Partner


Eve Billionaire

The richest Eve Online player finally breaks his silence and reveals all his strategies to make billions of ISK effortlessly in this guide. Read how to duplicate his methods today. Stop flying around broke not knowing what to do and start using PROVEN strategies to get rich in Eve Online!

Sponsor


Eve Online Guide

If you want to make over 200 million ISK per hour, increase your winning odds in PvP encounters, and come up with the best ship fitting strategy, then this set of EVE guides. should not be missed out on. The comprehensive coverage of EVE Online makes the guides essential for staying one step ahead of other players.


EVEWiki talk:Galactic University

From EVEWiki

Jump to: navigation, search


This is a general discussion page, for any topics related to the wiki.

For in-game chat, there are two in-game channels defined: EVEWIKI, and EVE-Wiki. Remember, though, that in game chat is not accessible to all editors, and is limited to those present at the time.

This page is dedicated to discussion about the wiki itself. A second page, EVEWiki talk:Spaceport Bar and Grill is for discussions about the game.

These pages will be archived when they get too long for comfort.

Contents

Intro

Y'know? I just thought there should be pages mimicing WowWiki's Village Pump... --Eirik Ratcatcher 10:22, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

singular versus plural

One thing I've noticed as I go through pages on eve-wiki is that the plural of a word seems more popular than the singular for page titles. For example, Cruiser redirects to Cruisers, there is no Blaster but there is a Blasters, etc.

This runs counter to my expectations on a wiki, where the singular seems to be privileged over the plural for a page title, except in obvious exception cases. (So, you wouldn't have a page for "Green Acre" but "Green Acres" when talking about the TV show.) Should I start changing this when I come across it?--Scrotch 18:42, 14 April 2008 (PDT)

There are good points both ways.
  1. a page with a plural name indicates it is talking about the varieties of that designation. (a catalog)
  2. a page with a singular name indicates it is describing the designation itself. (a definition)
I don't think we really have enough content for both pages to make sense as separate items.
The example that pops to mind is ship type pages (Cruisers, Destroyers). And the singular for these cases redirects to the plural. Helpful (redirect) hindrance ('page exists'...).
There's enough other things that aren't written up at all, or that I feel need rewriting more desperately, that it wouldn't be on my plate. If it bothers you a lot, then perhaps you should change it. But you'd probably be rewriting the articles, to some extent to accommodate that change in perspective. --Eirik Ratcatcher 12:40, 16 April 2008 (PDT)
I mostly was bringing it up as something to fix when you or I or anyone runs across it, I don't see the point right now in starting a project dedicated to renaming pages with singular titles to plural or vice versa. But if anyone is aware of a policy I would like to know what it is. For example if I create a page about what the various categories of Tech 2 frigates (which I probably won't but it serves for an example) then I would want to know whether to title it "Tech 2 frigate" or "Tech 2 frigates". I can see it going either way, since the page is going to go through a number of types of Tech 2 frigates it could be plural, but then again it is also in some way a page that defines what a Tech 2 frigate is, so it could be singular.
I agree that in certain cases we want to turn to one or the other no matter what the general policy is. For example, the Gallente ships page that I've been working on makes more sense as plural, but a page like "World Collide (mission)" wouldn't make sense as "Worlds Collide (missions)" even if you take into account that several people might be working on it at the same time.
Anyway, if there's no policy then I'll start moving pages that are definitional (answering questions like "What is a hybrid weapon?") to singular page titles and pages that are categorical (answering questions like "What are the objects in the category 'Amarr ships'?") to plural page titles, probably just by using the built-in move page functionality to automatically set up redirects and then put out fires as I see them. But I won't start for at least a week or so, and even then only as I come across them. I guess I have to say it does sort of bug me, seems like one of those base-line things that you want on a firm foundation before you start adding on top of it.-Scrotch 17:00, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm in favor of singular. Drone e.g. The skillbook is called Drones so the thing it allows must be singular. The same works for Destroyers(Skill) vs Destroyer(shiptype). If the shiptype were called "Destroyers" then the skill would have no home. BTW, I already moved Blasters to Blaster - Pesi 02:43, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
Those sort of thing are why disambiguation links/pages are so useful... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 12:02, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
Rereading your comment, Destroyers (skill) and Destroyers (shiptype) are both valid -and different- page names. Perhaps you were not including the '(skill)' and '(shiptype)' in the page name itself? If so, you might refer to a number of pages where we do in fact disambig the skill page with a description. --Eirik Ratcatcher 12:07, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
Well to be honest I'd like to see "_(skill)" added to the end of each skill out there, just for disambiguation purposes. It seems like most of the skills out there that have the same name as something else already have this implemented, except for maybe a few that use "(skillbook)" instead. But this would probably be folded into a project-level task. On a side note, I redid the Skills page to be a master list of all skills in-game, but the only ones I could check were the ones that were in the marketplace in the region in Gallente space I happened to be at. If anyone wants to look through this and add skills (or notes like "obsolete" and "unavailable") as they see them, that would be cool.--Scrotch 15:16, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I'll be changing "_(skillbook)" -> "_(skill)" in the progress of things. I'd rather not simply append it to all skills without having a disambiguation page out there. Or at least a policy on "who gets the disambiguated name".

On other fronts: I do not currently have an active account. (Though I do have an active petition, and got nowhere with bug hunting.) I am thus unable to verify things "live". Mostly, I've been reformatting, and scraping other sites and forums for information. --Eirik Ratcatcher 10:28, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm strongly in favor of naming the articles on the items the same as the skill name. So if the skill is called Destroyers (skill) the article on destroyers is Destroyers that way we stay in line with CCP naming conventions and {{dablink|For details on the skill, see [[{{PAGENAME}} (skill)]]}} works properly. Uni Zueto 16:10, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
Ah I didn't realize there were CCP naming conventions codified. Could you point me to them?--Scrotch 16:27, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
'Destroyers' is the name of the skill set by CCP and so the article on the ships would be Destroyers and the skill Destroyers (skill). The factional ship skills are singular as in Amarr Battleship or Gallente Dreadnought but the article Dreadnoughts is still plural since it referes to all four factional dreadnoughts. Eve-wiki has a history of defaulting on the plural when it discusses ships no matter what other wiki's do so to avoid a great deal more page moves and time let's stick with plural page defaults at least for ships. As for Blaster I agree it should be singular because the skill is Small Hybrid Turret which is also singular. Uni Zueto 16:34, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
CCP is inconsistant on one ship skill: Mining Barge (skill) instead of Mining Barges (skill. I'm leaving it Mining Barges unless theres a consensus otherwise. Uni Zueto 18:50, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
Alright that sounds reasonable. The only concern I have would be that we are making an exception that might not be readily apparent to a new visitor to the wiki, as it means that page titles are in these cases are generally dependent on a secondary distinction (skill names).
To make sure I have it straight: In general singular forms of the page's topic are preferred for a page name (e.g. "Blaster", "Ship", "Faction", "Miner II") except when the page topic is a ship type (e.g. "Destroyers", "Assault Ships", "Carriers") or the page topic is plural, as in a list (e.g. "Skills", "Caldari ships").
Sound good?--Scrotch 20:25, 10 May 2008 (PDT)
I think the easiest way to name them would be to use the EVE Online market categories so Blasters would be an article about the small, medium, large and xlarge blasters including tables from the market database. That way Mining Barges is the right article name from the market database. Use the market as our naming guide that way there's no argument over which name to settle upon. I use the markets extensively so this idea comes naturally to me. Uni Zueto 20:39, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

