Glest Wikia

[Trappin]

High Priority:
The Install Mods page needs technical instructions per operating system/mod file type.

Looking for love:
Getting Started needs work - technical instructions per operating system?
The old FAQ needs some help too.

Has love, wants hugs:
the Map Editing page needs to be proofed.
Map Design Guide needs to be proofed. Needs more user input.

jda is weeding his way through the Mods page - as it appeared one year ago at the waybackmachine.

[hailstone]

Thanks for the good work you are doing on the Wikia. I think the footer is done by wikia.com and can't be removed.

[Trappin]

removing clutter - we'll see if they accept the game as free now.

Thanks for the help.

[hailstone]

Except where otherwise noted...

What kind of license does Glest have?
Glest source code is GPL, as for the data you can do whatever you want with it as long as you credit us.

It's a little unclear but it has been expressed on the forums many times that it is ok to modify both data and source.

[jda]

Except where otherwise noted...

What kind of license does Glest have?
Glest source code is GPL, as for the data you can do whatever you want with it as long as you credit us.

It's a little unclear but it has been expressed on the forums many times that it is ok to modify both data and source.

lol
I edited the About page just today, for that exact same reason. I also added a note to the About:Talk page about that edit but I think I forgot to mention where my source came from: the files in the docs folder: readme.txt, code_license.txt and data_license.txt.

I also added a suggestion for a stadard way to refer mods in Mods:Talk.

[Trappin]

regarding factions
https://docs.megaglest.org/Talk:Mods

Version numbers-  conform to no standard whatsoever. The numbering system is misleading and only serves to confuse people looking for new factions. Here is a list of mods on the front page Glest/mod forum.

Woodsman 0.9.5
Magitech Refit- 0.5
Elf Faction 0.9
GLADE Team Project: Dark Magic
Military Tech Tree -- New Download!
Mod - Star Trek - The Borgwar
(NEW MOD) Glest IN SPACE!
NewWorld 0.1 New
Ice Age Era - WIP
Magitech Heroes: 2 New Heroes!
Dwarf faction  New

There is absolutely no way to determine the build status of these mods simply by the version numbers. Dwarf Faction has two distinct builds - dwarf and gimli. How do we determine which to use? how do we distinguish one from the other - (slight differences in builds- same author). How do we do this in a simple manner and not confuse people browsing the wikia for a new faction to play with?  Roman Faction: 9.11  has fallen off the front page but its a noteworthy faction - archmage has the current build version at 9.11 and it seems he uses a numbering system which will probably end at v1.0 complete. But I have no idea if that is his intent.

Version names - conform to no standard whatsoever. titi still has the Persians faction labeled as persian_beta2 but the faction is finished and has been at that version build for a year now. Egyptian faction has been out for 8 weeks or so but is labeled egyptiansalpha2.

Version dates - The only way to standardize dates would be the day the factions were compressed into the public release package. This is fine as long as the original author maintains the download link.

Example: I was concerned about the Tileset: Scrub Land becoming a dead link - the author seems to have wandered away from Glest and his download link may become stale - free file hosts require the owner to login or the account becomes inactive. I repackaged the tileset and added a link to my mediafire.com/glest/tilesets download folder just to be safe. Who knows what I did to the package - the chain of custody is now unclear.

Descriptions
The original authors should write a short description. Some people take insult at the way other people may characterize their work - IE: a description becomes a review (negative/unfair/rude) of another persons work. This leads to problems and hard feelings.

forum discussion link

This maybe useful. If the faction is complete there is nothing left to discuss. If the faction is in a perpetual beta build state - then a link may prove informative.

[Trappin]

Standardized wikia format.

I looked at other wikia gaming sites and adopted their format. the following stylesheet seems to be used across the internet.

• Title:
• Author:
• Download:
• Date:
• Forum Talk:

Additional Notes:

> IMG link to image host IMG <

The wikia map images lack sizing standards. the tileset screens were standardized by wciow (a few botched images are my mistake)

mod page image format

Map: In the forest
Tileset: Evergreen
-screenshot using original glest from player1 location when the game initially loads.
-upload to glest wikia as  th_faction_name 160px × 140px ( unlock image editor - resize image -aspect ratio)

[wciow]

Trappin, I support your efforts to standardize mods in the Glest community. The current state of giving mods version numbers which barely correspond to the actual state of the mod (if at all!) helps no one.

With specific regards to Dwaves there have been three releases:
alpha - a very old initial relase which has been completely lost now.
dwarvesbeta - this was a beta version which was the main release for a long time and may still be linked on various sites.
Gimli - The final release of the mod which is available in the faction discussion on the first page.

