User:JulienDethurens/Archive
From Legacy Roblox Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
This is the archive of my talk page. When discussions become too old, I'll put them here. Click here to add messages to this archive.
WARNING: Do not use this page to contact me. Use my talk page instead.
Messages are roughly ordered by their creation date.
@Putting the property's name in there is redundant. :/
In case you truly haven't noticed, this format is exactly how every other property page is formatted. This is the reason I did it this way, and this is the reason I am going to change it back to the way it was.
- It is redundant. The property's name is already in the title, so putting it again in that row is useless. In fact, the row is redundant by itself and should instead be renamed to "Type". The only reason we still keep the current name is the fact that all the properties page would need to be edited. And the reason every other property page is formatted in this way is precisely because every other page is formatted this way. It makes a loop. When you create new properties pages, you format them in that way because all the others are formatted in that way. Yet, it's still redundant. A better way would be to literally include the name from the template, if it was intended. If you format it in this way, you're just going to give us more work later. If you just put the type, then it'll require less work later. 4 February 2012
Documentation of Library Functions
Since each function is only used in one page, the functions (e.g. EncodeJSON (Function)) should not be put on their own page. Instead, they should be written within the library page itself (in this case, RbxUtility_(Library)). The reason Methods are done like they are is because one method can be present in multiple objects. AFAIK, library functions are not inherited by anything.
- The way they are right now, they can be linked to. Also, it's not only for libraries. It can also be used for other things. For example, I used it for the PluginManager function. 5 February 2012
- Is there any point linking to an individual function? I'd be happier linking to RbxUtility_(Library)#EncodeJSON. Chances are, if you want to know about one function, you'll want to see all the others in the library.
- The thing is, that template isn't necessarily only for libraries. 5 February 2012
- The thing is, that template isn't necessarily only for libraries.
- Is there any point linking to an individual function? I'd be happier linking to RbxUtility_(Library)#EncodeJSON. Chances are, if you want to know about one function, you'll want to see all the others in the library.
- I'm trying to come up with a nicer way to document functions, so that each parameter can have a description. You see see my progress at
the top ofthis page.- I actually dislike how on method pages, there is no separate description for each argument. And it's the same on the function pages. Each argument should have its own separate description. If you think you could find a way to add that to function and method pages in a template, then that'd be awesome. I mean, most of the time, we use the description to describe each argument instead of describing the method/function itself... 5 February 2012
- I actually dislike how on method pages, there is no separate description for each argument. And it's the same on the function pages. Each argument should have its own separate description. If you think you could find a way to add that to function and method pages in a template, then that'd be awesome. I mean, most of the time, we use the description to describe each argument instead of describing the method/function itself...
Please don't edit my sandbox
Julien, please don't edit my sandbox. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, and I like what you did (so I'm going to keep it :D), but next time just post it on the discussion page and I'll look at it, okay?
- Ok. I just wanted to help, anyways. The best thing with wikis is that you can undo anything. :P 6 February 2012
What do you think of my new navbar? I'll shove it on your talkpage just so you can see it! - Quenty (talk • January 18)
- Nice and all, but I hate how it sticks out of the page. You should do the same thing, but without it literally getting out of the page.
