148 replies to this topic

[felinoel]

• 
  
• I think you mean 1366x768.
• Mine's 1366x768 too, and for me they're not showing side by side either.

No, 1360.

I assume you mean shrink the videos? Probably, but I'm only a novice when it comes to css and javascript. I will certainly look into it when my finals are over, some ideas do come to mind.

Or we could avoid the hassle and just shrink the videos to a width more universal...

http://www.hobo-web....st-screen-size/

[ZL123]

No, 1360.

Oh ya, didn't see that.

 

 

 

 

 

1. ...WHY?!
2. lol
3. jk

[felinoel]

Oh ya, didn't see that.

• 
  
• ...WHY?!
• lol
• jk

I use a 42 inch television, must be because of that.

[RZR0]

Or we could avoid the hassle and just shrink the videos to a width more universal...

The videos are 450 because that's a fairly big size and still fits on the template at it's normal size. Making videos smaller by default doesn't seem to great to me because it's annoying to watch tiny videos.

[felinoel]

The videos are 450 because that's a fairly big size and still fits on the template at it's normal size. Making videos smaller by default doesn't seem to great to me because it's annoying to watch tiny videos.

People watch it embedded? o.O
I always full screen...

[timrem]

People watch it embedded? o.O
I always full screen...

Yup, that or actually go to YouTube to watch it. I never use full screen, since I'm always doing other things at the same time. Have you tried dgelessus's or my CSS solutions?

[felinoel]

Yup, that or actually go to YouTube to watch it. I never use full screen, since I'm always doing other things at the same time. Have you tried dgelessus's or my CSS solutions?

I have two screens.

I am not too good with CSS.

[ZL123]

I never full screen.

And if you have two screens, seems you're rich enough to get... a better mic!

[felinoel]

I never full screen.

And if you have two screens, seems you're rich enough to get... a better mic!

Not sure how that makes me rich?

 

One screen I've had for ages and the other is my television.

[timrem]

I am not too good with CSS.

It's literally copy-paste from one wiki page to another. We've only recommended a change to your personal style sheet, so experimenting with it would only affect you.

[Celestial Oblivion]

I don't know if this necessarily belongs in the style guide, but I don't really like how we are handling tree articles. We have a page called tree that really badly tries to list and explain all the trees in the mods. Most mods have articles about the leaves, wood and sapling items of individual trees they add, despite that most of them are the same. Many trees do not have articles about themselves where it might be good to have one, such as describing their shapes or what biomes they grow in.

 

The question is what is a better way to handle this (if there is one)?

 

Do we simply agree to put general information about the tree itself in the sapling article?

 

Do we make a main article for each species of tree, like "Oak Tree", and then have Oak Wood, Leaves, Saplings and Planks as sections of the Oak Tree artcile, with the Oak Wood page itself redirecting to the appropriate section?

 

Do we make generic articles for Wood, Leaves, Saplings and Planks, with only mod items that are notably different from normal trees (like Silverwood) getting their own pages?

[felinoel]

I don't know if this necessarily belongs in the style guide

It works.

but I don't really like how we are handling tree articles.

I agree.

Do we make a main article for each species of tree, like "Oak Tree", and then have Oak Wood, Leaves, Saplings and Planks as sections of the Oak Tree artcile, with the Oak Wood page itself redirecting to the appropriate section?

I think this, but then a special tree info style guide might need to be made to normalize ALL of those pages.

[dgelessus]

Yep, the tree articles are definetely in need of improvement. Not sure if I'd put multiple items onto the same page though, that quickly becomes messy as well. We could just link to the tree pages from the logs/leaves/saplings.

[Celestial Oblivion]

Yep, the tree articles are definetely in need of improvement. Not sure if I'd put multiple items onto the same page though, that quickly becomes messy as well. We could just link to the tree pages from the logs/leaves/saplings.

 

So we have general articles for each and every species of tree as well as each of the items and blocks the tree is made up of? I don't know, I'm not sure I like all the two sentence articles that method will produce.

[felinoel]

So we have general articles for each and every species of tree as well as each of the items and blocks the tree is made up of? I don't know, I'm not sure I like all the two sentence articles that method will produce.

It is pretty similar to the metals articles.

We have several articles for each type the metal is, plates, ores, ingots, nuggets, blocks, etc, when they are all pretty much the same metal.

[Celestial Oblivion]

It is pretty similar to the metals articles.

We have several articles for each type the metal is, plates, ores, ingots, nuggets, blocks, etc, when they are all pretty much the same metal.

 

Yeah, but the metals don't come together to produce a terrain object like a tree. They spawn as ores, and get processed into dusts, bars, nuggets, tools etc.

 

The way I see it the tree articles have a few big problems.

 

1. This wiki is mostly focused on items, so putting information about the tree itself in its items pages seems awkward and out of place. Yet we have almost no articles about trees themselves save that bad general tree article.