I guess there are two primary concerns I have with pages tending to plural spellings, one technical and one...epistemological, maybe. The technical concern is simply that when editing pages, when given the choice between these two options when setting up links to other pages:

[[blaster]] and [[blaster]]s
or
[[blasters|blaster]] and [[blasters]]

This is a non-issue since we can just type: [[blaster]] and [[blasters]] because we will always redirect the singular to the plural article. This is what's been done on most of the modules and ship pages that are currently in Eve-wiki and converting away from the Eve market database guidleines will take extra work. Uni Zueto 06:43, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
With all due respect, I don't consider this to be a non-issue. A good number of the pages I come across on the wiki have few or no links; an easy project when someone has a few spare minutes is to go through and format them into wiki style, including linking significant terms. When I do so, I prefer to set up links that go directly to the page in question, I consider using redirects to be a necessary evil but one that can and should be kept to a minimum...like training wheels on a bicycle, in a sense.
It's impossible to say where the wiki will go; although today it's only close to 2000 pages, there's no way to say whether six months from now it won't have ten times than that many, and 50 times that number in a year. Eventually it is quite likely that the wiki is going to start drawing significant resources from the hosting servers, if it doesn't already. Implementing good procedures such as minimizing server usage caused by referencing redirect pages could turn out to have a measurable effect down the road, not to mention making pages look cleaner when they do load (no unnecessary "Redirected from..." text at the top) and keeping the wiki code as unified as possible.
Finally, converting a page from plural to singular not only involves a rather minimal time factor (it can be done in under a minute, generally, even if the destination page already exists) but it also gives the mover a good excuse to spend some time cleaning up the page if they are able. And many of the pages that could be moved could also use a good scrubbing. ;) --Scrotch 02:10, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
I'm not sure how much overhead having a redirect reference in each page will cause but it never was a consideration in any of the other Wiki's I've worked on. If the server gets bogged down then it will need upgrading. Uni Zueto 10:45, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
As for converting pages to singular, this seems to be your pet peev and goes against the editing trends dominant on this Wiki and the naming conventions setup by CCP in their Market Database. If you can get the majority of the admins and editors to support the singular policy then it will become consensus but as it stands plural names like Blasters and Rails are the norm typified from the oldest pages on here. Uni Zueto 10:45, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
Finally you are making serious numbers of improper page moves losing the editing history of the pages and will amount to a great deal of work for an admin to restore those pages to their original form if the consensus is against the singular format. Uni Zueto 11:01, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

I'm going to prefer the first. It's just far simpler (fewer keystrokes and brainpower used) to set pages up as the singular option, and then add a suffix to the link if the text demands plural usage. As far as I can tell, this is an inherent design decision of the mediawiki software. If it treated redirects less as pointers and more as mirrors, then it wouldn't matter (and might even favor plural page names) but as it is I think it's more efficient in the grand scheme of things to favor singular page names except for page subjects that are themselves plurals.

(alright something has come up and I don't have time to get to the other reason right now, but I should be able to in a short while.)--Scrotch 20:39, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

(continuing...)

The other reason I guess has to do with the expectations of the average user I imagine visiting the site, who may or may not be interested in editing them. As I mentioned above, there are two fundamental types of pages that I see in this (or any other) wiki: definitional (answering "What is (an) X?") and categorical (answering "What sort of things are in category Y?"). I think that when people do a search, or casually edit a page, to answer the first sort of question, they will tend to go toward singular usage for definitional situations, and plural usage for categorical situations -- at least, I do, and I expect other users are similar. For any definitional page, therefore, I would strongly urge that singular usage is used for the page title, and for categorical pages I would similarly urge that plural usage is used for the same.

(In case I haven't adequately explained what I mean by the difference between definitional and categorical pages, essentially what I mean is that if the page is largely a list of some group of objects or concepts -- if you add "List of" to the name of the page and that describes the bulk of the page -- then it is probably a categorical page. If the page tries to explain what an object, concept, etc., is, and in a way that is more than just stating common attributes of its subject, then even if it includes a list in this explananation the page is probably definitional.)

Although I completely understand that the in-game market categories are incredibly helpful guides for how to organize the information in the wiki, and I've started looking to this structure as I set up or modify pages for various categories of ship equipment (see for example mining laser) but at the same time I'm concerned that sticking exclusively to that schema is going to impair us making the best EVE wiki we can.--Scrotch 17:20, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Almost everyone who uses eve-wiki will be an Eve Online player and be assumed to use the markets to purchase equipment or look up loot drops every day they play. The Eve market database should be familiar to all our readers. If they look up items on the Eve website they will see Railguns and Blasters shown; not Railgun and Blaster. I wouldn't start making a major shift in the singular-plural naming convention until you get majority of admins and major contributors convinced. Moving the eve-wiki name space away from the very specific naming conventions already created on the Eve Item Database will just create confusion and draw critricism from Battleclinic and other fan-sites. Uni Zueto 06:43, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
These kind of decisions are made on Wikipedia by the most common usage of the word. In Eve pilots talk about turrets not turret because all combat ships have more than 1 turret and they fit those ships with a set of blasters not a single blaster. Blasters come in many flavors so an article about them will contain a list of at least 12 types. Newbs would only use a single mining laser serious miners use mining Lasers on their ships. The Help chat channel might be a good source for usage. Searching on Eve Online forums blaster versus blasters turns up 5 pages for each search so usage by that measure is split. Uni Zueto 12:01, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
Fair enough. RL has gotten more complicated than I would like lately so I'm going to have to take a short vacation from wiki editing for a while, but I hope to get back to it soon.--Scrotch 01:40, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

Renewing the debate

A primary complaint I have against plural-named pages is wiki formatting: [[blaster]]s vs [[blasters|blaster]]. I dislike making links to pages that redirect. --Eirik Ratcatcher 09:36, 18 July 2008 (PDT)

I agree with you that linking to plural-named pages is annoying. I personally am a fan of singular article names. I think the policy should be to make singular-named pages with redirects from the plural-named pages. But this is my bias coming from Wikipedia speaking, as that's how it is done there. Doing it this way satisfies everyone as you can link to blaster and blasters without much of a trouble or cost to the server. Meta Tinara 11:03, 18 July 2008 (PDT)

skill pages

Best of luck with the petition, although from what I hear CCP is pretty slow on responding to petitions. If you need something looked up in-game, post here or on my talk page and I'll do what I can. (Also I hesitate to mention it, but...free trial account? Might be a EULA violation though, I dunno.) And the eve-online.com item database is a pretty good place for verifying basic info, although there are strange and widespread omissions that I've found (and you probably know about it already).