- The only way you could make it even more intrusive than that is by making it follow you on the page with positionning relative to the screen... Heh, I want to try that, now... I wonder if you can do it. If so, I'm sure I could perhaps make some neat things. --JulienDethurens 06:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Go here and look at what I did to your navigation bar. It now follows the user at the bottom of the page if he scrolls up or down: User:JulienDethurens/Sandbox --JulienDethurens 06:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wait.. this could be used to replace the default navigation bar by hiding it with a new one.. --JulienDethurens 06:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Go here and look at what I did to your navigation bar. It now follows the user at the bottom of the page if he scrolls up or down: User:JulienDethurens/Sandbox --JulienDethurens 06:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, I made a nice one, as you can see on my user page and on this page. HTML FTW! --JulienDethurens 22:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please indent your messages properly? Also, very nice! I'm going to redo mine. :D - Quenty (talk • January 19)
- BTW, you can use <includeonly> and <noinclude> tags instead of using HTML comments on a page. - Quenty (talk • January 19)
- I'm indenting them properly... I indent them more or less because I want them to align with one more indent than the message I'm replying to. I'm not necessarily replying to the last message, I could be replying to a previous message. Also, nice navigation bar, but WHY DID YOU COPY MINE? :( Nah, kidding, I'm happy you copied mine, as I'll be able to copy your nicer design. :D
- Also, thanks for telling me I can use <includeonly> and <noinclude>. --JulienDethurens 01:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, also my version doesn't have as many links as your old one did. You might want to change that. - Quenty (talk • January 19)
- Well, I tried removing the extra links. But it didn't end out as I expected, as external links are lighter than internal links. And they became unreadable on the black background. So I just decided not to put them. I'll just put them somewhere on my user page or idk. --JulienDethurens 01:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, also my version doesn't have as many links as your old one did. You might want to change that. - Quenty (talk • January 19)
- Can you please indent your messages properly? Also, very nice! I'm going to redo mine. :D - Quenty (talk • January 19)
I'm pretty sure you can format links. I'll look into fixing it. - Quenty (talk • January 19)
- Hum.. And did you actually find a way to format them? I've tried some basic stuff to format them, but it didn't work. There's probably a way, however. If not, then I can just use HTML tags to format them. --JulienDethurens 01:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Must ask you everything
What do you think of this template? {{User:Quenty/sandbox2}} < Will not post, because it blackouts a page. Test in 'Show Preview' - Quenty (talk • January 19)
- Oh, so I'm not the only one forgetting my signature? :D
- Also, the idea made me laugh. We all know MrDoomBringer and the admins wouldn't accept us using it, anyways, but it's still hilarious to look at it. :) --JulienDethurens 05:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is. :D BTW, on your 'Draft', do you want me to make a template for you? - Quenty (talk • January 19)
- Yes. In fact, it's exactly the same thing as a method, except without the 'In Object:' and without the method icon and without the purple color (because that color is for methods) and without everything else that relates to methods. It's for the functions in libraries and also just functions overall. Perhap we'll use it at some point for the function dump, idk. --JulienDethurens 06:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is. :D BTW, on your 'Draft', do you want me to make a template for you? - Quenty (talk • January 19)
Your Edit Summaries
Yeah...you can go ahead and stop putting a summary for your changes. I am following your edits and reviewing the ones that need to be. The extra text is just cramping the RC page. †MrNicNac - Wiki Editor †
- I know. I'm doing like 3 edits per minute... Anyways, the reason I'm putting the summary for every edit is for the history, not for the recent changes. If someone in two months looks at the summary, he'll know what the edit is. The recent pages just shows the recent edits temporarily. --JulienDethurens 01:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- You have a fair point, but everyone here is intelligent enough to (if they cared to look at the history) see the whole point of the minor edit. †MrNicNac - Wiki Editor †
- You can turn on the Javascript Recent Changes enhancement on your preferences page. That makes it less cramped.
- woah woah woah, did you just ask someone to NOT put summaries on their changes? there's a number of macros to change the way recent changes appears, and it's a non-issue if an edit takes up 2 instead of 1 lines. keep on doin' what'choo doin', julien. Samacado 16:35, 24 January 2012 (EST)
Not using the edit button at the top
Results in this not falling within the gray box.
- Eek, that means you're not closing your box, which results in invalid HTML, and undefined behaviour.
- I know about that, and it kind of bothers me, but since it doesn't cause a problem yet.. actually, you're right, I'm going to change this. I still don't want users to use the edit button at the top, though. I'll just remove the box... --JulienDethurens 08:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
RbxGui Documentation
Couple of things to say about the way you (or a previous writer) are documenting the RbxGui. Firstly, seems reasonably consistent with the object documentation, which is good. However, I'm not sure that I can justify having a page per function, since each function will ultimately only be mentioned on the one page. Would you be happy for me to merge them all into RbxGui? (it's a trivial operation, just harder to undo).
Also, try not to link to {{User:JulienDethurens/Sandbox}} too much - you'll only need to replace it with a template in the Template namespace later.
- Trying my own templates for this page here. Do you think tables do a better job of documenting than prose?
- Well, I am using User:JulienDethurens/Sandbox for now, but I'll of course replace it. I just want to know everyone's opinion on it first.
- As for the template, well, I thought about copying the method one and editing it a little, but if you have better to offer, then that'll probably be a good idea.
