User talk:Notmyhandle

Splitting of Total Annihilation/Units
I don't think it's a good idea to split Total Annihilation/Units into separate pages for ARM and Core. The 2 sides' units are mostly so similar that for most Core units "similar to ARM's XXXXX" is enough, and splitting leads to duplication of text; in fact I've recently included several comparisons, and the cross-links in these no longer work. Splitting also leaves very little to say in Total Annihilation/Units. Philcha 05:38, 11 January 2008 (CST)


 * Your suggestion to combine ARM and Core unit descriptions is excellent. It will certainly save space, and will facilitate ARM-Core comparisons, e.g. Hammer vs Thud. It will also clarify the cases where there are no equivalents, e.g. Goliath, Maverick. It's quite a lot of work, so I think we should first check for issues that need to be sorted out. The ones that come to mind are:
 * Section headings for links between units. For example in a few sections the text says, "should be used along with X" or "don't use this, use Y".
 * Are we using "unit" in the technical sense, or mobiles only?
 * Should we highlight units that are only in expansion packs (e.g. Maverick, Immolator)? If so, how? See possible way at bottom.
 * How to present the ARM and Core names for corresponding units?
 * Should we consider including unit stats later (costs, build time, speed, hit points, firepower and rate)?
 * Do we use "level" or "tier"? AFAIK "level" is TA usage, "tier" is TA:K.
 * Once these are agreed, I'll help with the merge (send me a message!) - it's quite a lot of work, but 2 people can work on it because the units are all in separate sections (vehicles, Kbots,etc.) Since we will probably work at different rates for various reasons, we should send each other messages, e.g. "I'm starting to merge level 1 vehicles". I've just realised we're probably in different time zones - I'm in UK, where are you?


 * Re unit names, we could use small tables, e.g.:
 * {|narrow=1


 * ARM:
 * Samson
 * Core:
 * Slasher
 * }
 * or
 * {|narrow=1
 * {|narrow=1


 * ARM:
 * Maverick
 * Core:
 * (none)
 * }
 * What do you think? Philcha 06:26, 12 January 2008 (CST)
 * What do you think? Philcha 06:26, 12 January 2008 (CST)


 * Hi, I see you've combined the "units" pages but not said or done anything about combining the ARM and Core unit descriptions. Is that because you have other things on your plate, or because you're having second thoughts?
 * Meanwhile I've gone back to the idea of a table, because some of the apparently equivalent units have different weapons, e.g. Peewee vs AK. So the layout I now favour is e.g.

Peewee / AK
 * {|narrow=1


 * Class:
 * colspan=4 | Fast scout /spotter Kbot
 * ARM:
 * Peewee
 * Core:
 * AK
 * Weapon:
 * Energy machine-gun
 * Very light laser
 * }
 * Energy machine-gun
 * Very light laser
 * }
 * Very light laser
 * }
 * which can be extended where necessary to e.g.

Ranger / Missile Frigate
 * {|narrow=1


 * Class:
 * colspan=4 | Long-range missile ship
 * ARM:
 * Ranger
 * Core:
 * Missile Frigate
 * Weapon 1:
 * colspan=4 |Long-range, high-trajectory, non-tracking suface-to-surface missile
 * Weapon 2:
 * Anti-air missile
 * (none)
 * }
 * Weapon 2:
 * Anti-air missile
 * (none)
 * }
 * (none)
 * }
 * I've also found a page that makes it clear that there's more to installing TA than meets the eye: which 1.3.1 patch; installation order when using expansion packs. There are other installation topics that should be covered sometime, e.g. maps (UFO vs OTA+HPI formats), compatibility conditions for multiplayer, where to get the expansion packs' additional units. That suggests to me that "Getting started" should start with a separate "installing" page. Philcha 06:43, 13 January 2008 (CST)


 * Thanks for your message. I'll have a go at converting one section, e.g. level 1 Kbots, to the format I suggerted above. I'd like to ask you to review it when it's done - I think you'd be an ideal reviewer since you're an experienced member of StrategyWiki but have no hands-on experience of TA and therefore can see it from the point of view of a newcomer to the game. Philcha 05:20, 14 January 2008 (CST)