Title: Dwarves (Gimli/final)

Author: Wciow

Download: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1cea432412fe7bd9312dbd5f2bdc5062e04e75f6e8ebb871

Date: 23rd August 2009

Description: A completed faction with short people in it but no new unit sounds

[jda]

regarding factions
https://docs.megaglest.org/Talk:Mods

Version numbers-  conform to no standard whatsoever. The numbering system is misleading and only serves to confuse people looking for new factions. Here is a list of mods on the front page Glest/mod forum.

Woodsman 0.9.5
Magitech Refit- 0.5
Elf Faction 0.9
GLADE Team Project: Dark Magic
Military Tech Tree -- New Download!
Mod - Star Trek - The Borgwar
(NEW MOD) Glest IN SPACE!
NewWorld 0.1 New
Ice Age Era - WIP
Magitech Heroes: 2 New Heroes!
Dwarf faction  New

There is absolutely no way to determine the build status of these mods simply by the version numbers. Dwarf Faction has two distinct builds - dwarf and gimli. How do we determine which to use? how do we distinguish one from the other - (slight differences in builds- same author). How do we do this in a simple manner and not confuse people browsing the wikia for a new faction to play with?  Roman Faction: 9.11  has fallen off the front page but its a noteworthy faction - archmage has the current build version at 9.11 and it seems he uses a numbering system which will probably end at v1.0 complete. But I have no idea if that is his intent.

Version names - conform to no standard whatsoever. titi still has the Persians faction labeled as persian_beta2 but the faction is finished and has been at that version build for a year now. Egyptian faction has been out for 8 weeks or so but is labeled egyptiansalpha2.

I believe you missed the point, and also seem to have run into some misunderstandings.
1. We, wikia editors, do NOT set the standard version numbering or naming for whatever mod - the respective authors do. Each to his/her own faction.
I can't really see how the wikia reflecting those individual version numberings and namings might in any way confuse someone...
2. The title of the forum discussion about a mod is in NO way a reference for the mod version numbering or naming. Namely, but not only, because you don't actually need to have a forum discussion to have a mod.
Besides, the version numbering or naming is, in most cases, referenced in the download filename itself. And even when it isn't, you can usually find it somewhere, e.g. in a corresponding forum discussion, download site or other.
3. The point of the version numbering/naming was to provide the wikia reader with the information on what version he/she would be downloading.

Version dates - The only way to standardize dates would be the day the factions were compressed into the public release package. This is fine as long as the original author maintains the download link.

Example: I was concerned about the Tileset: Scrub Land becoming a dead link - the author seems to have wandered away from Glest and his download link may become stale - free file hosts require the owner to login or the account becomes inactive. I repackaged the tileset and added a link to my mediafire.com/glest/tilesets download folder just to be safe. Who knows what I did to the package - the chain of custody is now unclear.

Point understood and taken (though I might make a comment that''d be irrelevant).
I guess ordering the mods by release date is out of question then.

Descriptions
The original authors should write a short description. Some people take insult at the way other people may characterize their work - IE: a description becomes a review (negative/unfair/rude) of another persons work. This leads to problems and hard feelings.

I never mentioned a description, but a COMMENT.
I myself would prefer no description at all except if there was no other way to find some basic "description" on the mod before downloading it (say in a forum or other site such as ModDB or author's blog or whatever).
My primary intention was to give room for a useful note, such as:
#  Nihilirian Mod - two new factions. More info at Nihilirian on ModDB and the Linux fixhere
(I boldified what I found particularly useful. There are other examples in the current still-unedited page.)

forum discussion link

This maybe useful. If the faction is complete there is nothing left to discuss. If the faction is in a perpetual beta build state - then a link may prove informative.

Another perspective:
If the faction is complete, you'll find mountains of information about it in there. You may use that information to decide whether or not to download the mod, to understand how it was done, to provide feedback to the author (would it be necessary to say people like to get feedback on their completed works?), ...
If the faction is in "perpetual beta build state", there is pretty much just as much to discuss as if it is complete.

EDIT: This discussion should have gone to the wikia Mods:Talk page, not come here. I'll make a note on that page that the discussion got diverted here and I hope it will be a one time only round-trip wikia->forum->wikia.
But before that, I'll post a comment on your post, that followed the one I replied to here.

[Trappin]

We are talking around each other regarding version numbers - it doesn't matter since I see what you are getting at. I have no intention of altering version numbers just pointing out how version nimbers in no way reflect the status of the actual faction build - we on the same wavelenght now ?

List factions in alphabetical order - agree ?

