https://temp.ufopaedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=GazChapUFOpaedia - User contributions [en]2026-05-01T08:18:08ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.43.6https://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=17105Talk:Main Page2008-10-01T10:28:11Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
----<br />
<br />
Quick nitty gritty gribbly grabbly notes: <br />
<br />
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. <br />
* Strategy by terrain notes? <br />
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map<br />
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch? <br />
<br />
<br />
::Blast! I must really remember to write my thoughts down here as often as possible. I've had many floaty lightbulb moments on what we're currently lacking/missing, and they're all gone. <br />
<br />
::- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Site Backups ==<br />
<br />
Ok, gents. Here's the scoop - straight from GazChap. The site is backed up every day, so there is basically no worry about losing everything if it should go down. The only thing that may be lost are transactions during that day when it is down. Normally there isn't much activity, but there is the occasional marathon editing session which some people partake in. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
The server hosting the UFOpaedia experienced a few issues over the weekend, but nothing major. However, I've decided that being reliant on a third-party backup service is foolhardy - consequently I'm going to be installing my own backup solution to the server soon (hopefully within the next few days) that will backup all user-submitted data. If anyone would like to volunteer to receive additional backups via e-mail (no point me just having backups, if I get knocked down by a bus we'd be stuffed ;) ) then please contact me at gazchap at gmail dot com. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
If I could ask one necessary question on this score: Gaz (or others), what might we do, if the site goes down and we can't contact you? Who's the "backup" for you?<br />
<br />
Why do I ask?<br />
<br />
In mid July the Europa Universalis 3 (EU3) wiki went down (and indeed its location at that time still [http://europa-universalis.kerak.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page is]). On the EU3 [http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314776&page=1&pp=20 forum], I (RedKnight7 there) kept asking when it would be back up. The forum regulars kept saying "the host is on vacation or something and will be back". To make a long story short, the wiki didn't come back up until two months later, at a different [http://www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Main_Page place]And I have yet to post a bunch of nice EU3 reference info because I moved on to other games in the meantime, in part because the wiki was down. (That was real sad because it was "prime time" for EU3... the game had recently come out, the wiki's down for weeks, and everybody's saying, "relax". So I relaxed on to other games.) Anyway. It still begs the question,<br />
<br />
We luv you for hosting this, Gaz. But can we ask for fallback plans?<br />
<br />
Ideas: Ask 2 or 3 of your bros, with server access (at work?), if they can be alternates. Then tell all the wiki admins who the alternates are (contact info) and instructions on just where the stuff is (in a way that makes sense to the alternates). OR, if you entirely trust 2 or 3 folks here give them the location, password, etc. OR, other possibilities are mirrors or access to site backups. OR maybe 2 or 3 wiki regulars are using a crawler (is that the word?) that regularly independently backs up the source. Or maybe even it can all be snagged off Google???<br />
<br />
Something, somehow. For if the wiki goes down and we can't reach the host. It's good to cover all the bases. (Just like in a good game of XCOM.) <br />
<br />
- [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Mike: GazChap and myself have been discussing this with Pete from StrategyCore for a while now. The idea is for StrategyCore to host the wiki so that backups are done on a consistent basis and would prevent downtime. (StrategyCore isn't going to disappear anytime soon, so by default, neither should the wiki if it is hosted by them). I'll have to get in touch with Pete again to see how far along he is in the process. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:43, 21 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Sounds great, Zombie. It's something hard to bring up - but a responsible thing to do. I was really shocked with what happened to EU3. Only one further stupid question - StratCore and GazChap aren't affiliated, are they? (Not both run off the same company's resources? I don't know who runs either server.) And thanks for thinking ahead! - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:10, 26 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Slight problem with transclusion tables for main page ==<br />
<br />
Folks, I've noticed a problem with the main transclusion tables for the main page when I was adding a few links to the UFO table. <br />
<br />
The problem is that the tables are classed as ordinary pages. They certainly work with transclusion the same way the template pages do, but there are two problems that they create. <br />
<br />
The first, and most prominent, is that actual main page doesn't update when updates are made to the individual tables. You have to have your browser perform a forced refresh to get the updates to show. <br />
<br />
The second is that the templates aren't listed at the bottom of the edit box when you edit the main page. Having them listed would make it a convenient way to get to them rather than manually type the name into the address bar. <br />
<br />
It's not a major problem, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I'll fix this later when I get a bit of free time. I a fix would just involve moving the tables into the template namespace. If not, well, I'll do a bit of cut and paste wizardry to make everything right. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
----<br />
Apologies, yep template pages do update near-automatically so they are a better choice than transcluded pages. I noticed that when you move a page that has a link on the template page and subsequently edit the template to point to the new location that the links on the moved page will not refresh. You must perform a dummy edit on the pages with the template info to update the links accordingly. I'll have to check to see what happens if you rename a template link and then move the page. The same thing might happen. It depends on the software here and if it uses dynamic pointers. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 08:52, 1 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Clean Up ==<br />
<br />
It's just occurring to me that "Community" does not feature the main two actual forums (XCOMUFO and StratCore) that newbies might turn to, right up front. Also, this Discussion page has gotten way long.<br />
<br />
Newbies need that Community connection, since that's the meaning of the word. Never mind that it can be found down around here somwhere, which even I can't find, right off. (It's why I came here, to show others examples of linking, but now I can't find where the heck the forums show up here.) Wikis should appeal to newbies heartily. Links to talk forums need to be "right there".<br />
<br />
Could someone take a hand at making the forums highlighted for newbies. And also, such a dedicated person might cut down this Discussion page tons. The new Style page is a place to put some things.<br />
<br />
Some thoughts - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 23:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, I cut this page down. It was on my list of things to do in the near future anyway.<br />
<br />
Ok, we have 2 "Community" pages right now: the [[UFOpaedia:Community_Portal|Community portal]] page (on the sidebar) and the [[Community]] page. The plain community page is buried at the bottom of the main page and contains the links to the forums. I'm thinking that we just get rid of the community page and add that info to the community portal instead. This way, the info is always near the top of the screen for quick access. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:14, 10 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==<br />
Ok folks, we all seem to have our own ways of adding comments to a discussion page. The way it stands now, it becomes really difficult to follow a discussion when it is broken apart with different formats. What I suggest is this: when you leave a comment use a horizontal line to separate your post from the one(s) above it. In this manner, everything is left justified and the comments are separated. The reason why I do not support the colon as comment separation is that as the discussion progresses you are going to be adding more and more just to get the indenting correct. It also makes it confusing. Another side effect is that once you have a lot of colons present it pushes the text off the page itself and forces a scroll to the right to view. That isn't good.<br />
<br />
I suppose if we really want to use colons as separators, we could alternate the use. If a comment is indented above yours, do nothing. If a comment is not indented, use a colon for your submission. Still, the constant zig-zagging isn't really the best idea either.<br />
<br />
My vote is therefore to stick with the horizontal line (four dashes). If the discussion veers way off course, or if you have a couple questions/comments, break it apart into different headings. And always sign your post too as that makes it easier to follow.<br />
<br />
Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Works for me, Zombie. Another problem with indentation is that one isn't necessarily addressing only the previous comment, but it could be about the previous one, and tying together things that are 4, 6, ''and'' 12 entries back. Colons are fine for quick rejoinders, but not as a requirement. A potential alternative is to leave two blank lines, as I just did after your sig. This is a fairly clear delineator for folks scanning quickly. However, the horizontal separator is more clear, in general. So I guess I'd vote for the hor-sep for all except quick comments thrown in, which can use colons. And anything that's a new topic or big break should get a new topic, using = signs. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I've reformatted [[Talk:Exploits#Extra_Ammo_Exploit]] to demonstrate how the indentation style ''can'' work, if done consistently. I think it's somewhat better than the line-separator style for very long discussions, making the structure a little clearer. However, if it's sometimes-used and sometimes-not things get messy, as you've noticed.<br />
<br />
I'll codify the rules right here (surprisingly, they're not well-codified on Wikipedia itself, despite the fact that it's used quite consistently throughout the site):<br />
<br />
*Add an indent for each reply<br />
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:<br />
<br />
First person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person's comment<br />
<br />
::Third person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::Third person again<br />
<br />
::Third person's afterthought<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::First person jumping back in<br />
<br />
:::Third person once more<br />
<br />
::First person again<br />
<br />
*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).<br />
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.<br />
*If somebody doesn't know/doesn't use the right indent level, fix it when adding your next reply so the rules become clear during the course of conversation.<br />
*Likewise, if someone adds a new comment to the top or fails to add a heading when starting a new subject, fix it when replying.<br />
<br />
The problem we've had lately is the mixing of styles, neither being used correctly. So far it seems that myself, Sf, and NKF have been using indents, you (Zombie) and Mike favoring dashes, and most newcomers failing to use either. No clear winner just yet. ;-)<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:What if you're addressing several and various issues raised before, not just a comment on the previous statement? (And it runs on for four or six paragraphs?) - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::If you're consolidating a bunch of replies to several earlier points, that's a good time to reset the indent.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 01:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::: Works for me, Eth - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:47, 9 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== British vs. American spelling ==<br />
<br />
:NKF Stealth note for authors or any nosy person reading the source: For those pedantic about the American/British English spelling of Armour/Armor, I used the British spelling because that's how it's spelt in the game when running it in the English text mode. This may not necessarily be the case for the other games in the series or earlier localized releases, but it is very much so in v1.4ce, hence why I'm sticking with it. I'd also like to add that a section relating specifically for armour is required, with some sections regarding armour management, such as how its distributed and the particulars of armour recovery when a soldier dies or is fired (i.e. none). (Damnit, just added Category:Armor -HeckRuler)<br />
<br />
:We should move this note to the top of the back of Main Page. English vs. USA doesn't matter. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
I moved the above two comments from within HTML comments on the [[Soldier]] page. Might as well "have a discussion" about it, it's what we do. Although I'm an American, I favor the in-game (British) spelling, wherever it appears (Plasma Defence, Armour, Cyberdisc, etc.). I'm, um, pedantic. Or probably just anal-retentive.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 00:58, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
: I'm in favour of the UK spelling scheme myself, only due to general preference and because UFO is in UK English (on the other hand, TFTD is in US English). However, I still like to think the spelling is interchangeable, and when it comes to the spelling of the actual article: redirects can do wonders! I actually left that note there as an afterthought in case some authors suddenly decide to do mass edits of the spelling, and others come along and revert the changes, and the whole process repeats itself. I mean, armor &rarr; armour &rarr; armor &rarr; smurf &rarr; armour &rarr; ad-infinitum. Not a nice thought. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
It's probably a very small issue on this site regardless. By comparison, Wikipedia has yet to implement any way for Commonwealth readers to see British spellings while American readers see US spellings. Instead, they're sticking with the comical compromise of "the creator of the article fates whether it'll have British or American spelling for the rest of its days". Maybe through Wikipedia's confusion the mother tongue will eventually merge back together. :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 02:24, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. I'll try my best to use the British spellings, but when I get on a typing roll the American spelling is what comes to me first. I usually don't catch it either when I proof read. I'd say redirects would be the best solution, so 'Personal Armor' redirects to 'Personal Armour'. As far as the spelling in articles, I think it's pretty well known the two differences of spelling, though it could be a problem if an article switches back and forth from it alot. <br />
<br />
: That said this affects maybe 3 or 4 Armour articles? I can't think of any other differences that would be in an article, at least as a main subject. Maybe the occasional colour or favour. --[[User:Pi Masta|Pi Masta]] 11:59, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
If anybody is still caring about this: I say do what the Wikipedia does, and let the author do what they want. Except when you're tacking a little onto a page that's already big into one way of spelling; then stick to what it's using. I'm U.S. and just want to write, not spend time looking up possible British variants - I'm not even sure what they all are. There are even a lot of acceptable variants in U.S. English already, shrug.<br />
<br />
I like the Wikipedia rule since it focuses on getting stuff posted. Yet still in the case of XCOM, there is a real reason for letting British be the standard. I really don't care, but will use U.S. for much of my writing. Still if anybody wants to go through and re-write everything British, that's fine with me. The focus is, posting game info.<br />
<br />
My two cents. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: Just do whatever you want MTR, that's how I've been going about it. If later you read through an article and spot these things and decide to change them, then so be it. It's just that it would be preferable for UFO to stick to its in-game language. The same goes for TFTD and Apocalypse, which use the US spelling - hence why I try to use armor for them, but often end up typing armour instead. <br />
<br />
:I'm sure we all agree that US and British spelling is interchangeable so this issue isn't really a big one - until we get into little wars where one party is pro one variant of the language while the other party is pro another variant, and they end up at logger heads. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== MediaWiki upgraded. ==<br />
<br />
I've upgraded MediaWiki to the latest version, although I'm afraid I don't know how to prevent spamming etc. If anyone can point me in the direction of something about this I can take a look at it, but now that it's upgraded and I have backups I should be in a position to allow Pete at SC to take over hosting.<br />
<br />
: See my email Gaz. We'll get this fixed yet. The only problem I noticed with the upgrade is that the logo in the upper left isn't linked to the correct picture. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 07:32, 28 September 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Fixed the logo, and I've also added a CAPTCHA extension. You'll be prompted to enter two words if you try to: create a new account; add an external link using an anonymous account. I'm now going to look at trying to give Pete at SC FTP access to the server without inadvertently giving him access to everything else I have hosted on there. Sometimes I hate these web control panels.<br />
<br />
:: I've now e-mailed Pete with all the details he requires to take over hosting. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 12:19, 30 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::Great job, Gaz. Thanks as always for your hosting!! - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:21, 12 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== XCOM Box Art ==<br />
<br />
Someone (NKF? Danial?) once asked if anybody could scan XCOM's box art, so that they might e.g. put a better graphic on the main page. I just uploaded a 300 dpi scan of all four sides as [[Media:XCOM_UFO_Defense_DOS_US_Box_Art.zip]] (3.2 MB). The box is not in mint condition (see the ReadMe), but a little tweaking by somebody with skillz (Danial) could easily spruce it up. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: Was it me? Hmm. Can't remember. I did think to just grab the cover for the PDF version of the X-Com Player's Handbook (US version - with the Mars/Super Avenger cover), but it's black and white. Could've sworn I've seen a copy in colour somewhere. Not that sepia version wouldn't look great though! <br />
: Oh hang on, I don't think it was for the front page graphic in particular, but we did want to get various versions of the box art for the various games. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
NKF - or anybody - can we consider replacing the current main page art, with the XCOM box art? Or a portion of it. I loved the game's intro and in-game "cartoon art", but why not use the game's best image, for our primary Main Page image? (Is there somebody with skills that can clean it up quickly? I'm happy to, but I'm no pics wizard.)<br />
<br />
[[image:XcomScExample.png|thumb|100px|One of many possible screencaps]]Related to this, I think it would be a nice touch if anyone put a bunch of selected and/or random screen captures (screencaps) onto a page, with a link just "under" (i.e., indented under the Main Page entry for) [[Info|About X-COM: UFO Defense]]...<br />
<br />
:I have a sneaking suspicion that we get a ton of lurkers (someone who is there but never speaks) who once played X-COM and came across our page by chance, and would like to relive it, if even for a few screencaps... yet as it is now, our site is becoming more of an in-depth encyclopedia, instead of a "you were once here" kind of place. All us hard core players gravitate toward the encyclopedia - but even if folks who once played it don't stay, if they say, "wow, I remember doing all that" based on a stack of screenshots, that would be good. I'm thinking of easy sections that are light on text (and no Ufopaedia info), but heavy on thumbnails and click-on screencaps (see the image to the right - I love that financier in the background) like:<br />
:*My first base - Decisions <br />
:*The Globe - Radar alert! <br />
:*First contact! Small farm in Iowa, USA <br />
:*Managing Research <br />
:*Terror in Sydney! ''(include zombies - squad wiped out - see next)''<br />
:*Headline: World Council generally supports X-COM efforts - subheadline - Australia may now be under the control of aliens ''(funding results for a month)''<br />
:*Headline: X-COM squad impacted by "Blaster bomb" - the world cries (before and after pix) <br />
:*The tricky depths of a Battleship <br />
:*Elite squad Mind Controls all aliens <br />
:*Final showdown: Cydonia <br />
:Each of the sections above might have 1-5 images. Something like that.<br />
<br />
:If no one objects, can I ask that anyone who is willing to do it, make a bunch of screencaps, using .pngs and thumbnails as shown above. Then lurkers can "remember the days" right up front. And a few more lurkers than currently breeze through, might stay.<br />
<br />
:To put this in context, CNN recently had a number of articles admiring Commodore 64s (one of them [http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/07/c64/index.html?iref=newssearch here]). X-COM is like that, to me... it lives past its "life expectancy" to gamers, because of how well put together it was, especially including how much it hit you in the gut.<br />
<br />
In summary, then. I have one question for us XCOM hardcore (can we change the Main Page image) and one for everybody (want to post a lot of screencaps?). I have made a stub page for the screencaps page. I'll retract it if the hardcore object or there's no response in a couple of months' time. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:44, 14 December 2007 (PST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm perfectly fine with getting the main title changed. Get a few more ayes and we'll make it so. <br />
<br />
A screencap section would be nice. I'm quite partial to creating screencap mini-comics (no, not real comics. Just sequential before/during/after images), although I never use them and they just get deleted in the end. <br />
<br />
One benefit is that some of the shots can also be recycled throughout the rest of the site to illustrate certain things. Or for an article that's no more than a solid block of text, something to break up the monotony. I'm also always for a few well placed humorous shots. <br />
<br />
-[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:02, 15 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:Sounds good, NKF. There could easily be a "comics" page link several ways: <br />
::1) The new Main Page entry indented under [[Info|About X-COM: UFO Defense]] could also have a link to a comics page, but on the screenshot page itself,<br />
::2) That same new entry on the Main Page could read something like "[[Screenshots]] - and [[Comics]]!" The concept of the screenshots page is to help folks relive the past. And something just as good as screenshots - or better - is screenshots with humor.<br />
::3) Or, make a link for it, all by itself, somewhere obvious on the Main Page.<br />
:I think it's a great idea! <br />
:As for the other idea - you said you're fine re: changing the main title. But it's the graphic at the top of the Main Page that I'm talking about. Just to make sure we're clear on that. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 17:21, 21 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Smart Quotes ==<br />
<br />
Do we use them? When I write up articles in MS Word, it automatically uses "smart quotes," i.e., “this.” I can imagine that there could be some benefit to keeping it all consistent.<br />
<br />
[[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 17:48, 21 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, I can't see any practicality in trying to convert all articles to smart quotes, so I'll clean up the ones that I've done with straight quotes to be consistent.<br />
<br />
:[[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 19:30, 25 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Favicon ==<br />
<br />
Does the UFOpaedia have a favicon? -- [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 17:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:We did have it at one time but I think it disappeared after an upgrade to the wiki software. If you have an idea for a favicon, submit it here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:21, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Okay, I don't know where that logo in the upper left came from, but after a quick GIMP edit, I came up with this: [[Media:favicon.zip]]. I'm not quite sure how The GIMP works with icons, so I also included the .png's. What do you think? -- [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 18:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:Not too shabby. Next time I talk to GazChap, I'll run it past him. Any more ideas for a favicon? I'd like to get a few (at least 3) and run it through a vote here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:28, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::[[image:FavIcon-Crude1.png|thumb|16px]][[image:FavIcon-Crude2.png|thumb|16px]]NinthRank and Z, my two cents are something like this. My pics are incredibly crude - I'm a total graphics n00b - and would need somebody like you, Ninth, to turn it into the "burnished gold and navy" (or is that black?), like you did with yours. I couldn't even get my damn background to change for me using simple MS Word art ... what do you use? (See how n00b I am?)<br />
<br />
::I think you have some great ideas there, but my favicons show as 16x16 pixels. (Is this because I use small icons? I had never heard the the word until you said it, Ninth, at which point I read the wiki entry, and it made immediate sense.) At 16<sup>2</sup>, you have to keep it incredibly simply... having the COM on a big X does that, because it doesn't "waste a repetitive 'X-' across the center", if that makes sense. Another idea is be careful with the X ... I didn't like the X in your 16x16 and 32x32 because it was "narrow" (more vertical than horizontal). I definitely like your 48x48. (I can't tell what's going on with your animated 16x16 .ico, my friend - a 16x16 pic on a 1280x1024 screen (or higher) needs to be real simple. It looks like a tiny pulsing thing, with an X sort of there, overall.) I think the X should be, if not symmetric, then, more wide than high - to me, this implies something "ominous". A true X would have to be "cut off" at the corners to be "wide and fat" at 16x16. This shows more in my second try than the first. <br />
<br />
::You can make things bigger than 16<sup>2</sup>, a real plus and you get much more flexibility, but for me, only 16x16 exists.<br />
<br />
::My two cents. I love your overall idea, and using navy (or black?) with gold trim. Thanks for signing in and helping out, NinthRank! -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 19:40, 14 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== XCOM-like games ==<br />
<br />
Are the After-games and Extraterrestrials allowed on this wiki? [[User:Ssfsx17|Ssfsx17]]<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
I don't see the point, unless there's enough authors prepared to put together the pages. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, if there are then I don't see a problem. It might be worth putting the question forward in the relevant forum sections first to see if there's any real interest.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 01:31, 9 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm just thinking about the organisation. The wiki so far has been quite specialised and only covers X-Com content. The other games are similar, but are not really X-com. The solution would be to open up an be a more general wiki for X-Com-likes, although I feel that might might cause some loss in focus. We can already see that here with the X-Com spinoffs. Nary a paragraph of interesting tidbits in any of them. Well, not much anyway. <br />
<br />
Still, I'm now of the belief that all good games should have great compendiums of knowledge like this. <br />
<br />
If we're going to move the wiki onto Strategycore (is that still going ahead?), perhaps separate wikis for the other X-Com-like's series could be created as well if there is a demand? <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:27, 9 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Technical Commentaries==<br />
