Talk:Main Page

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for talking about the wiki as a whole, since it seems we don't know how to use the other pages meant for the purpose.

Old conversations have been moved aside to keep this page less cluttered:

Are we growing too insular?[edit]

I've been hearing a lot of bad things about us on /tg/- they think we're no longer fully representative of /tg/ itself anymore and discourage new editors from joining up. Does anyone think that's really the case or am I just taking random people's opinions way too seriously?--Newerfag (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a valid concern but I don't think so. From an archive dive my impression was that people's anger came from one of three sources.
1. Wikifag banned them. Knowing what it takes to get this I don't feel bad.
2. Skub arguments.
3. They don't like the hysterical editorial tone, which comes almost exclusively from anons on certain pages (see: Matt Ward).
So really if anything it seems like the opposite. We should stay vigilant against becoming an angry clique, but that should mean having zero standards for what belongs here. --Petro (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the third one might be the biggest problen- people see that and assume that the whole wiki is a mix of lies and hyperbole. I've already seen people demanding that we cite our sources without even the smallest hint of irony and basically accuse the wiki of ignoring facts in favor of hyperbole and exaggerations. That's not going to do us any favors at all- while I've always advocated for some form of quality control, I don't want this site to become a dry Wikipedia-for-/tg/ kind of place either. Unless we find a middle ground, the board's already low opinion of us is likely to just keep getting worse.--Newerfag (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's a wiki. Our quality control should be the more active, editorially-minded editors (such as yourself and myself) editing and reformatting articles. And if there's a bad article with lots of hyperbole and poor fact-checking, people can (and should) come edit it. I don't know that there's much more we can do besides trying to convince more fa/tg/uys to come and edit articles, to have a broader spectrum of opinions and editors. Dok (talk)
But how do we go about convincing more people to sign up? We can't exactly make a thread saying "hey everyone, sign up for 1d4chan and help us out" without coming across as kind of desperate. Maybe we could start by cleaning up the extreme hyperbole in several places (for example, the Dreadknight article seems like it was made at the peak of anti-Ward hysteria and comes off as irrationally whiny, and some of the stuff in the C.S. Goto article like the backflipping Terminator didn't actually happen). I'll try to do some of that now.--Newerfag (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. I'm trying to corral some of the poorer-written stuff so that the wiki "looks" cleaner. I think that's a good lesson to take away from what you said above: we should keep the core of /tg/-style humour and opinions, but make sure it's not hyperbolic or just plain messy, as a middle ground. But yeah, I'm not sure how to get people to come help us. Perhaps we should create a new topic of discussion for that? (By the way, I didn't know the backflipping Terminator didn't actually happen. Thanks for the heads up.) Dok (talk)
I didn't realize it myself at first- it was only after looking through the book where it supposedly appeared that I realized it was a passage taken out of context (a Terminator fighting a Dark Reaper) and noticed that the Dark Reaper was the one doing the backflips and not the Terminator. It's probable that at least one or two other things up there are also misinterpretations or exaggerations that people just didn't bother to check after they were repeated enough times.--Newerfag (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

> I've been hearing a lot of bad things about us...
You should never let someone else calling you a shitbag traitor be your criteria for success, because there will always be people who need to call you a traitor so they can reassure themselves they are pure and loyal.
There's going to be a group of people that will accuse anyone not them of being 'part of the enemy'. They are a vocal minority, and the more passionate they are, the more they should be ignored. They will never be mollified, because their accusations are how they prove to [themselves] they are part of the tribe, so they will never stop accusing. (See: accusations of "being taken over by redditors," or "sold out to the 9gag army, " or "U TUMBLR U TUMBLR"). --NotBrandX (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with exerting editorial control over pages like Ward and Goto is that any work will be rapidly buried. I've personally rewritten Matt Ward at least 3 times and you'd never know it from how it looks. Add to that the fact that certain anons will violently resist having their edits pruned and you basically have the current situation (quarantine article). -Petro (talk)

Perhaps the problem pages could be semi-protected- anons won't be able to edit them but registered users (who will hopefully be more capable of making good edits than the average anon) will still be able to do so. It's not an ideal solution by any means, but it's the only one that seems practical to me. --Newerfag (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The recent kerfuffle over Fifteen views of Asscrack illustrates what I suspect is a major source of this tension -- some things that are relevant to /tg/ are ephemeral and disconnected from other topics (I don't think "Fifteen views..." is itself disconnected, but I suppose other flashes-in-the-pan might be), which is the opposite of how people think a "proper" encyclopedia really ought to be. (> Implying that 1d4chan is a proper encyclopedia.) I think the least-bad course of action is just to accept that /tg/'s interests are very wide and not always consistent, and improve articles that get made as we can, rather than trying to impose notability rules or a standard of /tg/-relatedness. I think the difficulty of creating a page in the first place is enough of a barrier-to-entry to filter out ideas lacking a "critical mass" of /tg/'s interest.

