STOWiki talk:Community portal

From Star Trek Online Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Discussion archives

Welcome![edit source]

This page is for discussing this Wiki, for example changes to pages or categorization. If you have a question about the game, a feature request, or require in-game assistance you would be advised to direct it towards the official forums or the Star Trek Online reddit.

This works just like any other Discussion page on any other wiki. Click on the "+" tab above to add to the discussion. Thank you!

Crossfaction icon[edit source]

Combining every logo, now there are 6 of them, really doesn't work well, especially on the tiny Faction Khitomer.png logos but also slightly larger infobox ones. Now we have Khitomer acting as the alliance covering all factions, it might be worth adopting Faction Khitomer.png as the universal cross faction logo on the wiki. With time, it will become more familiar to players from outside the wiki and more easily understood. than a medley of logos. Yes, there is a lack of familiarity now, even with it being on a free ship, but it's not like there is a great deal of familiarity over the wiki's home made version. This may also be a good opportunity to revisit the color scheme we go with for cross-faction in infoboxes which at present usually just fed blue or grey. Might be worth matching Alliance grey with use of gold highlights where possible. Scientifictheory (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are two fantastic ideas! Using the Khitomer Alliance logo to represent all factions makes sense, because each faction is a member. Using Gold as color is also great because (1) it doesn't favor the 3 major powers (Fed/blue, Kling/red, Rom/green), (2) it looks "posh" (similar to Legendary-rated items), and stands apart visually (if we can make it look different from Cardassian & TOS yellows). Kind regards, Markonian (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I've tested gold on grey and grey on gold in the episode nav. I think the former looks better, but it would make templates such as playableshipnav quite grey. I tried gold rimmed boxes btw, that looks awful. Perhaps text color could be overridden to gold if it looks too dull.Scientifictheory (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Start of the game (2409) is a year before alliance agreement is signed (2410), would that be a problem? Tiny cross-faction icon can be bumped from 16pxFaction Khitomer.png to, for example, 22pxFaction Khitomer.png - to make it more visible - this way both Faction Khitomer.png and Faction Khitomer.png are similar in size. --Damixon (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so, the timeline is pretty meaningless in game. Even aside from constantly being invited to jump ahead in the story, you could still play the Alliance Battlecruiser straight out of Starfleet Academy. The marketing materials, also, favour new content and symbolism far more than pre-Alliance times (which is now a minority of the game time). Besides, when you hit crossfaction content and ships, you're basically in the Alliance era. Scientifictheory (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
On sizes, even at 24px, if you didn't already know could you tell me what that red blot in the lower right corner of the icon was supposed to be? Icons should be clear and simple in order to easily convey their intended information. Even at infobox size, having several tiny icons in the corner of a tiny icon is not clear and simple.Scientifictheory (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that smaller details on the low-px icon can't be recognized, but as a whole it does the job. On ship pages it is somewhat larger so it is clearer. My concern is that the khitomer alliance icon visually still isn't established as something that would represent all playable factions. But maybe we should give it a try, now that devs are introducing more alliance stuff. --Damixon (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the grey on gold version. It goes along nicely with the other faction colors and the gold-tone is unique enough to stand apart from other yellow factions. Kind regards, Markonian (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Awesome, can an admin update the factioncolor records? Scientifictheory (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Crossfaction ship pages would be quite dark with suggested grey variant because the website itself is dark. I think current grey is also good option because it is similar to the color of the Alliance Khitomer Crew Uniform. If I should choose between those two options on the All Episodes template, grey on gold gold on grey looks better (made a correction, gold logo is more visible when on grey). --Damixon (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Fine to run both versions I think, given both are in the logo. I think the darker grey to match what we have on the logo though? Personally, I also think the darker grey looks a bit more slick and less 404 than the light one. It will also contrast better with the gold. But not essential of course.Scientifictheory (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
A related point; I was hoping to be able to link the faction icons on the infoboxes so the hover-over works (and ideally, put special links so I can have "link={{{faction}}} content" which can then go to a dedicated tooltip saying "This content is playable only by x faction" rather than the standard "what is x faction" tooltips) but my test on missioninfo doesn't seem to link it. Is there a supression on linking in that part of the infobox I can't see? I presume there must be as you couldn't click to see the faction image page before.Scientifictheory (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We need feedback on this; dark grey + golden border was added as cross-faction color on infobox, to see how it looks. Previously it was lighter grey with same border. See examples: Elachi Ornash Battlecruiser and Alliance Khitomer Crew Uniform. --Damixon (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That actually looks better than I thought it would! But happy for us to go with a more conservative grey-all-round if others want.Scientifictheory (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Think the grey is too dark on things like the ship nav or mission nav. The gold border doesn't really work either (clashes with the other uniformly colored borders). I made the ship nav lighter and I think it looks better, doesn't clash with the legends tab anymore. Lemme know what you think SFC (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I changed the infobox color to match the SFC's grey - should it stay this way or darker one was better? I'm not sure which one is better. --Damixon (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that grey. I just think the default grey that was used before was a little too light and washed out. Both the darker versions are an improvement. On borders for the nav, I don't think it's too bad but I agree a block color is better. Gold I think stood out more from grey being used on lots of default/other segments but they grey adds uniformity with the infoboxes. Perhaps there is another way to apply gold highlights? (the dominion are the only section with a logo banner on the left. Perhaps that applied to all sections would work?) Happy to go with consensus there though.Scientifictheory (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The yellow border looks neat. Given that the Khitomer Alliance is a unique faction in the game, it makes sense for it to standout and let players see at a glance that e.g. this particular ship is faction-agnostic. The gold icon pops nicely. Personally, grey is too drab a color to use en-masse, especially because the Wiki itself is dark/black by default. A silver KA logo on yellow ground might look friendlier or more cheerful. In any case, it's no deal-breaker and I'll go with the majority. Kind regards, Markonian (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is also the alliance icon made by cryptic: Faction Khitomer Alt.png, available for use on pages if needed. --Damixon (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

