UFOpaedia - User contributions [en]

User:Pete

2025-12-10T19:13:22Z

Pete: /* Introduction */

== Introduction ==

My name's Pete and I'm webmaster at [http://www.strategycore.co.uk StrategyCore]. I live in England.

My interest in X-COM began in 1995 when my brother bought TFTD, full price at £34.99 - an absolute fortune when you're young (and more money than I've paid for a game in years thinking about it)! I remember watching him play it for hours and hours, and then I learned that the prequel, UFO, was on offer in our local Game store (Game being a computer game franchise here in the UK a while back) and the rest is history.

== The X-COM.co.uk Era ==

Sometime around 2000/2001 I started the X-COM.co.uk website (hosted on Tripod/Lycos before eventually buying that domain. Only recently to this we got dial-up at my parents house and I produced a lot of my own content as well as, not knowing netiquette, "borrowing" a large portion from cyke of AllianceX. After some apologies and a lot of enouragement by cyke I ended up working on the site and it's spin-off and successor to the present day (I was on the verge of quitting before that encouragement and the rest of this entry would never have happened - thanks cyke!). A history of X-COM.co.uk is captured on [http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.x-com.co.uk Archive.org for those who are curious or have suffered memory loss].

== Expansion to UFOAftermath.co.uk ==

Sometime later, when it appeared that there were not going to be any more X-COM games after Enforcer - a game which I strangely enjoyed, though obviously it's not really X-COM - I branched out and built UFOAftermath.co.uk when the UFO games started to come out. Again, a history of that site is listed on [http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ufoaftermath.co.uk Archive.org].

== Evolution to StrategyCore.co.uk ==

In 2004, with Slaughter pretty much single-handedly running UFOAftermath.co.uk and myself wondering what to do next, we decided to branch out and cover more games whilst merging the two smaller sites into one large site known today as [http://www.strategycore.co.uk StrategyCore].

== Looking after an invaluable resource ==

In 2008 (I think) GazChap handed me the reigns of UFOPaedia (in terms of hosting - I couldn't hope to contribute even a fraction of what you guys have done here and am extremely grateful to you all that such a detailed and active resource is available!) and that pretty much brings us up to date on my online history relating to X-COM.

== What I'm up to now ==

I still play UFO on and off. I recently played Apoc again and marvelled at how long it takes to get particularly far through that game - I mean days and days of real time to get through a few weeks compared to being able to complete UFO in a day - and pretty much left it alone again once I got to the alien dimension. It's a fun game with some obvious improvements over UFO, but UFO is far easier to dip in and out of and it gives you the added bonus of feeling like you're gaining some ground against the aliens pretty quickly.

I'm currently planning another major round of updates to StrategyCore as well in the coming months as well as some interviews with the developers of serveral X-COM inspired projects/remakes. I do get sidetracked quite easily and, sadly, it appears to be one of the things I'm known best for - but come on, StarCraft II, Team Fortress 2 and the Left 4 Dead games are a good excuse for a distraction! ;)

Talk:Main Page

2014-01-01T11:08:52Z

Pete:

'''Welcome To All Rookies'''

This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them.

Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages.

For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.

To start a new topic simply press the '''edit''' button above. Then place your <nowiki>==Topic Name==</nowiki> like it is written here.
* To add a line you can either type <nowiki>----</nowiki> or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen.
* If replying to an existing topic use colons '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' before your answer
* Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end.
* Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the [[Guidelines to writing articles|guidelines]] page.

That's it. Happy editing!
----

Old articles have been moved to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive]] for later perusal.

__TOC__

==XCOM: UFO Defense==

Update: Well, game's about to be released and the [[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)]] page and table have been worked on, and now there will surely be more people stopping by and wanting to know more. So the question I'm asking everyone is to have a look at the current status of the new game page and think about when the new table should be moved to the UFOPaedia's Main page? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:23, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

== New Main Page layout. ==

I'm working on a new Main Page layout. Found here: [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User:Kokkan/Main_Page]. So I was wondering if it would be possible to apply something like this ([http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ#How_do_I_hide_the_main_page_title.3F])? Preferable (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:NoTitle) --[[User:Kokkan|Kokkan]] 16:34, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
:Looks good to me, just one thing: why is the OpenXcom logo displayed? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 09:11, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:: That was just a aesthetic choice. =) --[[User:Kokkan|Kokkan]] 12:36, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
::: I see :) Well the thing is that it's that placing that logo there is going to bring a lot of attention to that project. My question was if that was intentional or not. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 12:43, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:::: Kokkan, would it be possible to squeeze the 'featured article' on the corner below the 'UFOpaedia News' (probably enlarge the corner)? I like how the new design has a compact look to it and to me it would look better if the 'featured article' was integrated with the news sections. Or probably even switch its position and put it on top rather than the 'UFOpaedia news' [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 12:57, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
::::: Right now it depends on the width of the browser and the content in the Featured Article. I might be able to set some auto-width on the XCOM New window. --[[User:Kokkan|Kokkan]] 09:11, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to bring up the Enemy Unknown 2012 table as the first table, at least for some time after the game is released. With my current maximum resolution both tables still appear one over the other, and I think the UFO Defense table might need a little reorganization and after it is done both games go back to being side by side. Or any other ideas. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:15, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::: What?! This layout should work with all resolutions down to 1280x720 without stacking items. So it should be fine on everything except the smallest ( <11" ) notepads and pads. --[[User:Kokkan|Kokkan]] 04:49, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: My resolution on my monitor is 1280x1024 and both tables are stacked. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 05:00, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Same issue here with the overlapping tables, and my screen's 1024 pixels wide. Doesn't look any better on the tablet. Quick solution: Break the table out and have it on top ala the original's old main table, and have the original follow immediately after.

A while back I had wanted to redesign the front page but had to shelve it (and then quickly forgot about it). That was to make the main page just contain the news and a list of box art for the various games that point the users to separate main pages for the different titles, allowing the main tables for each title to be a bit more elaborate. Perhaps this might be a good time to resurrect that concept? [[User:NKF|NKF]] 07:15, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
:I'll place the EU 2012 table on top of the original game table (*sniff* *sniff*) for now until a permanent solution is found or the issue is fixed. I'm good with that solution or any other.
:Quick fix: I've moved it to the Featured section. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 08:03, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
----

:Hi folks, I think the partition to having the XCOM 2012 on its own main page is a really good one... now, folks can go to town on it, without having to keep touching the original fansite per se. But it is still kept close by having a highlighted announcement - Thanks for that, Kokkan! Some other comments:
[[File:X-COM UFOpaedia screen.jpg|100px|right|thumb|It's U<u>FO</u>paedia]]
::*Do we need two "action" pictures at a time? Maybe we could have one, and use it to help balance the X-COM and the UFOpaedia news so that both "sides" of the news end at about the same place. For that matter, either side of the news could otherwise be tightened up, or expanded. But I wish they both ended at the same place so the main page looks more professional.
::*This is the time to make the standard for the new XCOM 2012 pages. Can I please ask that, for the URLs themselves, we not put parentheses around EU2012? I see it leading to a lot of hassle because ultimately there will be citations in citations in citations and other future complexities, including for other sites trying to cite us... parens just make everything more difficult and clunky. If you agree but say "but it'd be a hassle to fix it now", I say that's the wrong answer because it's about to explode (I'm sure!!!), so it's really now or never. Just append EU2012, without parens... everybody can figure out what it means. :)
::*I'm not sure just how/when it happened, but there's a lot of "U<u>fo</u>paedia" on the main page. We use the original game as the convention setter, right? It's a minor thing, but still, we should have a convention, one way or the other. Does someone think it should be Ufopaedia?
::*To me, the brief OpenXcom logo nip slip (laugh) raises the issue that I wish we highlighted these efforts better... maybe they could use a little shout-out at the bottom of X-COM News section (just a very brief mention or link - little or no write-up), instead of the tiny section they now have, way at the bottom of the main UFOpaedia page.
:Again, the above points are minor... the big thing is the new place from EU2012 (great idea!). Thanks!! -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 14:24, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

:: We can set the hight at fixed values, but I really don't see a point to it. Since the size of the content will change. I prefer the parentheses in the naming, it clarifies what game the page relates to, and I don't see an extensive problem in linking to pages. Like ( [[Enemy_Unknown_(2012)|Enemy Unknown]]). On the UFOpaedia & OpenXcom logo, I fully agree. --[[User:Kokkan|Kokkan]] 09:11, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
::: One easy trick to link pages with the (EU2012) suffix is to open the top page on the category, which usually contains a list of all items related with that subject, press edit and then copy/paste the links. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 09:19, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

== XCOM Sidebar logo==
One possibility I thought of would be to replace the old logo/badge on the upper left corner of the wiki with the newer XCOM badge. Here's some options:<br/>
[[File:Xcomnewlogo.png|100px|XCOM badge used ingame on the soldiers armor - I can't get a better pic than this one]]
[[File:Blue badge XCOM EU.png|100px|XCOM icon used on packing and ingame for menus, etc.]]
[[File:Xcom_eu_logo.jpg|100px|And there's also the game logo]] <br>

Anymore ideas? Which would be best? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 13:44, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

:The game logo is much cooler, while the insignias seem much more real-to-life. That said, I vote for cooler. The essence of the old X-COM was how scary cool it was. -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 14:33, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

:: I say keep the old X-logo, show the roots and lets not take over the entire wiki with EU2012. Use the new logos at appropriate EU2012 pages. --[[User:Kokkan|Kokkan]] 08:55, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

::: Not selling ourselves completely eh? ;) Well I just have to say I love the yellow and black insignia - that's probably the first XCOM logo/icon I really enjoy :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 09:15, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

:Showing roots is good, too. The gold one does not seem as high-rez as the other... can we get it any better? -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 09:55, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

== Disambiguation of 1994 vs 2012 Entries ==

See for example the Sectoid entry, where a link to Sectoid (EU2012) has just been added as the first line of the entry. Are we going to do that for every entry that has the same name in 1994 as in 2012? That's a lot of minor edits someone will need to make! And putting these cross references under See Also would be less intrusive. But maybe a lot of enquiries from new site users are going to be related to EU 2012, and they will be confused if the cross reference is not clear and up-front. Let's agree a standard approach for this. As an alternative we could use disambiguation pages that show links to both the 1994 and the 2012 versions. Instead or as well, we could start moving 1994 pages by appending (EU1994) to the name. That's also quite a lot of work, but may be clearer in the long term. Even more work comes in if we were to use for example [[Sectoid]] as the disambiguation page, because that would mean rewriting all links to Sectoid in all the 1994 entries of the Ufopaedia. Thoughts everyone? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:56, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

On a related point - do we really need to append (EU2012) to every entry? I would think it's only necessary when the same term is used in both games. So it makes sense for Sectoid, but not so much sense for Gollop Chamber. I would suggest that for a term that is ''definitely'' unique to EU 2012, the (EU2012) suffix is not required. But there should always be an EU 2012 Category tag on the entry. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:28, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

: If we don't tag everything now, do we risk the same issue we're running into with UFO Defense? Also, the new Sectoid page has a space between EU and 2012. No other new page has that. My OCD is making me want to stab people. Is there a way to edit it to not have a space? As far as which way to go, I prefer disambiguation pages much like wikipedia does, but that typically requires tagging both. I would be happy to do the leg work and chase down all the 1994 ones but I don't like how EU1994 looks (especially since it says 1994 in the Games column to the left [sorry - fixed that - Spike] ) and I don't know how to update page names. --[[User:PixelOrange|PixelOrange]] 06:34, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

:: Yes, we do need to keep the games a part to not run into conflicting pages/links. Hence we suffix ALL pages on the NEW game ''(EU2012)''; this is the simplest and most clear way to do it. It does make it a bit of a hassle to link stuff yes. Even if some parts are unique, keep with the naming convention to keep it all as clear as possible. No, There is NO WAY we can do the same for the original game, there is just to much pages and links (and if we start and don't complete or something goes wrong, the wiki is in a fucked up state). So all pages on Enemy Unknown without the suffix refers to the original game. --[[User:Kokkan|Kokkan]] 07:12, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

