SC4 Encyclopaedia

[BigSlark]

So far, I see two components that will be on every page of our Wiki/Encyclopedia:

A link to a discussion topic for that particular topic and lots of photos, to illustrate the point.

There's nothing worse than attempting to figure something about SC4 out without anything to visually reference.

Beyond that, well, give me some more time to think about it...

Cheers,
Kevin

[existenz]

This sounds like a great idea. As a relatively new owner of SC4/RH (4 months) I have spent more time looking up threads and info than I have playing. I have a ton of hints, tutorials that I have printed out including readme's such as those for Voltaires RMIP and the NAM as well as terraforming and other tutorials. I also have noticed that some tutorials referenced in some threads have disappeared from ST or whatever site they were hosted on so this would preserve what is left, and might inspire others to write new tutorials. I found though that I did spend hours on fruitless searches for info at times so a central repository of hints would be most welcome especially as new players are still popping up here and there. I think this is a result of SCS as many people found that too easy and may turn to SC4 as a better game as I did. Well I never played SCS but bought SC4/RH as I felt SCS would be exactly what it turnesd out to be. I'm not a fan of plopped buildings. Anyway I can help I will. I have a degree in research so am used to research on the net.

[Shadow Assassin]

A Wiki doesn't take up much space in terms of physical space on a hard drive. So, it'd be possible for SC4D to host it.

A good name for the Wiki would be 'A Hitchhiker's Guide to SimCity 4'.

If this takes off, I'll be very happy to contribute my ideas and whatnot about city development and the like. I know a fair bit about Wiki code [it's quite easy to learn, actually -- it's a modified version of BBCode with some extra features], so, again, I'm willing to help.

I'd, however, suggest that the Tutorials section be moved to this Wiki, if it does take off, thereby removing it from the forums. It'd unclutter the forum index somewhat and make it easier to navigate.

[JoeST]

I believe there is a package for SMF (this forum software) that relates the user management for a mediawiki wiki to the user management for this. I found this a while ago and it may have changed/got better.. I will research it some more now...

Here you go: Choice 1  Choice 2
Choice one works well, but all it does is creates and logs users in to both pieces of software

EDIT: Choice 2 allows you to create an SMF user group (either post count based or other) that alows the user in that group to edit pages on the wiki, it also closes the wiki from unregisterd guests and removes the ability to register.

I will try both at the same time, but i dont know how well it will work

Joe

[Ennedi]

Joe (star.torturer): thank you very much! It can be really useful.
Shadow Asassin - thank you too! We will not be able to organize our knowledge without looking at it from the software point of view 

To all: I didn't expect such amount of good propositions and - first of all - good will and readiness to help 

To make a step ahead I'm going to prepare my proposition of categorization and a few examples of various terms desriptions (as I imagine how they would look in our Encyclopaedia, or Hitchhikers Guide  )
I will do it tomorrow, maybe we will be a bit closer to the start point 
The next step would be probably to organize a team...

[LoneRanger]

such as support threads (no-one wants to be that idiot which asks a question for the tenth time, but no-one wants to read 35 pages of fruitless answers), especially if it's for several "products".

An encyclopædia or reference on the other hand, doesn't encourage discussion, although you may do it at the appropriate place (like a subboard on this site for example). And since it keeps discussion, questions, comments etc. apart from the information itself, it's easier to pack more information together, and to "bundle" it with other knowledge, like how to incorporate the information given into different styles of playing and planning. It's also easier to relate different pages and portions of pages to one another than with traditional forum tutorials. Few keep an updated TOC in their threads, even fewer relate (and link) their pages to another's.

Well, you are right obviously but the key is to update your "tutorial" when someonefinds a better way.
Lets say I wrote a tutorial about the quickest route from A to B but you say [with proof] that traveling trough D instead of C works better I should adjust it in my tutorial.
That way you as a interested searcher on quickest routes, have only the first post of a tutorial to read.
I think that the responsibility of writing a tutorial comes with updating.
That way the interested party knows that only reading the staring post is enough to be up to date.

But ok, if you want to start somekind of wiki I fully support but wonder if there's still need of a tutorial section wich covers your wiki idea if.. well update is the key-word.   
The stong point of a forum is the discussion.
Some things are obvious in right or wrong, some things ain't.
That's my point kinda. 

Adam I get back to your post, to many thoughts to order. 