Bad pages can be made better; if people who make articles get chased away, that's worse. --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well its simply this; /tg/ views on Mat Ward, Ultramarines, Grey Knights ect have change, 1d4chan have not updated to reflex those ideals. 90% of all Space Marine pages are still about how much they're better than Ultramarines and/or how Ultramarines suck. The problem is Ultramarines are now seen as pretty cool dudes thanks to the Non-Graham Mcneill (who is now seen as one of the weaker BL writers) takes on the Ultrmarines plus due to how useful there Chapter Tactics and special characters makes them very popular army wise. So now Ultramarines have a fanbase that's pissed at us for making fun of them, while we seem to refused to change those pages. Meanwhile Mat Ward's writting has gotten better in both fluff and rules, his armies are overall balance both eternally and in the meta so most of his hate is gone (because he hasn't done anything to earn it) so those pages are dated as all hell. Grey Knights are nolonger Overpowered, Kaldor Draigo isn't a mary sue anymore while there pages act like they are. So in a nutshell, /tg/ sees 1d4chan as home of a bunch of butthurt morons who wouldn't get over something that has happened years ago and so no one wants come here.--D715 (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  • In that case, the solution is obvious- purge the excess bitthurt from those pages and replace it with useful information. One anon is already doing a superb job at rewriting the Dreadknight page, so it can definitely be done.--Newerfag (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It bears mentioning that excessive 40k references and the sheer volume of related articles compared to mere stubs of material such as Dungeons and Dragons gives the idea that the community is absolutely 40k-centric. Perhaps cutting back on overuse of the Heresy template (you can always make new templates after all, such as a Vader force choke as an example for a joke on an X-Wing page), adding a few verifications that aren't about Space Marines, and trying to make sure most major /tg/ General interests at least have a page if not a category would serve well. --Thannak (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

New blood needed[edit]

As was mentioned earlier, this wiki could benefit from some new blood- not just anonymous users, but reliable, consistent editors who are willing to keep the wiki up to date and well-written. Problem is, how do we do it without coming off as desperate or something like that? We can't exactly make threads on /tg/ begging for new users.--Newerfag (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that notability rules or standards of /tg/-relatedness can only limit the potential editing population we attract...
I forget what led me to this wiki first, but I followed a link here, browsed the wiki passively for a while, and later created an account to archive stuff I created or thought was interesting. Linking to 1d4chan when appropriate (e.g. creating pages for quests which can be linked to in quest threads, or linking to pages for games or tactics in "general threads") can increase awareness, and might lead to further editing, especially if said pages have clearly-articulated gaps to be filled (e.g. redlinks to faction and tactics articles). Mind that you don't overdo this and become annoying, but people have to learn about the wiki before even thinking about editing.
Improving the community portal and current events page to stay a little more up-to-date might also help people find pages they want to edit, and then encourage them to stick around. It would be good to see Flames of War, WarhaHordes, MTG, and World of Darkness treated a little better, and bumping them up a little higher in the "projects" area of the community portal might lead them to the attention of more editors. --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we've gotten very Warhammer-heavy (for which I take at least partial responsibility...). I think expanding everything else, and linking to it more often (I can't even remember the last time I saw 1d4chan mentioned on /tg/), would be good ideas, much better than notability or locking anonymous editors out. Dok (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the Warhammer stuff: I'm currently writing something up for the M:TG section of the site. ETA this week at best. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Both the community portal and current events page are essentially dead- it's going to take a lot of work to get then into a remotely passable state. The fact that this page is used instead of those two pages says a lot about how things work here.--Newerfag (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Current events has been improved. Talk about a trip through memory lane! The history bit would also fit on the 1d4chan article, but maybe people like the recursion joke. Maybe a link in the "See Also" section would be appropriate.
The idea of making a /tg/ thread on 1d4chan's birthday (June 26th) occurred to me -- maybe Wikifag can schedule his "state of 1d4chan" threads to occur on that day. On the other hand, only making such threads when 1d4chan has an actual milestone (e.g. implementation of new captcha system) has its advantages -- he'll have 1d4chan on the brain already, and he'll have some actual content to get the thread started. --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed we need new blood for Khorne will be displeased. He would care not from where this new blood came from, only that it flows. (sorry just had to make this joke) Remoon101 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I made an account a while ago and chip in when I can/want to/have time to spare. Just saying. I intend to go through the Wanted Pages and Pages in need of cleaning to see if I can make something happen. StargateNerd (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2013

Spambots in 014.M3[edit]

The days of yore, where spambots roamed like Orks.

