Thaumcraft4 Wiki
All Contributors
• 3/14/2015

Restarting this wiki, plans and priorities.

So, plenty of work to do.  My inclination, as I've noted elsewhere, is not to bother with copying the Thaumonomicon into the wiki, but instead to proceed af follows:

1) Write pages with basic information (say, enough to orient somebody passing through) about items and whatever.

2) Add useful information to those pages that's absent or unclear in the Thaumonomicon

3) Set up a structure under Wiki Content for informational articles, and copy in whatever we can find.  A good place to start would be the articles from the Curse MC wiki, many of which I wrote.  (Note that we do not code an interwiki code for that wiki, apparently Curse/Gamepedia have been impolite to Wikia in the past.)

4) Fill in redlinks and update obsolete articles as we come across them.

5) In general, I'm inclined to prioritize getting the information in, over setting up fancy formats or templates:  We can always reformat the information as templates come online, or when we have time to make things look prettier.  Images would be nice, but lower priority than getting the information in.  Note that images are harder to update for new versions than text -- I've already deleted a few obsolete Thaumonomicon screenshots and aspect-combo images.  Videos should be a fairly late priority.

0 13
  • Upvote
  • Reply
0
• 3/19/2015

Shoudl we merge the conetnts of into Shards? Otr the other way around (though I don't like using category listing pages as content pages)?

0
• 3/20/2015

Contents of what, again?  <thinks> <hits search bar>  Ah, there's a Category:Shards page, and looking at that, it should totally be merged into Shards, and the category nuked.  So should the multiple <aspect> Infused Stone pages, (because they're basically stubs), with a redirect from "Aspect Infused Stone".  Now that I'm home from work and VA Book festival, I think I'll see if I can get that done before bed. 

The other thing I'd like to do with the ores is get some screenshots combining the ores with their drops and direct crafts.  Amber has one, I'd like a similar one with Cinnabar, it's native cluster, and Quicksilver, and a similar one with Aspect Infused Stone, shards, and clusters.  BTW, do you know offhand what the natural drop rate actually is?  The AIS pages disagree... eventually I'll test in creative.  This paragraph's ideas definitely won't happen tonight, but if you or someone else doesn't beat me to them, I'll get there eventually.  Oh, wait, the category page does have an image, I'll snag that.

0
• 3/20/2015

Hm, the old image was outdated.  I've added a couple of new ones.

0
• 3/20/2015

Yeah, exactly, the shards category was what I was thinking of - failed paste in action. If you have not already, I'll do it in a second.

What about all the individual aspect pages? Do we really need ~50 pages to describe them? Why not just gather them all on a single page? (Such as Aspects of Magic, which we already have.)

0
• 3/20/2015

I think I won over Gimp. I can now colorize the monochrome aspect images in a good-looking way. I updated the main table on Aspects_of_Magic with icons and in particular the color versions for the six primal aspects. Only like 42 to go... :(

0
• 3/22/2015

I find myself faintly sentimental about the separate aspect pages -- the aspects are the foundation of TC magic, and we at least ought to be able to link to the aspect names.  If nothing else, over time people could add more complex commentaries, like significant researches and other uses, or "their place in the system" -- stuff that wouldn't fit in the table, or would bloat the AoM page.  And most of the other "roundup pages" are intended to eventually get demoted to summaries, with the individual items/creatures dispersed to individual pages as we or others have time -- I've already started that with some of them like Plants.

That said, I have to admit the separate pages are not fitting my own usual pattern here -- I filled them out mostly because some of them were there already, and the partial set made me itchy.  I could probably be persuaded to "let go of them"....

0
• 3/22/2015

BTW... what do you think of the idea of deleting those year- and multi-year-old questions and comments that obviously apply to older versions?

0
• 3/22/2015

1. I will not insit on removing the aspect pages, I just think they clutter up the wiki but I can live with that.

2. DEFINITELY remove old comments. Also, I personally prefer MediaWikis talk pages to the comment threads. Especially since the threading system works so poorly (only one level of nesting in replies, for example).

0
• 3/22/2015
I'm now starting to look for red links and adding them as pages with only the stub template in them. It's hard to find the pages that have not been created...
0
• 3/22/2015

I also far prefer the talk pages, Poking around, I find that's a switch under Special:WikiFeatures, which I have now turned off.  While I was at it, I turned off "Top 10 Lists", which seems... inappropriate to our purposes.

There are several redlink-related special pages:  Poking around, Special:WantedPages and Special:BrokenRedirects seem to cover redlinks.

Also Category:Pages_with_broken_file_links .  The only content page in there is the Research table, which is my fault -- the old images were from 4.0 and the functionality has changed.  (Got tipped off to that one from a MCF query.)

Write a reply...