As far as the skill pages, I agree that waiting on a policy before widespread renaming is the best course of action. But I don't even know where a policy might be proposed.--Scrotch 14:21, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Yep, free trial account. Singular. Like what is offered at the top here. Unless they direct me to open a second one for testing purposes (as easier than simply extending the original account), I don't intend to. And the petition has gotten the same GM twice, something that my bug report never did. Familiarity with a case has positive points.
I only know about some omissions; some T2 ships/skills and such. I sympathize with the earlier poster of skill costs, in that I find the prices on the web site usually 10% over what I encounter in-game. I've used the web site prices on the theory that those in-game "from NPC vendor" prices might have a built-in faction cost reduction. IE if a Minmatar wandered over to Amarr territory, perhaps he'd be charged more.
EVEWiki:Policy and {{Proposed_policy}}? To be honest, I think there's fewer than a dozen people actively editing this wiki. Which would still be about 10 more than can be easily herded... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 11:09, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

ammunition, module pages

So I'm reaching the end of the faction page rewrites (just Caldari and ORE left) and am considering my next project. I left a note on the Ammunition talk page basically saying that it was kind of long and maybe went into too much detail for its topic, and could be split into different pages each describing a particular kind of ammo (and missiles seem different enough anyway that they seem to deserve their own pages...plus there are some kinds of "ammo" that don't even have a single word written about them...etc...).

But nobody has commented, so I thought that I'd mention it here. And also the module page covers a lot of ground, it might be a candidate for splitting some of it into a separate page. Thoughts?--Scrotch 19:30, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

I feel pages like Ammunition, and Electronic Warfare (equipment), would do well as "introduction to the concept" pages, than as "all your data is here" pages. But for that to happen, someone has to write the separate pages. And perhaps make the categories, etc... I agree with ya, it's just that I've still got an ongoing project. What we have, though, is a shortage of "people not us". :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 11:16, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
Well as long as there's some info there I can split it off..and the electronic warfare page you mention is one I've come across too and thought it could use a couple pairs of eyes looking at it and thinking "how could this be made better?" Then again there is literally a ton of basic pages that could be created, even as a stub for more info, every time I finish with a page it feels like half of the terms I've linked are in red.
Anyway I've already started looking at those sort of 'skeleton pages' that I think are necessary to be there for the wiki to reflect the basic info that players need to know to understand how the game works, and thinking about what needs to be done for them to be ready to have some flesh added to the bones. (Like for example I redid parts of drone tonight.) But whether I focus on these or continue to revamp the 'high profile' pages like the ships pages will probably depend on what I feel like doing on any given day after I finish Caldari and, if I decide to redo it, ORE.--Scrotch 00:41, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Like the drone page so far, will like it more when more links are fleshed out. I know, I know... only so much time in a day. When further pages are made, perhaps {{main}} links will be useful. Until then, I agree they'd be silly. --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:21, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
I'm for breaking the Modules pages into the Eve Data Base categories leaving the Modules page as short blurbs about each class with Main Article: xxyyzzyy hats. Uni Zueto 09:30, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

WikiBots

Anyone have good working knowledge of WikiBots? I'd run one on my account if we can come up with some.
Useful Bots we really need:

  • Page Trolling Spell Checker (prolly exists already)
  • Page Title Singular vs Plural Renamer (possibly exists)
  • Mission Auto Disambig Generator (custom)
  • Mission Disambig corrector (custom for revising my old style category disambig into a regular article disambig 200 pages by hand is disheartening)
  • External Spam Link checker (already exists)
  • Anti-Vandal (already exists) Uni Zueto 18:05, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Eve-DB bot (to add all item stats automatically) Conrad.Burner 03:19, 21 October 2008 (PDT)
I do not myself have wikibot expertise, but I have been directed to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. Would this help? Also, if you wish, I could direct you to the operators of bots on another wiki I frequent.--Eirik Ratcatcher 11:41, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
That is helpful. I'll start educating myself on it's uses. Thanks. Uni Zueto 10:40, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

terminology

Couple quick terminology questions that I'm starting to think I don't have down as solidly as I thought.

First is there a difference between a faction and a race? I'd been favoring using faction in most cases but now I'm beginning to wonder if this is more of a synonym for an NPC corporation that has missions than it is for Gallente/Caldari/etc. as a whole. Or perhaps 'faction' is an umbrella word that can be used to describe both races and smaller entities? (Oh and the Faction page redirects to Races.)

Factions are not races. Many different races can be found within many factions. The Faction page should not redirect to the races page. That needs to be revamped. Uni Zueto 10:37, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
If anyone's still struggling over the difference between a race and a faction, then the Minmatars are a good example. You have the Minmatar race, which is all the people who are genetically similar after being effectively marooned after the EVE Gate closed, there are 7 tribes within the race. However the Minmatar Republic (the faction) doesn't contain all of those tribes, you've got the Thukker Tribe, who are their own Faction and (up until Empyrean Age at least) are seen as terrorists by the Republic, then there's the Ammatars who are of Minmatar descent but collaborated with the Ammarr and are part of their Empire and seen as enemies by the Minmatar Republic. - GAThrawn 09:35, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

Also, and this is maybe less definitions than it is spelling and grammar, but basically I'm wondering where we tend to look for correct spelling of terms. "Cargo Bay" "Cargohold" and "Cargo Hold" seem to be used interchangeably on the wiki, but when I look up the attributes of a ship, it lists it as "Cargohold". (Well, actually it sometimes says "Capacity", depending on where I look.) Similar situations exist for "Power Grid" vs. "Powergrid", "Hard Point" vs. "Hardpoint", etc. Sorry if this seems trivial, but I work in RL as a copy editor where this sort of stuff is very important, so I notice it. Anyway I've been tending towards the spelling/capitalization that's used in the eve-online item database when I can find it, does this sound reasonable to everyone? Or does the wiki have a style guide set up already?--Scrotch 18:06, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Oh one more thing I forgot: when talking about ranks of a particular skill, does the wiki favor roman numberals (like the game) or arabic ones? (e.g. Learning III or Learning 3?) --Scrotch 18:32, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

For the skills I've been generally using roman numerals, mainly because that's what I found when I got here on the skill pages. I'm not sure about the others, I notice when in space it's just called 'cargo' and 'my cargo'. I'll have a bit more of a look around see what I can find. Runia 14:24, 4 May 2008 (PDT)
Do you think we should develop a style guide page? --Eirik Ratcatcher 11:43, 5 May 2008 (PDT)


On skills, I, too, followed the existing convention of roman numerals on prerequisites, both because that was the convention used by the EVE-online site, and preexisting pages. However, I did not feel obligated to continue that when developing the "is a prerequisite for" sections on skills. I would appreciate input/opinions. --Eirik Ratcatcher 11:45, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
I don't think my game knowledge is strong enough yet for me to do a style guide for the wiki on my own. But this sounds like it could be a great project page.--Scrotch 11:43, 6 May 2008 (PDT)
You may have <Knowledge: EVE game> (2), but <Knowlege: Wiki editing> is the primary skill... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:12, 6 May 2008 (PDT)

Navtables and categories

I feel strongly that the various Navtable templates (in here) should NOT include categories.

