User talk:XZise

planed features changes

both the massive parts and the astaroids are confermed by harvisteR in that streem, he says that astaroids will be in the main game, but other things that include the nasa pack will be separate, i will post a better link to the stream in a second. i actually took the geysers from a post on gas planet 2. also look at today's dev note it confirms everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krona (talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Interwiki table - KSP-fr wiki

Hi xZise,
Can you add a new row in the interwiki table ?

Prefix

kspfrw

URL

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.fr/index.php/$1

Thank you in advance,
— Mowaw_[talk], October 15, 2014 (14:23)

Response

Still learning wikitext. I hope this is an appropriate way to respond to your comments.

I just discovered another way to do it that involves anchors and tables, and, once implemented, should clean up the table of contents by a huge amount. Thanks for the push-back against the huge list, as I was just going to leave it as is, but your comments have motivated me to learn a little more about wikitext in order to clean it up (which I really wanted to do from the get-go, I just didn't know how). Look forward to seeing changes slowly and steadily whittle that TOC down!

Page combinations

As you can see, I am in the process of cleaning it up. I'd also like to have the original page that I created [Configuration File Details] deleted, but I'm not sure how to do that. As to a quick and dirty edit, well, you have it quite correct there. I discovered (re-discovered?) the link that is on the main page, and rather than learn how to do redirects or disambiguations or whatever, I appended mine to his. I'm in the process of cleaning it all up (70k can take awhile!), but I'm sure that if you've been keeping an eye open, you've already seen some of the massive improvements over what was there before, especially in the Table of Contents!

Infobox nextToIcon

Hi xZise, Your modifications on Infobox template are good, but there's a problem when a subtitle is present (eg 0.90). — Mowaw _(talk) - 18:46, 12 January 2015 UTC +1

Objectivity response

Hi xZise

Thanks for the valuable feed back

Check out what I said in Category:Found lying by the side of the road/de!

--Kwman (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2015 (CST)

One problem is using the I perspective. When you think something state it vaguely or similar but don't say “I don't know it” because it's hard to determine who “I” is then. And using a username isn't that good either and that should be discussed then on the talk page (that you think it's so).

Now the other problem is … it's not in German ;) — xZise [talk] 17:50, 10 February 2015 (CST)

Hi again

Heres the PROPER LINK! (User:talk)

No it's "User talk:<username>" like the name of this page. You can sign your posts automatically by writing --~~~~ or by clicking on the pen in bar above. It will then link to your actual talk page (remember I contacted you there so there should be something): User talk:KWman. — xZise [talk] 05:15, 13 February 2015 (CST)

New Demo?

The differences between the demo and the paid version become so great, that is easier to make a separate "tutorial:how to make a rocket (demo)" than break the main page with perpetual notes about demo. Do you know anything about any new demo version arrival? NWM (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2015 (CDT)

What do you mean with main page? On Main Page I can't see any link, but if I should move something tell me and I'll take a look. And nope I don't know when/if a new demo arrives, although I'd expect one only after the release of 1.0, maybe with it. — xZise [talk] 12:34, 25 March 2015 (CDT)

Sry I'd meant main article - the tutor for the full version. It seems making a separate tutorial for the demo is more reasonable if the difference remains with the old tutorial... NWM (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2015 (CDT)

Ah! Well depends on the amount of duplication. Is the tutorial already here on the wiki so I can take a look? — xZise [talk] 09:15, 27 March 2015 (CDT)

It is just half ready, and in Hungarian only. It is the "LES tutorial". I build it as a step by step tutor with many pictures. Building LES - teaches the editor, the tanker - propulsion, SAS,RCS, docking, electric system etc., the lander 1 - legs, parachutes, ladders, lander 2 - science, fuel pipes, struts. And a fast sample for interplanetary stage, and a short lesson about the launch vehicles. Maybe, I'll start to translate the first sequences before it is finished totally. The demo is more simple: a simple mun attacker rocket would be enough... NWM (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2015 (CDT)

I've downloaded the new demo. It is even more disappointing then the 1.0 full game. Having landing legs without any short engine - what the holy sh*t! (BUT at least there is such an almost totally useless part like the RT-5 "Flea" SRB!) Has anyone tried it? It is a real torture to build a Mun-mission even for an experienced player!