:::So, if we're not going to retroactively update the old Enemy Unknown, redirects at the top of every page is my favorite choice (just as they do over at wikipedia). It gives you a quick link right at the top of the page, it's non-intrusive, and it's easy to implement across the board. --[[User:PixelOrange|PixelOrange]] 07:38, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
:::: OK but that's only going to be workable for the EU2012 pages, right? Any modification to all of the EU1994 pages is a big task, whether it's a disambiguation link at the top of the page, or a systematic rename to suffix "EU1994" on to the end of the page name - the workload is similar. I guess we could take a policy that says - anytime you create an EU2012 page, check to see if an EU1994 page of the same name exists. If so, add disambiguation links to the top of both pages. Or, for that matter, Move the EU1994 page by adding the suffix to its name. By the way, Move is how you rename a page, and the old name is preserved as a redirect to the new name. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:12, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

::::: I agree that disambiguation notices/links on top of pages probably is the best way to handle this (as in the [[Sectoid]] page). Moving and creating disambiguation pages is to much workload, and to have some (EU1994) pages and some without would be even more confusing. So I say no (EU1994) suffixes at all. --[[User:Kokkan|Kokkan]] 09:17, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

:::::: I don't think it's that cut and dried myself. Moving (renaming) the old pages is less workload than creating the disambiguation links. Also, adding the disambiguation links will disrupt the style / formatting of the existing EU 1994 pages which were not designed to have these links at the top, and which have had a lot of effort put into their layout over the years. Creating a disambiguation page with the "base" name, eg "Sectoid", the same name as the existing 1994 page, is a huge workload, because then all the links will break. Creating a new page called "Sectoid (disambiguation" and redirecting to it is not much better. A simple Move/rename will not break any links, meaning low workload - same as inserting a disambiguation link/notice. Keep in mind that the scope of the problem is only the pages for terms that exist in both games. "Sectoid (EU1994)" vs "Sectoid (EU2012)" is part of the required disambiguation workload. Heavy Cannon (unique to EU1994) vs Alloy Cannon (unique to EU2012) does not need to be part of the workload. It's a safe strategy to keep naming all new 2012 pages with the EU2012 suffix, but whatever method is selected does not need to be applied to all pages in both games. For example, we do not label all TFTD pages with (TFTD). We don't say "Tentaculat (TFTD)" and "Chrysallid (EU)". We do say "Zombie (TFTD)" and "Zombie (EU)" (even though the differences are only cosmetic). [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:51, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

::::::: We already had this discussion a while ago because of Apocalypse and the common elements of the series that extend to it and TFTD. I don't recall the discussion but you guys mentioned the main topics but the idea was to start using the suffixes, specially when creating new pages, and not to worry about the existing pages because of the workload involved. It's basically to avoid the mess of the original game's pages regarding naming and to help categorize identify pages.
::::::: This method makes linking a bit harder but it's a matter of using a few tricks (which I already use when linking on the original game), like open and edit the section page (Soldiers, Weapons, Alien Life Forms, etc.) and just copy/paste the links you need. That's also why the section pages usually consist of lists of items.
::::::: Finally me and Spike can delete, move and rename pages, as an administrators so just let us know what you need :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 11:09, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: I've been thinking about the effects these new XCOM games (EU 2012 and the upcoming FPS) may have on the future of the series. If XCOM sees more games even further in the future that involve the aliens from the original, I don't think links at the top of the page is going to do the trick. We should make disimbaguation pages now to pave the way for recurring aliens and items that may make an appearance in any potential future installments. Just a thought!--[[User:SuicidalSectoid|SuicidalSectoid]] 21:26, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Another option that I've been thinking over is asking Pete if he could set up a separate Wiki for the modern title(s) and keep this one for the classic titles. It would keep things tidy, and there's actually little crossover or common material between the new and old apart for historical and ancestry referential purposes. [[User:NKF|NKF]] 21:46, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

:: Personally I think all games of the series, old or new, should be all united in a single wiki. It helps this one grow, instead of just running out of material. It also shows how the series began and progressed to become what it is today. It helps people who are new to the series find older games in the series far easier and learn all their quirks and strategies. Of course there is what I mentioned above to consider, if this series really has been revived, then more games in the series may emerge and the new wiki could end up being "untidy".--[[User:SuicidalSectoid|SuicidalSectoid]] 10:54, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

=== Why not to move 2012 OR vanilla ufopaedia stuff to another hosting? ===
<IMHO>
With this X-COM Enemy Unknown (2012) classy ufopaedia became almost unreliable (unsearchable) source of information. "Modification history" is spammed with 2012 project, which has nothing to vanilla xcom. There are no "filters" which could make it slightly better. Moreover, whole internet become spoiled and spammed in sense of searching something about ufo defense. And it's a pity. Because Ufopaedia is not The Ufopaedia anymore.
Wouldn't it better to have totally another hosting?
After all XCOM:Enemy Unknown (2012) doesn't even have UFOPAEDIA.

With this 2012 heavy spam I stopped to make my Xcom1/Xcom2 contribution here. That's one of results.
--[[User:Volutar|Volutar]] 13:28, 11 November 2013 (EST)
</IMHO>
::: Totally agree with NKF and disagree with SuicidalSectoid. Mixing new with old contents makes mess in both sides. It would be better to setup different wikis with different modification histories for classic xcoms(1-3) and for new titles. And not to get into conflict to each other. There's nothing in common between them in terms of game mechanics. Personally I was very annoyed and disappointed seeing modification history spammed with 2012 info, and having no chances to monitor what's happening with ufodefense/tftd info. And seeing how fast my ufodefense info update drowned I stopped to make any updates. --[[User:Volutar|Volutar]] 14:43, 11 November 2013 (EST)
::::Have you tried using the [[http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist|My watchlist]] function on the top right? You can use that to track changes to the specific pages you're editing if you don't want to see all the changes.
:::::My complain is about spam in change history. I just don't want to see any history of EU2012 pages. Unfortunately there's no such filter. To use that "watch" I'll have to tick evey non EU2012 page and new non-EU2012 pages also should be ticked by default (that's clearly impossible.--[[User:Volutar|Volutar]] 14:08, 12 November 2013 (EST)
::::::What you call 'spam' I call a lot of it my personal work. The same way I call work all of the edits I've done on UFO/TFTD/Apocalypse. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:43, 12 November 2013 (EST)
:::::::Is there an option in the prefrences that allows us to set all edits to minor edits unless otherwise specified?--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 17:35, 12 November 2013 (EST)
::::This wiki has always been about the game series: Apocalypse/Interceptor/Enforcer have about as much in common with UFO/TFTD as Enemy Unknown (2012) and The Bureau, regarding game mechanics. And now that there's a ton of new information on the internet because of the new games and new wikis, that's the main strength that separates The UFOPaedia from all the rest: it is the only site that focuses on the whole series, not a specific game. And if we split the wiki into smaller ones, you're basically contributing to turn UFO/TFTD into footnotes, because only the few players of the old games will know about UFOPaedia.org, since it's not anymore on the new game. By having all of the titles together (and the specific pages with the common aspects of the series, like [[Sectoid]]/[[Sectoid (EU2012)]] crosslinked we're contributing to keep the old games alive. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 15:32, 11 November 2013 (EST)
:::::And how big the UFOPaedia is in helping to pass the torch? Read it from Jake Solomon itself, lead designer of EU2012: "'''I've spent more time there than I'd like to tally'''" [https://twitter.com/SolomonJake/status/325392042219933696] [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:08, 11 November 2013 (EST)
::::::Sorry, I'm just not interested in EU2012. And one notice - this wiki was never about Interceptor/Enforcer. --[[User:Volutar|Volutar]] 14:08, 12 November 2013 (EST)
:::::::Nor did I say it was only about those two games. Read the top of the Main Page of the UFOPaedia: "This site is dedicated to X-COM, a computer strategy game series introduced in 1994 by MicroProse." [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:21, 12 November 2013 (EST)
::::And would you be willing to move all the pages over to another wiki.
::::Also it is a bit late to be separating them now, we have an almost complete EU2012 section and half completed Bureau section, it would take us ages to separate them.
::::: Yeah, so I quit updating this resource. It'd be easier to setup new information reosurce, without spam of casual modern pseudo-ufo-like games, than to split this on vanilla (xcom1-3) / non-vanilla.--[[User:Volutar|Volutar]] 14:08, 12 November 2013 (EST)
:::::: You don't like the new games, I respect that. You want to go through the work of setting a new wiki, I'll respect it also. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:43, 12 November 2013 (EST)
::::My third is that most of the people who edit the wiki commonly edit both, so separating the wiki would be like trying to force them onto one wiki where they are unable to monitor the other wiki.
::::My final point is that hardly anyone actually edits the original three games' pages anymore because they are almost – if not fully – complete. So on the Original X-COM wiki you would get edits every now and again, which would make it less worthwhile to host. But hosting them on the same wiki allows for fans of the new to see where it all began and begin to play those games.
::::Just some ideas--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 15:21, 11 November 2013 (EST)
:::::Something else to add about what Ditto51 said about the first 3 games pages being complete: before Enemy Unknown 2012 was announced you could spend weeks on the UFOPaedia without any meaningful edits taking place. That pretty much showed the general lack of interest and activity regarding the first 3 games. Do we want to get back to that? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 15:41, 11 November 2013 (EST)

Aah - Where to start?

The new games are new, so they are in the spotlight, and it's not unexpected for there to be an explosion of new data to chronicle on the wiki. Once things have settled the update pace is likely to slow back down back to what it was.

I must comment however that recently there are a lot of micro updates on the same pages within a short span of time. That does have a tendency to fill up the recent pages very quickly. Preview folks!
:Mainly my fault there, specially since I forget to check the "minor edit" box quite a bit during mass edits. But I also feel that we're lacking something to individually keep track of specific pages, like Volutar has mentioned. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:36, 12 November 2013 (EST)
Next, looking at the time stamp on my comment in the conversation above, about a year out, I must admit that I completely forgot about that conversation. Likely because I was too busy playing EU2012 at the time and never did get round to come back and elaborate on my vision.

My thought at the time wasn't to move it to a new host or make a whole new UfopaediaV2.org just for the new games. Heck no, just keep it as the one wiki to rule all the X-Com wikis. I was thinking one wiki with interlinked subwikis that share the same resources, so there will be no loss in the legacy of the originals at all. In fact, it would be no different to the end user than it is now.

Administration wise it would be a hassle to start off with, but you then would have less to worry about disambiguations or conflicting names and any updates on the recent updates or searches will be context sensitive and relevant to the game or series you're looking at. Section-wide changes like skins could also be implemented without having to update each and every single page. It may also offer the possibility of fostering smaller community of contributors that want to focus on particular games who would otherwise be shy or intimidated to contribute to the wiki as it is now.

The idea was a bit of an offshoot of how multilingual wikis are implemented. Not quite, but just an idea to manage it in smaller chunks. But all that doesn't really matter to me anymore. I'll just get back to casually tending to any pages that take my fancy. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:34, 12 November 2013 (EST)
: If you look at my update history you'll notice that I was updating vanilla pages pretty often, but stopped as EU2012 came out (sep'2012). Just because changes was heavily spammed, and I felt how this site became ufopaedia2012 (though there is no ufopaedia in EU2012), so I lost interest in fixing unreliable info and adding new for vanilla. Just what for? It will anyways be drowned in this EU2012 massive promotion. Which spoiled whole internet. When you'll search for UFO:Enemy Unknown you'll still find EU2012 info. And it will be a luck to get anything about vanilla. I feel like vanilla ufopeadia became kind of unnecessary here, so i think I better move on. Thanks for your points. --[[User:Volutar|Volutar]] 14:08, 12 November 2013 (EST)

<center><big>'''Seriously, lets just leave it now, this was a conversation from a year ago that would have been relevant then, but now there is just too much information to move onto a separate site now, so lets leave it as it is.--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 17:35, 12 November 2013 (EST)'''</big></center>

== Other Wiki ==
I have recently found another wiki bearing the XCOM title. It focuses purely on the remake and frankly it is pointless considering the Ufopaedia is already established.

