Difference between revisions of "RogueBasin talk:Community Portal"

From RogueBasin
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(328 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkpagetool}}
{{talkpagetool}}


== We need SPAMBOT protection! ==
<table class="infobox" style="float:right;clear:right; width: 11em; border: 1px solid #93BACB; background:#E0E7EF;font-size:95%; margin:1em; line-height:1.4em;">
<tr>
<th style="background:#C2D8EF; padding:.4em; margin:1em; font-size:105%/j">Archives</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
* [[/Archive 1|1]]
* [[/Archive 2|2]]
* [[/Archive 3|3]]
</td>
</tr>
</table>


The SPAMBOTs seem to attack this wiki every second day. Page locking is no solution as the most recent attacks have proven (the BOT just created new pages based on text strings found in the wiki it seems). What we need is a secure account registration process. Don't hand out new accounts to "people" who don't pass a "I am a real person"-test. The popular technical solution is require the user to enter a code that's displayed as an image file unreadable by machines. Another solution would to only hand out accounts to people who send an email to an adim telling him why they want one. --[[User:Copx|Copx]] 20:31, 13 Dec 2005 (CET)
== Articles unnecessarily protected. ==
:Smaller Wikimedia Foundation wikis like Wikibooks have started doing this when you try to post new external links (and also, I think, to create accounts). Ask on their developers' list (Wikitech-l) for details. --[[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] 03:32, 27 Feb 2006 (CET)


Sure... I got tired of deleting Spam... perhaps Dargod or the RogueLord can do something about it? I dont know if we need to modify mediawiki, as I dont recall it able to ensure human sign up... --[[User:Slash|Slash]] 00:28, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
Several pages are marked as protected and it's unclear why. [http://roguebasin.com/index.php/Special:ProtectedPages?namespace=0&type=edit&level=0&size-mode=min&size= You can see them here].
There no specified reason, I couldn't find any indications of abuse,
and some of the discussions concluded that the protection was accidental and that admins weren't able to get around to resolving them at the time.[http://roguebasin.com/index.php/Talk:CreatingAForest]
It's obvious why [[Main Page]] and [[Featured roguelike‎]] would be protected, but I think protections should be removed from all other pages unless a reason can be given. --[[User:HexDecimal|HexDecimal]] ([[User talk:HexDecimal|talk]]) 07:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


DarkGod, I think we must try to install this software into this mediawiki installation...  http://www.ioerror.us/software/bad-behavior/installing-and-using-bad-behavior/on-mediawiki/ --[[User:Slash|Slash]] 14:19, 14 Dec 2005 (CET)
: It seems most of these came from a rgrd thing where people would agree to share their articles in roguebasin but specified they didn't want edits. I will dig into it and put the real cause if that's the case. --[[User:Slash|Slash]] ([[User talk:Slash|talk]]) 16:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


:Or the features listed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anti-spam_Features --[[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] 03:32, 27 Feb 2006 (CET)
:: I didn't realize that.  It's unfortunate that several of those pages have minor errors which can't be fixedIf that's the case then I think it'd have been better to have external links to the original articles instead of mirroring them on the wiki, or at least segregate them in some way that makes it clear that they aren't normal wiki pages.
 
:: I found the [[RGRD Wiki Project]] page which mentions that the pages would be protectedThese pages were supposed to have the author info in a small template but that seems to be missing from the protected pages I checked.  --[[User:HexDecimal|HexDecimal]] ([[User talk:HexDecimal|talk]]) 22:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we should lock down the wiki pending finding a proper solution.  We can at least then clean up this current set of spam without fearing [[ZapM]] turning back into a bunch of Paris Hilton ads. --[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 22:08, 16 Dec 2005 (CET)
 
How about moving to [[http://moinmoin.wikiwikiweb.de | MoinMoin]]? It has builtin global spam solution and is easily extensible (I could write a plugin for displaying roguelike screenshots, for example). There are migration scripts available. --[[User:TheSheep|TheSheep]] 22:06, 04 Jan 2006 (CET)
:People are probably much more familiar with MediaWiki, though, since so many people have edited Wikipedia. They'll feel more free to edit MediaWiki if it works similarly. --[[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] 03:32, 27 Feb 2006 (CET)
 
== Can we add a link to this talk page on the main roguebasin navigation bar? ==
 
Or otherwise add a page expressly for the discussion of roguebasin. The BBS at http://peltkore.net/~szdev/boards gets no traffic. Best to keep discussion here.
 