[JoeST]

You do realise that the wikimedia software that I am experimenting with allows for a special page for the discussion of individual articles? much like Wikipedia (which incidentally uses wikimedia)

I am also going to test to see if i can compile a SMF package that will install the wiki, and add a button for it to the "main menu" that is located between the header and the "breadcrumbs" (sorry for using all this techincal mumbo jumbo LOL, breadcrumbs are these links:

Sim City 4 Devotion Forums > Sim City 4 Devotion Related > Site Requests and Technical issues > (Urban) Planning reference -- collected tutorials?

) the integration methods I am experimenting with cause the wiki to be installed in the ./forums/wiki/ location, but i am sure with some php jigery pokery (me being a slight n00b doesnt know what kind of jigery pokery would be needed but i have seen it done) it could be masked so it appears in the ./wiki/ folder on the web... might be as easy as to change the stuff on install.. i will test it now.

on a completely unrelated note, someone would have to adequately skin the wiki to make it fit in with the SC4D theme('s)

Joe

EDIT: well i have successfully combined.... nope not conbined nothing LOL, well you now have to be a member of the forums to edit, and you have to register thought the forum, cant create/login through wiki (random quirk is that you cant log out via the wiki because instead of redirecting to [root]/forums/[the logout page] it redirects to [root]/[logout page] damn). but editing can be done by anyone still, yep anyone. I could continue to try and get it to run off a user group. and eventualy i could maybe get it to only allow some users to edit different parts/create new pages/do other things

[GrizzlyBuilder]

If the guide were a wiki, would everyone be able to update it?  If not, wouldn't that exclude the the people who are not the bat gods or forum legends, yet might have stumbled onto a new idea, or might be good at creating just the perfect high-tech zone, or european country village.  If it is a wiki, do we trust everyone to as courtious on the wiki as on the forums?   Would this guide be on SC4D or would it just be affiated like the LEX? Just a little conversation starter.

[krbe]

Well, you are right obviously but the key is to update your "tutorial" when someonefinds a better way.
Lets say I wrote a tutorial about the quickest route from A to B but you say [with proof] that traveling trough D instead of C works better I should adjust it in my tutorial.
That way you as a interested searcher on quickest routes, have only the first post of a tutorial to read.
I think that the responsibility of writing a tutorial comes with updating.
That way the interested party knows that only reading the staring post is enough to be up to date.

But ok, if you want to start somekind of wiki I fully support but wonder if there's still need of a tutorial section wich covers your wiki idea if.. well update is the key-word.   
The stong point of a forum is the discussion.
Some things are obvious in right or wrong, some things ain't.
That's my point kinda. 

[...]

I agree with you, however TOCs hasn't seem to be catching on right yet And I don't believe that forcing the community to adhere to even more rules is going to make it, and it's not everyone who'd be able to it (with a mixture of languages, a mixture of styles etc.). You might end up with some tutorials as shining lights in the history of literature, while others might look like something found under a hitchhiker's shoe.

And I'm not advocating the end of the discussion (it will still be a vital part of any coomunitygathered information repository), just the end of discussion and information clogged togheter in countless threads (in the words of the Founding Fathers: separation of discussion and information).

If the guide were a wiki, would everyone be able to update it?  If not, wouldn't that exclude the the people who are not the bat gods or forum legends, yet might have stumbled onto a new idea, or might be good at creating just the perfect high-tech zone, or european country village.  If it is a wiki, do we trust everyone to as courtious on the wiki as on the forums?   Would this guide be on SC4D or would it just be affiated like the LEX? Just a little conversation starter.

As far as I can see, the LEX is just another closed off part of SC4D... However, jeronij pays for the host, so he decides, but he seems positive

As the nature of discussions usually are to reach common ground and not to preserve the information for future generations, a wiki presents the opportunity to include contents from many creators, yet keep the minimum of control needed for a consitency in style, language etc. The important thing is not to have entries such as Earth: Mostly harmless, as the Volapük edition of Wikipedia has (100 000+ articles in a language noone speaks!), so we need some sort of basic review of the content that'll go on the wiki.

And about your concern; if you're making great BATs you might still be missing out on some concepts on writing, so that's why we need guys with BAs (it's not science, right?) in literature to help you. It may also be that you want to focus on BATs, or helping out on the forum rather than be writing/editing such articles, so we'll need someone to oversee the wiki at times. Who knows?

