Wiki - Interest Thread

[Vraatjuh]

I can't imagine anyone really playing this game without the wiki, despite the many problems it has. I'm guilty of not adding/updating info when I could though. Honestly I've never modified a wiki, though I'm sure I could probably manage.

To me wikia seems cruddy, but usable. Of course I don't know how much work gets put into it to make it work even as well as it does now. If you get a private host what happens when they get burned out, ragequit, etc? Is there a way to mirror the site or have multiple admins that can back the data up?

mirroring the site shouldnt be a problem at all.

[Shask]

I pretty much live by the wiki. I'm just really glad somebody fixed the "Required by.." template thing, now I can see what to do with objects.

Whilst I agree that the general layout and aesthetics are poor, the current wiki is still excellent.

[DatOneGuy]

I pretty much live by the wiki. I'm just really glad somebody fixed the "Required by.." template thing, now I can see what to do with objects.

Whilst I agree that the general layout and aesthetics are poor, the current wiki is still excellent.

So it fixed itself? I fucked with a while, but it didn't do anything, at all. Despite me fixing it to the way it was before perfectly...

[Phizuol]

So it fixed itself? I fucked with a while, but it didn't do anything, at all. Despite me fixing it to the way it was before perfectly...

Yeah it started working a few days ago. I was significantly pleased.

[sabinati]

i can host it

[DatOneGuy]

If people are interested in moving it, I'd be down for it at any time, but if it works as is and people don't mind all the new stuff then there shouldn't be a problem leaving it where it is and I can just work on what's there I guess.

(I do hate the layout but as long as I'm logged in it uses the proper one)

[Phizuol]

Well when you compare ad-packed unstable effing garbage with building something that's nice and functional... answer is pretty obvious which is preferred. I assume the software isn't that hard to setup and use. I can promise to put at least "some" effort into a new wiki.

[DatOneGuy]

Well when you compare ad-packed unstable effing garbage with building something that's nice and functional... answer is pretty obvious which is preferred. I assume the software isn't that hard to setup and use. I can promise to put at least "some" effort into a new wiki.

It makes a big difference actually. I have hosting but the name is terrible (pyrofyr.net , pyrofyr.com, and some pokemon related site)

[sabinati]

mediawiki is pretty easy to get set up, might not be all fancy looking for a while but at least it won't look retarded (those stupid quote blocks that are basically a fragment of a sentence, UGH) and have a bunch of shitty ads...

[supercharazard]

1: Magmawiki, it's wikia without the shit.
2: Yes.