Also, lots of updates recently! Very exciting, good work guys :-) -- [[User:Shedletsky]]
 
:I agree, this is a good page for discussion. Perhaps:
The [[RogueBasin]] is a central knowledge-base for everything related to the [[Definition|Roguelike]] genre, as well as a detailed [[Categories|directory of Roguelike games]]. You can help! Go to the [[RogueBasin talk:Community Portal|Community Portal Talk page]] to participate in the latest discussion.
: or something similar. (The bold would become a link if pasted into the main page.)
:Also, would you mind if I moved this new section towards the bottom? Chronological is usually the standard, and I had a bit of trouble noticing it here at the top :) [[User:M|[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup>]] 06:46, 20 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
== Image support ==
 
I thought it would be a good idea to start a RL Dev section where people could peruse and download free RL media resources, like tiles and sound files. I went ahead and created the catagory, then realized that I don't know how to post images to RogueBasin. I haven't noticed any others here, so maybe they are disabled?
 
My original plan was the upload the NetHack and Angband tilesets I have, along with a number of individual tiles I drew for my own game. Hopefully the repository would grow over time, so if you were writing a graphical RL and wanted a tile of X, you could just come get one.
 
I do not think RogueBasin should endeavour to host free media.  I think it would be more effective it it just linked to the free media that does exist already. Two such links to start things off: http://www.reinerstileset.4players.de:1059/englisch.htm, and http://rltiles.sourceforge.net/.  Note that the cannonical Angband tiles, the Adam Bolt set, are in limbo as far as permission is concerned as the author has disappeared without clarifying the intent--[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 05:39, 10 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
----
File upload is in fact disabled : http://roguebasin.t-o-m-e.net/index.php/Special:Upload
----
 
Who can change this? Why isn't it enabled? If it's the cost of storage space/bandwidth I can host 50 megs (can a wiki's storage system be distributed across domains like that?) --[[User:John Shedletsky]]
 
== More articles ==
 
There are a lot of RL dev articles at: http://roguelikedevelopment.org/
 
Perhaps we should email the original authors to get permission to replicate them here. If the above site were to disappear from the internet, all those articles would be lost. [[John Shedletsky]]
 
----
 
Looking at how things go, I'd say that this site will disappear first...
 
== Place to discuss Rogue Basin ==
 
It would be nice to have a place where we could talk about this site, discuss what you be done, etc. Any suggestions how it could be named? - [[User:Poulpy|Poulpy]] 03:29, 22 May 2005 (CEST)
 
----
Perhaps we could name it 'The roguebasin forum'? :p
 
 
see http://peltkore.net/~szdev/boards --[[User:Slash|Slash]] 22:42, 25 Aug 2005 (CEST)
 
== Wikipedia Merge ==
 
I strongly disagree with the idea of merging with Wikipedia. RogueBasin is much more than an encyclopedia. I suggest that this item gets removed from the TO-DO list --[[User:Copx|Copx]] 13:52, 13 Jul 2005 (CEST)
 
Not to mention that the WikiPedia folks would probably remove it, as we are not really an encyclopedia and not within the scope of WikiPedia's concerns (preserving human knowledge ect ect) [[John Shedletsky]]
 
:We could merge with [http://en.wikibooks.org Wikibooks] though. We are within the scope of their wiki AFAIK. The benefits would be:
:* free hosting and administration
:* free spam protection (many people there help out by watching the [[Special:Recentchanges]] page and reverting spam, plus they have lots of people on their [[Special:Adminlist]] who can block spammers).
:So maybe someone should change the TODO on [[RogueBasin:Community Portal]] to say "Maybe merge with [http://en.wikibooks.org Wikibooks]?" instead.
:What do you think? --[[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] 03:39, 27 Feb 2006 (CET)
 
