From Mumble Wiki
Revision as of 17:29, 21 August 2012 by CommandChannel (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Since the response to it was mostly positive, I went ahead and added the "fancy" hosters page format. It shouldn't be too much more confusing, though there are some extra columns. I realize the column colors are a bit gaudy, it was pretty much just blatantly stolen from the Wikipedia templates, so feel free to edit them so it's a little less so. Fwaggle 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding Your Host

Simply copy the last entry row on the table and paste it below itself, then edit that entry with your details. Like so:

| [ Teamspeak Command Center] || {{COMMERCIAL}} || {{UNKNOWN}} || 
{{UNKNOWN}} || {{UNKNOWN}} || {{YES}} || {{UNKNOWN}} || {{UNKNOWN}} || {{UNKNOWN}} || 

Copy everything except |} and paste it before the |} to add a new row to the table. Then edit the columns to match what your service offers. The last field (after the last ||) is used for a comment, so put anything extra-nifty about your service there that isn't expressed well in the other columns.

Use the preview function often, and only save the page when you're triple-checked everything is correct. I myself am guilty of spamming up edits, and in case you're not aware there's a bot on IRC that notifies of every edit, in addition to a huge list of all your mistakes in the history. :)

Please try to resist the urge to put your host at the top of the list, and follow whatever etiquette everyone else is doing.

.. and please try to refrain from putting marketing fluff in the comments, for the benefit of all viewers... that's a really slippery slope to start heading down.

Linking to feature pages

The templates such as {{YES}}, {{NO}}, and {{NONCOMMERCIAL}} can also be used to link to a page explaining how you offer the feature. For example for your RPC service, if it uses a different protocol you might link to the page explaining the protocol like so:

{{YES|[ REST]}}

Hopefully this will allow users to comparison shop a little easier - it's hard enough for commercial providers to convince potential clients to overcome the inertia keeping them on competing voice products, the least we can do is make it easier to shop for the hosts that are going to offer them the best experiences.

Ordering the table

The table is ordered primarily by country (of hoster) and secondarily by hosters name. Please add new entries accordingly. --Kissaki 16:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Since viewers can now sort by that stuff as they feel like it, I was thinking about re-ordering the page so that newest entries are at the bottom. It's a buttload of work though, so I wanted to see what everyone else thought of it before I went through it all. I was thinking alphabetically by provider name, but that might just make me want to register or something... Fwaggle 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorting by name is consistent with other projects (what else did you expect someone whose name starts with a "C" to say :) ), but you'd get no opposition from me to sorting by date added instead. It might also be a good idea to break it in to multiple tables, one table per region. CommandChannel 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Split table into regions

There are now nearly three dozen companies listed in the hosts table. Consumers will primarily be searching for a host that has servers in their geographic region. I am proposing that we split each region into its own table to make it much easier for consumers to identify hosts in their region. The current table is sorted by region then host name, but this method does not work well for hosts that have servers in multiple regions (as the majority of hosts do).

This will also alleviate the confusion that surrounds adding a new host to the list. New hosts will be added in alphabetical order by name to each region that the host has servers located in.

I've created a sample of what I think the result will look like. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone has feedback before updating the Hosters page. --CommandChannel 17:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)