article that tracks revamps and facelifts?[edit source]

I was thinking that maybe there could be an article/page unto itself that is a comprehensive list tracking the model revamps, toon facelifts (like the forthcoming YOK facelifts for the Klingons) and such over the years, as well as the who did what.

Like there would be an entry "June 17, 2020 (PC)/July 16, 2020 (console) - T'Varo Light Warbird - geometry and material - Thomas Marrone" and "Martember 33, 2113 - Oberth-class - geometry and material - Tobias Richter and Thomas Marrone".

Something along those lines.

--Ch00path1ng4 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. I don't think we have anything like that. You want to start it? We could link it from Playable starships page. --PiralDorrm (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I shall! I'll give it the tentative title of Graphical Updates; it can always be changed later. --Ch00path1ng4 (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Page Prefixes[edit source]

Posting this on behalf of Markus1566 who in short, wants to remove prefixes from page names - e.g, Ability: Attack Pattern Alpha, Trait: Cold-Hearted, Reputation: Delta Alliance. Doing so would let the search bar on the wiki accurately autosuggest ability pages too, since right now they don't unless you explicitly search for it. Additionally it'd also make for cleaner article titles, and not messes like Ability: Beams: Fire at Will. Downsides would be the workload (although it can be mostly automated), and possibly the need to clean up some pages that are unintentionally changed in the massmove. On the Discord we're a bit conflicted on whether or not this would be a good idea, so I figure: why not have a small discussion on it? --RadioActivitii (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Console abilities have their names too similar to the console itself so it kinda helps distinguish those two - so if someone search for D.O.M.I.N.O., would he expect an ability or console. Maybe disambiguation page would fix this, although that is one extra page that needs to be created. I think some pages like reputations don't need a prefix. Also I'm not a fan of captain specializations (e.g. Intelligence Officer) with "Specialization" prefix because they are mixed with duty officer specializations (e.g. Botanist, Security Officer), which were originally behind that prefix. Set bonuses don't need their "ability" prefix as it is usually a passive bonus. Also, it was mentioned on discord - standalone console and kit module pages could also contain ability information. Those are usually short articles so extra info would be beneficial, and most of the time new ability pages are not even created - for example, Borg Exoskeletal Frame has a clickable ability which is present on the same page. --Damixon (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I am kinda opposed to this, but if we did change the ability pages, we would still need an affix to them, eg. Ability: Attack Pattern Alpha would need to be moved to Attack Pattern Alpha (ability). The reason is widepsread use of Template:ability2 and its many older variants all over the wiki that all expect an affix, and we'd need a way to keep those functioning, but a suffix would work and be compatible with the idea of easy searching above. If we could look over the templates and get that working seamlessly I might be down for it.
I do think that passive set bonuses do not need their own pages, since 100% of their information is going to be on the set page anyway, so the name of the set bonus ability (with and without affix) can just be a redirect to the set page. Console and kit modules though, that is definitely up for discussion, since they are effectively one topic split across 2 pages. DanPMK (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit late on this, but for my 2 cents; I think it makes linking a lot messier. On reputations for example most would be Lukari Restoration Initiative but when you hit ones like Delta Alliance and Task Force Omega you have to end up putting (reputation) at the end of it. So you end up replacing one naming convention with a variety of possibilities that will inevitably end up with things pointing to the wrong place.
The search isn't that bad at getting the page. For example, if you search for "Beam Fire At Will" (wrong in several ways), the first result is the correct "Ability: Beams: Fire at Will".
A better angle to tackle the problem might be to improve the portals. Let's say you are vaguely familiar with BFAW but can't remember its name. You just know it shoots beams a lot. So you type in Ability. That page then expects you to know which category it falls into. Follow onto the other pages and you have a list of them with icons, but no explanatory text or division by impact. You'll never find what you're thinking of from these. What about combining those pages into a single ability database that you can easily view all the stats on side-by-side? That way from a single portal when you want to find a particular ability, it would be incredibly easy from that single database?Scientifictheory (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Field Request for Infobox CargoTable[edit source]