- And, for not putting the functions on different pages, well, perhaps you're right. I put them on separate pages so we could link to them and so they'd work like the methods, but, we actually link to methods much more than to library functions... --JulienDethurens 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Adding Talk Pages to Pending Removal
As long as the actual page (user page) is added to the category, the talk page should just be blanked or left alone. As when the main page is removed it also gets rid of the discussion. †MrNicNac - Wiki Editor †
- Actually, it doesn't get rid of the discussion page when the main page is blanked. If you look deep enough, you'll find lots of files which got deleted (it says they got deleted by Mr Doom Bringer blahblah) and still have a talk page. :/ --JulienDethurens 03:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You're luck we don't have bots.
Because if we did, then all those pages you wiped would make the bots permanently ban you for vandalism. :D - Quenty (talk • January 27)
- Actually, I wish we had bots. We could use them to automatically wipe all these pages and replace their content by {{delete}}. >_>
- I just can't understand why they didn't clear the whole User namespace when they closed the wiki... That'd have saved us so much work. Anyways, they should clean it of every page, as well as the User talk namespace. They should only keep the pages of writers, editors, sysops, reviewers and every other group. --JulienDethurens 05:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- They never closed the wiki... Also, I keep on suggesting a total wipe of the wiki, instituting us as moderators, and then lets users modify it like normal users, with a limited number of edits/other security features. However, bots need to be installed in the wiki folder, and most of the programs aren't compatible with this version (If they wiped it, they would have to update the version too). - Quenty (talk • January 27)
- They did close it. It was an open wiki, before. Now, it's a closed wiki. Only chosen users can have an account.
- Anyways, they should backup all the pages on a subdomain and wipe it all, reset it completely, clear the way too big databases.
- Then, we could move everything that needs to be moved, individually. --JulienDethurens 05:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, move those 1,697 articles, and 1,217 files, along with losing around 43,331 edit histories. D: But we can update from this version to a higher version without losing the database. And look at Wikipedia, which has a TON more stuff, and a TON more spam/troll accounts. They do just fine....- Quenty (talk • January 27)
- Hum, you know, they did update the wiki... The current MediaWiki version is 1.18.1, and ROBLOX's wiki's version of MediaWiki is 1.18.0.
- Also, Wikipedia has a much more mature community than ROBLOX. It is true that, if really strong security features were implemented, we could, technically, be fine. Bots, word filter, restricted external links (only links to certain website will work as external links)... But we're already fine with the current system, anyways. Opening the wiki would just decrease the quality of everything. --JulienDethurens 05:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Update! [1] Bots can be created by anyone, but must be approved by admins. I'll look into programming a bot/getting one. :D
- Hm. If you can manage to program a bot to automatically put {{delete}} on every page and subpage of every user that isn't in any group (and therefore is an old account), then I'd be extremly interested. Or, better, yet, that automatically deletes them. --JulienDethurens 05:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, move those 1,697 articles, and 1,217 files, along with losing around 43,331 edit histories. D: But we can update from this version to a higher version without losing the database. And look at Wikipedia, which has a TON more stuff, and a TON more spam/troll accounts. They do just fine....- Quenty (talk • January 27)
- They never closed the wiki... Also, I keep on suggesting a total wipe of the wiki, instituting us as moderators, and then lets users modify it like normal users, with a limited number of edits/other security features. However, bots need to be installed in the wiki folder, and most of the programs aren't compatible with this version (If they wiped it, they would have to update the version too). - Quenty (talk • January 27)
- I just can't understand why they didn't clear the whole User namespace when they closed the wiki... That'd have saved us so much work. Anyways, they should clean it of every page, as well as the User talk namespace. They should only keep the pages of writers, editors, sysops, reviewers and every other group. --JulienDethurens 05:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't need an attitude, thanks.
If I'm rejecting your changes it is because I decided that they weren't good enough to be on the wiki. Instead of getting offended and being passive aggressive about it, you should probably just strive not to make the same mistakes again and check the preview before uploading.
In any case, your changes included no less than six (6) broken links, in addition to the two other minor changes you made. Your new revision has the links fixed and hence has been approved.
Getting upset about me moderating your changes isn't going to help anything, and I obviously mean no offense in doing it.
Thank you,
Samacado 23:22, 21 January 2012 (EST)
- It only had ONE broken link... And I wasn't aggressive about it, I just said that you could have fixed it, since it was only a single link.