<br />
I just thought of adding a specific section concerning commentaries regarding the game, i.e., trying to explain how the weapons/diplomacy/funding/etc. would work in real life. The idea here is not to expand on the canon X-COM material but to describe/explain in a rational way. <br />
I've come with this idea after reading Spike's section (on his [[User talk:Spike]] page) explaining the economics of X-COM and starting my own section regarding the Council of Funding Nations. <br />
I think there is plenty of material available on the Data canisters that could be used/adapted to this. Also, the discussion regarding Elerium (with all those formulas) on the Talk Page is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. <br />
<br />
- [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:59, 10 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't see any problem with it. Go for it. We've started with a magnificent wealth of knowledge about the game itself (and a bit beyond, with the binary file diving). Theories and explanations of the X-Com world wouldn't be out of place. They'd certainly add a bit of literary colour and interest for those that wish to look beyond the game. There are lots of interesting bits and pieces scattered throughout the articles (like real world equivalents of weapon or tanks, just to name one example) that would probably fit better in a section like that than in the articles. Perhaps a an expanded data-canister like section would be in order. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:13, 11 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Game Editors ==<br />
<br />
I was going to add a link off the Main Page to the [[Game editors]] section that I wrote, under Misc. I still have a nagging feeling there is another list of them somewhere, but I can't find it. Any comments? <br />
<br />
Also, any additions to the Game editors section are welcome. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:40, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't think we've ever had a particular listing of editors. <br />
<br />
: Tell you what, I'll throw these changes in, and we'll see how this works out. <br />
<br />
:# I'll put the new game editor section onto the UFO main table (I've also renamed the page to stick to the first capital letter naming convention the other articles use). <br />
:# I removed XComutil off the main table, since it'll be under the game file section. <br />
:# Removed the UBK - it's just a tool for wiki editors and not something that would interest players of the game. <br />
<br />
: I might also add the [[Command Prompt]] to the game editor section for its notes on using MS-Edit as a binary file editor. <br />
<br />
<br />
:- [[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:46, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: While I see the validity of adding XComUtil to a page regarding editors won't it make sense to keep a sublink to the page which deals on how to use it, together with MSEdit? I mean, the other editors only have links to them on that page and I think that at least XComUtil deserves main page status because of its notoriosity and complexity. What do you guys think? - [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 14:08, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
a good idea to include the Command Prompt help. How about broadly dividing it into 2 sections: X-COM-specific tools and general purpose tools?<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:08, 17 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Newb questions ==<br />
<br />
Hello good sirs. Sorry for my bad non-native english. While in total noob in wiki, im relatively for long playd this great games. Great thanks for you for this great site, it really helped me with some ideas, especially with Funding Nation, even dont know how i played it before without it. Now more close to point, i realized what TFTD section here are, say, unperfect, if not somewhat wrong. As i readed somewhere not all play TFTD much, UFO1 instead, so it maybe be the point. Id edit something on it, but im totally dunno how to do it, and my language will have too many mistakes to be proudly presented to people. So id be glade to hear what you may propose for me to do. Again big thanks. Ill wait for answer.<br />
<br />
PS Or im searched too badly, or its differ in TFTD (i play only it now) from UFO1, but i cant find here about stunned persons behaviour. Cant find what they awake only if theyr stun is lower then HP's and if only they have awaken person in theyr tile during end of turn. IMHO its important thing to know off, at least for me.<br />
<br />
PPS. My friend made great tiny changes to one tiny file, what make FundingNations game way more easy and elegant then described in issue. I can upload it if you need this, tho its for TFTD im sure he can do UFO1 also if its needed. Anyway this game too easy even on FN to play it without it :).<br />
<br />
Eh PPPS. Dunno how to properly log on :(.<br />
<br />
: Do not worry about the language barrier - sometimes it's harder to understand people who speak English natively! ;) In any case, There'll be other editors who will be able to help fix the article for you if you can get the idea across. <br />
<br />
: To get started editing pages, check the Community Portal on the left sidebar. That has links to articles that can help you get started - more or less. One good way to find out how some text is formatted (or anything else you'd like to duplicate) is to edit the page and see how it's done in the source. <br />
<br />
: If in doubt, or if you're unsure about editing the article, feel free put your ideas or suggestions in the article's Discussion page. <br />
<br />
: Because TFTD and UFO share a lot of the same mechanics, there would be a lot of unnecessary duplication if we were to write up articles for it that are already available in the UFO articles. Therefore we mainly include articles that cover topics that are unique to TFTD, like the weapons, door opening, aliens, etc. General mechanics like how damage works or how experience is earned is identical to UFO's, so there's no need to duplicate them. What sections do you think need improving or what sections do we need to add? The more input the better. <br />
<br />
: Regarding consciousness, have you checked the [[Unconscious]] article? I think we might need to redo that article bit and perhaps add a few illustrations. One note about the difference between UFO and TFTD with the visual appearance of a unit recovered with a medikit needs to go in there too if it hasn't already. Oh well. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:54, 22 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: PS, to sign your messages in the discussion pages, put four tilde's <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> anywhere you want to insert your name and the timestamp.<br />
<br />
== same questions ==<br />
<br />
Thank you for answer. I been somwhat incorrect in my english. I didnt mean what TFTD pages are bad or what they lose reduntand UFO1 information. All they lack are only slightly wrongly described alien's dangers levels (one of most dangerous creatures cant be low treat, and least dangerous one medium) and lack of mission types what only TFTD have. Also i readed "Unconscious@ article few times, stiil cant find only how to use medkit and no word about what generally need for stunned person to rise. From that follow advices to grenade stunned chryssalids and so on. <br />
<br />
PS. Oh, yes, and whats wrong with door openings?<br />
[[User:Derrida|Derrida]] 08:59, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
: A unit falls unconscious when the stun bar is equal or greater than the unit's remaining health points. If it's under that, the unit will be awake. <br />
<br />
: To wake a soldier up, you have to reduce the stun level by either waiting for the stun to wear off, 1 point per turn, or use stimulants on a medikit. Looks like the TFTD section doesn't have its own medikit page, but UFO's [[Medi-Kit]] section explains how to use it, as they are identical. Basically, if the unit is unconscious, the medic must stand on top of the unconscious unit and use stimulants (the second choice) until the unconscious soldier wakes up. When the unconscious unit wakes up, they'll appear to the north of the medic. <br />
<br />
: TFTD's stun weapons are much more powerful than in TFTD, so you often have to use a lot of stimulants to wake a person up. <br />
<br />
: TFTD's unique because it allows you to open doors by right clicking them - and it's a free action so you won't spend any TUs to do it. UFO cannot do this (except the Playstation version). <br />
<br />
: As for the threat levels of the aliens - I agree, some should be reclassified. Personally I'd move the Gill-Men and Calcinite up to medium threat - all the current medium level threats look just about right though. What are your suggestions? <br />
<br />
: Hang on, why are there so many references to vibroblades in the overview article? That can't be right. I'll have to update that later on. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Nonono. I mean what if unit's stun damage falled below it's HP, and no one stand in tile it lying, it will never rise. Medkits not the point. No stunned aliens or soldiers will rise if no one will end turn on it, or take it to inventory/hand. I tried to say this. Maybe it been different in UFO1 (as with doors, i thought what doors always open by right click, and in UFO1 too (btw cant find about door opening anywere in wiki)), but in TFTD it means what you dont have to bother with stunned tentaculats etc to rise after stun if you do not stand on it, or try to move it in backpack/hand. Same with soldiers, you can click zillion turns, but they will never rise until someone stand on it. Without this game must be horrible with all this undying lobsters awake afer you pass them.<br />
With danger level id suggest this: Harmless: hallucinoid; deep one; Low: gillmen; aquatoid; Meduim: zombie; calcinite; bio-drone; lobsterman; xarquid; high: tasoth; triscene; What really matters: tentaculat. In line of growing dangerness. [[User:Derrida|Derrida]] 16:30, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Regarding image file formats ==<br />
<br />
I'd really like to add a note somewhere obvious about using GIFs for screenshots in the wiki, rather than JPGs. For 256-color images like X-COM uses, GIFs are no larger than JPGs and generally look much better. For example, see the nasty compression artifacts on the terrain maps in the [[Terror Ship]] article. PNGs might work just as well, I'm not sure, but we should really avoid JPGs.<br />
<br />
Where would be the best place to mention this? I'm thinking near the top of the main page for visibility, but that might be more clutter than people want. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 23:59, 11 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:It's been dealt with [[User_talk:Zombie#Image_Types|here]] that PNG is the preferred file format of the wiki; however, where to note this...I honestly don't know. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:37, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: PNG's reduced to 256 or less colours can be quite the space saver for X-Com screenshots. You can go the extra step and run them through PNG compression programs and somesuch - but they're pretty good as-is. Jpgs should be reserved for images with a broader range of colours. One place the note could go is in [[Guidelines to writing articles]]. In fact, that section could do with a few extra additions in any case to expand is to that it's not just covering the composition of the language of the articles, but to cover the creation of the articles. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:04, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Administrator Positions ==<br />
<br />
As a fairly regular and large scale contributor to the Apocalypse side of this site i would like to offer my services as an administrator. I believe i can make the site better by editing spelling, punctuation, grammar and headings, i can also make the information more managable and simpler to understand. It will also give me something to do in my days, as apposed to nothing. many thanks Nathan King<br />
<br />
:While I'm not an administrator, I don't believe they're accepting applications at this time; there really aren't enough problems that we require more(from my standpoint.) On a similar note, while I haven't checked the X-COM Forums, you seem to only have made nine edits to the wiki. (The two for this application and the one for your userpage really don't count, in my opinion.) Obviously, this is for the current admins to decide, but I really wouldn't be holding my breath. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:21, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Technically it's true - there aren't many of us who've put that many edits in the Apocalypse section in such a short period of time (recently, that is). ;) <br />
<br />
:: Seriously though, you already have a lot of power available as a regular member by being able to edit articles and upload content to your heart's content. The admin positions only give you a few extras like deleting articles and putting temp/permanent bans on these persistent spam bots (which funnily enough appears to have become my job lately...).<br />
<br />
:: In the end though, it's up to our lord high generalissimo head honcho all-round-great-guy administrator person to decide if we need more. Besides the spambots, things are pretty mellow around here. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:43, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Hosting move. ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys. It appears I'm still hosting the UFOpaedia - I did discuss moving it to StrategyCore with both Zombie and Pete a while ago and I think I gave them copies of what would be required.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I'm moving hosting servers so the UFOpaedia is going to move too. I'm aiming to carry out the transfer on Sunday September 28th at about 8pm GMT+1. Any changes made between this time and the time that the transfer completes may be lost, but hopefully not. Just thought I'd give you guys a bit of notice.<br />
<br />
I should point out that I still have no objection to hosting the UFOpaedia on my servers, it's a great project and you guys have done a bang-up job with it, it's far surpassed my original intentions :) However, if StrategyCore want to take over hosting to remove the potential "failure point" (i.e. me) then that's fine and we can give it another shot?<br />
<br />
GazChap, 25th September 2008 12:50 GMT+1<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the heads-up Gaz-Chap! Sure, StrategyCore is still willing to host the UFOpaedia. Sorry things didn't quite work out the last time we talked. Pete needs to be constantly reminded to do things as he's easily distracted. I'll try and start a fire under his bum to get the ball rolling again. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 07:14, 25 September 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Hosting has now been moved to StrategyCore. Cheers to Pete and Zombie for sorting it out. GazChap, 11:28, 1 October 2008 (GMT+1)</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=17059Talk:Main Page2008-09-25T11:43:33Z<p>GazChap: New section: Hosting move.</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
----<br />
<br />
Quick nitty gritty gribbly grabbly notes: <br />
<br />
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. <br />
* Strategy by terrain notes? <br />
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map<br />
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch? <br />
<br />
<br />
::Blast! I must really remember to write my thoughts down here as often as possible. I've had many floaty lightbulb moments on what we're currently lacking/missing, and they're all gone. <br />
<br />
::- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Site Backups ==<br />
<br />
Ok, gents. Here's the scoop - straight from GazChap. The site is backed up every day, so there is basically no worry about losing everything if it should go down. The only thing that may be lost are transactions during that day when it is down. Normally there isn't much activity, but there is the occasional marathon editing session which some people partake in. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
The server hosting the UFOpaedia experienced a few issues over the weekend, but nothing major. However, I've decided that being reliant on a third-party backup service is foolhardy - consequently I'm going to be installing my own backup solution to the server soon (hopefully within the next few days) that will backup all user-submitted data. If anyone would like to volunteer to receive additional backups via e-mail (no point me just having backups, if I get knocked down by a bus we'd be stuffed ;) ) then please contact me at gazchap at gmail dot com. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
If I could ask one necessary question on this score: Gaz (or others), what might we do, if the site goes down and we can't contact you? Who's the "backup" for you?<br />
<br />
Why do I ask?<br />
<br />
In mid July the Europa Universalis 3 (EU3) wiki went down (and indeed its location at that time still [http://europa-universalis.kerak.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page is]). On the EU3 [http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314776&page=1&pp=20 forum], I (RedKnight7 there) kept asking when it would be back up. The forum regulars kept saying "the host is on vacation or something and will be back". To make a long story short, the wiki didn't come back up until two months later, at a different [http://www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Main_Page place]And I have yet to post a bunch of nice EU3 reference info because I moved on to other games in the meantime, in part because the wiki was down. (That was real sad because it was "prime time" for EU3... the game had recently come out, the wiki's down for weeks, and everybody's saying, "relax". So I relaxed on to other games.) Anyway. It still begs the question,<br />
<br />
We luv you for hosting this, Gaz. But can we ask for fallback plans?<br />
<br />
Ideas: Ask 2 or 3 of your bros, with server access (at work?), if they can be alternates. Then tell all the wiki admins who the alternates are (contact info) and instructions on just where the stuff is (in a way that makes sense to the alternates). OR, if you entirely trust 2 or 3 folks here give them the location, password, etc. OR, other possibilities are mirrors or access to site backups. OR maybe 2 or 3 wiki regulars are using a crawler (is that the word?) that regularly independently backs up the source. Or maybe even it can all be snagged off Google???<br />
<br />
Something, somehow. For if the wiki goes down and we can't reach the host. It's good to cover all the bases. (Just like in a good game of XCOM.) <br />
<br />
- [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Mike: GazChap and myself have been discussing this with Pete from StrategyCore for a while now. The idea is for StrategyCore to host the wiki so that backups are done on a consistent basis and would prevent downtime. (StrategyCore isn't going to disappear anytime soon, so by default, neither should the wiki if it is hosted by them). I'll have to get in touch with Pete again to see how far along he is in the process. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:43, 21 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Sounds great, Zombie. It's something hard to bring up - but a responsible thing to do. I was really shocked with what happened to EU3. Only one further stupid question - StratCore and GazChap aren't affiliated, are they? (Not both run off the same company's resources? I don't know who runs either server.) And thanks for thinking ahead! - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:10, 26 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Slight problem with transclusion tables for main page ==<br />
<br />
Folks, I've noticed a problem with the main transclusion tables for the main page when I was adding a few links to the UFO table. <br />
<br />
The problem is that the tables are classed as ordinary pages. They certainly work with transclusion the same way the template pages do, but there are two problems that they create. <br />
<br />
The first, and most prominent, is that actual main page doesn't update when updates are made to the individual tables. You have to have your browser perform a forced refresh to get the updates to show. <br />
<br />
The second is that the templates aren't listed at the bottom of the edit box when you edit the main page. Having them listed would make it a convenient way to get to them rather than manually type the name into the address bar. <br />
<br />
It's not a major problem, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I'll fix this later when I get a bit of free time. I a fix would just involve moving the tables into the template namespace. If not, well, I'll do a bit of cut and paste wizardry to make everything right. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
----<br />
Apologies, yep template pages do update near-automatically so they are a better choice than transcluded pages. I noticed that when you move a page that has a link on the template page and subsequently edit the template to point to the new location that the links on the moved page will not refresh. You must perform a dummy edit on the pages with the template info to update the links accordingly. I'll have to check to see what happens if you rename a template link and then move the page. The same thing might happen. It depends on the software here and if it uses dynamic pointers. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 08:52, 1 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Clean Up ==<br />
<br />
It's just occurring to me that "Community" does not feature the main two actual forums (XCOMUFO and StratCore) that newbies might turn to, right up front. Also, this Discussion page has gotten way long.<br />
<br />
Newbies need that Community connection, since that's the meaning of the word. Never mind that it can be found down around here somwhere, which even I can't find, right off. (It's why I came here, to show others examples of linking, but now I can't find where the heck the forums show up here.) Wikis should appeal to newbies heartily. Links to talk forums need to be "right there".<br />
<br />
Could someone take a hand at making the forums highlighted for newbies. And also, such a dedicated person might cut down this Discussion page tons. The new Style page is a place to put some things.<br />
<br />
Some thoughts - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 23:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, I cut this page down. It was on my list of things to do in the near future anyway.<br />
<br />
Ok, we have 2 "Community" pages right now: the [[UFOpaedia:Community_Portal|Community portal]] page (on the sidebar) and the [[Community]] page. The plain community page is buried at the bottom of the main page and contains the links to the forums. I'm thinking that we just get rid of the community page and add that info to the community portal instead. This way, the info is always near the top of the screen for quick access. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:14, 10 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==<br />
Ok folks, we all seem to have our own ways of adding comments to a discussion page. The way it stands now, it becomes really difficult to follow a discussion when it is broken apart with different formats. What I suggest is this: when you leave a comment use a horizontal line to separate your post from the one(s) above it. In this manner, everything is left justified and the comments are separated. The reason why I do not support the colon as comment separation is that as the discussion progresses you are going to be adding more and more just to get the indenting correct. It also makes it confusing. Another side effect is that once you have a lot of colons present it pushes the text off the page itself and forces a scroll to the right to view. That isn't good.<br />
<br />
I suppose if we really want to use colons as separators, we could alternate the use. If a comment is indented above yours, do nothing. If a comment is not indented, use a colon for your submission. Still, the constant zig-zagging isn't really the best idea either.<br />
<br />
My vote is therefore to stick with the horizontal line (four dashes). If the discussion veers way off course, or if you have a couple questions/comments, break it apart into different headings. And always sign your post too as that makes it easier to follow.<br />
<br />
Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Works for me, Zombie. Another problem with indentation is that one isn't necessarily addressing only the previous comment, but it could be about the previous one, and tying together things that are 4, 6, ''and'' 12 entries back. Colons are fine for quick rejoinders, but not as a requirement. A potential alternative is to leave two blank lines, as I just did after your sig. This is a fairly clear delineator for folks scanning quickly. However, the horizontal separator is more clear, in general. So I guess I'd vote for the hor-sep for all except quick comments thrown in, which can use colons. And anything that's a new topic or big break should get a new topic, using = signs. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I've reformatted [[Talk:Exploits#Extra_Ammo_Exploit]] to demonstrate how the indentation style ''can'' work, if done consistently. I think it's somewhat better than the line-separator style for very long discussions, making the structure a little clearer. However, if it's sometimes-used and sometimes-not things get messy, as you've noticed.<br />
<br />
I'll codify the rules right here (surprisingly, they're not well-codified on Wikipedia itself, despite the fact that it's used quite consistently throughout the site):<br />
<br />
*Add an indent for each reply<br />
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:<br />
<br />
First person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person's comment<br />
<br />
::Third person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::Third person again<br />
<br />
::Third person's afterthought<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::First person jumping back in<br />
<br />
:::Third person once more<br />
<br />
::First person again<br />
<br />
*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).<br />
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.<br />
*If somebody doesn't know/doesn't use the right indent level, fix it when adding your next reply so the rules become clear during the course of conversation.<br />
*Likewise, if someone adds a new comment to the top or fails to add a heading when starting a new subject, fix it when replying.<br />
<br />
The problem we've had lately is the mixing of styles, neither being used correctly. So far it seems that myself, Sf, and NKF have been using indents, you (Zombie) and Mike favoring dashes, and most newcomers failing to use either. No clear winner just yet. ;-)<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:What if you're addressing several and various issues raised before, not just a comment on the previous statement? (And it runs on for four or six paragraphs?) - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::If you're consolidating a bunch of replies to several earlier points, that's a good time to reset the indent.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 01:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::: Works for me, Eth - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:47, 9 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== British vs. American spelling ==<br />
<br />
:NKF Stealth note for authors or any nosy person reading the source: For those pedantic about the American/British English spelling of Armour/Armor, I used the British spelling because that's how it's spelt in the game when running it in the English text mode. This may not necessarily be the case for the other games in the series or earlier localized releases, but it is very much so in v1.4ce, hence why I'm sticking with it. I'd also like to add that a section relating specifically for armour is required, with some sections regarding armour management, such as how its distributed and the particulars of armour recovery when a soldier dies or is fired (i.e. none). (Damnit, just added Category:Armor -HeckRuler)<br />
<br />
:We should move this note to the top of the back of Main Page. English vs. USA doesn't matter. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
I moved the above two comments from within HTML comments on the [[Soldier]] page. Might as well "have a discussion" about it, it's what we do. Although I'm an American, I favor the in-game (British) spelling, wherever it appears (Plasma Defence, Armour, Cyberdisc, etc.). I'm, um, pedantic. Or probably just anal-retentive.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 00:58, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
: I'm in favour of the UK spelling scheme myself, only due to general preference and because UFO is in UK English (on the other hand, TFTD is in US English). However, I still like to think the spelling is interchangeable, and when it comes to the spelling of the actual article: redirects can do wonders! I actually left that note there as an afterthought in case some authors suddenly decide to do mass edits of the spelling, and others come along and revert the changes, and the whole process repeats itself. I mean, armor &rarr; armour &rarr; armor &rarr; smurf &rarr; armour &rarr; ad-infinitum. Not a nice thought. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