  • Not currently used for individual ship pages ({{Core Ships}} is used instead).
  • Forces any use of the template to include that page in the category, not guaranteed to be the right answer.
  • Restricts other things that might be done with category inclusion - such as putting the page describing the class at the top of the category.

Is there objection to my removing them? (and where applicable, explicitly including the category) --Eirik Ratcatcher 11:44, 9 May 2008 (PDT)

I agree, as I have been redoing some pages with these templates it was not immediately apparent to me that the templates included categories, causing some category duplication until I realized what was going on. I don't think other new editors would expect this to be the case either.
On a related note, do we want to deprecate these templates entirely, as well as {{Ships Footer}}? I could try to slice up the {{Core Ships}} template and make something with a similar look-and-feel, maybe one for each of the main ship classes to replace them. I realize that template isn't perfect either, but I think it fits the site slightly better, and having a smaller table on individual ship pages in many cases would cut back on the amount of probably-unwanted info on the pages.--Scrotch 17:02, 11 May 2008 (PDT)

Ship Nicknames

I would like to see a list of common nicknames for the ships of Eve. Most English speaking pilots refer to interdictor as 'dictors', interceptors and inties or intys or intty, heavy interdictors are catching on as 'hictors', industrials are inddys or haulers, etc. Maybe on the List of Ships or a List of Ship Nicknames or maybe a very small hatnote or tailnote on each ship page or skill book. What are your thoughts those of you currently revamping the ship skill pages? Uni Zueto 16:07, 9 May 2008 (PDT)

I think the nicknames would be a useful thing on both a general info page of some sort, and on each of the ship types (interdictor, industrial, etc) pages. Not so much on the ship skills pages, at least not yet. While I could be talked into it, I hadn't yet thought beyond "get some basic info out on the skills". --Eirik Ratcatcher 15:12, 12 May 2008 (PDT)
I'd say an "EVE-Online terminology" page in general would be helpful, at least for me. But by the same token I wouldn't be able to write one.--Scrotch 18:14, 12 May 2008 (PDT)
"EVE-Online Terminology" sounds good to me, I'll start it off with stuff from the (very out of date) dictionary on the eve website [1] , and add a few more things I know personally, though I'll need a lot of help with it I suspect. Runia 02:27, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Spaceship Command Skill Overview

The Spaceship Command skills overview page is done to my current level of dissatisfaction. It's uneven ... but the tech 2 ships really do require more in the way of description than any other ships.

Suggestions, please? --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:34, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

The page looks great to me. Only a few, fairly minor things:
  • There's another Tech 2 frigate, actually...the Electronic Attack Ship.
  • The table of industrial/mining ships looks fantastic. Aesthetically I think the only way it could be improved would maybe (I'm not sure, it could make it worse) be by adding a horizontal rule under the column headings. But otherwise I think it would be worth it to change the other tables on the page to have a similar look-and-feel to that one...I might play with the Core Ships template some to see if I can get it to look similar. *takes a deep breath*
    • One other thing about that table, content-wise, is that I'm not sure it makes the distinction between Industrials/Transport Ships, Freighters/Jump Freighters, and Mining Barges/Exhumers being the Tech 1/Tech 2 versions of ship types. Maybe it would help to move it to the end of the page, after the other T1/T2 distinctions have been made?
  • I think that info about Spaceship Command/Advanced Spaceship Command/Capital Ships could be moved to the top, since a lot of ways these skills (well, the first one at least) forms the, ah, root structure on which the entire tree is based on. Granted the other two are fairly esoteric but still they aren't too difficult to understand and from the names a player unfamiliar with them might be wondering exactly when they need to train these -- I know I've wondered about Adv SC.
But like I said those minor things are the only issues I would have, though I might take a pass on the intro texts just to see if I can clean up the wording some. (OK 1 more question, since it ties into something I've asked before: were you going to keep the required skill ranks as the (1), (2) etc. format or go to a I, II, etc. format?)
Awesome job.--Scrotch 18:27, 15 May 2008 (PDT)
I agree, awesome work. Uni Zueto 20:45, 15 May 2008 (PDT)


I'll have to add Electronic Attack Ships all around. They're one of the ship types not really discussed on the eve-online site.

I intentionally combined all the mining/industrial type ships together, given that a) there weren't that many ship categories, and b) the T1 and T2 ships were more alike each other than they were other ship categories. Were you thinking of separating those T1 and T2 ships, or moving the entire section? I'll look at the table format; part of the wow is simply the colored background. :)

Given the skill requirements, I thought Transports were in the series with freighters, but I see I was wrong. But then, I look at the skill requirements for ships, and the bonuses skills provide, and I have to giggle... A ship requires skill level 4, and that skill gives a 5%/level bonus, meaning that at most, you get 5% more out of it than someone "unskilled"...

Both of you folks commented on the Roman/Arabic numeral issue. Myself, I find arabic easier to read. ... and it lends itself better to constructions like (1+) IMO. BUT... if you folks feel strongly about it, I won't revert it if you want to edit it.