- Look here. There is only one broken link.. It'd have been easier to fix it than to reject my changes...
- Huh, weird. I apologize, but I assure you that when I looked at the diff it showed all the links on the page as broken. If I'd seen only one I would've just fixed it. Samacado 00:37, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Using a | in a Template
See template {{!}} - Quenty (talk • January 18)
- Oh! Heh, that's quite clever! Using a template to replace the character, because we couldn't normally use it!
- I'll try to remember about that. But... I think I'll keep the new organisation, considering it is useful to have it all separated. --JulienDethurens 06:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
User Page
Your user page looks like mine... :D Just a hint with the picture, you should edit it with Micrsoft powerpoint, then 'Save as picture', for fast effects like rounded corners. For more advance stuff, use photoshop or paint.net. - Quenty (talk • January 17)
- Actually, I used GIMP to round and then Paint.NET to remove some thingies. But I completely failed.
- Tell me, how would I actually update a picture? I know you can update one, but how? Or will I have to upload a new one? --JulienDethurens 23:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The reason I want to update the picture is because I want to make it squared. Trying to round it was a bad idea. I'm too bad to do it. --JulienDethurens 00:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I updated it for you. :D - Quenty (talk • January 18)
- Thanks a lot. You're way better at creating images than me. :O
- But, still, how to update pictures? I want to know how to update them. --JulienDethurens 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I updated it for you. :D - Quenty (talk • January 18)
- The reason I want to update the picture is because I want to make it squared. Trying to round it was a bad idea. I'm too bad to do it. --JulienDethurens 00:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Tabs on your user page
Just a suggestion, but it'd probably look nicer without the tabs. Also, welcome to the wiki :)
- Hmm.. But I plan on adding more stuff later on... --JulienDethurens 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi good buddy
We can now talk about wiring on teh wiki too!
Anyway. Congrats. - Quenty (talk • January 17)
@"The link will, eventually, be put there by the template itself."
Are you absolutely positive about this? In every page I see where this is used, the link never shows up and it just remains broken until someone else corrects your edit. I don't know if the template is broken, you misread it, or you're just going off of false information. --~SDuke524~ 18:55, 28 February 2012 (EST)
- I said "eventually". It isn't put yet. The template isn't broken or anything, the template just doesn't put any link at all yet. I had actually made the template add the link, but NXTBoy reverted it, for some reason (not explained in summary). Anyways, perhaps we could just use links directly, considering the template would become too complicated to use with too many arguments otherwise (we need some way of making the link for instances and enums not point to the wrong page). 29 February 2012
- I think I had asked how we should do it on some talk page, but I think nobodey answered. 29 February 2012
- I think I had asked how we should do it on some talk page, but I think nobodey answered.
- I wish it did too. Sadly neither of us got editor powers...--~SDuke524~ 21:20, 28 February 2012 (EST)
- I probably reverted it by accident by editing the reviewed copy instead of the pending changes one. I'll check.
- ... Stop editing reviewed copied, please. I noticed you cancelled many changes randomly. One of them was on the function dump, another is this one, and I think there was another one too. Anyways, I think we should just put the link manually. That'd save us the trouble of adding a typelink argument or another thing like that. 29 February 2012
- I'm not doing it on purpose. Yet another reason to scrap the reviewing system.
- ... Stop editing reviewed copied, please. I noticed you cancelled many changes randomly. One of them was on the function dump, another is this one, and I think there was another one too. Anyways, I think we should just put the link manually. That'd save us the trouble of adding a typelink argument or another thing like that.
Grammar mistakes
How did you find them? Also, well done on the mysterious "automatically promoted from writer to writer and editor". Suspect no one was aware of this feature...
- How I found them? With the search bar, duh. As for the automatic promotion, I really don't understand what that thing is. It is a feature of the extension, you say? I indeed am the most active user on the wiki right now, but I really don't understand how that could make me get automatically promoted or anything. Besides, if anything, the documentation of the extension on MediaWiki should talk about it, I'm going to check it..
- Actually, I think the admins were aware of it, since, if it does that, they necessarily configured it to do so (well, that's what the extension's page says on MediaWiki's website).
Wait, what?
I got automatically promoted to editor? What does that mean? I mean, how could I get *automatically* promoted to editor? O_o
- Mystery solved. Well, looks like I've earned a nice auto promotion to editor. :D
- Congratulations, Julien!