It's probably a very small issue on this site regardless. By comparison, Wikipedia has yet to implement any way for Commonwealth readers to see British spellings while American readers see US spellings. Instead, they're sticking with the comical compromise of "the creator of the article fates whether it'll have British or American spelling for the rest of its days". Maybe through Wikipedia's confusion the mother tongue will eventually merge back together. :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 02:24, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. I'll try my best to use the British spellings, but when I get on a typing roll the American spelling is what comes to me first. I usually don't catch it either when I proof read. I'd say redirects would be the best solution, so 'Personal Armor' redirects to 'Personal Armour'. As far as the spelling in articles, I think it's pretty well known the two differences of spelling, though it could be a problem if an article switches back and forth from it alot. <br />
<br />
: That said this affects maybe 3 or 4 Armour articles? I can't think of any other differences that would be in an article, at least as a main subject. Maybe the occasional colour or favour. --[[User:Pi Masta|Pi Masta]] 11:59, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
If anybody is still caring about this: I say do what the Wikipedia does, and let the author do what they want. Except when you're tacking a little onto a page that's already big into one way of spelling; then stick to what it's using. I'm U.S. and just want to write, not spend time looking up possible British variants - I'm not even sure what they all are. There are even a lot of acceptable variants in U.S. English already, shrug.<br />
<br />
I like the Wikipedia rule since it focuses on getting stuff posted. Yet still in the case of XCOM, there is a real reason for letting British be the standard. I really don't care, but will use U.S. for much of my writing. Still if anybody wants to go through and re-write everything British, that's fine with me. The focus is, posting game info.<br />
<br />
My two cents. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: Just do whatever you want MTR, that's how I've been going about it. If later you read through an article and spot these things and decide to change them, then so be it. It's just that it would be preferable for UFO to stick to its in-game language. The same goes for TFTD and Apocalypse, which use the US spelling - hence why I try to use armor for them, but often end up typing armour instead. <br />
<br />
:I'm sure we all agree that US and British spelling is interchangeable so this issue isn't really a big one - until we get into little wars where one party is pro one variant of the language while the other party is pro another variant, and they end up at logger heads. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== MediaWiki upgraded. ==<br />
<br />
I've upgraded MediaWiki to the latest version, although I'm afraid I don't know how to prevent spamming etc. If anyone can point me in the direction of something about this I can take a look at it, but now that it's upgraded and I have backups I should be in a position to allow Pete at SC to take over hosting.<br />
<br />
: See my email Gaz. We'll get this fixed yet. The only problem I noticed with the upgrade is that the logo in the upper left isn't linked to the correct picture. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 07:32, 28 September 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Fixed the logo, and I've also added a CAPTCHA extension. You'll be prompted to enter two words if you try to: create a new account; add an external link using an anonymous account. I'm now going to look at trying to give Pete at SC FTP access to the server without inadvertently giving him access to everything else I have hosted on there. Sometimes I hate these web control panels.<br />
<br />
:: I've now e-mailed Pete with all the details he requires to take over hosting. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 12:19, 30 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::Great job, Gaz. Thanks as always for your hosting!! - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:21, 12 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== XCOM Box Art ==<br />
<br />
Someone (NKF? Danial?) once asked if anybody could scan XCOM's box art, so that they might e.g. put a better graphic on the main page. I just uploaded a 300 dpi scan of all four sides as [[Media:XCOM_UFO_Defense_DOS_US_Box_Art.zip]] (3.2 MB). The box is not in mint condition (see the ReadMe), but a little tweaking by somebody with skillz (Danial) could easily spruce it up. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: Was it me? Hmm. Can't remember. I did think to just grab the cover for the PDF version of the X-Com Player's Handbook (US version - with the Mars/Super Avenger cover), but it's black and white. Could've sworn I've seen a copy in colour somewhere. Not that sepia version wouldn't look great though! <br />
: Oh hang on, I don't think it was for the front page graphic in particular, but we did want to get various versions of the box art for the various games. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
NKF - or anybody - can we consider replacing the current main page art, with the XCOM box art? Or a portion of it. I loved the game's intro and in-game "cartoon art", but why not use the game's best image, for our primary Main Page image? (Is there somebody with skills that can clean it up quickly? I'm happy to, but I'm no pics wizard.)<br />
<br />
[[image:XcomScExample.png|thumb|100px|One of many possible screencaps]]Related to this, I think it would be a nice touch if anyone put a bunch of selected and/or random screen captures (screencaps) onto a page, with a link just "under" (i.e., indented under the Main Page entry for) [[Info|About X-COM: UFO Defense]]...<br />
<br />
:I have a sneaking suspicion that we get a ton of lurkers (someone who is there but never speaks) who once played X-COM and came across our page by chance, and would like to relive it, if even for a few screencaps... yet as it is now, our site is becoming more of an in-depth encyclopedia, instead of a "you were once here" kind of place. All us hard core players gravitate toward the encyclopedia - but even if folks who once played it don't stay, if they say, "wow, I remember doing all that" based on a stack of screenshots, that would be good. I'm thinking of easy sections that are light on text (and no Ufopaedia info), but heavy on thumbnails and click-on screencaps (see the image to the right - I love that financier in the background) like:<br />
:*My first base - Decisions <br />
:*The Globe - Radar alert! <br />
:*First contact! Small farm in Iowa, USA <br />
:*Managing Research <br />
:*Terror in Sydney! ''(include zombies - squad wiped out - see next)''<br />
:*Headline: World Council generally supports X-COM efforts - subheadline - Australia may now be under the control of aliens ''(funding results for a month)''<br />
:*Headline: X-COM squad impacted by "Blaster bomb" - the world cries (before and after pix) <br />
:*The tricky depths of a Battleship <br />
:*Elite squad Mind Controls all aliens <br />
:*Final showdown: Cydonia <br />
:Each of the sections above might have 1-5 images. Something like that.<br />
<br />
:If no one objects, can I ask that anyone who is willing to do it, make a bunch of screencaps, using .pngs and thumbnails as shown above. Then lurkers can "remember the days" right up front. And a few more lurkers than currently breeze through, might stay.<br />
<br />
:To put this in context, CNN recently had a number of articles admiring Commodore 64s (one of them [http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/07/c64/index.html?iref=newssearch here]). X-COM is like that, to me... it lives past its "life expectancy" to gamers, because of how well put together it was, especially including how much it hit you in the gut.<br />
<br />
In summary, then. I have one question for us XCOM hardcore (can we change the Main Page image) and one for everybody (want to post a lot of screencaps?). I have made a stub page for the screencaps page. I'll retract it if the hardcore object or there's no response in a couple of months' time. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:44, 14 December 2007 (PST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm perfectly fine with getting the main title changed. Get a few more ayes and we'll make it so. <br />
<br />
A screencap section would be nice. I'm quite partial to creating screencap mini-comics (no, not real comics. Just sequential before/during/after images), although I never use them and they just get deleted in the end. <br />
<br />
One benefit is that some of the shots can also be recycled throughout the rest of the site to illustrate certain things. Or for an article that's no more than a solid block of text, something to break up the monotony. I'm also always for a few well placed humorous shots. <br />
<br />
-[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:02, 15 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:Sounds good, NKF. There could easily be a "comics" page link several ways: <br />
::1) The new Main Page entry indented under [[Info|About X-COM: UFO Defense]] could also have a link to a comics page, but on the screenshot page itself,<br />
::2) That same new entry on the Main Page could read something like "[[Screenshots]] - and [[Comics]]!" The concept of the screenshots page is to help folks relive the past. And something just as good as screenshots - or better - is screenshots with humor.<br />
::3) Or, make a link for it, all by itself, somewhere obvious on the Main Page.<br />
:I think it's a great idea! <br />
:As for the other idea - you said you're fine re: changing the main title. But it's the graphic at the top of the Main Page that I'm talking about. Just to make sure we're clear on that. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 17:21, 21 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Smart Quotes ==<br />
<br />
Do we use them? When I write up articles in MS Word, it automatically uses "smart quotes," i.e., “this.” I can imagine that there could be some benefit to keeping it all consistent.<br />
<br />
[[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 17:48, 21 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, I can't see any practicality in trying to convert all articles to smart quotes, so I'll clean up the ones that I've done with straight quotes to be consistent.<br />
<br />
:[[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 19:30, 25 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Favicon ==<br />
<br />
Does the UFOpaedia have a favicon? -- [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 17:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:We did have it at one time but I think it disappeared after an upgrade to the wiki software. If you have an idea for a favicon, submit it here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:21, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Okay, I don't know where that logo in the upper left came from, but after a quick GIMP edit, I came up with this: [[Media:favicon.zip]]. I'm not quite sure how The GIMP works with icons, so I also included the .png's. What do you think? -- [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 18:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:Not too shabby. Next time I talk to GazChap, I'll run it past him. Any more ideas for a favicon? I'd like to get a few (at least 3) and run it through a vote here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:28, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::[[image:FavIcon-Crude1.png|thumb|16px]][[image:FavIcon-Crude2.png|thumb|16px]]NinthRank and Z, my two cents are something like this. My pics are incredibly crude - I'm a total graphics n00b - and would need somebody like you, Ninth, to turn it into the "burnished gold and navy" (or is that black?), like you did with yours. I couldn't even get my damn background to change for me using simple MS Word art ... what do you use? (See how n00b I am?)<br />
<br />
::I think you have some great ideas there, but my favicons show as 16x16 pixels. (Is this because I use small icons? I had never heard the the word until you said it, Ninth, at which point I read the wiki entry, and it made immediate sense.) At 16<sup>2</sup>, you have to keep it incredibly simply... having the COM on a big X does that, because it doesn't "waste a repetitive 'X-' across the center", if that makes sense. Another idea is be careful with the X ... I didn't like the X in your 16x16 and 32x32 because it was "narrow" (more vertical than horizontal). I definitely like your 48x48. (I can't tell what's going on with your animated 16x16 .ico, my friend - a 16x16 pic on a 1280x1024 screen (or higher) needs to be real simple. It looks like a tiny pulsing thing, with an X sort of there, overall.) I think the X should be, if not symmetric, then, more wide than high - to me, this implies something "ominous". A true X would have to be "cut off" at the corners to be "wide and fat" at 16x16. This shows more in my second try than the first. <br />
<br />
::You can make things bigger than 16<sup>2</sup>, a real plus and you get much more flexibility, but for me, only 16x16 exists.<br />
<br />
::My two cents. I love your overall idea, and using navy (or black?) with gold trim. Thanks for signing in and helping out, NinthRank! -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 19:40, 14 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== XCOM-like games ==<br />
<br />
Are the After-games and Extraterrestrials allowed on this wiki? [[User:Ssfsx17|Ssfsx17]]<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
I don't see the point, unless there's enough authors prepared to put together the pages. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, if there are then I don't see a problem. It might be worth putting the question forward in the relevant forum sections first to see if there's any real interest.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 01:31, 9 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm just thinking about the organisation. The wiki so far has been quite specialised and only covers X-Com content. The other games are similar, but are not really X-com. The solution would be to open up an be a more general wiki for X-Com-likes, although I feel that might might cause some loss in focus. We can already see that here with the X-Com spinoffs. Nary a paragraph of interesting tidbits in any of them. Well, not much anyway. <br />
<br />
Still, I'm now of the belief that all good games should have great compendiums of knowledge like this. <br />
<br />
If we're going to move the wiki onto Strategycore (is that still going ahead?), perhaps separate wikis for the other X-Com-like's series could be created as well if there is a demand? <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:27, 9 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Technical Commentaries==<br />
<br />
I just thought of adding a specific section concerning commentaries regarding the game, i.e., trying to explain how the weapons/diplomacy/funding/etc. would work in real life. The idea here is not to expand on the canon X-COM material but to describe/explain in a rational way. <br />
I've come with this idea after reading Spike's section (on his [[User talk:Spike]] page) explaining the economics of X-COM and starting my own section regarding the Council of Funding Nations. <br />
I think there is plenty of material available on the Data canisters that could be used/adapted to this. Also, the discussion regarding Elerium (with all those formulas) on the Talk Page is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. <br />
<br />
- [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:59, 10 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't see any problem with it. Go for it. We've started with a magnificent wealth of knowledge about the game itself (and a bit beyond, with the binary file diving). Theories and explanations of the X-Com world wouldn't be out of place. They'd certainly add a bit of literary colour and interest for those that wish to look beyond the game. There are lots of interesting bits and pieces scattered throughout the articles (like real world equivalents of weapon or tanks, just to name one example) that would probably fit better in a section like that than in the articles. Perhaps a an expanded data-canister like section would be in order. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:13, 11 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Game Editors ==<br />
<br />
I was going to add a link off the Main Page to the [[Game editors]] section that I wrote, under Misc. I still have a nagging feeling there is another list of them somewhere, but I can't find it. Any comments? <br />
<br />
Also, any additions to the Game editors section are welcome. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:40, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't think we've ever had a particular listing of editors. <br />
<br />
: Tell you what, I'll throw these changes in, and we'll see how this works out. <br />
<br />
:# I'll put the new game editor section onto the UFO main table (I've also renamed the page to stick to the first capital letter naming convention the other articles use). <br />
:# I removed XComutil off the main table, since it'll be under the game file section. <br />
:# Removed the UBK - it's just a tool for wiki editors and not something that would interest players of the game. <br />
<br />
: I might also add the [[Command Prompt]] to the game editor section for its notes on using MS-Edit as a binary file editor. <br />
<br />
<br />
:- [[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:46, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: While I see the validity of adding XComUtil to a page regarding editors won't it make sense to keep a sublink to the page which deals on how to use it, together with MSEdit? I mean, the other editors only have links to them on that page and I think that at least XComUtil deserves main page status because of its notoriosity and complexity. What do you guys think? - [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 14:08, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
a good idea to include the Command Prompt help. How about broadly dividing it into 2 sections: X-COM-specific tools and general purpose tools?<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:08, 17 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Newb questions ==<br />
<br />
Hello good sirs. Sorry for my bad non-native english. While in total noob in wiki, im relatively for long playd this great games. Great thanks for you for this great site, it really helped me with some ideas, especially with Funding Nation, even dont know how i played it before without it. Now more close to point, i realized what TFTD section here are, say, unperfect, if not somewhat wrong. As i readed somewhere not all play TFTD much, UFO1 instead, so it maybe be the point. Id edit something on it, but im totally dunno how to do it, and my language will have too many mistakes to be proudly presented to people. So id be glade to hear what you may propose for me to do. Again big thanks. Ill wait for answer.<br />
<br />
PS Or im searched too badly, or its differ in TFTD (i play only it now) from UFO1, but i cant find here about stunned persons behaviour. Cant find what they awake only if theyr stun is lower then HP's and if only they have awaken person in theyr tile during end of turn. IMHO its important thing to know off, at least for me.<br />
<br />
PPS. My friend made great tiny changes to one tiny file, what make FundingNations game way more easy and elegant then described in issue. I can upload it if you need this, tho its for TFTD im sure he can do UFO1 also if its needed. Anyway this game too easy even on FN to play it without it :).<br />
<br />
Eh PPPS. Dunno how to properly log on :(.<br />
<br />
: Do not worry about the language barrier - sometimes it's harder to understand people who speak English natively! ;) In any case, There'll be other editors who will be able to help fix the article for you if you can get the idea across. <br />
<br />
: To get started editing pages, check the Community Portal on the left sidebar. That has links to articles that can help you get started - more or less. One good way to find out how some text is formatted (or anything else you'd like to duplicate) is to edit the page and see how it's done in the source. <br />
<br />
: If in doubt, or if you're unsure about editing the article, feel free put your ideas or suggestions in the article's Discussion page. <br />
<br />
: Because TFTD and UFO share a lot of the same mechanics, there would be a lot of unnecessary duplication if we were to write up articles for it that are already available in the UFO articles. Therefore we mainly include articles that cover topics that are unique to TFTD, like the weapons, door opening, aliens, etc. General mechanics like how damage works or how experience is earned is identical to UFO's, so there's no need to duplicate them. What sections do you think need improving or what sections do we need to add? The more input the better. <br />
<br />
: Regarding consciousness, have you checked the [[Unconscious]] article? I think we might need to redo that article bit and perhaps add a few illustrations. One note about the difference between UFO and TFTD with the visual appearance of a unit recovered with a medikit needs to go in there too if it hasn't already. Oh well. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:54, 22 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: PS, to sign your messages in the discussion pages, put four tilde's <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> anywhere you want to insert your name and the timestamp.<br />
<br />
== same questions ==<br />
<br />
Thank you for answer. I been somwhat incorrect in my english. I didnt mean what TFTD pages are bad or what they lose reduntand UFO1 information. All they lack are only slightly wrongly described alien's dangers levels (one of most dangerous creatures cant be low treat, and least dangerous one medium) and lack of mission types what only TFTD have. Also i readed "Unconscious@ article few times, stiil cant find only how to use medkit and no word about what generally need for stunned person to rise. From that follow advices to grenade stunned chryssalids and so on. <br />
<br />
PS. Oh, yes, and whats wrong with door openings?<br />
[[User:Derrida|Derrida]] 08:59, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
: A unit falls unconscious when the stun bar is equal or greater than the unit's remaining health points. If it's under that, the unit will be awake. <br />
<br />
: To wake a soldier up, you have to reduce the stun level by either waiting for the stun to wear off, 1 point per turn, or use stimulants on a medikit. Looks like the TFTD section doesn't have its own medikit page, but UFO's [[Medi-Kit]] section explains how to use it, as they are identical. Basically, if the unit is unconscious, the medic must stand on top of the unconscious unit and use stimulants (the second choice) until the unconscious soldier wakes up. When the unconscious unit wakes up, they'll appear to the north of the medic. <br />
<br />
: TFTD's stun weapons are much more powerful than in TFTD, so you often have to use a lot of stimulants to wake a person up. <br />
<br />
: TFTD's unique because it allows you to open doors by right clicking them - and it's a free action so you won't spend any TUs to do it. UFO cannot do this (except the Playstation version). <br />
<br />
: As for the threat levels of the aliens - I agree, some should be reclassified. Personally I'd move the Gill-Men and Calcinite up to medium threat - all the current medium level threats look just about right though. What are your suggestions? <br />
<br />
: Hang on, why are there so many references to vibroblades in the overview article? That can't be right. I'll have to update that later on. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Nonono. I mean what if unit's stun damage falled below it's HP, and no one stand in tile it lying, it will never rise. Medkits not the point. No stunned aliens or soldiers will rise if no one will end turn on it, or take it to inventory/hand. I tried to say this. Maybe it been different in UFO1 (as with doors, i thought what doors always open by right click, and in UFO1 too (btw cant find about door opening anywere in wiki)), but in TFTD it means what you dont have to bother with stunned tentaculats etc to rise after stun if you do not stand on it, or try to move it in backpack/hand. Same with soldiers, you can click zillion turns, but they will never rise until someone stand on it. Without this game must be horrible with all this undying lobsters awake afer you pass them.<br />
With danger level id suggest this: Harmless: hallucinoid; deep one; Low: gillmen; aquatoid; Meduim: zombie; calcinite; bio-drone; lobsterman; xarquid; high: tasoth; triscene; What really matters: tentaculat. In line of growing dangerness. [[User:Derrida|Derrida]] 16:30, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Regarding image file formats ==<br />
<br />
I'd really like to add a note somewhere obvious about using GIFs for screenshots in the wiki, rather than JPGs. For 256-color images like X-COM uses, GIFs are no larger than JPGs and generally look much better. For example, see the nasty compression artifacts on the terrain maps in the [[Terror Ship]] article. PNGs might work just as well, I'm not sure, but we should really avoid JPGs.<br />
<br />
Where would be the best place to mention this? I'm thinking near the top of the main page for visibility, but that might be more clutter than people want. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 23:59, 11 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:It's been dealt with [[User_talk:Zombie#Image_Types|here]] that PNG is the preferred file format of the wiki; however, where to note this...I honestly don't know. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:37, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: PNG's reduced to 256 or less colours can be quite the space saver for X-Com screenshots. You can go the extra step and run them through PNG compression programs and somesuch - but they're pretty good as-is. Jpgs should be reserved for images with a broader range of colours. One place the note could go is in [[Guidelines to writing articles]]. In fact, that section could do with a few extra additions in any case to expand is to that it's not just covering the composition of the language of the articles, but to cover the creation of the articles. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:04, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Administrator Positions ==<br />
<br />
As a fairly regular and large scale contributor to the Apocalypse side of this site i would like to offer my services as an administrator. I believe i can make the site better by editing spelling, punctuation, grammar and headings, i can also make the information more managable and simpler to understand. It will also give me something to do in my days, as apposed to nothing. many thanks Nathan King<br />
<br />
:While I'm not an administrator, I don't believe they're accepting applications at this time; there really aren't enough problems that we require more(from my standpoint.) On a similar note, while I haven't checked the X-COM Forums, you seem to only have made nine edits to the wiki. (The two for this application and the one for your userpage really don't count, in my opinion.) Obviously, this is for the current admins to decide, but I really wouldn't be holding my breath. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:21, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Technically it's true - there aren't many of us who've put that many edits in the Apocalypse section in such a short period of time (recently, that is). ;) <br />
<br />
:: Seriously though, you already have a lot of power available as a regular member by being able to edit articles and upload content to your heart's content. The admin positions only give you a few extras like deleting articles and putting temp/permanent bans on these persistent spam bots (which funnily enough appears to have become my job lately...).<br />
<br />
:: In the end though, it's up to our lord high generalissimo head honcho all-round-great-guy administrator person to decide if we need more. Besides the spambots, things are pretty mellow around here. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:43, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Hosting move. ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys. It appears I'm still hosting the UFOpaedia - I did discuss moving it to StrategyCore with both Zombie and Pete a while ago and I think I gave them copies of what would be required.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I'm moving hosting servers so the UFOpaedia is going to move too. I'm aiming to carry out the transfer on Sunday September 28th at about 8pm GMT+1. Any changes made between this time and the time that the transfer completes may be lost, but hopefully not. Just thought I'd give you guys a bit of notice.<br />
<br />
I should point out that I still have no objection to hosting the UFOpaedia on my servers, it's a great project and you guys have done a bang-up job with it, it's far surpassed my original intentions :) However, if StrategyCore want to take over hosting to remove the potential "failure point" (i.e. me) then that's fine and we can give it another shot?<br />