 * I've just revised the "Commander" section of Total Annihilation/Units in the way we discussed. I know you've played the game only a few times, but I suspect that makes you the kind of person who will find this guide most useful, so I'd be really grateful if you'd review my edit. Philcha 06:38, 14 January 2008 (CST)

a request for you too
Mind helping us revert and block the bots that are editing/creating accounts? -- 16:15, 11 January 2008 (CST)

Using undefined
How exactly does the syntax go for the cleanup again? --Arrow Windwhistler 11:02, 12 January 2008 (CST)


 * Understood. Unfortunately I've already marked a lot of pages, and I really am supposed to be doing math work at the moment, so...yeah. X__X No time to backtrack. I left a message on New User (the author of the Vikings stuff) though regarding on what in particular needs cleaning up. Any thing else for any of the other tags I should know? --Arrow Windwhistler 11:06, 12 January 2008 (CST)


 * Is there a convenient list of those templates? There are so many I can't keep track of them all. --Arrow Windwhistler 11:11, 12 January 2008 (CST)


 * I love it! Thanks, dude =D --Arrow Windwhistler 11:15, 12 January 2008 (CST)

Master of Orion II
Thanks for the effort you've put into re-assembling the content I wrote for Master of Orion II. The last thing I saw before I went off for dinner was a message from User:Ryan Schmidt - unsigned, so I had to look in the history of my Talk page to find out whio had left it. As far as I could see User:Ryan Schmidt had deleted the new pages I'd written, and I was ready to go ballistic.

There are now some issues that need to be sorted out with Master of Orion II/Getting Started as it currently stands and I'd appreciate your advice on the best way to deal with them:
 * The whole thing looks rather long as one page - and there's scope for additions, The most obvious is "game controls", which could also be quite long when done in a "how to" style rather than the more academic style of Wikipedia. The existing sections could also use more content, e.g. how to install & run it on Vista or other OSs (when the real experts have got that down smooth), starting multi-player games and mods, copy-and-paste DOSBox config files, etc. That's why I produced separate sub-pages for installation, overview and starting a new game.
 * There's duplicate content. I copied the 1st draft from the Wikipedia article (which I mostly wrote) just to get it started, then gradually moved and adapted material for the more "how to" orientation of StrategyWiki. I'd got the installation, overview and starting a new game pages looking reasonable and was about to clean up the duplicate stuff on other pages when the dinner bell rang.
 * The order is wrong, IMO. My reasoning is that someone who has not played MOO II needs 2 things first: how to install because it's a 1996 game and needs some help to run with 2007 Windows operating systems; and what the game is about, to make it easier to understand "starting a game" and, perhaps more importantly, to enable readers to decide whether they fancy the game enough to take it further (I linked the main page to "game overview" for that reason, and the link is now gone).

Then I could write quite a lot about strategy and tactics. Again my inclination is to create relatively short pages so that others can add to them without making them ginormous.

Any advice you can give on how to make this a guide half-way worthy of the game would be welcome. Philcha 14:48, 12 January 2008 (CST)

Is there any way you can re-instate the sub-pages I wrote for "Getting started" - especially "Installing the game", as that had a lot more "how to" details than the current section of "Getting started". Philcha 08:43, 14 January 2008 (CST)

IRC
Hey, I thought I should swing by and let you know that right now all of the computers I have been using lately have a lot of blocks and filters on them. ABXY and most snazzy things don't work. Sorry I haven't been able to swing by on IRC. It will be so awesome once my computer at home is back in working condition and I can hang out with you guys on IRC. --Zaiqukaj 05:11, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Responses
Hi NMH. The story for Link to the Past is under Hyrule History. It was too big to put on the first page. I suppose we could put a story summary on the front page if you thought it was necessary/helpful. As for the ToC, while I understand the use of the headings, I don't quite understand the columns. We use columns when ToCs get too long, and we want to balance them by spreading them out. Most of those 3~5 link ToCs are too small to spread out. But it's up to you. Procyon (Talk) 07:48, 14 January 2008 (CST)