From Supreme Commander Wiki

This page is the user talk page for User:TaviRider. If you have a question, post it here by clicking this link or by clicking the + at the top center of this page. There is also an archive of older discussions from this talk page.

Contents 1 Logging out of wikia 2 Statistics 3 stubs? 4 Hi 5 FA integration, wiki upgrade 6 Question 7 Today's Article 8 Re: Categories 9 Unit merging 10 FA - Vanilla Differences 11 Unit referencing in articles 12 Quantum Gateway edits 13 Fair use/Image categories 14 Google 15 Unused images 16 Users 17 You're Back! 18 T1 attack bomber deletion 19 I noticed a machines that look like seraphim constructs 20 Pleease write an article on downloadable units

[edit] Logging out of wikia

Wikia is logging me out repeatedly. Any idea why? --3DS_Mike (not logged in)

I haven't heard of that kind of problem, sorry. Best thing to do is to ask on the IRC channel. Click the Live wiki help link on the left and ask there. There's Wikia employees there most of the time who can help you. --TaviRider 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

Please see User:TaviRider/Statistics for the statistics we are able to get. Please let me know if you have any questions! — Catherine o' the ComTeam 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Catherine! This is excellent information, especially the referrer details. One link on one Wikipedia page is responsible for 25% of our traffic! That means that more promotion outside of gaming sites is in order. --TaviRider 20:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stubs?

I noticed a while back that the list of stub pages had disappeared from the main page, and i added a stub page article and linked to it from the main page. Do you know where I should put the link? it is currently under the Game Internals section of the page. -- FleetCommanderIX 13:56, 25 July 2007 (Mountain Standard Time)

The main page isn't really an appropriate place for that link. The content on a MediaWiki wiki is divided into a few major sections, called namespaces. The default namespace is where all the main content of the site goes, which in our case is articles about SupCom. Then there's the Template: namespace, where templates go, the Talk: namespace for discussion of articles in the main namespace, the User: and User_talk namespaces, and so on. There's a namespace designed specifically for organizing the effort to contribute to the wiki, and that's the Project: namespace. The central page in the Project: namespace is Project:Community Portal. The first link on that is a link to stub pages.

I think the bigger issue is that there's no link to the community portal anymore. I think a community portal link belongs on the main page or the sidebar, but I'm not sure where. --TaviRider 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TaviRider, I will look for a spot on the main page to add that link. Perhaps a 'Community' section of the main page with links to the forum, community portal, and stuff like that? i would do it but i don't know much about wiki formatting beyond basic text formatting (bold, italic, that kind of thing). -- FleetCommanderIX 13:34, July 28 2007 (Mountain Standard Time)

I'll see what I can do. I'm tinkering with adding a "Contributing" section to the main page. Don't worry too much about formatting, you'll pick it up gradually. If you ever have questions about formatting, feel free to ask me here. --TaviRider 21:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, i have an idea: i noticed you added a bunch of links below the title, perhaps the links would be best there. It seems to me that if you put it there, more people will be inclined to put their two cents into contributing because the link is immediately visible. Just a suggestion, you don't have to do it. --FleetCommanderIX 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't me! :) To be honest, I was going to revert that change because those links clutter the main page, moving more useful links "below the fold". That is, it pushes more useful main page links below the first screen of links, so users are forced to scroll to find them. --TaviRider 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have another idea: why don't you create a small main page with a bunch of sub-pages (like one for each column), that way all of the links are right there. I think i could do it if you like the idea. --FleetCommanderIX 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what was there before, and people complained about that. That has two bad effects. First, it means that useful content is now 2 clicks away instead of 1. It also hides information. How does a user know which of the four sub-pages contains the information they want? It forces the user to look in various places just for the link they want. --TaviRider 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, i didn't know that. Sorry. --FleetCommanderIX 07:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you see Main Page/Testing? Skywalker seems to have an idea that would work well. I won't give it away though, see the page and Template:Tab for details.

