing guide does not mention nothing about the point: "If still relevant, state where bugs can be reported."
• A small discrepancy in availability type, in example GOG.com is written as Gog.com (no uppercase)
• The "Which is the 'best' version of the game to get?" under availability point is not present or explained in editing guide
• I'm a bit puzzled about the patches section in essential improvements. Editing guide is really vague about it, only saying to place "Patches (both official and unofficial)", while sample article says [only?] "Include If There is a benefit in using an older patch". For example Brigade E5 is patched to latest 1.13 version on Steam, but my retail version is not. Following what the sample article says, I should not upload a link to patch 1.13? Or should I anyway? I'm confused x.x
• Intro skip methods section is missing in sample article entirely
• The order of utilities and modifications is swapped between sample article and editing guide (patches-utilities-mods in sample article vs patches-intro skip-mods-utilities in editing guide)
• Configuration file(s) location table is missing in sample article body (not cheat sheet), and while we're at it, cheat sheet (and editing guide) says "Save game data location" while body simply "Save game location"
• Some of the newly added table options are missing the appropriate "See <something>" section and matching headers. While we're at it, should we always use "See <something>" instead of just fill the notes, or only for really long explanations? Nor sample article or editing guide explains it
• Sample article does not use the new way of treating fan translations for Spanish example
• Creative Senz3D table features "class="generic-table-notes-cell" colspan="2"|"
• "Other information" guidelines differ in sample article vs editing guide

P.S. There are other minor differences between the two, especially when it comes to the formatting of missing data in cheat sheet - for example sample page's cheat sheet fills steam id with "000000" while they are blank in editing guide. Those are less of an issue, as they will get replaced anyway and will not reflect the final page's look in any way.

[Nicereddy 109]

When I started following the editing guide creating a new page and saw some inconsistencies between the sample article and editing guide, I saw some differences between the two and made a thread about it in sample article's page.

 

However, I started seeing more differences and inaccuracies between the two, so I thought a forum may be a better place to discuss it.

 

I'm going to list what caught my eye, but I'll also list the things that should be fixed in both of those places, since both of them are for view only:

• "wikipedia" and "winehq" places are swapped in infobox; it's in different order in sample article's cheat sheet than it is in editing guide
• "steam appid side" parameter is missing in the sample article's cheat sheet
• square enix cloud syncying option is missing in save game cloud syncing table in sample article's cheat sheet
• API and middleware tables are missing in the sample article's cheat sheet, seems it was already mentioned before, but not answered AFAIK. They are in the base article body though and editing guide does not say anything about the tables being optional
• Sample article's cheat sheet for series pages uses {{SUBST:PAGENAME}} while the editing guide do not use it
• Sample page's "genre information" links to the now-dead Style Policy page
• links in "General information" in sample article does not match what the editing guide recommends (i.e. GOG links should be over Steam links). Editing guide does not mention nothing about the point: "If still relevant, state where bugs can be reported."
• A small discrepancy in availability type, in example GOG.com is written as Gog.com (no uppercase)
• The "Which is the 'best' version of the game to get?" under availability point is not present or explained in editing guide
• I'm a bit puzzled about the patches section in essential improvements. Editing guide is really vague about it, only saying to place "Patches (both official and unofficial)", while sample article says [only?] "Include If There is a benefit in using an older patch". For example Brigade E5 is patched to latest 1.13 version on Steam, but my retail version is not. Following what the sample article says, I should not upload a link to patch 1.13? Or should I anyway? I'm confused x.x
• Intro skip methods section is missing in sample article entirely
• The order of utilities and modifications is swapped between sample article and editing guide (patches-utilities-mods in sample article vs patches-intro skip-mods-utilities in editing guide)
• Configuration file(s) location table is missing in sample article body (not cheat sheet), and while we're at it, cheat sheet (and editing guide) says "Save game data location" while body simply "Save game location"
• Some of the newly added table options are missing the appropriate "See <something>" section and matching headers. While we're at it, should we always use "See <something>" instead of just fill the notes, or only for really long explanations? Nor sample article or editing guide explains it
• Sample article does not use the new way of treating fan translations for Spanish example
• Creative Senz3D table features "class="generic-table-notes-cell" colspan="2"|"
• "Other information" guidelines differ in sample article vs editing guide

P.S. There are other minor differences between the two, especially when it comes to the formatting of missing data in cheat sheet - for example sample page's cheat sheet fills steam id with "000000" while they are blank in editing guide. Those are less of an issue, as they will get replaced anyway and will not reflect the final page's look in any way.

