RogueBasin talk:Community Portal

From RogueBasin
Revision as of 08:52, 13 April 2007 by Grue (talk | contribs) (→‎Spambots)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

· Click here to add a new message ·



I think that some of the organization is confusing. I propose the following layout:

Articles (See Articles for expanded. Categories should reflect that listing.)

  • Development [...]
  • Design [...]
  • Implementation [...]
  • Game reviews

(additional article categories:)

  • Editable articles (will have 'original by' attribution as in Monster attacks)
  • Locked articles (will have a message stating that the original author would not like the article edited)

Games (Categories...)

  • Talkie-talkie projects
  • Unstable games (merge of alpha/beta games. Any game that isn't finished.)
  • Stable games (games that are "finished", as far as being fully playable. Includes 7DRLs and Major roguelikes as subcategories.)
  • 7DRLs (Stable games that are 7DRLs)
  • Major roguelikes (Stable games that are well-known)

(an additional category:)

  • Defunct projects (any project that is dead, regardless of completedness)
  • Handheld roguelikes (any project or roguelike for cell phones or other handheld defices)
  • Roguelike engines (any project that includes or is a roguelike engine)

(by similarity:)

  • Hacklikes (messagebox stating "this game is a Hacklike")
  • Bandlikes (messagebox stating "this game is a Bandlike")

Listings (such as Monster attacks, Preferred Key Controls - also to be included in Articles as bold entries)

Definitions (Explanations of what a term means, and relevant information. Category:Features includes many pages which are just explanations of what a term means.)

Navigation pages shouldn't be categorized, unless they relate to a certain category (e.g. list of roguelikes and roguelike games).

As it is, many games are placed under 4 different categories. Major roguelikes are all stable, and so are all 7DRLs (that aren't in progress - if they are, I doubt the author would take the time to write an article here) - no need to add them under "stable" and "major roguelikes"/"7DRLs" (and "roguelike games" and etc.). At the very most, you'd have 3: development status, hacklike or bandlike, and if it's defunct/an engine/handheld. This means that all games under Category:Roguelike games should be subcategorized. If you want a list of all roguelikes, one exists.

I propose that all categorization is done only through templates (for example, adding Template:Gameinfo automatically adds that page to Category:Roguelike games). This would eliminate stray categories that have a single article under them (I've put category:angband into category:delete). There's no need to give every article on this site a category. It would also eliminate mis-categorized pages (category:roguelike games should have a see also for pages like List of handheld roguelikes etc., but they shouldn't be classified as roguelike games.) By including, for example, {{defunct}}, a box that states "This game or project is defunct" would be displayed on the right, and the page would be added to category:defunct projects. I'll implement the necissary templates if noone objects. [[User:M|–MT]] 01:47, 18 Sep 2006 (CEST)

I like most of your proposals. I am not sure about the idea of merging alpha and beta, many authors seem to like to be able to make that distinction. I would also be very careful to avoid the word finished with respect to stable games.--JeffLait 05:48, 18 Sep 2006 (CEST)

I'll make two seperate templates for alpha and beta. | Perhaps 'finishable' is the proper term. [[User:M|–MT]] 21:16, 18 Sep 2006 (CEST)

"Articles in category "Roguelike games"" is the place where I - as a user - would look for a list of all games (independent of development status) and Warp Rogue does not show up there without this category. --Copx (moved from my page [[User:M|–MT]])

Categories are typically used for navigation. I start at the very top with a something in mind, and work my way down. At the very top we might have a category called "main" or "all" or "information", or whatever. Yes, every article is "all" or "information", and I may expect to find every page of information on this wiki under that main category, but that doesn't mean that we should put our 500~ pages under that category. Same for the roguelike games category. A list of all roguelike games is much more suited to be, well, a list of all roguelike games. Now, if we did want all games to be placed under 'roguelike games', all we'd have to do is add the words [[category:roguelike games]] to the relevant templates, which appear on (ideally) all games (not just yours), and they would all be added to that category. [[User:M|–MT]] 01:37, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)

Finished categorization of games. The remaining pages in that category should be merged (do ports deserve their own pages?) and deleted or categorized in some way. [[User:M|–MT]] 04:30, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)

I think you can safely merge all the NetHack ports into NetHack. --Kisielewicz 04:34, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)

Ok, done. I've merged a lot of small articles or navigation pages in the interests of keeping it simple. [[User:M|–MT]] 07:16, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)

Graphical Map Template

Looking at the Wikipedia's Chess Template got me thinking whether articles describing dungeon generation and FOV could use something similar to display a graphical map instead of ASCII art.

Something like:


I'm new here, so I'd like my first real contributions to go smoothly. Would anyone object if I went ahead and implemented this?