I did see Main Page/Testing. I had a long conversation with SkyWalker about that. Although it looks slick, and we could even do dynamic tabs, I think it's a bad user interface. It means that most of the content is 2-clicks away instead of 1. It also forces users to search for content. They have to click tabs and browse them until they find the link they want, instead of simply presenting the links on one organized page. I believe the most effective front page is to lead users as quickly as possible to their content, while also providing a simple overview of what's available at the site. That page is a user's first impression of the wiki. Using tabs gives the impression, "Wow, this site has a lot of content", whereas using a well-organized set of links gives the impression that the user can find useful content. Take a look at this post about tabbed dialogs. They simply grow and grow, and so they become less useful, not more.

Another question: do you want those links below the title removed? i could do it, and i need the practice :). --FleetCommanderIX 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure! I'd appreciate it. I suggest using the Show preview button to test your changes before committing them. Lemme know if you have any problems. --TaviRider 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, i'll do it right away. While i personally like the tabbed design, i get what you're saying. I can't think of a better design for the front page right now, but i will tell you if i think of one. --FleetCommanderIX 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

help! when i removed the links, the template somehow went crazy! i have no clue what did this, can you fix it? --FleetCommanderIX 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --SkyWalker 07:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Did you get my e-mail? --DrBob 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA integration, wiki upgrade

Hello, I wanted to tell you how much I appreciated the work that you and FngKestrel have put into this wiki. I find it really great.
That said, I get the felling that it has died ever since the release of Forged Alliance. Is that game kept on the side of this wiki on purpose, or is it just that no one has really put in the effort to do it?
Not that I'm complaining or anything, there's a page for all the new units, but they never appear in things like Complete unit list. Also, they haven't been integrated into the Template:UnitNav, their pages don't have unitboxes, have no images, or show unit icons.
I realize most of this is because of lack of time, rather than effort. Also, changing the UnitNav can prove difficult, as FA creates multiple redundant unit types (Cybrans have two land experimentals, two heavy assault bots etc).

Anyways, I'm ready to help, by taking screenshots, editing templates, or just plain writing in the articles. I was thinking of starting by taking the new unit's "Build Icons", and also, create a template which we could use to show unit's map icons on their page.

Just wanted to know how to help, and get your thoughts. I had trouble finding the codes to the new units, and I haven't figured out how to remove the mini icon on the build icons in-game to take screen shots of those build icons.
anyhelp? Happypal 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I was looking into things on the front page. I figured out the SideI was just wondering where it was that you defined the wiki's top left logo, and the browser's icon? I could search around more, but if you know...EDIT: Never mind, I figured it out

Also, check THIS out! Happypal 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Today's Article

What do you think?Happypal 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's Article is a good idea, and I hope the community will pick up on it. There's a separate namespace for organizing the community, the _Project:_ namespace. For instance, Project:Community Portal (which expands to the rather unwieldy Supreme Commander Wiki:Community Portal is the main page for contributors. Articles like Today's Article should be in that namespace instead. Also, you'll find on the Community Portal page that I already had a list of Current Projects to help guide contributors to sections of the wiki that I thought needed attention. When new contributors showed up at the wiki I would post a welcome message on their user talk page, and I would tell them about the community portal. Also, if they were only IP addresses I would encourage them to register to track their changes better. --TaviRider 09:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Categories

I had actually given up on that a couple minutes ago. I didn't know how to do the page list yet, but I might use it. For now, I'm mainly doing some category clean-up/structuring and more specifically, category categorization! see the Category:Units subsections area to see what I'm trying to do. Thx for the code btw.Happypal 09:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry about the massive Recentedits this has probably created.Happypal 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unit merging

I don't know if you've noticed, but I merged a couple of unit pages. Right now, I did Wall section and Mass extractor. I transformed all the individual unit pages in redirects, but they still have category tags. They still show up as if they existed, but clicking them will directly show the unit page.

Unless you see a special problem with this, I thought I'd do it to the other obvious units (Power generators/mass fabs/storages etc). Happypal 10:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a very good idea for units that are essentially identical for all factions. The moment the units start to differentiate, they should have separate pages so that the article can discuss differences in how they are used by their factions. I also noticed that there's a major difference in the T3 mass extractors between Vanilla SupCom and Forged Alliance. This is relatively unimportant for mass extractors because they are on a combined page, but other unit pages need to be managed carefully. Do you have any ideas on how to achieve this? --TaviRider 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mention it, but obviously, I'm only doing this for the very similar pages.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "Do you have any ideas on how to achieve this?". Are you referring to un-merged unit pages that have substantial differences between FA and Vanilla? Copy Paste, I guess...