RogueBasin is nothing like a "textbook", not even remotely. It is supposed to be a general-purpose community site (see for example the previous reporting about the 7DRL contest, the news section etc.) such content does not fit in a "book", not even by the most liberal definition. --[[User:Copx|Copx]] 20:11, 27 Feb 2006 (CET)
 
:I agree. Though were we ever to create some sort of book, or compilation, we might want to consider adding it to Wikibooks. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 22:23, 17 Sep 2006 (CEST)
 
== Reviews removal ==
 
I think we should remove the reviews entirely--[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 21:39, 25 Aug 2005 (CEST)
 
Why is everyone so into removing things from RogueBasin? Why not just let it grow naturally to address the interests of those who spend the time to edit it? [[User:John Shedletsky|John Shedletsky]]
 
I, for one, think that the removal of the spam was a good thing.  Even if the spammers had spent the time to edit it.  Pruning is an important part of developing this site in a healthy direction.  I want this to be a useful resource, not a collection of half-implemented things. --[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 16:54, 6 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
== Categories done wrong ==
 
I think the [[Categories]] page is done wrong. We have here roguelikes categorized by development state, alphabetically, by year, by theme, by evolutionary branch, and by special categories. All of these are useful, but the problem is that they are not correlated, i.e. not every roguelike appears in all lists it should. I think a much better solution would be a single table which lists all this information for each roguelike. (It should be possible to create a table somehow, right? Wikipedia has some tables.) I don't know much about wikis, but maybe it would be also possible to create a script that would e.g. sort the table according to one of properties. --[[User:R|R]] 19:47, 4 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
I think the right answer is a more consistent use of the Category tag.  That seems to auto-generate the relevant categories, rather than having to edit the master list every time.  For example, POWDER has the Stable Game tag so shows up under Stable Games without the need to edit the list of the Stable Games and keep it alphabetical, etc.  Thus, I'd rather see the existing [[Categories]] be rolled into that.  For example, why do we have a master list of Fantasy, Sci-Fi, as *well* as a Futuristic Roguelike category? --[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 16:50, 6 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
== Conventions ==
 
I've added a [[RogueBasin:Conventions]] page to help us avoid any future confusion. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 07:09, 20 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
== So.... Image Support. ==
 
I wants it! Is there a reason why it is disabled?
 
Look how good the front page of http://gpwiki.org looks. RogueBasin could use a similar facelift. It would also be useful for screen shots of games, illustrations in articles, ect ect ect...
--
 
 
We dont need to enable image support for that. As you can see many pages have screenshots or images that can be included just by linking them with HTML. I dont know why Image Upload is disabled as I haven't been able to contact [[DarkGod]], but I dont see it as an inmediate necessity either.
 
--[[User:Slash|Slash]] 18:55, 28 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
== What information is critical in describing a roguelike? ==
 
I've recently added a "gameinfo" template. The following code:
<pre>{{gameinfo| name = NetHack
|developer = [[The NetHack Dev Team]]
|theme = fantasy, some modern
|influences = [[Hack]]
|status = [[Stable]]
|released = 1987
|updated = 3.4.3, on Month 1st, 2003
|licensing = [[Open source]]
|language = [[C]]
|platforms = Amiga, Atari, Linux, Mac, Msdos, OS/2, Windows, Windows CE
|interface = [[Graphical tiles]], [[ASCII]], [[Keyboard]], [[Mouse]] (limited)
|gamelength = average: ?, to-beat: weeks or years
|site = http://www.nethack.org/
}}</pre>
{{gameinfo| name = NetHack
|developer = [[The NetHack Dev Team]]
|theme = fantasy, some modern
|influences = [[Hack]]
|status = [[Stable]]
|released = 1987
|updated = 3.4.3, on Month 1st, 2003
|licensing = [[Open source]]
|language = [[C]]
|platforms = Amiga, Atari, Linux, Mac, Msdos, OS/2, Windows, Windows CE
|interface = [[Graphical tiles]], [[ASCII]], [[Keyboard]], [[Mouse]] (limited)
|gamelength = average: ?, to-beat: weeks or years
|site = http://www.nethack.org/
}}
...will produce what is on the right. [See [[Template_talk:Gameinfo]] for the latest example]
 