--Bruno 01:44, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)

Since this wiki is rather small, all good contributions are welcome, and all controversial contributions would only bring more activity to the wiki, and so are also welcome. As for the template, the easiest way is to just use <pre></pre> tags, or indent the map - unless you have graphical tiles in mind, which tend to vary (and screenshots are easier). If you're interested in templates and have the time, here's a problem: the single original template is now split based on dev. status. However, there are other minor... attributes: some games have category:horror added to them, etc. You may have noticed that I've added some templates like "this game is an angband variant" and "this game is a coffeebreak roguelike" (which is actually an incomplete replacement for the "game length" attribute). We don't want to say "this is a fantasy roguelike" + "this is a horror roguelike" + "this is a coffeebreak roguelike" etc. on many games. So is there a simple way to do this categorization with templates, or will users have to unreliably just add the categories themselves? [[User:M|–MT]] 02:31, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)
If I understand your problem correctly, you should just be able to add [[Category:Coffeebreak roguelikes]] or [[Category:Horror roguelikes]] to the appropriate templates so that the pages including them will be automatically included in those categories. As for the proposed dungeon template, yes it would be graphical. It would not be intended as a "screenshot" to preview a game, but would be used to graphically demonstrate map-related algorithms. --Bruno 03:03, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)
Ah, yes. Sure, why not? - but do make sure that it's square and perhaps of a large (or a variety of) sizes. Have a look at how it would be used in the algorithm pages, if you havn't already. | I've added those categories. The problem is that we don't want "this game was developed by X" "this game was released in 2003" etc. - we just want to use a regular template, but if someone enters "fantasy, horror" for "|theme=", it adds the game to those relevant categories. [[User:M|–MT]] 03:58, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)

Locked pages

...are annoying. Here's what I'd like to have changed: (hit the edit button for a better view)

The RogueBasin is a central knowledge-base for everything related to the Roguelike genre, as well as a detailed directory of Roguelike games.

Articles · Games · Community · Links


Of course, the best way to understand what a Roguelike is is to download and play one.

[...] The following may help you find out more:

[...] If you have some ideas for a new Roguelike and would like to give development a go (or are already a seasoned developer) the RogueBasin is here to help you expand the Roguelike genre. A complete list of articles is available, but here are some to get you started:

[add this title under the current titles:]


One of the easiest ways to contribute is to add your name to the RGRD Wiki Project. Simply post a message on rgrd stating that you'd like to participate, and what you agree to. [Alternatively, send an email to [if someone wants to get these?]. ] If one of us happens to see a relevant post by you, we'll upload it to this wiki as an article.

If you'd like to contribute to RogueBasin directly, [blah blah blah how to set up an account]. Feel very free to edit! However, changes to navigation, categorization, or the templates (since they affect many pages) should first be discussed on the Community portal. We especially need more information added to the games pages and the lists - if you're a developer, consider updating your game's page, and making sure that it (and you) are included in the relevant lists.

Redirect the community portal page to here (it's now fully redundant to the main page). Redirect the main page talk to here, move its contents to near the top of this page. That should encourage people to post something here, and then go on to contributing. [[User:M|–MT]] 07:51, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)

The problem is that this might destroy the purpose of why they are locked in the first place :P (Spam). Okay, I'll unlock them, and you'll set up the redirects. --Kisielewicz 12:19, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)

They now redirect, and may be re-locked. Could you (or anyone who can) add my above changes to the main page? [[User:M|–MT]] 22:34, 21 Sep 2006 (CEST)

We'll try to unlock the main page too. Alarm me if spam or vandalism occurs. --Kisielewicz 19:02, 23 Sep 2006 (CEST)


'Roguelikes' or 'roguelike games'? 'Projects' or 'games' (as in beta projects/stable games)? And other issues of standardized naming. I prefer not using 'projects', favoring 'games' and 'engines'. To be consistant, I would call the games category 'games', since roguelike is the only type we have, and because I don't want 'stable roguelike games', which would be the natural subcategory. [[User:M|–MT]] 00:53, 24 Sep 2006 (CEST)