<br />
GazChap, 25th September 2008 12:50 GMT+1</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=12725Talk:Main Page2007-09-30T11:23:07Z<p>GazChap: /* MediaWiki upgraded. */</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
----<br />
<br />
Quick nitty gritty gribbly grabbly notes: <br />
<br />
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. <br />
* Strategy by terrain notes? <br />
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map<br />
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch? <br />
<br />
<br />
::Blast! I must really remember to write my thoughts down here as often as possible. I've had many floaty lightbulb moments on what we're currently lacking/missing, and they're all gone. <br />
<br />
::- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Site Backups ==<br />
<br />
Ok, gents. Here's the scoop - straight from GazChap. The site is backed up every day, so there is basically no worry about losing everything if it should go down. The only thing that may be lost are transactions during that day when it is down. Normally there isn't much activity, but there is the occasional marathon editing session which some people partake in. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
The server hosting the UFOpaedia experienced a few issues over the weekend, but nothing major. However, I've decided that being reliant on a third-party backup service is foolhardy - consequently I'm going to be installing my own backup solution to the server soon (hopefully within the next few days) that will backup all user-submitted data. If anyone would like to volunteer to receive additional backups via e-mail (no point me just having backups, if I get knocked down by a bus we'd be stuffed ;) ) then please contact me at gazchap at gmail dot com. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Slight problem with transclusion tables for main page ==<br />
<br />
Folks, I've noticed a problem with the main transclusion tables for the main page when I was adding a few links to the UFO table. <br />
<br />
The problem is that the tables are classed as ordinary pages. They certainly work with transclusion the same way the template pages do, but there are two problems that they create. <br />
<br />
The first, and most prominent, is that actual main page doesn't update when updates are made to the individual tables. You have to have your browser perform a forced refresh to get the updates to show. <br />
<br />
The second is that the templates aren't listed at the bottom of the edit box when you edit the main page. Having them listed would make it a convenient way to get to them rather than manually type the name into the address bar. <br />
<br />
It's not a major problem, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I'll fix this later when I get a bit of free time. I a fix would just involve moving the tables into the template namespace. If not, well, I'll do a bit of cut and paste wizardry to make everything right. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
----<br />
Apologies, yep template pages do update near-automatically so they are a better choice than transcluded pages. I noticed that when you move a page that has a link on the template page and subsequently edit the template to point to the new location that the links on the moved page will not refresh. You must perform a dummy edit on the pages with the template info to update the links accordingly. I'll have to check to see what happens if you rename a template link and then move the page. The same thing might happen. It depends on the software here and if it uses dynamic pointers. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 08:52, 1 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Clean Up ==<br />
<br />
It's just occurring to me that "Community" does not feature the main two actual forums (XCOMUFO and StratCore) that newbies might turn to, right up front. Also, this Discussion page has gotten way long.<br />
<br />
Newbies need that Community connection, since that's the meaning of the word. Never mind that it can be found down around here somwhere, which even I can't find, right off. (It's why I came here, to show others examples of linking, but now I can't find where the heck the forums show up here.) Wikis should appeal to newbies heartily. Links to talk forums need to be "right there".<br />
<br />
Could someone take a hand at making the forums highlighted for newbies. And also, such a dedicated person might cut down this Discussion page tons. The new Style page is a place to put some things.<br />
<br />
Some thoughts - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 23:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, I cut this page down. It was on my list of things to do in the near future anyway.<br />
<br />
Ok, we have 2 "Community" pages right now: the [[UFOpaedia:Community_Portal|Community portal]] page (on the sidebar) and the [[Community]] page. The plain community page is buried at the bottom of the main page and contains the links to the forums. I'm thinking that we just get rid of the community page and add that info to the community portal instead. This way, the info is always near the top of the screen for quick access. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:14, 10 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==<br />
Ok folks, we all seem to have our own ways of adding comments to a discussion page. The way it stands now, it becomes really difficult to follow a discussion when it is broken apart with different formats. What I suggest is this: when you leave a comment use a horizontal line to separate your post from the one(s) above it. In this manner, everything is left justified and the comments are separated. The reason why I do not support the colon as comment separation is that as the discussion progresses you are going to be adding more and more just to get the indenting correct. It also makes it confusing. Another side effect is that once you have a lot of colons present it pushes the text off the page itself and forces a scroll to the right to view. That isn't good.<br />
<br />
I suppose if we really want to use colons as separators, we could alternate the use. If a comment is indented above yours, do nothing. If a comment is not indented, use a colon for your submission. Still, the constant zig-zagging isn't really the best idea either.<br />
<br />
My vote is therefore to stick with the horizontal line (four dashes). If the discussion veers way off course, or if you have a couple questions/comments, break it apart into different headings. And always sign your post too as that makes it easier to follow.<br />
<br />
Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Works for me, Zombie. Another problem with indentation is that one isn't necessarily addressing only the previous comment, but it could be about the previous one, and tying together things that are 4, 6, ''and'' 12 entries back. Colons are fine for quick rejoinders, but not as a requirement. A potential alternative is to leave two blank lines, as I just did after your sig. This is a fairly clear delineator for folks scanning quickly. However, the horizontal separator is more clear, in general. So I guess I'd vote for the hor-sep for all except quick comments thrown in, which can use colons. And anything that's a new topic or big break should get a new topic, using = signs. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I've reformatted [[Talk:Exploits#Extra_Ammo_Exploit]] to demonstrate how the indentation style ''can'' work, if done consistently. I think it's somewhat better than the line-separator style for very long discussions, making the structure a little clearer. However, if it's sometimes-used and sometimes-not things get messy, as you've noticed.<br />
<br />
I'll codify the rules right here (surprisingly, they're not well-codified on Wikipedia itself, despite the fact that it's used quite consistently throughout the site):<br />
<br />
*Add an indent for each reply<br />
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:<br />
<br />
First person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person's comment<br />
<br />
::Third person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::Third person again<br />
<br />
::Third person's afterthought<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::First person jumping back in<br />
<br />
:::Third person once more<br />
<br />
::First person again<br />
<br />
*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).<br />
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.<br />
*If somebody doesn't know/doesn't use the right indent level, fix it when adding your next reply so the rules become clear during the course of conversation.<br />
*Likewise, if someone adds a new comment to the top or fails to add a heading when starting a new subject, fix it when replying.<br />
<br />
The problem we've had lately is the mixing of styles, neither being used correctly. So far it seems that myself, Sf, and NKF have been using indents, you (Zombie) and Mike favoring dashes, and most newcomers failing to use either. No clear winner just yet. ;-)<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:What if you're addressing several and various issues raised before, not just a comment on the previous statement? (And it runs on for four or six paragraphs?) - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::If you're consolidating a bunch of replies to several earlier points, that's a good time to reset the indent.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 01:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== British vs. American spelling ==<br />
<br />
:NKF Stealth note for authors or any nosy person reading the source: For those pedantic about the American/British English spelling of Armour/Armor, I used the British spelling because that's how it's spelt in the game when running it in the English text mode. This may not necessarily be the case for the other games in the series or earlier localized releases, but it is very much so in v1.4ce, hence why I'm sticking with it. I'd also like to add that a section relating specifically for armour is required, with some sections regarding armour management, such as how its distributed and the particulars of armour recovery when a soldier dies or is fired (i.e. none). (Damnit, just added Category:Armor -HeckRuler)<br />
<br />
:We should move this note to the top of the back of Main Page. English vs. USA doesn't matter. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
I moved the above two comments from within HTML comments on the [[Soldier]] page. Might as well "have a discussion" about it, it's what we do. Although I'm an American, I favor the in-game (British) spelling, wherever it appears (Plasma Defence, Armour, Cyberdisc, etc.). I'm, um, pedantic. Or probably just anal-retentive.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 00:58, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
: I'm in favour of the UK spelling scheme myself, only due to general preference and because UFO is in UK English (on the other hand, TFTD is in US English). However, I still like to think the spelling is interchangeable, and when it comes to the spelling of the actual article: redirects can do wonders! I actually left that note there as an afterthought in case some authors suddenly decide to do mass edits of the spelling, and others come along and revert the changes, and the whole process repeats itself. I mean, armor &rarr; armour &rarr; armor &rarr; smurf &rarr; armour &rarr; ad-infinitum. Not a nice thought. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
It's probably a very small issue on this site regardless. By comparison, Wikipedia has yet to implement any way for Commonwealth readers to see British spellings while American readers see US spellings. Instead, they're sticking with the comical compromise of "the creator of the article fates whether it'll have British or American spelling for the rest of its days". Maybe through Wikipedia's confusion the mother tongue will eventually merge back together. :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 02:24, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
: Agreed. I'll try my best to use the British spellings, but when I get on a typing roll the American spelling is what comes to me first. I usually don't catch it either when I proof read. I'd say redirects would be the best solution, so 'Personal Armor' redirects to 'Personal Armour'. As far as the spelling in articles, I think it's pretty well known the two differences of spelling, though it could be a problem if an article switches back and forth from it alot. <br />
: That said this affects maybe 3 or 4 Armour articles? I can't think of any other differences that would be in an article, at least as a main subject. Maybe the occasional colour or favour. --[[User:Pi Masta|Pi Masta]] 11:59, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== MediaWiki upgraded. ==<br />
<br />
I've upgraded MediaWiki to the latest version, although I'm afraid I don't know how to prevent spamming etc. If anyone can point me in the direction of something about this I can take a look at it, but now that it's upgraded and I have backups I should be in a position to allow Pete at SC to take over hosting.<br />
<br />
: See my email Gaz. We'll get this fixed yet. The only problem I noticed with the upgrade is that the logo in the upper left isn't linked to the correct picture. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 07:32, 28 September 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Fixed the logo, and I've also added a CAPTCHA extension. You'll be prompted to enter two words if you try to: create a new account; add an external link using an anonymous account. I'm now going to look at trying to give Pete at SC FTP access to the server without inadvertently giving him access to everything else I have hosted on there. Sometimes I hate these web control panels.<br />
<br />
:: I've now e-mailed Pete with all the details he requires to take over hosting. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 12:19, 30 September 2007 (BST)</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=12724Talk:Main Page2007-09-30T10:56:36Z<p>GazChap: /* MediaWiki upgraded. */</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
----<br />
<br />
Quick nitty gritty gribbly grabbly notes: <br />
<br />
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. <br />
* Strategy by terrain notes? <br />
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map<br />
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch? <br />
<br />
<br />
::Blast! I must really remember to write my thoughts down here as often as possible. I've had many floaty lightbulb moments on what we're currently lacking/missing, and they're all gone. <br />
<br />
::- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Site Backups ==<br />
<br />
Ok, gents. Here's the scoop - straight from GazChap. The site is backed up every day, so there is basically no worry about losing everything if it should go down. The only thing that may be lost are transactions during that day when it is down. Normally there isn't much activity, but there is the occasional marathon editing session which some people partake in. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
The server hosting the UFOpaedia experienced a few issues over the weekend, but nothing major. However, I've decided that being reliant on a third-party backup service is foolhardy - consequently I'm going to be installing my own backup solution to the server soon (hopefully within the next few days) that will backup all user-submitted data. If anyone would like to volunteer to receive additional backups via e-mail (no point me just having backups, if I get knocked down by a bus we'd be stuffed ;) ) then please contact me at gazchap at gmail dot com. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Slight problem with transclusion tables for main page ==<br />
<br />
Folks, I've noticed a problem with the main transclusion tables for the main page when I was adding a few links to the UFO table. <br />
<br />
The problem is that the tables are classed as ordinary pages. They certainly work with transclusion the same way the template pages do, but there are two problems that they create. <br />
<br />
The first, and most prominent, is that actual main page doesn't update when updates are made to the individual tables. You have to have your browser perform a forced refresh to get the updates to show. <br />
<br />
The second is that the templates aren't listed at the bottom of the edit box when you edit the main page. Having them listed would make it a convenient way to get to them rather than manually type the name into the address bar. <br />
<br />
It's not a major problem, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I'll fix this later when I get a bit of free time. I a fix would just involve moving the tables into the template namespace. If not, well, I'll do a bit of cut and paste wizardry to make everything right. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
----<br />
Apologies, yep template pages do update near-automatically so they are a better choice than transcluded pages. I noticed that when you move a page that has a link on the template page and subsequently edit the template to point to the new location that the links on the moved page will not refresh. You must perform a dummy edit on the pages with the template info to update the links accordingly. I'll have to check to see what happens if you rename a template link and then move the page. The same thing might happen. It depends on the software here and if it uses dynamic pointers. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 08:52, 1 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Clean Up ==<br />
<br />
It's just occurring to me that "Community" does not feature the main two actual forums (XCOMUFO and StratCore) that newbies might turn to, right up front. Also, this Discussion page has gotten way long.<br />
<br />
Newbies need that Community connection, since that's the meaning of the word. Never mind that it can be found down around here somwhere, which even I can't find, right off. (It's why I came here, to show others examples of linking, but now I can't find where the heck the forums show up here.) Wikis should appeal to newbies heartily. Links to talk forums need to be "right there".<br />
<br />
Could someone take a hand at making the forums highlighted for newbies. And also, such a dedicated person might cut down this Discussion page tons. The new Style page is a place to put some things.<br />
<br />
Some thoughts - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 23:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, I cut this page down. It was on my list of things to do in the near future anyway.<br />
<br />
Ok, we have 2 "Community" pages right now: the [[UFOpaedia:Community_Portal|Community portal]] page (on the sidebar) and the [[Community]] page. The plain community page is buried at the bottom of the main page and contains the links to the forums. I'm thinking that we just get rid of the community page and add that info to the community portal instead. This way, the info is always near the top of the screen for quick access. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:14, 10 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==<br />
Ok folks, we all seem to have our own ways of adding comments to a discussion page. The way it stands now, it becomes really difficult to follow a discussion when it is broken apart with different formats. What I suggest is this: when you leave a comment use a horizontal line to separate your post from the one(s) above it. In this manner, everything is left justified and the comments are separated. The reason why I do not support the colon as comment separation is that as the discussion progresses you are going to be adding more and more just to get the indenting correct. It also makes it confusing. Another side effect is that once you have a lot of colons present it pushes the text off the page itself and forces a scroll to the right to view. That isn't good.<br />
<br />
I suppose if we really want to use colons as separators, we could alternate the use. If a comment is indented above yours, do nothing. If a comment is not indented, use a colon for your submission. Still, the constant zig-zagging isn't really the best idea either.<br />
<br />
My vote is therefore to stick with the horizontal line (four dashes). If the discussion veers way off course, or if you have a couple questions/comments, break it apart into different headings. And always sign your post too as that makes it easier to follow.<br />
<br />
Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Works for me, Zombie. Another problem with indentation is that one isn't necessarily addressing only the previous comment, but it could be about the previous one, and tying together things that are 4, 6, ''and'' 12 entries back. Colons are fine for quick rejoinders, but not as a requirement. A potential alternative is to leave two blank lines, as I just did after your sig. This is a fairly clear delineator for folks scanning quickly. However, the horizontal separator is more clear, in general. So I guess I'd vote for the hor-sep for all except quick comments thrown in, which can use colons. And anything that's a new topic or big break should get a new topic, using = signs. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I've reformatted [[Talk:Exploits#Extra_Ammo_Exploit]] to demonstrate how the indentation style ''can'' work, if done consistently. I think it's somewhat better than the line-separator style for very long discussions, making the structure a little clearer. However, if it's sometimes-used and sometimes-not things get messy, as you've noticed.<br />
<br />
I'll codify the rules right here (surprisingly, they're not well-codified on Wikipedia itself, despite the fact that it's used quite consistently throughout the site):<br />
<br />
*Add an indent for each reply<br />
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:<br />
<br />
First person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person's comment<br />
<br />
::Third person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::Third person again<br />
<br />
::Third person's afterthought<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::First person jumping back in<br />
<br />
:::Third person once more<br />
<br />
::First person again<br />
<br />
*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).<br />
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.<br />
*If somebody doesn't know/doesn't use the right indent level, fix it when adding your next reply so the rules become clear during the course of conversation.<br />
*Likewise, if someone adds a new comment to the top or fails to add a heading when starting a new subject, fix it when replying.<br />
<br />
The problem we've had lately is the mixing of styles, neither being used correctly. So far it seems that myself, Sf, and NKF have been using indents, you (Zombie) and Mike favoring dashes, and most newcomers failing to use either. No clear winner just yet. ;-)<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:What if you're addressing several and various issues raised before, not just a comment on the previous statement? (And it runs on for four or six paragraphs?) - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::If you're consolidating a bunch of replies to several earlier points, that's a good time to reset the indent.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 01:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== British vs. American spelling ==<br />
<br />
:NKF Stealth note for authors or any nosy person reading the source: For those pedantic about the American/British English spelling of Armour/Armor, I used the British spelling because that's how it's spelt in the game when running it in the English text mode. This may not necessarily be the case for the other games in the series or earlier localized releases, but it is very much so in v1.4ce, hence why I'm sticking with it. I'd also like to add that a section relating specifically for armour is required, with some sections regarding armour management, such as how its distributed and the particulars of armour recovery when a soldier dies or is fired (i.e. none). (Damnit, just added Category:Armor -HeckRuler)<br />
<br />
:We should move this note to the top of the back of Main Page. English vs. USA doesn't matter. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
I moved the above two comments from within HTML comments on the [[Soldier]] page. Might as well "have a discussion" about it, it's what we do. Although I'm an American, I favor the in-game (British) spelling, wherever it appears (Plasma Defence, Armour, Cyberdisc, etc.). I'm, um, pedantic. Or probably just anal-retentive.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 00:58, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
: I'm in favour of the UK spelling scheme myself, only due to general preference and because UFO is in UK English (on the other hand, TFTD is in US English). However, I still like to think the spelling is interchangeable, and when it comes to the spelling of the actual article: redirects can do wonders! I actually left that note there as an afterthought in case some authors suddenly decide to do mass edits of the spelling, and others come along and revert the changes, and the whole process repeats itself. I mean, armor &rarr; armour &rarr; armor &rarr; smurf &rarr; armour &rarr; ad-infinitum. Not a nice thought. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
It's probably a very small issue on this site regardless. By comparison, Wikipedia has yet to implement any way for Commonwealth readers to see British spellings while American readers see US spellings. Instead, they're sticking with the comical compromise of "the creator of the article fates whether it'll have British or American spelling for the rest of its days". Maybe through Wikipedia's confusion the mother tongue will eventually merge back together. :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 02:24, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
: Agreed. I'll try my best to use the British spellings, but when I get on a typing roll the American spelling is what comes to me first. I usually don't catch it either when I proof read. I'd say redirects would be the best solution, so 'Personal Armor' redirects to 'Personal Armour'. As far as the spelling in articles, I think it's pretty well known the two differences of spelling, though it could be a problem if an article switches back and forth from it alot. <br />
: That said this affects maybe 3 or 4 Armour articles? I can't think of any other differences that would be in an article, at least as a main subject. Maybe the occasional colour or favour. --[[User:Pi Masta|Pi Masta]] 11:59, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== MediaWiki upgraded. ==<br />
<br />
I've upgraded MediaWiki to the latest version, although I'm afraid I don't know how to prevent spamming etc. If anyone can point me in the direction of something about this I can take a look at it, but now that it's upgraded and I have backups I should be in a position to allow Pete at SC to take over hosting.<br />
<br />
: See my email Gaz. We'll get this fixed yet. The only problem I noticed with the upgrade is that the logo in the upper left isn't linked to the correct picture. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 07:32, 28 September 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Fixed the logo, and I've also added a CAPTCHA extension. You'll be prompted to enter two words if you try to: create a new account; add an external link using an anonymous account. I'm now going to look at trying to give Pete at SC FTP access to the server without inadvertently giving him access to everything else I have hosted on there. Sometimes I hate these web control panels. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 11:52, 30 September 2007 (BST)</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=12689Talk:Main Page2007-09-28T10:01:02Z<p>GazChap: (added user name etc. to my addition so you all know who I am :P)</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
----<br />
<br />
Quick nitty gritty gribbly grabbly notes: <br />
<br />
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. <br />
* Strategy by terrain notes? <br />
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map<br />
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch? <br />
<br />
<br />
::Blast! I must really remember to write my thoughts down here as often as possible. I've had many floaty lightbulb moments on what we're currently lacking/missing, and they're all gone. <br />
<br />
::- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Site Backups ==<br />
<br />
Ok, gents. Here's the scoop - straight from GazChap. The site is backed up every day, so there is basically no worry about losing everything if it should go down. The only thing that may be lost are transactions during that day when it is down. Normally there isn't much activity, but there is the occasional marathon editing session which some people partake in. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
The server hosting the UFOpaedia experienced a few issues over the weekend, but nothing major. However, I've decided that being reliant on a third-party backup service is foolhardy - consequently I'm going to be installing my own backup solution to the server soon (hopefully within the next few days) that will backup all user-submitted data. If anyone would like to volunteer to receive additional backups via e-mail (no point me just having backups, if I get knocked down by a bus we'd be stuffed ;) ) then please contact me at gazchap at gmail dot com. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Slight problem with transclusion tables for main page ==<br />