What other important information should be included, and is something on the right unneccisary? Perhaps a field for the official website, descendants, and antecedent/influences/"based on"/etc? [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 03:16, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
I suggest three additional fields: Link to Project Homepage, Is source code available (Y/N), and type of graphics (ASCII, tiles, 3d, 5d, haptic interface only, ect). I'm not entirely sure that the "Features" field should be in there - that seems better addressed in the actual project entry, but it's not a big deal. - [[Shedletsky]]
 
Added them as licensing, interface, and site. How's that? [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 04:41, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
Yeah that's a good way to put it. [[User:Shedletsky|<b><i>[[User:Shedletsky|â€“John Shedletsky]]<sup>[[User_talk:Shedletsky|Talk]]</sup></i></b> ]] 04:56, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
Should genre be removed? Apart from, say, fantasy and futuristic, there isn't much there. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 06:19, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
:I'll be removing the genre field due to non-informativeness. Any objections? [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 03:34, 22 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
I think we should separate two types of availability.  One is licensing/availability of source code.  The other is licensing/availability of binaries.  --[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 03:14, 22 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
Hmm, I see what you're getting at. I hadn't even thought of commercial roguelikes. Is there a way to combine the two? For example, a game that is open source (which can be any of the open source licenses) is almost always free. And a commercial game is almost always closed source. License will refer only to the current version's license. Any rare exceptions can be, well, crammed together into something like "[[open source]], [[postcardware]]". Or am I not thinking of something? [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 03:34, 22 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
I can't think of any RL that has different licensing terms for the binary vs. source code. [[User:Shedletsky|<b><i>[[User:Shedletsky|â€“John Shedletsky]]<sup>[[User_talk:Shedletsky|Talk]]</sup></i></b> ]] 03:37, 22 Sep 2005 (CEST)
:Well, most in-development roguelikes have free binaries, but the source code, even when it's published, is not free to use.--unsigned
 
I think theme (genre is usually "Roguelike", isn't it?) is useful for people, because "tell me what are SF roguelikes" is a FAQ on rgr.misc. Also theme is not just fantastic/futuristic, there are many kinds of fantasy (own serious fantasy world like ADOM, non-serious world like NetHack, Norse mythology like Castle of the Winds) and futuristic (cyberpunk, apocalyptic, ...) and others (like ChessRogue). To game description we could also consider adding game length (coffeebreak 0-1, short 1-3, medium 3-9, long 9-27, very long 27-inf hours) and parent (a former game that seems to have inspired given game, or even shares source). --[[User:R|R]] 13:56, 26 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
:"influences", "theme", and "length" are good then? I'll add them if there are no objections. If you do, or have better namings ("basedon", "playtime"?), then please say so, because it's a real bother to change them later on when they're in use. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 20:34, 26 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
=== What information is critical in describing a roguelike developer? ===
:[...]''maybe add a similar template for Roguelike Developers? --[[User:Kisielewicz|Kisielewicz]] 13:19, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
<nowiki>{{developerinfo}}</nowiki> should be alright? Apart from name and games made, what should be included? It should be alright if there isn't as much information as for a game. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 15:58, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
My proposal:
 
* Nick
* Real Name
* Nationality
* Homepage
* Games made
* Projects
* Languages
 
--[[User:Kisielewicz|Kisielewicz]] 17:48, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
{{developerinfo|name = Kornel Kisielewicz
|alias = Anubis
|nationality = Polish
|languages = [[FreePascal]]
|site = http://chaos.magma-net.pl/
|games = [[DoomRL]], [[DiabloRL]]
|projects = [[Carceri]], [[GenRogue]]
}}
The difference between games made and projects is in the development stage, correct? I think we should combine the two, and make no distinction based on development status, at least in the infobox. Does that sound alright? For now, there's what is on the right [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 20:35, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
The difference is simple -- if there is a playable game it's considered a "Game". If it's a development snapshot, testing version, rumor, then it's a Project. In my case, [[DoomRL]] and [[DiabloRL]] would be a game, and [[Carceri]] and [[GenRogue]] would be a Project. Another example, [[Joseph Hewitt]] -- Games : [[GearHead]], [[DeadCold]], [[Dungeon Monkey]], Projects: [[GearHead 2]]. In my case, the alias is Anubis, for I posted under it for a long time ;-D --[[User:Kisielewicz|Kisielewicz]] 03:45, 22 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
Alright, there we are. Anything else that we can think of? [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 03:36, 25 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
== Opinions, in or out? ==
 