The Spaceship Command / advanced / capital section is one of the ones that causes me the most unhappiness. Once I started in on the article with a "here's what it'll take to put you behind the wheel" mentality, describing the individual skills seemed discordant. --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:11, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

One thing I want to comment on (or question I want to ask, maybe), and I admit that I'm not able to test this in-game as I don't have the skills to fly any T2 ships yet. (And this is maybe more suited for the Bar & Grill.)
"Given the skill requirements, I thought Transports were in the series with freighters, but I see I was wrong. But then, I look at the skill requirements for ships, and the bonuses skills provide, and I have to giggle... A ship requires skill level 4, and that skill gives a 5%/level bonus, meaning that at most, you get 5% more out of it than someone "unskilled"..."
Actually I was under the impression that in the example above the T2 ship would get a 20% bonus to the statistic that received that bonus from the T1 skill, and that skilling the T1 skill to V would give a 25% bonus. But maybe I'm wrong, or have misunderstood?--Scrotch 19:04, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Use of Roman Numerals and Arabic Numerals by CCP

When it comes to skills CCP generally adhere's to the rule of using Roman Numerals for number of levels a player has/needs in a certain skill while Arabic Numerals are used when referring to the degree of difficulty (rank) of a skill.
For example: Trajectory Analysis Training Difficulty (normally called Rank) is (5) and it requires Level V Gunnery. Uni Zueto 20:51, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

(Sorry, I have to throw this in: Latin and Roman numerals are the same thing, it's Roman (IV) and Arabic (4) numerals that you mean.) But I agree that keeping things as consistent as possible with in-game usage is best to reduce confusion. And thanks for the clarification on levels and ranks, I had been confusing those I think.--Scrotch 17:34, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

My confusion comes from the Latin Fonts in my font folder having Arabic numeral types. My historical perspective on numerals got narrowed to the last 15 years completing blinding me to the 1000 years perspectives. Uni Zueto 06:16, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Races versus Factions

Races are a genotype of human being while factions are political entities made up of cross-sections of races, equipmetn and technology. I tried rewriting the race and faction pages along this definition months ago but ran into differences of opinion on organizing so I withdrew to the Mission pages. Comments/suggestions on this? Factional warfare is coming and many news articles are focussed on factional events so it seems appropriate time to revisit these articles. Uni Zueto 21:59, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

I can try to revise the information on that page to my understanding, but to be honest it's pretty limited. I'm afraid I will probably be faced with information that I suspect is not correct but can't verify, and will need to either keep it as-is or delete it off the page, neither of which is appealing to me.
On a related note, the "BREAKING NEWS" events about that station getting rammed that have popped up in the last few days seem like they warrant a page, for historical reference if nothing else, but I'm completely mystified by their significance.--Scrotch 17:37, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

It's the continuing story arcs/ epic cycles that CCP writers put in place. The current arcs are leading us upto interfactional warfare between the major Empires. Backrounds and past news can be found on the Eve website. The Gallente Federation is a democracy composed of most Eve races. Somewhere there was a demographic breakdown by race composing the Federation. Each faction has a backround story. Uni Zueto 06:21, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

pirate ships

Reposting my comment from the main page talk page as it failed to generate any feedback there:

"Caldari is for all intents and purposes finished. ORE Ships should be a snap, done in a day or two. One question: I'm thinking of moving Faction Ships to "Pirate faction ships" and moving non-pirate faction ship info off the page. Thoughts?--Scrotch 20:45, 5 May 2008 (PDT)"

Any comments? Faction Ships is kind of a mess. I could also create a "Prize ships" page for those few that it was appropriate for.--Scrotch 17:54, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Faction ships refers to all ships not purchasable on the open markets. They have to be purchased on contracts and are specialty ships produced by various factions or they can be bought in the loyalty stores of their factions (yes you can work for the Guristas Pirates and buy a Rattlesnake in their LP store hence the drop in prices). Common usage in chat and in forums refers to all the ships listed on the page as I left the edit on May 20, 2008. Uni Zueto 06:26, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

New players but experienced wikipedians

When you edit a basic concept about eve combat or module function check the eve web site or grismar's wiki to verify you have it correct. The Accuracy falloff page was just dead wrong. Thanks! Uni Zueto 08:46, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Thanks for clearing that page up. I stuck to very vague generalizations when I set it up because I knew I didn't understand the mechanics very well (since my understanding drew largely from explanations taken from the help channel, or maybe I should say misrememberings of them) and didn't have time to track down an eve-online.com reference for exactly how everything worked. I appreciate the time taken to read through it and correct the errors I made.
One concern that I have right now with the page is that it has some very hard figures that I am not certain are completely correct. It's my understanding that hit % factors in the signature resolution of the turret and I think the signature radius of the target, yet the page seems to indicate that the only factors are the optimal range and accuracy falloff of the turret and the distance from the target. But maybe my understanding only relates to damage done?
Signature raidus doesn't effect to-hit only damage dealt once a hit is determined. Uni Zueto 17:47, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Could I ask you to take a look at signature radius then? Moby Disk has been doing work on the page, and it seemed to my neophyte eyes that it was good stuff but it seems to say (unless I'm reading it very wrong) that signature radius does affect chance to hit.--Scrotch 18:20, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Reworked signature radius from eve forums, help chat explanations and grismar's wiki as sources. Check over the work please. Uni Zueto 12:03, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
Alright. Eve uses a spherical coordinate system of R, theta, phi instead of x,y and z. Range is the R axis and I'm sure sig radius has no effect on chance to hit along R axis. Tracking describes the Theta/Phi axis and to my understanding sigrad doesn't effect those either but I'll research it. I'm sure SigRad diff between the weapon and the ship is compared and if the ship is smaller the damage dealt is percentage deminished down but never up. That's why Torpedoes do 12 points out of couple thousand to an interceptor with no MWD in operation. Uni Zueto 21:13, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Another question I have is the relative reliability of EVE information sites. Obviously something that is on the eve-online.com site should be taken as a highly reliable source (even if it seems to sometimes not be edited as reliably as it probably should be) but I have very little experience with other sites out there. Grismar's wiki and eve-survival.org are the only two places that I've discovered so far that I use fairly often, and the latter far more than the former, which I only started exploring maybe a week or so ago. But which of these sites are edited and maintained reliably, and which are valid places to look for (and link to!) deeper discussions of EVE mechanics and other information? (Previously I was going to see if I could search through the eve-online.com forums for a post, official or otherwise, describing these mechanics.)
Grismar has been playing since the beta releases and he digs into the mathematics for every game aspect. He is like to Eve what Profesor Oak is to Pokemon. There are other experts but he's the most dedicated I've met. That web-site and his playing must have cost him a marriage or two 8-). Uni Zueto 17:47, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Finally, and this is somewhat tangential but relates to the previous question, as I explore EVE-wiki I've been coming across a fair amount of non-credited information on the site, mostly taken from in-game descriptions or other easily identifiable sources (sometimes even linking to the source but not explicitly giving credit ><). I've been deleting these due to copyright infringement concerns and rewriting them as I am able, but it does raise the question of re-using information from other wikis, such as grismar's. Can we copy these verbatim and note where they are from, or do we need to write our own descriptions of these mechanics?--Scrotch 14:56, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
It's a good point. CCP hasn't threatened any fansites for grabbing any information off of their web-site... too my knowledge. As long as we represent the details about their game accurately and encourage membership sales we probably won't hear anything about copyright infringement. As for taking directly from other fan sites not using the Wiki GNU license... I would discourage it. I don't take from Grismar verbatim (like that excellent falloff curve graph was tempting) but the formulas were CCP material. Uni Zueto 17:47, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Now I'm not sure. Maybe Grismar and others determined that formula through trial and error. They were publically posted on the Eve forums so doesn't that make them publically available and not copyrighted? Uni Zueto 17:47, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Well it depends on the terms of the EULA probably, and also likely the laws of the country where the servers are hosted. (IANAL however so you should probably not pay attention to that last sentence, or the next one for that matter.) The formula could very easily have been determined by trial and error, and as I understand anyway items like facts and mathematical formulas are unable to be copyrighted. Information taken directly from eve-online.com pages themselves (not the forums) are almost definitely copyrighted however, as is any ship/item/skill/etc. descriptions...just because CCP does not see fit in sending takedown letters today doesn't mean they'll feel the same way tomorrow. And in any case posting these descriptions on the site without attribution is just generally bad practice, in my opinion, and they should be cited or removed as we see them.--Scrotch 18:30, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Could you cite the falloff page as an example of what your're talking about here? The only thing I copied from his page was the formula so you want a citation link to his page? Or if I can find the formula on the Eve website forums then link that (try to search Eve-online.com for falloff formula and see the distinct poor qualities of their search engine.) The description part was written from my own understanding; I didn't copy that from his pages. We don't have a {{cite}} template. It will need to be created. Uni Zueto 09:13, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
(Side note on my earlier comment: The formula on the accuracy falloff page, and the grismar wiki page it's taken from, contains an error, I think there should be 3 left parentheses immediately before the "R-O..." figures. I'm not positive however so I'm not going to make this change.--Scrotch 15:40, 20 May 2008 (PDT))
Corrected. Uni Zueto 17:47, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
Thanks!--Scrotch 18:30, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

