I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the wiki site. There are a lot of inconsistencies that I can't seem to fix. For example, there is an expansion called, "Daqan Infantry Command Unit Upgrade Expansion," but the wiki has it titled, "Daqan Infantry Unit Upgrade Expansion." So when I add the Latari Infantry Command with the proper name, they won't match.

Also, I really don't see the need for a separate page for figures of each unit. Those images should just go on the corresponding page for that unit.

Sorry for venting.

EDIT: And just so it's clear, I'm probably the one who made those pages and screwed up the nomenclature in the first place. Additionally, I've cropped Maegan's unit card and am ready to add a page, but it occurred to me that we don't know if there will be two unit cards or not. If there is a cavalry and infantry unit card, then we might need two different pages for each hero. Since we don't know yet, maybe I should just hold off for now.

Good job added the info, your a great boon to the community

There is no diarama for the unmounted figure, so I'm pretty sure like the other heros, as a separate unit she's mounted and the single figure is only included as a unit upgrade. I think all 3 hero expansions are like that.

Woohoo! I learned how to change the names of pages. Evidently you can't change a page's name in the normal edit; there's a special edit page for renaming a page.

I've just gone through and renamed a bunch of expansions because they all said "expansion pack" like the X-Wing expansions, but if you read the Runewars expansions, they are called, "XXX Unit Expansion." So I changed all the names of products and tried to change any upgrade or unit that referenced those expansions. I just wanted to point out the difference in naming schemes between the two games in case someone else wants to add an expansion in the future.

2 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

Woohoo! I learned how to change the names of pages. Evidently you can't change a page's name in the normal edit; there's a special edit page for renaming a page.

I've just gone through and renamed a bunch of expansions because they all said "expansion pack" like the X-Wing expansions, but if you read the Runewars expansions, they are called, "XXX Unit Expansion." So I changed all the names of products and tried to change any upgrade or unit that referenced those expansions. I just wanted to point out the difference in naming schemes between the two games in case someone else wants to add an expansion in the future.

Thanks for doing that. I originally just named those pages after what the initial announcements called them. Unfortunately, the names they gave at that point were wildly inconsistent. Thanks for cleaning that up!

Would a community page listing podcasts, videos, twitch streams and such be relevant?

14 minutes ago, Tekwych said:

Would a community page listing podcasts, videos, twitch streams and such be relevant?

I don't think it's an awful idea, though I'd like to hear @Willange 's opinion on it, too, since he started the wiki.

If we did have such a page, I envision it as being a single page titled "Community Resources." It would have several headings, including YouTube Channels, Podcasts, Twitch Streams (channels?), and Army-Builders. Under each heading would be a bulleted list of names that are externally hyperlinked to the resource. What I don't want to see is each community page end up with its own wiki page. This would basically be like X-Wings "useful links" thread that got stickied, except it would be on the wiki instead of here on the forums.

I agree. It should just be a list of links (forced alphabetical to prevent 'favorites'). Your headings are good but you might add Battle Reports and Painting tutorials.

2 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

I don't think it's an awful idea, though I'd like to hear @Willange 's opinion on it, too, since he started the wiki.

If we did have such a page, I envision it as being a single page titled "Community Resources." It would have several headings, including YouTube Channels, Podcasts, Twitch Streams (channels?), and Army-Builders. Under each heading would be a bulleted list of names that are externally hyperlinked to the resource. What I don't want to see is each community page end up with its own wiki page. This would basically be like X-Wings "useful links" thread that got stickied, except it would be on the wiki instead of here on the forums.

Yes I've been planning on adding this for a while. There have been some requests for it. I was thinking of pretty much what you both described. Just a community page with some headings for blogs, podcasts, community creations and so forth. People could just add their own stuff with alphabetical order to avoid favoritism. It would be limited to pretty much just links as was mentioned.

I've added the page. In practice, I don't know how well it will work, but first, let me tell you how to add a link if you want your community site on the page.

This is the page: http://runewars.wikia.com/wiki/Community_Links

In order to add an external link, you need to go into source edit mode and type in a single open bracket, followed by the link, then a space, then the text to appear for the link, then a close bracket.

For example, if I were to link to my BGG profile, I would type the following:

[ https://boardgamegeek.com/user/Budgernaut Budgernaut's BGG Profile]

This would appear in the wiki as:

Budgernaut's BGG Profile

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difficulty with the page is that it's really set up for dedicated channels, podcasts, etc. For example, Sorastro and GamingGeek have some great tutorials for Runewars, but their channels cover many other things, so the link won't necessarily go right to the correct videos. However, if we link to each and every video, I think the page loses some of its utility. I'm not sure what to do about this problem. It's similar problem for some blogs that cover other games beside Runewars.

I think it's probably just okay to link to a blog even if it doesn't always cover only Runewars. I agree that linking to individual pieces of content is not a good long-term solution. In fact, if we see anyone do that, we should probably take down the link and replace it with a general link to the blog/podcast/site like you were saying. As long as we make that the rule, I don't foresee an immediate problem with it. Thanks for setting that up!

I added the upgrade cards from the new packs to the site. I took my own scans, but my scanner isn't that great. If anyone else has better images available, then feel free to upload them!

Thanks guys for the Wiki which I have found very helpful. The one thing I couldn't find in the Core section was the Morale Cards. Would that be worth adding?

