Talk:RayWiki

From RayWiki, the Rayman wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category tree

Is there any particular reason why RayWiki's category system is so different from those of other wikis such as Wikipedia? Here it is common to see pages categorised within large categories and simultaneously categorised bwithin subcategories of the large categories. For example, Moskito is a member of the 'Bosses', 'Bosses from Rayman 1', 'Enemies' and 'Enemies from Rayman 1' categories – why is this necessary? The fact that Moskito is categorised under 'Bosses from Rayman 1' indicates that he is also a member of the other three categories; even if the other three were removed from the Moskito article, he would still be a member of them, because 'Bosses from Rayman 1' is a subcategory of both 'Bosses' and 'Enemies from Rayman 1', which is itself a subcategory of 'Enemies'. I suggest that we remove all superfluous categorisations from our articles and adopt the much more efficient categorisation system employed by Wikipedia. If anyone has found my descriptions confusing, here are illustrations of Wikipedia's system and our current one. Thoughts? —Spiraldoor IconSpiralDoor.png 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While it would definitely be a great idea to have a clean categorisation tree, I'm afraid that the upper level categories will not appear at the bottom of the page even if the article is classified under one of their subcategories, and that the said articles will not appear in those categories' pages either. It's a question of legibility vs optimisation. —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware that the upper categories do not appear on the bottom of pages contained in their subcategories, but I don't view this as a problem. For example, under the Wikipedia system, the only category on the Magician's page would be 'Friends from Rayman 1' (which makes the other three categories redundant). The 'Characters' category (which is excessively broad under our current system) would contain only its fifteen subcategories, but would not directly contain any pages – much like the way Wikipedia's 'People' category contains only subcategories rather than tens of thousands of individual pages. A user viewing our 'Characters' category would be able to click on any of its fifteen subcategories, which would contain more specific lists of characters. Likewise a user who clicks on the 'Friends from Rayman 1' category at the bottom of the Magician's page would find that this category is a subcategory of 'Friends' and 'Characters from Rayman 1', both of which are subcategories of 'Characters'. There's no need to have a redundantly long list containing every single connotedly-applicable category on every single page – isn't this exactly the sort of thing subcategories exist to prevent? Otherwise what's the point of subcategories at all? —Spiraldoor IconSpiralDoor.png 15:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
...bump? —Spiraldoor IconSpiralDoor.png 11:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
(...I still think we should do this.) —Spiraldoor IconSpiralDoor.png 18:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
So your idea is to create more subcategories in order to avoid a flood of links? If it is that, I agree. --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 18:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to create more subcategories – I think we have enough already. I want us to stop grouping articles in gargantuan super-categories like 'Characters' (94 pages) and 'Enemies' (126 pages). By way of comparison, Wikipedia's 'People' category contains a tree of many subcategories, but no individual articles. This is what I'm suggesting. If Wikipedia followed the system we currently use, there would be hundreds of redundant categories at the end of almost every single article – it's just not efficient. —Spiraldoor IconSpiralDoor.png 18:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean now. Why not? --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Most pages would have to be edited in order to straighten out their categories. This is a pretty big change, which is why I'm waiting for a consensus. —Spiraldoor IconSpiralDoor.png 19:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I predict a tough work to do if this arrives to an agreement. --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 19:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to get this category streamlining out of the way before another hundred Rayman Origins characters and locations are dumped on us. I'm perfectly willing to shoulder most of the work myself. —Spiraldoor IconSpiralDoor.png 18:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with this decision. —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 17:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Me too. --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Languages