And if you found the (or a) way to build that realistic European village, you should tell me right away, not wait for the wiki!

[GrizzlyBuilder]

I now see your point.  Sorry, but I don't have a wonderful way of creating perfect villages, though it is like to holy grail to me

[Ennedi]

As I promised I want to present my propositon of organizing our SC4 knowledge.

But earlier I would like to comment two posts:

So far, I see two components that will be on every page of our Wiki/Encyclopedia:

A link to a discussion topic for that particular topic and lots of photos, to illustrate the point.

There's nothing worse than attempting to figure something about SC4 out without anything to visually reference.

Beyond that, well, give me some more time to think about it...

Cheers,
Kevin

Definitely yes! But in the same time an information (an article, in the terms of Wikipedia) should be as concise and clear as possible (both for experienced players/creators and for complete beginners!). It would be good to prepare some templates for more typical articles (such as information about a person, software description, mod description). We hould also have rules concerning picture sizes (both in pixels and in KB).
Links are essential, it's the only way to collect the diversified knowledge in one place.

Well, you are right obviously but the key is to update your "tutorial" when someonefinds a better way.
Lets say I wrote a tutorial about the quickest route from A to B but you say [with proof] that traveling trough D instead of C works better I should adjust it in my tutorial.
That way you as a interested searcher on quickest routes, have only the first post of a tutorial to read.
I think that the responsibility of writing a tutorial comes with updating.
That way the interested party knows that only reading the staring post is enough to be up to date.

It's very important point.
I would like to don't limit anybody's right to edit an article, but I think about some kind of confirmation. It should be a task for the Encyclopaedia management team. It's members should temporarily check edited articles (every added/changed text should be marked, for example by another font color or italics etc.), asked specialists for opinion if necessary and confirm (or not) changes. After some changes it could be necessary to edit all article to keep it clear and concise.
I know it's a slightly different mechanism like in Wikipedia, but maybe it will be better for us?
Of course added text would be available before confirmation, but the reader would know if something is checked and confirmed or not.

OK, now my proposition about categories.
I must strongly emphasize that the list below is not complete and probably not very good. My main goal is to start working with it and encourage you to share your propositions. We should make some real work from now.

SC4 Encyclopaedia categories and subcategories (my comments in square brackets)
Please note that every article can belong to more than one categories. One of the managing team tasks should be checking if new articles
are properly positioned in the categories system and making changes if necessary.

1. Game Mechanics
  1.1. Game installation [also crashes and other problems]
  1.2. Game structure and features [everybody should know a game instruction, but maybe some information should be more detailed, for
example simcity1-5.dat files structure]
  1.3. Plugins: installation, organizing, possible conflicts, safety conditions
  1.4. Game management software (Reader, SC4Tool, SUM etc.)
  1.5. Mods and modding
  1.6. ...

2. The Environment
  2.1. Maps
  2.2. Terraforming
  2.3. Map making and terraforming software
  2.4. Creating regions
  2.5. Terrain, rock and water mods
  2.6. Tree mods
  2.7. ...

3. Game objects (Lots, BATs, ploppable stuff like trees, rocks etc., effects)
  3.1. Lot structure and other basic information about Lots
  3.2. Lot editing
  3.3. Creating BATs
  3.4. Lot and BAT resources
    3.4.1. Buildings
    3.4.2. Props
    3.4.3. Textures
    3.4.4. Other resources
  3.5. Dependencies
  3.6. ...

4. The Simulation
  4.1. City planning
  4.2. Transit Networks
  4.3. Utilities
  4.4. Zoning [also - ploppable or growable, the influence of various objects, placing eye-candy objects such as airports, seaports etc.]
  4.5. City growth [stages, conditions, troubles, data analysing]
  4.6. Regional development
  4.7. CAM
  4.8. ...

There were my basic categories. After some thinking I added the following ones:

5. SC4 Glossary [shorts and terms definitions - this is what Dustin started some time ago, I think it doesn't need subcategories]

6. SC4 People [persons, teams and communities ie. SC4 sites]

7. SC4 Related [for example graphic programs - but only an information which can be useful for us - tips, tricks, techniques etc.; also such programs as clip2pic, texture sources etc.]

Please think about it, share with us your opinions and propositions!