List factions using the standard - yet slightly modified - format style found on the maps or tilesets pages - agree ?

haha - Ive bloody edited this post so many times

I want people to see what we are doing - if we don't then someone will bloody whine and bitch that we didn't open the discussion to the glest community.

also - using this forum to enlist help and increase attention to the wikia- The wikia is a poor stepchild.

The Gest Wikipedia page needs major revisions

More - Just burnt dinner 

[jda]

Standardized wikia format.

I looked at other wikia gaming sites and adopted their format. the following stylesheet seems to be used across the internet.

• Title:
• Author:
• Download:
• Date:
• Forum Talk:

Additional Notes:

> IMG link to image host IMG <

The wikia map images lack sizing standards. the tileset screens were standardized by wciow (a few botched images are my mistake)

mod page image format

Map: In the forest
Tileset: Evergreen
-screenshot using original glest from player1 location when the game initially loads.
-upload to glest wikia as  th_faction_name 160px × 140px ( unlock image editor - resize image -aspect ratio)

A wiki (or wikia) is essentially a collaborative site. "Adopting" something different unilaterally as a reply to a proposal by someone else does not seem like the best atitude in this kind of environment.
And please do note the only discussion (or something closed to it) there was on the subject was one proposal by one person and one decision by another. Are a few hours enough to also decide nobody else wants to have a say?

Now, that said, it's good to look at other people's examples and it's good you looked at those. Still, the mere fact many or even all do things a given way is not a "standard", it may, at best, be a "de facto standard", which is just a synonim to "normal" - not "norm" as rule but as statistically normal.

And now I got both of those off my chest, I have no problem with that standard - it sure is best than what we have now but I have a question and corresponding comment:
"Date" - what date? I guess you're not referring to release date as you've refused it before... Date added to the wikia? I don't find that extremely useful, there are not so many mods coming out that fast for glest alone...  

[jda]

We are talking around each other regarding version numbers - it doesn't matter since I see what you are getting at. I have no intention of altering version numbers just pointing out how version nimbers in no way reflect the status of the actual faction build - we on the same wavelenght now ?

My point is even simpler than that: just let the user know whether he's downloading something newer than he already got somewhere else or not.
And I was just getting at it's not a job for the wikia to judge on version numbering though I myself most options out there are pretty silly - NOT puting the finger on anyone here, but I can say as both Trappin and wciow themselves pointed them out that wciow's version naming seems to fit his release frequency very well.

List factions in alphabetical order - agree ?

Yes.

List factions using the standard - yet slightly modified - format style found on the maps or tilesets pages - agree ?

Yes.

The Gest Wikipedia page needs major revisions

More - Just burnt dinner 

Yes, it does, lets make it so it's easy to keep it alive afterwards.

[Trappin]

I've been working on the wikia for 2 months now. Check the edits and revisions page for Trappin. The wikia was a bloody mess.
I created the maps page and spent hours making screenshots. I migrated the tilesets and screens from wciows work and made that new subpage. Check the pictures page - I've uploaded 30-50 thumb images over the course of the last 60 days.  I'm no interloper looking to wreak havoc on you. And I have no hostility or ego about this. I do want a nice looking wikia. Thats it. No hostility from me and no intent for the text to read that way.

Standardized pages lead to an organized presentation and easy user navigation. I didn't create nor invent the wikia style from whole cloth - other wikia use the same methods and I adopted those stylesheets.

titi has been working on the tech pages and fixing my code problems  - I suck at this stuff

[jda]

Yes, I did not check your personal stats page though I'd seen you'd been active recently. And yes, two months is enough to get a reasonable perception of how much to (not) expect a response.
So my sincere apologies for my own rushed conclusions.

Standardized pages yes. But under what standard? Or rather across what? The whole glest wikia? The whole wikia site even beyond the wikia for glest? The whole Internet?
And standards do change and most importantly should be adapted to the particular case.

Thank you for your efforts, Trappin.
And titi.

[Trappin]

Lead on jda - and I have a post on the talk page now.

we worked it out - and I know my text can seem bossy or a bit short/rude

Two example - there are more but im too lazy to chase down what pages originally used as style references.

Starcraft Wikia: Informational



Softpedia page: Download format

[jda]

Reply and minor edit (oops! forgot to mark it as such and also got logged out for session-time expiring again so it's not signed by me but anyways... ) done in the wikia.