- Awwww. I just realized I can't do everything manually-promoted editors can do, because I indeed am an editor, but not a reviewer (the auto promote promoted me to editor, but not to reviewer). And editors can't lock/unlock pages, neither do some other things. Editors can do some things reviewers can't do, and reviewers can do some things editors can't do. :P
The code template
Why are you using it where the lua template would be more appropriate?
- It wouldn't..? The code template is basically the same thing as the code tag, except it changes the tab size, while the lua template is the same thing as the code tag, but it changes the tab size, doesn't support line numbers, and only accepts Lua code. --JulienDethurens 19:14, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
- Well make the lua template take line numbers then! However we implement it, we should use {{lua}} to mark lua code.
- I just did it. :P But there seems to be a problem with them. And I kind of need your help to find that problem. I'm using the if template and setting the n attribute to "n" if the linenumbers argument is specified. I just fixed a mistake, but they still don't seem to work.
- Oh, and, btw, I've created a code thingy here that I'd like to have some feed back on from you (any anyone else who'd give feedback, actually). I made the output thing look like the one in the studio. --JulienDethurens 19:30, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
- I have a passionate hatred for the wiki tabs. They look ugly, and they misbehave. I would have rewritten them by now if I could edit the js file. So no, I dislike your template. Also I don't think emulating the studio output is a very good idea anyway - the studio output is terrible and in dire need of a rewrite (direct copy and paste, monospace, preserved line breaks, preserve whitespace). It would be nice if there were an output template that differed from the {{code}} template only by border/background color though. Currently, the two boxes in {{code and output}} are possibly too similar.
- Well make the lua template take line numbers then! However we implement it, we should use {{lua}} to mark lua code.
Local Template
"This item should be used with a LocalScript in order to work as expected in online mode." Sure, it can be used with a normal script in certain conditions, or to modify the the server camera for whatever insane reason you have, but for the most part, it's better to let them know that it should usually be used with a local script. Note 'should' and 'online mode'. Legend26 (talk | contribs) 10:27, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
- Accessing the camera of a client can only be done through LocalScripts, but that does not mean the camera can only be manipulated by LocalScripts. The camera can be manipulated by whatever has access to it, since, precisely, only the client has access to it, since it doesn't replicate. If the camera can only be manipulated by LocalScripts, then there isn't even a point in specifying it, since only LocalScripts can access it at all. However, in other cases, like in the case of the server camera, it should be manipulated by normal scripts. And there are cases where such should be done, even in online mode. For example, to set the thumbnail in personal servers, or some other cases. --JulienDethurens 13:42, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
- While the information isn't necessarily wrong, there's bits that aren't being explained. Cameras differ from client to client, and don't replicate back to the server like most things do. Properties like LocalPlayer, TextBounds, and CurrentCamera exhibit this behavior as well. Perhaps an article needs to be written explaining this. --Anaminus 13:46, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
My Talk
Replied on my talk. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 20:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Huh, ok. But, just so you know, this is a small wiki, so you don't need to tell me on my talk page. --JulienDethurens 16:02, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
:/
I'm getting randomly logged out of ROBLOX.com. Suggestions? - Quenty (talk • April 10)
- Does it do the same thing if you use an alt? --JulienDethurens 17:48, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
- Alt, deleted cookies, Internet Explorer, Incognotio on Chrome, more deleted cookies, all other cookies work. I'm not sure why. before this, I would get logged out every day or so for the last week, but that's what I thought of as a security update because of all these haxs. However, now I'm logged out every few seconds. :/
- So yeah, any other suggestions? I'm restarting my computer now. I hope this doesn't spread to other websites. - Quenty (talk • April 10)
- Dang. It was the system clock. -___- - Quenty (talk • April 10)
- The system clock affects lots of things. :P --JulienDethurens 18:18, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
- Dang. It was the system clock. -___- - Quenty (talk • April 10)
- So yeah, any other suggestions? I'm restarting my computer now. I hope this doesn't spread to other websites. - Quenty (talk • April 10)
Naming conventions
I want to make an article on the place gallery feature
Shall I just called it "Place Galleries" and redirect "galleries", "gallerys" (In-case they misspell) and "place gallery" to it?
