Difference between revisions of "User talk:N3X15"
m (→Translation: Oops) |
m (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 31d) to User talk:N3X15/Archives/2012/10.) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|age=31 | |age=31 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Duna Gravity borked. == | == Duna Gravity borked. == | ||
Revision as of 13:35, 11 November 2012
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Threads older than 31 days may be archived by RoboJeb. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Edit this box | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents
Duna Gravity borked.
I'm no mathemetician, but if the gravity for other bodies such as Mun (6.51e10 m3/s2) and Gilly (8.289e6 m3/s2) have exponents on them, I think that the listing for Duna's 'gravitational parameter' (Gravitational parameter 301.321 m3/s2) isn't what it should be.
Someone, throw some math at that and fix it :P Kahlzun (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
RoboJeb Picture Crushing
Just wondering, what is the point in this? Does not the wiki engine already scale images as needed? Isn't this just making it harder for people to see the the highest resolution version? It is also a flawed theory that is saves space, as the original larger version is still saved, so it just takes up extra space. Thecoshman (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to thumbnails people upload, which is redundant and a waste of space (as both the original AND the resized one are kept, while the wiki can have a higher-resolution version that can be used as a reference elsewhere, and the thumbnail. Plus, if a part is updated, we'd have to upload the original pic, open photoshop/GIMP, create the thumbnail, and then upload that. That workflow doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's just easier to use the wiki. Plus, what if we resize the thumbnail size for an infobox? Instead of letting the wiki do it for us, we'd have to reupload all the thumbnails.
- As for RoboJeb, he re-compresses badly-compressed PNGs and reuploads them if they need it. Helps save on bandwidth, particularly with very large images. - N3X15 (C · T · E) 09:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- But doesn't the wiki engine already allow users to upload a large image, and resize it as needed for things like thumb nails? Or does that only send the full size image and tell the browser to scale it down? I guess I hadn't really thought about how much bandwidth could be used up by larger images.
- I wasn't really complaining about this, I was just curious was all. Thanks Thecoshman (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was talking about people uploading thumbnails instead of thumbnailing them with the wiki.
- We don't have the source image, so we can't resize it meaningfully in the future; We'd have to reupload it.
- If the source image does exist on the wiki as well, we'd have to update both the thumbnail and the source image if a subject in the image changes, which is more work.
- The wiki already generates thumbnails, so it doesn't make any sense to upload our own thumbnails.
- As for RoboJeb: By compression, I mean the PNG compression algorithm and company. Some programs don't compress images very well, and RoboJeb redoes it so the compression ratio is better. -- N3X15 (C · T · E) 10:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was talking about people uploading thumbnails instead of thumbnailing them with the wiki.
- I wasn't really complaining about this, I was just curious was all. Thanks Thecoshman (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Extension for formatting numbers
Could you install the FormatNum extension? (And can you remind me where wiki-related requests are supposed to go? I couldn't find the page I was thinking of.) — Elembis (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
New bot functionality
I was wondering if you could look at adding some sort of talk page archiving bot. I know that wikipedia has something like this, it will monitor sections of talk pages, and if they get no replies for while, moves it to a archive page. The helps keep the main talk page focused, whilst saves the discussions. I think it would be really nice if it could manage a table of archived sections so that it is easier to see what previous talks their have been. Maybe if people could then go to the archived talk, add a new topic, and the bot will move it back to the main talk page, or they can just start a new section if it works better for them. I know that at the moment it's only really main page's talk page where this is starting to get an issue, but it can't hurt to start to get such a feature in the works. Thecoshman (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I actually have the exact same bot the MediaWiki foundation uses. I'd need to get some time to set it up. -- N3X15 (C · T · E) 18:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Translation
If it's OK I would like to start translating wiki to my language. Just did a test run and translated this into this. I'm gonna get karolus10 (he's a mod on forums) to check it later for bugs, but just wanted to know what should I do to get Polish/Polski language versions to show up in "languages" in the left side menu?
Also - how do I edit the language in the right-side object specification grey-box? You know, the mass, radious, etc?
- Well, first, we need a Main Page/pl so there's a starting point for translators. Once that's done, I'll add it to the sidebar.
- As for the templates, add
{{lang|en=English version|pl=Polish version|(other languages, if they're present)}}to the parts needing translation. If it's becoming a nightmare, you may want to make a{{Dictionary/Phrase}}with the{{lang}}template as content. -- N3X15 (C · T · E) 02:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
