Spring talk:CategoryStructure - Revision history

Flozi: Flozi moved page Spring talk:SiteMapThoughts to Spring talk:CategoryStructure: no longer proposal but reality

2013-10-27T18:41:41Z

Flozi moved page Spring talk:SiteMapThoughts to Spring talk:CategoryStructure: no longer proposal but reality

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:41, 27 October 2013
(No difference)

Seanheron: Talk:SiteMapThoughts moved to Spring talk:SiteMapThoughts: belongs there

2009-08-22T22:12:12Z

Talk:SiteMapThoughts moved to Spring talk:SiteMapThoughts: belongs there

← Older revision	Revision as of 23:12, 22 August 2009
(No difference)

Seanheron: Reply to Athmos - still disagree

2009-08-09T14:36:12Z

Reply to Athmos - still disagree

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 9 August 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:
	I don't much care whether Games have their own site or not - that's their own problem. I don't think we should be bending the structure to accomodate some Games that wouldn't have a place otherwise, we should be thinking about what we want to present here, and in my mind, as stated above, that's the following:		I don't much care whether Games have their own site or not - that's their own problem. I don't think we should be bending the structure to accomodate some Games that wouldn't have a place otherwise, we should be thinking about what we want to present here, and in my mind, as stated above, that's the following:
	*Present Spring as an Engine (currently [[About]])		*Present Spring as an Engine (currently [[About]])
	*~~Present~~ Games that use Spring ([[Games]])		*Showcase Games that use Spring ([[Games]])
	*Enable people to install and use spring (~~[[Download]] for~~ installation~~, [[FAQ]]aka Help for usage, ??~~)		*Enable people to install and use spring ''(Though to be quite honest, on the installation side I would suggest giving more room to/highlighting individual games installers)''
	*Support improvement and work on the Engine		*Support improvement and work on the Engine
	*Support work on content and games		*Support work on content and games

	If you think there should be anything added (or removed) to/from that, I'm definitely listening.		If you think there should be anything added (or removed) to/from that, I'm definitely listening.

			Plus, I disagree that everything that has a category needs to be in the sitemap - I'd be happy with having pages that are not in the sitemap, and think that can be useful (why not have something like the "King of..." pages, if they're used, I'm fine with that, they just definitely do not go in the Sitemap). [[User:Seanheron\|Seanheron]] 14:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
			P.S.: Discussing fine points like this in the Forum seems to be spamming it up to me - if we want to keep people following the threads / interested in the Wiki-cleanup action, we can't fill them with discussions on minutae like this. (and it's just as comfertable to me).

Seanheron at 14:30, 9 August 2009

2009-08-09T14:30:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 9 August 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:

	:Well apart suggesting to do discussions in the forum (like [http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19755 HERE] when it's about the structure) as that's more comfortable imo there's not much use in arguing about every mod creating their own website. That either won't happen or they once had one nobody ever visited. That's also an argument that didn't make it when deciding about the Project Subforums which even might have worked with some easy & free stuff like the NOTA forum does it (although also here e.g. the BA forum that once existed was visited rarely at best and the main discussion happened here). So outsourcing this is no solution and so it should remain in the Wiki. With it being in the Wiki and not really fitting like in the CA-mod description or any other one it should have a category of its own (especially as it's a huge topic with lots of articles) and thus has to appear on the sitemap which is why I put it at the end of the "Help" section. - Master-Athmos		:Well apart suggesting to do discussions in the forum (like [http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19755 HERE] when it's about the structure) as that's more comfortable imo there's not much use in arguing about every mod creating their own website. That either won't happen or they once had one nobody ever visited. That's also an argument that didn't make it when deciding about the Project Subforums which even might have worked with some easy & free stuff like the NOTA forum does it (although also here e.g. the BA forum that once existed was visited rarely at best and the main discussion happened here). So outsourcing this is no solution and so it should remain in the Wiki. With it being in the Wiki and not really fitting like in the CA-mod description or any other one it should have a category of its own (especially as it's a huge topic with lots of articles) and thus has to appear on the sitemap which is why I put it at the end of the "Help" section. - Master-Athmos
			I don't much care whether Games have their own site or not - that's their own problem. I don't think we should be bending the structure to accomodate some Games that wouldn't have a place otherwise, we should be thinking about what we want to present here, and in my mind, as stated above, that's the following:
			*Present Spring as an Engine (currently [[About]])
			*Present Games that use Spring ([[Games]])
			*Enable people to install and use spring ([[Download]] for installation, [[FAQ]]aka Help for usage, ??)
			*Support improvement and work on the Engine
			*Support work on content and games

			If you think there should be anything added (or removed) to/from that, I'm definitely listening.

Master-athmos: answering

2009-08-08T21:27:17Z

answering

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 8 August 2009
Line 15:		Line 15:
	:You also shouldn't forget that the guides are a HUGE topic with very long explanations - would be a bit lame to simply trash all that work. I mean by putting it e.g. in the "Playing Spring" category it also won't be in the "public face" as you describe it but just one subcategory of many the mods/games can link to in their description... - Athmos, copied here by Sean		:You also shouldn't forget that the guides are a HUGE topic with very long explanations - would be a bit lame to simply trash all that work. I mean by putting it e.g. in the "Playing Spring" category it also won't be in the "public face" as you describe it but just one subcategory of many the mods/games can link to in their description... - Athmos, copied here by Sean
	I'm not saying they should be deleted - so it's not "trashed". But honestly, these games/mods could make their own websites to present that kind of stuff, I don't see the problem for them to be honest. So I basiclly still disagree with you on including them (the most I would think makes sense is for the Mods page to link to strategy guides - but then I wouldn't include that in the SiteMap. [[User:Seanheron\|Seanheron]] 15:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)		I'm not saying they should be deleted - so it's not "trashed". But honestly, these games/mods could make their own websites to present that kind of stuff, I don't see the problem for them to be honest. So I basiclly still disagree with you on including them (the most I would think makes sense is for the Mods page to link to strategy guides - but then I wouldn't include that in the SiteMap. [[User:Seanheron\|Seanheron]] 15:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