One more comment:

But ok, if you want to start somekind of wiki I fully support but wonder if there's still need of a tutorial section wich covers your wiki idea if.. well update is the key-word.  
The stong point of a forum is the discussion.
Some things are obvious in right or wrong, some things ain't.
That's my point kinda. 

- If our Encyclopaedia will be established, the tutorial section will not be necessary. Existing tutorials can be moved to the Encyclopaedia as articles in their own category (categories). But to do it the Encyclopaedia must earlier work very well and enable a really easy access to every information.
- The Help section: I think when Encyclopaedia will start, the Help section will still be necessary.
If somebody will ask about something which is described in Encyclopaedia, more experienced players, will be able to point him/her to the
apropriate place without a need of preparing a 397th answer for the same question and without time-consuming looking for a link to the proper place.
When more and more people will use the Encyclopaedia, I hope there will be less and less repeating questions (in my opinion many people ask not because they are lazy but because they really have troubles with finding an information they need).

At the end - two examples of Encyclopaedia articles (how I imagine they should look).

Example 1: Slope mod

A mod which changes transit networks placing parameters (maximum slope, smoothness, terrain conditions for tunnels and bridges, costs).
The main purpose of creating slope mods was to achieve more realistic looking transit networks. Making tunnels in an easier way was also a
point of interest.

There are no tutorials concerning using slope mods.
Discussions about slope mods:

1. Simtropolis thread Slope mods - which to use (consists a comparation of MaxSlope parameter for various slope mods made by RippleJet - reply 12/08/2006. )
2. Simtropolis thread My experiment in tunneling (here is the only place where BRF published the first slope mod - Vester_DK reply 04/26/2006 )

Existing slope mods:

[link 1]
[link 2]
[link 3]


Example 2: A person description [I was afraid about missing any achievements of an existing person, so I described a fictional one]

crashtodesktop: An MD author, BAT and MOD creator.

Home site: SC4 Devotion [link to profile]
Also active on ST, PEG and Simcity Plaza.
He released his works in LEX, STEX and PLEX (type CTD in the searching box).

Main works:
- An MD "Charming Vogonia" on SC4 Devotion (subcategories: "ghetto", "toxic sludge", "mines", "riots"). Interesting but unusual photo editing and storyline.
- A mod disabling building bridges across the water, but making placing them along rivers really easy [link]
- Ploppable diagonal kayaks [link]
- The Vulture Effect (ploppable lot on the transparent base creating vultures cruising in the air, sitting on streetlight etc.) [link]


Now I start reading Wikipedia - I'd like to know a bit about managing team tasks. It will be our next theme

Cheers
Adam

[Shadow Assassin]

Joe (star.torturer): I am personally against the idea of integrating the Wiki into the forum software, as it can cause issues that are unexpected... each SMF installation may be different (in terms of mods installed), and they may interact with each other in unexpected ways. Also, some of the mods and admins here may have no interest in moderating the wiki. Don't forget that the Wiki can be set up so that you have to register before you edit, to ensure that vandalism is minimized.

I'd prefer the Wiki to be organised as an independent entity, part of SC4D, managed by a different group of people (maybe Jeronij would have admin privileges, after all, he'd be paying for hosting if it was part of SC4D's space). The Wiki could have other members as admins, moderators, but they wouldn't necessarily be the same mods and admins as what we've already got, right?


With managing a Wiki, it's generally best to keep the hierarchy transparent, while there is a moderator body keeping an eye on the Wiki, anybody is able to contribute, as long as it's acceptable. But if they vandalise a page, their editing privileges are revoked (ie. the account might be deleted, and the address blacklisted for editing). They still can view the Wiki, but they can't edit a page inside the Wiki.

Mods only can have global privileges on the Wiki (it's all or nothing, basically), but delegation is the key. If we work together, we can make this project a reality.


As for discussion pages on MediaWiki, the structure of the Wiki is such that the person wouldn't necessarily always get an answer to their question, because basically, no one can be everywhere at once. A support thread on the SC4D forums would be a much better option. However, some ground rules should be set in place with support. The person asking the question should at least say what article they're enquiring about/link to it to make it easier for people to answer those questions.

