Please leave any messages or notifications for me here. Thanks! Please note that all conversations I consider resolved or no longer relevant will be deleted, to reduce clutter.
Basically, the way I do categories on the wikis I admin at is a unitary tree or binary tree (one for content and the other for administrative stuff, in the case of a binary tree system). You start with the series (i.e. Total War in this case) as a root category. This is applied a category for games (so Total War > Total War: Rome II for instance), then subcategories of the games (Total War > Total War: Rome II > Units of Total War: Rome II). All of these categories wouldn't go on pages but would rather be used simply for organizing content into a clean tree. After them, you get the relevant subcategories The top-level/leaf categories would be something like Ranged Infantry of Total War: Rome II.
To illustrate my example:
- Total War
- Games of Total War
- Total War: Rome II
- Infantry Units of Total War: Rome II
- Ranged Infantry Units of Total War: Rome II
- Ranged Units of Total War: Rome II
- Ranged Infantry Units of Total War: Rome II
- Ranged Cavalry Units of total War: Rome II
- Infantry Units of Total War: Rome II
- Total War: Rome II
- Games of Total War
There is some crossover, but it is minimal; the system keeps the categories streamlined and organized.
For a functional example of this sort of thing already in place, see this (ignoring the idiot who still put it on a page) and explore the category tree a bit. This should give you an idea of what I mean -- if you start at the root, you can follow the tree up a cleanly-organized path to get to the content you want. There can also be multiple paths leading to the same content, as well, but it is logically organized such that it doesn't appear erratic in its application.
How would you approach it?
Also, forgive me if I misspeak or make a mistake, it's very late and I'm tired. Юра 08:05, September 13, 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, I have a program I can run that will make these changes (relatively) easily, it's just a matter of having down a finalized format to work from. And we will have to delete whatever categories end up becoming empty as a result of an overhaul like this. Юра 08:11, September 13, 2015 (UTC)
R2's units are generally (but not always) grouped by culture. I would prefer consistency (every TW game except ETW and NTW has similarly diverse rosters), but we could group them as European units, Indian units, etc along those lines. Юра 17:45, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
Specifically I was thinking Western European, Eastern European, Middle Eastern, Indian, American (which if I remember correctly is identical to Western European, actually), and Native American units. Юра 08:56, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Well having them in one category doesn't preclude them from being in others, and if it is used by one nation then it by default falls under the umbrella category. There is overlap in the other games, as well; the only other real alternative is to have nation-specific categories which would run up into the dozens for single units. Юра 19:41, September 21, 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but that would mean that the user would have to sift through the broader unit categories to find what they're looking for. I'm also not talking about geographic terms as much as cultural groupings. The (few) unique one-off units wold be fine imo. It would still be very readable. Юра 04:32, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I'll start on it later tonight. Юра 19:31, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
No. It's a tree. Units is the parent category of categorical unit types without appearing on pages as a standalone category. It's basically exactly the same setup as what I did with R2TW's unit categories. Юра 01:48, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
They're analogous to provinces in other games. I think they could stay, but should be reworked into a more descriptive format outlining the basics of the region's geography, size, starting factions/emergent factions related to it, et cetera, rather than being like a hub type page. Юра 01:36, October 4, 2015 (UTC)
- All right, whenever you have the time, take a look at this. -- Fidei Defensor (talk • contribs) 11:16, October 6, 2015 (UTC)
No problem, just leave a comment for bot recognition, and any suggestions you might have, before you head out. That thread will be evidence. -- Fidei Defensor (talk • contribs)Opps nvrmind.
Total War: Arena updatesEdit
Sorry for starting with stubs. I want to get the framework up for all units starting with Roman Empire melee swords then spears then ranged and so on... I was intending to use the categories "Total War: Arena Roman Empire units," and one for light, medium and heavy variants of infantry/Calvary. There is no framework of pages or categories for me to build upon so please let me know how you want me to impli!ent this. I intend to have a working unit stats table template available tomorrow
- I did notice the excess of tags and differences in capitalization. I did not make any cavalry pages, so there shouldn't be any misspelled categories since I only wrote it here in this message the one time. To be honest, I picked the Hoplites' page from the Rome II section to use as my standardization model since no unit pages for Arena exist yet. I tried to emmulate the capitalization and unit separation I saw there. I didn't know categories were not-removable, that's pretty shitty and seems like an open door for trolling; I hope they fix that. I'll leave categorization for you to take care of, though I'm not sure if you play this Total War game yet. If you'd like, I'll upload a screenshot of each faction's tech-tree with the legend explaining unit type and armor level for each army. Till then, expect some new Infoboxes this afternoon. Let me know if I need to add, change, or remove anything once I get Militia Swords and Italian Swordsmen filled in.