Regarding your examples... neither one is quite wiki-article-about-mods-like but still stuff might be used:

Starcraft Wikia:
That one is about a game, not a mod... We should probably do that for Glest itself (and specially for GAE which unlike the former is quite actively being developped; apparently, Martiño said the Glest team wouldn't be updating it anymore), but I think for mods, it would be cumbersome:
- You can't demand or reasonably expect every mod author to go into the wikia and do those edits themselves;
- It would be cumbersome for voluntary wikia editors such as ourselves to get checking that out for every listed mod;
- It's not really relevant as only one version of each mod is being listed there (in the vast majority of cases definitely, actually all of them at the moment). And I personally think the wikia should be like that. Exceptions would include e.g. wciow's Dwarf faction which is fully playable though wciow himself stated it needed tweaking but he wouldn't do it - I'm (very slowly) working on that, but people might prefer the last original wciow's version (Gimli). Also Archmage has been doing a ton on incomplete mods (but those were mostly mods the author had not set the "last-release-you-will-get-from-me" status so... it might be seen as Archmage going in the team, not replacing it altogether. Just ranting about Archmage' work, sorry if I offended anyone, not intended.).

But we should definitely do something like that for Glest (the official package) and specially GAE.

Softpedia page: Download format
Is Softpedia actually a wikia...? (sorry, no time to go check now)
Stuff like user-rating and categorizing-into-folders might be hard...? (Omega did the former in his own site (see the Factions download center in the Mods board for the link) but I have a faint memory he later droped it for some reason...?)
For the rest, it doesn't quite add anything to your other layout-design.

But looking at those two examples together... Were you considering nesting pages? Something such as:

Code: [Select]

List of mods
|-- Mod 1
|    |-- details page (e.g. like the Starcraft example)
|           |-- Mod 1 Download page (Softpedia styel)
|-- Mod 2
...?

We could do that, I guess... It would be the easier way (after the initial pain-setup) to keep it updated with all details and more... But it might also be a bit click-and-page_load-overburden on the user...?
 

Might be a cleaner look something like you proposed before.
Also, I believe the range of standardization should be primarily *inside the glest wikia*, meaning Mods, Maps and Tilesets should have the same looking and kind of information layout.

Oh, and just adding something I haven't said before: Download size info is very important too! (thought it obvious but had never stated it anywhere before ).

EDIT: Corrected is-it? layout.

[Trappin]

Regarding your examples... neither one is quite wiki-article-about-mods-like but still stuff might be used:

Starcraft Wikia:
That one is about a game, not a mod... We should probably do that for Glest itself (and specially for GAE which unlike the former is quite actively being developped; apparently, Martiño said the Glest team wouldn't be updating it anymore), but I think for mods, it would be cumbersome:
- You can't demand or reasonably expect every mod author to go into the wikia and do those edits themselves;
- It would be cumbersome for voluntary wikia editors such as ourselves to get checking that out for every listed mod;
- It's not really relevant as only one version of each mod is being listed there (in the vast majority of cases definitely, actually all of them at the moment). And I personally think the wikia should be like that. Exceptions would include e.g. wciow's Dwarf faction which is fully playable though wciow himself stated it needed tweaking but he wouldn't do it - I'm (very slowly) working on that, but people might prefer the last original wciow's version (Gimli). Also Archmage has been doing a ton on incomplete mods (but those were mostly mods the author had not set the "last-release-you-will-get-from-me" status so... it might be seen as Archmage going in the team, not replacing it altogether. Just ranting about Archmage' work, sorry if I offended anyone, not intended.).

But we should definitely do something like that for Glest (the official package) and specially GAE.

The Glest Wikia Main Page and sub-pages are styled to look like the Starcraft informational sub-pages. This sets the theme for the rest of our wikia.

Softpedia page: Download format
Is Softpedia actually a wikia...? (sorry, no time to go check now)
Stuff like user-rating and categorizing-into-folders might be hard...? (Omega did the former in his own site (see the Factions download center in the Mods board for the link) but I have a faint memory he later droped it for some reason...?)
For the rest, it doesn't quite add anything to your other layout-design.

The Softpedia image was the template I used to create the new map format for the original map format thread here. That thread has led us to clean up the wikia, fix the old information, kill-off the dead links and update the modinstall and installglest and glest multiplayer technical guides. Read the whole thread, its not very long.

Also, I believe the range of standardization should be primarily *inside the glest wikia*, meaning Mods, Maps and Tilesets should have the same looking and kind of information layout.

Yes. The tileset/map/faction/scenario formats should use common format styles. The example images are there to illustrate where the overall theme and look for the wikia came from. Look at the Map at the Tilesets and Scenario wikia pages. The basic formatting is complete. The Mod page is all yers! haha

Mod is a nebulous term - we have maps, tilesets, scenario, factions, megapacks and boosters. Booster? some of these mods affect major game mechanic changes on the glest game code and thus need a new classification.