I know this will be a silly suggestion. Could a Portuguese version be done? --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely not silly, and it could definitely be done. I would, however, suggest that you write at least a dozen articles (either here or, even better, on your computer (and then you can send them to me)) before I create it. But once I'm sure you have and you are going to work on it, I'll be glad to open a Portuguese version! —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, for that I had to select some articles and fully translate from the English version to the European Portuguese. When I manage to have ten articles ready I'll post something here again. --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hunch, can I start to create new articles for the portuguese pages? --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 22:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, to be honest I'd rather avoid clogging up the English wiki with foreign articles (in the end it was a real mess with the Hungarian articles here), so maybe you could just write them using the preview function and store them on your computer in the meantime? —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 12:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You could always install MediaWiki in different places (eg en, es (Spanish and Portugese?), nl etc etc) Shukaku 12:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You mean, putting something like pt:RayWiki for example? --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 12:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Like this: http://www.raymanpc.com/wiki/hu/ (like, Multiple Installations). It would be very difficult to achieve this: pt:RayWiki. It would probably need plugins or code modifications. Shukaku 12:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point, Shukaku. I have already modified the source code for multi-wiki implementation (we have French, English, German and Hungarian versions of RayWiki), but I'm not creating a new language before I'm sure there's gonna be a certain number of good articles on it, hence the necessity to write some of them beforehand. —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 12:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been working on it. Until now I've translated 6 articles. I'll try to get 20 articles at least before sending them to you Hunch. --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 12:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I thought it was just multiple installs of MediaWiki. My point is therefore null. --Shukaku 15:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
So, how is the Portuguese version doing? :) —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 19:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I still only have 6 articles but I thought better and I won't do it, for several reasons. Knowing also the dimension of the wiki... --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anything needed?

I would like to know if there's anything I can help for the RayWiki. Pictures, some article writtings, I don't know.

--Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 20:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well you could maybe help with some solutions. You are the third best person in the world at Rayman 3 or something. --iHeckler9Life.gif 07:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Correction, I'm the 33th best Rayman 3 player in the world, not 3rd. I'm not that good. XD --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There's still a to do list on the front page. --Cairnie 09:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange

Why the table with the "Recent editings", "Portal" etc are in the bellow of everything of the page instead of being right in the top, as before? --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 14:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I see this as well, and not just on Raywiki, but also on other wiki's using the older (and better designed, in my opinion) version of Media Wiki. I just assumed it was incompatibility with newer versions of Firefox? As you're seeing this too, are you using Firefox? It would help me figure this behaviour out if I knew... --Electoon Fly.png 7:26, 14 January 2011 (GMT)
Yes, I'm using Firefox. --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been wondering the same thing. Error in the coding? It happens on Firefox, but not on Google Chrome. Spanex 22:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I can confirm that the issue does not occur with Google Chrome, which I'm currently forced to use (Firefox has been infected with a nasty virus O_o), so the problem is just with newer versions of Firefox. I'm getting a bit bored with Firefox these days to be honest, every new version it just gets slower and more bloated, which is really affecting the computer's performance. But that's besides the point...--Electoon Fly.png 18:15, 14 January 2011 (GMT)
The latest version of Firefox apparently cannot correctly handle the stylesheet of the version of MediaWiki we're using. An update is planned and will take place as soon as possible. Sorry for the inconvience. —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 14:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Galleries

There seems to be a problem with the table template used for image galleries. The table cells were transparent, but (unless there's a problem with my browser) they've been an ugly opaque white since the wiki software update. Can this be fixed?

And while we're at it, is there a way to highlight the relevant reference at the bottom of the page when a reader clicks on a citation? That's how it works on Wikipedia, and I've noticed that it can be hard to tell which link you're looking for without it. As we add more citations, this is only going to become more of a problem. —Spiraldoor IconSpiralDoor.png 19:14, 11 March 2012 (CET)

There are still a couple graphical glitches to fix; I'll look into this one as soon as possible. As concerns the references, I'll see what can be done about it too. —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 11:10, 14 March 2012 (CET)

Fauna and flora categories

I was thinking in creating a category about fauna and flora for the articles about the Glade of Dreams' species, like for example plants, fungus and animals in general. Is it ok or it is not necessary? --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 17:19, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

Sounds good, but is this compatible with our plans for the category tree? —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 18:34, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
I don't know, are there any progresses in the category tree? --Sparkle.gifHarukaSparkle.gif 21:07, 1 October 2012 (CEST)

Expanding

It's evident this page needs some expansion to describe its history, seeing as my knowledge of the Wiki's history is less than apt, I think we need someone more well-versed to stand up to the task, so to speak. -Master (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (CET)

Still a lot more to say but I've added some content. —RRRGBAIcon8.pngRRRGBAIcon0.gifRRRGBAIcon1.png 15:10, 17 February 2014 (CET)
If we're talking about RayWiki here, I think its history should be one of the main points. Pardon my snooping about, but I think I found a post where you posited the idea of moving on from RaymanEncyclo to RayWiki, could that provide a good starting point? --Sig5 2TEST.png 19:00, 6 May 2014 (CEST)