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:

Old Timers Report In[edit]

Been here since 2009, created an account on 15th of January, 2011 --Mr. Spooky talk

Been on /tg/ since the beginning, and the wiki since 2009. Did a few anon edits here and there, and finally made an account Nov 4th, 2014 before suddenly going edit crazy. --Hiddenkrypt (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Policy on rules downloads?[edit]

So just for fun I've been making a Horus Heresy Mechanicus Codex since the current Mechanicus are an absolute mess to use, you have to flip through FOUR separate books and descriptions/PDF's on FW's website to get all the units available and even in the four books they don't list every item available in the Mechanicum army. As such I'm making a PDF that'll have every item and unit on it in a way that I'll be able to update it easily with any new releases and I'd like to share this when it is finished, but before I do I just want to know the current policy on uploading stuff like this, since I'm not using custom rules, they are still the rules and units from Forgeworlds Horus Heresy series. -- Triacom (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Officially you are allowed to make such a list for your own personal use (if you own those books of course), but sharing such a list is not really allowed by law. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Homebrew and other original/shareware content is totally fine to upload, but as a general rule if you would have to pay in order to get your hands on something you shouldn't redistribute it (in whole or in part). Obviously I can't control the content of sites that we link to, but I don't want to see any infringing content on 1d4chan itself. --Wikifag (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha, I was just making sure of this before posting (or in this case not posting) anything. -- Triacom (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So now that the Mechanicus are getting a new book I'm curious if the same policy applies. I did make the compilation of the older rules, but they're apparently changing quite a few of them in the new book as well as changing how the Legio Cybernetica and Ordo Reductor function to the point that somebody on the Mechanicum talk page has recommended scrapping the entire page and starting from the ground up.
If the rules truly are this different (and thus the old rules are outdated/no longer tournament legal) would it then be fine to upload it? -- Triacom (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, the fact that the rules are out of date doesn't make it any more legal to upload. Unless GW is offering free downloads, it still falls under wikifag's "if you have to pay for it" clause. And if GW is offering a free download, you'd be better off just linking to that. --HK (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. -- Triacom (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What's with the Wizard's Academy banner?[edit]

From what I can tell it's embedded onto every page and not some kind of ad. Did someone specifically pay for it to be there? Or is someone here affiliated with the folks behind it? Or is it some kind of /tg/ project? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Kickstarter campaign. The guy (Greg) who designs games for 3dtotal is a close friend of mine from university so when they've got a campaign going I put a banner up for him; no financial relationships or other compensation involved, though. I have done this a couple of times before (for Viral's Engine Heart KS and I'm pretty sure for Greg's previous project, 404) but I commented about it on the news page those times. Sorry if there was any confusion caused this time around. --Wikifag (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


Would it be okay that a collaborative effort of 8chan's /tg/, /v/, and /co/ have a portal to make a project on this wiki?

there already are a few 8chan articles. --Kapow (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Its /tg/, yes. Its /v/ and /co/, no. This is a /tg/ wiki, not a "/tg/ and also /v/ and /co/" wiki. --05:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My gut says yes. It wouldn't be worse than people using it as a place to store their campaigns or quest thread info. That being said, it should be relevant to /tg/ somehow. I would (and plan to) make a page for Orc Stain for example, but unless I discovered a Hey Arnold RPG I wouldn't make a page for that (unlike TMNT, Trigun, and Tenchi Muyo which all had licensed RPG's that I intend to make pages for as well). --Thannak (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What makes something /tg/ related?[edit]

This is something I've probably expressed sentiments about more than once in the past, but I think it bears discussion: what exactly makes something related to /tg/? For example, take Touhou; mod fiat has dictated that all discussion of it is to be restricted to /jp/, and Touhoufag has long since vanished without a trace. Given that it has no other substantial connections to /tg/ as of this writing except maybe a half-done homebrew, does it still deserve to be considered "/tg/ related"? I don't like to be pushy, but we do have to set limits somewhere. Otherwise we're basically admitting that /tg/ culture allows anything and everything to be considered a part of it. --Newerfag (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think the discussion should be focussed on how it's relevant to /tg/ if it isn't a tabletop game, or related to/a by-product of a tabletop game. To use Tohou for example I think the cards should be mentioned but the characters section serves no purpose and why would the characters need to be mentioned at all? This isn't a wiki made for the series so I don't get why they'd include something unrelated. If there's a tabletop version of Tohou somehow (that isn't just 4e cards) then go right ahead and include that. -- Triacom (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