I'm just getting the word out.--[[User:SuicidalSectoid|SuicidalSectoid]] 14:08, 24 December 2012 (EST)

:Got a link to it? Redundant or not, it's nice to see other eager about the game. [[User:NKF|NKF]] 16:00, 24 December 2012 (EST)

::[http://xcom.wikia.com/wiki/XCOM_Wiki This one], I'd say. Most likely exists because someone thinks every new game needs to be on wikia. - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 05:03, 25 December 2012 (EST)
:::I've noticed it even before the new game was out. They have nice design and content for the new game and a lot of traffic from being on wikia but all those commercial advertisements and structure and being restricted to the new games are the negative factors. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 12:13, 25 December 2012 (EST)
::::Ugh. I wouldn't describe wikia's design as "nice". It's superficially impressive, but crammed with advertising and if you try to actually get anything done on it it's horrible. There's a reason most of wowwiki deserted wikia when they imposed that format. [[User:Binkyuk|Binkyuk]] 12:45, 25 December 2012 (EST)
:::::By design I mean the navigation elements that make it easier to access game sections. Visually I also think it has too many elements. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 13:54, 25 December 2012 (EST)

== Pretty Colours ==

You know what'd be cool? Different page themes depending on the game. Say for example, yellow for TFTD, red for Apocalypse, black / dark grey for XCOM, and so on. Or maybe even custom wallpaper for each title - nothing overly eye-catching, just an easy way to differentiate what you're looking at with a glance.

We'd need an extension to do it (I've already got my eye on [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension%3aPageCSS a simple looking one]), but before I bug Pete about it, what say ye all? The way I see it, we'd need to make one template page per "theme" - but then we'd need to edit just about every page on the wiki to implement them...

- <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 02:59, 18 January 2013 (EST)

: I wanted to do something similar many years ago when I started making the navbars so that when people went to a page, they'd go "oh, this is EU or TFTD" just by the colours. Didn't get received very well if I remember correctly. But, with todays better versions of wiki software and scripts, why not? Go for it I say. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 17:47, 18 January 2013 (EST)
: I think that's a wonderful idea, the issue is to pick a good color design that retains readability. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 18:30, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:Great Idea! I second what Hobbes is saying about readability. If you can't read what's on the page there's no point to new colours.--[[User:SuicidalSectoid|SuicidalSectoid]] 17:45, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

<nowiki>{{StyleTest01}}</nowiki>So, yeah, I did bug Pete, and not long after he delivered: We've had the plugin online a while now...

Anyway, this afternoon I sat down and plugged some stuff into it. It works much like I hoped (though unfortunately it doesn't have much control over images - can't set them as background for eg). Adding the tag ''<nowiki>{{StyleTest01}}</nowiki>'' to a page and saving it (or, perhaps for now, previewing it - though I've applied it to THIS page for now) applies the effects within that template.

That one's just an experiment, might be a little garish maybe (I basically grabbed colour codes out of screenshots from EU2012; I won't call myself an artist), and doesn't yet override every wiki element that needs to be handled - but I reckon it's a decent start. :)

- <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 03:47, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
:I like it. [[User:Leman Russ|Leman Russ]] 04:05, 21 April 2013 (EDT) ''Thanks! - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 06:41, 21 April 2013 (EDT)''
:Nice, I like trying to replicate but the colors sure need some testing. One thing I'm wondering: is it possible to use the font used in EU2012 (it seems to be Century Gothic)? Another suggestion I'd make is to replace the XCOM logo on the top left with the new one.
:I've applied the styling to the page I'm currently working on: [[Class_Builds_(EU2012)]]. The main issue is the color of the links (dark blue isn't the best for contrast). Another thing needed would be to change the default colors used in the table templates to match the new style. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 04:36, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
::Apparently Century Gothic is not installed on most machines by default. It may be possible to load it on to the wiki somewhere and get viewers to download it as needed, but I really dunno. I'm guessing 'MS PGothic' is the best match that's widespread - I've tweaked the template to use that if Century Gothic isn't available, or to fall back to the wiki default if neither are on the viewer's machine.

::I did try switching the logo, but apparently the plugin doesn't allow it. Or the icon isn't accessible to CSS. Or I didn't know which element to tweak. What I've read specifically states I shouldn't be able to use the required "background-image" tag, but that's exactly what I needed to do to change the toolbar at the top of the page...

::I HAVE overridden the main 'wikitable' template, and there should be no blue links visible (except for ones leading off-site, I forgot about those)... In fact I'd go as far as to say the table looks great on that Class Builds page in particular (where the text matches the icons) - are you seeing what I'm seeing? [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/BombBloke/StyleTest01_01_zps93e4e66e.jpg A screenshot may be in order]? I'm a little worried about browser compatibility in regards to my CSS overriding that which is already in the wiki site files.

::Depending on how I go for time I may deal with image thumbnails, the category bar, table of contents etc tonight.

::Please feel free to experiment if you feel so inclined! Either make a new ''StyleTestXX'' page and copy/paste my starter version in, or go right ahead and modify mine! If you lack any tools on your system for colour code generation, [http://www.2createawebsite.com/build/hex-colors.html here's an online one].

::- <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 06:41, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
:::On my laptop I see it like this, I think it's the same and it seems to be using Century Gothic: [[:File:style1.png|style1.png]] - [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]]

::::Ah yes, that was a match of colours, though you're definitely using a different font (it's installed by Office, see).

::::Still not sure what you're meaning about the tables, but I've switched monitors and see what you're saying about the links. I think maybe yellowy? Dunno.

::::- <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 09:50, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::Yellow links look better than the previous ones. What I meant about the tables is that on the Class Builds the background color of each table is table while the page background is dark grey. I got Century Gothic installed (it's a free font IIRC), is it the one being used? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 11:20, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
::::::Er...

::::::The cells should have a black background, the header cells should be grey. This is what I intended, though if you're expecting something different (or have a different suggestion) I'm more then happy to try other styles.

::::::I'd say you're indeed using Century Gothic. If you check the "font-family" line in the template, the web browser reads it from left to right, and uses the first font specified that exists on the computer (so if it can't find one, it falls back to the next, and so on). Hence if you start removing fonts from the front of the list and previewing the page you can compare each one. - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 19:11, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::::There were a couple of white backgrounds on table but those seen to have disappeared. Century Gothic still looks the better (and it seems to be free) since it is the one (or really close) used in Enemy Unknown 2012. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:43, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
::::::::Best I can make out it should be possible to use an uploaded font no worries, though I'd need to bug Pete to actually get it on to the server.

::::::::In the meantime, bold tildes are pretty much rendered blobs under PGothic ('''~'''). They looking ok to you? - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 09:04, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::::::This is what I see using it as a font [[:File:PSGothic.png]] [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 17:37, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm trying the new Style in a few pages and it is looking great. What I'm starting to wonder is what will happen to the other pages (non-EU2012). With UFO, TFTD and Apoc it should be possible to replicate it (although I have quite a few doubts about TFTD's colors...). But what about the other pages not directly related to a game? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 17:55, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

::::::::::We can currently only skin pages we manually add the template link to. That means that certain pages (like recent changes or page history) ''can't'' be skinned, not unless the skin files are changed on the server side... Which'd be a lot harder then skinning through these templates is (lots of files to modify with no simple way of previewing the changes, unless someone sets up their own wiki to play with on a home computer).

::::::::::In short, for now we may just have to leave 'em. While it might currently seem a bit jarring with just a black skin and a white skin, I think it won't seem so bad once there's a few others floating around the place.

::::::::::In particular I was thinking of leaving talk pages unskinned regardless of what game they belong to (if only because most articles don't HAVE a talk page). - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 19:05, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::::::::Please tell me you're not sticking to the green background when showing a page's changes... ;) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 14:01, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
::::::::::::Can't think of anything better for it myself. :|

::::::::::::You do mean the green background that goes against added lines, yes? The bit of code to tweak goes along the lines of:

:::::::::::: td.diff-addedline {
:::::::::::: background: #559E06;
:::::::::::: }

::::::::::::- <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 09:11, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Indent resetinator activated! I certainly hope this is a work in progress. It's very hard to read on my smartphone browser, and even on my laptop it's a real squint-fest. I'd probably recommend a slightly lighter dark background rather than having extreme darks or lights.

But that aside, we could ask Pete to implement a few snazzy skins that you can access from the appearance tab under your preferences screen. The skin will then apply to all the wiki pages with no specific skins assigned to them. Mind you, this change will only affect the individual accounts. [[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:36, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

:Yep, if I considered it done it'd have a rather more official looking name and I'd be slapping it onto pages left right and center. ;)

:I will say I can't see much room for improvement myself - I'm no graphic design artist. I'm more then happy to implement any mock-ups people show me if they're not interested in tweaking the colours themselves, though.

:- <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 09:11, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
::Well, no one else suggested improvements, so I'm wondering if we should start using the new style on the EU2012 pages. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 10:52, 26 August 2013 (EDT)

::: I disagree with the use of individual styles over-riding the default one at special pages, it makes the wiki inconsistent and messy. <br/>If you are to add a new style to site, do it RIGHT and add it as a skin in the user preferences. --[[User:Kokkan|Kokkan]] 07:34, 6 September 2013 (EDT)
:::: I agree since I made a test the other day of the proposed EU2012 style and I wasn't satisfied with the results regarding readability - the colors make it too tiring to read. I have no idea of how to add skins though [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 17:10, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

==The Bureau==
We better start thinking of adding a section for the game since it will be released next month. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 08:30, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
: And we have the starting page and table for the [[The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau]] online, although it is completely bare for the moment. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:30, 22 July 2013 (EDT)

==UFO: Alien Invasion==
I am one of the developers of [http://ufoai.org UFO: Alien Invasion], an open-source game inspired by X-Com. Ufopaedia.org taught me how to not suck at the original X-Com years ago and I've always been grateful. I wondered if the maintainers of ufopaedia.org would be interested in adding support for our game. While we have our own development wiki where we could host strategy advice, I think there are several benefits to having a third-party strategy guide. Of course, the fact that our game undergoes rolling development will lead to extra maintenance work. But I think this could be limited by only providing data on the latest stable version (released once every year or two). I am willing to undertake the work to prepare the initial content for our upcoming stable release 2.5. --[[User:H-Hour|H-Hour]] 09:55, 26 August 2013 (EDT)
:Hi there. I'm one of the administrators and although I can't speak for the other admins or the site owner (Pete), I think that it would make sense to add UFO:AI to the Featured Projects section. I'll ask them if there's any objection on the UFOPaedia's [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/UFOPaediaorg-f96.html| forum] at Strategycore and if they're good about it, I'll add the link to the wiki sidebar. Should the initial page be named [[UFO:AI]] or do you prefer something else? Also, the game needs a wiki suffix, to be used in the guide's individual pages name and for their category tags, as an example all XCOM: Enemy Unknown pages use <nowiki>(EU2012)</nowiki>. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 10:25, 26 August 2013 (EDT)
::That's great, Hobbes. UFO:AI is fine for both the main page name and as a page suffix. If you think it is better given our rolling development, we can include the version for clarity (UFOAI2.5). --[[User:H-Hour|H-Hour]] 10:44, 26 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Better to keep version out otherwise it might be confusing. I'm just going to wait a day or two to give the other admins time to read it. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 11:47, 26 August 2013 (EDT)
:I've just added UFO:AI to the Wiki Sidebar. Happy editing :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 05:33, 28 August 2013 (EDT)
::Thanks Hobbes! I'll get to it soon. --[[User:H-Hour|H-Hour]] 11:08, 28 August 2013 (EDT)
:I've put up the initial table. Please let me know if there is anything that should be changed regarding the format or structure to ensure it complies with ufopaedia standards. --[[User:H-Hour|H-Hour]] 10:41, 29 August 2013 (EDT)
::We don't really have any standard for those tables, just use what you feel is more comfortable/logic :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 11:25, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

== Recent Spambot attacks ==

I've sent Pete a message about the recent spammer issue. I've suggested a temporary halt on new accounts.

Also, just a note to other members, please don't alter new pages created by the spammers and wait for one of the admins to sort it out. It adds a bit of confusion in the clean up process. Mainly because the block option is near the member name in the recent changes, I've caught myself nearly blocking a valid member a few times now! If I have, you have my apologies. Please go to the official Ufopaedia forum and give me a buzz.