<br />
Folks, I've noticed a problem with the main transclusion tables for the main page when I was adding a few links to the UFO table. <br />
<br />
The problem is that the tables are classed as ordinary pages. They certainly work with transclusion the same way the template pages do, but there are two problems that they create. <br />
<br />
The first, and most prominent, is that actual main page doesn't update when updates are made to the individual tables. You have to have your browser perform a forced refresh to get the updates to show. <br />
<br />
The second is that the templates aren't listed at the bottom of the edit box when you edit the main page. Having them listed would make it a convenient way to get to them rather than manually type the name into the address bar. <br />
<br />
It's not a major problem, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I'll fix this later when I get a bit of free time. I a fix would just involve moving the tables into the template namespace. If not, well, I'll do a bit of cut and paste wizardry to make everything right. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
----<br />
Apologies, yep template pages do update near-automatically so they are a better choice than transcluded pages. I noticed that when you move a page that has a link on the template page and subsequently edit the template to point to the new location that the links on the moved page will not refresh. You must perform a dummy edit on the pages with the template info to update the links accordingly. I'll have to check to see what happens if you rename a template link and then move the page. The same thing might happen. It depends on the software here and if it uses dynamic pointers. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 08:52, 1 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Clean Up ==<br />
<br />
It's just occurring to me that "Community" does not feature the main two actual forums (XCOMUFO and StratCore) that newbies might turn to, right up front. Also, this Discussion page has gotten way long.<br />
<br />
Newbies need that Community connection, since that's the meaning of the word. Never mind that it can be found down around here somwhere, which even I can't find, right off. (It's why I came here, to show others examples of linking, but now I can't find where the heck the forums show up here.) Wikis should appeal to newbies heartily. Links to talk forums need to be "right there".<br />
<br />
Could someone take a hand at making the forums highlighted for newbies. And also, such a dedicated person might cut down this Discussion page tons. The new Style page is a place to put some things.<br />
<br />
Some thoughts - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 23:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, I cut this page down. It was on my list of things to do in the near future anyway.<br />
<br />
Ok, we have 2 "Community" pages right now: the [[UFOpaedia:Community_Portal|Community portal]] page (on the sidebar) and the [[Community]] page. The plain community page is buried at the bottom of the main page and contains the links to the forums. I'm thinking that we just get rid of the community page and add that info to the community portal instead. This way, the info is always near the top of the screen for quick access. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:14, 10 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==<br />
Ok folks, we all seem to have our own ways of adding comments to a discussion page. The way it stands now, it becomes really difficult to follow a discussion when it is broken apart with different formats. What I suggest is this: when you leave a comment use a horizontal line to separate your post from the one(s) above it. In this manner, everything is left justified and the comments are separated. The reason why I do not support the colon as comment separation is that as the discussion progresses you are going to be adding more and more just to get the indenting correct. It also makes it confusing. Another side effect is that once you have a lot of colons present it pushes the text off the page itself and forces a scroll to the right to view. That isn't good.<br />
<br />
I suppose if we really want to use colons as separators, we could alternate the use. If a comment is indented above yours, do nothing. If a comment is not indented, use a colon for your submission. Still, the constant zig-zagging isn't really the best idea either.<br />
<br />
My vote is therefore to stick with the horizontal line (four dashes). If the discussion veers way off course, or if you have a couple questions/comments, break it apart into different headings. And always sign your post too as that makes it easier to follow.<br />
<br />
Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Works for me, Zombie. Another problem with indentation is that one isn't necessarily addressing only the previous comment, but it could be about the previous one, and tying together things that are 4, 6, ''and'' 12 entries back. Colons are fine for quick rejoinders, but not as a requirement. A potential alternative is to leave two blank lines, as I just did after your sig. This is a fairly clear delineator for folks scanning quickly. However, the horizontal separator is more clear, in general. So I guess I'd vote for the hor-sep for all except quick comments thrown in, which can use colons. And anything that's a new topic or big break should get a new topic, using = signs. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I've reformatted [[Talk:Exploits#Extra_Ammo_Exploit]] to demonstrate how the indentation style ''can'' work, if done consistently. I think it's somewhat better than the line-separator style for very long discussions, making the structure a little clearer. However, if it's sometimes-used and sometimes-not things get messy, as you've noticed.<br />
<br />
I'll codify the rules right here (surprisingly, they're not well-codified on Wikipedia itself, despite the fact that it's used quite consistently throughout the site):<br />
<br />
*Add an indent for each reply<br />
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:<br />
<br />
First person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person's comment<br />
<br />
::Third person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::Third person again<br />
<br />
::Third person's afterthought<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::First person jumping back in<br />
<br />
:::Third person once more<br />
<br />
::First person again<br />
<br />
*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).<br />
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.<br />
*If somebody doesn't know/doesn't use the right indent level, fix it when adding your next reply so the rules become clear during the course of conversation.<br />
*Likewise, if someone adds a new comment to the top or fails to add a heading when starting a new subject, fix it when replying.<br />
<br />
The problem we've had lately is the mixing of styles, neither being used correctly. So far it seems that myself, Sf, and NKF have been using indents, you (Zombie) and Mike favoring dashes, and most newcomers failing to use either. No clear winner just yet. ;-)<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:What if you're addressing several and various issues raised before, not just a comment on the previous statement? (And it runs on for four or six paragraphs?) - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::If you're consolidating a bunch of replies to several earlier points, that's a good time to reset the indent.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 01:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== British vs. American spelling ==<br />
<br />
:NKF Stealth note for authors or any nosy person reading the source: For those pedantic about the American/British English spelling of Armour/Armor, I used the British spelling because that's how it's spelt in the game when running it in the English text mode. This may not necessarily be the case for the other games in the series or earlier localized releases, but it is very much so in v1.4ce, hence why I'm sticking with it. I'd also like to add that a section relating specifically for armour is required, with some sections regarding armour management, such as how its distributed and the particulars of armour recovery when a soldier dies or is fired (i.e. none). (Damnit, just added Category:Armor -HeckRuler)<br />
<br />
:We should move this note to the top of the back of Main Page. English vs. USA doesn't matter. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
I moved the above two comments from within HTML comments on the [[Soldier]] page. Might as well "have a discussion" about it, it's what we do. Although I'm an American, I favor the in-game (British) spelling, wherever it appears (Plasma Defence, Armour, Cyberdisc, etc.). I'm, um, pedantic. Or probably just anal-retentive.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 00:58, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
: I'm in favour of the UK spelling scheme myself, only due to general preference and because UFO is in UK English (on the other hand, TFTD is in US English). However, I still like to think the spelling is interchangeable, and when it comes to the spelling of the actual article: redirects can do wonders! I actually left that note there as an afterthought in case some authors suddenly decide to do mass edits of the spelling, and others come along and revert the changes, and the whole process repeats itself. I mean, armor &rarr; armour &rarr; armor &rarr; smurf &rarr; armour &rarr; ad-infinitum. Not a nice thought. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
It's probably a very small issue on this site regardless. By comparison, Wikipedia has yet to implement any way for Commonwealth readers to see British spellings while American readers see US spellings. Instead, they're sticking with the comical compromise of "the creator of the article fates whether it'll have British or American spelling for the rest of its days". Maybe through Wikipedia's confusion the mother tongue will eventually merge back together. :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 02:24, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
: Agreed. I'll try my best to use the British spellings, but when I get on a typing roll the American spelling is what comes to me first. I usually don't catch it either when I proof read. I'd say redirects would be the best solution, so 'Personal Armor' redirects to 'Personal Armour'. As far as the spelling in articles, I think it's pretty well known the two differences of spelling, though it could be a problem if an article switches back and forth from it alot. <br />
: That said this affects maybe 3 or 4 Armour articles? I can't think of any other differences that would be in an article, at least as a main subject. Maybe the occasional colour or favour. --[[User:Pi Masta|Pi Masta]] 11:59, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== MediaWiki upgraded. ==<br />
<br />
I've upgraded MediaWiki to the latest version, although I'm afraid I don't know how to prevent spamming etc. If anyone can point me in the direction of something about this I can take a look at it, but now that it's upgraded and I have backups I should be in a position to allow Pete at SC to take over hosting. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 11:00, 28 September 2007 (BST)</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=12688Talk:Main Page2007-09-28T09:58:35Z<p>GazChap: New section: MediaWiki upgraded.</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
----<br />
<br />
Quick nitty gritty gribbly grabbly notes: <br />
<br />
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. <br />
* Strategy by terrain notes? <br />
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map<br />
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch? <br />
<br />
<br />
::Blast! I must really remember to write my thoughts down here as often as possible. I've had many floaty lightbulb moments on what we're currently lacking/missing, and they're all gone. <br />
<br />
::- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Site Backups ==<br />
<br />
Ok, gents. Here's the scoop - straight from GazChap. The site is backed up every day, so there is basically no worry about losing everything if it should go down. The only thing that may be lost are transactions during that day when it is down. Normally there isn't much activity, but there is the occasional marathon editing session which some people partake in. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
The server hosting the UFOpaedia experienced a few issues over the weekend, but nothing major. However, I've decided that being reliant on a third-party backup service is foolhardy - consequently I'm going to be installing my own backup solution to the server soon (hopefully within the next few days) that will backup all user-submitted data. If anyone would like to volunteer to receive additional backups via e-mail (no point me just having backups, if I get knocked down by a bus we'd be stuffed ;) ) then please contact me at gazchap at gmail dot com. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Slight problem with transclusion tables for main page ==<br />
<br />
Folks, I've noticed a problem with the main transclusion tables for the main page when I was adding a few links to the UFO table. <br />
<br />
The problem is that the tables are classed as ordinary pages. They certainly work with transclusion the same way the template pages do, but there are two problems that they create. <br />
<br />
The first, and most prominent, is that actual main page doesn't update when updates are made to the individual tables. You have to have your browser perform a forced refresh to get the updates to show. <br />
<br />
The second is that the templates aren't listed at the bottom of the edit box when you edit the main page. Having them listed would make it a convenient way to get to them rather than manually type the name into the address bar. <br />
<br />
It's not a major problem, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I'll fix this later when I get a bit of free time. I a fix would just involve moving the tables into the template namespace. If not, well, I'll do a bit of cut and paste wizardry to make everything right. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
----<br />
Apologies, yep template pages do update near-automatically so they are a better choice than transcluded pages. I noticed that when you move a page that has a link on the template page and subsequently edit the template to point to the new location that the links on the moved page will not refresh. You must perform a dummy edit on the pages with the template info to update the links accordingly. I'll have to check to see what happens if you rename a template link and then move the page. The same thing might happen. It depends on the software here and if it uses dynamic pointers. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 08:52, 1 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Clean Up ==<br />
<br />
It's just occurring to me that "Community" does not feature the main two actual forums (XCOMUFO and StratCore) that newbies might turn to, right up front. Also, this Discussion page has gotten way long.<br />
<br />
Newbies need that Community connection, since that's the meaning of the word. Never mind that it can be found down around here somwhere, which even I can't find, right off. (It's why I came here, to show others examples of linking, but now I can't find where the heck the forums show up here.) Wikis should appeal to newbies heartily. Links to talk forums need to be "right there".<br />
<br />
Could someone take a hand at making the forums highlighted for newbies. And also, such a dedicated person might cut down this Discussion page tons. The new Style page is a place to put some things.<br />
<br />
Some thoughts - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 23:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, I cut this page down. It was on my list of things to do in the near future anyway.<br />
<br />
Ok, we have 2 "Community" pages right now: the [[UFOpaedia:Community_Portal|Community portal]] page (on the sidebar) and the [[Community]] page. The plain community page is buried at the bottom of the main page and contains the links to the forums. I'm thinking that we just get rid of the community page and add that info to the community portal instead. This way, the info is always near the top of the screen for quick access. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:14, 10 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==<br />
Ok folks, we all seem to have our own ways of adding comments to a discussion page. The way it stands now, it becomes really difficult to follow a discussion when it is broken apart with different formats. What I suggest is this: when you leave a comment use a horizontal line to separate your post from the one(s) above it. In this manner, everything is left justified and the comments are separated. The reason why I do not support the colon as comment separation is that as the discussion progresses you are going to be adding more and more just to get the indenting correct. It also makes it confusing. Another side effect is that once you have a lot of colons present it pushes the text off the page itself and forces a scroll to the right to view. That isn't good.<br />
<br />
I suppose if we really want to use colons as separators, we could alternate the use. If a comment is indented above yours, do nothing. If a comment is not indented, use a colon for your submission. Still, the constant zig-zagging isn't really the best idea either.<br />
<br />
My vote is therefore to stick with the horizontal line (four dashes). If the discussion veers way off course, or if you have a couple questions/comments, break it apart into different headings. And always sign your post too as that makes it easier to follow.<br />
<br />
Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Works for me, Zombie. Another problem with indentation is that one isn't necessarily addressing only the previous comment, but it could be about the previous one, and tying together things that are 4, 6, ''and'' 12 entries back. Colons are fine for quick rejoinders, but not as a requirement. A potential alternative is to leave two blank lines, as I just did after your sig. This is a fairly clear delineator for folks scanning quickly. However, the horizontal separator is more clear, in general. So I guess I'd vote for the hor-sep for all except quick comments thrown in, which can use colons. And anything that's a new topic or big break should get a new topic, using = signs. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I've reformatted [[Talk:Exploits#Extra_Ammo_Exploit]] to demonstrate how the indentation style ''can'' work, if done consistently. I think it's somewhat better than the line-separator style for very long discussions, making the structure a little clearer. However, if it's sometimes-used and sometimes-not things get messy, as you've noticed.<br />
<br />
I'll codify the rules right here (surprisingly, they're not well-codified on Wikipedia itself, despite the fact that it's used quite consistently throughout the site):<br />
<br />
*Add an indent for each reply<br />
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:<br />
<br />
First person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person's comment<br />
<br />
::Third person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::Third person again<br />
<br />
::Third person's afterthought<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::First person jumping back in<br />
<br />
:::Third person once more<br />
<br />
::First person again<br />
<br />
*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).<br />
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.<br />
*If somebody doesn't know/doesn't use the right indent level, fix it when adding your next reply so the rules become clear during the course of conversation.<br />
*Likewise, if someone adds a new comment to the top or fails to add a heading when starting a new subject, fix it when replying.<br />
<br />
The problem we've had lately is the mixing of styles, neither being used correctly. So far it seems that myself, Sf, and NKF have been using indents, you (Zombie) and Mike favoring dashes, and most newcomers failing to use either. No clear winner just yet. ;-)<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:What if you're addressing several and various issues raised before, not just a comment on the previous statement? (And it runs on for four or six paragraphs?) - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::If you're consolidating a bunch of replies to several earlier points, that's a good time to reset the indent.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 01:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== British vs. American spelling ==<br />
<br />
:NKF Stealth note for authors or any nosy person reading the source: For those pedantic about the American/British English spelling of Armour/Armor, I used the British spelling because that's how it's spelt in the game when running it in the English text mode. This may not necessarily be the case for the other games in the series or earlier localized releases, but it is very much so in v1.4ce, hence why I'm sticking with it. I'd also like to add that a section relating specifically for armour is required, with some sections regarding armour management, such as how its distributed and the particulars of armour recovery when a soldier dies or is fired (i.e. none). (Damnit, just added Category:Armor -HeckRuler)<br />
<br />
:We should move this note to the top of the back of Main Page. English vs. USA doesn't matter. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
I moved the above two comments from within HTML comments on the [[Soldier]] page. Might as well "have a discussion" about it, it's what we do. Although I'm an American, I favor the in-game (British) spelling, wherever it appears (Plasma Defence, Armour, Cyberdisc, etc.). I'm, um, pedantic. Or probably just anal-retentive.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 00:58, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
: I'm in favour of the UK spelling scheme myself, only due to general preference and because UFO is in UK English (on the other hand, TFTD is in US English). However, I still like to think the spelling is interchangeable, and when it comes to the spelling of the actual article: redirects can do wonders! I actually left that note there as an afterthought in case some authors suddenly decide to do mass edits of the spelling, and others come along and revert the changes, and the whole process repeats itself. I mean, armor &rarr; armour &rarr; armor &rarr; smurf &rarr; armour &rarr; ad-infinitum. Not a nice thought. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
It's probably a very small issue on this site regardless. By comparison, Wikipedia has yet to implement any way for Commonwealth readers to see British spellings while American readers see US spellings. Instead, they're sticking with the comical compromise of "the creator of the article fates whether it'll have British or American spelling for the rest of its days". Maybe through Wikipedia's confusion the mother tongue will eventually merge back together. :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 02:24, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
: Agreed. I'll try my best to use the British spellings, but when I get on a typing roll the American spelling is what comes to me first. I usually don't catch it either when I proof read. I'd say redirects would be the best solution, so 'Personal Armor' redirects to 'Personal Armour'. As far as the spelling in articles, I think it's pretty well known the two differences of spelling, though it could be a problem if an article switches back and forth from it alot. <br />
: That said this affects maybe 3 or 4 Armour articles? I can't think of any other differences that would be in an article, at least as a main subject. Maybe the occasional colour or favour. --[[User:Pi Masta|Pi Masta]] 11:59, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== MediaWiki upgraded. ==<br />
<br />
I've upgraded MediaWiki to the latest version, although I'm afraid I don't know how to prevent spamming etc. If anyone can point me in the direction of something about this I can take a look at it, but now that it's upgraded and I have backups I should be in a position to allow Pete at SC to take over hosting.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=8984Talk:Main Page2006-10-09T15:27:43Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
----<br />
<br />
Quick nitty gritty gribbly grabbly notes: <br />
<br />
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. <br />
* Strategy by terrain notes? <br />
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map<br />
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch? <br />
<br />
<br />
::Blast! I must really remember to write my thoughts down here as often as possible. I've had many floaty lightbulb moments on what we're currently lacking/missing, and they're all gone. <br />
<br />
::- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Site Backups ==<br />
<br />
Ok, gents. Here's the scoop - straight from GazChap. The site is backed up every day, so there is basically no worry about losing everything if it should go down. The only thing that may be lost are transactions during that day when it is down. Normally there isn't much activity, but there is the occasional marathon editing session which some people partake in. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
The server hosting the UFOpaedia experienced a few issues over the weekend, but nothing major. However, I've decided that being reliant on a third-party backup service is foolhardy - consequently I'm going to be installing my own backup solution to the server soon (hopefully within the next few days) that will backup all user-submitted data. If anyone would like to volunteer to receive additional backups via e-mail (no point me just having backups, if I get knocked down by a bus we'd be stuffed ;) ) then please contact me at gazchap at gmail dot com. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Main Page design ==<br />
<br />
The Main Page redesign has now been implemented; see [[User talk:Ethereal Cereal]] for the archived discussion.<br />
----<br />
Does anyone know if we can adjust those main navigation links (upper left of each page) so that we can add a link to the UFO2k Main Page? I think that would be appreciated by them. But I have no idea where that's accessed... maybe the managers have special areas?<br />
<br />
As long as anyone's editing that, it could be cleaned up a little... do we really need e.g. Current Events, and Donations? Although maybe GazChap likes that last one, hehe.<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 07:14, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
Sorry for the delay on this subject, but I finally figured out how to edit the navigation menu. I removed the current events, random and donation page links from the navigation menu. Also added a link to the UFO2000 subwiki. Eventually, I'd like to have sub-"main pages" for EU, TFTD and Apoc which would clean up the main page even more. Just a proposal at the moment. Discuss please. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:08, 5 October 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Cool, Z! Thanks for doing that. UFO2k always needed its own link. FWIW, my vote would be to make it #2 in the sidebar. Or even #1 if you take out the EU Main Page link, since the Main Page is accessible by hitting the X-COM graphic. It's just a thought though; it's already a big improvement. By chance, did you ask GazChap if it's ok to take out Donations? I have no idea if he ever got any, but I'd let him make that call. As for sub-Main Pages for the major games, I can see them maybe wanting their own page, or maybe wanting to stay together with the very deeply researched EU info. Since I personally haven't resurrected anything but EU, I have no opinion and will leave that up to others.<br />
<br />
I'm sure the U2k folks thank you for taking the time to figure out how to edit the sidebar link, and I do too! --[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
I'd like to keep the main page link in place as it is a handy tool to get to the root of the site. Sure the logo is itself a link too, but newbies might not realize this. The navigation sidebar was discussed with Mr Chap way back in February, and he basically said that money is not an issue and he would remove the donations as well as the current events links as soon as he figured out how. I assumed this was as much permission as I needed to do it myself. ;)<br />
<br />