As far as I know, the only units that were substantially changed were the T3 mass Extractors (merged) all the Mass Fabricators (T1 moved to T2, and now they suck)(To-be merged) and finally, Experimental units. They were all completely re-balanced (they were all dumbed down cost/damage wise, and relative costs re-calculated). In vanilla, you could build 3 SR for 1 ML; in FA, You can build 1 SR for 3 ML. That's a 9x price difference.

What I'm currently wondering, is how to create a unit box for the engineers/{Land/Air/Naval}, while still taking HP into account... do we have faction logos that are as big as all the other logos in the unitbox? If the answer is yes, then the problem is solved.

Happypal 10:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA - Vanilla Differences

I don't think it makes sense to have Galactic Colossus (Vanilla SupCom) and Galactic Colossus (Forged Alliance) as separate articles. The Galactic Colossus article should describe the differences. So that leaves two issues: Ensuring that articles written before FA are updated for any relevant differences, and ensuring that we know all the units that are different. Do you think you can cook up a script to compare the two?

As for faction logos, it's not hard to create them... --TaviRider 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, nobody plays or really cares about Vanilla anymore, and any in-depth info/comparison (extra unit boxes, Script extraction,stat differences etc) would be overkill. Of course, we should talk about big changes in the article, but I'm not sure we need much more. we can also link to a Vanilla -> FA general differences article, or worst case scenario, we can change the "Full stats" link, to link to both FA, and Vanilla (good idea, I think).

For updating the units, as I said, except for Experimental and Resources, the changes were minor, so no problems there (no script or anything needed, except a reword here and there). The "Strategy" section though is so out of date, and contains so much erroneous info now that I'm ashamed we actually host it (Ninja kill strategy was broken before the end of the Vanilla Beta...).

If anybody out there feels like putting in more, that's fine by me, but I doubt anyone will. Personally, I think there are more important things to do, and I'm not really up to the effort.Happypal 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unit referencing in articles

This is kind of important: How do we refer to units in articles? As far as I know, nickname is the way to go. However, do we write it in italics? Or do we do this only for the current unit on this page? or something else?

I realize there is not really a standard, but I think we might as well make one. I used the always italic nickname for both the pillar and the Megalith. What do you think? --Unsigned comment by Happypal

I put my response in Supreme Commander Wiki talk:Style Guide. --TaviRider 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Gateway edits

Thanks for the heads up. Indeed, something went wrong: I forgot the redirect link...(Factory) I know the unitboxes contain techlevel and faction, but when I replace the page for a redirect (all the units I have been merging recently), then I remove the unitbox have to put these in by hand.

I'm not 100% satisfied with the Factory page (the unitbox is a bit massive), but NONE of the individual pages had anything noteworthy to say at all. Maybe I should remove some info from the box?Happypal 13:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I changed the template part that adds Categories automatically. We no longer have T0 units (they are now know as command units), nor do we have T4 units, as these are "experimental" (making things more accurate, and less redundant).Happypal 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right that Factory is huge. I like how you added the faction icons next to things like HP, although they look odd next to the energy and mass icons: The former have white backgrounds, the latter have black backgrounds. I have a larger concern about the Factory page, and that's the missing units. Carriers, the CZAR, and technically the UEF ACU can all construct units as well... --TaviRider 15:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the faction logo compliment. It took me a while to work it out. I'm not sure there is a case where I'd put them right against a mass/energy icon, but I could try to add a black background/outline to fit in better generally... I'll see what I can do.

About the missing units, it's just a matter of time before I get all the units properly categorized. I'm not that concerned though, because factories pretty much build EVERYTHING in this game, except Experimental units and ACUs. If we really wanted to be useful, we'd create a list of what factories CAN'T build (Rovers...and that's pretty much it honestly). The unitlist page/category are much more useful than my makeshift list, IMO, and we should just link to them. I'm wondering if putting a list of what factories can build should even be included. Sure, it was nice in the older pages, but not really useful. All it did was create text to contrast the total lack of content on those pages...