Thank you for taking the time to give us this feedback. When you've edited the wiki for so long, you stop noticing all these small issues, good to have a new pair of eyes on it :)

[Marioysikax 89]

Speaking of inconsistency, in file upload page, there's link to PCGAmingWiki:Files article, which uses old formats and is slighlty differend overall from editing guides screenshots section. 

 

Also it seems like AA is N/A for 2D games now, even though I have been setting them to false all this time because of this thread. 

[Guest]

When I started following the editing guide creating a new page and saw some inconsistencies between the sample article and editing guide, I saw some differences between the two and made a thread about it in sample article's page.

 

However, I started seeing more differences and inaccuracies between the two, so I thought a forum may be a better place to discuss it.

You should try to not rely on the editing guide too much, some things are not entirely clear and you should decide what to do on your own for the most part anyway.

 

Could we stop doing this because it looks bad, and it makes things harder to read.

And do this instead, tanks.

[Blackbird 54]

Yeah the game prefix is useless. You are already on the game's page. What else could the DLC be for?

[ThatOneReaper 51]

When I started following the editing guide creating a new page and saw some inconsistencies between the sample article and editing guide, I saw some differences between the two and made a thread about it in sample article's page.

 

However, I started seeing more differences and inaccuracies between the two, so I thought a forum may be a better place to discuss it.

 

I'm going to list what caught my eye, but I'll also list the things that should be fixed in both of those places, since both of them are for view only:

• "wikipedia" and "winehq" places are swapped in infobox; it's in different order in sample article's cheat sheet than it is in editing guide
• "steam appid side" parameter is missing in the sample article's cheat sheet
• square enix cloud syncying option is missing in save game cloud syncing table in sample article's cheat sheet
• API and middleware tables are missing in the sample article's cheat sheet, seems it was already mentioned before, but not answered AFAIK. They are in the base article body though and editing guide does not say anything about the tables being optional
• Sample article's cheat sheet for series pages uses {{SUBST:PAGENAME}} while the editing guide do not use it
• Sample page's "genre information" links to the now-dead Style Policy page
• links in "General information" in sample article does not match what the editing guide recommends (i.e. GOG links should be over Steam links). Editing guide does not mention nothing about the point: "If still relevant, state where bugs can be reported."
• A small discrepancy in availability type, in example GOG.com is written as Gog.com (no uppercase)
• The "Which is the 'best' version of the game to get?" under availability point is not present or explained in editing guide
• I'm a bit puzzled about the patches section in essential improvements. Editing guide is really vague about it, only saying to place "Patches (both official and unofficial)", while sample article says [only?] "Include If There is a benefit in using an older patch". For example Brigade E5 is patched to latest 1.13 version on Steam, but my retail version is not. Following what the sample article says, I should not upload a link to patch 1.13? Or should I anyway? I'm confused x.x
• Intro skip methods section is missing in sample article entirely
• The order of utilities and modifications is swapped between sample article and editing guide (patches-utilities-mods in sample article vs patches-intro skip-mods-utilities in editing guide)
• Configuration file(s) location table is missing in sample article body (not cheat sheet), and while we're at it, cheat sheet (and editing guide) says "Save game data location" while body simply "Save game location"
• Some of the newly added table options are missing the appropriate "See <something>" section and matching headers. While we're at it, should we always use "See <something>" instead of just fill the notes, or only for really long explanations? Nor sample article or editing guide explains it
• Sample article does not use the new way of treating fan translations for Spanish example
• Creative Senz3D table features "class="generic-table-notes-cell" colspan="2"|"
• "Other information" guidelines differ in sample article vs editing guide

P.S. There are other minor differences between the two, especially when it comes to the formatting of missing data in cheat sheet - for example sample page's cheat sheet fills steam id with "000000" while they are blank in editing guide. Those are less of an issue, as they will get replaced anyway and will not reflect the final page's look in any way.

