Talk:RayWiki
Category tree
Is there any particular reason why RayWiki's category system is so different from those of other wikis such as Wikipedia? Here it is common to see pages categorised within large categories and simultaneously categorised within subcategories of the large categories. For example, Moskito is a member of the 'Bosses', 'Bosses from Rayman 1', 'Enemies' and 'Enemies from Rayman 1' categories – why is this necessary? The fact that Moskito is categorised under 'Bosses from Rayman 1' indicates that he is also a member of the other three categories; even if the other three were removed from the Moskito article, he would still be a member of them, because 'Bosses from Rayman 1' is a subcategory of both 'Bosses' and 'Enemies from Rayman 1', which is itself a subcategory of 'Enemies'. I suggest that we remove all superfluous categorisations from our articles and adopt the much more efficient categorisation system employed by Wikipedia. If anyone has found my descriptions confusing, here are illustrations of Wikipedia's system and our current one. Thoughts? —Spiraldoor 
20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- While it would definitely be a great idea to have a clean categorisation tree, I'm afraid that the upper level categories will not appear at the bottom of the page even if the article is classified under one of their subcategories, and that the said articles will not appear in those categories' pages either. It's a question of legibility vs optimisation. —
14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm aware that the upper categories do not appear on the bottom of pages contained in their subcategories, but I don't view this as a problem. For example, under the Wikipedia system, the only category on the Magician's page would be 'Friends from Rayman 1' (which makes the other three categories redundant). The 'Characters' category (which is excessively broad under our current system) would contain only its fifteen subcategories, but would not directly contain any pages – much like the way Wikipedia's 'People' category contains only subcategories rather than tens of thousands of individual pages. A user viewing our 'Characters' category would be able to click on any of its fifteen subcategories, which would contain more specific lists of characters. Likewise a user who clicks on the 'Friends from Rayman 1' category at the bottom of the Magician's page would find that this category is a subcategory of 'Friends' and 'Characters from Rayman 1', both of which are subcategories of 'Characters'. There's no need to have a redundantly long list containing every single connotedly-applicable category on every single page – isn't this exactly the sort of thing subcategories exist to prevent? Otherwise what's the point of subcategories at all? —Spiraldoor 15:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- ...bump? —Spiraldoor 11:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- (...I still think we should do this.) —Spiraldoor 18:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- So your idea is to create more subcategories in order to avoid a flood of links? If it is that, I agree. --
Haruka 18:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want to create more subcategories – I think we have enough already. I want us to stop grouping articles in gargantuan super-categories like 'Characters' (94 pages) and 'Enemies' (126 pages). By way of comparison, Wikipedia's 'People' category contains a tree of many subcategories, but no individual articles. This is what I'm suggesting. If Wikipedia followed the system we currently use, there would be hundreds of redundant categories at the end of almost every single article – it's just not efficient. —Spiraldoor 18:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think I see what you mean now. Why not? -- Haruka 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Most pages would have to be edited in order to straighten out their categories. This is a pretty big change, which is why I'm waiting for a consensus. —Spiraldoor 19:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I predict a tough work to do if this arrives to an agreement. -- Haruka 19:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I predict a tough work to do if this arrives to an agreement. --
- Most pages would have to be edited in order to straighten out their categories. This is a pretty big change, which is why I'm waiting for a consensus. —Spiraldoor
- I think I see what you mean now. Why not? --
- I don't want to create more subcategories – I think we have enough already. I want us to stop grouping articles in gargantuan super-categories like 'Characters' (94 pages) and 'Enemies' (126 pages). By way of comparison, Wikipedia's 'People' category contains a tree of many subcategories, but no individual articles. This is what I'm suggesting. If Wikipedia followed the system we currently use, there would be hundreds of redundant categories at the end of almost every single article – it's just not efficient. —Spiraldoor
- So your idea is to create more subcategories in order to avoid a flood of links? If it is that, I agree. --
- (...I still think we should do this.) —Spiraldoor
- ...bump? —Spiraldoor
