The NES Wiki - Get Wiki With It

Retroactive deletion.
 
Go to the list and either click NES-CFC0599 or just type that into the search box. Click edit. Copy, paste. Write a little remark and hit save.

Thanks, I will add something.
 
Cool. That NES summary is my baby, but if you can remember who played Carlist Italy or Hungary, or when Capulet gave up Poland to ThomAnder, please put it in...
 
Nice article Dachs.

Would it be useful if I created redirects to NES articles. IE: NES2 V redirects to CFC-0500. Perhaps a few other things, such as 'The Great Game' would redirect there too. I don't see why this is a bad idea, and unless anyone else thinks I'm making a huge mistake, I'll continue to do this for NESes with articles.
 
I think that's a very good idea.
 
I do too, which is why I mentioned it. However, having too many redirects might slow down the site.

If Sym gives the greenlight, I'll continue.
 
Retroactive deletion.
 
I just don't see it as a tremendously useful use of time as any given NES will require between 2 - 12 redirect pages to get a user with a somewhat decent input to it, creating massive clutter in the process.
I think 1 redirect page per NES should (!) be enough. Possibly 2 for some games, one for the full name (NiNES: A Broken Galaxy) and one for just its designator (NiNES). Why would we ever want more than that?

The easiest way to find a NES for the forseeable future will simply be to go to the list with some idea of where it is and clicking its wikilink...
But if you know its name (or designator) but have no idea when it was run, going through a listing is going to be a lot more tedious. I can think of a rather large number of NESes for which I know the name, but have no idea where in the list to look for them (yeah, Ctrl-f works wonders, but still).
 
Retroactive deletion.
 
:lol:

But yeah, I can't let that stand unopposed. As a CS researcher, I can seriously say that Function Over Form is probably the root of if not all evil, then at least 97.38% of all evil. Function without Form is asking people to do things the wrong way. Function And Form is the only way ahead.

And yeah, you do hold the higher ground. But the issue was whether we wanted this at all - whether it gets done in the end, and by whom, is a completely different matter. No one is asking you to do it at least. :p
 
Retroactive deletion.
 
Going out to make a hojillion redirect pages that lead to empty pages is putting form over function and serves no purpose whatsoever. I would rather have a infinitesimally more difficult manner of reaching information that has value than an infinitesimally easier manner that produces twice as much useless crap (or more!) and diverts people from working on actually producing content for you to look at when you get there.
Going by myself, if I had ever so little energy over to actually write something useful with content, there would be a hojillion other things to spend that energy on, like updating my NES, or writing orders or diplomacy or whatnot. The only reason I would go to work on the Wiki instead is because my level of concentration and inspiration was close to zero, and then this sort of mindless work is very suitable.

I think the wiki is a great project, and I think it's fantastic that you've more or less singlehandedly managed to get it as far as it has come. I think it's very close to the level where people might actually start contributing the content you're asking for, because all the form is already there. But for my own time, I simply have too many other things to do. I regret that, but life's a . .. .. .. . .

However, call to mind all those who repeatedly state how bad they are with code, and therefore they cannot work on the wiki. If all the code is there for them, maybe they can actually contribute content? Whereas someone like me who chews code for breakfast (not that doing this stuff actually requires any code at all, but it may give the impression of needing it) can do things like this simply for convenience, and because it's mindless drone work when all else fails.

I ask you, which is better? Spending more effort to get actual information, or spending less effort but getting nothing?
Which is better? Spending no effort at all on actual information, or spending very little effort on something that won't pay off until the actual information is there? Tough choice, I agree, but I'd take the latter anyway. ;)

You're right. No one has asked me to do anything previously either. They have simply chosen not to do it until somebody with more resolve does it for them. I view this as a roundabout way of doing the same thing; asking without asking.
Well, in this particular case that doesn't seem to be an issue. You don't see the point of it, and no one would think you would ever do it, so it's either leave it be or do it themselves. Which of course is what you said, what I argued was that you didn't need to say it since we already knew. :p
 
Retroactive deletion.
 
I only have enough time to say this: that is a total . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . excuse. 99% of a wiki is text. If a person is incapable of even memorizing ''' for bold or '' for italics, I feel sorry for them, but that does not prevent them from throwing up a wall of text and somebody else coming and coding it up and making it look pretty later.

Again, no reason for the average person not to contribute other than a lack of will, whatever the motive, and whatever its degree of justification.
I'm not saying it's a good excuse. In fact I think it's a rather bad excuse, since the truth is something else entirely. I think one reason so few are participating is because they don't see the end of it, and can't see that what they do end up in a nice place in a well thought-out wiki. Yes, people are lazy, and will need lots of motivation for doing something. One perfect way of motiviating people is to show them that there is a lot of cool Form just waiting for that content that only they can provide, and that if they do it will make something whole. Completing something is actually a very good motivation for most people, if the act of completing it isn't too work-intensive.
 
We could start by cranking out some really nice stuff for the wall o'text NES2 V article Dis and I - and all other contributors - are working on. :p
 
Retroactive deletion.
 
I think I'll take the time to point out that I can still be annoying. (Yes, I actually did stumble across that gem :) )
 
Back
Top Bottom