Thank you very much for pointing out these inconsistencies. I've fixed most of them. When I can find the time, I'll fix the more complicated ones.

 

Note that the Creative Senz3D problem is beyond my skillset right now. One of the admins will need to fix that.

 

Speaking of inconsistency, in file upload page, there's link to PCGAmingWiki:Files article, which uses old formats and is slighlty differend overall from editing guides screenshots section. 

 

Also it seems like AA is N/A for 2D games now, even though I have been setting them to false all this time because of this thread. 

The Files article guide is very much in need of updating. I'll make that my next project.

 

You should try to not rely on the editing guide too much, some things are not entirely clear and you should decide what to do on your own for the most part anyway.

 

Could we stop doing this because it looks bad, and it makes things harder to read.

And do this instead, tanks.

 

The sole reason the Editing guide and the Sample guide exist is so that you don't "decide what to do on your own for the most part anyway". It is the standard by which all edits on the wiki are held against. Everyone from new contributors to admins must follow both documents. There should be absolutely no reason why we should be telling people to disregard the guide.

 

If there is an issue regarding clarity in a particular section, just post it here. The guide is fairly malleable if given good reason to do so.

 

As for the expansion naming, the reasoning behind it is that retail expansions are complete, separate products that just so happen to require the base game to function. Digital DLC are more along the lines of plugins for games (the best description I can give on this). The naming is to distinguish between both types of expansions.

[Blackbird 54]

Hmm so this is about expansions such as Call of Duty: United Offensive? But how do you determine whether the expansion is "worthy" of the prefix? Would Deus Ex Human Revolution: Missing Link count too? It'd make the name too long.

[Guest]

I still think it's pretty pointless, it makes everything harder to read and it wraps horribly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_United_Offensive

 

Even the wikipedia page just refers to the expansion as United Offensive.

[Guest]

There's a syntax error on this page.

http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Editing_guide/Downloadable_content_%28DLC%29_and_expansions

 

A { is missing.

{DLC|--rows go here--}}

It would be useful to state that, the DLC table needs to be placed under the availability table. (I can't really word it right now, just write something about the location of the DLC table)

 

(Are tags broken for some reason?)

[Guest]

But how do you determine whether the expansion is "worthy" of the prefix? Would Deus Ex Human Revolution: Missing Link count too? It'd make the name too long.

To quote from the article:

• Retail expansions (i.e. had a physical release) should have the full name used.
  • Ex. Unreal Mission Pack 1: Return to Na Pali
• Digital expansions and addons (DLC) should have only have the sub-name used.
  • Ex. Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Revolution becomes Revolution

So the question of 'worthiness' is this: was Missing Link ever released physically (e.g. an expansion sold at retail)? If so, full name unless the standard changes. Otherwise, only the sub-name is used.

[ThatOneReaper 51]

Hmm so this is about expansions such as Call of Duty: United Offensive? But how do you determine whether the expansion is "worthy" of the prefix? Would Deus Ex Human Revolution: Missing Link count too? It'd make the name too long.

It's quite simple: If a retail (i.e. physical) copy of the expansion was made available at some point, then it gets the prefix. Otherwise, it doesn't.

 

Some examples:

 

Retail expansions: Call of Duty: United Offensive, Quake Mission Pack 1: Scourge of Armagon, Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath

Digital expansions: Deus Ex: Human Revolution - Missing Link, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare - Ascendance, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - Hearts of Stone

 

 

There's a syntax error on this page.

http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Editing_guide/Downloadable_content_%28DLC%29_and_expansions

 

A { is missing.

{DLC|--rows go here--}}

It would be useful to state that, the DLC table needs to be placed under the availability table. (I can't really word it right now, just write something about the location of the DLC table)

 

(Are tags broken for some reason?)

 

Added in the fixes, thanks for pointing it out.

[Guest]

Could the width of the name row at least be increased then? The text would still wrap pretty poorly on really long titles either way though.