IGB - in game browser

It would be sweet if eve-wiki would work IGB like grismars' does (try this link IGB) even Eve Agents works slowly. I tried creating a style sheet to uplaod here that would work IGB based off of what Grismar told me about his waka wiki. That attempt failed. Any better style sheet authors here? I know for certain that percentage formatting fails outright IGB. Uni Zueto 09:27, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Any sources for what works, what doesn't for the IGB? I'm not proficient with css myself, but I'd be willing to give it a stab. --Eirik Ratcatcher 11:07, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
I'm personally not a huge fan of the IGB as even simple IGB sites, the ones that look straight out of Mosaic, seem to load glacially slow (although maybe this is because I'm playing EVE through an emulation layer since I have a Mac). But obviously this would be a way to expand the utility of the site. And no I have no experience with this kind of coding, sorry.--Scrotch 15:00, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Grismar gave me his ss for his site as a template to work from. He hangs out in the Help channel many mornings just after DT. He told me to use fixed formats for the IGB hates percentage formatting and some other tricks I've since forgotten. I was using that Wakka wiki server on my computer as a private COSMOS mission journal for a while and it loaded super fast in the IGB. Eve-agents.com looks OK but as scrotch says, it slams the client and freezes the whole machine at some point. Maybe grissie would advise us some more although had stated he didn't know Mediawiki well just his Wakkawiki. Uni Zueto 16:50, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Fraud and Exploits

Created a new category (under Glossary) for frauds, scams, exploits, etc. Found a very few pages (one new) that deserved to be gathered under that heading. If you know of more pages (or more scams), go ahead and add them. --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:02, 27 May 2008 (PDT)

orca

Someone has added a page for the Orca, which is fine by me (although I'm not sure it belongs in the Core Ships template quite yet, since it hasn't been released). I was going to add a rumor or rumors category to it but I couldn't find the one that would fit, does anyone want to take a look at the page and see if there's a category tag they can add?--Scrotch 01:44, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

RFC for a Template:User replacement

This is transcluded from User:Meta_Tinara/RFC/Template:User. Please go there to add to the discussion, to keep it organized. Thank you!

Hey all. This is a Request For Comments on a template I'm almost ready to roll out. I'd like some feedback on it. The template is located at User:Meta Tinara/Template:User and will eventually be moved to Template:Pilot. It's intended to replace the old Template:User, as the old version does not have the ability to leave out parameters without breaking. I'd like to get some comments on it -- whether good or bad -- before I move it to the Template namespace. Also, I would like to get in touch with a sysop about adding some CSS to MediaWiki:Common.css to help with formatting infoboxes and such before I move it. Thanks in advance! Meta Tinara 12:30, 22 July 2008 (PDT)

RFC: Projectile Charges pages

I've embarked on creating item pages, and thought I'd start with something simple, yet untouched: ammunition. Before I go hog-wild with these things, I would like feedback, either here, or by editing some of those new pages (and/or templates).

I punted on the more complex aspects of Blueprints, which are also separate items needing their own pages. I was kind of hoping that some variety of transclusion could work with the Blueprints for an item onto the item-made pages.

Things I am concerned about: Format, content, categorization, linkedness, utility. Sample pages: Nuclear S, Carbonized Lead S, Standard projectile type comparison, Fusion ammunition

I'll take a break of a week or so to give you guys time to look pages over and do some fiddling (or commenting) before I get back to this. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:04, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

I like the general idea, but I think Template:ProjectileAmmo should at least be floated on the right. Personally, I would like to see the ammo icons in a messagebox-type template. I'll throw something together tomorrow to show you what I mean, then I'll let you decide if you like my idea. Good work! Meta Tinara 19:16, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Region and Constellation categories?

It seems natural to me, but does it to you: Should there be, for each region, and each constellation, a category containing the constellations and systems (respectively) in each? It makes a little difference to any {{Region}} or {{Constellation}} sidebar template I create. --Eirik Ratcatcher 15:33, 24 July 2008 (PDT)

Approve That would be handy for when we get people to start building up that part of the wiki. I have plans to cover Molden Heath and Heimatar soon, so I can offer more suggestions when I get started on those pages. Meta Tinara 16:33, 24 July 2008 (PDT)
Approve I was thinking about sorting out the Metropolis systems, as well as the ones mentioned in the novel, will follow whatever comes out of this for them. GAThrawn 18:35, 25 July 2008 (PDT)

I will work on a Region template first. Please do comment on these templates (when I have them). Or even meddle with them yourselves. --Eirik Ratcatcher 10:30, 28 July 2008 (PDT)

Some work accomplished

Sample region and constellation categories have been made, along with both templates ({{Region}}, {{Constellation}}) and boilerplates (Help:Region articles, Help:Constellation articles). Please adjust these as you feel appropriate.

