Thanks for the updates, as far as i know Qbix only transferred some old
guide to the new wiki as some sort of start. Just go ahead, unless he says
otherwise, keeping an eye that stuff is consistent when other people contribute
as well.

Please mention explicitly what dosbox version was used (especially for the
dosbox.conf file), as several options have changed over time/were added/deleted.

Thanks again!

I don't care much for how the URL looks like - if it is uppercase, mixed, or not. And as you noted, with redirects the decision is not cast in stone.

What matters is how the link it is presented on the page, and what extra steps wiki-writers needs to take to have it it look nice. Do the new wiki have any special features in that regard? Like trying to automatically make link-entries for MixedCaseWords?

Generally lowercase text is easier and faster to read than uppercase. If a word, a command, or something needs to be highlighted/emphasized it is better to bold it, or make it italic.

I don't expect to be typing URL's into the browser anyway. Once at the main page, it is either the search box, or (hopefully) a neatly organized main page that enables me to quickly drill down to the right subset of pages. So this is where I would start the discussion: How should the start page look like, and are there any other "prominent" landing pages that needs special care in their design? From that, everything else should follow naturally.

One thing I did try to do with the old wiki was to find a way to make it easy to re-use the information. Take a look at

http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/oldwiki/index.p … age=dosbox.conf

It looks like one, big page, but it is built by including the content of several subpages:

1[[Transclude dosbox.conf/Intro]]
2Each of these sections are described in detail below.
3
4----
5[[Anchor sdl]]
6[[Transclude dosbox.conf/sdl]]
7
8----
9[[Anchor dosbox]]
10[[Transclude dosbox.conf/dosbox]]
11...
12...
13...

I don't know if the end result was worth the time I spent figuring out how to do this, but I had fun 😀

Transcluding can work in the new Wiki.

If you are Transcluding a template just type {{Templatename}}, if your transcluding a whole article then type {{:ArticleName}} (note the semicolon in front). I just learned about this, so I don't know how we can use it, but I thought you would like to know.
-Jason

checkout http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/GAMES:TestDrive. I took the image from MobyGames (so we may want to replace it, I don't want to offend them, I think there web page is great) There appears to be an issue with generating thumbnails (which is keeping the image inclusion from working the way it could) and for some reason Wiki style if blocks arnt working (I don' t know if its a version issue or because of permission, but it makes really good templates hard to program).

I just added the history file to the Wiki and created a way to link to DOSBox versions. So all of the releases (and thier downloads are linked at
http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Releases

The current release is a redirect found at

http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Releases:Current

Which right now is defined as

http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Version0.72

Which means for people wanting to link to a specific release (say in a template or something they can use the wiki code
[[Version0.72]] or [[Release:Current]]. Any thoughts on if they should all be called Versions or Releases?

Just a single thought at this time. Please don't add games to it. The testdrive thing is beautiful but totally unneeded as we have a compatibility list on the site allready. Keeping track of a single list is hard enough allready.

I agree that it is bad with too many lists, but the compatibility lists here really sucks. E,g,

* What does 85% mean?
* No (official) way to format the comments in a nice way.
* No way to attach a config. With the embryonic support for profile exchange in DBGL and DOG we will need that.

If the new wiki allows for some of this, maybe with a nice template for a consistent look, then I say go ahead. Maybe it will be a huge success with lots of game entries, or maybe not. A little competition does not hurt.

But don't make it a copy of what is already in Wikipedia, or at MobyGames. By all means link to those sites, but concentrate on problems & solutions for running the game in DOSBox.

You'll just run into a lot of problems when providing some sort of official
dosbox configuration files for games, be it just because there are pretty
different versions of the games, let alone the necessity to install games.

well the game currently on the list is a review with one line that it is supported. Basicly a mobygames entry. So totally unrelated to dosbox

All Upper Case for any Prompt or reference to a DOS Command or utility:

Yeah it makes them stand out a bit more from the text as well

One thought I had about the game pages (thanks for the complement, it was fun learning how to use templates) was that it could be a great place to record FAQs (like getting hard to run games to work, a good place to host the Sierra Kings Quest 5/6 thread) or possibly secretes (like the Hero's Quest cheat code), this might bring something new that Wikipedia and Moby games isnt quite doing (though they could), and it might also limit the scope of the DOSbox wiki to just games with notable aspects (so it wouldn't be as broad as Moby Games). just a thought.

Could the compatibility list be modified to link to the Wiki?

