Fall from Heaven Wiki opened

[xanaqui42]

i-> j changes are logged here

Any entries that had information directly impacted by this change have been updated.

Presently, units Elven Settler -> Zealot are up to date, other than the icon.

 

[xanaqui42]

Just as a note, since I posted this elsewhere (but not here), I intend to semi-automate my future wiki work (for the basic data). The reasons are as follows:
1) This would dramatically speed up data entry, particularly after a major change (such as a major release).
2) Automation would make using alternate languages (ex: French) easier.
3) Automation would likely make creating wikis for modmods realistic.

At the moment, I have an early draft for spitting out units (it spits combat strength, movement, civilopedia entry, strategy text, unit type). At my present rate, I suspect that it will be ready for actual use in the March-April timeframe.

 

[optumystic]

I want to help with the wiki, but upon examination, I see that no two entries are the same. At least not with buildings.

I went ahead and made an entry for the hunting lodge.
http://civ4wiki.com/wiki/index.php/FfH_Hunting_Lodge_%28Building)

If those who care can check it out and tell me if it is suitable or if there are some changes they would like, I can start pumping out some entries for the wiki.

 

[grumpylad]

@Opt like the style, the hints will be useful.

Just a query I thought the cages were constructed as part of Carnival and then only my the Loki race (then again I could be wrong)

 

[optumystic]

I thought the cages were constructed as part of Carnival and then only my the Loki race (then again I could be wrong)

You may be right. I have no experience playing the Balseraph. My wife plays them a lot and I will ask her when I get a chance.

The inclusion of the humanoid cages comes from the civilopedia. If you start a game as the Belseraph, it shows the humanoid cages under Hunting Lodge. Also, it shows the cages if you check the civilopeda before starting a game.

I guess I could actually play a quick game as the Belseraph and see if I can create those cages without a carnival and/or without a hunting lodge.

If the humanoid cages require a Hunting Lodge and a specific race or religion, should that be on the entry for Hunting Lodge, or the entry for the specific cage? I was thinking under the cage, but the entry can include whatever is desired.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

You may be right. I have no experience playing the Balseraph. My wife plays them a lot and I will ask her when I get a chance.

The inclusion of the humanoid cages comes from the civilopedia. If you start a game as the Belseraph, it shows the humanoid cages under Hunting Lodge. Also, it shows the cages if you check the civilopeda before starting a game.

I guess I could actually play a quick game as the Belseraph and see if I can create those cages without a carnival and/or without a hunting lodge.

If the humanoid cages require a Hunting Lodge and a specific race or religion, should that be on the entry for Hunting Lodge, or the entry for the specific cage? I was thinking under the cage, but the entry can include whatever is desired.

I think the hunter UU requires a carnival instead of a hunting lodge, and the assassin UU can capture slaves even when not under the Octopus Overlords.

 

[optumystic]

I've added an entry for the Training Yard and Archery Range. Then I began to wonder.

Does anyone want me to embed links under the 'Civilopedia' entry if the concepts have an entry in the wiki?

For example, all civilopedia entries I have put in are plain text copies of what is in the game. If you want, I can have an entry that mentions Archers (for example) link to the Archer entry in the wiki.

What do you think? I'll do it any way that appeases folks.

 

[optumystic]

Well, hmmpf.

I am torn. I hate to propagate bad grammar and spelling, but I suppose I would not be representing the material if I altered it as I saw fit.

I have been transcribing the civilopedia entries as they are. Should I be correcting for spelling or should I be true to the game entries?

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Correct if you are sure, and post to the "ffH V 16 cosmetic thread"

 

[xanaqui42]

I've added an entry for the Training Yard and Archery Range. Then I began to wonder.

Does anyone want me to embed links under the 'Civilopedia' entry if the concepts have an entry in the wiki?

For example, all civilopedia entries I have put in are plain text copies of what is in the game. If you want, I can have an entry that mentions Archers (for example) link to the Archer entry in the wiki.

What do you think? I'll do it any way that appeases folks.

I'm glad that someone is taking over buildings

The format is fine. I marginally prefer the one used in Units, (Sample) or Civilizations (Sample); if you do, Yolan or I can set up a template (in my case, expect it in about a week after the request). Frankly, if you do a significant percentage of the buildings, whatever one you settle on will likely be it.

Personally, I like interlinking; so I typically link when I notice something I can link to (I rarely, however, do this for Civ entries at the moment; this may change). Note that I've been linking to all spells or special abilities as name (Spell), in the anticipation of a re-write of that section.