As for the ordering of the navigation sidebar, I temporarily put the UFO2000 game in there. My intention is to create another sidebar underneath navigation entitled "games" and put all the X-COM and fan-created games in there (including UFO2000). This would facilitate the creation of a few new game sub-main pages which would contain the specific game navigation table from the main page. A couple of these pages already exist but are being under-utilized ([[X-COM]] and [[TFTD]] for instance}. Now, I'm not saying we remove the game navigation tables on the main page - but just to copy that info across. With those game navigation links in the sidebar it becomes really easy to jump between titles without stopping at the main page. Does this make sense? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:04, 6 October 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Anything's good that's good for the users, and this sounds good for the users. Is there any way to put a graphic in for U2k? In the upper left. That would be very cool. They are an entirely nother vigorous community operating under GazChap's benevolence. Thanks for having checked with him already - I should have known you already would have. I for one think that a big XCOM logo means the EU Main Page, so a link isn't needed. But as usual it's a minor issue, and wiki editing falls to those taking decisive and reasonable actions. I'm not so sure what you mean by all the navigation. Ethereal Cereal did a really good re-write of the Main Page which I resisted at first, but enjoyed once I saw it. ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:10, 6 October 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
I'm not sure if sysops have permission to add/change/modify the main logo. I will of course check. As for the navigation, why don't I just draw up something so you can see what I mean? It's not that big of a deal to change stuff back if you guys don't like it. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 22:17, 6 October 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Sounds good. As for logos, if there's a way to put the U2k one under the EU one in the upper left, that'd be superb. ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 23:10, 6 October 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
How did you remove the links from the menu on the left? Still don't know how to do it myself, I'm guessing it's not in the main templates if you had access to it!<br />
<br />
Also, if the logo needs to be changed at any point then send me the file and I'll replace it straight away, along with the link (if required)<br />
<br />
-- [[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 16:35 BST, 9th October 2006.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Unconscious&diff=8441Talk:Unconscious2006-08-01T13:48:54Z<p>GazChap: Just a poser about alien interrogation.</p>
<hr />
<div>I can't think of anywhere else to put this.<br />
<br />
A thought occurred to me late last night. I doubt that the Gollop brothers actually went this far, but it'd be interesting to see if there is anything like this in the game.<br />
<br />
X-COM units stun alien units to bring them back to base alive, to interrogate them and learn more about the alien threat.<br />
<br />
If alien units successfully manage to knock X-COM units unconscious, and either the mission fails or the mission is aborted, leaving the stunned soldiers behind, do the aliens take the stunned units back and interrogate them (using psionics?) to try and learn the location of X-COM bases?<br />
<br />
Like I said, I doubt this is in the game but it'd be a damn good thing to have in any remake. -- [[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 14:54, 1st August 2006 (BST)</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=8436Talk:Main Page2006-07-31T12:43:32Z<p>GazChap: Requesting volunteers to receive backups by e-mail!</p>
<hr />
<div>Quick note for future revisions of subsections: <br />
<br />
Template navigation toolbars for subsections. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Site Backups ==<br />
<br />
The server hosting the UFOpaedia experienced a few issues over the weekend, but nothing major. However, I've decided that being reliant on a third-party backup service is foolhardy - consequently I'm going to be installing my own backup solution to the server soon (hopefully within the next few days) that will backup all user-submitted data. If anyone would like to volunteer to receive additional backups via e-mail (no point me just having backups, if I get knocked down by a bus we'd be stuffed ;) ) then please contact me at gazchap at gmail dot com. --[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 13:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Ok, gents. Here's the scoop - straight from GazChap. The site is backed up every day, so there is basically no worry about losing everything if it should go down. The only thing that may be lost are transactions during that day when it is down. Normally there isn't much activity, but there is the occasional marathon editing session which some people partake in. ;)--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Main Page design ==<br />
<br />
The Main Page redesign has now been implemented; see [[User talk:Ethereal Cereal]] for the archived discussion.<br />
<br />
==UFO2000 Section==<br />
<br />
OK, Gazchap has given its OK. I am going to start working on the page for UFO2000.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 06:45, 7 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Excellent! All us here on the XCOM wiki send UFO2000 the best wishes. I've been meaning to check it out myself when I get finished with XCOM... but I never seem to get finished, lol.<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 10:33, 7 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I'd like to ask: right now I've started naming the pages as "UFO2000 whatever". However, I've noticed that this limits the category pages (all entries are in the U letter). Any problem if we start naming them like "whatever (UFO2000)" since that seems to be the format to differenciate between games (such as "Aliens (TFTD)", "Aliens (UFO Defense)) ?<br />
<br />
--- [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 12:17, 8 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Makes sense to me. Another option you have is to pipe your category links: <nowiki>[[Category: UFO2000|Aliens]]</nowiki> will make the link will appear on the Category page under the "A" heading as "Aliens".<br />
<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 13:05, 8 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Excellent. Thank you very much.<br />
<br />
[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 15:42, 8 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Hmm, I misspoke. Pipes will change the sort order, but the original page name will still be used on the category page, so a page named "UFO2000 and X-COM" with the catlink "<nowiki>[[Category:UFO2000|Quick Start Guide]]</nowiki>" will be sorted under "Q" but still called "UFO2000 and X-COM", which looks quite strange. You'll probably have to select your page titles to accomodate this -- but at least piping can be used to keep everything from being sorted under U.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, you don't need two <nowiki>[[Category]]</nowiki> links -- just one will do, with or without a pipe.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 16:08, 8 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
I started noticing that something was not right ;)<br />
<br />
I've just finished renaming all the pages. It fits better with the page naming of the rest of the ufopaedia.<br />
<br />
--- [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:13, 8 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Does anyone know if we can adjust those main navigation links (upper left of each page) so that we can add a link to the UFO2k Main Page? I think that would be appreciated by them. But I have no idea where that's accessed... maybe the managers have special areas?<br />
<br />
As long as anyone's editing that, it could be cleaned up a little... do we really need e.g. Current Events, and Donations? Although maybe GazChap likes that last one, hehe.<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 07:14, 9 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Math formulas ==<br />
<br />
There seems to be some kind of problem with the latex math formula generating. Either that or a problem with me. I'd appreciate some feedback about this, since it would look nice to have actual pretty looking formulas. And there are some very ugly formulas coming. (reposted from talk: accuracy (UFO 2000))<br />
<br />
- [[User:Arcozelo|Arcozelo]]<br />
<br />
-------<br />
<br />
MediaWiki needs to be installed for TeX to work.<br />
<br />
For those who haven't heard of LaTeX (I've just quickly read up on it), it converts Wiki code to PNG format.<br />
<br />
The pros are it looks nice, the cons are PNG images don't copy and paste well into programs or notes.<br />
<br />
Of course, just because it's installed, doesn't mean it has to be used in all cases.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I used LaTeX long ago at the university, before programs started having their own built-in equation editors. Strictly speaking, it's a way to code "fancy" equations with simple alphabetic characters. Much like wiki markup symbols etc. I guess it outputs picture formats now too, eh?<br />
<br />
Can the site managers install MediaWiki or do we need to ask GazChap? Anybody know?<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 15:53, 22 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
The software UFOPaedia runs on ''is'' MediaWiki (see the icon in the lower right?). Normally the following code would work:<br />
<br />
<math>\pi=\frac{3}{4} \sqrt{3}+24 \int_0^{1/4}{\sqrt{x-x^2}dx}</math><br />
<br />
--[[User:Ethereal_Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Huh... Well how 'bout that...<br />
<br />
In that case, the option must simply be disabled... Unless this is an old version of MediaWiki? I wouldn't know how long LaTeX has been supported...<br />
<br />
pi = 22 / 7<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Pardon, was doing a little research and posted an incomplete thought above.<br />
<br />
It looks like a MediaWiki extension called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texvc texvc] must be installed to enable inline LaTeX.<br />
<br />
But I for one don't consider the Reactions formula to be so complicated that it needs special formatting: I think the way the [[Psionics#Psionic Formulas|Psionics]] formulas are presented is a good example of how to present things in plain English.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 18:37, 22 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Although I'm a bit on the fence here on this issue, I do lean more towards simple maths displays as well. Not saying that latex won't spruce the site up a bit. If we get it, that's great. If not, well, we can make do with manual formatting and using some of the special math symbols like &int;, &lambda;, &times;, &nabla;, &plusmn;, &equiv;, &times;, etc. Formulas don't have to always look like they're right out of an advanced maths text book. <br />
<br />
Just a reminder for those that use these symbols - it's good practice to remember to insert the ''semicolon''! Some web browsers are a bit slack and will draw these special symbols without the semicolon. This makes it look awful on browsers that enforce stricter special symbol parsing. <br />
<br />
P. S: Just as a brief aside, does anyone have images of the various Apocalypse base modules and corridors? I'd like to try my hand at an Apocalypse base map template. It would definitely be much more complex with the various 2, 3 and 4 way corridors. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I say let folks use whatever they want... I'd like the option of making complex equations more clear. PNG pastes fine into Office 2k... it's not that new a format. NKF, if you don't get a response on Apocalypse here, try the forums. ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:32, 23 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Heheh, by "programs" I meant "program code"... <br />
<br />
Though I suppose I'm one of the few people who'd use formulas for that (if not the only one). And if I didn't originaly post one of them, I'd probably end up re-writing it before I used it anyway...<br />
<br />
Re the base modules and corridors, getting those isn't too much of a problem. However, the tiles themselves are transparent, and displayed on top of a large, grey, stony background thing (check ufodata\base.pcx)- you can't incorporate the background into the tiles themselves, because no two corridor sections look alike once they have the background under them (ie you'd need way too many images).<br />
<br />
The solution is either to set a background to the template, or do away with it altogether. But, using it as a background seems like a good idea to me, because you could have one background per base layout (how many of them are there, anyway)?<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
I was planning on doing some real accuracy calculations for ufo2000. None of the straightforward formulas is really that much complicated. The ugliest is sqrt(2/(1/a^2+1/b^2)), but I believe most people can handle that without fancy pngs. However, accuracy is handled in a more "physical" manner in ufo2000 - your accuracy is correlated to a random angle by which your shots deviate from the ideal path, which means same accuracies have different chances of hitting depending on the distance. From what I understand, in stock UFO your accuracy is a more statistical approach and roughly independent of distance.<br />
To calculate odds of hitting in ufo2000 requires gaussians and integrals (well, if I am to explain how it works, at least), and if I were to stumble on such a page without pngs, I would skip that without a second thought, whereas with pngs I might have given it a try.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Arcozelo|Arcozelo]]<br />
<br />
-------<br />
<br />
I don't know how UFO2000 handles accuracy. In UFO, the map is a [[LOFTEMPS.DAT|3D area]], and the bullet must travel past all sort of terrain to hit a target. You've got much less chance of hitting a person behind a window and across a field then you do of hitting them at point blank range, for example.<br />
<br />
The game gives you different %'s when you bring up your firing options, but I dunno if anybody's ever tried to work out what the actual chance of any given shot hitting is. Given that you'd need to make extensive referrences into the data files to work out the shape of the terrain, I doubt anybody ever will.<br />
<br />
I doubt anyone has anything against installing the LaTeX support, it's just a matter of finding a person who can do it and bugging them until they do. Would I be correct in assuming that the sysops are the ones with this capability? If so, place a note on Hobbe's talk page or something.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
No, general sysops do not have access to the server here to allow this support. If you want, I could contact GazChap about allowing LaTeX. I generally have no use for it, but wouldn't mind sprucing up some of the equations. (By the way, I cut this page down a bit as we are nearing the 32kb warning level. Will cull some more later.) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 13:10, 25 June 2006 (PDT)</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Blaster_Launcher&diff=8431Blaster Launcher2006-07-30T15:42:46Z<p>GazChap: Added note about firing from inside an Avenger</p>
<hr />
<div>This man-portable total destruction device is the heaviest weapon alien artifact you'll discover. It fires the football-shaped [[Blaster Bomb]] which can hover and route through up to nine programmable waypoints before detonating on impact with a small explosion. 'Small' being a relative term for battlefield nuclear weapons. A safety radius of 10-20 meters is a good guideline. Blaster Bombs are ''outside'' toys, and can generally be relied upon to kill anything unlucky enough to be hit by them (and anything nearby). Although the weapon can only fire one shot before requiring a reload, one shot is usually enough.<br />
<br />
Researching the Launcher and it's ammo allows you to research the [[Fusion Ball Launcher]] and [[Hovertank/Launcher]] projects.<br />
<br />
== Stats ==<br />
<b>Blaster Launcher:</b><br />
<table><tr><td>[[Image:BIGOBS35.GIF|left|64 px]]</td><td><br />
*Size: 3 high x 2 wide<br />
*Weight: 16<br />
*TUs: <br />
**Aimed: 80% (Accuracy 120%)<br />
*[[Buying/Selling/Transferring#Manufacturable_Prices|Manufacturing]]: $90,000 for parts, 1,200 Engineer Hours, 1 Alien Alloy<br />
*Sell Price: $144,000</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
<b>Blaster Bomb:</b><br />
<table><tr><td>[[Image:BIGOBS36.GIF|left|64 px]]</td><td><br />
*Power: 200 High Explosive<br />
*Ammo: 1<br />
*Size: 2 high x 1 wide<br />
*Weight: 3<br />
*[[Buying/Selling/Transferring#Manufacturable_Prices|Manufacturing]]: $8,000 for parts, 220 Engineer Hours, 3 Elerium<br />
*Sell Price: $17,028</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
BB [[explosions]] have an 11 tile radius. A soldier on the 11th tile can still be '''killed''' as BB's do average 90 points damage '''at the edge''' of the explosion.<br />
<br />
'''NOTE''': Though the UFOpaedia states that the blaster launcher costs 80% of your TUs to fire, this is in fact incorrect. It only costs 66% to use the launch command. The 80% only applies to the blaster launcher's 'aimed shot', which is disabled when the 'launch' command is enabled. The launch command is a completely different firing mode entirely. <br />
<br />
== Usage ==<br />
* Use left clicks to set up to 9 waypoints. Two are the recommended minimum. To guarantee detonation, the last two waypoints should guide the bomb towards something solid such as a wall or floor. Right clicks will unset the last waypoint you set. <br />
* The [[Hovertank/Launcher|Hovertank]] fusion ball is fired by the top-most section of the hovertank (the upper left corner when viewed via the overhead map).<br />
* A bomb fired from within the [[Skyranger]] cannot be relied upon to cleanly exit the craft. Firing from the lip of the craft ''may'' be safe, especially if you angle your first waypoint away from the edge adjacent to the firer: if you're on the left side of the craft, angle your first waypoint to the right, and vice-versa.<br />
* Similarly, it appears to be impossible to fire a Blaster Bomb from inside an [[Avenger]]. On the CE (Windows) version of the game, there appears to be a pink door covering the rear of the craft that the Blaster Bomb hits every time. Curiously, units can walk through this "door" and the explosion damage from the Blaster Bomb detonating also goes through the door and will kill any unit within range on the outside of the craft.<br />
* In the CE (Windows) version of the game, attempting to fire a Blaster Bomb along an absolutely vertical path (as opposed to on an angle) results in it flying south instead. Aliens will still set vertical waypoints however, often killing themselves as a result.<br />
* If it somehow misses a waypoint (via the above method or drift), a bomb will restart its path from the correct waypoint if it later passes it or if it flies off the edge of the map (so long as there are two or more waypoints remaining).<br />
* Soldiers do not need to face targets or waypoints when firing. <i>Eh? I'm sure a soldier will turn to face the correct direction when he fires, same as if any other weapon was used! - BB</i><br />
* BB's can break open a single section of '''UFO outer hulls''' (see [[Destroying Terrain]]). They will carry through with enough power to detonate the nav modules on the other side of the hull, if you hit north or west sides. See [[Explosions#When_Is_a_Wall_not_a_Wall]]. This is not true of shells fired from the [[Hovertank/Launcher|Hovertank]]<br />
<br />
== Tactics ==<br />
Aim for large, open areas first to maximize the effects of your blasts. If you want to send a shell into a UFO, first punch open the bridge, then send a shell into that section of the craft to ensure you destroy the highest ranking aliens.<br />
<br />
When using BBs for base defense, remember that it is possible to destroy your own base with them! Use waypoints to hit the rear side of your (indestructible) entry lift (this helps to avoid destroying adjacent modules), then send another through the resulting hole to nuke the lift contents. Now nuke the (also indestructible) hangars. Be careful of the effects of drift whenever firing through a narrow area.<br />
<br />
Units can only hold so many Blaster Bombs. However, because just about any target can be hit from anywhere, there's no real need for the launcher units to move about. Hence one tactic is to have them stand on top of a large supply of ammo, as opposed to having them carry the extra bombs with them.<br />
<br />
== Drift ==<br />
Blaster Bombs will often veer slightly off course as they travel, regardless of your units' firing accuracy stat. If it strikes an object (such as a wall, unit, or even the floor) before reaching the next waypoint, it will explode. The waste of a perfectly good bomb aside, a misfire could result in the decimation of your own squad.<br />
<br />
Set the bomb's path through the air if possible. There's nothing to hit up there, so even if it does drift, this won't stop it from ultimately hitting the target. Remember to avoid setting waypoints directly above or below each other if using the CE version.<br />
<br />
Drift can result in waypoints being missed completely. For this reason, it pays to set multiple waypoints around the final target. If you can, send the bomb up in the air, then dunk the bomb back down again - even if it misses your actual target, it'll detonate when it hits the ground. Be sure, however, that it explodes on the same map level as its intended target, as explosive damage does not carry over to other levels.<br />
<br />
Drift is particularly dangerous when firing in narrow corridors, such as those found in bases. In order to avoid this, don't allow the bombs path to cross a tile that has a wall in it. Without benefit of a diagram, the best way to explain this is to say that waypoints should be set as south-easterly as possible (as walls tend to be placed in the northern or western most tiles). Also, try to enforce 90° turns.<br />
<br />
== Safe Practise ==<br />
Because of the indirect-fire nature of the Blaster Launcher, Blaster-armed soldiers need not be on your squad's front line. Ideally, Launcher-armed units should be kept out of the line of fire to prevent them from using reaction fire, which could result in the death of several friendly units, including the unit carrying the launcher.<br />
<br />
While the Blaster Bomb is an awesome tool in your fight against the aliens, it is still originally their weapon, and there are times when it will be used against you. Alien units will only carry them during a base defense/offense mission or if deployed on [[Battleship]]s. During these missions, soldiers caught out in the open are wise to crouch (true of any situation). A BB shot directly at a soldier on a level course will simply fly harmlessly over their head, (hopefully) detonating at a distance.<br />
<br />
If an alien is carrying a blaster launcher, you can prevent it from shooting by having your soldiers move right up next to it. The AI, though generally stupid, does have some sense of self preservation and will not fire a blaster launcher at a close range target. Just remember that units further away may still be fired on. This strategy only works on aliens with blasters and grenades, and only applies to UFO and TFTD. The aliens in X-Com Apocalypse are a tad psychotic when it comes to explosives.<br />
<br />
Finally, when versing Sectoids Leaders/Commanders or Etherals, DO NOT give a blaster launcher to a unit unless you are certain it is not susceptable to mind control or panic attacks.<br />
<br />
== Dud Shells ==<br />
Sometimes you will get into a situation where your blaster launcher cannot be loaded with a new shell. When you examine the weapon, you'll find that it's still loaded, but will have 0 rounds. In order to use the blaster again, the empty shell must be unloaded. <br />
<br />
This situation occurs whenever you attempt to fire the blaster launcher with only 1 waypoint. A blaster launcher fired by way of reaction fire (see next section) will also leave a dud shell behind, as it's technically a 1-waypoint attack. If you set multiple waypoints but the bomb explodes before it reaches its first waypoint, this will also create a dud.<br />
<br />
Note that the Collectors Edition of X-Com UFO has rectified this problem to a certain extent. You no longer get a dud shell when:<br />
<br />
# You fire the blaster with reaction fire<br />
# You use a 1-waypoint attack and the blaster bomb misses its target and flies off the map. You will still get the empty shell if the fusion ball hits something and explodes.<br />
<br />
Dud shells do not come back to base with you at the end of a mission.<br />
<br />
== Avoiding Reaction Fire ==<br />
* In case it's not obvious, reaction-fired blasters are generally a bad thing. There is no chance to guide them, so they fly straight forward, and your soldiers will gladly fire at a target a few paces away. Unless the target is far away and the shot is very accurate, you can expect several friendly casualties. Keep your blaster units out of the line of sight of the enemy, and/or with weapons unloaded until needed. It may be sufficient to have them face away from the combat zone.<br />
* After a shot is spent via reaction fire, the empty casing "dud" must be unloaded before using again. This bug has been fixed in the Collectors Edition of X-Com UFO and no longer occurs except with normal one-waypoint shots. <br />
* The time to reaction-fire a blaster is significantly less than the time it takes to normally shoot one.<br />
* One trick to avoid accidentally using a blaster launcher during attacks of opportunity is to keep your blaster unloaded and only load it when you need to use it. You cannot fire an empty weapon. This works for [[Rocket Launcher]]s and [[Small Launcher]]s as well.<br />
* An even better trick is to arm another weapon in the other hand and set it as the [[active weapon]] (that is, visible in the soldiers hands) before ending the turn. You will only switch over to the blaster launcher once the active weapon runs out of ammo.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Equipment (UFO Defense)]]</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Fatal_Wounds&diff=8340Talk:Fatal Wounds2006-07-24T12:06:34Z<p>GazChap: Killed soldiers returning to life?</p>
<hr />
<div>I've noticed something very odd. This has happened on two of my recent missions.<br />
<br />
Soldier gets knocked unconscious by enemy fire. I'd no way of finding out how many fatal wounds (if any) they had.<br />
<br />
In the first mission, the solder died from a fatal wound at the start of the next turn.<br />
In the second mission, the soldier died a few turns later (three I think) from a fatal wound.<br />
<br />
Both missions were completed successfully, and the "X-COM OPERATIVES KILLED" figure tallied up - i.e. all squad members killed (including those who died from a fatal wound) were accounted for.<br />
<br />
Yet, when I went back to the Geoscape and had a look at my soldier roster to see how many I needed to buy to replace the squad's full compliment, the soldiers who died from wounds were there. They were listed in WOUNDED state and had 11 and 14 days of recovery time respectively.<br />
<br />
This is on X-COM Collector's Edition. Any ideas?</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Morale&diff=8300Talk:Morale2006-07-21T13:08:13Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>In my experience, soldiers close to 0 morale are more likely to go Berserk than soldiers close to 50, who seem more likely to Panic. This is only an impression though. (Or could it be related to Bravery or something... veteran soldiers are more likely to have higher Bravery, resulting in less Morale loss, which would confound the issue.) Has anyone noticed/tested this? --[[User:MikeTheRed|MTR]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I hope you don't mind I moved your open question on the article page to here -- it'll probably remain unresolved for a while.<br />
<br />
I saw a ''lot'' of panics and berserks when experimenting with bravery training, but I didn't measure the frequency of either. I got the impression that panics are more common than berserks (ever noticed how it's spelled "beserk" in the game?), but other than that, I can't tell why one happened instead of the other.<br />
<br />
I'm gonna strike the targeting other soldiers bit altogether, it does seem to be mostly random. But if they're all packed together, somebody's gonna get hit.<br />
<br />
I still haven't witnessed the 255 TUs thing. I have, however, seen panicking units walk through other units (they were all crowded into a corner while I was testing Bravery training), and possibly terrain objects/walls too. Only a couple of times though.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:43, 7 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
I see you've been experimenting with Bravery training a bit yourself. Stunning the weaklings once they're trained -- nice idea.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:53, 7 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
No biggie on moving the question. Generally though I/we put questions in Discussion if there's a good chance somebody currently active on the wiki knows the answer - and otherwise put it on the page itself. The reasoning being that casual wiki visitors may know the answer, but are less likely to visit Discussion pages than front pages. Discussions can get awful long, and sometimes even real experienced vets like Hobbes or whomever, who only pop in now and then, look up something on a page (but may not look at Discussions).<br />
<br />
I didn't try the stun rod trick - but it follows logically. However I did notice my Bravery experience points going up while I was otherwise checking Unitref for firing-squad training, which got me thinking about it again (resulting in what I wrote). One of these days I'd like to hack Morale to verify that those "average recovery" rates work as expected, but it seems straightforward (shrug).<br />
<br />