On 5/11/2017 at 0:22 PM, Budgernaut said:

I've added the page. In practice, I don't know how well it will work, but first, let me tell you how to add a link if you want your community site on the page.

This is the page: http://runewars.wikia.com/wiki/Community_Links

In order to add an external link, you need to go into source edit mode and type in a single open bracket, followed by the link, then a space, then the text to appear for the link, then a close bracket.

For example, if I were to link to my BGG profile, I would type the following:

[ https://boardgamegeek.com/user/Budgernaut Budgernaut's BGG Profile]

This would appear in the wiki as:

Budgernaut's BGG Profile

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difficulty with the page is that it's really set up for dedicated channels, podcasts, etc. For example, Sorastro and GamingGeek have some great tutorials for Runewars, but their channels cover many other things, so the link won't necessarily go right to the correct videos. However, if we link to each and every video, I think the page loses some of its utility. I'm not sure what to do about this problem. It's similar problem for some blogs that cover other games beside Runewars.

How about you just put a link to the general tutorial list in the Hobby forum, it has a lot of good resources include links to Sorastro's RW specific videos... @Polda Made a pretty nice thorough list and seems to consistently be adding to it.

6 hours ago, CastleRock said:

Thanks guys for the Wiki which I have found very helpful. The one thing I couldn't find in the Core section was the Morale Cards. Would that be worth adding?

Good idea. I will make some scans, though again, my scanner isn't the best so if someone with a better one wants to jump in then just say so!

1 hour ago, jek said:

How about you just put a link to the general tutorial list in the Hobby forum, it has a lot of good resources include links to Sorastro's RW specific videos... @Polda Made a pretty nice thorough list and seems to consistently be adding to it.

Sounds cool to me! I'll look around at what we can add. Anyone can add to the list though, so if something important is missing after we go over it then just add it as I tend to forget to add things...

10 minutes ago, Willange said:

Good idea. I will make some scans, though again, my scanner isn't the best so if someone with a better one wants to jump in then just say so!

Scans may not be necessary. I guess it depends on how you put it into the wiki. The X-Wing wiki just has text of all the damage cards on a single page. If you do images, I think you'd want to have a different page for each morale card, but that can be cumbersome to browse. I think that if someone accesses the site on mobile, they wouldn't want to load 16 or so images of morale cards -- they'd just want the info about them.

Hi everyone. I need some feedback on card text styles for the wiki pages. A user has recently changed many of the pages to a new style without any discussion from the community and I'd like to know which you prefer. My preferred style is to denote all card text symbols in brackets. For example, the march symbol would be written as "[march]" to show that the word "march" does not appear on the card, but the symbol does. The recent edits have changed this so that instead of "[march]", it appears as " march ". Here is how these two would appear in the wiki using Hunter's Guile.

• [Melee attack][Ranged attack] If you are at range 1-[natural energy] of overgrown terrain, you may replace one of your dice with a white die.
• Melee attack/Ranged attack: If you are at range 1- natural energy of overgrown terrain, you may replace one of your dice with a white die.

I prefer the former because the typographical emphases of bold and italics are used in other places on the card. For example, keywords are often denoted by a bold-face type and lines that indicate the upgrade may only be used by a certain unit are written in italics. For keywords that have a value equal to runic energy, you have a situation where you need to represent the energy as double bold, but that's not possible. For example, you could have " Protected [stable energy] " or " Protected stable energy ".

However, if keeping the text as faithful to the card as possible is not a community priority, then we can let the recent changes remain.

Thoughts?

I'm just super happy that the wiki exists, and thank you @Budgernaut and the others that are working on it!

Though I am somewhat leaning at the [melee attack] format.

I much prefer the brackets, it cues to me that this would be replaced with a symbol on the card.

I don't use the wiki a ton (though it's an amazing resource when I do need it), but I much prefer the brackets.

Also, and perhaps this is just from my own experience, but wikis require discussion in regards to sweeping changes if there is more than one active editor. If this person is going through and changing existing articles, I would revert his changes and call to their attention that stylistic changes should be discussed among active editor before being implemented. I don't know how much wiki editing experience you have. Maybe I'm off base.

1 minute ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Also, and perhaps this is just from my own experience, but wikis require discussion in regards to sweeping changes if there is more than one active editor. If this person is going through and changing existing articles, I would revert his changes and call to their attention that stylistic changes should be discussed among active editor before being implemented. I don't know how much wiki editing experience you have. Maybe I'm off base.

I have next to none and this person appears to be very active in the X-Wing wiki. Personally, I'd rather not have the Runewars wiki be a clone of the X-Wing one, but he is making some fantastic organizational changes. It's just this style change that rubs me the wrong way. But I'm not going to revert it until I hear more responses from other community members.

Brackets, hands down.

I don't really care either way so long as it's a consistent usage throughout the wiki.

I would add though that I find the bold italicized text to flow better in reading. However, brackets do make it a bit clearer from a technical interpretation perspective. That's why I don't really care either way as I see benefits to both. I think if everyone grew accustomed to the bold italicized could be slightly better since it seems to flow better, but the difference is so minor that it may or may not be worth the transition.

I like bold AND brackets. Bold holds it out, brackets emphasizes it is a keyword/graphic thingy.

Much prefer the brackets.