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page23:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Name it either Gallery or Place gallery. Title should always be singular when possible and only the first word should be capitalized (except when it is normally capitalized in running text). Redirect every single article title that is the slightest related to it, but not misspellings. --JulienDethurens 19:27, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
- Actually, in this case, I think you should call it "Gallery (Tutorial)" or "Place gallery (Tutorial)". --JulienDethurens 19:29, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
A Note
Can you not move things to have a (Tutorial) suffix on them. Because, most of the time, they're not tutorials. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 12:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- They're categorized as tutorials, so I think we can say they're tutorials. --JulienDethurens 16:59, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
Why are you making page titles uglier?
It's fine the way it is... Tenal 16:35, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- Agreed. Though the wiki in general using annoying names. "RBX.lua.*" for example. Legend26 (talk | contribs) 16:49, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- Because every single page on Wikipedia is named like this and because it is how they are supposed to be named. The way MediaWiki makes links work even makes naming them like this a benefit. MediaWiki is just made for pages to be named like that. --JulienDethurens 17:00, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- This is not Wikipedia, it is a Version of MediaWiki, encorporated into any usage. Thus meaning that it does not to have to be like Wikipedia, as it is not a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thus said, it does not have to follow any guidelines of things used off this site, also the fact that it is a private wiki. We do not have a policy on titles, and we will not need one unless the wiki becomes public again to be edited by all ROBLOX users. That said, we would not need any policy anyway, as we have moderation, experienced users and editors. Also, reviewing some of your moves; lots of them are not Tutorials, just facts. You don't need a tutorial to navigate down a page of the website, you need a tutorial for what ROBLOX is for, building and scripting, not for scrolling up and down a website. Thus said (again), it is needed to tell users about the page, but not for a tutorial. People come here for information and tutorials. Not to find that all the information has (Tutorial) as a suffix to it. Also, there is no MediaWiki Policy on how things should be named, however many suggestions there may be. That was my crazy statement. End of discussion? ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Considering Wikipedia is the most successful wiki on the web, I think it is kind of logical to copy some things off of them. No, we do not need a policy, and I'm not saying we do. However, we do need consistency, and the fact is that MediaWiki seems to have been made to work like this. If you look at the special pages and at the MediaWiki wiki (which contains default documentation that can be imported in a wiki, even though it isn't present in this wiki), you'll notice they precisely apply these principles. Look at the section titles. They don't capitalize every word, only the first one. Links are also easier to use if you name the article the same way you would call it in normal text, because you rarely need to capitalize the words when giving a link to the page. The fact we previously named articles by capitalizing every word even led us to get the bad habit of capitalizing every word in links too, as you can see on many pages on this wiki. To me, it seems clear MediaWiki was made to name articles in a specific way and even though naming it in that way is not required, it still makes things easier and makes more sense. MediaWiki is also a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, and, therefore, I think we can say it makes sense to use Wikipedia or any other wiki of the Wikimedia Foundation as an example, considering they are the most successful and popular wikis that currently exist, and considering MediaWiki was originally created and is still being developed mainly for use on the Wikimedia Foundation's wikis. --JulienDethurens 18:51, 11 April 2012 (EDT) ; edited 19:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The Roblox wiki is a documentation. The pages are about a certain website feature. Tenal 18:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- The ROBLOX wiki isn't only for documentation, it is also for tutorials... Anyway, that's about the content. We're talking about the formatting. --JulienDethurens 19:00, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The Roblox wiki is a documentation. The pages are about a certain website feature. Tenal 18:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- Considering Wikipedia is the most successful wiki on the web, I think it is kind of logical to copy some things off of them. No, we do not need a policy, and I'm not saying we do. However, we do need consistency, and the fact is that MediaWiki seems to have been made to work like this. If you look at the special pages and at the MediaWiki wiki (which contains default documentation that can be imported in a wiki, even though it isn't present in this wiki), you'll notice they precisely apply these principles. Look at the section titles. They don't capitalize every word, only the first one. Links are also easier to use if you name the article the same way you would call it in normal text, because you rarely need to capitalize the words when giving a link to the page. The fact we previously named articles by capitalizing every word even led us to get the bad habit of capitalizing every word in links too, as you can see on many pages on this wiki. To me, it seems clear MediaWiki was made to name articles in a specific way and even though naming it in that way is not required, it still makes things easier and makes more sense. MediaWiki is also a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, and, therefore, I think we can say it makes sense to use Wikipedia or any other wiki of the Wikimedia Foundation as an example, considering they are the most successful and popular wikis that currently exist, and considering MediaWiki was originally created and is still being developed mainly for use on the Wikimedia Foundation's wikis. --JulienDethurens 18:51, 11 April 2012 (EDT) ; edited 19:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- This is not Wikipedia, it is a Version of MediaWiki, encorporated into any usage. Thus meaning that it does not to have to be like Wikipedia, as it is not a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thus said, it does not have to follow any guidelines of things used off this site, also the fact that it is a private wiki. We do not have a policy on titles, and we will not need one unless the wiki becomes public again to be edited by all ROBLOX users. That said, we would not need any policy anyway, as we have moderation, experienced users and editors. Also, reviewing some of your moves; lots of them are not Tutorials, just facts. You don't need a tutorial to navigate down a page of the website, you need a tutorial for what ROBLOX is for, building and scripting, not for scrolling up and down a website. Thus said (again), it is needed to tell users about the page, but not for a tutorial. People come here for information and tutorials. Not to find that all the information has (Tutorial) as a suffix to it. Also, there is no MediaWiki Policy on how things should be named, however many suggestions there may be. That was my crazy statement. End of discussion? ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because every single page on Wikipedia is named like this and because it is how they are supposed to be named. The way MediaWiki makes links work even makes naming them like this a benefit. MediaWiki is just made for pages to be named like that. --JulienDethurens 17:00, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
We are different to EN-WP. We should still follow basic grammar, EN-GB, EN-US or EN-CA but not Wikipedia ways. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Look, we need consistency. We just need consistency. And therefore, we need to choose a way to name pages and to name section titles. Because MediaWiki itself names section titles in a certain way, and because it is just logical to do it like that, we should do the same. As for article names, it seems obvious to me that naming them without capitaling every word makes linking easier and makes more sense. After all, there is no reason we'd capitalize the words in the titles, while there is a reason to not capitalize them: the fact text isn't usually capitalized in English. After All, Do You Often See People Writing Like This? --JulienDethurens 21:10, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- Those are titles. It looks nice in titles, and lowercase the, to, and, etc.. And "(tutorial)"? The article would self-explanatorily tell the reader how to use it. Tenal 22:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- Just because titles of books are capitalized doesn't mean we should capitalize them on the wiki. The article's title is the article's name. The article's name is used to link to the article. The text in links to an article will be as it would be if it wasn't a link, if it was in a normal sentence, and that is why the same should be done for the article's name. Not only because of that, though. It's also because capitalizing every word in the article's title doesn't look nice and actually looks ugly (you can't disagree with that, seriously, right?). And it's also because that's what MediaWiki was designed to be used like. As for adding " (Tutorial)" at the end, well, that's just to separate them. After all, we do it with methods, properties, events, objects and many other things, so why not do it with tutorials too? --JulienDethurens 00:07, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- Remember, the article's title is actually the article's name too. We shouldn't consider it as a title, we should consider it as a name. MediaWiki even allows us to change the title if we really need to, with either the DISPLAYTITLE magic word or with a first-level header (though that should be avoided when possible). The name is not actually a title, the fact is just that the title is set to the article's name by default. If you really care about making it capitalized, even though I personally think it looks ugly, then you can do so with the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. However, the article's name is the article's name. The DISPLAYTITLE magic word allows you to change the capitalization of the title. --JulienDethurens 00:11, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- We are not going to change every single tutorial title with "(Tutorial)" at the end. Those pages are about certain web features. It's pretty obvious that it would give an overview on what it is and how to use it. For Studio items, it gives the reader a quick glance of the title to determine if it's a method, event, or property. And also, I have a few standards on capitalization in page naming. Tenal 02:13, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- Remember, the article's title is actually the article's name too. We shouldn't consider it as a title, we should consider it as a name. MediaWiki even allows us to change the title if we really need to, with either the DISPLAYTITLE magic word or with a first-level header (though that should be avoided when possible). The name is not actually a title, the fact is just that the title is set to the article's name by default. If you really care about making it capitalized, even though I personally think it looks ugly, then you can do so with the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. However, the article's name is the article's name. The DISPLAYTITLE magic word allows you to change the capitalization of the title. --JulienDethurens 00:11, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- Just because titles of books are capitalized doesn't mean we should capitalize them on the wiki. The article's title is the article's name. The article's name is used to link to the article. The text in links to an article will be as it would be if it wasn't a link, if it was in a normal sentence, and that is why the same should be done for the article's name. Not only because of that, though. It's also because capitalizing every word in the article's title doesn't look nice and actually looks ugly (you can't disagree with that, seriously, right?). And it's also because that's what MediaWiki was designed to be used like. As for adding " (Tutorial)" at the end, well, that's just to separate them. After all, we do it with methods, properties, events, objects and many other things, so why not do it with tutorials too? --JulienDethurens 00:07, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- Those are titles. It looks nice in titles, and lowercase the, to, and, etc.. And "(tutorial)"? The article would self-explanatorily tell the reader how to use it. Tenal 22:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
- We only do that with object members to disambiguate them. That generally wouldn't need to be done with a tutorial. If we actually wanted to separate them, we'd use a custom namespace. --Anaminus 14:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- I agree. Only add (Tutorial) to disambiguate from another use of the term. After all, you could argue most pages are tutorials to some extent.