 

2. Most tree item pages are not very exciting or unique, hence little effort goes into writing them, and many do not get written at all.

 

3. Unlike metals, most tree items can be used interchangeably in crafting, so there is a lot of repetitious information if we put every use for Wood in each type of tree's wood article. Not to mention keeping them all updated would be a nightmare.

 

 

Personally I guess I'm leaning towards having a generic article on Leaves, Wood, Planks and Saplings that covers in detail all of their usage in crafting in machines, while each type of a tree has an article that covers its unique characteristics (height, amount of saplings needed to grow, biomes etc.) and having brief sections that have the item boxes for its particular leaves, wood, planks and saplings. 

[felinoel]

Yeah, but the metals don't come together to produce a terrain object like a tree. They spawn as ores, and get processed into dusts, bars, nuggets, tools etc.

Perhaps they could be classified as structures like the Infernal Furnace.
 

The way I see it the tree articles have a few big problems.
 
1. This wiki is mostly focused on items, so putting information about the tree itself in its items pages seems awkward and out of place. Yet we have almost no articles about trees themselves save that bad general tree article.

That sounds more of a problem of the wiki than with the trees.
 

2. Most tree item pages are not very exciting or unique, hence little effort goes into writing them, and many do not get written at all.

I would say half or more of trees nowadays are more "exciting" than Vanilla trees.
Special new textures for old recipes (new texture doors and workbenches and such), special biomes or spawn rates, certain entities that spawn WITH them, and even some trees that are literally explosive or upside down.
 

3. Unlike metals, most tree items can be used interchangeably in crafting, so there is a lot of repetitious information if we put every use for Wood in each type of tree's wood article. Not to mention keeping them all updated would be a nightmare.

As I've said several times elsewhere, we need to start assigning people to positions, I said elsewhere assigning people to specific modpacks but I can see having people in charge of trees due to this issue. Wiki Projects are what this is usually called and we definitely could use tons of these.
  

Personally I guess I'm leaning towards having a generic article on Leaves, Wood, Planks and Saplings that covers in detail all of their usage in crafting in machines, while each type of a tree has an article that covers its unique characteristics (height, amount of saplings needed to grow, biomes etc.) and having brief sections that have the item boxes for its particular leaves, wood, planks and saplings.

That seems... unorthodox...
A lot can change from tree to tree, sometimes when you break certain woods something else drops with it, some certain woods are used with tools to produce items, some leaves drop unusual items, some leaves have graphical changes that indicate when an unusual item can be dropped, and some leaves spawn foods that just grow down from them that you can break off and regrows.

[dgelessus]

As I've said several times elsewhere, we need to start assigning people to positions, I said elsewhere assigning people to specific modpacks but I can see having people in charge of trees due to this issue. Wiki Projects are what this is usually called and we definitely could use tons of these.

That is indeed a good idea.

[timrem]

As I've said several times elsewhere, we need to start assigning people to positions, I said elsewhere assigning people to specific modpacks but I can see having people in charge of trees due to this issue.

 

'Assigning people' sounds, to put it frankly, like a terrible plan. If I were 'assigned' to trees, nothing would get done because I have no interest in documenting trees. Contributing isn't a job, it's a hobby, and telling users what topics to contribute to would just drive some of them away.

 

That seems... unorthodox...
A lot can change from tree to tree, sometimes when you break certain woods something else drops with it, some certain woods are used with tools to produce items, some leaves drop unusual items, some leaves have graphical changes that indicate when an unusual item can be dropped, and some leaves spawn foods that just grow down from them that you can break off and regrows.

 

All the differences you mentioned are what would go on individual tree pages that Celestial Oblivion described. I thought the idea was exactly what we should do: have an article about Wood (logs) with all the recipes Wood is used in, have an article about Planks with all those recipes, etc. Additionally, have an article for Rubber Trees which mentions you can use a treetap on the resin spots, and an article on the other Rubber Trees which sometimes drop raw rubber, and one for Twilight Oak which mentions the leaf dungeon...

 

Edit: The article about the Tree of Transformation, while needing work, appears to be in line with what Celestial Oblivion was suggesting.

[felinoel]

'Assigning people' sounds, to put it frankly, like a terrible plan. If I were 'assigned' to trees, nothing would get done because I have no interest in documenting trees. Contributing isn't a job, it's a hobby, and telling users what topics to contribute to would just drive some of them away.

These assignments would be voluntary and wouldn't really require much.
Of course for the head of each Wiki Project if someone else does better than you and wishes to have your spot as the head there would be a way to request it. Standard Wiki Project stuff.
Because it would be such a bother to manage all of the Wiki Projects on just the wiki, I would recommend a category here in the forums be made for Wiki Projects and a subcategory made for requesting to be the head.
 

All the differences you mentioned are what would go on individual tree pages that Celestial Oblivion described.

Oh, I misunderstood then, my mistake.