Gamepedia Wiki Representative
|TimeShade||talk • contribs|
|None (Apply here!)|
to your watchlist and stay on top of things!
Awesomenauts Wiki is a community project run entirely by volunteers to provide information for the game.
Our community of editors is open to anyone. If you would like to join in:
- While you can edit anonymously, a free account makes it easier to keep track of your own edits.
- Need help
- Check out our help wiki.
- Be bold
- There's no need to wait. Jump right in and start editing. The wiki maintenance category may be a great place to start, or you can start small by fixing spelling, grammar, and other errors you come across.
- Start a new article
- Recent changes
- See a list of recent changes.
- Community discussion
- See what the community is currently talking about or make suggestions.
New references model
Hello guys and girls of the wiki! rpvarela here.
As you have probably noticed in the "Recent Changes" log, I've been altering the way we display references on the wiki to a more... professional model.
To add a reference to the wiki, simply put the link between within the < ref> </ref > command (without the spaces) and then add a < references/> command (once again, without the space) to the bottom of the page.
Hello wiki editors and admins, I'm making this topic to discuss the Wiki's weekly poll.
After we moved to Gamepedia and the poll was relocated to be further down on the main page, the number of voters per week has decreased dramatically from 100-120 to less than 10. I've already discussed the possibility of moving the poll back up but it can't be done as the poll basically doubles in size after a single vote has been cast, pushing the 'nauts portraits further down (which is something we really don't want happening).
Anyway, what I'm saying is that I'm considering removing the polls entirely, which would free up some space for whatever we may need. If you guys have anything to say about that, be it an objection or a better idea, feel free to let me know below!
Possibly changing the item page template
Hey guys, so I had an idea about the item page template. So I saw that ORB is adding descriptions and whatnot to the upgrade pages, and I've been working on adding notes and upgrade synergies to them. I was thinking, maybe we should make notes, descriptions, and upgrade synergies part of the actual template so that it looks neat and together. Alternatively, we could make it so that they each have their own tab on the page, like how the 'naut pages have tabs for skills, upgrades, info, etc. I was just thinking that this would be a neat idea to make the item pages more organized, linear, and to encourage people to add more content to it, but I didn't want to go and change the template without asking all the people here about it first. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, I made a mock-up for one of the ideas here. Tell me what you think! PuddingskinMcGee (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This seem like a good idea. I like those tabs, but you'd probably want to discuss it with LittleFreak as well, as he created those templates. Let's see if he replies... if not, feel free to bug him on his talk page. =P
I have no objections though, good suggestion.
Use as few tabs as possible god bless12:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Is three a good number or should I not use tabs? I want it to look neat instead of just an alternative clutter, so is the three in that mockup I made good? Also, would you guys like the tabs better on the top or on the bottom, if we were to do so? Also, before I head off to bed, happy holidays! PuddingskinMcGee (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Three tabs seem fine to me and I like them on top of the page instead of at the bottom. I wouldn't change anything, personally.
Happy Holidays to you too! =)
There is literally no need for any tabs on pages that have a small amount of content. Considering that there are no notes to write on so many upgrades, and the fact that there aren't too many synergies in this game makes these tabs pointless and tedious for readers. I suggest keeping it condensed into one place like it currently is.
Oh, and another thing, can we please remove the skin .gifs in the "in-game look" sections? Unless the skin adds a special sprite for the upgrade, there is no need to add it to the page because it does not give any new info and just overstretches the page, making the sections below it look weird. GOD BLESS08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... you do make a valid point regarding the amount of info on these pages. Maybe when they have enough content? Here's what we can do then, if you guys like the multiple tabs idea: Search through the pages with little content and see if they can be improved in anyway. I can help with that as well (but not until January).
As for the gifs, I say leave'em there. It doesn't look weird, IMO. I don't think they cause any problems. Happy holidays.
I don't like the idea but I'm still trying to add as much info as possible. However, you can't cough up new info for every single page, some of them simply don't have anything special to write about.10:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's why I said: "and see if they can be improved in anyway." After we go through the pages and add extra info where relevant, then we can determine whether or not there's enough data for Pudding's proposed model.
Categorizing utility pages
So, what do the people around the wiki think of categorizing utility pages? At first I was inclined to categorize them with every 'naut they belonged to, but after running into discrepancies I figure it should be brought up to the community portal first. I as thinking that upgrades that are available to every 'naut should have a stand-alone category for "Category:All", or something of that sort. Alternatively, we could keep the categorization of every specific 'naut. I would also like to hear your guy's opinion of it though, of course, so please feel free to send over any suggestions or ideas you have about the subject. Thanks! --PuddingskinMcGee (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've seen what's going on here. Might as well share my opinion:
First off, thank you guys for bringing that to the community portal. It is where it belongs and also gives more people the opportunity to debate. +1!
As for the actual discussion, I see issues on both sides. For once, Oil's approach to the categories don't do a lot in order to inform player of what exactly this is about. Pudding's approach on the other hand make the categories space at the bottom kinda cluttered.
My personal suggestion would be: forget about 'naut-specific caregories on upgrade pages altogether and instead focus on making item-specific categories for the 'nauts, restricting them only to utility: Make a caregoty called "PPT" for every power pills turbo user, for instance, or "special boots" for rae, skoll and lone... and so on.
That seems like it might be a good conclusion to get off with, but I feel like this might not fix the clutter aspect of categories, only move it. But this seems like happy medium at least, and it's probably the best way to go about doing it that I can think of. Shall I start working on it right now? --PuddingskinMcGee (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You go gurl
Also, the reason why I bought up that categories are useless on smaller wikis is because you're caring too much about it. Trust me, it doesn't matter at all. I stopped halfway through the categorization stuff myself once I realized that it didn't help anybody.09:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
In any case, if this is the general consensus then I'll begin working on it as soon as I have the time. I get off of school early today, so I should have some good time to be able to do it. --PuddingskinMcGee (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Awesomenauts Wiki switched to dark
To be more exact: hydradark. One might not *really* see the difference (well, you can, the searchbar is black now), but it should make work in some ways easier on this rather dark themed wiki. (So they told me!). A few things got borked, but I'm at it and trying to fix that asap (sidebar and vector menu!) - although this should not conflict with the usual Wiki work. PLEASE PM in case you see something weird, then I'll have a look. Thank you! Encredechine (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)