Wiki: Ya reckon it might be time to split the OXP list?

[maik]

Tables are growing all the time. A split doesn't solve it, it only gives us some more time before the next approach is getting started. So the question stays - why not using the SMW functionality?

Why not, indeed. Start with a test page, draw up some templates and usage instructions, get enough people to help out with it and off we go.

[Svengali]

Wildships is in "Ships", Hoopy Casinos and Deep Space Dredgers are both in "Activities". I would put all three into "Dockables". (And, I'm suspicious of the "Activities" category, which looks like miscellany to me.)

Then you could talk with the authors or maintainers about switching the category for these OXPs.

Why not, indeed. Start with a test page, draw up some templates and usage instructions, get enough people to help out with it and off we go.

Examples are already there
- Dynamic Ship List
- QueryCreator
- SearchByProperty
- Semantic search

I'd think the first step would be to look at the properties (what is required, what makes sense, what kind of type should be used), then create the template and test page. Properties could be (just a quick draft):

• OXP_Page - Type: Page
  OXP_Name - Type: Text
  OXP_Version - Type: Text
  OXP_Release - Type: Date
  OXP_Author - Type: Text
  OXP_MinOolite - Type: Text
  OXP_HasDependencies - Type: Bool
  OXP_IsDependency - Type: Bool
  OXP_RequiredOXPs - Type: Record, record types Page
  OXP_RequiredOXPVersions - Type: Record, record types Text
  OXP_RequiresShaders - Type: Bool
  OXP_Category - Type: Text
  OXP_EspeakCompatible - Type: Bool
  OXP_Difficulty - Type: Number (maybe simply the [wiki]OXP_Levelindicators[/wiki]
  OXP_Documentation - Type: Page
  OXP_RequiresSpecs - Type: Number (maybe a simple 4 class system low,average,good,high)

I wouldn't add URL types as it opens the door for abusing it. It also would allow external applications to request data (maybe RDF?) to compare against currently used OXPs, spitting out notifications.

[Commander McLane]

I think part of my frustration (although that is too strong a word - the table isn't that bad) stems from everyone else but me being wrong about which category is more important for OXPs that fit into more than one.

On a broader note: doesn't actually all evil in the world stem from everyone else but you being wrong?

Wildships is in "Ships", Hoopy Casinos and Deep Space Dredgers are both in "Activities". I would put all three into "Dockables". (And, I'm suspicious of the "Activities" category, which looks like miscellany to me.)

I'm too lazy to look which other OXPs are in the "Activities" category right now, but I can kind of understand why both Hoopys and Dredgers were put into it (which—surprise—means I'm firmly in the "everyone else" camp ), and it looks kinda spot on to me. The dockables they offer are merely a "vehicle" (pardon the pun) for a certain type of activity (gambling/salvaging ships). Consequently, I have installed neither, because I don't care for the respective activity.

But yes, OXPs that are broader than one category will always be a problem for any type of classification that allows only one category. By the way, I suspect that the majority of OXPs (save the pure ship OXPs) does actually fall in more than one category. It comes with how the game works, and how us OXPers work and think: you don't just add an activity or functionality, but create an equipment for it. You don't just add a mission, but create new ships and dockables for it. You don't just add a new weapon, but create a mission around it. Etc, etc, etc. That's all part of the immersion—and an important part at that (to be precise: it's us OXPers enabling the players to better immerse into the Ooniverse). Oolite is a much better game for it. The impossibility of having sharply defined and mutually exclusive OXP categories—and the subsequent disagreement about "correct" categorization—is a small price to pay for that.