Now, the Wiki would also help with the situation of a dependency list - the BSC team, for example, would quickly be able to add to it as they upload their own dependencies/prop packs/miscellaneous stuff to the LEX. Also, manuals would be added to the Wiki, especially for mods such as the NAM. The entire process would make it entirely transparent, and new readmes would no longer need to be built for the release of an individual lot/BAT/mod when the central repository can simply be updated as new lots are released. It would make chasing down dependencies a non-issue, as well as shifting the readme from being offline (single readme copied multiple times, each viewed only once) to online (single readme, viewed many times). Each Wiki page is very light on bandwidth, especially if images can be hosted off site. But a little bit of bandwidth really adds up when lots of people visit, though...

The whole point of the Wikipedia would be to have a central repository of information for the SC4 community, much like Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, as well as being a place where important information, especially pertaining to manuals, is stored.

This would definitely change the way content is viewed, as it's changed from the old closed system (download the thing, keep it on your computer) to the new open system (access the page, can access it any time and it's updated with a minimum of effort).

Granted, at first, a lot of time would need to be invested into building up the repository, but when it's done, it's a very simple matter to keep on updating the pages, and once the page has been established, it would only take five minutes to update everything.

Here is an example:
The SimForum BAT team have a number of lots on the LEX. Each one would link to the central SFBT page, which contains links to all the necessary dependencies, as well as links to other lots they may have uploaded. Basically, the SFBT page that was linked to is a central hub. Included would be readmes for individual lots/mods/packs. When that lot is updated, the readme is updated to reflect the changes.

Old style: including documentation with the install file. Pros: easy method of distribution. Cons: May be out of date, support for the lot may be incorrect (for instance, a mistake is made with the readme, where say, a dependency was not added... it would open a whole can of worms support wise).

New style: having the documentation at a central repository. Pros: Easily updated (with the situation above, the person who uploaded the lot would simply update the wiki page to reflect that the missing dependency was added to the list. People would then simply click on the page, see that the dependency was added, click on it and download it from the LEX). Cons: Bandwidth adds up.


The trick is, making change happen fast enough that people can't protest against it because they've used an inefficient method of distribution of documentation for five years.


--SA

[Ennedi]

SA, your vision is really wide and I must say I agree with you in every point
It seems we have a similar way of thinking 

Now we have a lot of material to think about 

I know most of you have holidays now and you prepare yourself to a New Year party, so I would like to ask you to send your ideas and propositions till 5th January. After that day  I will try to prepare a kind of summary (maybe I will need help with it  ) to know where we are at that moment.
Please think about the structure (categories, subcategories, important themes which I missed). Think also what Shadow Asassin said, it adds important elements to my first proposition.

Cheers
Adam

[Shadow Assassin]

Yes...

Quality control was a point that I forgot to bring up. Maybe I'll cover that later when I'm less tired (it's 2.30am here).

[Pat]

this sounds intresting as im getting ready for work will have to read into this much more later... so far so good imho... - pat


btw anywhere help is needed im willing to help out... 

[krbe]

Hi there,

Long time, no see

As far as the listing, (Ennedi's), it doesn't look too bad; however, my time does allow for anything being done on my part (for the time being), but in the fullness of time (about the 15^th; I'm trying to move and get some exams done, and see Berlin soon [again...]), I'll be able to get something done if people here are still willing to help me. As it looks like I'm going to have to clean up in my own plugins, so we might have a chance to see how our articles can help without passing all the trouble onto innocent end users.

Till next time, good tie!

[JoeST]

I am defiantly up for helping gather info up

Joe

[DFire870]

SA, you make some great points, especially with the example of each team having their own "hub", where readmes and such could be linked to. These hubs could work similarly to the portals that are on Wikipedia. And many of the pages that shouldn't be edited by anyone can be protected so that only certain people would have access to them to edit them.

-- John

[Ennedi]

Please give me 1-2 days more 
I started to analyse some aspects of Wikipedia functionality (various ways of knowledge organizing - not only categories  , maintaining the system).
I must think more about it. We shouldn't make the system too complicated. I think I will send PMs to some of you before weekend - I have some more detailed questions.

Cheers
Adam

[freedo50]

Hi Adam, this sounds like a great idea! I have used several wikis already and I have found that they have been very easy to use and easy to moderate too. I think it would be great if we could get a system like this up and running. I can see many many ways that it could be used to ease collaboration on large projects and to collect all of our knowledge into one massive repository. If you need any help with this, just give me a shout, I'm definitely interested.

Fred