  • Aye, I think we need a standard way of saying either 'roguelikes' or 'roguelike games', just to be consistent. 'Roguelikes' would be my preferred choice, because it's shorter and I don't think the 'games' part is necessary.
  • I think the idea with 'projects'/'games' is that while the roguelike is in development it is not complete and shouldn't be considered as a game yet, so it is a project. Something needs to be done about 'defunct games' though. It's referred to as 'defunct games' in places and 'defunct projects' in some places. Maybe everything could be renamed to things like 'Beta roguelikes', 'Stable roguelikes', 'Defunct roguelikes', etc.
  • I think it is a rather pedantic issue to try to separate 'projects' from 'games'. I think we should just use 'games' or 'roguelikes' everywhere. --JeffLait 17:37, 7 Dec 2006 (CET)
  • Also, this page is getting long, anyone mind if I archive some of the comments?
Icey 18:48, 30 Sep 2006 (CEST)
  • 'Roguelike games' is redundant, IMO. Stick with 'Roguelikes'.
  • I agree. Alpha projects are the beginnings of a roguelike, Beta projects are playable versions of the game that are still incomplete, Defunct projects are ones that got left off somewhere between alpha and beta, and Stable games are the ones that are basically done and are just fixing bugs. Also, about Defunct games vs. projects...defunct games are games that are complete but forgotten about and rarely played. Defunct projects are defined in my first sentence. And no, I don't think we should use the generic term 'roguelike' when referring to these. There's a big enough difference between a game and a project that the wording is important.
  • Go for it. A lot of the early stuff is irrelevant now anyway.
Also, here's another idea I have for naming. How about if we renamed "Talkie-talkie projects" to "Shockfrost projects"?
[[User:Gamer 2k4|Gamer_2k4Talk]] 01:40, 30 Oct 2006 (CET)
I'm not keen on that idea. I don't know much about Roguelikes, but I've never heard of Shockfrost and never heard anyone use it in refering to a project. Is Shockfrost a roguelike? I don't know. Also, you don't give a reason for changing the name, so my vote would be for no. Icey 21:28, 30 Oct 2006 (CET)
Shockfrost was a guy who entered r.g.r.d. guns blazing and had a lot of ideas for a game he never made. He dissapeared mysteriously in the shadows.--Slash 20:36, 31 Oct 2006 (CET)
I understand now, thanks for the explanation Slash. Icey 23:03, 31 Oct 2006 (CET)
I vote for a 'no', it is just unfair to the projects ;) shockfrost games are born dead, while ours may see the light someday soon! --Slash 20:36, 31 Oct 2006 (CET)
Here's a few alternative names:
* Discussed Projects (doesn't imply there is one person working on it, so probably a bad choice)
* Unreleased Projects (hmm kinda implies something has been made, so probably bad as well)
* Planned Projects (oooh alliteration and it sounds positive, without implying there is something created)
* Outlined Projects (similar to above)
* Pre-alpha Projects (also sounds positive, implies it is starting the journey along the development stage)
* Couldn't Really Appear Projects (well, maybe not)
Icey 23:03, 31 Oct 2006 (CET)
I also say 'no', it is an in-joke that is too obscure. My suggestion for a proper title would be 'Vapourware'. Yes, it is negative, but IMO it should be negative. I don't see why we should encourage the advertisment of unreleased, possibly unstarted, projects. The morale of the ShockFrost episode should be that vapourware has a strong advantage over real games in publicity. They are not constrained by mundanities of practicality or gameplay. I'm content with Talkie-Talkie, but I am opposed at making it any more positive. --JeffLait 17:38, 7 Dec 2006 (CET)

Render Errors in IE7

Just a heads up, this wiki looks pretty ratty in IE7. There's some formatting issues. I personally have no patience for rendering differences between browsers, its a real pain in the ass.

DarkGod Use a real browser? ;>
The software used to run this wiki, MediaWiki was created by Wikimedia, and being incompatible with all legitimate software (such as IE7) is a design goal of all Wikimedia software, MediaWiki especially. Nothing to do but deal with it... ^^; Almafeta 00:34, 7 Dec 2006 (CET)

Adding more info

I was thinking about making some contributions to this wiki -- creating articles about various unrepresented roguelikes, filling out categories, perhaps putting one or two 'Theories of Roguelike Design' in my userspace, etc. I just wanted to ask for permission before I made any major edits, especially if there's already a set 'style guide' for this wiki that I should be cogniscant of... ^^; Almafeta 00:34, 7 Dec 2006 (CET)

Hi Almafeta, welcome to the RogueBasin! I'm not an administrator or anything like that, but I think the general consensus is that all edits are welcome. People can always revert or improve anything, so don't worry about making any large or controversial edits. Icey 14:48, 7 Dec 2006 (CET)


There was a small spambot attack recently, dunno how they overrid the spam protection (what is the current spam protection)? I had no luck blocking them via the sysop special pages. Is there any way to delete user accounts?

--Slash 01:08, 12 Apr 2007 (CEST)

I think it may be useful to update MediaWiki software to the latest version. The one that's currently installed is so old, the mind boggles. The current version has captchas and other stuff, and it's much easier to revert vandalism. Grue 10:23, 12 Apr 2007 (CEST)

IIRC Bj????rn set up the latest version when the server translation was performed? Also, this is plain vandalism, not even spam (deleting '+' and everything after a '&', what use would that have? --Slash 17:19, 12 Apr 2007 (CEST)

It can't be the latest version. For example when you look at the diff between two revisions, there's no link to edit the revision. This feature was in Wikipedia since I joined it, probably, and that was very long time ago. So, to revert vandalism one has to click three times instead of two, pretty annoying. I don't know, maybe it's configured incorrectly, but it definitely looks very outdated. Grue 10:52, 13 Apr 2007 (CEST)