As you mentioned, the CZAR can also construct units, but that's mentioned on the CZAR's page(/Fatboy /Carrier). I'll have to re-read the article and see if anything requires some re-wording.happypal (Talk)Admin@SupCom.wikia.com 17:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Carriers, Fatboy, CZAR and other carriers have an odd list of which units can be constructed. Obviously those can't be merged with Factory, but it's useful to mention that there's other ways to build units besides factories. I wonder whether it would be useful to present this information the other way around... some way of listing on a unit's page "What can build this unit"... --TaviRider 03:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the factory unitbox, and changed the page a bit. It's a little makeshift, but I think it's a perfect compromise.

As for the whole "What can build this unit", I think that anything done systematically/in the form of a list is overkill. The only pages that should have these are the non-factories that can produce (Carriers/Fatboy). In the event that we can fit into the text in a useful way alternative production modes, then I'm all for it (I.E.:"The Percival can also be built by Fatboys, for direct field deployment", but then again, this being true for all UEF land units, I'm not even sure it warrants inclusion)...

[edit] Fair use/Image categories

I created some standard images templates to categorize and tag images for fair use. I have written only 4 so far, and am only missing 1 (I don't think I'll do any more). They are:
Template:MapPreview
Template:MapCarto
Template:StrategicIcon
Template:BuildButton
Template:ScreenShot
I used the import function to tag them, hence the 1000+ edits...

I'd like you to take a look at those templates, and make any changes you might find necessary, especially regarding fair use rationale. I gave it a shot, but the result seems kind of weak, imo. Thanks, happypal (Talk)Admin@SupCom.wikia.com 07:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is one area where I can offer no advice. I just used the fairuse template for all the images I uploaded and left it at that. If you want advice on more specific fair use tagging I suggest contacting the folks at Wikia. Have you joined the Wikia IRC channel? --TaviRider 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I joined the IRC channel for other reasons already, and fixed a couple o things. It's a great way to get help. happypal (Talk)Admin@SupCom.wikia.com 02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google

Just though I'd let you now we are now number 2 in the google search "Supcom wiki" and "Supreme Commander wiki"! The first is, of course wikipedia. This is great news, about a month ago, "Supcom wiki" was like 4th and "Supreme Commander wiki" 20th or something.

[edit] Unused images

I thought I'd do a bit of maintenance, and delete most of these: Special:Unusedimages(only the build buttons/strategic icons). Do you see any reason to keep all these?happypal (Talk)Admin@SupCom.wikia.com 17:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the build buttons and strategic icons. They may be useful if there is another official addon or a mod that uses them. I saw a clan logo and some test images that could be deleted, however. --TaviRider 15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users

Hi tavirider, this is FleetCommanderIX. I know this seems odd, but i had to go away from the wikia for a while and i forgot my password. Is there any way to fix this? -- RogueCommanderIX

Hey there Fleet/Rogue Commander IX. When you log in, just enter your user name, and instead of writing your password (which you forgot), click the "email password" button right under the "login" button. I hope you have an email address associated to your account, and you remember that too, or the process could be a bit more complicated. happypal (Talk)Admin@SupCom.wikia.com 08:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when i made my FCIX (FleetCommanderIX) account, i didn't register an email, so that button doesn't work (thanks anyway). Is there anyway the FCIX account could be deleted and all the edits changed over to this account? -- RogueCommanderIX

[edit] You're Back!

