04.02.2007, 03:16:55
As mentioned in the news, I'll be trying to re-order some RockPatch pages. Part of this effort is a decision regarding the following issue:
Should RockPatch-introduced flags (and later ETS ones) be treated like normal flags, with their own pages?
Pros:
Should RockPatch-introduced flags (and later ETS ones) be treated like normal flags, with their own pages?
Pros:
- All RockPatch flag information is currently stored on one page, which makes it hard to find specific things.
- The new flag template has an extra icon for "RockPatch required", I'll add a "RockPatch version" template, showing "Introduced in Version:" and "Obsoleted in Version:", and they'll of course all be in a RockPatch Flags category - so it'll be obvious which flags belong to RockPatch and which don't.
- Flag descriptions can be a lot more elaborate and detailed, including even screenshots and other gimmicks.
- Flag pages could include other categories, meaning Category:Warhead Flags would show RockPatch flags as well - no cross-referencing between normal YR and RP necessary.
- ModEnc → AutoFire is way more intuitive than ModEnc → RockPatch Docs:Reference → [SuperWeaponTypes] → AutoFire.
- On the same note, RockPatch-related search queries' results would have a much higher value if they didn't all end in RockPatch:Status and RockPatch Docs:Reference.
- The central reference would be nothing more than a link list (in fact, I'd turn it into a redirect to Category:RockPatch Flags).
- RockPatch pages would be in RockPatch:, RockPatch tutorials would be in RockPatch Docs:, but RockPatch flags would be in the main namespace (although it could all be easily accessed from RockPatch:Main).
- Work. The reference would have to be resolved to pages.
Forum Rules
(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!
(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.