With the first region and constellation categories created, I renew the question: Should region and constellation categories have the word "region" and "constellation" (respectively) after them? I feel they should, but want to know what you other active editors feel. --Eirik Ratcatcher 12:07, 29 July 2008 (PDT)

What do you mean by that? Do you mean article names as "Molden Heath (region)" for example? I think that may cross the line between ease-of-use and too verbose. Meta Tinara 12:47, 29 July 2008 (PDT)
IE "Molden Heath" (the region article) with "Category:Molden Heath region", instead of "Category:Molden Heath". --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:06, 29 July 2008 (PDT)
Do you think we really need a category for every region? It seems that wikilinking all Molden Heath-related articles from the Molden Heath page would be enough, but maybe you see something I don't. Meta Tinara 17:12, 29 July 2008 (PDT)
So what would you put in these region categories? Would it just be the constellations within the region? In which case would each constellation have its own category containing the systems and so on like a Russian doll? Or would it be a "catchall" for absolutely everything that's in the region, such as constellations, systems, stations, POIs, and so on? - GAThrawn 08:29, 30 July 2008 (PDT)
What I had in mind was more the "Russian doll". I'm pretty sure that these would still be useful:
  1. Global region category - all individual region categories and region articles
  2. individual region category - all applicable constellation categories and articles
  3. individual constellation category - all applicable system articles
I'm less sure how useful these would be, due to volume
  1. global constellation category
  2. global system category
  3. individual system categories for particular stations/moons/planets/POSs/etc.
This arrangement still seems a bit awkward, in that both the article and the category for constellation are put in the individual region category.
Do you have preferences and/or suggestions? Could use the help here... --Eirik Ratcatcher 08:54, 30 July 2008 (PDT)
That sounds like an awful lot of creation and maintenance overhead. Classification is nice, but that just sounds like a lot more work than would be worth from the reward. I can see where that goal would be helpful if we had more editors, but given that we have sub-10 actually active editors, it may turn into a lot more hassle than it is worth. I suppose if we just added the categories to pages as we went, it would eventually grow into a complete model. That might work. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea, actually. Global constellation and global system categories are right out, in my opinion (to see why, look at List of Solar Systems). They would be entirely unsearchable. Individual system categories, would create a huge amount of categories; however, it would be nice to have, as it would cut down on the length of the system page boilerplate, methinks. Meta Tinara 13:18, 30 July 2008 (PDT)

Another change I was contemplating, was transcluding (eg) the Molden Heath article, and using <onlyinclude> and {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}="Category"}} to do things like include the sidebar and generate a {{main|xxxx}} tag on the category page. --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:06, 29 July 2008 (PDT)

If having region categories is something you see as useful, then I definitely agree that using the main tag on the category page is a good thing. Meta Tinara 17:12, 29 July 2008 (PDT)

Sidebars vs Info Boxes

We've currently got Category:Sidebar Templates and Category:Templates/Info boxes. The definitions are pretty mutual: information about a thing that appears on the (right) side at the top of the page. Should we merge these two? Should we better distinguish between them?

My gut feeling would say: the skill tree templates are definitely sidebars; {{Corp}}, {{Agent mission}}, {{ShipInformationBox}}, and {{System}} are definitely what I think of as "info boxes". {{Corp2}}, {{Alliance stats}} and {{Corp stats}} are more like boilerplate templates to me, since they build a default page. (Again, my own definitions.)

Dang, but I'm building up a lot of issues to be looked over by folks!--Eirik Ratcatcher 15:45, 24 July 2008 (PDT)

Approve I'm for merging them. They serve the same purpose; no sense in there being two categories. Meta Tinara 16:34, 24 July 2008 (PDT)

New: Boilerplates

Please examine Category:Boilerplates and the articles therein for me, please. All of them are first drafts, based on equal parts "what sounds good to me", "what seems to be current use", and "wild ass guesses". I would like to have as many boilerplates as seems reasonable.

... but I'd also like them to be reviewed and edited as soon as possible. These things tend to take "set in stone" qualities after a while, and I'd like them to be as nice and as useful as possible before the cement dries.

It occurs to me that I may have coopted the purpose of Category:Model Pages, but Ce' la vie. We can move one set of pages into the other category (or some new category!), whichever category folks most prefer. --Eirik Ratcatcher 12:43, 4 August 2008 (PDT)

I added my thoughts. A lot of them are minor, but I didn't make any changes yet as I don't have much time right now. Also, some of them are a consensus thing, I think. Respond and I'll get back to you later tonight! Meta Tinara 13:58, 4 August 2008 (PDT)
Some are still consensus... :) Well, all of them are consensus issues, but I took liberties already with some. --Eirik Ratcatcher 10:29, 5 August 2008 (PDT)
This is a great idea but we need to encourage, cajole and coerce all users to try these first before going of on their own tangents. Uni Zueto 23:04, 10 August 2008 (PDT)
Was looking for input from folks like you, Uni, to make the boilerplates something that will stand up to actual use. I didn't want to simply dictate something, and find I had only have the standard allotment of Gluteus Maximi. --Eirik Ratcatcher 09:56, 11 August 2008 (PDT)
I always called the idea templates, the term boilerplates is something I think of when fixing a boiler or a leak in a ship. I tried doing some of this and tried a template on the Cash Flow for Capsuleers (Amarr) mission series. Maybe start with a breakdown of that 10 part mission? Uni Zueto 02:02, 12 August 2008 (PDT)
Cash Flow for Capsuleers is on my hit list. But Angels Extravaganza, being a single mission, is much better in terms of putting together a template/boilerplate/model for how we want mission pages to look, and how we want to collate the mission variants. Angels also pointed out to me that "mission series steps" != "mission steps". --Eirik Ratcatcher 09:47, 12 August 2008 (PDT)
Those steps are usually a series of gate to enter but sometimes they can be the AI warping in wave after wave of enemy ships while in the same room. Sometimes it's a group of enemies and buildings to take care of all within the same room. CCP's stackless python scripts gives them some nice flexibility. Uni Zueto 02:56, 19 August 2008 (PDT)
Okay... steps != rooms, != waves ... So how do we want to divide steps up? I really prefer having each room separate, as the set dressing will be the same for it regardless of the waves or groups within it. ... But that does make it awkward for "steps" unless we do something odd with 'step' markers. Note that we CAN do odd things, like make them HTML anchors. The current Mission Header template suppresses TOC.
Care to dummy up some structure you think you'd like? --Eirik Ratcatcher 09:42, 19 August 2008 (PDT)

Mission Header

I've added an 'important' flag to the mission header. Currently, it changes the header color; currently from purple to green. Please see what you think (here for example). Please adjust the color, alter the behavior, or ask for changes, if you have any preferences. --Eirik Ratcatcher 09:17, 21 August 2008 (PDT)

Meeting online, meeting in person

  • Online: I usually am online between about 6 and 7:30 am, and for fits and starts between 5pm to 11pm pacific time. To date, I've seen one other person in the EVEWiki channel, and I have not matched him to an editor handle yet. When do you other editors play? Do you sign up for the EVEWIKI channel? (Do we, somehow, have several mutually noncomunicating channels? Are channel names case sensitive? Has some villain inserted a dash in there?)
  • In person: I plan on showing up at the CCP booth at PAX this coming weekend. Maybe I'll see some of ya there. --Eirik Ratcatcher 09:05, 26 August 2008 (PDT)

Do COSMOS agents practice bilocation?