[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 20 September 2013 (EDT)
:Would it be possible to determine the IP of the spammer(s) and block it instead, as Ditto51 has suggested in my Talk Page? I think that putting a halt on new accounts may be a drastic measure since the amount of fake accounts isn't overwhelming for admins to deal with. Another thing I've been considering is to add new admins to help with the running of the wiki. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 06:59, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

:Since to create an account we need to do that weird word/letter enter thing to create an account, wouldn't it be an actual person who is extremely bored? So wouldn't they eventually get bored of making accounts and then getting blocked?--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 17:48, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

::My guess is someone has developed some software that can see through our Captcha. Given the naming conventions and whatnot I doubt this is manual work. [[User:Binkyuk|Binkyuk]] 05:37, 24 September 2013 (EDT)

[[User:SonyaUliana]] has got the same name format at the other Spam Accounts, and I'm pretty sure [[S.H.I.V. (EU2012)|SHIVs]] can't save civilians during terror missions or deactivate powernodes or bombs on the bomb defusal councilmissions (see [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=S.H.I.V._%28EU2012%29&action=historysubmit&diff=49656&oldid=49502]). --[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 05:05, 28 September 2013 (EDT)
:Well, it looks the same name format but there's a regular user at the 2K forums named SayuriUliana and although I don't use SHIVs myself I seem to recall a few discussions at the 2K forums mentioning their use to save civilians. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 07:31, 28 September 2013 (EDT)
::Ah, okay. I was just wandering.--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 07:37, 28 September 2013 (EDT)

I know that we really do not want to stop all User Creations, but the number of spam accounts have increased recently and so when you look through the Recent Changes all you can see are the new Users. Although we could possibly find and install something that allows people to remove User Creations and Blocks from the Recent Changes menu.--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 09:44, 8 October 2013 (EDT)
:We're still waiting for Pete to answer NKF's message and to temporary suspend all account creation so that the bot will go away. Otherwise it will still be a lot of unnecessary work to have to delete pages/block users, even if there's an easy way to do it. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 12:09, 8 October 2013 (EDT)
::I meant make it easier for those of us who aren't admins and so don't have the ability to see the user creations and blocks so that we can just see what we want to see plus maybe the extra pages the spam accounts make--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 16:05, 8 October 2013 (EDT)

Ditto51, I really really wish we had that sort of filter too. We do have a recents cleanup plugin that admins use to manually hide the signups and blocks, but it's a manual process and not suited to a large number of attacks like we've got at present.

By the way, Hobbes, it probably can't hurt to send Pete a PM as well. There's not too much we can do until he gets back, but the more the merrier. [[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:47, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
:Just sent Pete a PM [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 05:36, 9 October 2013 (EDT)

Over on Bulbapedia they have it so new accounts can't edit their Userspace or make new pages in the mainspace until they make an edit on a mainspace article. Have we got something like this implimented, if not then we should so that the spam accounts should, in theory, be unable to create pages or edit their Userspace.--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 03:06, 2 December 2013 (EST)
:If not, we could make a "Introduce Yourself" page for new users to make a short quip, like which XCOM they prefer. Other option could be making spelling/grammar edits on pages to identify not spam. Otherwise if they make new page or edit namespace first, instant red flag?--[[User:DracoGriffin|DracoGriffin]] 17:34, 2 December 2013 (EST)

I've just sent Pete another message asking about the spambot situation and possible solutions. I've also asked about the new wiki functionalities mentioned on the thread below this one. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 17:52, 2 December 2013 (EST)

== Extensions ==

Over on wikia ot is possible to put sub-pages into tabs so that when u click on one it has different info than the other. If we had them on here then we could split the main page into 2 different tabs with old X-COM on one and new XCOM on the other while leaving the news where it is and the spin off/based off titles below it.

Just an idea--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 04:08, 25 November 2013 (EST)
:Just checked to see how subpages work on Wikimedia but by default they're limited to the user and talk pages. Might be interesting to implement for specific game items that are changed between EU and EW (Chitin Plating, etc.). I'm still waiting for Pete to fix the login process though since we need to get rid of the spammers before anything else. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 06:56, 25 November 2013 (EST)

:: I've been spending some time browsing the Minecraft wiki recently, and a couple of convenient extensions like expanding/collapsing content would be nice to have here as well. It would handy for the EW content as per the discussion elsewhere. It would be worth forming a list of the extensions we could use (and a link to said extension on www.mediawiki.org if possible). Once the signup issue is sorted we could suggest them to Pete. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 07:06, 25 November 2013 (EST)

:::The info about the subpage is here [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Subpages]. The other extension we were discussing before was spoilers [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Spoilers]. We might as well ask this already for Pete so that he can set time for it. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 07:33, 25 November 2013 (EST)
::::Spoilers is now installed. Subpages are an interesting idea - essentially categorising the content better as you would on a normal website (if you were thinking of going /terror from the deep/aliens or something like that?). Since MediaWiki handles moved pages pretty sensibly (moves the page and its Talk page to the new location and points the old URL to the new page) there shouldn't be an issue with this. I would say that it's more of a library format then and it needs a few librarians to be in charge of the categorisation, but you guys seem to be doing a grand job of that anyway :) --[[User:Pete|Pete]] ([[User talk:Pete|talk]]) 08:33, 29 December 2013 (EST)

:::Found the tabs I was talking about [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Tabber tabber] --[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 08:37, 25 November 2013 (EST)
::::Tabber is now installed --[[User:Pete|Pete]] ([[User talk:Pete|talk]]) 08:33, 29 December 2013 (EST)
:::::I can't get this to work, even when I use the example coding on the mediawiki page.--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] ([[User talk:Ditto51|talk]]) 18:01, 29 December 2013 (EST)
::::::My bad - was updating the wrong version of the settings file. The other extensions should now be avalable.

:::[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multiple_upload Multiple Upload], to make it easier to upload images multiple images.--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 10:48, 1 December 2013 (EST)
::::The author doesn't seem to be maintaining this which is a worry, plus the discussion page for it mentions security issues so I'm not going to bother with this one --[[User:Pete|Pete]] ([[User talk:Pete|talk]]) 08:33, 29 December 2013 (EST)
:::::Installed an extension called MsUpload instead - you can see a bar at the top of the editor where you can drop files, or click the up arrow on the toolbar. This adds files to the queue and you can click on the name to rename them before uploading them. It then provides links to insert them --[[User:Pete|Pete]] ([[User talk:Pete|talk]]) 09:41, 29 December 2013 (EST)

:::Seems like only MsUpload is installed based on [[Special:Version]]; doesn't seem to show any other mentioned extensions?--[[User:DracoGriffin|DracoGriffin]] ([[User talk:DracoGriffin|talk]]) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (EST)
::::My bad - was updating the wrong version of the settings file. The other extensions should now be avalable.
----

==Wiki Software Upgrade ==
The Wiki software has now been upgraded to version 1.22 (was 1.16) so a few things have changed cosmetically and functionally. Whilst I've tested things myself and they seem alright, you guys might spot some things I won't, so please let me know here if there are any issues. Now we're up to date, I can look at the extensions requested above :) --[[User:Pete|Pete]] ([[User talk:Pete|talk]]) 07:24, 29 December 2013 (EST)

Pete has asked in a [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/topic/10805-wiki-software-key-features/ thread] on the Strategycore.co.uk forums for suggestions of new features to add during the wiki software upgrade. Please go there for the discussion or post here what features you think relevant for the UFOPaedia upgrade. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 08:42, 27 December 2013 (EST)

:That wasn't ''exactly'' what I was asking there - it was more "if there were an ideal WIKI software what would its main features be?". Though I suppose if there are other features that are required (aside from the obvious "better spam filtering") then I could see what's available after I've upgraded. Just so you all know, I've pencilled in 10am GMT tomorrow (see link for current time: http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.co.uk/time-zone/europe/uk/time/ ) to move UFOPaedia to the same server that StrategyCore now sits on. The move gives us more power to run the software and expand it and sees the end of recent server instability. I'll put up a message at the top of the site in a few minutes, but just so you all know what's going on and that there will be downtime for a few hours. Once you see the message disappear from the top of the screen, you'll be looking at the new server and can post again. Apologies for the short notice, but whilst it's quiet and I have time, I really need to do the move and get things more stable before attempting the upgrade. --[[User:Pete|Pete]] 14:39, 27 December 2013 (EST)

::Most embedded images no longer display properly with the update, barring for a brief period during page load, only to disappear after page fully loads. Tested in two browsers. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] ([[User talk:Arrow Quivershaft|talk]]) 16:48, 29 December 2013 (EST)

:::Can you give me a few examples of pages where this happens? I know I caused a weird issue for a while earlier on if you had www. at the start of the web address, so make sure you don't have that in your address bar, but aside from that I can't think of anything that would cause that without seeing a page where it's happening. If you can link a page AND describe which images disappear on it I can investigate further. --[[User:Pete|Pete]] ([[User talk:Pete|talk]]) 17:54, 29 December 2013 (EST)

::Seems to be working fine now, thanks for the response! [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] ([[User talk:Arrow Quivershaft|talk]]) 19:50, 30 December 2013 (EST)

== Watchlist E-Mails ==

When I recieve E-Mails about edits on the EU2012 pages, it always take me to a new page because the bracket at the end is no included in the link for some reason
Eg. An E-Mail about Second Wave (EU2012) takes be to Second Wave (EU2012

--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 03:45, 28 November 2013 (EST)

== New Main Page using Tabs ==

{{:User:Ditto51/Sandbox/Main Page}}

== Simpler Main Page ==

[[File:Cleaner Homepage Idea.png|200px|thumb|left]] I know this is going to generate all sorts of responses - there are some people here being quite negative about the new games (the old ones aren't coming back, nor have they gone away though!) and since UFO and TFTD seem to get the most love of all of the original series of games this idea might not go down too well, but what do you think?

It is just an idea after all, but my train of thought was that (not intending to offend) the homepage is too busy. The links next to the intro text are a bit small, and then the game "contents" links are just way too far down the page for people to bother with so I thought perhaps something a bit more visible might be good, then lose EVERYTHING below the news. To my mind, the homepage should have your introduction, obvious links to the content people are searching for and then news - that's it. The contents further down the page are merely replicating what you get when you click on the game links anyway.

I have introduced an issue using the 1994 UK box cover at the beginning there, so might be best having it alternate between the two or be half and half somehow, but I suspect that's the least of the comments I'm going to get.

So why would I want to promote the other minor games? Well... they're incomplete. Obviously this is because people aren't contributing content, but I'm not sure it helps that the Games list on the left doesn't list them (I know ''why'' it doesn't, just pointing out that that will cause people to miss them).

Another thought I had was a simple graphic - half and half - for old and new and go to a page listing the old and new games, but can't think of a sensible graphic for that.

[[File:Analytics Content.gif|200px|thumb|left]]Something interesting to note is that since I fixed the tracking code for Google Analytics, it shows just how popular the new games are on this website.

: Once upon a time I had been toying with the idea of changing the main page into a very simple page with almost no content, but instead set it up as a launchpad to the various 'main pages' for the different games by way of the box covers as you have done. That never eventuated - partly forgotten as with many ambitious ideas on the wiki in favour of other more exciting things in the recent updates, and a major change like that would've been too much of a culture shock. But with all he new fangled extensions and other things the new software can do, perhaps a move back in that direction isn't a bad idea. It would be nice change to the traditional game intro screen at the top of the page. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 08:07, 30 December 2013 (EST)
:Pete, I completely agree with your idea of dropping everything below the News since it's easier to simply use the left links and I doubt a lot of people bother to scroll down so much.
:Regarding the old vs. new games, one of the most telling graphs from Google Analytics is this one:
[[File:EU stats.png]]

The first increase in daily visits on January 2012 is when XCOM: Enemy Unknown was announced, the massive spike in November 2012 is when it was released. But what's even more interesting is that for the same period, the Apocalypse page was the 2nd most visited, UFO Defense the 3th and TFTD the 7th. There's no info for Enemy Unknown 2012 though (there must have been a problem with Analytics since it only started recording visits to the EU2012 pages last month - this might also explain why the visits decreased from November 2012 onwards since visits to the EU2012 were not recorded by Analytics). To me this means that the old games are still live and kicking but also that the new game brought again a big interest on the series. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 08:23, 30 December 2013 (EST)

[[File:Homepage 2.jpeg|200px|thumb|left|]] [[File:UFOPaedia-Homepage-3.jpg|200px|thumb|left|]]I've been toying with some alternative graphics that are better than my original idea. There's a colour version, but it's a bit "full-on" on a predominantly black and white page, and a greyscale version that might work better. My thinking is that if they are both set to something like 49% width with the latter having 2% left padding, they will scale with the different screen sizes people will view it at. That sort of thing works a lot better in browsers nowadays. Any good? If they're both still a bit bold I could wash out the backgrounds a bit more (that or change the colour of UFOPaedia :D )

File:UFOPaedia-Homepage-3.jpg

2014-01-01T11:05:27Z

Pete:

2013-12-29T12:24:45Z

Pete:

Talk:Main Page

2013-12-27T19:39:00Z

Pete: /* Wiki Software Upgrade */

Talk:Main Page

2013-12-27T19:38:46Z

Pete: /* Wiki Software Upgrade */

UFOpaedia talk:Community portal

2011-07-23T12:22:00Z

Pete: /* How to translate properly? */

== How to translate properly? ==

How to translate a page on this wiki and to have 2 versions of one page (one in English and one in Russian) which will be linked together by language selection at the left side?
I did not find how to do this in Help section. Tried on [[Strength]] and its Russian translation [[Сила]].