[hailstone]

Wikipedia to the rescue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(computer_gaming)

[Trappin]

Thanks for the definition link. I split the tilesets to a new page on the wikia - don't know if thats the smart thing to do.

these mod(s) should be considered as more than just a faction - Booster?- I've never tried them and really cant comment beyond that.

#  Nihilirian Mod - two new factions. More info at Nihilirian on ModDB and the Linux fixhere
*  Demonionic/DomiNeonic - Victorian-age Europeans!
* Armies of the Old World - based on Warhammer (more info)
* Magitech Heroes - based on defense of the ancients and heroes of newerth.

[Omega]

^^ TL;DR ^^

Well, Military is apparent on its own site, though I gotta update! It's version 2.2. Basically, alphas and betas should only be used on testing non-stable, unfinished versions. Generally, We'd start at either version 0.1 or version 1, depending on personal choices. Every whole number increase marks a major change, such as revamping all of military's models. Every next number (ie: 2.x) shows a minor change, such as new features that are not worthy of a whole number. A third number (ie: firefox v3.5.1) shows micro changes, which is primarily bug fixes or very small feature changes.

Ideally, version 1 is the first, full release of the mod/faction/whatever. Less than that (ie: 0.5) means that it is half done. Once the mod is released, it should be version 1. After that, changes can be done, which may boost the numbers accordingly. According to this philosophy, most of the mods should already be > 1.

[jda]

^^ TL;DR ^^

Well, Military is apparent on its own site, though I gotta update! It's version 2.2. Basically, alphas and betas should only be used on testing non-stable, unfinished versions. Generally, We'd start at either version 0.1 or version 1, depending on personal choices. Every whole number increase marks a major change, such as revamping all of military's models. Every next number (ie: 2.x) shows a minor change, such as new features that are not worthy of a whole number. A third number (ie: firefox v3.5.1) shows micro changes, which is primarily bug fixes or very small feature changes.

Ideally, version 1 is the first, full release of the mod/faction/whatever. Less than that (ie: 0.5) means that it is half done. Once the mod is released, it should be version 1. After that, changes can be done, which may boost the numbers accordingly. According to this philosophy, most of the mods should already be > 1.

Exactly, Omega. Perfectly laid out that was!
Still... I don't really think this is much ontopic here, as I believe it is really up to each mod's author to determine that. Matter of fact, if we tried to renumber releases in the wikia (e.g. renumbering Dark Magic 6.3 (latest release last time I checked) to 0.6.3 (correct according to more standard, and IMO more logical, software version numberings), we'd just be adding more confusion to the whole thing: in the given example, someone going to the wikia could think the 0.6.3 version there was actually much older than say the 6.1 he/she found elsewhere. So... better not renumber versions in the wikia.

@ Trappin
I'll try and get myself update with what you mentioned and what's new on the wikia.
And ok, deal, I'll setup the "Mods" section on the wikia, following what you've already done for the Maps, Scenarios and Tilesets.

A couple quick notes on what I just read:
Yes, "Mods" is a very general term (haven't looked at the wikia definition yet but will in a minute) but still, it is kind of setup as standard in this official forum itself for "faction medling and a bit beyond" (as I said in the wikia Mods:Talk, we should at least differentiate between 'Factions', 'Techtrees' and 'Mods' ('Boosters' instead of 'Mods' here?), signaling the global extent of the modding). I'll organize the Mods section with these three/four categories, once I've sorted out the later.
And also yes, I think it was a good idea to separate the Tilesets from the Maps. The game itself does that.

[Trappin]

Whats the status of this tool? old and worthless? gem in the rough? The best thing since sync-mesh transmissions? https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=1128.0

[John.d.h]

I've downloaded a version of it, but it had nowhere near what is shown in that thread.  Maybe Tucho has a better version?

[Trappin]

Maybe Tucho has a better version? No idea.

Need clarification:

techtrees

techtree

tech tree

tech trees

The wikia is littered with these variations. Pick one  ???

RTS naming conventions. techtree ?

 

[-Archmage-]

Are you talking about techs or faction trees or what, please say what you mean.

I'm slowly building a new mod installation guide, and its coming along good!
Please nobody change anything unless you plan to add something that fits, and uses the setup that I have arranged.
After any changes anybody makes, please change the version number appropriately, so people know when it's been updated.
The current mod installation guide is useless, the new one that I'm writing will be very informative, and I will update it every now and then, to be more helpful.