			:Well apart suggesting to do discussions in the forum (like [http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19755 HERE] when it's about the structure) as that's more comfortable imo there's not much use in arguing about every mod creating their own website. That either won't happen or they once had one nobody ever visited. That's also an argument that didn't make it when deciding about the Project Subforums which even might have worked with some easy & free stuff like the NOTA forum does it (although also here e.g. the BA forum that once existed was visited rarely at best and the main discussion happened here). So outsourcing this is no solution and so it should remain in the Wiki. With it being in the Wiki and not really fitting like in the CA-mod description or any other one it should have a category of its own (especially as it's a huge topic with lots of articles) and thus has to appear on the sitemap which is why I put it at the end of the "Help" section. - Master-Athmos

Seanheron: forgot signitature

2009-08-08T15:16:06Z

forgot signitature

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 8 August 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:You also shouldn't forget that the guides are a HUGE topic with very long explanations - would be a bit lame to simply trash all that work. I mean by putting it e.g. in the "Playing Spring" category it also won't be in the "public face" as you describe it but just one subcategory of many the mods/games can link to in their description... - Athmos, copied here by Sean		:You also shouldn't forget that the guides are a HUGE topic with very long explanations - would be a bit lame to simply trash all that work. I mean by putting it e.g. in the "Playing Spring" category it also won't be in the "public face" as you describe it but just one subcategory of many the mods/games can link to in their description... - Athmos, copied here by Sean
	I'm not saying they should be deleted - so it's not "trashed". But honestly, these games/mods could make their own websites to present that kind of stuff, I don't see the problem for them to be honest. So I basiclly still disagree with you on including them (the most I would think makes sense is for the Mods page to link to strategy guides - but then I wouldn't include that in the SiteMap.		I'm not saying they should be deleted - so it's not "trashed". But honestly, these games/mods could make their own websites to present that kind of stuff, I don't see the problem for them to be honest. So I basiclly still disagree with you on including them (the most I would think makes sense is for the Mods page to link to strategy guides - but then I wouldn't include that in the SiteMap. [[User:Seanheron\|Seanheron]] 15:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seanheron: still disagree

2009-08-08T15:09:54Z

still disagree

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 8 August 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:You also shouldn't forget that the guides are a HUGE topic with very long explanations - would be a bit lame to simply trash all that work. I mean by putting it e.g. in the "Playing Spring" category it also won't be in the "public face" as you describe it but just one subcategory of many the mods/games can link to in their description... - Athmos, copied here by Sean		:You also shouldn't forget that the guides are a HUGE topic with very long explanations - would be a bit lame to simply trash all that work. I mean by putting it e.g. in the "Playing Spring" category it also won't be in the "public face" as you describe it but just one subcategory of many the mods/games can link to in their description... - Athmos, copied here by Sean
			I'm not saying they should be deleted - so it's not "trashed". But honestly, these games/mods could make their own websites to present that kind of stuff, I don't see the problem for them to be honest. So I basiclly still disagree with you on including them (the most I would think makes sense is for the Mods page to link to strategy guides - but then I wouldn't include that in the SiteMap.

Seanheron: copied talk stuff here - from Forum as well

2009-08-08T15:05:59Z

copied talk stuff here - from Forum as well

New page

K, hope pretty much everything is back in - I left out the Strategy guides on purpose, because I don't think they have a place in the "public face" of the Spring site (don't care if they're hidden somewhere). The reason is, the site is about the engine - I think it makes sense to also showcase which games are using it, but explaining those games is better left to the games one homepages, that's my opinion. [[User:Seanheron|Seanheron]] 12:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a more general discussion of what should displayed by the site/sitemap ? Related to this is what should go in which of our "top-bar" pages. I would suggest:
*Present Spring as an Engine (currently [[About]])
*Present Games that use Spring ([[Games]])
*Enable people to install and use spring ([[Download]] for installation, [[FAQ]]aka Help for usage, ??)
*Support improvement and work on the Engine (is in [[Source Development]])
*Support work on content and games (This is also in [[Source Development]], but I think it should have an seperate page)

That would cover everything I think the Spring site should be about / display visibly.
I've split Engine Devving and Game creation, cause I just think it's two very seperate things (just look in the forums!). A different possible split might be: Coding <-> Artwork
:Well I see no reason why it shouldn't be there - it's an optional thing anyway. Including it won't make the Wiki's primary purpose change and that's being about Spring. But why not allowing some guides for the games? I mean the games may actually present themselves (which often also include brief guides). Considering your argumentation those pages also should be removed. That's because they imo aren't just "showcased" but quite extensively described (game dynamics, tactics and so on)...

:You also shouldn't forget that not all of the mods have a website of their own and with the new Project Subforums there's no need for them to do so (those sites have quite a danger of disappearing anyway and so they have a "safe" place for their guides). Games that have external guides (like Gundam RTS) are going to just put in an external link anyway...

:You also shouldn't forget that the guides are a HUGE topic with very long explanations - would be a bit lame to simply trash all that work. I mean by putting it e.g. in the "Playing Spring" category it also won't be in the "public face" as you describe it but just one subcategory of many the mods/games can link to in their description... - Athmos, copied here by Sean