Howdy! I'm new to the wiki and new to STO in general (only a month or so in). I noticed that the Infobox CargoTable was missing fields described in Template:Infobox/docs (namely head, subhead, and especially text fields greater than 1 or 2), so have added them to the CargoTable inserts, but they don't have corresponding schema entries, so they can't populate yet. Would it be possible to add head3 - head9, subhead3 - subhead9, text2 - text9 (or whatever max field numbers seem appropriate) as string fields for the table so everything gets included? --Chewyspeaker (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the wiki. Most of the items don't use those fields, but here it is: Special:CargoTables/Infobox. --Damixon (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Greatly appreciate it. Will make exporting data/API requests a lot more robust, since some items have up to text7. I'm tinkering around with developing a simple build calculator that just sums stat increases from equipped gear and traits for ease of viewing/theorycrafting, i.e. "Have I hit the 400 CtrlX cap on Gravity Well radius?". --Chewyspeaker (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
No problem, let me know if any other field needs to be added. If it helps, text under text2 - text7 could be added under text1, with line breaks. It would look the same on pages, but it requires editing who knows how many pages. --Damixon (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It's actually better, at least for me, to have them separate since I can then easily map the different text# to different fields. Plus it seems like it would be a pain to get all the item header/subheaders in there correctly.
Could you also add new tables for Set and SetBonus? I don't mind beginning to move those over myself.
With Set, SetBonus, Infobox, and Ship tables, Cargo and the Wiki API become very powerful tools for developers. Should also simplify the set tables once it's completed (by simply CargoQuery'ing the Sets and having the output format set as a template)
  • Name - string
  • Type - string (e.g. "Crafted", "MissionReward", "Reputation")
  • Reputation - string (if type is Reputation, which rep it's from)
  • Item1 - string
  • ItemType1 - string (e.g. Deflector, GroundWeapon, etc.)
  • Item2 - string
  • ItemType2 - string
  • Item3 - string
  • ItemType3 - string
  • Item4 - string
  • ItemType4 - string
  • SetBonus1 - string
  • SetBonus2 - string
  • SetBonus3 - string
  • Name - string
  • Set - string
  • ReqItems - integer (# of required set items for bonus)
  • Passive1 - string*
  • Passive2 - string
  • Passive3 - string
  • Passive4 - string
  • Passive5 - string
  • Ability1 - text (For current typed out abilities)
  • TraySkill1 - string (For future-proofing as the TraySkill table gets more robust. Either string with the skills name or integer with the TraySkill._id)
* The number of Passive fields is somewhat arbitrary, and while my preference is to have separate fields for each one, having one Passive field with line breaks would be fine too. Similarly, I don't think there's any single set bonus with 2+ abilities, but thought I'd be thorough and add the 1 in case we need to add more in the future. --Chewyspeaker (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
We need a template that would be used on the set pages so cargo table could be populated. Do you plan to make one? Instead of "Reputation" it could be "Available" or something similar.. so when you isolate by type=Reputation, you would get whatever is added to "Available". This way mission or ship name could go under same field. --Damixon (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, good call; 'Available' makes way more sense. Maybe 'Source' as a more descriptive name? Yes, my plan was to convert the existing set bonus descriptions at the end of the set pages to insert a template that would also have the Cargo inserts, and have a similar template for adding to the end of Set pages to handle the set inserts themselves. I considered making Set pages as a