While the example I chose was an admittedly arbitrary one, I think you've set a good guideline there. If an article can't make a good argument for why it's relevant to /tg/, then it shouldn't be here in the first place. Even when a thing is related to /tg/, its article should focus only on the aspects of whatever it is that makes it related to /tg/. --Newerfag (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I think Firefly and Serenity make a great example of doing it right. The show is quite relevant to the people of /tg/, we have references to it all over the wiki, but ultimately it's a TV show. The Serenity page is just for the RPG of the same name, and the Firefly page didn't exist until I made it a few days ago, just for the board game. Compare/contrast Star Trek with 41k of text about the series, followed by 3k of text for the games... followed by another 6k of text for skub about the new movies. Or Doctor Who, which isn't as egregious, but still is mostly about the show. That said, I rather enjoyed both those articles. I just think they need more focus on their games, even if it's just to put the game content up first or something. If a non-tg media (touhou) doesn't have any /tg/ attached to it, then it probably shouldn't be here. --HK (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I hate to bring this all up yet again, but I've recently been caught up in an argument with Thannak regarding this issue again. This time, the problem is how closely connected a subject needs to be to /tg/ in order for it to be deemed /tg/-related. By his logic, since monstergirls are /tg/ relevant, an anime that features them and occasionally has a meme based on it posted on /tg/ that originated in /a/ is also relevant. I disagreed with him, as it has no direct interaction with /tg/ beyond what's filtered down from other boards and has no /tg/-oriented media (e.g. RPGs, homebrews, quests, etc.) to speak of. So the question is: does this secondary/tertiary relevance alone qualify a subject for a page or does it need to have an actual /tg/ connection beyond "pictures of it get posted a lot"? Because in that case, we'd need articles for practically every anime ever made and a full description of every piece of media that a reaction image was adapted from. --Newerfag (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

