Oolite Bulletins

http://wiki.alioth.net/index.php/OXP_List

The main "Sortable Table of OXPs" list is getting a bit cumbersome. Perhaps spilt it into two? (Two lists on the same page, not two wiki pages.) And a pair of links right at the very top of the page: "Skip to Sortable Table of Ships OXPs" and "Skip to Sortable Table of All Other OXPs"?

I keep the list permanently open on a pinned tab.. the displayed position within the list just stays set to wherever I last happened to be looking. To get to a pair of links at the top of the page means, as often as not, that I'd have to scroll 3/4 of the way up the page to use them anyway. So for me, there'd be no real advantage.

Why not using SMW properties and building the table on the fly? Then you don't need to frickle around with the list anymore and users can select what they want.

Svengali wrote:

Why not using SMW properties and building the table on the fly? Then you don't need to frickle around with the list anymore and users can select what they want.

That would be great but doesn't work because of all the OXPs in there which do not have a wiki page but only link to their bb thread. So the result would be incomplete.

maik wrote:

That would be great but doesn't work because of all the OXPs in there which do not have a wiki page but only link to their bb thread. So the result would be incomplete.

If some OXPers don't want to participate why should this stop a better way of dealing with the list? It also wouldn't mean to lose anything, additional manually updated tables for non-participating OXPs could hold the links like before. And such a thing doesn't need to be done in one turn. Most OXPers have a WIKI account and can do the neccessary changes for their own OXPs. And I bet that if it's done most users will prefer it and it would open a lot more possibilities like searching for OXPs suitable for specific systems (e.g. non-shadered machines, etc.) or level of OXP-difficulty.

Svengali wrote:

maik wrote:

That would be great but doesn't work because of all the OXPs in there which do not have a wiki page but only link to their bb thread. So the result would be incomplete.

If some OXPers don't want to participate why should this stop a better way of dealing with the list? It also wouldn't mean to lose anything, additional manually updated tables for non-participating OXPs could hold the links like before. And such a thing doesn't need to be done in one turn. Most OXPers have a WIKI account and can do the neccessary changes for their own OXPs. And I bet that if it's done most users will prefer it and it would open a lot more possibilities like searching for OXPs suitable for specific systems (e.g. non-shadered machines, etc.) or level of OXP-difficulty.

Though I do support the general idea I do not see a good way to make it work successfully(*):

• Currently, we have a list that is more or less complete. Some entries refer to a wiki page, others (I just counted 123 entries) to a BB thread or direct download link.
• If we create an automatically generated list, it will only contain the entries for OXPs that do have their own wiki page. We can have a manually updated table for the others, but you loose the ability to do a comprehensive sort because you will always have two tables.
• If we both keep the current manually edited list and create this combination of generated plus manually curated lists then what is the advantage for users to look at the second one?

(*): Successful from a user point of view, not from an OXP owner's point of view. Those who maintain a wiki page for their OXPs have double work at the moment because they have to keep their page and the OXP List updated.

To keep a transition smooth for users, at least stub pages should be created for those ~123 entries so all OXPs can be included. In addition, all pages have to be updated with SMW properties. Probably some OXP authors will help, but probably not all. And only once the number of pages with SMB properties reaches critical mass it will be any useful.

But again, I would like to see this succeed and hope for good ideas about how to deal with these issues.

Really, I wasn't being so bold as to suggest any new pages be created. I merely say that the sortable list is very long, and that the categorization is often vague. Then I observed that the least ambiguous category, ships, is also the largest (about 40% of the list, I'd guess) and wondered if it would be easier if they were in a separate table (on the same page).

Wildeblood wrote:

Really, I wasn't being so bold as to suggest any new pages be created. I merely say that the sortable list is very long, and that the categorization is often vague. Then I observed that the least ambiguous category, ships, is also the largest (about 40% of the list, I'd guess) and wondered if it would be easier if they were in a separate table (on the same page).

Sorry, maybe Svengali and I were abusing your thread a little bit...

How about you create a test page for your suggestion and then let us comment/vote on it?

maik wrote:

How about you create a test page for your suggestion and then let us comment/vote on it?

Okay, I'm wrong about that. A single list is the way to go, despite how nervous it makes me whenever I edit it. But the categories are a bit... useless. There ought to be a better taxonomy of OXPs. Perhaps when I see one that is "obviously" categorized wrongly, I should be brave enough to change it. (But I'd be a bit miffed if anyone else changed any of mine.)

I want categories that group OXPs by the game features they use. So it's easy to find ones that are likely to compliment or conflict with each other. Trading Assistant is listed as equipment (because it is), New Cargoes under mechanics (because it alters the game), and marketObserver under mechanics. I've no idea why Spara chose that category; I'd suggest because it doesn't fit any other. I would put it in "Misc.", but I'd rather put all three in a "Markets" category.

Okay, this is a can of worms. Any suggestion of adding new categories can only end in a squabble... One big, alphabetical list is looking better all the time.

Wildeblood wrote:

Okay, this is a can of worms. Any suggestion of adding new categories can only end in a squabble...

It is not exactly an easy task, we had a lot of discussions about that when we came up with the current list of categories. And we tried with several iterations of categories to fit in the then existing OXPs. Avoiding the Miscellaneous category was an imperative because we didn't want 90% of OXPs to end up there.

But really, if you have good ideas about improving it then put in some time, try it out, and when you're happy or need criticism then show the results.

Edit: And we still ended up with a Misc category...

Wildeblood wrote:

I've no idea why Spara chose that category; I'd suggest because it doesn't fit any other. I would put it in "Misc.", but I'd rather put all three in a "Markets" category.

Actually I think it was maik that put marketAide into mechanics when I did not yet have rights to the wiki and I didn't put another thought on it and followed that with marketObserver . Misc would have been the right I suppose, but it seems to hold stuff that don't alter the game itself (except "save anywhere" that should IMO be in mechanics).

Wildeblood makes a valid point about the ships. I would say that the ships are the biggest issue ATM making the page extremely long. Ships and ship packs are all in the same list. Maybe individual ships could be moved to their own wiki page and only ship packs are left to the main list?

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?

I like the current list: every 3 or 4 months, I check if there are updates to the OXPs I have installed by sorting the list on update time -most recent on top- and reading down to where I stopped the previous time. At the same time, I see which new OXPs I have missed on the BB. I like that I only have to check one table and I'm immensely grateful to the folks who keep it up to date.

About the existing OXPs without a wiki page: perhaps a stub page (just containing the name of the OXP, the already existing one-line description and the link) could be generated automatically for each OXP without a wiki. Stubs are ugly, but that may be an invitation for somebody who cares to actually write a page. And then install some policy that new entries to the list require a wiki page?

Svengali wrote:

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.

Yes, I started sorting the ships to a separate table, but I only got through A before I realized it wasn't going to work.

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. 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.)

The ability to manipulate and interact with the Markets is a relative newcomer, and thus missed out when the categories were developed. A new "Market" category for OXPs would be a good idea.

Given what Wildeblood and others have said, I think a good case could be made for revisiting the entire taxonomy subject and giving it a facelift. Certainly I've been puzzled at times by not being able to find an OXP in any of the categories I'd expect to find it under.. most annoying when you can't remember the name of it to begin with..