The tutorial's first section is translated to English, although, needs grammar correction, and some enhancements... NWM (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

building upgrades

Just so you know I directly quoted the game when I made those additions. I dont have an issue with your changes. Just be aware that those are not my words. Benargee (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you (or have a grudge against you) but there are no size restrictions so we don't need to abbreviate words. And then I'm a big opponent of this Upper Case Every Word. — xZise [talk] 20:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

thumbnails

Sry, but: The thumbnails are breaking since the server migration. Will this problem solved in the foreseeable future, or the pages have to be reedited? -NWM (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That is out of my hand. I contacted Squad but they'll working on it no sooner than Monday (working hours of Mexiko). And there is also other stuff broken (like uploading images). I use User talk:ALeXmOrA to list everything which must be done and can't be done without access to the server (which I don't have). — xZise [talk] 20:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please inform us when the wiki engine works properly again by leaving an message in the "Wiki News" for example. I do not want to try upload the pictures (dozens, of new parts...) every day, again and again...

Thanks - NWM (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a note at the top so if that is gone you know it should work. Although I don't understand why you try to upload dozens of images. Just one image once a day should be often enough to determine if it works. — xZise [talk] 12:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Spam warning templates

Hey xZise, i created two new templates for warning spammers, and i don't know if it will be useful. I also edited Kerbal Space Program Wiki:Fighting spam. if you think the templates aren't useful, then you can go ahead and delete it. if you think we should keep and use it, please add admin protection after confirming that nothing needs to be changed with the templates. btw if you think that the templates should be substituted (subst:spam2) please tell me. adding to that i created Template:Copyright by Squad for use in images. thanks :)

• Template:Vandal1
• Template:Vandal2

Deepspacecreeper (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like we have the first customer. — xZise [talk] 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Lajoswinkler is that your intended appearance with the signature in pre-tags basically? — xZise [talk] 17:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I just don't know why there is a weird signature appearance (like <code>). and that's exactly not what i want --Deepspacecreeper (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts from an interested observer (I spotted the various anti-spam stuff in recent changes). Some of the things currently labelled as "spam" are really not spam at all. Not all vandalism is spam, not all obnoxious behaviour (e.g. harassment) is spam. The reason that I am making this point, is that calling something spam when it is not clearly spam can and will lead to conflicts or confusion. For example, if someone is accused of spamming, but their abuse was something quite different, it greatly weakens the message being sent to them, and they might not even properly understand what they did that was wrong. Spam is really only when it's bulk activities, usually involving some form of advertising or spamming external links for "search optimisation". Spam can be as little as a single edit, it doesn't have to be bulk within the limits of this site (e.g. a link spammer might spam 1 link here, and 10,000 across 9,999 other wikis). I'm not certain how Wikipedia choose to label the various forms of abuse, but I suggest copying the use of terminology on the English Wikipedia (and I'm assuming that they don't mis-label like this). I'm about 99% certain they always call it vandalism and not spam, when that's the particular problem. I do strongly support anti-spam, anti-vandalism, anti-abuse, etc. I approve of the concepts and creating warning templates, project pages, etc, despite there not actually being a huge problem on here right now. --Murph (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You are probably right that vandalism is a better term. And yes spam (as in link spam) is very rare (<< 1 per week), by those who create an account and publish a page with some ad stuff. But also other vandalism isn't really an issue (the one I linked above is really an exception). Maybe we should change the terminology from spam to vandalism as afaik most of the stuff related to spam is actually more related to the general vandalism. — xZise [talk] 20:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets move the policy pages to distinguish between vandalism and spam. --Deepspacecreeper (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And should we delete the "spam" templates? cause i just want to include link spamming as a type of vandalism. we only need "anti-vandalism". no "anti-spam, "anti-abuse", at least at the mean time. --Deepspacecreeper (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW sorry for using your list at my page. i forgot to edit it to my name when i copied it over --Deepspacecreeper (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem ;) The worst that could happen was the empty 2013 row. — xZise [talk] 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User style

Hi, I'm wondering if it would be possible to get MediaWiki's "user style" enabled on the server? I'm basically looking for the following to be enabled through LocalSettings.php:

$wgAllowUserJs  = true;
$wgAllowUserCss  = true;

See metawikipedia:Help:User style#Support in MediaWiki.