I'm currently writing up something for [[Guild]], and I'm finding it a bit of a pain to withhold suggestions or opinions. It would be really nice if we could set aside some sections for, say, suggestions or feedback, especially for games that are currently in the first stages of development. I don't think that their talk pages would be an appropriate place, since that seems more for editorial discussion... thoughts? [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 06:24, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
Hmm. Maybe it's something that should be put in reviews? I don't know. It'd be nice to be able to state which points of a game I found exciting or tedious right on there, and then if someone disagrees they can state that right there as well. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 06:28, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
Maybe projects that want to solicit feedback should add a Feedback heading in the project entry itself, and people can edit that? [[User:Shedletsky|<b><i>[[User:Shedletsky|â€“John Shedletsky]]<sup>[[User_talk:Shedletsky|Talk]]</sup></i></b> ]] 20:23, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
I think that's a good way to go, but I've never heard of a Roguelike project that was not soliciting feedback. Maybe if as long as we find a record of the author asking for feedback, such as a thread from rgrd, we can add a feedback section, find some actual feedback, and also add our own. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 20:44, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
I dont think that is a good way to go... I see the individual game articles as some kind of "Game sheet" that stores the information about the game itself in order to create some kind of non structured database. A link to a feedback section would be nice to me. (For example, for "CastlevaniaRL" an article named "CastlevaniaRL: Feedback" where people can put their much appreciated feedback in a talkpagesque way).
--[[User:Slash|Slash]] 19:09, 22 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
That's a pretty good idea [[User:Shedletsky|<b><i>[[User:Shedletsky|â€“John Shedletsky]]<sup>[[User_talk:Shedletsky|Talk]]</sup></i></b> ]] 20:13, 22 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
Yes, I agree with that. As long as we have a place to do it, and as long as that place isn't the talk page. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 20:44, 22 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
== Feeds ==
Is there any way to customize the feeds? For example, to limit the number of entries?
 
--[[User:TheSheep|The Sheep]] 19:56, 26 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
Ok, I found out how to [http://roguebasin.t-o-m-e.net/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&feed=rss&limit=16&hideminor=1 limit the feed] :)
 
--[[User:TheSheep|The Sheep]] 20:02, 26 Sep 2005 (CEST)
 
== Interwiki map? ==
I'd like to be able to link to Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and StrategyWiki. Links like <nowiki>[[Wikipedia:SNES]] and [[w:en:SNES]] and [[StrategyWiki:NetHack]]</nowiki> don't seem to work however. Perhaps we should set up interwiki links. See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterWiki Interwiki] and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map InterWiki map].  --[[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] 20:35, 8 May 2006 (CEST)
 
== Log in to edit -> less conributions ==
 
Why not let users edit without logging in? They kind of expect that from Wikipedia, and it'll encourage more contributions. There are excellent anti-spam solutions available, such as the anti-URL spam wikibooks.org uses (it seems to work great), or you can just set up a [[Special:Recent Changes|Recent Changes]] patrol like the one on Wikipedia. Cheers, [[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] 20:35, 8 May 2006 (CEST)
 
We have had problems with spam and they are very annoying to deal with; I dont think the current admin of the roguebasin ([[DarkGod]]) is got enough time to implement an antispam solution and roguebasin is not the kind of wiki to which anonimous contributors would write, as wikipedia is, in my opinion.
--[[User:Slash|Slash]] 22:58, 8 May 2006 (CEST)
 
I don't object at all to the need to login to editI have noticed, however, that account creation seems to be entirely disabled?  How do users create new accounts?  Are they supposed to email someone, and if so, who?  This must be documented somewhere in the wiki, preferablly on the Login page where they expect to see account creation information.  --[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 04:11, 17 Jul 2006 (CEST)
 