- I'm aware that the upper categories do not appear on the bottom of pages contained in their subcategories, but I don't view this as a problem. For example, under the Wikipedia system, the only category on the Magician's page would be 'Friends from Rayman 1' (which makes the other three categories redundant). The 'Characters' category (which is excessively broad under our current system) would contain only its fifteen subcategories, but would not directly contain any pages – much like the way Wikipedia's 'People' category contains only subcategories rather than tens of thousands of individual pages. A user viewing our 'Characters' category would be able to click on any of its fifteen subcategories, which would contain more specific lists of characters. Likewise a user who clicks on the 'Friends from Rayman 1' category at the bottom of the Magician's page would find that this category is a subcategory of 'Friends' and 'Characters from Rayman 1', both of which are subcategories of 'Characters'. There's no need to have a redundantly long list containing every single connotedly-applicable category on every single page – isn't this exactly the sort of thing subcategories exist to prevent? Otherwise what's the point of subcategories at all? —Spiraldoor
Languages
I know this will be a silly suggestion. Could a Portuguese version be done? --
Haruka 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's definitely not silly, and it could definitely be done. I would, however, suggest that you write at least a dozen articles (either here or, even better, on your computer (and then you can send them to me)) before I create it. But once I'm sure you have and you are going to work on it, I'll be glad to open a Portuguese version! — 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, for that I had to select some articles and fully translate from the English version to the European Portuguese. When I manage to have ten articles ready I'll post something here again. -- Haruka 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hunch, can I start to create new articles for the portuguese pages? -- Haruka 22:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest I'd rather avoid clogging up the English wiki with foreign articles (in the end it was a real mess with the Hungarian articles here), so maybe you could just write them using the preview function and store them on your computer in the meantime? — 12:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- You could always install MediaWiki in different places (eg en, es (Spanish and Portugese?), nl etc etc) Shukaku 12:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- You mean, putting something like pt:RayWiki for example? -- Haruka 12:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Like this: http://www.raymanpc.com/wiki/hu/ (like, Multiple Installations). It would be very difficult to achieve this: pt:RayWiki. It would probably need plugins or code modifications. Shukaku 12:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your point, Shukaku. I have already modified the source code for multi-wiki implementation (we have French, English, German and Hungarian versions of RayWiki), but I'm not creating a new language before I'm sure there's gonna be a certain number of good articles on it, hence the necessity to write some of them beforehand. — 12:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've been working on it. Until now I've translated 6 articles. I'll try to get 20 articles at least before sending them to you Hunch. -- Haruka 12:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've been working on it. Until now I've translated 6 articles. I'll try to get 20 articles at least before sending them to you Hunch. --
- Oh. I thought it was just multiple installs of MediaWiki. My point is therefore null. --Shukaku 15:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your point, Shukaku. I have already modified the source code for multi-wiki implementation (we have French, English, German and Hungarian versions of RayWiki), but I'm not creating a new language before I'm sure there's gonna be a certain number of good articles on it, hence the necessity to write some of them beforehand. —
- Like this: http://www.raymanpc.com/wiki/hu/ (like, Multiple Installations). It would be very difficult to achieve this: pt:RayWiki. It would probably need plugins or code modifications. Shukaku 12:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- You mean, putting something like pt:RayWiki for example? --
- You could always install MediaWiki in different places (eg en, es (Spanish and Portugese?), nl etc etc) Shukaku 12:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest I'd rather avoid clogging up the English wiki with foreign articles (in the end it was a real mess with the Hungarian articles here), so maybe you could just write them using the preview function and store them on your computer in the meantime? —
- Alright, for that I had to select some articles and fully translate from the English version to the European Portuguese. When I manage to have ten articles ready I'll post something here again. --
- So, how is the Portuguese version doing? :) — 19:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest I still only have 6 articles but I thought better and I won't do it, for several reasons. Knowing also the dimension of the wiki... -- Haruka 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest I still only have 6 articles but I thought better and I won't do it, for several reasons. Knowing also the dimension of the wiki... --
Anything needed?
I would like to know if there's anything I can help for the RayWiki. Pictures, some article writtings, I don't know.
-- Haruka 20:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well you could maybe help with some solutions. You are the third best person in the world at Rayman 3 or something. --iHeckler9
07:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Correction, I'm the 33th best Rayman 3 player in the world, not 3rd. I'm not that good. XD -- Haruka 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Correction, I'm the 33th best Rayman 3 player in the world, not 3rd. I'm not that good. XD --
- There's still a to do list on the front page. --Cairnie 09:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)