...Well, personally, I would err on the side of more content rather than less, and grandfather in pages that are at least a year or so old. Some quest to determine the "purity" or "relatedness" of an article is only going to end in purging the "weapons and armor" or "pauldrons" pages on the grounds that they're also not technically directly related to tabletop games. --SpectralTime (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I suppose so, but it would be better to make this an official policy from here on out rather than one which has to be debated over and over again by us. An objective measure of how relevant the content has to be would be useful as well, since on pages in which the non-/tg/ aspects are far more prominent than the /tg/ ones such as the Elder Scrolls page (prior to my purging of it), the non-/tg/ aspects are blown up to outrageous proportions, often in a way where any form of information that could be acquired from them could be found more easily from the source material, defeating the purpose of having that content present in the first place. We don't have to be THE definitive source for information on every little thing that happens to be vaguely connected to /tg/, and it seems some people here can't help but ramble on about things they like without considering whether or not the average fa/tg/uy even cares about those details. --Newerfag (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait, why would 1d4chan NOT be the definitive /tg/ source? What exactly is the point, other than be a place for homebrews to be needlessly saved? It should be a place for anything one could or did find on /tg/ to be fully explained and explored, along with images to accompany it. A guide for newbies to quickly look up what is being discussed in Generals. I mean, what other point is there? To be a Quest Thread and smut writing library? --Thannak (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Low blow, Thannak. But perhaps I misspoke. All I'm saying is that for whatever reason, some articles that should have been written a while ago (e.g. stuff for the different gods in the DnD settings, detailed information on WoD splats (especially the NwOD splats), the Guilds of Ravinca for MtG) just aren't being made, either due to lack of knowledge, lack of skill editing a wiki, or lack of interest- and that given the obsessiveness some places like Lexicanum are capable of, we'll never be the absolute best in any single subject. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't become the definitive resource for /tg/ stuff in a more general sense, at the very least. It could, however, be skewed a little less towards the big name games and more towards the lesser known ones that get no love, like Malifaux.--Newerfag (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Lack of work on lesser known products isn't resolved by trimming the ones that do get attention though. I agree, far too much 40k bloat. But then questioning each existing non-mainstream page that gets worked on doesn't resolve the problem. I myself try to make pages for lesser known model companies and games, and it is frustrating to know there's pages for no less than four fanfiction variants of Daemonettes and barely a thought given to Ral Partha of all things. But I see it as an opportunity to make this site the go-to end-all source of tabletop gaming knowledge and memes relevant to it. From Strahd von Zarovich to Elf Slave Wut Do, the more comprehensive collection of clear knowledge we present the better (although the humor is also an important component, so long as its closer to an Anonymous poster in the know to a TVTropes twit). Cleaning up the quality of articles will give the site a better reputation (as most people who refer to 1d4 on /tg/ will see the highly negative opinion, not necessarily undeserving in many cases, towards the site). Not to mention, dicing up articles that are at least tolerable won't encourage others to work on other things. After the Towergirls thing I took a break from the writing for example, this situation had me rustled and questioning my plans for other pages, and if a Delete tag and a wipe popped up on the Wakfu or Age of Sigmar pages I'd be spitting fire rather then popping off to work on a page for Dragon Magazine, Little Fears, or Tears of Isha. Not to mention seeing some of the garbage that has been left on the site after only a little use of the Random Page function today, I'd take it harder when articles I'm working on suddenly shrink while those just sit. I admit there's a certain degree of acid to my reaction although I do feel the stated intent and actions taken are not aligned here. Afterall, why allow in-depth and high-volume pages about, say, Dawn of War while eliminating Blizzard? Both relate back to a tabletop game. To go back to my main point, there's far more pressing concerns than if a full summary of something should exist on it's one page, or just the paragraph describing the meme. --Thannak (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems like we agree more than I thought we did. I think part of the problem is that there simply isn't a clean way of determining /tg/ relevance, so we both act on our own interpretations of what it means to be relevant to /tg/ (which themselves are quite divergent and up for debate as we've already learned from earlier). For example, Dawn of War gets a pass in between its direct connection to 40k, the memes it spawned, and so forth, but the Warcraft page is a poorly written mess in spite of its own connections to Warhammer simply because those connections were less self-evident (although the reputation it built up over time with WoW did not help matters). While I'd like to make such additions to obscure games, my knowledge of them simply isn't sufficient and I'd rather have a red link than a half-assed placeholder basically asking for someone who actually knows about the subject to take pity on it. Add in the fact that AssistantWikifag (and I mean no disrespect here) simply refuses to delete pages that aren't outright spam or illegal somehow, and you have a wiki whose articles have quality wildly varying from the superb to the abysmal.
SpectralTime's "grandfather clause" idea might work in theory, but in practice that still lets a ton of trash through which shouldn't have ever been created in the first place, like whatever the hell this is supposed to be, as well as people who refuse to expand their pages as was the case in this situation, in which the page's author accused me of vandalism when I questioned why his two-sentence long stub of a page was relevant to /tg/. (While his unacceptable behavior is itself reproachable, that is beside the point.) Given their presence and the near-zero chance of removing them from the wiki, I'd like to think my distrust regarding non-mainstream pages is not wholly unjustified, although I will admit that I do have a tendency to grow overzealous in such cases that combines poorly with my personal preference to use only as many words as needed to get a point across. In retrospect, I realized I was going too hard on the page we were arguing about and began adding some of the details back to it in a way I should hope will be able to satisfy both of us.--Newerfag (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the solution to the Warcraft page is a generalized long Warcraft category in three segments; story of Warcraft, then the Warcraft RPG since it is kind of the half non-canon link between Warcraft and World of Warcraft, the World of Warcraft storylines, then the Warcraft Board Game plus redirects for World of Warcraft, Warcraft RPG, and World of Warcraft Board Game all linking back to the one Warcraft article. It'll be long as hell, but with collapsible sections it can function well as a containment for references quite well. Then cutting a good chunk of the ranting about Warcraft and Starcraft from the Blizzard page, and putting a Starcraft Board Game (and I suppose Starcraft Risk too, since it has some slightly different rules than regular Risk) section between the Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 storylines on the Starcraft page, plus the 40k/Starcraft bitching on that page as well (which should just have a little section, since it'll probably spark up again once Legacy of the Void comes out with the usual Blizzard mix of lore-ruining shit and awesome moments to make the Skub fly). --Thannak (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. If only I knew anything about either Warcraft or Starcraft to help make it. I think I might be able to flesh out some other articles if I get the chance, though. The Elder Scrolls, on the other hand? I'm not sure where to start with that. It literally tries to cover the entire setting within a few paragraphs, with the end result being an eye-searing wall of text that could easily be removed with no consequences. Hence my first reaction to purge the thing completely, which I still feel would be the best solution if it isn't completely rewritten from scratch. I'm sure there's a way to fix it, but try as I might I just can't seem to think of one. --Newerfag (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasted much of my elementary, middle, and high school years between Warcraft 2, Starcraft 1, Warcraft 3, and too much of my early adulthood on WoW with a dip into Starcraft 2 before I realized playing with your friends on a LAN and playing with people on the internet is like the difference between a slip'n'slide and skidding six feet across concrete on your knees. I can tackle those in the future. The easiest solution for TES is probably more sub-categories. Group it into small segments, a touch of reorganizing, and some metaphors to simplify things. Pictures to break up the blah blah blah on the margins would really help too, like what I tried to do with the Wakfu page. I can't be of much help though, my knowledge of those games is pretty superficial and mostly pertains to dungeon-delving for more skulls to make a skull ballpit out of. Fallout was more my thing. --Thannak (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That's good. It seems that the changes to the Warcraft page are already taking place too. Not sure if the approach to the TES pave is a good idea though- I feel it would benefit by far by learning how to say more with less words. A lot of it is just empty text and rambling about things that shouldn't concern /tg/ at all. --Newerfag (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And again I have to beat this dead horse, this time regarding SJWs. Now I hate them too, but I find the best way to deal with them is to deny them any recognition, including on here. The Tumblr page had a purpose, but the SJW page is just empty bitching and slightly reworded junk I'd expect from ED. Additionally, they are a group that produces nothing and wants no part of the board, so why let them in here?