whole a template that parsed the Set data, but there's too much data to make it reasonable (i.e. adding Game Descriptions etc. would be massive) --Chewyspeaker (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, 'Source' sounds better. Option that you mentioned, where Set page is fully added via template is something I did for space and ground weapon pages: {{Sw overlay}} (e.g. Corrosive Plasma weapons (space)). Game description has to be added whether there is template or not, and it doesn't have to be added to cargo table.......... Another option is to use the {{Settable}} as the base for the new template - it would be an overview of all set items on the header of each set page. It would contain all data you need. At the bottom of the page where current "Set powers" section is, we would just put a template that pulls from cargo and adds those set bonuses. But having two template that pull data to the cargo is also ok, whatever better suits your idea. --Damixon (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Dang, Sw Overlay is quite impressive. I think for now, the best approach would be to focus on getting the SetBonus template up and running since that will be used in either case and I don't want to promise the moon with my first project then get overwhelmed. I'll try to get a sample template up sometime this evening. Edit: {{SetBonus}} - First draft. Attempting to use List data types and see how cargo queries and the API handle that, since it's a lot cleaner than Passive1...9 fields. --Chewyspeaker (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, I'm still learning this stuff, never tried #arraymaps (will look into it). Looks good! You will notice that some set bonuses have their own page (e.g. Ability: Heavy Weaponry) - no need for that since info is present on the set page already. --Damixon (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! My plan for the set bonuses with existing pages is to preserve the links, but I won't be making new pages while implementing the SetBonus template. I figured the fate of those pages (whether to remove them or give all bonuses their corresponding pages) is beyond the scope of this. Would you mind clicking Create Table on the template page so I can make sure the cargo entries look as intended? I'm not able to do it since I'm not an admin. --Chewyspeaker (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Table created. I wanted to say, it would be better if passive bonus (e.g. Heavy Weaponry) doesn't have a interwiki link like Ability: Heavy Weaponry because it is not necessary, and passive bonus is not an ability. --Damixon (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I can remove existing links then, and mark those ability pages for deletion with the reason of "Set Bonus, not Ability". Does that work for you? --Chewyspeaker (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, remove the link, but no need to tag them, I have my eyes on them and will probably redirect them to set page at one point. --Damixon (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Main page dev blog link error[edit source]

Just thought someone ought to know that the dev blog links for ps4/xbox on the main page are mixed up. You know, to whomever it may concern; and has the power to edit that sort of thing. 02:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Links are now fixed, thank you. --Damixon (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Fleet Rahhae Recon Warbird - Rahhae Recon Warbird - Incorrect Starship Mastery[edit source]


I'm used to reading Wiki's and have never edited one, so I thought I'd post the issue to the community portal and highlight the issue for another to correct.

Fleet Rahhae Recon Warbird -

The Starship Mastery section is incorrect.

1. Precise Weapons Systems - ACC +5% 2. Enhanced Singularity Circuitry - CD<15% Charge>30% 3. Enhanced Weapons Systems - +10 Energy DMG +10 Kinetic DMG 4. Devastating Weaponry - +2.5% CrtH

The current order is showing 2. Enhanced Weapon Banks - +15% CrtD. And the order is wrong.

