Talk:Main Page

From GTAMods Wiki
Revision as of 05:33, 15 January 2015 by Spaceeinstein (talk | contribs) (→‎403 Forbidden on www.gtamodding.com)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion.png Note: This page is used for discussion about the wiki in general. Resolved items have been moved to the archive page.

Search engine

The search engine sucks. I'm unable to find any article searching by word 'using' even there are a lot of pages containing it (I've searched for the page "Using MEd" btw). And it does not search for words shorter than 4 characters (although I know it's almost impossible to bypass. :/ Seemann 10:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

'Using' might be on the list of stop-words. Internal SQL word size for indexing is limited to a minimum of 4 characters. --Steve-m 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
However, you can use the wildcard (%) in SQL, so 3 letter compatibility could exist. Dunno why GTAnet hasn't figured that one out yet... maybe I'm better at this than them, lol :P --Deji 14:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Game links

For the various (big) games there are a variety of dummy articles now, redirecting to the game categories:

The point is to avoid people having to type or copy the complicated category link and override the name every time. Also, should we decide to write proper articles for each game some day, this would make it easier to redirect them to the article instead of the category.

For that reason I started replacing category links for III and VC; SA and IV are still left to do (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:GTA SA and Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:GTA 4). All those entries that are not sub-lists of redirect pages still have direct links to game categories and need fixing.

So in case someone is bored or has to edit some of those pages anyway, please fix the game links as well. --Steve-m 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Btw, not all those articles have :Category:XXX links. WhatLinksHere lists all articles that directly or indirectly point to some page. Most of those articles just have a navi template and that is why they on the list as well. Seemann 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. So I changed the navi templates... ;) --Steve-m 00:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also The Lost and Damned. Seemann 06:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Common discussion

I believe that removing old comments is not a good idea. Some ideas/thoughts could be said over and over, and to avoid that it's better to leave the discussion topics easily accessible. In my opinion, it would be smarter to create an archive page, say Talk:Main_Page/Archive, and eventually move the resolved items there. Or, as it is also done on Wikipedia, strike out the title of a resolved item with <s> tag (==<s>Common discussion</s>==). Seemann 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression that the two items in question were fully resolved and not at risk to come up again. But you're right, an archive page makes it easier to view old discussion items without having to browse the whole history. --Steve-m 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about creating a link to Referring to GTA Versions at the headline "Version Specific"? --Aschratt 18:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Seemann?! 19:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
So we're formatting our signatures now? :p But yea, link added. --Steve-m 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think Seemann will blow up this wiki some day :D. Thank's Steve! --Aschratt 20:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hehe) Seemann?! 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1.14? Seemann?! 08:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting tactic

It seems to be easy to redirect some articles to the lists or categories. But we should eventually write proper articles for these ones:

Seemann 09:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, SCM/main.scm shouldn't redirect to the general scripting article, but rather a detailed file format description, like SCO (SA SCM ??).
Done with SCM and Opcode. Seemann 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to write an article for particles and particle effects some day... We already got Particle (SA). With rewriting the IDE article there could also be an article for 2dfx, but I do not think that it is a good idea to specify the particle effects in this article. With GTA IV there is the 2dfx IPL section. It is used pretty often so there will also be an article. Last but not least we should create a file format specification for the effects.fxp file. At the moment this redirects to Particle (SA). --Aschratt 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

I want the stub templates ({{stub}}, {{tool-stub}}, etc) to be unprotected so anyone could edit them. Seemann?! 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Seemann?! 08:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I request unprotection for the main page so we finally could edit that ugly design. Seemann?! 05:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Syntax highlightning

Is it possible to change the syntax highlightning for C++? The current one looks pretty ugly in my oppinion (especially the stuff behind the global resolution operator :: produces eye cancer!)... Example (from here): 

// parse sa-ufiles.dat
void parseFile(std::string &fileName)
{
	// open the file with reading rights and search the end of the file
	std::fstream stream(fileName.c_str(), std::ios::in | std::ios::ate);
 
	// allocate an array of characters to read the whole file content
	int size = static_cast<int>(stream->tellg());
	char* buffer = new char[size];
 
	// search the start of the file and read it's content
	stream->seekg(0);
	stream->read(buffer, size);
 
	// parse the content, return value is an vector of strings containing the file names
	std::string str(buffer);
	parseContent(str);
 
	// delete the memory for buffering and close the stream
	delete[] buffer;
	stream->close();
}

--Aschratt - oO 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Need someone with an FTP access. You may use lang="c" instead. Seemann?! 07:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Layout / Guidelines