: I've done a little bit of reading into this matter, and the problem is that the Mediawiki software doesn't have multi-lingual support built in, and it's very complicated to set up. It might even require creating separate wikis for all the languages.

: The easiest solution I've seen so far unfortunately requires that all the article names are written in the same language (in this case, English), but with a language identifier /fr, /ru, etc after the name. For example, [[Strength/ru]]. To connect the various languages together, a simple template is created which you put at the top of each page that generates the links to all the languages. That is by far the simplest option there is at the moment. However I don't think that it is the most desirable solution since I think you want the links to be in your native language.

: An alternative to that solution is to manually link the articles together, which would mean more work, but it would achieve the desired effect. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:25, 8 January 2011 (EST)

:: I think that multi-lingual support is a must-have feature. After some local discussion here I think that indeed separate wikis must be created for each language (take en.wikipedia.org and ru.wikipedia.org for example). And that does not seem to be hard:
::# to create new MySQL database for each language (or to use the original base but add affixes like ru_, es_, fr_),
::# to configure empty Wikis to connect to that databases,
::# to configure InterWiki feature of each MediaWiki,
::# to move existing pages into empty Wikis,
::# to correct that pages so that they will point to other language versions,
::# to implement other small things (like appearance of Languages block to the left).
:: Who is in charge here? Maybe this work worth it? I myself can take the steps number 4 and 5 for Russian wiki.
:: And yes, user list will be unique for each separate wiki.
::Fomka 15:03, 9 January 2011 (EST)

::: [[User:Pete|Pete]] is the person you need to get in touch with. I actually think it would be a very useful thing, especially for organizational purposes. However what worries me is what impact having 3, 4 or even 5 wikis will have on the server load. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:05, 10 January 2011 (EST)

:::: I just PM'd Fomka via StrategyCore but thought I'd post my thoughts here too. I think that Fomka's suggestion is the way to do it, despite it meaning that we essentially have two separate wikis. How I would suggest doing it is simply create a copy of this wiki at something like ru.ufopaedia.org but without the content (so basically a blank installation with the X-COM logo at the top-left) and let the Russian users translate it a page at a time.

:::: I did think about making a copy of the content, but then you would have to have a copy of the user accounts as well for certain links to work, and you'd have a copy of the discussions in English as well and all in all it would be easier I think to start out with a blank site and go from there.

:::: My only other concern was that if Russian users create a new page then perhaps some moderators from that wiki should translate the page to English as well. I know that's a bit crappy, as the Russian users would have to translate any new English pages to the Russian site as well, so they get double the workload, but I'm assuming that a lot of people here can't translate their content into Russian.

:::: What do you think? It would be easy enough to set up. --[[User:Pete|Pete]] 08:22, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Template:Ufopaedia News

2011-02-18T09:07:18Z

Pete: /* News */

This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. At least that is how it should work in theory.

== News ==
<onlyinclude>
<div style="color:red; width:100%"><b>* * * X-COM Complete Packages now available for less than $15 * * *</b></div>
At [http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DDB-XCOM&via=newly_added&aff=sc GamersGate], [http://store.steampowered.com/sub/964/ Steam] and [http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7614/product/Buy-X-Com-Complete-Bundle-Download Direct2Drive]. (Includes <b>UFO</b>, <b>TFTD</b>, <b>Apoc</b>, <b>Int</b>, and <b>Enf</b>).<br>

For "reviews", see [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#X-COM_Complete_Packages|this]]. <br>

</onlyinclude>

== Archived News ==

<div style="color:red;"><b>* * * Ufopaedia.org is now hosted by StrategyCore * * *</b></div>
<div align="left">
To visitors and regular contributors, the Ufopaedia.org wiki is now hosted on [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/ StrategyCore]. A big thank you to Gazchap who started and hosted for so long what has since become a most fascinating and informative resource on X-COM.</div>
<br>
----

<div style="color:red;"><b>OFFICIAL</b></div> - [http://kotaku.com/5516654/x+com-is-back NEW X-COM GAME FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF BIOSHOCK 2]<br>
Yes, this will come as a shock to all, but 2K Australia and 2K Marin is busily working on a first-person shooter based on the X-COM franchise. More info will presumably become available on the 2010 E3.

For more information/rumors check 2K's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 X-COM forum].

Template:Ufopaedia News

2011-02-18T09:06:45Z

Pete: /* News */

This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. At least that is how it should work in theory.

== News ==
<onlyinclude>
<div style="color:red;"><b>* * * X-COM Complete Packages now available for less than $15 * * *</b></div>
At [http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DDB-XCOM&via=newly_added&aff=sc GamersGate], [http://store.steampowered.com/sub/964/ Steam] and [http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7614/product/Buy-X-Com-Complete-Bundle-Download Direct2Drive]. (Includes <b>UFO</b>, <b>TFTD</b>, <b>Apoc</b>, <b>Int</b>, and <b>Enf</b>).<br>

For "reviews", see [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#X-COM_Complete_Packages|this]]. <br>

</onlyinclude>

== Archived News ==

<div style="color:red;"><b>* * * Ufopaedia.org is now hosted by StrategyCore * * *</b></div>
<div align="left">
To visitors and regular contributors, the Ufopaedia.org wiki is now hosted on [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/ StrategyCore]. A big thank you to Gazchap who started and hosted for so long what has since become a most fascinating and informative resource on X-COM.</div>
<br>
----

<div style="color:red;"><b>OFFICIAL</b></div> - [http://kotaku.com/5516654/x+com-is-back NEW X-COM GAME FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF BIOSHOCK 2]<br>
Yes, this will come as a shock to all, but 2K Australia and 2K Marin is busily working on a first-person shooter based on the X-COM franchise. More info will presumably become available on the 2010 E3.

For more information/rumors check 2K's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 X-COM forum].

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

2010-12-12T10:09:21Z

Pete: Blanked the page

Talk:Main Page

2010-12-10T19:33:07Z

Pete: /* Hosting Move - 7 December 2010 */

Talk:Main Page

2010-12-08T22:10:57Z

Pete: /* Hosting Move - 7 December 2010 */

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

2010-12-08T21:51:56Z

Pete:

<div style="color: green; padding-top: 10px;">'''Server Move - 08 December 2010 @ 7pm GMT'''

The move is now complete - please continue updating the site as normal. For full details please refer [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page#Hosting_Move_-_7_December_2010 here]. --[[User:Pete|Pete]] 16:51, 8 December 2010 (EST)</div>

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

2010-12-08T21:27:42Z

Pete:

<div style="color: red; padding-top: 10px;">'''Server Move - 08 December 2010 @ 7pm GMT'''

A server move will be occuring on Wednesday 8th December at 7pm GMT, refer [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page#Hosting_Move_-_7_December_2010 here] for full details. --[[User:Pete|Pete]] 12:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

'''EDIT:''' The move is now underway. Please do not make further edits to the site until you see the green "move complete" message here. --[[User:Pete|Pete]] 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)</div>

Talk:Main Page

2010-12-07T21:40:38Z

Pete: /* Hosting Move - 7 December 2010 */

Talk:Main Page

2010-12-07T21:38:54Z

Pete: /* Hosting Move - 7 December 2010 */

2010-12-05T12:29:43Z

Pete: /* Hosting Move - 7 December 2010 */ new section

Talk:Mock main page

2010-11-02T19:15:27Z

Pete:

Well, I thought that boxes would be placed horizontally and without text links to the right side. Only boxes, all in the same gray-blue, gray-brown palette. Also, I wanted to place these pictures to the background of every main table, but they have to be much lighter to allow the text be visible. It could be 3 large boxes in a row (with x-com 1-3) and in the second row there are smaller boxes with other games. No time at all to draw this, sorry! --[[User:Ufo.mesh|ufo.mesh]] 10:33, 26 October 2010 (BST)

: We can try several different styles and see what works best. But I think the horizontal one for the main three games and smaller icons for the spinoffs is a good idea for the individual main tables. We already have the links down the side, but a visual one at the top wouldn't be bad. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:46, 26 October 2010 (BST)

:: I like it. I would like to see another version (just stick it below the current boxes I reckon) that has the boxes about a third smaller and is done over 3 columns instead. Taking a screen resolution of 1024x768 as a minimum (there are literally only 1-2% of folks who come here using less, and looking at the stats they're viewing on phones I reckon so the site is scaled down to fit anyway), you could safely design something that would fit in a table 816 pixels wide and it would display fine at that resolution and higher (just giving you an idea of minimum width, so each cell could be a minimum of 272 pixels wide, so your widest image in each column can be no larger than that).

Talk:Main Page

2010-10-25T12:48:59Z

Pete: /* Main Page reorganisation */

2010-10-15T19:47:17Z

Pete: Created page with "My name's Pete (no, ''really'') and I'm webmaster at [http://www.strategycore.co.uk StrategyCore]. I live in Chester, England and am getting married next May (no idea why you nee..."

My name's Pete (no, ''really'') and I'm webmaster at [http://www.strategycore.co.uk StrategyCore]. I live in Chester, England and am getting married next May (no idea why you need that much information but there we go).

My interest in X-COM began in 1995 when my brother bought TFTD, full price at £34.99 - an absolute fortune when you're young (and more money than I've paid for a game in years thinking about it)! I remember watching him play it for hours and hours, and then I learned that the prequel, UFO, was on offer in our local Game store (Game being a franchise here in the UK) and the rest is history.

Sometime around 2000/2001 I started the X-COM.co.uk website (hosted on Tripod/Lycos before eventually buying that domain. Only recently to this we got dial-up at my parents house and I produced a lot of my own content as well as, not knowing netiquette, "borrowing" a large portion from cyke of AllianceX. After some apologies and a lot of enouragement by cyke I ended up working on the site and it's spin-off and successor to the present day (I was on the verge of quitting before that encouragement and the rest of this entry would never have happened - thanks cyke!). A history of X-COM.co.uk is captured on [http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.x-com.co.uk Archive.org for those who are curious or have suffered memory loss].

Sometime later, when it appeared that there were not going to be any more X-COM games after Enforcer - a game which I strangely enjoyed, though obviously it's not really X-COM - I branched out and built UFOAftermath.co.uk when the UFO games started to come out. Again, a history of that site is listed on [http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ufoaftermath.co.uk Archive.org].

In 2004, with Slaughter pretty much single-handedly running UFOAftermath.co.uk and myself wondering what to do next, we decided to branch out and cover more games whilst merging the two smaller sites into one large site known today as [http://www.strategycore.co.uk StrategyCore].

In 2008 (I think) GazChap handed me the reigns of UFOPaedia (in terms of hosting - I couldn't hope to contribute even a fraction of what you guys have done here and am extremely grateful to you all that such a detailed and active resource is available!) and that pretty much brings us up to date on my online history relating to X-COM.

I still play UFO on and off. I recently played Apoc again and marvelled at how long it takes to get particularly far through that game - I mean days and days of real time to get through a few weeks compared to being able to complete UFO in a day - and pretty much left it alone again once I got to the alien dimension. It's a fun game with some obvious improvements over UFO, but UFO is far easier to dip in and out of and it gives you the added bonus of feeling like you're gaining some ground against the aliens pretty quickly.

I'm currently planning another major round of updates to StrategyCore as well in the coming months as well as some interviews with the developers of serveral X-COM inspired projects/remakes. I do get sidetracked quite easily and, sadly, it appears to be one of the things I'm known best for - but come on, StarCraft II, Team Fortress 2 and the Left 4 Dead games are a good excuse for a distraction! ;)

Talk:Main Page

2010-10-15T15:09:39Z

Pete: /* Wiki software upgrade - 15/10/10 */

'''Welcome To All Rookies'''

This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them.

Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages.

For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.

To start a new topic simply press the '''edit''' button above. Then place your <nowiki>==Topic Name==</nowiki> like it is written here.
* To add a line you can either type <nowiki>----</nowiki> or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen.
* If replying to an existing topic use colons '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' before your answer
* Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end.
* Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the [[Guidelines to writing articles|guidelines]] page.

That's it. Happy editing!
----

__TOC__

== Quick question ==

Does anyone have/know where I could get the TFTD-era X-Com logo? I need it for a project I'm working on.

(I'm asking here because A: the Google has failed me and B: someone who contributed must have seen it, as evidenced by the TFTD badge he/she/it created. Even if you could just point me in the right direction for, say, extracting it from one of the game files, that would be a great help.)

--[[User:Guido Talbot|Guido Talbot]] 13:26, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

: I'm responsible for the TFTD icon, and had it drawn pixel by pixel. But yes I did have reference that I used. Funnily enough, it's from X-COM Apocalypse. It's a PCX file that can be found among the files in the TACDATA\ directory. Unfortunately I don't have my Apocalypse CD on hand right at this moment to be able to get a copy of it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

[[:Image:Apoc-tacdata-xcom.jpg|Here it is]]. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 02:23, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Thanks!

(I must admit, though, it's kind of odd that they'd put that picture in one of t5he Apocalypse data directories when the ingame logo looked much different . . . [shrug])

--[[User:Guido Talbot|Guido Talbot]] 11:29, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

== Translation? ==
Hi everybody

I just found this ufopaedia and now I'm spending most of my time at work here :-)

In Uruguay there is a very small X-Com community, and AFAIK, I'm the first one to find this site.
I was thinking about translating the articles to spanish (very slowly), since most players around here are not familiar with the advanced "tips and tricks".
I could also post about the rather poor game translation.
Do you think it could be worth it?

[[User:Diegoba|Diegoba]] 06:38, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

: Hi Diegoba. I think those are great ideas. You could even work on an improved [[SPANISH.DAT]]. Hobbes posts here frequently and I believe he did the Spanish translation for [[XcomUtil]]. If you were translating Wiki pages, I wonder which pages should be translated first? We would need to think about how to structure it. Maybe an /en and an /es path, like Wikipedia does it?

:[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:10, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Having the /en /es path sounds good. I was thinking about leaving the pages with the most basic info (IE, Geoscape / Base screen description) for the last. I believe that anyone already knows this basics, and are not that hard to understand.

But I really don't know how to get it started. Do I just create an article called "pagina principal" (main page) and then link from there? I guess that page can then be mapped to es.ufopaedia.org

[[User:Diegoba|Diegoba]] 07:04, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

: I see you already started on a home page, cool. It makes sense to start with "Top Tricks & Tips".We probably need that in English too!
:Thinking about the structure, this is a wiki, so maybe name your pages e.g. "Home Page (Espanol)". Then link each Spanish name "{Spanish Name}" as a wiki redirect to each "{English Name} (Espanol)" Spanish page. Or vice-versa.While you only have a small number of Spanish pages, link them from See Also of the English page, as well as from the Spanish Home Page.Just some suggestions. Hopefully Zombie and those other sysop-type guys will express a view.

:[[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:47, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

I have no idea how this would work out to be honest. An /es path would probably be the best idea, but I think we'd need to be running a second copy of the wiki software to make that possible. (Something I always wanted anyway as UFO2000 isn't really a game in the series but a project - we are just hosting their pages). If anyone knows how the Wikipedia handles the languages internally, please let me know. Doing all those redirects just doesn't make much sense to me because it is a huge amount of work and could tax the system if there are too many queries. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 22:30, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

:What about just creating a link for both languages in the left side menu, and a link to the other language in the main page?. That is simple enough, and most people will be visiting one language or the other, not switching around.

:[[User:Diegoba|Diegoba]] 20:18, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

:: That would work for now and it has the benefit of being simple. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:31, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:Ok, I added a link to the Spanish main page in the sidebar. Is that good? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:53, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

::[[User:Juju Dredd|Juju Dredd]] 12:00, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

::Hi, I'd like translate at least part of this great wiki to French, could somebody tell me how to add Français(french) in the list, or do it if I'm not autorised to do it by myself?

:::It has to be Gazchap (administrator) to add it to the list on the left methinks. But it is possible to add the link to the main page when the french main page is ready. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 15:55, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

::::Ok, so I should start with translating this one. [[User:Juju Dredd|Juju Dredd]] 17:16, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

::::Oh, I've just seen how to modify the languages section. [[User:Juju Dredd|Juju Dredd]] 17:27, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

: I can edit the side panel if you want me to add a French section to the wiki. Shall I call it Francais and link it to [[Page Principale]]? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 19:02, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Yes, I was mistaking with the "other languages" sentence at the begining of the main page, I cannot add the link by myself. You guess right, I've begun to write [[Page Principale]] as the main page for French. But I think you should call it Français (French) with the cedilla to be consistant with the two others languages links. [[User:Juju Dredd|Juju Dredd]] 3:16, 1 October 2010 [EDT]

----

== Site TODOS ==
A general dump of to-dos or maybe not-do's. Add any where appropriate:

* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. (Some tests have started)
* Strategy by terrain notes?
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map
* 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?
* Categorizing all pages related to the games. I've finished it already with Apocalypse and TFTD shouldn't be too hard because it has the less pages, but it UFO is going to be a long work. I've already started a few categories for UFO and TFTD (<nowiki>Category: Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense</nowiki> and nowiki>Category: TFTD</nowiki>, along with a few specific ones (<nowiki>Research (TFTD</nowiki> and so on). It could also be possible to have some general categories that emcompass the whole of the series (UFOs/USOs, X-COM craft). [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:32, 4 November 2009 (EST)

== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==
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.

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.

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.

Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)

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)

----

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.

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):

*Add an indent for each reply
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:

First person's comment

:Second person's comment

::Third person's comment

:Second person again

::Third person again

::Third person's afterthought

:Second person again

::First person jumping back in

:::Third person once more

::First person again

*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.
*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.
*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.

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. ;-)
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)

: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)

::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)

::: Works for me, Eth - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:47, 9 November 2007 (PST)

== British vs. American spelling ==

Summary: Use which ever convention you want. It does not matter as long as you do not get into petty spelling convention battles.

== XCOM Box Art ==

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)

: 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!
: 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]]

----
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.)

[[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]]...

: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:
:*My first base - Decisions
:*The Globe - Radar alert!
:*First contact! Small farm in Iowa, USA
:*Managing Research
:*Terror in Sydney! ''(include zombies - squad wiped out - see next)''
:*Headline: World Council generally supports X-COM efforts - subheadline - Australia may now be under the control of aliens ''(funding results for a month)''
:*Headline: X-COM squad impacted by "Blaster bomb" - the world cries (before and after pix)
:*The tricky depths of a Battleship
:*Elite squad Mind Controls all aliens
:*Final showdown: Cydonia
:Each of the sections above might have 1-5 images. Something like that.

: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.

: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.

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)
----

I'm perfectly fine with getting the main title changed. Get a few more ayes and we'll make it so.

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.

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.

-[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:02, 15 December 2007 (PST)

:Sounds good, NKF. There could easily be a "comics" page link several ways:
::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,
::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.
::3) Or, make a link for it, all by itself, somewhere obvious on the Main Page.
:I think it's a great idea!
: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)

== Request ==

I have noticed that there is no pictures of TFTD, Apoc, or Int on the main welcome page. Any ordinary joe browsing to here from the four wiki (which I just added the links to point to here in "External links" on each page) is going to leave if they see just the first game picture (and not scroll down to see the other games covered).

SO, my request: have a collage of all four (five incl. email? ) on the front page which easily shows each game box-front. If copywrite issue, then someone could get creative with their own personal artiste skills.

: Further up this page there actually has been discussion of using the box art for the various games. Real life, as is often the case, intervenes. But it's not a bad idea mind you. A change is as good as a vacation. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 18:20, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

I was just thinking about this the other day in fact. Anyway, there is a nice collage of all the game boxes on the side of the X-COM Collection box. I could probably scan that and stick it up here for you guys to check out if you want. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:30, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

:: Zombie, have you had a chance to scan the collage? Just spotted this as I was responding to a different matter. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:05, 28 February 2010 (EST)

== Favicon ==

Does the UFOpaedia have a favicon? -- [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 17:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)

: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)

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)

: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)

::[[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?)

::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.

::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.

::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)

==Technical Commentaries==

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.
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.
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.

- [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:59, 10 March 2008 (PDT)

: 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)

== Game Editors ==

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?

Also, any additions to the Game editors section are welcome.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:40, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

: I don't think we've ever had a particular listing of editors.

: Tell you what, I'll throw these changes in, and we'll see how this works out.

:# 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).
:# I removed XComutil off the main table, since it'll be under the game file section.
:# Removed the UBK - it's just a tool for wiki editors and not something that would interest players of the game.

: I might also add the [[Command Prompt]] to the game editor section for its notes on using MS-Edit as a binary file editor.

:- [[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:46, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

:: 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)

----
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?
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:08, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

== Newb questions ==

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.

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.

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 :).

Eh PPPS. Dunno how to properly log on :(.

: 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.

: 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.

: 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.

: 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.

: 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)

: 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.

== same questions ==

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.

PS. Oh, yes, and whats wrong with door openings?
[[User:Derrida|Derrida]] 08:59, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

: 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.

: 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.

: 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.

: 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).

: 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?

: 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)

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.
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)

== Regarding image file formats ==

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|Terror Ship]] article. PNGs might work just as well, I'm not sure, but we should really avoid JPGs.

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)

: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)

:: 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)

== Hosting move. ==

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.

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.

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?

GazChap, 25th September 2008 12:50 GMT+1

: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)

::Hosting has now been moved to StrategyCore. Cheers to Pete and Zombie for sorting it out. GazChap, 11:28, 1 October 2008 (GMT+1)

::: There may be a slight problem with caching of the temporary holding page ("coming back soon". On some browsers I'm using (not all), the temporary page is still up and you can't see the UFOPaedia site. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:48, 1 October 2008 (CDT)

::The new website address is quite likely still propagating out through DNS, since we moved hosts. So that's just the nature of the internet and should be gone in a day or two. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:06, 1 October 2008 (CDT)

:Most browsers seem to allow a full page refresh via Ctrl + F5. There's also an option re caching under the Misc section of your Preferances - I had to disable it ages ago 'cause it was always failing to show me page changes... - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 21:54, 1 October 2008 (CDT)

Sorry about the downtime everyone. The bandwidth limit wasn't set high enough after the recent change in hosting and basically didn't allow access. I contacted Pete and he fixed the issue. Good to catch these issues earlier rather than later. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 15:11, 15 October 2008 (CDT)

=== 14 March 2009 ===

Zombie mentioned that Pete may be moving the server this weekend. I'm getting lots of errors and more or less unable to make updates to the site. Probably this is to do with the server move. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:14, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

:Apparently the move has been complete most of the day. So if you guys continue to have problems, please contact me and I'll relay it over to Pete. I'm not experiencing any problems though. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:34, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

== 500 Internal error ==

This seems to occur whenever I edit a subsection on a page, and I click the edit button on the TOP of the page instead of the edit button next to the subsection title. So, if you wanna avoid this error, try using the button which only edits that subsection... [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 05:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

:Already been tried. Doesn't work any better. UFOpaedia admin is on it, I've been told. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 12:05, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Pete's finished his latest round of changes. Give it another go. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 22:12, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Proposed top level links ==

I've written some pages which I'd like to be proposed be linked to the main page, unless anyone can suggest where to put them (careful now!).

I'd like to link [[Fictional Equivalents]] to the main page.

I'd like to link [[Wish List (TFTD)]] to the TFTD page. It would also be good to start a [[Known Bugs (TFTD)]] page, for TFTD-specific bugs.