I'm not sure how NKF checked those TUs... actually I suppose that if you give them a clip weapon (and hack their Morale), it can be easily checked. Huh! So could recovery rates, percent berserk vs. panic, etc. Arg, so much to test, so few aliens to kill, laugh.<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:32, 7 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, I once caught a brief glimpse of the TUs when the soldier was beserking (the TU bar was well off the screen), and there's no other way the soldier can shoot more than normal without having a lot more current TUs than max TUs. The actual amount of TUs that you get is actually unknown, so 255 TUs is the current best guess. <br />
<br />
Giving the soldier a finite ammo weapon might work (and editing the ammo amount to a generous level so it's not all spent). However you have to take into account the TUs spent when the soldier is fidgeting (i.e. turning rapidily), so that can throw you off a bit. <br />
<br />
As for your last comment - not enough aliens? No problem. Just modify their all-round armour levels to 255. Yep. Do that with your own soldiers and neither party will be able to knock each other out with basic unmodified firearm damage. I had a lot of fun figuring out how your reaction levels work this way. I'm sure you can use it to learn other things as well. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Just reading through this page, and this thought struck me - if an alien is killed by a friendly unit that has gone berserk, what effect does it have on the morale of the berserking soldier and the squad as a whole?<br />
---[[User:GazChap|GazChap]] 14:13, 21 July 2006 (BST)</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Realistic_Equivalents&diff=8299Talk:Realistic Equivalents2006-07-21T13:00:25Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>As a note, an MP5 is not considered a battle rifle, as it is a submachine gun.<br />
http://www.hkpro.com/mp5.htm<br />
<br />
GazChap - I also wouldn't really consider the AK-47 to be a realistic equivalent. I've always pictured X-COM as being a very high-tech organisation. I would have thought the AK-47 would be too... raw, for X-COM. Not enough bells and whistles on it. - 21 July 2005 14:05 BST.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Realistic_Equivalents&diff=8298Talk:Realistic Equivalents2006-07-21T12:59:58Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>As a note, an MP5 is not considered a battle rifle, as it is a submachine gun.<br />
http://www.hkpro.com/mp5.htm<br />
<br />
I also wouldn't really consider the AK-47 to be a realistic equivalent. I've always pictured X-COM as being a very high-tech organisation. I would have thought the AK-47 would be too... raw, for X-COM. Not enough bells and whistles on it.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=4572Talk:Main Page2005-12-09T23:37:32Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Main Page Organization ==<br />
<br />
just a thought. there seems to be a 'lets jump straight in' sorta attitutde with the main page, there is/are no clicky links to info pages for each of these games which would help some new ppl who are looking for info, find that we don't have nOOb info, so they they just wonder off. If we are gonna keep these game recycled thru the ages... then we'd better have some sort of noob info happening, as:<br />
<br />
*Different Versions<br />
*Hardware Specs<br />
*How to get working in Windoze<br />
*What this game is about<br />
*Screenshots (which show the game well, not just "sick-ass" screenies)<br />
*WHat ppl liked about the game<br />
*Who made this game (like a bit of back ground info)<br />
<br />
I noticed that there is no "info" heading at the start of game sections....<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
There's no stopping anyone from starting such pages. In fact, there's so much more that can be entered - it's not funny! I'd like to see Starter guides myself - for veterans who've been on a hiatus and for absolute beginners alike. <br />
<br />
As it is, the articles are only created and maintained at the fancy and whim of the authors that contribute to them. Or the excuse I like to use - we just haven't gotten round to it yet. Heh. <br />
<br />
The front page needs a major overhaul - but before that happens: what's missing? Or rather, what else do we need that's left off? <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
New issue: I wish there was a more obvious place for the pages "Damage", "Explosions", and a new one I'm about to make, "Experience Training". To me, Damage and Explosions in particular seem a bit too good to be buried down under layers. But they don't really fit anywhere near the top of menus neatly. It's not just Weapons, it's not just Soldiers. Anyone else have ideas? ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 19:07, 2 Dec 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
Hmm. I realise the main ufopaedia entries, which was the framework we've been building off, is rather restricted strictly to... well, the ufopaedia entries. <br />
<br />
That was fine when we started, but as you've brought to our attention, we've got a whole mess of interesting articles that need somewhere to fit into. <br />
<br />
Field Weapon Mechanics? A section devoted to everything about how offense and defence works in the battlescape? <br />
<br />
It sounds like coming up with a whole new table of contents (for the main page) would be the solution. Alas, what should it include? How should it be structured? At the moment the main page is, well, a mess. We're squeezing too much in. <br />
<br />
Perhaps the main page should be a simple portal that lets you choose between the first two games (combined as they share so much in common), Apocalypse, the three spinoffs (Interceptor, eMail X-Com, Enforcer), the Would-Have-Beens, and a general information page for the really generally stuff, like the links. Basically remove all the specific ufopaedia entries and actually give the individual games (with the exception of the first two, and the would-have-beens) their own personal section, then siphon all the related ar. <br />
<br />
Bah, I'm not good at this organisational stuff. I, like the next person, hate breaking the site up into even further subsections, but if it allows for better organisation of the articles, then I'm all for it. Just as long as the information is easy to locate and not 10 clicks deep, eh?. <br />
<br />
Let's brainstorm a bit and see what turns up. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Also, a brief explanation for those scouring the recent changes list: <br />
<br />
I've been messing with file transclution (I'm using the term they use on Wikimedia) because it allows you to insert entire files into other files, and when you edit the first file, all documents that include that document will automatically be updated. This is useful for applying uniform style changes to entire sets of documents by simply changing a single template file. <br />
<br />
(For programming buffs it's like the <font style = "color: green;">#include </font> statement used in C/C++ and similar languages) <br />
<br />
It's not just for text formatting, but that is just one of its applications. When you think about it, if used well, it can be rather a neat little time saving trick. <br />
<br />
This is also an attempt at understanding how Wiki formatting works a bit more so that I can start adding a bit of spit and polish to some of the articles if I ever decide to get round to it. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== How to contact wiki owner? ==<br />
<br />
Ok, I just sent a letter to GazChap, as follows:<br />
<br />
<i>Greetings!<br />
<br />
As always, thanks for making the wiki and providing for it!<br />
<br />
A few weeks ago, you thought you might could look into adding some file extensions to what is allowed on the wiki (ZIP, RAR, XLS, DOC, PDF, and DAT). A number of us hope you can find some time to revise the wiki for these. I know I have several things I'd like to post that are fairly complex, like a user-modifiable spreadsheet of profitable manufacturing items. It's a touch frustrating to be sitting on stuff that took a long time to make.<br />
<br />
But another issue has arisen in the meantime. Someone keeps spamming the site with taglines for viagra, etc. It's about 30 lines that they keep inserting on random pages, sometimes twice a day. We dedicated wiki folks keep removing it, but wonder if a login requirement plsu perhaps new-account email confirmation could be required to edit the wiki. These won't stop a serious spammer, but they do little harm to "real" people, and the hassle may stop the spammer. I personally would like a required login anyway - it's a real DOH! when you've been editing the wiki a while, and then find you forgot to log in (sometimes my login cookie fails for reasons unknown).<br />
<br />
One final point, which may take care of the above...<br />
<br />
Would you be willing to consider giving admin rights to a few highly dedicated wiki folks? I'm thinking Danial, Hobbes, NKF, and Zombie. If you know them, you know they've been into XCOM for years (on StrategyCore, XCOMUFO, and the wiki), and are of course entirely responsible. I don't particularly ask for it, for myself... heavy hangs the crown, and all that rot. :)<br />
<br />
If you would be willing to do allow rights, then these admins could take care of larger issues that arise, such as the two above. (Including figuring out how to accomplish the changes - if I recall, that may have been the sticking point for you relative to the new file types.) Of course, you are entirely welcome to ask that they consult you before doing anything "big". We all gather you're a busy man, so perhaps there could be a requirement like "notify me of any big proposed changes, and if I don't respond in a week, go ahead".<br />
<br />
Anyway. Just throwing out ideas. We hope you can address some or all of the above.<br />
<br />
And thanks, as always, for providing us the wiki space!!<br />
<br />
: Mike / MikeTheRed on the wiki, StrategyCore, and XCOMUFO<br />
<br />
P.S. If you would like to see our discussion in this regard, check out http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page</i><br />
<br />
So, I hope he responds soon. <br />
<br />
NKF, I'm not sure the the whole Main Page needs an overhaul. But that too is fine, as long as it works. Like you, I'm not sure just what might be best... but I too wish things were different, somehow. Perhaps in the meantime, I'll put a link for Damage, Explosions and Experience Training under the Main Page topic "[[Missions (UFO Defense)|Missions]]". <br />
<br />
Also, NKF: Right, this Talk page could be cleaned up. Anybody is welcome to take a whack. I've been busy lately, but might find some time, soon.<br />
<br />
Transclusion looks cool... thanks for experimenting; maybe it'll payoff big.<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 15:02, 8 Dec 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Hi all. Just to let you all know that I'm gonna have a crack at sorting out the issues with filetype uploads, spammers, restrictions for unregistered users, and adding new administrators. I'll start tomorrow night, now that I have my broadband back and I've just about settled in to my new place, I should be able to find more time for this stuff :)<br />
<br />
Keep up the good work guys, the wiki has expanded far further than I imagined it would :)<br />
<br />
I've now upgraded MediaWiki to the latest stable version. This seems to include more features for restricting editing, which I will enable ASAP.<br />
<br />
In the mean time, users should now be able to upload files with the following extensions: PNG, JPG, JPEG, GIF, ZIP, DOC, XLS, RAR, DAT and PDF.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=2459Talk:Main Page2005-12-09T00:48:35Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>just a thought. there seems to be a 'lets jump straight in' sorta attitutde with the main page, there is/are no clicky links to info pages for each of these games which would help some new ppl who are looking for info, find that we don't have nOOb info, so they they just wonder off. If we are gonna keep these game recycled thru the ages... then we'd better have some sort of noob info happening, as:<br />
<br />
*Different Versions<br />
*Hardware Specs<br />
*How to get working in Windoze<br />
*What this game is about<br />
*Screenshots (which show the game well, not just "sick-ass" screenies)<br />
*WHat ppl liked about the game<br />
*Who made this game (like a bit of back ground info)<br />
<br />
I noticed that there is no "info" heading at the start of game sections....<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
There's no stopping anyone from starting such pages. In fact, there's so much more that can be entered - it's not funny! I'd like to see Starter guides myself - for veterans who've been on a hiatus and for absolute beginners alike. <br />
<br />
As it is, the articles are only created and maintained at the fancy and whim of the authors that contribute to them. Or the excuse I like to use - we just haven't gotten round to it yet. Heh. <br />
<br />
The front page needs a major overhaul - but before that happens: what's missing? Or rather, what else do we need that's left off? <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Deleted notes about "real UFOs" on the Main Page. Thanks for cleaning that up, NKF. To whomever put them there: You are welcome to make a new section on the Links page for that, and put links there. And also, start your own wiki about real UFOs. Otherwise, thanks for all your help with the XCOM wiki, and keep contributing towards that!<br />
<br />
== How to contact wiki owner? ==<br />
<br />
''It's GazChap (Gareth Griffith). Your best bet would be to contact him via PM on the StrategyCore forums: [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?showuser=428 here]. He also has an account at xcomufo ( username: gazchap) but hasn't logged on there since March. As far as I can tell he doen't give an email address. Good luck!'' --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 11:51, 10 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
''Nevermind, I found a "proper" channel for you to contact him: his [http://www.gazchap.com/contact/ website]. Apologies.''--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 15:50, 10 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
Thanks Z!! My email is away! ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 19:45, 10 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
Quote: "Deleted notes about "real UFOs" on the Main Page." I didn't do it [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] :-|.<br />
<br />
Looks like someone wanted to jump straight in and crap on about their "experience". Anal-probes and such! wahahah<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Hehe, EsTeR... you hit the nail on the head. We don't want a REAL alien harvest mission visiting our farm ;)<br />
<br />
Good news, folks! GazChap replied... I'm sure he won't mind me pasting his message:<br />
<br />
Hiya Mike,<br />
<br />
> Thanks so much for making the XCOM wiki. I've been diving into it a lot<br />
> lately, as have others.<br />
<br />
No probs. I keep meaning to contribute stuff myself, although it's<br />
probably pointless now as there seems to be a veritable army of users much<br />
more knowledgeable about the series than I am, already updating the thing!<br />
:)<br />
<br />
I've not had as much opportunity to browse the various forums either<br />
recently, so I'll no doubt have missed discussions about your request :)<br />
<br />
> Can you please allow the posting of more file types to the site, than are<br />
> currently allowed?<br />
<br />
I can't imagine this will be a problem, but I'm not entirely sure how to<br />
do it. I'll read up on it and let you know. The list of filetypes I'll<br />
add:<br />
<br />
ZIP, RAR, XLS, DOC, PDF, and DAT.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if it's possible to stop registered users deleting files, but<br />
I'll see what I can do.<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
GazChap.<br />
<br />
Cool deal! I didn't present him with an exhaustive list. But including .zip and .rar will cover all kinds of stuff. It's great to see his continuing support. I'll update here when he replies (if he doesn't jump in here himself!)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
This spam is getting annoying very fast! Is there any way to stop un-registered users from modifying pages?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Danial|Danial]] 04:26, 1 Dec 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
This is the internet, after all, and because of the nature of the wiki, it was just a matter of time. <br />
<br />
Whoever this or these rude and thoughtless money grubbing vandals are, you must admit, they're persistent. It's too bad they can't spend all this energy on something more constructive. <br />
<br />
Come to think of it, the IPs are logged, and the current vandal has been showing a consistent IP address. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
It's time to nudge GazChap about the file extensions again, and I'll ask him about logging in. (Good idea, Danial.) How about if I also ask him if he might consider allowing admin rights to some of the very long-time contributors... I'm thinking NKF, Zombie, Hobbes, Danial. Not myself though. Any others?<br />
<br />
One thing about logging in is that it doesn't even require email confirmation. IOW, it makes spamming a 10 second proposition instead of a 5 second proposition. :P Should we ask whether email confirmation can be added? Even that won't hardly stop a dedicated hacker since anybody can make more free accounts (and a spammer like this one probably does it for breakfast). But still, every additional step makes it less worth the hassle for the spammer. ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:50, 1 Dec 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Not a bad idea to force a login to add material or even an email confirmation to start out. I'm just wondering if it would be beneficial to contact the folks over at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia] to see how they handle stuff like this. From what I can tell, it is a free and open system like this is. I also looked through the recent changes over there to see if they had spamming problems. Kinda hard to determine with all the activity and the disabled search function. Though I couldn't find a spam list like we had, there are instances of people adding BS/boarderline offensive comments. I suppose that's the nature of the beast, but it gets a little annoying to see a new batch of spam evey morning while drinking my OJ. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:00, 1 Dec 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I'd like to hear from at least one more person so I get some kind of consensus on what to say to GazChap, if you folks don't mind.<br />
<br />
New issue: I wish there was a more obvious place for the pages "Damage", "Explosions", and a new one I'm about to make, "Experience Training". To me, Damage and Explosions in particular seem a bit too good to be buried down under layers. But they don't really fit anywhere near the top of menus neatly. It's not just Weapons, it's not just Soldiers. Anyone else have ideas? ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 19:07, 2 Dec 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
Hmm. I realise the main ufopaedia entries, which was the framework we've been building off, is rather restricted strictly to... well, the ufopaedia entries. <br />
<br />
That was fine when we started, but as you've brought to our attention, we've got a whole mess of interesting articles that need somewhere to fit into. <br />
<br />
Field Weapon Mechanics? A section devoted to everything about how offense and defence works in the battlescape? <br />
<br />
It sounds like coming up with a whole new table of contents (for the main page) would be the solution. Alas, what should it include? How should it be structured? At the moment the main page is, well, a mess. We're squeezing too much in. <br />
<br />
Perhaps the main page should be a simple portal that lets you choose between the first two games (combined as they share so much in common), Apocalypse, the three spinoffs (Interceptor, eMail X-Com, Enforcer), the Would-Have-Beens, and a general information page for the really generally stuff, like the links. Basically remove all the specific ufopaedia entries and actually give the individual games (with the exception of the first two, and the would-have-beens) their own personal section, then siphon all the related ar. <br />
<br />
Bah, I'm not good at this organisational stuff. I, like the next person, hate breaking the site up into even further subsections, but if it allows for better organisation of the articles, then I'm all for it. Just as long as the information is easy to locate and not 10 clicks deep, eh?. <br />
<br />
Let's brainstorm a bit and see what turns up. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
P. S: I think we need to start pruning some of the old discussions from Talk: Main Page. Everyone fine with that?<br />
<br />
----<br />
Hey, what happens if someone deletes a page outright? Has someone got a backup of the page/site to replace it? Those bastards spammers! Sheesh! Do anyone actually buy the rubbish online? Man! ya gotta be retardard to pass money. Just a thought, maybe to stop the spammers, probably should put a bolded, underlined "Do Not Spam" and/or "Spam will be deleted within the hour, so DON"T bother" sorta heading at the top of the Main Page. I'm not doing it, so more common ppl to the site can decide on such a drastic measure... It is me, EsTeR. Doh! formatted puters Doh! forget my p/w. DOH!<br />
<br />
: Heh, telling spammers to kindly stop is like pushing a boulder uphill. All we can do is do our best. Perhaps enabling the patrolled edits might help to allow members to mark good edits. New revisions of the wikipedia have this enabled by default. <br />
<br />
: If the contents of a page is wiped of all its info, you can still refer to previous edits through the page history and recover the info. Unfortunately, this also stores all the rubbish left behind by vandals - for a while . <br />
<br />
: -[[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
Reading a bit (too much) on the Wikipedia boards, it should be possible for administrators to block certain IP addresses or users from posting. (It still lets them post to their talk page, and I assume that when they do try to post there's a message directing them to the e-mail of an admin.)<br />
<br />
So... who's da admin?<br />
[[User:Alitorious|Alitorious]] 21:47, 6 Dec 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
<br />
Alitorious, it's Gazchap. Contact info was mentioned [[#How to contact wiki owner?|earlier]]. <br />
<br />
Also, a brief explanation for those scouring the recent changes list: <br />
<br />
I've been messing with file transclution (I'm using the term they use on Wikimedia) because it allows you to insert entire files into other files, and when you edit the first file, all documents that include that document will automatically be updated. This is useful for applying uniform style changes to entire sets of documents by simply changing a single template file. <br />
<br />
(For programming buffs it's like the <font style = "color: green;">#include </font> statement used in C/C++ and similar languages) <br />
<br />
It's not just for text formatting, but that is just one of its applications. When you think about it, if used well, it can be rather a neat little time saving trick. <br />
<br />
This is also an attempt at understanding how Wiki formatting works a bit more so that I can start adding a bit of spit and polish to some of the articles if I ever decide to get round to it. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
-----<br />
Hmm, spam eh? Tsk,Tsk. ''NKF Wrote'': "Heh, telling spammers to kindly stop is like pushing a boulder uphill"<br />
<br />
and I write (EsTeR) this: "never hurt trying"<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Ok, I just sent a letter to GazChap, as follows:<br />
<br />
<i>Greetings!<br />
<br />
As always, thanks for making the wiki and providing for it!<br />
<br />
A few weeks ago, you thought you might could look into adding some file extensions to what is allowed on the wiki (ZIP, RAR, XLS, DOC, PDF, and DAT). A number of us hope you can find some time to revise the wiki for these. I know I have several things I'd like to post that are fairly complex, like a user-modifiable spreadsheet of profitable manufacturing items. It's a touch frustrating to be sitting on stuff that took a long time to make.<br />
<br />
But another issue has arisen in the meantime. Someone keeps spamming the site with taglines for viagra, etc. It's about 30 lines that they keep inserting on random pages, sometimes twice a day. We dedicated wiki folks keep removing it, but wonder if a login requirement plsu perhaps new-account email confirmation could be required to edit the wiki. These won't stop a serious spammer, but they do little harm to "real" people, and the hassle may stop the spammer. I personally would like a required login anyway - it's a real DOH! when you've been editing the wiki a while, and then find you forgot to log in (sometimes my login cookie fails for reasons unknown).<br />
<br />
One final point, which may take care of the above...<br />
<br />
Would you be willing to consider giving admin rights to a few highly dedicated wiki folks? I'm thinking Danial, Hobbes, NKF, and Zombie. If you know them, you know they've been into XCOM for years (on StrategyCore, XCOMUFO, and the wiki), and are of course entirely responsible. I don't particularly ask for it, for myself... heavy hangs the crown, and all that rot. :)<br />
<br />
If you would be willing to do allow rights, then these admins could take care of larger issues that arise, such as the two above. (Including figuring out how to accomplish the changes - if I recall, that may have been the sticking point for you relative to the new file types.) Of course, you are entirely welcome to ask that they consult you before doing anything "big". We all gather you're a busy man, so perhaps there could be a requirement like "notify me of any big proposed changes, and if I don't respond in a week, go ahead".<br />
<br />
Anyway. Just throwing out ideas. We hope you can address some or all of the above.<br />
<br />
And thanks, as always, for providing us the wiki space!!<br />
<br />
: Mike / MikeTheRed on the wiki, StrategyCore, and XCOMUFO<br />
<br />
P.S. If you would like to see our discussion in this regard, check out http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page</i><br />
<br />
So, I hope he responds soon. <br />
<br />
NKF, I'm not sure the the whole Main Page needs an overhaul. But that too is fine, as long as it works. Like you, I'm not sure just what might be best... but I too wish things were different, somehow. Perhaps in the meantime, I'll put a link for Damage, Explosions and Experience Training under the Main Page topic "[[Missions (UFO Defense)|Missions]]". <br />
<br />
Also, NKF: Right, this Talk page could be cleaned up. Anybody is welcome to take a whack. I've been busy lately, but might find some time, soon.<br />
<br />
Transclusion looks cool... thanks for experimenting; maybe it'll payoff big.<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 15:02, 8 Dec 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
Hi all. Just to let you all know that I'm gonna have a crack at sorting out the issues with filetype uploads, spammers, restrictions for unregistered users, and adding new administrators. I'll start tomorrow night, now that I have my broadband back and I've just about settled in to my new place, I should be able to find more time for this stuff :)<br />
<br />
Keep up the good work guys, the wiki has expanded far further than I imagined it would :)</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Commander&diff=3504Commander2005-09-05T11:02:01Z<p>GazChap: Corrected a few typos.</p>
<hr />
<div>==X-COM Commander==<br />
<br />
Commander is the highest rank that can be gained from any of your troops. Naturally, a commander accompanying your soldiers on a mission will provide some hefty moral boosts, or ''severe'' morale penalties if he or she is killed! When you have thirty soldiers or more (combined from all bases), and a vacant position, then the best eligible [[Colonel]] is promoted. There can only be one commander at any time.<br />
<br />
==Alien Commander==<br />
<br />
Commanders hold the loftiest position in the alien hierarchy. They can only be found in [[Alien Base]]s ([[Alien Colonies]] for TFTD), on [[Battleship]]s ([[Dreadnought]]s for TFTD) on an Alien Base mission, or on the alien's home planet of [[Mars]] ([[T'Leth]] for TFTD..<br />
Capture of a commander is crucial in order to complete the game. Only commanders are privy to the location of the [[Brain]]'s stronghold on [[Cydonia]].</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=UFOpaedia:Deletion_log&diff=2519UFOpaedia:Deletion log2005-03-23T18:33:45Z<p>GazChap: deleted "How to??": content was: '{{delete}}'</p>
<hr />
<div>Below is a list of the most recent deletions.<br />
All times shown are server time (UTC).<br />
<ul><li>18:33, 23 Mar 2005 [[User:GazChap|GazChap]] deleted "How to??" <em>(content was: &#39;&#123;&#123;delete}}&#39;)</em></li><br />
<br />
</ul><br />
</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Heavy_Weapons_Platforms&diff=63Heavy Weapons Platforms2005-03-03T19:32:50Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>There are five different HWP units available to you as an [[X-COM]] Commander.<br />
<br />
*[[Tank/Cannon]]<br />
*[[Tank/Rocket Launcher]]<br />
*[[Tank/Laser Cannon]]<br />