Yes, by now they must email me at java.koder@gmail.com to create an account; I know it is crappy, but it was the only way to fight spambots that could be easily implemented, I posted that on rgra, rgrm and rgrd, though I know new visitors may never notice that... this info was supposed to be on the create account page, but I think DarkGod couldnt change it.  --[[User:Slash|Slash]] 18:02, 17 Jul 2006 (CEST)
 
== Events listing in the community portal ==
 
The events listing in the community portal is __horribly__ out of date. If I can, I should have time on saturday to be able to update it. What information do we have to put on it? Anything particularly special? Or dare I suggest, is it worth removing it? [[User:Lochok|Lochok]] 16:13, 24 May 2006 (CEST)
 
I also think it is worth removing events altogether. This section has to be updated when time arises and contributors have time at random intervals. However I would add at least second 7DRL contest if this page wasn't locked down. [[User:Ancient|<b><i>[[User:Ancient|â€“Michal Bielinski]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ancient|Talk]]</sup></i></b>]] 22:53, 29 Jul 2006 (CEST)
 
== Move to roguelikedevelopment.org ==
 
I have been reading this wiki longer, but I only started editing after the move from t-o-m-e.net to roguelikedevelopment.org. So far I noticed that ''create an account'' works (instead of not telling me how to create an account) and that there is a ''new logo''. What else should happen? Now that I actually edit here, I do not want it to become unusable like it was before. Some ideas:
 
# ''Upgrade to PHP 5.x'' - [[Special:Version]] reports PHP 4.4.2RC2-dev, but I hear that MediaWiki 1.7 requires PHP 5.
# ''Upgrade to MediaWiki 1.7.x'' - [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading_to_1.7 Manual:Upgrading to 1.7] ... but 1.3.9 is so ancient that it might not work. Still if we can reach 1.7.x (or anything newer than 1.3.9) that should improve security and allow newer extensions.
# ''Get spam blacklist'' - '''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SpamBlacklist_extension SpamBlacklist extension]''' - From my experience, this kills almost every spam. It blocks links to spam sites. I think this is what the [http://angband.oook.cz/rgrd.php?showpost=79040 rgrd people] were discussing.
 
Any other ideas? What would work, what would not? --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 07:57, 9 Aug 2006 (CEST)
 
I will begin by moving Rogue Basin to Media Wiki 1.6.8 as the hosting currently doesn't have PHP 5.x installed. I think 1.6.8 will be sufficient for now as the security is greatly increased compared to 1.3.9.  --[[User:Bjorn|Bjorn]]
 
: Good luck with the upgrade! --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 19:11, 9 Aug 2006 (CEST)
 
== please upgrade ==
 
Is there anything that prevents us from upgrading or applying a patch that asks the user to complete a CAPTCHA, or implements other anti-spam features? [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 09:06, 16 Sep 2006 (CEST)
 
== Articles ==
 
I've compiled the [[Articles]] page. The category system might serve better for when we have a lot of content, but right now it seems hard to navigate and somewhat scattered. I think that a single page is much easier to use. Please add to it missing or new articles. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 12:04, 17 Sep 2006 (CEST)
 
== Organization ==
 
I think that some of the organization is confusing. I propose the following layout:
 
----
Articles (See [[Articles]] for expanded. Categories should reflect that listing.)
* Development [...]
* Design [...]
* Implementation [...]
* Game reviews
(additional article categories:)
* Editable articles (will have 'original by' attribution as in [[Monster attacks]])
* Locked articles (will have a message stating that the original author would not like the article edited)
 
Games (Categories...)
* Talkie-talkie projects
* Unstable games (merge of alpha/beta games. Any game that isn't finished.)
* Stable games (games that are "finished", as far as being fully playable. Includes 7DRLs and Major roguelikes as subcategories.)
* 7DRLs (Stable games that are 7DRLs)
* Major roguelikes (Stable games that are well-known)
(an additional category:)
* Defunct projects (any project that is dead, regardless of completedness)
* Handheld roguelikes (any project or roguelike for cell phones or other handheld defices)
* Roguelike engines (any project that includes or is a roguelike engine)
(by similarity:)
* Hacklikes (messagebox stating "this game is a [[Hacklike]]")
* Bandlikes (messagebox stating "this game is a [[Bandlike]]")
** Angband variants (messagebox stating "this game is an [[Angband variant]]")
 
Listings (such as [[Monster attacks]], [[Preferred Key Controls]] - also to be included in [[Articles]] as bold entries)
 
Definitions (Explanations of what a term means, and relevant information. [[:Category:Features]] includes many pages which are just explanations of what a term means.)
 