I've informed Wikifag of the recent (ongoing as of this post) wave of spambots. The captcha questions might be changed up in response. Until then, keep marking spam pages for deletion as you come across them, and keep editing as well. The spambots' pattern seems to be making spam on new pages, but keep an eye out for spam edits on pages on your watchlist just in case -- I'll keep an eye on edits being made by new users until the spam is attenuated, but you all have many more eyes than I do. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I've wondered for a while now, how often and how widespread do these Spambots appear on this wiki? -Derpysaurus
    • Its in sporadic periods now these days. Back then before captcha questions were implemented, it was like an Ork waaaagh here. Even ended up getting the wiki temporarily screwed.
      Tactical Mehren (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh Jesus! So it was like the War for Armageddon but in internet form eh?-Derpysaurus
  • Look at the image. That's only half of them on a screen 1080px tall. It got THAT bad. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • More like matching 4 AI Ork armies against 3 AI Imperial Guard armies plus you in a Dawn of War Skirmish. Its and endless wave of slaughter and fighten' with no end.
    Tactical Mehren (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well...at least I could give the SPAMbots some credit that they are quite determined.-Derpysaurus
  • saw the string 'Ff' added to Sisters of Battle, I'm sure it's a spambot testing the waters. But when I try to undo it, I get '404 File Not Found' when submitting the undo change. --NotBrandX (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
When I tried to revert the change, it worked. If everyone is hammering the F5 button to watch for spam, maybe that could cause issues. It could also be Wikifag tinkering on the backend (I dimly recall getting 404s while he implemented the last software update that brought us the current captcha system, but I'm not sure).
In any case, the spammers don't seem to be making accounts more frequently than one per hour or two (nowhere near the levels depicted in the image; at that time, spam accounts were being made every five to ten minutes, according to the log), so there's not much point in checking more frequently than once or twice an hour. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Recent 404 issues were caused by the server running out of disk space. It worked when my glamorous assistant tried it since judging from the time stamp that was shortly after I had cleared some space out. Something had gone wrong and was spewing a large number of temp files without cleaning up after itself - I have my suspicions as to the cause, but it may be a while before I can conclusively fix what it is. In the meantime I'll keep an eye on it and try to prevent it from getting out of hand again.
Regarding spambots - they must have been taught the answers to our current question set. I will implement some exciting new questions shortly. --Wikifag (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Setting Up a New Template[edit]

I've been meaning to archive all the Pathfinder classes into a table/link set of their own, like the 3 & 4e classes, but I don't know how. Does anyone mind giving me the broad outline? --71.226.98.222 01:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Pathfinder-Classes Start filling it in, anon. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, my ursine friend. Unfortunately, I'm brushing up against the limitations of my incomplete experience with the game. If there's anyone out there who knows how Inquisitors, Magi, or Summoners work... I'd be obliged. --71.226.98.222 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Stub Pages[edit]

Perhaps we need a guideline as to what makes a page *not* a stub page? It could give the editor's some ideas as to make the wiki better. A certain amount of images? Links to other pages? Relevant templates? --Lashlightning (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I generally think of an article as complete if it has at least a couple of sections and an image. Including appropriate links, templates, and categories should go without saying.
One think that I think we can do to augment the content of pages, especially of game concepts, is to include their history, both in-universe and especially out-of-universe -- when was this unit introduced, what were its rules, how did they change, how has its model changed, how was it received, did it play as intended...I'm always fascinated by understanding how things get to be the way they are, and I think that recording that on this wiki would go a long way to setting us apart from the other traditional-gaming-related wikis. I have done this on some articles I've created, but I don't always have the time to hunt through codexes and sourcebooks and previous editions for information.
(Of course, ultimately, this wiki's purpose is "whatever /tg/ thinks is /tg/ related", but I think the history of traditional games and gaming could attract such interest.)--Not LongPoster Again (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Sadly, I lack access to the resources needed to make those expansions.--Newerfag (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Putting a stop to strikethroughs[edit]

I'm getting fed up with edits that are nothing more than just strikethroughs. It adds nothing to the pages: it makes the unnecessarily longer while doing nothing to fix the quality, correctness and/or readibility of a page. Can we put a halt to this somehow instead of just undoing edits as they crop up? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • This issue has been raised loads of times on individual pages, yet continues unabated. I wonder if its possible for wikifag to limit certain editing features to those without accounts, that could work. --Luigi (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that just forbidding the use of the strike and s things between the <> tags if you're not regsitered we'd get quite far. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

New Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

Wizards of the Coast is adamant on calling it "D&D", not "D&D Next" nor "5th edition". So where do we put an article to start accumulating our foaming-at-the-mouth ranting about it? --NotBrandX (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Boingboing is posting previews of the upcoming Player's Handbook, that's coming real soon now, we better get cracking. --NotBrandX (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I solved the problem. You're welcome. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

I want to use foot notes, how do I do that?--Emerald Claw (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Home Page[edit]

It feels to me as if the main page links need change. For example, Skirmish Games should be under "Noobs". I also feel the meme category is warranted there, to fulfill the role of explaining things like "Metal Bawkses" and "Blamming" which SO many jokes on almost every page rely heavily on. I would imagine that most Neckbeards would already know such things. Furthermore, I would argue that Warhammer Fantasy and Warmahordes are relevant to modern /tg/ and need a place under Neckbeards (the former right before 40k, the latter after). I would also put forth the suggestion of a third column for homebrews rather than putting three by themselves under Neckbeards. Vidya may also do well being on the front page as well, although arguable as Noob or Neckbeard. Noob could possibly be renamed, as the word has fallen out of usage outside of video games. --Thannak (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

herrrooooo[edit]

I'm new here. I'm creating new content. For now mostly things to do with well-known science fiction authors. proofread sections but please, use the lube. Its my first time wiking.