Hey! You're finally back! how come you went away? -Unsigned comment by RogueCommanderIX

He never really went away, he's always keeping an eye on the wiki...I think. He always beats my to reverting/blocking vandals anyways, that's for sure. happypal (Talk)Admin@SupCom.wikia.com 06:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here. It was an illusion. :) I still have the SupCom feed in Google Reader, and I just watch all the edits go past. --TaviRider 15:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] T1 attack bomber deletion

Why did you deleted T1 attack bomber article without any kind of discussion? And why do you think that this page is useless? --Satan 08:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, we didn't lose any useful content. All it said was "uef 's attack bomber is named scorcher". No formatting, no links, no useful information. If someone wants to create a merged page as has been done with many other unit types, great, but that one sentence wasn't going to be any use to anyone. --TaviRider 14:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you answered my question? --Satan 18:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I did, but apparently you weren't satisfied with the answer. Since the creation of this wiki, nearly every single deletion was without any discussion, and without complaints. The page I deleted had no useful content, and rather than leave an empty page with just {stub}, I deleted it. I didn't block re-creation of the article because someone could certainly provide useful information in its place. But what was there wasn't useful information. --TaviRider 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How long did that page existed? Minutes? Hours? You should have waited at least a few days. Because some people like myself, would improve that article. I just can't see any reason, why didn't you improved it yourself. I have noticed that you didn't added content to a page for about a year now. I wonder why. --Satan 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can always recreate it.--Ericwyesk 02:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I know and I will but I want TaviRider to realize that he is not acting like administrator. I will always disagree with this kind of deletion because it is not constructive at all. --Satan 05:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If only this wiki had the vibrant, active community that WikiPedia does, discussing the merits of each {delete} request. But this isn't WikiPedia. In the history of this wiki {delete} has been used only a few times, and nearly every time not a single comment was made about the page.

On the other hand, having a page with obviously poor content is detrimental to the wiki. Imagine new users coming to this wiki from a Google search for attack bomber. (Google ranks pages that have changed higher than static ones, so it's quite plausible that new page would be the first hit from this wiki.) Those new users will see useless content and never come back to this wiki. So, I made the judgment call to delete the page without a comment period to avoid leaving obviously poor content in the site. That's what administrators do, make difficult decisions to improve the quality of the wiki. But this was an especially easy choice to make because I know that contributors have been creating unit pages like the deleted one, and it will likely be recreated soon.

As for why I didn't just write an article myself, I haven't been able to play SupCom since FA came out because it pushed the game beyond the capabilities of my computer. I just do administrative tasks on this wiki, and leave the editing and organization of content to more capable contributors. --TaviRider 06:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Than I must ask why do you keep for example these pages: EditorConsole, EditorLog, EditorStatistics, EditorHotkeys and Advanced Mapping Techniques. The last one is my favorite. Most of those pages are similar. --Satan 11:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There's several reasons. First, I wasn't aware of any of these pages. I never claimed to be able to oversee every page in this wiki. Second, nearly all of them are part of Tecxx's project to document the map editor, the start of which is at Map editor description. Third, most of these pages have actual useful content. Just because the word "Todo" appears in the article doesn't mean the entire article is poor. As for Advanced Mapping Techniques, RogueCommanderIX should've marked it with {delete} when he blanked the page for being a duplicate.

If you're aware of pages that you think should be deleted, please mark them with {delete}. I just deleted Advanced Mapping Techniques. --TaviRider 17:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I noticed a machines that look like seraphim constructs

The trailer for Supreme commander 2 showed an ACU and some aircraft lifting off that looked very much like seraphim desgins

How do you set a fromation?LW556DCJ 17:43, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pleease write an article on downloadable units

Hey. Would you please write some articles on downloadable units with screenshots for the t4 units. That would be awesome if you did. Thanks, A Person --Unsigned comment by User:75.106.224.214

Hey Person. I'm the wrong person to ask, 'cuz I'm pretty much retired from this wiki. But I do know just the right person to contribute that: You! This is a wiki! Go ahead and make contributions, even if they're not perfect. Other people can and will pitch in to make it better. --TaviRider 04:40, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my post. Its just that I havn't gotten SupCom yet and am constantly looking for more info on the game.

Thanks,

Person

P.S My name is not Person. --Unsigned comment by User:75.106.224.214

No problem. I honestly don't know a thing about downloadable units in SupCom. I'm not sure how many people actually use game mods like those. There have only been a couple requests to include that information in this wiki. Also, I know your name is not Person, but I thought that'd be more polite than calling you User:75.106.224.214. :) --TaviRider 04:27, October 3, 2009 (UTC)