As far as Civ entries are concerned, I typically leave them as is. Note that a number of the "Misspellings" I've detected are correct in one of the major variants of English (other than my primary one). If it's really a misspelling, I post it on the ffH V 16 cosmetic thread.

Myself, I'm still working on automating the Unit entries (I've finally gotten the XML reader and Schema reader working, and I'm getting good output). I suspect that my first deployable version will be ready about a month after Fire's release.

 

[optumystic]

I'm glad that someone is taking over buildings

And I am glad that I can be a productive member of the FfH community. It is by far the most enjoyable mod that my wife and I have played.

Personally, I like interlinking; so I typically link when I notice something I can link to (I rarely, however, do this for Civ entries at the moment; this may change).

Then I will link everything that I can. I had been leaving the Civ entries alone, but it seemed to yearn for links.

As far as Civ entries are concerned, I typically leave them as is. Note that a number of the "Misspellings" I've detected are correct in one of the major variants of English (other than my primary one).

I've been leaving Civ entries alone because I consider them flavor instead of hard information.

The one that grated on me enough to mention it was Catapalt. That is not correct in any language that I know of and doesn't even seem appropriate for flavor text, although the Greek katapaltes would be similar. But the reason I considered it simply a misspelling instead of flavor is that Catapults are spelled correctly everywhere else (that I have looked).

The format is fine. I marginally prefer the one used in Units, (Sample) or Civilizations (Sample); if you do, Yolan or I can set up a template (in my case, expect it in about a week after the request). Frankly, if you do a significant percentage of the buildings, whatever one you settle on will likely be it.

I like the examples you gave. I was thinking of a way to incorporate an image of the buildings and those formats allow for that. Unless you or Yolan really want to provide the format, I will work something out tomorrow and redo the entries I have made so far.

 

[optumystic]

Another question. Hopefully the questions will slow down as I get further into this.

There is not a real unit category for Golems. They are identified by the Golem promotion.

How should I (if at all) link to them as a group? Should I link to the Golem promotion? Should I link to a Golem Unit category and make one for the sake of the wiki? Should I just leave Golems in plain text and not have them link to anything?

I noticed that the Golem promotion has a link to a non-existent Golem Unit category. I'm of the opinion that, for the wiki, a Golem Unit category should be created for the sake of users who could use the convenience. What say the Gods of FfH?

 

[xanaqui42]

Another question. Hopefully the questions will slow down as I get further into this.

There is not a real unit category for Golems. They are identified by the Golem promotion.

How should I (if at all) link to them as a group? Should I link to the Golem promotion? Should I link to a Golem Unit category and make one for the sake of the wiki? Should I just leave Golems in plain text and not have them link to anything?

I noticed that the Golem promotion has a link to a non-existent Golem Unit category. I'm of the opinion that, for the wiki, a Golem Unit category should be created for the sake of users who could use the convenience. <snip>

I'd tend against calling Golem a Unit Category, unless this changes; otherwise it makes it more difficult to separate the game mechanic Unit Category from useful grouping of units. I'd probably make a page for them with a name like the following:
Golem (Unit Group)
Or something similar, and add a link from the main unit page, and/or the Luchuirp page, and/or the Golem (Promotion) page.

the other option (as you note) would be to group such information in the Golem (Promotion) page.

The advantage of the second option is that there's already useful text there about Golems. The advantage of the first option is that you'd start with a clean slate, so you could put pretty much what you want on that page.

 

[Yoshi2942]

I read all of the backstories and loved them!

 

[xanaqui42]

I just finished a Light version of my unit XML -> wiki automation. There are a few minor problems still (example: the domain of the cargo is not specified), but more of the issues are from the source than from my code.

Using the output, I re-did all the units that start with "A" using the output. It took me roughly 30 seconds/unit.

Obviously, there will be changes for Fire (and there are a number of minor upgrades I intend to make), but let me know if you have any specific issues with this format.

 

[xanaqui42]

All units and Heroes are (finally) updated to 0.16.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Wow, I just read briefly through all the stuff in the wiki. There's a lot of useful information there for first-timers and experts alike. A link to the wiki ought to be in the mod, I think. It would be really helpful for new players to see it, and I'm worried that not enough of them come to this forum.

 

[loki1232]

Wow some of the new fire mechanics have been updated already.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Yeah, that caught my attention, too.

 

[cbdude]

i think the wiki needs updated a bit