*[[Hovertank/Plasma]]<br />
*[[Hovertank/Launcher]]<br />
<br />
== General Information ==<br />
With the exception of the Tank/Laser Cannon and the Hovertank/Plasma, you must have sufficient ammunition in your stores to load the tank onto a transport craft. However, if one of your bases is attacked and you do not have ammunition available, any tanks will be granted with a full payload of ammunition. Any rounds remaining after a successful base defense will be added to your stores.<br />
<br />
Tanks use turrets to fire. These turrets can turn independently of the tanks themselves. For example, if you tell a tank to fire behind itself, the turret will turn and not the tank. The turret will keep its new bearing relative to the tank until it is told to fire again. Moving the turret costs 1 TU per directional change.<br />
<br />
== Advantages ==<br />
*Tanks are very rarely affected by morale loss. In order for a tank to panic, your squad must take a severe amount of losses during a given turn.<br />
*Tanks are not affected by stun, nor can they receive fatal wounds.<br />
*They tend to have a greater amount of TUs then normal soldiers making them excellent for use as scouts.<br />
*They can take fairly heavy damage without being destroyed.<br />
*A damaged tank is instantly repaired at the end of a mission.<br />
*Other units can fire over the top of a tank without the tank getting hit in the crossfire.<br />
<br />
== Disadvantages ==<br />
*Tanks are much more expensive then soldiers.<br />
*They do not gain experience during combat.<br />
*Their extra size makes it difficult to get them to certain areas - through most doorways, for example.<br />
*Tanks do not have high reactions.<br />
<br />
'''Tank/Rocket launcher'''<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 8(?)/(?)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/HE(?)<br />
<br />
Possibley the most efficient way to blow stuff up. These tanks can fire more rockets per turn then most soldiers, and can carry more as well.<br />
<br />
'''Tank/Laser cannon'''<br />
Manufactoring cost:<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Man hours: (?)<br />
Materials used: (?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 255(?)/(NA)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/Laser(?)<br />
Research requirements: (?)<br />
<br />
Much the same as the Tank/Cannon.<br />
<br />
'''Hovertank/Plasma'''<br />
Manufactoring cost:<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Man hours: (?)<br />
Materials used: (?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 255/(NA)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/Plasma<br />
Research requirements: (?)<br />
<br />
This HWP, due to it's speed, flying ability, hefty payload and high damage capability, is a nice bonus in the field. Most places it can't normally go can be accessed simply by blowing the obstructions away, with barely a dent to it's vast ammo supply.<br />
<br />
'''Hovertank/Launcher'''<br />
Manufactoring cost:<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Man hours: (?)<br />
Materials used: (?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: (?)/(?)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/HE(?)<br />
Research requirements: (?)<br />
<br />
This HWP must have ammo manufactored for it. It fires a weaker version of the Blaster Bomb, and is used in much the same way as the Blaster Launcher. Dispite the slight lessoning of damage, and the high costs involved to deploy it, the Hovertank/Launcher can clear any battlefield with ease.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Heavy_Weapons_Platforms&diff=59Heavy Weapons Platforms2005-03-03T19:31:32Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>There are five different HWP units available to you as an [[X-COM]] Commander.<br />
<br />
*[[Tank/Cannon]]<br />
*[[Tank/Rocket Launcher]]<br />
*[[Tank/Laser Cannon]]<br />
*[[Hovertank/Plasma]]<br />
*[[Hovertank/Launcher]]<br />
<br />
== General Information ==<br />
With the exception of the Tank/Laser Cannon and the Hovertank/Plasma, you must have sufficient ammunition in your stores to load the tank onto a transport craft. However, if one of your bases is attacked and you do not have ammunition available, any tanks will be granted with a full payload of ammunition. Any rounds remaining after a successful base defense will be added to your stores.<br />
<br />
Tanks use turrets to fire. These turrets can turn independently of the tanks themselves. For example, if you tell a tank to fire behind itself, the turret will turn and not the tank. The turret will keep its new bearing relative to the tank until it is told to fire again. Moving the turret costs 1 TU per directional change.<br />
<br />
== Advantages ==<br />
Tanks are very rarely affected by morale loss. In order for a tank to panic, your squad must take a severe amount of losses during a given turn. Tanks are not affected by stun, nor can they receive fatal wounds. They tend to have a greater amount of TUs then normal soldiers making them excellent for use as scouts, and they can takes numerous Heavy Plasma blasts. A damaged tank is instantly repaired at the end of a mission. Human units can fire over the top of a tank without it getting caught in the crossfire.<br />
<br />
== Disadvantages ==<br />
*Tanks are much more expensive then soldiers.<br />
*They do not gain experience during combat.<br />
*Their extra size makes it difficult to get them to certain areas - through most doorways, for example.<br />
*Tanks do not have high reactions.<br />
<br />
'''Tank/Rocket launcher'''<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 8(?)/(?)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/HE(?)<br />
<br />
Possibley the most efficient way to blow stuff up. These tanks can fire more rockets per turn then most soldiers, and can carry more as well.<br />
<br />
'''Tank/Laser cannon'''<br />
Manufactoring cost:<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Man hours: (?)<br />
Materials used: (?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 255(?)/(NA)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/Laser(?)<br />
Research requirements: (?)<br />
<br />
Much the same as the Tank/Cannon.<br />
<br />
'''Hovertank/Plasma'''<br />
Manufactoring cost:<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Man hours: (?)<br />
Materials used: (?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 255/(NA)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/Plasma<br />
Research requirements: (?)<br />
<br />
This HWP, due to it's speed, flying ability, hefty payload and high damage capability, is a nice bonus in the field. Most places it can't normally go can be accessed simply by blowing the obstructions away, with barely a dent to it's vast ammo supply.<br />
<br />
'''Hovertank/Launcher'''<br />
Manufactoring cost:<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Man hours: (?)<br />
Materials used: (?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: (?)/(?)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/HE(?)<br />
Research requirements: (?)<br />
<br />
This HWP must have ammo manufactored for it. It fires a weaker version of the Blaster Bomb, and is used in much the same way as the Blaster Launcher. Dispite the slight lessoning of damage, and the high costs involved to deploy it, the Hovertank/Launcher can clear any battlefield with ease.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Tank/Cannon&diff=60Tank/Cannon2005-03-03T19:31:14Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General Information ==<br />
This is the most unremarkable of the HWPs available to X-COM squads.<br />
<br />
The Tank/Cannon carried (unsurprisingly) a cannon that fires armour-piercing rounds. Up to 30 rounds can be loaded for a single mission.<br />
<br />
== Vital Statistics ==<br />
<table><br />
<tr><td>Cost:</td><td>$420,000</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Time Units:</td><td>70</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Health:</td><td>90</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Front Armour:</td><td>90</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Left/Right Armour:</td><td>75</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Rear Armour:</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Under Armour:</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Weapon:</td><td>Cannon</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Weapon Power:</td><td>60 (Armour-Piercing)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Ammunition Type:</td><td>HWP Cannon Rounds</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Rounds Required:</td><td>30</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Cost/round:</td><td>$200</td></tr><br />
</table></div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Tank/Cannon&diff=57Tank/Cannon2005-03-03T19:31:04Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General Information ==<br />
This is the most unremarkable of the HWPs available to X-COM squads.<br />
<br />
The Tank/Cannon carried (unsurprisingly) a cannon that fires armour-piercing rounds. Up to 30 rounds can be loaded for a single mission.<br />
<br />
== Vital Statistics ==<br />
<table><br />
<tr><td>Cost:</td><td>$420,000</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Time Units:</td><td>70</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Health:</td><td>90</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Front Armour:</td><td>90</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Left/Right Armour:</td><td>75</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Rear Armour:</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Under Armour:</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Weapon:</td><td>Cannon</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Weapon Power:</td><td>60 (Armour-Piercing)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Ammunition Type:</td><td>HWP Cannon Rounds</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Rounds Required:</td><td>30</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Cost/round:</td><td></td>$200</tr><br />
</table></div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Tank/Cannon&diff=56Tank/Cannon2005-03-03T19:28:27Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General Information ==<br />
This is the most unremarkable of the HWPs available to X-COM squads.<br />
<br />
The Tank/Cannon carried (unsurprisingly) a cannon that fires armour-piercing rounds. Up to 30 rounds can be loaded for a single mission.<br />
<br />
== Vital Statistics ==<br />
<table><br />
<tr><td>Cost:</td><td>$420,000</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Time Units:</td><td>70</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Health:</td><td>90</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Front Armour:</td><td>90</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Left/Right Armour:</td>75<td></td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Rear Armour:</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Under Armour:</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Weapon:</td><td>Cannon</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Weapon Power:</td><td>60 (Armour-Piercing)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Ammunition Type:</td><td>HWP Cannon Rounds</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Rounds Required:</td><td>30</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Cost/round:</td><td></td>$200</tr><br />
</table></div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Heavy_Weapons_Platforms&diff=58Heavy Weapons Platforms2005-03-03T19:16:23Z<p>GazChap: Tidied it up and split into different pages for each HWP.</p>
<hr />
<div>There are five different HWP units available to you as an [[X-COM]] Commander.<br />
<br />
*[[Tank/Cannon]]<br />
*[[Tank/Rocket Launcher]]<br />
*[[Tank/Laser Cannon]]<br />
*[[Hovertank/Plasma]]<br />
*[[Hovertank/Launcher]]<br />
<br />
== General Information ==<br />
With the exception of the Tank/Laser Cannon and the Hovertank/Plasma, you must have sufficient ammunition in your stores to load the tank onto a transport craft. However, if one of your bases is attacked and you do not have ammunition available, any tanks will be granted with a full payload of ammunition. Any rounds remaining after a successful base defense will be added to your stores.<br />
<br />
Tanks use turrets to fire. These turrets can turn independently of the tanks themselves. For example, if you tell a tank to fire behind itself, the turret will turn and not the tank. The turret will keep its new bearing relative to the tank until it is told to fire again. Moving the turret costs 1 TU per directional change.<br />
<br />
== Advantages ==<br />
Tanks are very rarely affected by morale loss. In order for a tank to panic, your squad must take a severe amount of losses during a given turn. Tanks are not affected by stun, nor can they receive fatal wounds. They tend to have a greater amount of TUs then normal soldiers making them excellent for use as scouts, and they can takes numerous Heavy Plasma blasts. A damaged tank is instantly repaired at the end of a mission. Human units can fire over the top of a tank without it getting caught in the crossfire.<br />
<br />
== Disadvantages ==<br />
*Tanks are much more expensive then soldiers.<br />
*They do not gain experience during combat.<br />
*Their extra size makes it difficult to get them to certain areas - through most doorways, for example.<br />
*Tanks do not have high reactions.<br />
<br />
'''Tank/Cannon'''<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 50(?)/(?)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/AP<br />
<br />
The most useless and unremarkable of the tanks. <br />
<br />
'''Tank/Rocket launcher'''<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 8(?)/(?)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/HE(?)<br />
<br />
Possibley the most efficient way to blow stuff up. These tanks can fire more rockets per turn then most soldiers, and can carry more as well.<br />
<br />
'''Tank/Laser cannon'''<br />
Manufactoring cost:<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Man hours: (?)<br />
Materials used: (?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 255(?)/(NA)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/Laser(?)<br />
Research requirements: (?)<br />
<br />
Much the same as the Tank/Cannon.<br />
<br />
'''Hovertank/Plasma'''<br />
Manufactoring cost:<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Man hours: (?)<br />
Materials used: (?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: 255/(NA)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/Plasma<br />
Research requirements: (?)<br />
<br />
This HWP, due to it's speed, flying ability, hefty payload and high damage capability, is a nice bonus in the field. Most places it can't normally go can be accessed simply by blowing the obstructions away, with barely a dent to it's vast ammo supply.<br />
<br />
'''Hovertank/Launcher'''<br />
Manufactoring cost:<br />
Cost: $(?)<br />
Man hours: (?)<br />
Materials used: (?)<br />
Ammo capacity/cost: (?)/(?)<br />
Damage amount/type: (?)/HE(?)<br />
Research requirements: (?)<br />
<br />
This HWP must have ammo manufactored for it. It fires a weaker version of the Blaster Bomb, and is used in much the same way as the Blaster Launcher. Dispite the slight lessoning of damage, and the high costs involved to deploy it, the Hovertank/Launcher can clear any battlefield with ease.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=UFOpaedia:Protection_log&diff=2520UFOpaedia:Protection log2005-02-28T23:11:15Z<p>GazChap: unprotected :Main Page: Why the hell not?</p>
<hr />
<div><ul><li>23:11, 28 Feb 2005 [[User:GazChap|GazChap]] unprotected [[:Main Page]] <em>(Why the hell not?)</em></li><br />
<li>18:03, 26 Feb 2005 [[User:GazChap|GazChap]] protected [[:Main Page]] <em>(Introductory Page - should not be edited!)</em></li><br />
</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Craft_Armaments&diff=1642Craft Armaments2005-02-28T19:40:34Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>Interception craft would be useless if they had no means of neutralising enemy aircraft.<br />
<br />
To this end, there are a number of offensive weapons available that can be fitted to interception craft for use in combat.<br />
<br />
*[[Cannon]]<br />
*[[Stingray|Stingray Missiles]]<br />
*[[Avalanche|Avalanche Missiles]]<br />
<br />
*[[Laser Cannon]]<br />
*[[Plasma Beam]]<br />
*[[Fusion Ball Launcher]]</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Alien_Life_Forms&diff=168Alien Life Forms2005-02-28T19:36:37Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>The alien menace have a surprisingly diverse racial hierarchy. Information on alien races encountered during the First Alien War can be found in this section.<br />
<br />
*[[Celatid]]<br />
*[[Chryssalid]]<br />
*[[Cyberdisc]]<br />
*[[Ethereal]]<br />
*[[Floater]]<br />
*[[Muton]]<br />
*[[Reaper]]<br />
*[[Sectoid]]<br />
*[[Sectopod]]<br />
*[[Silacoid]]<br />
*[[Snakeman]]</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=76Main Page2005-02-28T19:33:09Z<p>GazChap: /* X-COM: UFO Defense */</p>
<hr />
<div>Welcome to UFOpaedia.<br />
<br />
This site has been created to serve as the ultimate resource for information based around the Extra Terrestrial Combat Unit (X-COM).<br />
<br />
Information about all previous encounters with the alien menace will be recorded here along with helpful strategic guides for new Commanding Officers.<br />
<br />
== Main UFOpaedia Entries ==<br />
<table style="width: 100%;"><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td style="width: 33%;"><br />
=== X-COM: UFO Defense ===<br />
*[[Base Facilities (UFO Defense)|Base Facilities]]<br />
*[[Crafts (UFO Defense)|X-COM Crafts]]<br />
**[[Craft Armaments (UFO Defense)|Craft Armaments]]<br />
*[[Heavy Weapons Platforms (UFO Defense)|Heavy Weapons Platforms]]<br />
*[[Weapons (UFO Defense)|Weapons]]<br />
*[[Equipment (UFO Defense)|Equipment]]<br />
<br />
*[[Alien Life Forms (UFO Defense)|Alien Life Forms]]<br />
*[[Alien Research (UFO Defense)|Alien Research]]<br />
**[[Alien Artefacts (UFO Defense)|Alien Artefacts]]<br />
*[[Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO Defense)|Unidentified Flying Objects]]<br />
**[[UFO Components (UFO Defense)|UFO Components]]<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width: 33%;"><br />
<br />
=== X-COM: Terror from the Deep ===<br />
* Still to come<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width: 33%;"><br />
=== X-COM: Apocalypse ===<br />
* Still to come<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table></div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Craft&diff=3314Craft2005-02-28T19:30:50Z<p>GazChap: </p>
<hr />
<div>The following craft were available to X-COM Commanders during the First Alien War.<br />
<br />
=== Interception Craft ===<br />
*[[Interceptor]]<br />
*[[Firestorm]]<br />
*[[Lightning]]<br />
*[[Avenger]]<br />
<br />
=== Troop Transporters ===<br />
*[[Skyranger]]<br />
*[[Lightning]]<br />
*[[Avenger]]</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=51Main Page2005-02-28T19:22:31Z<p>GazChap: /* Main UFOpaedia Entries */</p>
<hr />
<div>Welcome to UFOpaedia.<br />
<br />
This site has been created to serve as the ultimate resource for information based around the Extra Terrestrial Combat Unit (X-COM).<br />
<br />
Information about all previous encounters with the alien menace will be recorded here along with helpful strategic guides for new Commanding Officers.<br />
<br />
== Main UFOpaedia Entries ==<br />
<table style="width: 100%;"><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td style="width: 33%;"><br />
=== X-COM: UFO Defense ===<br />
*[[:Category:Base_Facilities|Base Facilities]]<br />
*[[:Category:Crafts|X-COM Crafts]]<br />
**[[:Category:Craft_Armaments|Craft Armaments]]<br />
*[[:Category:Heavy_Weapons_Platforms|Heavy Weapons Platforms]]<br />
*[[:Category:Weapons|Weapons]]<br />
*[[:Category:Equipment|Equipment]]<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Alien_life_forms|Alien Life Forms]]<br />
*[[:Category:Alien_research|Alien Research]]<br />
**[[:Category:Alien_artefacts|Alien Artefacts]]<br />
*[[:Category:UFOs|Unidentified Flying Objects]]<br />
**[[:Category:UFO_Components|UFO Components]]<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width: 33%;"><br />
=== X-COM: Terror from the Deep ===<br />
* Still to come<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width: 33%;"><br />
=== X-COM: Apocalypse ===<br />
* Still to come<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table></div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=49Main Page2005-02-28T19:21:53Z<p>GazChap: Reorganised categories</p>
<hr />
<div>Welcome to UFOpaedia.<br />
<br />
This site has been created to serve as the ultimate resource for information based around the Extra Terrestrial Combat Unit (X-COM).<br />
<br />
Information about all previous encounters with the alien menace will be recorded here along with helpful strategic guides for new Commanding Officers.<br />
<br />
== Main UFOpaedia Entries ==<br />
<table><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
=== X-COM: UFO Defense ===<br />
*[[:Category:Base_Facilities|Base Facilities]]<br />
*[[:Category:Crafts|X-COM Crafts]]<br />
**[[:Category:Craft_Armaments|Craft Armaments]]<br />
*[[:Category:Heavy_Weapons_Platforms|Heavy Weapons Platforms]]<br />
*[[:Category:Weapons|Weapons]]<br />
*[[:Category:Equipment|Equipment]]<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Alien_life_forms|Alien Life Forms]]<br />
*[[:Category:Alien_research|Alien Research]]<br />
**[[:Category:Alien_artefacts|Alien Artefacts]]<br />
*[[:Category:UFOs|Unidentified Flying Objects]]<br />
**[[:Category:UFO_Components|UFO Components]]<br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
=== X-COM: Terror from the Deep ===<br />
* Still to come<br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
=== X-COM: Apocalypse ===<br />
* Still to come<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table></div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Snakemanautopsy.png&diff=3311File:Snakemanautopsy.png2005-02-28T19:19:32Z<p>GazChap: Snakeman - Autopsy</p>
<hr />
<div>Snakeman - Autopsy</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Snakeman.png&diff=3310File:Snakeman.png2005-02-28T19:19:21Z<p>GazChap: Snakeman</p>
<hr />
<div>Snakeman</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Snakeman&diff=52Snakeman2005-02-28T19:19:00Z<p>GazChap: Added UFOpaedia info. General info still to come.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Alien life forms]]<br />
== General Information ==<br />
[[Image:snakeman.png|right|Snakeman]]<br />
<br />
== Live Specimen ==<br />
This race developed in an extremely hostile environment. They are extremely tough and can resist extreme temperature variations.<br />
<br />
Their mobility depends on a snake-like giant "foot" which protects all the vital organs.<br />
<br />
Their objectives appear to be purely predatory and they appear to be under the command of some other Intelligence which directs their military-style incursions on earth.<br />
<br />
== Autopsy ==<br />
[[Image:snakemanautopsy.png|right|Snakeman - Autopsy]]<br />
The skin is extremely tough and heat resistant.<br />
<br />
The cardio-vascular system is part of the muscular system which uses the hydraulic principle to create motion. The only true muscle is the "heart".<br />
<br />
The reproductive system appears to be very efficient. Reproduction is asexual, with each snakeman carrying up to fifty eggs inside its body at any one time.<br />
<br />
Left to its own devices this species would be a severe threat to life on earth.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Muton&diff=761Muton2005-02-28T19:16:59Z<p>GazChap: Added UFOpaedia info. General info still to come.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Alien life forms]]<br />
== General Information ==<br />
[[Image:muton.png|right|Muton]]<br />
<br />
== Live Specimen ==<br />
This humanoid creature is physically powerful and intelligent.<br />
<br />
They have a particular appetite for consuming raw flesh of any kind, which they need for sustenance like earth based carnivores.<br />
<br />
They appear to rely on telepathic commands from a race known as [[Ethereal]]s. Once separated from this telepathic link their mental system appears to break down and they die.<br />
<br />
The cybernetic implants are used to enhance their combat performance. They are clearly the foot soldiers for a higher intelligence.<br />
<br />
== Autopsy ==<br />
[[Image:mutonautopsy.png|right|Muton - Autopsy]]<br />
The 'skin' of this creature appears to be an organically created protective armour which is grafted onto the body.<br />
<br />
There are numerous cybernetic implants which are used to enhance the cardio-vascular system and the senses.<br />
<br />
The reproductive organs appear to have been surgically removed. Evidently these unfortunate creatures are limited to a life of warfare and conquest.<br />
<br />
Armour piercing ammunition is not very effective against their toughened skin.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Ethereal&diff=391Ethereal2005-02-28T19:14:31Z<p>GazChap: Added image.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Alien life forms]]<br />
== General Information ==<br />
[[Image:ethereal.png|right|Ethereal]]<br />
The Ethereal race is arguably the most dangerous species that X-COM forces faced during the First Alien War.<br />
<br />
Ethereals are rarely seen on Earth as they prefer to send other races (especially [[Muton]]s) to carry out missions on their behalf.<br />
<br />
Every member of the Ethereal race possesses very powerful [[Psionics|psionic abilities]] that can be used to make X-COM forces panic. It is even possible for Ethereals to take control of X-COM units and use them against us.<br />
<br />
If X-COM ground forces encounter Ethereals on Earth, it will usually be at an [[Alien Base]], or [[Terror Attacks|terror site]]. Terror attacks by Ethereals are the most dangerous for both civilians and X-COM units - apart from having to deal with their psionic abilities, we also have to fight against [[Sectopod]]s.<br />
<br />
== Live Specimen ==<br />
This being has awesome mental powers which allow for telepathic communication and telekinetic abilities.<br />
<br />
The apparently weak physical abilities of this creature are sustained by its mental powers. We do not understand how these telekinetic powers work, since they seem to defy the laws of physics as we know them.<br />
<br />
They are extremely dangerous in any combat situation, where they rely on their mental powers for combat. They rarely appear on Earth since they seem to rely on other races to pursue their objectives.<br />
<br />
== Autopsy ==<br />
[[Image:etherealautopsy.png|right|Ethereal - Autopsy]]<br />
This being is physically retarded and seems incapable of sustaining any life functions.<br />
<br />
The muscles are severely atrophied and the internal organs appear to be under-developed. The sensory organs, including the eyes, do not appear to function at all.<br />
<br />
The brain, however, is well developed and draws on a high proportion of the body's blood supply. It is a mystery as to how this creature can sustain itself without external support.</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Ufonavigation.png&diff=3306File:Ufonavigation.png2005-02-28T19:13:24Z<p>GazChap: UFO Navigation</p>
<hr />
<div>UFO Navigation</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Sectopodautopsy.png&diff=3304File:Sectopodautopsy.png2005-02-28T19:13:07Z<p>GazChap: Sectopod - Autopsy</p>
<hr />
<div>Sectopod - Autopsy</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Sectopod.png&diff=3303File:Sectopod.png2005-02-28T19:13:00Z<p>GazChap: Sectopod</p>
<hr />
<div>Sectopod</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Mutonautopsy.png&diff=3300File:Mutonautopsy.png2005-02-28T19:12:23Z<p>GazChap: Muton - Autopsy</p>
<hr />
<div>Muton - Autopsy</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Muton.png&diff=3299File:Muton.png2005-02-28T19:12:15Z<p>GazChap: Muton</p>
<hr />
<div>Muton</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Examinationroom.png&diff=3298File:Examinationroom.png2005-02-28T19:12:04Z<p>GazChap: Examination Room</p>
<hr />
<div>Examination Room</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Aliensurgery.png&diff=3291File:Aliensurgery.png2005-02-28T19:11:08Z<p>GazChap: Alien Surgery</p>
<hr />
<div>Alien Surgery</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Alienreproduction.png&diff=3290File:Alienreproduction.png2005-02-28T19:11:00Z<p>GazChap: Alien Reproduction</p>
<hr />
<div>Alien Reproduction</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Alienfood.png&diff=3289File:Alienfood.png2005-02-28T19:10:52Z<p>GazChap: Alien Food</p>
<hr />
<div>Alien Food</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Alienentertainment.png&diff=3288File:Alienentertainment.png2005-02-28T19:10:46Z<p>GazChap: Alien Entertainment</p>
<hr />
<div>Alien Entertainment</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Alienalloys.png&diff=3287File:Alienalloys.png2005-02-28T19:10:33Z<p>GazChap: Alien Alloys</p>
<hr />
<div>Alien Alloys</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Etherealautopsy.png&diff=3286File:Etherealautopsy.png2005-02-28T19:10:18Z<p>GazChap: Ethereal - Autopsy</p>
<hr />
<div>Ethereal - Autopsy</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Ethereal.png&diff=3285File:Ethereal.png2005-02-28T19:10:09Z<p>GazChap: Ethereal</p>
<hr />
<div>Ethereal</div>GazChaphttps://temp.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Floaterautopsy.png&diff=3283File:Floaterautopsy.png2005-02-27T17:07:56Z<p>GazChap: Floater - Autopsy</p>
<hr />
<div>Floater - Autopsy</div>GazChap