The correct layout is the same as the Fleet Mogai Heavy Warbird. 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the issue! It's been fixed now. Don't hesitate to view the page history and see what was changed, and especially don't hesitate to consider wiki editing in the future! Wiki authors are always appreciated :) SFC3 (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There's another issue as well, Cost is showing 20K dilithium, it should be 20K fleet marks. 10:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Main page quick links[edit source]

I know I've mentioned this before, but I think the links on the main page need to be changed (so, hi there admins). It's easy as long-time players to run on assumed knowledge. But the front page nav is what helps first-time users. A few thoughts;

  • As it is mainly new readers coming to the front page, we shouldn't link directly to categories. That's not very helpful. Instead, we should point people towards hubs to then work outward from.
  • These pages should be the major topics for the game, not things like Tribble breeding which has long since been a niche topic.
  • Every page linked on the first page should be of decent quality and be designed to branch out on that subject matter.
  • They should all be direct links with tooltips so a new user can get a summary of the area before clicking through.

So on that, I suggest these changes at least;

  • STO WIKI: Change Release notes to Season, the latter is easier for casual readers to navigate as a starting point.
  • Basics: Remove UI as that is a subsection of the Guide: Basics. Remove Player title, Trophy and Accolades are they're hardly "basic", they're kinda irrelevant for a brand new player. Put instead Player character, as it is a good hub, and Race.
  • Endgame: Put Fleet Adv System direct to Fleet - simpler wording and the tooltip will work.
  • Galaxy: Direct hubs straight to the Hub page (rather than Guide: Starbases), ditto 'systems' is on a redirect. Replace Lore with Canon in Star Trek Online which is more useful. Remove link to NPC category.
  • Equipment: Drop tribble breeding, that isn't important. Maybe put pets instead as at least that branches to more content but includes Tribbles.
  • Episodes: Change episodes to mission, a direct link and clear as to what it goes to. Drop walkthroughs as they're not well maintained, replace with patrols?