- Thanks for looking over my stuff and bringing it into line. You've got the eyes of a hawk, sir. If I was to properly fill in the body of these unit pages to qualify as non-stub, do you have a reference unit from any other TW game I should aim to most closely emulate?
- RoboYote (talk) 04:59, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
The infobox had unitcap as a single word for the field name, so that's what you have to use in the source code.
However, I can't seem to edit the template thanks to Wikia forcing its own infobox markup on us. I tried to delete + re-make the page, but it just does not work. Юра 01:19, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
I honestly am not sure.
They did some big overhaul of infoboxes and the like, introduced their own markup language. But from what I've seen, it sucks. Every single feature they release has a metric shitton of glitches that they never fix. Юра 04:22, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
It's under the theme designer. (My Tools -> Theme Designer)
I was in the process of creating a background for the wiki but I never got around to finishing it because I couldn't crop the component images the way I wanted to and still have it look passable (compared to the current one). My plan was to use this for the left side and this for the right. Юра 01:19, December 8, 2015 (UTC)
Napoleon: Total War Edit
In Napoleon: Total War there are several options.
There are Napoleon's Campaigns, which is the game's story mode. It's very much like the Road to Independence, except more fast paced. The first campaign is the Italian Campaign, set in a zoomed-in map of Northern Italy in 1796 during the wars of the First and Second Coalition against Revolutionary France. The second campaign is set in Napoleon's Expedition to Egypt and the Levant during 1798. The final campaign is set in 1805 in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars proper, when Napoleon begins the wars of the Third and Fourth coalition and starts his conquests proper. By the way, the European map is slightly adjusted from the E:TW European theater. It is just the continent of Europe, and cuts off at Moscow regarding expansion into Russian Territory. Finally, there is the last "campaign", which takes place at the Battle of Waterloo. It's a historical battle with a cutscene, much like the Battle of Bunker Hill in the E:TW Road to Independence Campaign, except that Waterloo is the end of story mode.
Then there are the campaigns of the Coalition. It takes place on the same map as the 1805 campaign in Europe of the story mode, only you have the option to choose to play between Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, or Russia. They not only have objectives relating to Napoleon's war, but also relating to European conflict after the Napoleonic Wars (like Russia requiring the acquisition of Warsaw, Greater Poland).
There is a DLC campaign: the Peninsular Campaign. It begins in 1811 and details the liberation of Spain and Portugal from the French forces (commanded by Joseph Bonaparte) towards the end of the war. It is a zoomed in map of the Iberian peninsula + Southern France. Most of the map begins with France controlling 95% of the provinces (but with spread out units). You can play as Spain or Great Britain and try to reliberate the peninsula, or France and conquer the peninsula.
There are the historical battles called Napoleon's Battles. They reflect some of the most decisive battles of the Napoleonic Wars, like Austerlitz, Trafalgar, Ligny, and Waterloo (from both the French and British perspective).
There are custom battles, where the player can play as any of the campaign playable factions, as well as Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the Ottoman Empire.
Although units, techs, ancillaries, and achievements are readily available on the internet, campaign information and buildings are not. I will take care of that.
As for non-playable faction information, I'd have to download a mod. Once I figure out how to do that, I'll upload the rest of the stuff about emergent factions and whatnot.
Fidei Defensor: November-DecemberEdit
Here is one. The collapse link adopts the style of the header which makes things ugly and imbalanced. I'll have to fix that before implementing.
On an unrelated note, is there a way to change the background picture of this wiki? Shogun II was a while ago now. Brainwasher5 (talk) 05:47, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Admin's dashboard then Theme Designer.
- Some of those are very old. I'll remove the ones I never completed and clean those which are still in use.
I don't intend to delete the "X: Total War units" categories. They're very useful. Sub-categories by region, culture and type are intended to complement the generic "units" category.