Navigation pages shouldn't be categorized, unless they relate to a certain category (e.g. list of roguelikes and roguelike games).
----
As it is, many games are placed under 4 different categories. Major roguelikes are all stable, and so are all 7DRLs (that aren't in progress - if they are, I doubt the author would take the time to write an article here) - no need to add them under "stable" and "major roguelikes"/"7DRLs" (and "roguelike games" and etc.). At the very most, you'd have 3: development status, hacklike or bandlike, and if it's defunct/an engine/handheld. This means that all games under [[:Category:Roguelike games]] should be subcategorized. If you want a [[list of all roguelikes]], one exists.
 
I propose that all categorization is done only through templates (for example, adding [[Template:Gameinfo]] automatically adds that page to [[:Category:Roguelike games]]). This would eliminate stray categories that have a single article under them (I've put [[:category:angband]] into [[:category:delete]]). There's no need to give every article on this site a category. It would also eliminate mis-categorized pages ([[:category:roguelike games]] should have a see also for pages like List of handheld roguelikes etc., but they shouldn't be classified as roguelike games.) By including, for example, <nowiki>{{defunct}}</nowiki>, a box that states "This game or project is [[defunct]]" would be displayed on the right, and the page would be added to [[:category:defunct projects]]. I'll implement the necissary templates if noone objects. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 01:47, 18 Sep 2006 (CEST)
 
----
I like most of your proposals.  I am not sure about the idea of merging alpha and beta, many authors seem to like to be able to make that distinctionI would also be very careful to avoid the word finished with respect to stable games.--[[User:JeffLait|JeffLait]] 05:48, 18 Sep 2006 (CEST)
 
: I'll make two seperate templates for alpha and beta. | Perhaps 'finishable' is the proper term. [[User:M|<b><i>[[User:M|&ndash;M]]<sup>[[User_talk:M|T]]</sup></i></b>]] 21:16, 18 Sep 2006 (CEST)

Latest revision as of 22:31, 22 June 2021

· Click here to add a new message ·


Archives

Articles unnecessarily protected.

Several pages are marked as protected and it's unclear why. You can see them here. There no specified reason, I couldn't find any indications of abuse, and some of the discussions concluded that the protection was accidental and that admins weren't able to get around to resolving them at the time.[1] It's obvious why Main Page and Featured roguelike‎ would be protected, but I think protections should be removed from all other pages unless a reason can be given. --HexDecimal (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems most of these came from a rgrd thing where people would agree to share their articles in roguebasin but specified they didn't want edits. I will dig into it and put the real cause if that's the case. --Slash (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't realize that. It's unfortunate that several of those pages have minor errors which can't be fixed. If that's the case then I think it'd have been better to have external links to the original articles instead of mirroring them on the wiki, or at least segregate them in some way that makes it clear that they aren't normal wiki pages.
I found the RGRD Wiki Project page which mentions that the pages would be protected. These pages were supposed to have the author info in a small template but that seems to be missing from the protected pages I checked. --HexDecimal (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
http://roguebasin.com/index.php?title=RogueBasin_talk:Community_Portal&diff=cur&oldid=3612&printable=yes
roguebasin.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-31
110158
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2IBB3PVZ3YH77BKOQ3U2GLGJSBQWDWX6
<urn:uuid:a2adcfd1-b23b-4bee-83e0-9d1b48b6299a>
2021-07-24T14:05:48Z
64.227.25.9
text/html
sha1:B5WMXXKCVIVHUMEM6IKPBL3AJO62YFRR
<urn:uuid:38deffd1-a7a1-4de0-95f3-cf6183f8b5b5>
http://roguebasin.com/index.php?title=RogueBasin_talk:Community_Portal&diff=cur&oldid=3612&printable=yes
response
<urn:uuid:d3354412-8446-4848-bb55-5b98929c182a>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-31
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July/August 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-212.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/