We are a /tg/ wiki, and only a /tg/ wiki. Leave the 4cham drama out of it and focus on the subjects actually related to traditiol games. We neither need nor want political complaining on the site. What will it take to get an actual policy on this made?--Newerfag (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make a meager return here, and throw in my two cents on some of the less-relevant content. Because of how /tg/ glorifies the old and scrutinizes the new, there are a few things that get caught up in the annuls of /tg/ canon that really aren't tabletop-relevant. But on the flip side, there are hundreds of little ideas that /tg/ obsesses over for a few threads, but never get recorded here on 1d4chan. Point of the former: Touhou. Point of the latter: unique flora-based races. I personally love Touhou being on this wiki, as it hearkens back to the beginnings of /tg/, and was once actively /tg/-relevant despite not being tabletop-related. That kind of media gives character to a board. I also believe this to be true of Monstergirls and all of the rule-independent settings /tg/ concocts. This kind of content, and these pages, are valuable to /tg/ and should be reflected in our wiki, even if there is nothing strictly tabletop game-y about them. Why is it valuable? Because some parts of /tg/ keep bringing it up and keep making threads about it, simple as that. --FlintTD (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What counts as a stub[edit]

So im going through the stubs looking to remove the template from pages that no longer need it and for some its pretty clear its no longer a stub but for others its not so obvious. Im guessing it depends a little on the content of what is there i assume something that has a lot of links is allowed to be shorter then most things for one. Tuypo1 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. It's very context dependent. Some articles are just going to be short, because there simply isn't enough info, or because the topic isn't deep enough to justify talking about it more. For example: Derived stat. On the other hand we have China, which uses the stub tag because someone thinks the period 2852 BC to 2070 BC doesn't have enough detail. Basically, do whatever feels right. If someone else thinks it's still a stub, they'll retag it. -- HK (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense off to work Tuypo1 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok done i was pretty conservative in what i took the tag off and only took it off space marine chapters and similar things as well as the warmachine stuff as im not very familar with it if it was a very long page took it off all the tactics pages for both Warhammer and machine though. Tuypo1 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Article Length: How Much is Too Much?[edit]

