Hello there! I'm SoakThePirate, and I came back after a year or so of not editing this wiki. I see that it requires more than a bit of tune-up in areas like Categories, Wikia Badges, levels in older Gemcraft games(and newer too)... If I can ask for one favor... Can you promote me(not neccesarily to Administrator) so I can create new Categories, clear some pages of spam and unneccesary info, and edit Badges?
I'm just asking, I know that it won't happen but I'll try to edit this Wikia anyway.
There doesn't seem to be any kind of active forum or Community Portal (at least not that I've found), so I decided to come to you as the only currently active administrator. As you've probably noticed, I had a bot create pages for each of the original GCCS fields. Now, the Steam version has come out, and there are a number of differences. On pretty much every hextile, there are at least one or two fields that are different between the original game and the Steam version. Sometimes, the differences are minor (e.g., an extra wall), but sometimes not so much (e.g., different buildings, monster stats, and field drops all on the same level), plus there are a number of entirely new levels for the Steam version.
Right now, I'm leaning towards creating an entirely new set of field pages for Steam, even when they're identical to the original, for the simple reason that they may not stay that way. Plus there would need to be a new field list page for them as well, probably with a cross-link on each from one to the other. I'm not sure we'd need the cross-links on the field pages themselves, though. Any thoughts on any of this from you (or anyone else who reads this)?
Given the huge amount of contributions of RobinHood70 to the wiki I'd like to see him become an admin and be able to make the decision himself.
Back to topic:
I am for a single field list, with something that indicates "Steam only" for fields that are only on Steam.
Then for each field entry put two links, one for Steam and one for Flash. Not sure about what to do with fields that are identical now (but might change), better make two pages to be safe.
Crosslink the 2 field versions at the beginning of the page and you are set IMHO (this is because Google will bring you to the Flash pages, but 99% of the people will want the Steam stats and you want them to notice and switch fast).
I hope I was not inopportune, I know nothing about proper wiki etiquette.
I appreciate the support, but I'm already an admin elsewhere and don't want to commit to being admin for another website. :)
I'm still mulling over the options, but I think you're probably right that we should try to keep the main list to a single page, if we can. I'll have to see what it looks like with the new fields added in. For the actual field pages, it occurred to me that we can probably create the pages as redirects to the original if the pages are identical. Not sure if that's the best approach or not, though.
It occurs to me now that I'm trying to design it that the idea of redirects doesn't work out well. Say, for example, A1 and A3 are different between Steam and regular, but A2 is the same, then when you link from the Steam version of A1 to A2 and then to A3, you'd end up on the regular version of A3 instead of the Steam one. Even if we added a "View Steam Version/View Regular Version" link to every page, people would constantly be switching without wanting to, so I think we have to create a whole different set of pages...no redirects. Similar logic may end up applying to the list of fields as well. There are several changes to what levels lead to what and different field stats, etc. I'll have to figure out the best approach on that one when I get there. First, let's get some pages up. :)
Okay, "I" am busy creating the Steam versions of the pages. That'll help us get a better idea of what the differences are. You can either compare them visually or use Compare pages to see a traditional diff between the two (e.g., ). Tomorrow, I'll look at the field list, but when you fields like V17, which now opens up a field where it didn't before, or F1, which changes some of the stats in the table, my feeling is that we're going to find there are just too many small changes to the table to accommodate them all on one page. We'll see.
The list of fields turned out not to be anywhere near as bad as I'd thought. I was able to add the Steam-only levels without needing to do a lot of fudges like I thought I was going to have to. The only lines that even needed tweaking were C2 (different fields unlock it in Steam vs. traditional), F1 (different starting HP), and M5 (Orblets get unlocked in Steam only), none of which was significant. That table is getting rather wide at this point, but at least on my screen, it still looks okay in both the Monobook and Wikia skins.
I was pretty busy this week, a couple of things I noticed, though:
1) "Traditional" vs "Steam", maybe "Web" or "Flash" or "Browser" could be a bit better
2) List coloumns are now 2 gem color large, I can't help but find this terribly ugly, is there some fix? (IMHO chaging default skin away from this to avoid wasting nearly 30% of the screen width to the gem background would be a huge improvement)
Yeah, I couldn't think of a better term. I think I prefer "Flash" out of all of those, though since they both use SWFs, I'm not sure if that's a good distinction. Still, it's one that only a handful of people would actually care about, I think. "Original" could also work, but not sure that's any better than "Traditional".
We can play with column widths, but if we allow more space for the gem colours, I think the other columns will shrink too much and start wrapping in very odd places. I've tentatively set the gem column to fit exactly 9 gems, if at all possible. It can still wrap to multiple columns if the screen is really narrow (e.g., mobile), but it'll try its best. Let me know if that's an improvement or not. If not, we can try other widths (like maybe just enough for 5 gems, so it'll only wrap if there are a lot), but that's about all we can do. As for the default skin wasting screen width...well...there's a reason I use Monobook. ;) It's really beyond me why Wikia does that.
1) I'd like "Original" better, but it also depend what the Kong version will have. If, as I suspect, it's a copy of the AG version I am for using a word like "Web version" or "Browser".
2) IMHO the best is having it 3 gems wide, like the in-game ui. Why we cannot use the same skin as Wikipedia (as other wiki do) which is familiar to everyone and wastes 0 space is beyond me. Maybe at least offer it as an alternative.
Okay, I'll set it to Original for now; when the Kongregate version comes out, we can re-evaluate.
I'd considered that, but that'll make the table awfully tall, I suspect, since rows could be up to three gems high. This would be especially noticeable for those of us who use Monobook, where it's always 1-gem high on a decently wide screen. Plus, it wouldn't really match the in-game UI anyway, at least not without some work, because the gems would still be listed all in a row, not in the same positions as in-game.
Hello Koopa troopa! I am LevenThumps, and helped start up this wiki. Due to college and other life events, I have been unable to monitor this wiki as much as I would like. I have seen your edits since you joined this wiki, and been very impressed with them. Because of this, I would like to promote you to an administrator. I'm going to try to help monitor the wiki more often, but if I am unable to, you are capable of it now.