Helping people troubleshoot their games is getting really really old. We should just go straight to PhysFS, stop supporting people who don't use PhysFS, and then put instructions in the Wiki for converting games into PhysFS format. That would significantly reduce the issues with "games not working".

I believe Moe has done alot of work on identifying games in his collection where only a few .conf changes need to be made. I was going to do this myself with my collection (600+ DOS games) but my list is compatibility focused for now..

Putting .conf settings in a Wiki isn't a good idea anyway. What should be done is the frontend should host the .conf for the games on a server somewhere and suggest them to the user (Either automatically download and show the settings the server recommends compared to the current config loaded). Users are too ignorant/lazy to bother so that's why they come here asking questions. If we analyze the VOGONS forum we can specifically focus on those games that cause the most issues or are most popular.

The best use I could think for a DosBox Wiki would be to take all of the information in the VOGONS forum (and once the the information is taken then delete the thread) and put it into the Wiki.

I didn't know about PhysFS, but I think your talking about this

http://icculus.org/physfs/

So in effect we would make a ROM format for DOS games? Which would bring everything they need to execute?

Personally I like more of the recreated environment of DOSBox (but then I'm the guy who spends too much time at Weird Stuff trying to get my 486dx4 100 to work). I like the idea of a server repository for configuration files. I'm actually trying to build something like that for Patch tables (memory addresses in emulated console games when searching for cheats in emulators) called VGPedia.net (I really like making web services).

DosFreak wrote:

Helping people troubleshoot their games is getting really really old. We should just go straight to PhysFS, stop supporting people who don't use PhysFS, and then put instructions in the Wiki for converting games into PhysFS format. That would significantly reduce the issues with "games not working".

I believe Moe has done alot of work on identifying games in his collection where only a few .conf changes need to be made. I was going to do this myself with my collection (600+ DOS games) but my list is compatibility focused for now..

PhysFS is not a format. It is just games-in-ZIP-without-unzipping-them-first. It has nothing to do with configuration issues, they remain exactly the same.

But you are right, my collection is built upon a decent standard configuration with minimal snippets of changes for each game. Currently that means that those games that need it have a batch file that uses z:\config to modify configuration. My collection isn't anywhere near complete, however, as I tend to collect used games, try them and pass them on to friends (or simply stow them away) if I don't enjoy them enough. I've got just about 200 titles in a "confirmed working" state.

well the game currently on the list is a review with one line that it is supported. Basicly a mobygames entry. So totally unrelated to dosbox

When I first created a Games page, I picked Test Drive because it was refrenced in the http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Basic_Setup_and_In … ation_of_DosBox
article. But not having a copy of the game I had to look online for screen shots and information. Checkout these two pages I just finished. All are for games I have copies of so I had more information.

http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/GAMES:Doom
http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/GAMES:TestDrive3
http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/GAMES:VRStudio

The inclusion of Test Drive 3 is debatable (since the game pretty much works entirely without any configuration), but Doom and VR Studio are closer examples of what I was talking about when I said games with notable aspects.

Once you put screenshots from games, like you already do, you might as well link to downloads. Ok, I'm kidding...I know it's not as illegal. But it's still illegal nonetheless and no, it doesn't matter the DOSBox team make no money from it (as that Wiki has no ads). I'm just telling you as a user who wants to protect DOSBox. The least you can do is make up some license like Wikipedia does.

Screenshots from games are illegal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenshots#Copyright_issues
I do believe it falls under fair use, at least as long as the screenshots weren't ripped from somewhere else.
BTW the license of the Wiki makes no difference on the topic whether the screenshots are legal or not to begin with. It does make a difference on the status of the pictures put into the Wiki though, whether they are free to use or not by others (not the Wiki).

When I said license, I meant the one they use under images (when you click them). If it was fair use by default, they wouldn't have bothered to display a license that basically begs to acknowledge said image as fair use (because it's something a court eventually decides, not the image's uploader).

Yes, I know that you meant that. That is why I wrote

It does make a difference on the status of the pictures put into the Wiki though, whether they are free to use or not by others (not the Wiki)

. I have to admit in this instance I meant pictures that are not screenshots since the copyright is eld by the owner of the game/app, but of other pictures.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ST_Test_Drive.png as an example.
All Wikipedia does is trying to make clear that the picture is likely to be fair use so copyright holders will not barge in with a law suit right away. And yes (again) it would make sense for the Dosbox Wiki to display a similar disclaimer on screenshots from games/apps and no it makes no difference on the legal status of such pictures.