It allows individual users to add their own personal JS & CSS which is served only to them, and no other user. It is extremely useful for both users and admins to enable very low risk and non disruptive testing of stuff without hitting the global MW JS & CSS.

For now, I'm having to override the site's content using developer tools on my end (I have tools that let me forcibly add, edit, and remove content from sites that I visit, but it would be preferable to use MW's own built in functionality).

Thanks. --Murph (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't have access to the LocalSettings.php but I can forward that and maybe someone will enable that. — xZise [talk] 20:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh and btw Help:User style was deleted 2007! — xZise [talk] 20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Also do you need JS? Otherwise I'd for now only suggest to change CSS before someone breaks something with JS. — xZise [talk] 20:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think you had that type of access, but figured you were the right person to ask. I got the wrong interwiki prefix for Help:User style, used mw instead of metawikipedia, as they have altogether far too many similar sites for that stuff. I changed the link above, it should work now.

CSS is really the main thing, to play around with styles for testing, without any risk to the global production CSS. It also has the side benefit of helping Squad claim conformance to any disability legislation, as it's one of the ways to address those issues (people can overlay a style that helps for accessibility, if they need to). JS, well I figured it couldn't hurt to have that as well, but it's less of a need. Both are served only to the user who owns the page they are on, so any breakage is limited to the individual. Wikipedia allow user JS (w:Wikipedia:User scripts), I don't think it's all that unusual for it to be enabled, just off by default. The global CSS & JS pages in the MediaWiki namespace would still be fully admin-only protected, as they should be. --Murph (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick followup. I've uploaded User:Murph/common.js to show the sort of things that user JS is handy for. That's a snapshot of the real file that I'm already using for KSP Wiki, auto injected into each page as it is loaded by a little browser extension I threw together quickly. It just lets me customise the MW UI in ways I find convenient, plus experiment with interesting dynamic content stuff. I'm providing that as a practical answer to "why is it useful?", in case that question is asked by the server admin. Although I've now got a full alternative solution to enabling it on the site, I'd still like it to be enabled on the server, for a cleaner solution and so that others might benefit from it (it will be a long while, possibly never, before my hacky little browser extension ever sees public light). --Murph (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

CSS change request

I have prepared an updated version of MediaWiki:Common.css at User:Murph/common.css. It contains a wider selection of imports from Wikipedia's w:MediaWiki:Common.css. It enables a number of different things, such as correct default styles for {{Navbar}}, {{Navbox}}, {{Sidebar}}, {{Mbox}}, etc. It also adds some potentially useful/interesting things such as "plainlist", "flowlist", "nonumtoc" (e.g. Version history's TOC would look much cleaner without section numbers), "toclimit" (limits the depth of the TOC, e.g. to only H2 or H3, not smaller headings). Reference lists also get the WP styling, which reduces their visual size a little; they look much nicer styled that way. It also adds the necessary comment text to comply with the terms of the CC BY-SA license (technically our existing Common.css could be considered copyright infringement).

I have been using this version of the CSS for a few days now, via forcibly and automatically injecting JavaScript into the site when it's rendered in my browser, and swapping between the site version and my local version. It doesn't make any significant changes to the site's appearance, with important things like {{Box}} (and the various other templates which use it) and the {{Infobox}} family visually identical. I.e. I'm very confident that there's not anything obviously broken by my new CSS, and that existing live content is not harmed by it.

So, can you install it, please, when you have time. It's a complete replacement for the existing contents of Common.css. Existing site-specific styling (i.e. the extra bits which don't come from Wikipedia) is preserved in it. Here are a couple of edit links for your convenience (with oldid in mine, so that future site historians/archaeologists know which revision was being discussed):

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?title=User:Murph/common.css&oldid=64045&action=edit http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&action=edit

Thanks.

--Murph (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Automatic part categorisation?

After finding a handful of parts with no categories, I'm wondering if we should really be automatically assigning categories somewhere inside {{Infobox/Part}} (or its sub-templates), based on the {{{type}}} or {{{role}}}? Is there a good reason not to do that? I'm happy to do the heavy lifting on this, I'm not asking you to work on it. I was actually about to just add it, but it's not urgent so thought I'd run it by you quickly, since you've obviously done a fair bit of work on those templates. --Murph (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)