Something like that. I'll be looking at where we could do with better hubs in areas.Scientifictheory (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Good timing because yesterday RadioActivitii‎ teased a revised main page [1] [2] on discord. Can you see these images? I already mentioned Visual Slots isn't fitting for the "Game Basics" as it is too niche - Ability may be a replacement as it is a major topic. --Damixon (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, you can see it here but since it uses a bit of custom CSS (linked at the top there) it's not exactly... great looking without, lol. Here's the most revised version - not including custom icons (gonna wait until I have categories done) --RadioActivitii (talk)
If it helps, here is my suggestion list from before. Also, if we're needing a portal page that doesn't currently exist I can get started on it now.
Side note; any thoughts/capabilities on the wiki theme/ui? It fits launch-era STO but the game's style has moved on from Kelvin blue. Are there the capabilities needed to shift to a traditional LCARS look that is closer to the current UI and regular Trek? Just speculation, it's too far out of my skill set to help on :( Scientifictheory (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It's possible to reskin the wiki (especially in a way that better replicates STO's in-game UI) but I think that'd be something we might be best consulting Eyes on, since they've handled the overall wiki skin since like, the wikis inception I think. When testing custom CSS I did try recreating the standard FED UI but it was a tad bright so I opted for the FED Classic colour scheme which I think looks a little better. --RadioActivitii (talk)
{{test}} <- here is my list for the main page (3 categories, 10 links in each). Any comment on it is appreciated. --Damixon (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
That's good and covers the criticals well I think. A few notes;
I think I might include Canon somewhere for those wanting to know more on how the game intersects the TV show they've been watching.
Currency is a good basics page I hadn't thought of before but is useful for beginners to know what it is they're earning and what they need for what.
Faction, Equiptment and Combat point to disambig pages. I'll admit it works better as a hub but I think Ill go and flesh out those pages to be more than pointing to 2 sub pages. Feels weird to point someone directly to something than then invites them to choose, without real context to inform, between more articles.
Not sure about having Accolades listed but not covering anything in the field of space barbie. But not sure what page is best to include here. Think we could do with a "Chracter customization" hub?
Stylistic notes;
Under systems, everything avoids the word system (Admiralty, not Admiralty system) except for Endeavour system, I suggest displaying that as just Endeavor.
We call everything else by its in-game name (fleets, not guilds), I suggest we call crafting R&D.
We don't need to mention "game" infront of everything. It's not going to be anything else on this wiki and is repetative. Just "Basics, Systems, Content".
On the final version, it should link directly to the article underneath rather than via a redirect.Scientifictheory (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think combining RadioActivitii's most recent revised version of their main page revamp with the suggestions here provided by both you and Damix would go along way for sure. A few things: I think Lore and Canon can be under its own page, at least Lore should link to canon. They fit together nicely. We could switch out Visual Slots for "Customization" in general (both ship and character ofc). Add Endeavors to the COntent section, change Crafting to R&D, and I think we've got a solid foundation for a main page revamp. I especially like what's been done as far as custom icons go, it really makes the main page feel more modern and Trek-like, without being overly LCARS-y.
I've also asked Kael for a replacement background image, ideally in the form of current STO keyart. He has yet to get back to me (has to get PWE approval first, and they're likely very busy with Anniv. 11 rn!) Everything seems to be coming together now. SFC3 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've given a bit of oomph to most of the disamig pages you linked to to give a better introduction to players looking the first time. I've also created a space barbie hub to cover visual-slots/uniforms/emotes/hull-materials etc. I'm sure it can be fleshed out more in time.
Re lore, I think these need moving around. Lore points to the answers to the lore mission where and Path to 2409 points to the lore accolades. The latter seems more valuable, mission answers are a bit niche. But most of the Path info is more legible reading the chronology/year articles, even if it is more dispersed. I think maybe we could do with putting a summarised Path to 2409 on the Star Trek Online page instead? That page feels like it should have a lot more on it that it does.Scientifictheory (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Check the updated {{Test}} page based on the feedback above - it offers version 2 where I included Customization and Canon, but dropped Race and Trait because those two can be accessed from the Player character, and Race is partially covered with Faction. Does anyone have a better idea what to drop from the list instead? I wasn't sure where to put Lore. Also, SFC mentioned Endeavor should go under Content, so I moved Sector space from Content to Systems to make room. Also, I mentioned it on discord, so I'll put it here too, I think it would be better if twitter feed is below the dev blogs and ongoing events section (dev blogs section provides a better on the glance overview of what is new so I think the position on top will be more fitting for that.. twitter, on the other hand, needs some scrolling to find what is going on so it isn't necessary to give it position on top). --Damixon (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Dropping race makes sense (although there are many areas covered by the character hub). But what I will do is flag it better on the faction page.Scientifictheory (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I updated the page with the Test template suggestions. I did make one edit by removing Patrols since we can cover that in the TFO page as they share the same UI screen in-game. I did it mainly due to aesthetic reasons, because I didn't want the section being split into three rows (on a 1080p monitor at least) with it being a 5/4/1 split on each row. It looks like this now, so I'll say it might be worth doing one final pass on what pages to include on the homepage, then I'll finish making a set of icons for it. Then we can do bureaucracy to you know, actually make the change and stuff. -RadioActivitii (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Awesome. A few notes;
1. Abilities is duplicated in content and basics.
2. Game- is not needed before Basics, Systems and Content (it's not referring to anything else).
3. -Content is not needed after PvE and PvP when it is under content.
4. We should use in-game terms, so PvE=TFO, Crafting=R&D.
5. Minor, but I think boff should come before doff. Should these actually be in alphabetical order? #
Scientifictheory (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Those changes Scientifictheory mentioned should be implemented. About alphabetical order - I'm ok with both ways. If we use TFO, then we could add Patrol instead of the duplicate Abilities. The last one could be Canon (it is on my test template), but I guess it is open for any suggestions if someone has a better idea. In order to fit 5 links in one row, length of the words can be reduced by having them in the singular form: Endeavors -> Endeavor, changing Item Upgrades to Upgrading, Starship Mastery to Ship Mastery or just Mastery, Bridge and Duty officer to Boff and Doff (if abbreviations like these are acceptable). Combined with text resize that RadioActivitii mentioned as a possible solution, I think we could get them to fit. --Damixon (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)