Found really great article on Wikipedia that describe how to lay out an article: Wikipedia:LAYOUT. If we are going to write the GTAModding.com Guidelines one day, that article should be taken into account as well. Seemann?! 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a number of changes where the stub templete was moved at the top of a page (example). So, should we stick to that, or stay with old style where that template was at the bottom of the page? Seemann?! 13:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Well the reason why I moved them up to the top is simply the new design of the template. Untill a few weeks ago the stub-template was just there to mark an article as incomplete somewhere, but therefor we also have the incomplete-template now. This allows us to only mark various parts of an article as incomplete. Also If you have got a long article like RenderWare binary stream file you do not realy see that it is an stub until you scroll down to the end. And since I start reading on the top I think the best way is to provide information (Like "this article is a stub" or "this article handles...") there. --Aschratt - oO 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that some of us are using the Ref-Template to place jumps inside an article. I always thought references are refering to an external or internal link in a section at the bottom of an article ("See also" and "External Links"). At least this is how Wikipedia does handle it as far as I know. Should we also follow this guidline? --Aschratt - oO 08:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Seemann's intention is to do both that. He created that template and first used it in Saves (GTA SA). A lot of stuff we are doing and have done here are far from Wikipedia standards so I don't think we should be following that. We should create our own standards.--Spaceeinstein 19:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign

Well, the main page is currently non-informative and boring. It's time to change something. I made new concept of design based on 2x3 blocks arrangement. There could be more blocks for sure (3x3 is better), just have no idea what to put there yet. Well, throw your feedback there, what is good and what is not, and lets make it better. Feel free to edit that page as well.

Popular Pages and Recent Discussions need the Dynamic Articles List extension to be installed... Steve? Seemann?! 08:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bump....
I realy like the new look... it's cool! But is it possible to align the games at the right side or at least the icons verticaly centered to the text? Somehow they look a bit strange up there in my eyes... --Aschratt - oO 15:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking good, Seemann! :) A few suggestions:
  • Remove the Popular Pages list. The problem with such a list is always that the already popular articles get more popular and the unpopular (new) ones don't have a chance. Also the list is unordered and thus more confusing than helpful. Makes more sense to compile lists by hand, by topic, workflow or whatever. Could rather add that link to the Wiki Tools box.
  • Same with the Recent Discussions box. We don't have many (recent) talk pages, and they're not really helpful/interesting to new visitors.
  • As Aschratt said, the game list would look better in its own box, with full titles. If the box isn't full enough, could always replace the top-most game (IV) with a fancy graphical button.
  • What about a box with popular modding tools? One with a screenshot? One with recent GTAnet headlines? One with new/popular GTAG mods?
  • Every box should have its own (distinct) icon.
--Steve-m 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact I tried to make the game list in a similar way it's done on the GTAGarage now (a set of game icons at the top). I agree that it looks a bit strange, probably need to use those GTAG's icons, just not sure if it's allowed.
Point taken with the Popular Pages. But I still want a dynamic list to be there, let it be the new articles then, so they do get a chance to become more popular.
Disagree with the Recent Discussions. We have some active/interesting ones there (SCO, IPL, this page for example; these ones first came into my mind, probably there are more), but as they aren't seen anywhere (except of a short time on the recent changes list) nobody joins it. The special page serving it isn't helpful enough. Seemann?! 08:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1 Million Visitors

w00t!--Spaceeinstein 01:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! =) Seemann?! 09:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Grand Theft Wiki

Just to let you know, the manager of Grand Theft Wiki is importing all the pages from this site to that site. If you want to help standardize and fix the imported pages, go there and help out. The bulk of modding information should stay here so if there are changes to the articles there, I or someone else will make the changes here.--Spaceeinstein 01:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, GTW has moved back to its original site.--Spaceeinstein 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Max Payne 3 modding?

How about adding it too? OpenIV now supports its and it could be modded like GTA 4, but i have some difference and i think this should be covered. Or maybe we should have generic RAGE modding and cover all RAGE powered games there one by one? Voodooman 23:30, 19 June 2012 (BST)

GTAModding.com says it all. Seemann?! 07:21, 21 June 2012 (BST)

The problem with the mapping table

Over the last 2 month I see some problems with table. Faces are not shown. My browser is Google Chrome.

403 Forbidden on www.gtamodding.com

When I attempt to open just the website in my browser, I get a 403 Forbidden. Am I the only one that experiences it? It started happening recently. Cheers. The GTA (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember what error code it was but GTAForums goes down at times also. I think it's a network-wide problem. It has always been back for me after a short while so I'm not bothered by it.--Spaceeinstein (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://gtamods.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=12633"