- If we only add it to disambiguate, then we should also only add "(Method)" and all the others to disambiguate, which we certainly aren't doing right now. --JulienDethurens 16:58, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- We wanted members to have custom namespaces, too. Since we can't have that at the moment, applying parentheses to all of them both separates them and disambiguates them at the same time. Two birds with one stone. Going back, we don't want to apply that tutorials, because there's no reason to distinguish them in such a way. --Anaminus 17:16, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- If we only add it to disambiguate, then we should also only add "(Method)" and all the others to disambiguate, which we certainly aren't doing right now. --JulienDethurens 16:58, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- I agree. Only add (Tutorial) to disambiguate from another use of the term. After all, you could argue most pages are tutorials to some extent.
- We only do that with object members to disambiguate them. That generally wouldn't need to be done with a tutorial. If we actually wanted to separate them, we'd use a custom namespace. --Anaminus 14:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
There is a reason to distinguish methods from other pages but there isn't a reason to distinguish tutorials from other pages..? What's wrong with adding "(Tutorial)", anyway? It doesn't make the page worse or anything, it's just the name of the page! If it helps disambiguating and distinguishing them, then we might as well do it, since it has no inconvenient. --JulienDethurens 17:22, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- Why do you feel the need to distinguish articles considered tutorials? What other pages are there to distinguish them from? It is inconvenient, because someone has to go add "(tutorial)" to the end of nearly every article on the wiki. Then, if it turns out to be a bad idea, then someone gets to go change them all back. Since parentheses are generally used to disambiguate, it's unnecessary for pages that don't need disambiguation. Object members are the only exception, because 1) We can't make custom namespaces and 2) no one disputed it back then. If you're looking for consistency, advocate for changing member pages, not tutorial pages. --Anaminus 17:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
Outdated Files
Keep them in Archive, the 2 you recently added. Make a new file. :-) ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 00:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why would we make new files when we can just update existing files? Also, the Archive category is for pages, not for files, and it has nothing to do with the file being outdated. --JulienDethurens 20:15, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
Userpages
Hey Julien. We appreciate all the work you do around the wiki. However, we'd like you to prioritize your work. User pages and talk pages are a pretty low priority, so nominating a ton of them is just making a ton of work that we aren't really ready to do yet. Our focus is still on content pages and files. So, keep up what you're doing, but try and focus it on pages and files. That would help a ton! Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:02, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
- Yes, yes, I'm actually deleting both. It's just that, while trying to find useless files and pages, I end up finding links to useless user pages and I add the {{delete}} template to them on the way.. and I do the same on other user pages since they were linked to in the page I just added the template to, etc. The thing is, most of these pages are linked together. For example, I found an icon by Mindraker (used on talk pages for warning users or something) and I decided I could as well just mark all the user pages it was used on as pending removal, since they were useless now anyway. --JulienDethurens 21:07, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
Changing "See Also" too "See also"
Is this even grammatically correct? Are subheadings considered proper titles? Also, there innumerable pages with the former, so is a single character change worth doing to so many?
- Yes, it is grammatically correct. And nobody said changing them all was an emergency, I just change them occasionally when I see one. --JulienDethurens 23:03, 16 April 2012 (EDT)