Now that I think of it, how much detail in a page is too much? I've seen quite a few pages in the past (like The Elder Scrolls) which were bloated with information of dubious relevance to /tg/ itself simply added in the name of "comprehensiveness", despite adding nothing to the article itself. While I've tried to cut down on bloat and keep the articles supplied with relevant information, very few people seem to care what does and does not qualify as "relevant". Thoughts?--Newerfag (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say that having another website or the actual source be required reading to understand whats going on is too little. The preface should summarize what it is and how it relates to /tg/, the body should be comprehensive enough you can then go onto post in a discussion about it. Character summaries, plot, links to relevant 1d4chan articles, and finally external links should all be on a page. As much as just indicating for example that Warhammer 40,000 is a grimdark setting and giving the two sentence theme of the factions works, having the complete history of the setting as a whole then listing the important characters works better. If bloat becomes ridiculous, better organization to aid in use with navigating the article, at worst collapsible sections, should be employed. Trimming should only occur with unimportant and unrelated detail, like the endless first-person rants at the bottom of the Age of Sigmar page compared to the body of the article. --Thannak (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I've begun doing said trimming of the 40k page right now, mostly by removing bad jokes, unfunny memes, and gratuitous strikethroughs. However, some of the pages in question are so bloated and poorly written that the only practical way to go about rewriting them is to delete everything and start over from the beginning. The excess of detail about pages that arguably shouldn't have been made in the first place (e.g. Rebecca Black, Zero Punctuation, doesn't help, since all that detail could be used better on pages which are more than just rants about how someone doesn't like (insert subject here). That said, having said source should be linked to at the very least. We can't say everything about a given topic, and people need to know where to look if they want more information, if only because not everyone can be bothered to make proper pages for every character in a setting (among other things). --Newerfag (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Versus Delete[edit]

For the past few weeks people have deleted a lot of text from some admittely text heavy pages, who needs editing. I don't know how the policy is for that on 1d4chan, but I get a bit annoyed that people will delete 10,000+ byte-sized chunks of text for very little reason, rather than delving into the text and rewriting it to fit the format better. If people really want to just remove massive walls of text, can we please write about it on the Talk page first? TheWiseDane (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't fix text-heavy pages by adding more text, you have to trim off the fat completely lest it become a jumbled mess of a page. Editing can come later, preferably by those who realize brevity is the soul of wit. And for reference, there has never been a policy on it.
Not to be rude, but it seems to frequently length is seen as an indicator of quality. Short pages can be as good or even better than long ones, since they tend to be focused and better written as a whole. --Newerfag (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree - When I say "editing", I mean that it's better to remove excessive amounts of text and improve whatever paragraph being editted, instead of just removing everything. Removing bad content with room for improvement is a loss, even if it'd take some work to realise that improvement. TheWiseDane (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
When I do it, it's only because I've found nothing there that could be improved despite my best efforts. Either the content in question is uninformative, unfunny, or simply does nothing to add to the article to the point where its removal is the only viable way to improve the article as a whole. Think of it as being akin to surgery- sometimes the only way to make things better is to cut things out. --Newerfag (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You actually pretty much only delete content. No offense, gotta point it out though, but just check your edit history; its pretty much all content deletion and reversal of spam edits. Furthermore there's far more stubs, pages in need of images, and broken links that need pages than overlong pages. --Thannak (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that I look at it, you're right- I've gotten to be too much of a hardass there. I'll do a better job of putting my money where my mouth is and get started on adding things as well as taking them away. I'll start by making some wanted pages- if anyone wishes to help flesh out the Ordinatus page I'm starting out with, that would be helpful.--Newerfag (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the Ordinatus page turned out well enough at least. --Newerfag (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Blood Angels Question, Warhammer 40k[edit]

Hey Guys, I was just wondering, should I get Brother Corbulo?? Or should I get a Regular Sanguinary Priest instead? My Army is lacking, a cheap (points wise) but effective HQ.

Well, I'd say that you should get the Priest and gear him, instead of Corbulo, if you don't have a specific role for him. But more important, you should ask these questions on /tg/ itself, or on another forum site like Dakka Dakka instead, it's geared more towards discussion than this wiki is C: TheWiseDane (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

Question concerning the status of the /tg/ heresy project[edit]

Is this project still active and who is still working on if so? I have made some minor additions to the Primarch pages and am interested in contributing my minor writefag skills to the project but do not wish to waste my time or step on anyone's toes in the doing so. Any information on active members or status concerning the project would be greatly appreciated. -- 04:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

They still have threads on /tg/ every now and then, although there they go by "The Hektor Heresy". They aren't too common, but if you look for them you can usually find them more often than not. Don't know much about the project myself though. --Newerfag (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)