However as some tricky template work is involved, I'd rather not make these links myself for fear of screwing up the main page(s). Thoughts? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 11:20, 14 November 2008 (CST)

: Feel free to edit the templates - as long as the tables look okay when you preview them, they shouldn't break the page. The templates are standard pages but with a fancy prefix to their file name to categorize them as templates. This was needed so that any updates to them would show up on the main page right away without forcing the viewers to force-refresh the page. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 12:46, 14 November 2008 (CST)

::It should be noted that the [[TRTBAG]] more or less covers the "Known Bugs for TFTD" segment. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:08, 14 November 2008 (CST)

:Well it covers the Research Tree bugs but not any of the other TFTD-specific bugs as far as I can see. Still that's a good starting point, thanks AQ! And thanks Zombie for adding the links. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:34, 14 November 2008 (CST)

::Maybe TRTBAG should just BECOME the "Known Bugs(TFTD)" page. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:36, 14 November 2008 (CST)

:Because TRTBAG is such an excellent self contained guide, and well written, and quite long, I think it should be separate. I will link to it under the Known Bugs (TFTD) page. I suggest the main page link to TRTBAG be remained "''Research'' Bug Avoidance Guide". Probably the TFTD Alien Glitches page can be gotten rid of. It only mentions one bug, which is not a bug at all. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:16, 15 November 2008 (CST)

==Terminology==

===X-COM/XCOM/XCom/Etc.===

I remember reading about this discussion before and if something concrete comes out I think it should be added to the [[Guidelines to writing articles]].
Do we have set a proper spelling to refer to the organization? IIRC the game uses X-COM/XCOM/X-Com/etc. Should we set a standard for the Wiki? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 07:52, 21 November 2008 (CST)
:It's a good idea to agree on a single standard spelling for the Wiki, if only to keep links consistent and prdictable. But it's a shame if there is no clear canonical spelling though. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:28, 21 November 2008 (CST)
::From what I recall there isn't a standard followed on UFO Defense, where you have X-COM/XCOM/XCom/etc. Apocalypse might be more consistent and I have no idea for the other games. I try to use X-COM and I've done some edits to follow this standard spelling but I'd like to read more opinions [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 17:43, 22 November 2008 (CST)
:I've had a check through the in-game strings and most if not all of them say "Xcom", which is my least favourite spelling. :( I think X-COM has the best flavour. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:41, 22 November 2008 (CST)
If any of you folks here have been following what I've been up to lately at the StrategyCore forums, you'll see I have been amassing a collection of most of the game versions in the series. Checking my [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/xcom/pg/ufogameversions UFO Game Versions] site page, you'll see that the original European release used XCom while the budget releases used X-Com. Other than that, those spellings quickly fell by the wayside as MicroProse decided on X-COM which quickly gained approval and remained the standard spelling throughout the series. (You can't really go by in-game text as those were not checked for consistency). Anyhow, I'd opt for the same route MicroProse took: <b>X-COM</b>. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:33, 22 November 2008 (CST)

===Capitalization guidelines/rules for the wiki===

Another thing that crossed my mind are guidelines/rules tossed in to prevent overcapitalization.

Specific ingame terms/names should be always capitalized:
*Weapons (Boomeroid, Elerium, Entropy Launcher
*Alien Races (Sectoid, Lobsterman, Skeletoid, etc.)
*Organizations (MarSec, General Dynamics, Council of Funding Nations)
*X-COM Crafts (Skyranger, Manta, Dimension Probe)

Generic ingame terms/names (that already exist in English) should be capitalized the first time they are mentioned on a wiki entry. Some examples:
*Weapons (Plasma Rifle, Torpedo Launcher, Vortex Mine, etc.)
*UFO types (Large Scout, Dreadnaught, Alien Mothership, etc.)
*Soldier Attributes/Agent Stats (Stamina, Psi-defense, etc.)
*Base Facilities

Wiki terms should be capitalized the first time they are mentioned on a wiki entry:
*Tactics
*Economics
*Game Mechanics
*Etc.

A few other rules to prevent overcapitalization and make a smooth reading:
*After the 1st mention, generic ingame terms are not required to be capitalized. As an example, after the first mention of a Laser Pistol, any additional mention(s) to them can simply use the term pistol(s).
*When refering to similar names/terms, it is advisable to capitalize both when they are mentioned. Eg. "Auto Cannon, unlike Heavy Cannon, allows for automatic fire" "Large Scouts are more dangerous than Medium Scouts".
*The same applies to wiki terms.

[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:54, 23 November 2008 (CST)

== Humor and Flavour Text ==

GEH!!! This whole issue is taking on a life of it's own. On one hand, yes, I can see the allure of ufopedia being a serious informative site. On the other hand, there's the "fun" factor... When you get right down to it, Xcom is actually a rather simplistic game in terms of storyline, and storyline interactivity, so we REALLY have to make up our own, otherwise the game degenerates into "capture this technology, research research, shoot shoot. MC = win game". The ingame UFOpedia is great, but it's limited to several paragraphs to describe an entire race of creatures, and 2-3 lines to describe the horror of Blaster Bombs and such. ... I vote that this online UFOpedia becomes everything that the ufopedia in-game was missing... let's have something that ENTERTAINS as well as giving good accurate information!

I'll wait for the votes to come in before touching anything else. I agree with you guys, the Lobstermen and other aquatic aliens getting eaten is something that is VERY much a part of the X-com community's culture... it should go into the UFOpedia. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 04:00, 13 March 2009 (CDT)

: I've nothing against humour. All for it. In fact I'd very much like to see more of that so that definitely gets my vote. A few light hearted moments in between all the seriousness does wonders. Perhaps not when you're getting into the particulars, but the descriptions or opening paragraphs that don't get into deep detail could be livened up a little. In moderation, of course!

: However, the hard part is deciding on the line between being humorous within the confines of what's available (yes, funny discussions amongst the troops about eating lobstermen after battle instead of selling it could count towards that), and then there's making stuff up. Apologies to Morken for borrowing an example from his on-going graphic novel: explaining the alien's general idiocy/sportsmanship through their strong belief in the tenets of Amgoth. Highly amusing, but not part of the story. Granted, I don't think we've got anything like that on the wiki, but you never know.

: In any case, a good mental exercise for the writers. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 05:14, 13 March 2009 (CDT)

My two cents then: I like the humour, anecdotes, flavour and fan fiction but I think the main purpose of UFOPaedia is informational and that should not be compromised. I like the little touches of humour, and I've been known to attempt them myself. But humour and anecdotes should be kept brief and supplementary - e.g. one-liners and wry observations at the end of a section. Non-canonical flavour text and fan fiction (especially) should be kept clearly separate and distinguishable. Someone reading the site with no prior knowledge of XCOM should be able to tell right away what is factual vs what is humour or speculation/imagination. Not quite sure how to do that - maybe by using sidebars, the Humour category... ok ran out of ideas there already. Maybe we need an "official" font for reproducing canonical, in-game flavour text, so it stands out. Not sure.

Also, humour, anecdote and flavour are much more subjective than fact. What one person thinks is funny, others may not. So non-factual content may just get edited out unless a lot of people agree that it's funny/cool/interesting etc - in fact that's probably already happening. Maybe a good idea is to make the jokes on the Talk pages, and if they are found to be universally funny, move them on to the main articles later - pretty much the same as factual content in fact? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 05:19, 13 March 2009 (CDT)

: I'm certain that we would all agree that the wiki is first and foremost an informative site. We needn't go so far as to point out to the readers what is or isn't. That would be overdoing it. A dash of humour anywhere we can get away with it without compromising the message, facts or turn it into fan fiction is really all that's required and can be more effective. Like spices, the right amount can add to the flavour of a dish. Too much and it just ruins it.

:Now a little creative writing to make the articles (with or without the humour) more captivating to the reader and less like text-books will certainly go a long way. But then again, I believe that we've always attempted to do this. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 06:04, 13 March 2009 (CDT)

:: I agree with NKF's point here regarding humor. But, concerning fanfic, to make up and add things that aren't on the original UFOPaedias or the History distributed with Interceptor is to take too much liberty with the original material (in regards with fan fiction). Just because it gets discussed in the forums at strategycore or xcomufo or that it is mentioned in someone's fanfic doesn't mean that it should be taken as a fact, regardless of the argument that the game story belongs to its fans/players. The game belongs to all of them and quite frankly we are quite a minority (although a very loyal one) regarding that. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 21:58, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

I personally hate the in-game perspective of some articles. I come to this page mainly to get information, not cheesy stories somebody made up. How about splitting it into two wikis? A serious one in the style of a guide book and a fan-fic one full of funny stories and made up background information? [[User:RedNifre|RedNifre]] 07:55, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: That's why we've got the Field Manual, which is all fiction. The rest should be as fan-fiction free as possible, and any light hearted bits in the non-essential text shouldn't affect the game mechanics explanations (which I feel is the wiki's star aspect). Much of what fiction there (all the non-canon stuff) is a throwback to when we first started and were populating the wiki before we started developing article standards. If you think there's anything that can be done better, we can easily sort that out. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 08:53, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

==XML dumps available?==
Hello guys! Kudos for creating this amazing wiki!

I have some ideas and I'd like to test them on an XML dump of ufopaedia, since it's a small but interesting wiki. Do you offer the dumps for download somewhere (like wikipedia does)? That would be absolutely fantastic. :) [[User:RedNifre|RedNifre]] 10:23, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

:Do you mean [[Special:Export]]? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:31, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

::I'm not sure if that export page does the job. It seems that it only allows downloading a list of articles I have to type in. What I want is ALL articles of Ufopaedia in XML, be it one file per article or one file for all articles(which I would prefer, since that is what Wikipedia provides and I'd like my software to work with all wikis). You can see what Wikipedia offers here [[http://download.wikimedia.org/]] and here [[http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20090501/]]. Thanks! [[User:RedNifre|RedNifre]] 23:19, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
::Never mind, I just entered all the relevant categories into the export page and got the XML file I was looking for (Downloading only the files relevant to playing X-COM 1 results in 1.5MB of XML). Thanks! [[User:RedNifre|RedNifre]] 11:21, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

More problems! Since "Special:Export" seems to only allow categories it is impossible to download articles that have no category (e.g. "civilian"). I see two ways how you could fix this: Add an option "Include all uncategorized articles to export" to the export page or put every article in categories. Or run a script that puts every article without category in a "Other" category. [[User:RedNifre|RedNifre]] 07:26, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Stats & Purchasing Options ==

Two wildly different subjects here, but worth mentioning:

1) Are any of the Wiki overlords interested in gathering Wiki usage statistics using something like Google Analytics? I just fished about in the server logs and it may interest you to know that the Wiki gets 6,000-8,000 unique visitors a month with anywhere from 13,000-25,000 visits a month from those visitors. With Analytics plugged in (which would take about five minutes from me) then interested parties could keep an eye on what's getting the most attention and, possibly, what people are searching for most (as in things that they're looking for that may not be covered). I'm new to MediaWiki though so I have no idea whether it's got some level of reporting built in?

2) Is it worth putting a link in the menu to the left to a page with more details on buying options and what's in the "complete" collections (as they're not totally complete technically, and people may not be aware that they can buy just one of the games if they want)? I would imagine it's something that quite a few people would be looking for, though admittedly without the detailed stats it's hard to say. Just pretend I don't have an interest in affiliate linking with this question too - I'd thought about it before putting my business hat on, honest!
--[[User:Pete|Pete]] 17:58, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

:1 - MediaWiki doesn't have much in terms of stats so it would be great if you could install that for us. Would be a handy tool for all sorts of things.

:2 - Good idea. If someone creates such a page I'll add it to the left menu. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:11, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

::I like both ideas as well [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:30, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

: That is a decent number of UVs and well worth monetising just to defray the costs a bit, which is all it would do. I guess you are talking about some Adwords and affiliate links to Steam? Fair enough. I don't pay for the site and it has to be paid for somehow.

Interesting stats though. So there are 6 to 8,000 people viewing and what, at most 10-20 people posting regularly? That's a pretty high "lurker ratio". :) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:18, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Copyrighted Materials from Official Sources ==

I've read a post concerning this and I suddenly couldn't remember if there's any guidelines regarding this, so I decided to ask your opinion about it. I've been transcribing quite a few descriptions from game manuals and game UFOPaedia's for the articles about Apocalypse that I've been adding because I worked under the assumption that this site is basically an online resource for players and it already uses a lot of copyrighted materials, especially images (and also to save some work in creating articles for the pages I've been adding).
Another thing that I've been putting into practice is some special editing to differenciate canon material from official sources, I can't remember how to describe but just check any the page of any organization from Apocalypse. Likely there's a better way to it but the most important would be to add something regarding this matter to the UFOPaedia's guidelines [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]]

: I've been thinking that official quotes of in-game text should be clearly defined as such and left unmodified. Perhaps a formatted table with a note at the end stating its source (or title/author/publisher/ISBN if it's from official printed material). Perhaps even have the quotation in italics.