I see references to cosmos agents both as being at a given station (via EVE-online DB) and as being at locations in COSMOS systems (like at The Ebony Tower) (via the eve-online forums). Do they practice bilocation? Or is the eve-online agent DB wrong?

Could someone verify whether an agent named Pandon Ardillan appears at Orvolle as noted by the eve-online DB?

If they do appear twice, do they have the same stats (level/quality/type/division)? Or do they differ somehow? Do we want two separate pages for them? (Do they give different missions?) --Eirik Ratcatcher 08:53, 15 September 2008 (PDT)

Hefty competition

There's another eve wiki out there if you haven't noticed yet.... Its run by some gaming company. They've most of the Eve-DB automatically to their wiki, templated. I was suggesting doing something like this on eve-wiki a while back. It needs a special bot (see bot discussion in this page), and ready templates.

Here's a sample page of the other wiki: http://eve.wikia.com/wiki/Ark

if anyone search on google for some item on Eve, its possible they'll land at the wikia.com site first. I do suggest adding all the stats to all items.

Conrad.Burner 03:25, 21 October 2008 (PDT)

We've a few notes on other eve wikis out there, for reference. They've expanded some, we've expanded a bit more, I think. And I think we may be gaining momentum. Time will tell, though. They are glossy, I admit. But I really disliked their ads, when I was there some good time back. --Eirik Ratcatcher 08:41, 21 October 2008 (PDT)
Believe it or not, that template was all my doing. I created and implemented that system at Wikia. I have put up a test page at Test:Naglfar displaying what I would like to implement over here. Also, I have an item template at Wikia as well. Check out: http://eve.wikia.com/wiki/ECM_-_Spatial_Destabilizer_II. I have jumped ship from Wikia to here mainly because of the ad placement and the inactive admins. I'm ready to help out as much as possible. --Cal Hydar 22:03, 21 October 2008 (PDT)
Ads were a major reason why I elected to come here rather than wikia, too. We'll see your inactive admins and raise you, though. We do have a very few people with admin privileges that stop by every now and then. They've stopped playing, for the most part, so they're not very active at all.
As for module page layout, you might compare your stabilizer to Passive Targeter I. I prefer the more open layout. Among other things, it leaves plenty of opportunity to add comments about how to get the best out of the module. (Not that I actually know how to do that...)
I might also note that while the wikia page brings the familiarity of the EVE-online db layout, ... it also brings the limitations, expectations, and opinions that go with it. It's a consideration.
Might also compare that layout to Zhao's ShipTemp. Same sort of issues there; great for laying out data, lousy for allowing additional data.
Would appreciate any feedback/improvements on the passive targeter page too... ;) --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:26, 22 October 2008 (PDT)
--Eirik Ratcatcher 14:26, 22 October 2008 (PDT)

Splitting is out of hand

We seriously do NOT need a seperate page for every single astroid belt. I'm looking at the Venilen‎ subpages. They will all be saying the same thing, which is also said on the system-page itself. Unless I get a reason for their existance here I'll be deleting them. Even the hardcore splitter Eirik Ratcatcher should agree with me on that.

We should also consider keeping info on planets and moons on the system-page or at the very least make something like "orbital bodies in system"-page where it can all be listed if the previous idea leads to total clutter. Having a page for every moon and every planet will require a link to each of these on the system-page in which case, considering how little there is to say on each orbital body, one might as well cut out the middle-man (or middle-link, as the case may be). - Pesi 10:50, 16 November 2008 (PST)

That looks like a crazy amount of work to set up for every system, a crazy amount of work to keep up to date, and a crazy number of uncategorized pages (unless we have an Asteroid Belts category with a million entries, or a million categories for each system!). Unless the system has extremely significant and unusual contents (eg POIs like the Eve Gate or Titan wreck) then all astronomical objects in the system should just be listed on the system's page. Anything normal info about a particular station or asteroid belt can be listed there. Other than distinguishing between normal/ice asteroid fields, do we even want to list the mineral types in particular asteroid belts when they're normally pretty consistent with the 'roid grid anyway? I'd have thought that sticking to the style to the listing style on the System Boilerplate/Hek would be more than enough info (and work)? - GAThrawn 05:24, 17 November 2008 (PST)
/agree Pesi, GAThrawn. If someone wants to write up Hek details + POIs + moon material + whatever else, I'm fine with that. We can always push excess detail off to, for instance, Hek/details, if it gets too bulky.
'Notable Locations'/POI, 'Other notes', and 'description' should be enough to handle anything really special. AFAIK, asteroid belts within a system don't specialize beyond icefield/asteroid.
Venilen‎: Belled that cat. You da man with the delete stick, pesi; go to town. Didn't want to touch them and make life any more complicated. --Eirik Ratcatcher 10:53, 17 November 2008 (PST)

Certificates

Is there a standardized way of formatting the new certificate system in the Wiki? I'm looking through the few existing ones and they aren't consistent. -- Redhaski 12:59, 17 November 2008 (PST)

No consistent way currently. Think there's only you and one other that has been entering certificates. If you'd like to create a boilerplate for them, it might help.
As always, remember that a boilerplate isn't a set-in-stone format. It is just our current standard, in a place where it should be fairly easy to view and alter as needed. --Eirik Ratcatcher 15:19, 17 November 2008 (PST)

Ownership of constellations, regions, etc

Given the fluid nature of ownership, and the sparse nature of wiki updates, we should be sure to mention the date (at least to the month), when saying "someone owns something". --Eirik Ratcatcher 09:39, 17 March 2009 (PDT)

Evelopedia not up-to-date

Suprising nobody, the Evelopedia is not automatically up-to-date re the very latest patch. Presumably this will be corrected as time goes by (in the same way our wiki is updated...)

On a slightly different note, they claim 7300 articles (already). --Eirik Ratcatcher 12:24, 19 March 2009 (PDT)

Somehow having a full database export of every item, system, etc it's not that surprising that they jumped straight in with a whole load of pages! As for not being up to date with Apocrypha? That really is inexcusable, and while a few day's delay while the devs calm down after a release is acceptable, they really should have updated the import by now.
As it now looks fairly likely that I'll be taking over support for a brand new mediawiki server at work in the next few months, I might have a reason to get work to train me in wiki import/scripting/wikibot soon ;) - GAThrawn 16:37, 19 March 2009 (PDT)


Views
Personal tools
Navigation
Toolbox