Will do, when I get the chance.
My finals are this upcoming week. Юра 22:52, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
I'll be spending an equal amount of time on ETW and NTW, as well as diving a little bit into TWR2 and TWA. For now, I've stopped with TWA because the map at Honga is broken. I think a good course of action would be for you to handle Russian, Prussian, Swedish, Dutch, and Ottoman Units, while I handle French, British, Austrian, Danish, Portuguese, and Spanish Units.
Leave the stuff about the campaigns to me, as well as the buildings. However, if you want to delve into the technologies I'll leave it for you.
But first and foremost we should create nav boxes for the units and techs.
- I'll demonstrate what I mean as it's easier that way. Yuri has the general idea with what's in place on the battlefield wikia. -- Fidei Defensor (talk • contribs) 00:53, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
"article stubs" and "articles needing expansion"Edit
Stubs are very short articles. Essentially placeholders. Articles needing expansion is broader and may refer to as little as a subsection. -- Fidei Defensor (talk • contribs) 00:53, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
Have badges and points been turned off?
Napoleonic Generals Edit
If I'm correct, the generals do have diiferent stats (or at least different abilities in what they can do).
And besides, the game makes it a bit of a focus point of the various famous tacticians from the time period. So I think we should create a page for each general, like a page for Napoleon, a page for Wellington, for von Blucher, etc.
Linking to Wikipedia Edit
HMS Victory Edit
My apologies. HMS Elephant is in NTW, but not HMS Victory. I think it is a ship in the game, but not a unique one. Sorry about that.
Hello. I was wondering whether we should adopt a shared model for Empire factions' articles - that is, what guidelines I should follow in my contributions. For instance, should links to Wikipedia be included in the History sections, or should I avoid that? Piero.schiavone1994 (talk) 23:07, January 2, 2016 (UTC)
On leave Edit
As I'm going to be extremely busy for the next three weeks or so, may I ask to go on leave for now?
Hi Brainwasher, what can I do on this wiki?
And also, I am not sure this is the way to leave messages...sorry really new to all this.
You can just call me Roger. Xiao88455 is just a in-game name that I have used throughout my life.
I have NTW. Although I do not play it often, I can help completing the wiki for that. As for the newer games, I do not play on buying them but I am willing to help out in anyway I can.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Hey Brainwasher, I posted to the other wiki but that got closed - I wanted to get in touch about your project and what may happen next as I happen to agree with most of your points for the cb wikia and I won't be contributing there either after seeing too many ideas get dismissed too quickly. You can find an email at my hg profile if and when you have the time and interest, take care.
A user recently nominated Total War for inclusion in our gaming footers. Would you be interested?
- You can find more in-depth info in the link above ;) But essentially the footer is a collection of communities that feature the same or similar game genre, with at least one person willing to answer questions about their game or community if a reader happens to click through - so essentially what an admin already does. For participating communities, the footer is placed at the bottom of their main pages. Raylan13 (talk) 14:41, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
I think I can do something with it. It shouldn't be too hard. I'll include four "comparison" slots.
The below is mostly for interest's sake.
I took a look at that wiki's infobox setup. As it turns out, they dump straight CSS formatting onto the page in order to make it look the way it does.
That's great for getting it to look precisely how they want on a page-by-page basis but the whole point of infoboxes is to streamline the usage of the templates such that any user, even without knowledge of CSS, can use them. Basically, we transclude the CSS from the actual template page without having it actually appear on the page. This makes it better for us as editors to make use of the template, with consistency across numerous pages. No matter where the template is used, the usage and formatting is exactly the same.
This is a double edged sword. Rigidity is nice for conformity, but bad for having precisely-defined custom templates for every page. It also keeps the "actual" size of pages down.
In theory, I could include an infinite number of IF statements in the template, but it's not really practical. Especially given how MediaWiki uses an awful system for nesting CSS boxes. Юра 05:06, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
I am the admin of the German Total War Wiki, which I have adopted and I had the idea of a partnership between our two Wikis. It would not mean that we make all together, but I think regular communication could be nice so we can maybe help each other a bit. I write to you, because your are the most active admin here and I hope for a fast answer. --Keks95 12:42, June 29, 2016 (UTC)