:(Example removed)

: Would something like the above, or along similar lines work? Could be done by way of two templates (open and close), and you just sandwich the text in between them. The open/close templates could take one parameter each, the title/source. Leaving it out will obviously leave a blank. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 21:56, 28 February 2010 (EST)
:: Something like this would do rather nicely. I think the important part is for the source of the copyrighted material to be clear. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 12:36, 6 March 2010 (EST)

:::These could use some adjustments if anyone has any feedback to offer, but I've converted the previous example into a pair of templates. We now have <nowiki>{{Ref Open}} and {Ref Close | }}</nowiki> to wrap around quotations.

{{Ref Open}}

'''Celatid Autopsy Official Entry'''
<p style ="text-indent:1em;">''"The core contains a small bio-mechanical device which appears to be a naturally evolved anti-gravity propulsion system. The sac of venom is the largest organ and there does not appear to be a separate brain structure. There is no discernible digestive or reproductive system. A small organ contains embryos which can grow rapidly into a new being."''</p>

{{Ref Close| Source: Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense Ufopaedia}}

::: The pipe symbol is very important for Ref Close - you put the list of references right after it. Check the source for the above example. The text is set to display one size smaller than the current font and is right aligned, but you can also use links and simple text formatting in the reference list. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:15, 6 March 2010 (EST)

:::: Awesome stuff - thanks for the great work NKF. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 4:57, 7 March 2010 (EST)

==UFO Classes==

Hi all!

I recently finished a mod for X-COM UFO: Enemy Unknown that automatically assigns class and level to soldiers based solely on their stats, called "UFO Classes". It would have been nearly impossible if not for all the reseach into game mechanics i gleaned off this site.

In hope that my work improves the best game of all time, for all the people who made this possible, I proudly present: [[User:Necuno|UFO Classes]]

--[[User:Necuno|Necuno]] 15:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

==Deleting trash files==

I haven't been able to find an option for deleting trash files, these files are not in use:

If anyone could instruct me or perform the deletions I’d appreciate it.

: Deleted as requested. You need to be an admin to delete files, so just ask like you did :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 21:42, 19 December 2009 (EST)

Note that you can overwrite old files. Might be better off sticking to a more generic filename, then mentioning stuff like version numbers in the file comment section. One file name constantly being overwritten would be better then many files and many delete requests. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 21:45, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== "Spin-Off in progress" edit ==
I don't think the last edit to Main Page (adding a "Spin-Off in progress" section) is appropriate. It implies official sanction (by Microprose, Mythos or whomever has the X-COM licence now) where there isn't any AFAIK. I would have reverted, but I guess it's best to discuss this first. [[User:Cesium|Cesium]] 19:57, 26 February 2010 (EST)
: I share the concern. This is effectively an ad for an in-development product. It is not a sanctioned product like the others in this section. It's of interest to XCom fans, but should be grouped with UFO2000, Pocket UFO, etc. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 22:04, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:: I also agree that calling it a spin-off is incorrect since it implies continuing some element of the original series and developing it, which would require permission from the owner of the trademark/copyright (on this case Take-Two). There are precedents for having projects related to X-COM on the Main Page (UFO2000 and Project Xenocide) but those are/were open-source and intended to recreate the original game, replicating or drawing heavily from it. It might be debatable if UFO2000 should have a place on this wiki, though.
:: For time being I will keep the change on the page until more opinions are heard, from the other administrators and hopefully from the author. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 19:45, 28 February 2010 (EST)
::: Almost a week has passed without any more comments on this issue. Unless there is further discussion I shall remove the section next Monday. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 12:35, 6 March 2010 (EST)

::::I've often wondered if UFO2000 should be a part of the wiki as well. I'm not saying that it (and all the other projects) don't deserve a place, but just having it here sets a precedent. If one fan made game can be on the wiki, why not all all the others as well? Removing any one could be seen as favouritism. But letting them all in has the danger of muddying the purpose of the wiki.

::::I don't know what should be done with UFO2000 now that is has been established, but for the others: how about setting up a page that links to and advertise the various active fan X-COM-influenced projects? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:31, 8 March 2010 (EST)

::::: Isn't the case that UFO2000 has some special relationship, e.g. this is the "official" Wiki site for UFO2000 or something like that? So it's a special case. In the general case, fan made games and remakes should have less prominence, IMO. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:55, 8 March 2010 (EST)

:::::: I'm biased towards UFO2000 since I was a member of the developer team, but I'll state what I think about it. UFO2000 is a playable game, but still in progress, which aimed to be a remake of the original game, although only the tactical game is implemented and the remake aim had to be dropped to prevent copyright issues. I can't remember who asked for it to be included in the wiki list of games but it clearly has content of its own (new weaponsets, tactics, etc., all expanding upon the original game). I agree with having a page to list all active projects. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 15:16, 8 March 2010 (EST)

: Since there's a consensus the previous edit was inappropriate, and the Monday deadline came and passed, I've reverted the edit. [[User:Cesium|Cesium]] 08:34, 15 March 2010 (EDT)
:: The deadline applied if there was no further discussion after it was set. Since people contributed to the discussion afterwards, the deadline became void. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 12:05, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

: Is there a consent in moving the section on the Main Page moved to a new Spin-Offs and Projects page? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 21:40, 13 March 2010 (EST)
:: I would agree to create a fan/tribute/etc projects page. The term Spin Offs should be reserved for "official" sequels and spin offs, if only because that's how it has been used. UFO 2000 could move to the tribute projects page, or keep its current special position. I don't mind which. It's more logical to have it all on one page, unless there are objections. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:47, 15 March 2010 (EDT)
:: I don't mind moving, as long as the current distinction re: spin-offs is kept, and the current wiki pages regarding these spin offs are also kept (e.g. timeline info). UFO 2000 can keep its special position, as this is also the official UFO2000 wiki and there's a lot of wiki pages for it. However, I wouldn't mind if it were moved. [[User:Cesium|Cesium]] 15:48, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

== NPOV-ing of TFTD Equipment ==

After Spike used the new reference templates on the Dart Gun section, I got to reading most of general descriptions for the equipment articles. I feel they are due for rewrite to set them in line with the NPOV stance we've adopted. That and some reorganization of the content, such as the UFO/TFTD weapon comparisons need to be shifted to the analysis page.

If everyone doesn't mind, I'll try my hand at a few pages this week. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 08:03, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

: I very much agree that the TFTD pages are generally weaker than the UFO pages, in their less neutral POV, more chatty style, and also in overall completeness. I think any effort to improve them would be most welcome. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:49, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:: Started on the [[Dart Gun]]. Not sure if there's too much else to elaborate on, but at least now it's not openly saying it's the worst weapon in the game.

:: Need to fiddle with the layout a bit as I'm not too keen on just one big block of text. I thought it would be a good idea to move the official entry to the top of the section for a start. Still needs a bit more zing to it. Maybe a screenshot of an in-action picture of aquanaut armed with a dart-gun would break up the monotony a bit?

::One other idea I've been toying with is an executive summary of sorts. A split pro/con table that highlights the key features and flaws of the weapon for readers to quickly glance over. Would that work, or would that just add more clutter to the page? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:07, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

::: Those all sound like excellent ideas. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:12, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

== OpenXcom ==
Hello,

I thought you may be interested in this new project - it's open source reimplementation of original X-com engine (it uses data from original game). Besides fixing bugs, adding new features and support for new platforms, aim of this project is to create clean open source cross-platform code, which will be useful for future tweaking/modding etc. It's in early development phase. You can find more information about that project on official site [http://openxcom.ninex.info/ http://openxcom.ninex.info/]
--[[User:Michal|Michal]] 11:43, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

== Side nav-panel ==

With the sudden flurry of work on the Russian edition of the wiki, I was thinking of adding it to the side panel under the languages. For the life of me, I can't find seem to find a way to update it - or am probably missing it entirely. Might also be a limitation of the standard sysops. Pete, or anyone with greater access to the wiki internals, any assistance here? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:15, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

: [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]]

: I would assume sysops can edit this page, but if an admin is required, you'd probably be best off sending a PM detailing the specific changes you want made. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 05:19, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

::Looks like I can open up the edit text box for it so I'll give it a go. The links look a bit odd though as they don't surround most of the links with the standard floating point brackets like all the other wiki links. The software must do some internal conversion of the text into links just for the sidebar. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 06:38, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

: Lookin' good, though "русский язык" might be more appropriate (given who the link is aimed at). I also gather the term for Spanish should be "español". - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 06:55, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Good point. Perhaps dual language links for the benefit of those that don't know them couldn't hurt. Say русский язык (Russian) and Español (Spanish). -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 07:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

== Duplicate watch ==

Just as an attempt to streamline the wiki, if anyone spots an article that appears to contain duplicate information that is clearly covered in detail in another article, can we have them mentioned here. It occurs to me that since the wiki is quite large, there is bound to be some duplicated information floating out there, or even stand-alone pages that are probably not necessary. The problem is that there could be some disparity in information when one or either article is updated independently of the other. Again, if you spot any, please feel free to bring up the issue here. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:00, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

== New registrations temporarily disabled ==

Just a heads up to everyone and potential wiki contributors: Due in part to the recent vandalism, new user registration has been temporarily disabled. Apologies for any inconveniences caused, but don't worry as this situation is only temporary. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 06:34, 14 October 2010 (EDT)

: Something must be done to prevent vandalism in the future. Temporarily disabling registration you'll only delay future attacks. Open it and new attacks will follow. I noticed that every wave of vandals was after the moment when I published update news at Russian forums. After that in a day or two new trolls appeared here. I think they visit forums regularly and track down changes at wiki from there but I can still be mistaken with that.--[[User:Ufo.mesh|ufo.mesh]] 17:35, 14 October 2010 (EDT)

== Main Page reorganisation ==

Just throwing up an idea for everyone to consider. The wiki's a great resource, but I've often found the main page to be a bit cluttered since it has the main menus for all three major games that are being covered and they're restricted to tight columned tables. Also sometimes finding specific information isn't always that easy as some of the relevant documents are buried several articles deep.

I'm no organisational expert, but one thing I thought that might help reduce the clutter is to simplify the main page and have it mainly link to the various submenus for each different game. The submenus can be broken out of their tables and rearranged in a format that would make it easier to access all the relevant articles.

The earlier suggestion of using actual game box art would be a great idea for the main page as well.

Thoughts, suggestions, etc? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 06:45, 14 October 2010 (EDT)

== Wiki software upgrade - 15/10/10 ==

Hi all. After discussion with NKF regarding adding some new extensions to the wiki in an attempt to help out with the spamming issue, I've been working on an upgrade routine to update the software from the current version (1.11) to the latest (1.16) as well as installing these helpful extentions.

Using a development version of the site, I've worked out any kinks in the upgrade path and as such will be going ahead with the upgrade betwen 3-4pm GMT today (see note on the homepage - I figured a nice, obvious message was called for on this occasion).

The upgrade itself should only take 15-20 minutes - it's a case of uploading the new files and running the upgrade script, so it hopefully shouldn't take even that long. Extensions can be added once it's back up and running as they don't cause any interference, however I'll be looking to do all of this within that window. Please see the link in the message at the top of the homepage for an idewa of the time difference between where you are and where I am.

Fingers crossed this should close several security holes in the system (according to the software developers), maybe reduce the amount of spam and certainly give sysops more tools to combat it. --[[User:Pete|Pete]] 04:00, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

: This has now been completed as of 4.05pm (slightly later than scheduled due to going for a walk this mornig that turned into a long one!). All upgraded and new extensions installed which can be seen on the Special Pages:Version page, and I took the upgrade message down off the homepage. I've had a good look around and everyhting seems in order, however you can contact me easily via PM at [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums www.strategycore.co.uk/forums] if you do spot any issues. Thanks! --[[User:Pete|Pete]] 11:09, 15 October 2010 (EDT)