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:

Difference between the Monsters category and the Races category?[edit]

We've got a category for both monsters and races, but the two kinda overlap in my eyes. Any ideas on how to make them different from one another?

  • I think the screw up is mine for putting neogi under the "races" tab in the first place, personally. In general, I'd say that "races" are playable and "monsters" aren't. Or possibly, in Pathfinder terms, that "races" are defined by their class levels without getting racial hit dice and "monsters" aren't. One of the two --SpectralTime (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I've been thinking about that for a bit now, it's not all on that single article. But it's a good idea: Races are playable, Monsters are not. Anyone else got ideas for this? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I would suggest that the "Races" category are for groups of creatures of near human intelligence or higher while "Monsters" would be more feral creatures YerManOverThere (talk)09:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Writefaggotry[edit]

If any Writefags would be willing to tell me exactly how you submit fanfiction it would be much apreciated!

Best regards;

YerManOverThere 08:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a very simple process, typically what you do is post it on /tg/, and if it gets positive results there then it's welcome on this wiki. If you're unsure about how to best present it, then I'd recommend looking up the archived threads of previous stories, either on the archive itself or by using this wiki's pics of archived threads that are normally attached to the regular stories. The only other way you can get it on this wiki is if you post it elsewhere and people on /tg/ start talking about it in a positive way, either way you need to go through /tg/. -- Triacom (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Updating for 8th Edition[edit]

Now that Warhammer 40,000 8th edition is rolling around we have the HERCULEAN task ahead of us to rewrite... well, pretty much every 40k page with stats on them. Question: are we going to do that right away, or are we going to wait until we have "true" 8th edition codexes? Or are we going to do something else? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on how radically different 8th is to everything that came before (I don't care what Triacom says, if you actually read the damn datasheets it's much closer to Age of Sigmar than any prior edition of 40k) and the fact that many people will be sticking with 7th for a while, I'd say we treat it as a separate gameline, the same way we separate Fantasy, 40k, and AoS. OriginalPrankster (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll agree with the idea of making it a separate topic on their main pages, though personally I'm waiting until after they come out with the full rules just to make sure we don't miss anything. -- Triacom (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Glad i saw this, but i am going to start re-writing Tactica (to begin with) from this day until i'm done with Chaos and Tyranids. I think it's better to start little by little, so that we establish a framework, and then when the "real" codices come out, we'll just update the existing articles, if we've missed something. It's gonna take a while, but it's better if we start as soon as possible :) -- The Awkward Man 10th august 2017
  • I think archiving the old 7th Ed Tactica and creating the new Tactica pages first, before anything else, is the most sensible idea. I hesitate to section off 8th Edition into its own little box just because it looks and plays a bit too much like Age of Sigmar for people's liking. That just seems cruel and unfair, 8th Edition is still Warhammer 40,000. If we were to start sectioning off chunks of "rules canon" like we very nearly do for "fluff canon", we will inevitably end up defaulting the entire wiki to Rogue Trader rules.
    • I attempted to do this, I didn't get everything done though. --FlintTD (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The vehicle table is in severe need of revamp, as vehicles have become really fuckhuge infantry with lots of wounds now. Please send help. --

Washington001 6:48, 18 Oct 2018

They're back[edit]

Spambots are now coming back in force, how're we going to stem the tide, this time? It seems that they're creating automated account now, should we put a captcha to keep them out? Tactical Mehren (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't we already have one? I told you guys it needed more than two questions to be effective. --Newerfag (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering why we only had two questions after the last outbreak. Tactical Mehren (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The old scrambled-text captcha was more trouble for us humans than it was for the spambots. The approach we've been using is to have some 40k trivia as the answer, as they're not common words in spambot guessing dictionaries (so there's no point in using more than a couple questions, and having more questions is more trouble for legitimate users). Of course, dictionaries get bigger over time. This has happened before, and thankfully GW has given us a whole bunch of pseudo-latin nonsense words for their factions of late, so hopefully it will take a little longer next time. Have any of you emailed Wikifag to get his attention more quickly? I'll send an email in a few minutes unless I hear otherwise. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I see he's blocking some as well, so he's on the case.
It might also be a good idea to implement some kind of autoconfirmation system, where only logged-in users with at least 5 (or so) edits can make pages. This would allow IP addresses and new users to contribute, but be another barrier against this kind of automated spam. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Having that apply to userpages might be a good idea as well in order to keep them from exploiting any loopholes. I've also seen them use their user talk pages to spam too. --Newerfag (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Nobody emailed me directly, but I do get the notifications (eventually) from comments on my talk page. Also, I got some bounce emails from the registered addresses on the spam accounts because they were watching the pages they'd made. Didn't realise until I came and had a proper look that the problem was this bad (I am presently at work).
Essentially this happens because some human person eventually looks at the Q/A set and programs the response into their bots. The size of your question set doesn't make much difference as to whether (or when) this eventually happens. Hilariously, I have had confused emails on more than one occasion from genuine human users who were unable to work out the answers to the most recent set. Hopefully the new question I've put in now won't confuse anyone.
AssistantWikifag is correct that the traditional garbled text captchas weren't that great on a user friendliness standpoint, and in most cases you get equal or better protection just by using simple question/answer captchas that are topical to your subject matter. Google's current captcha offering with the image recognition stuff seems it may be more robust and user-friendly now, so I may look into setting that up again when I get home this evening. I am however still traditionally opposed to mechanisms which require registering accounts or contribution history to earn the right to perform actions; captchas generally solve this problem perfectly well, occasional hiccups aside. --Wikifag (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind. Quick change on the questycaptcha didn't seem to be deterring them, so either my question was so pathetically easy even a robot could answer it or someone's actively targeting. Either way, ReCaptcha is back in effect now and should help prevent this sort of nonsense. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Wikifag (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do not use Google's "I am not a robot" captcha. It has been proven that Google uses it to track individual users for advertising purposes. It's also impossible to solve without disabling any anti-tracking addons (or similar precautions, like disabling JavaScript you have installed for that very reason. And even if you do spread your asscheeks and disable your Adblock/uBlock/Ghostery/etc. you'll get stuck with the max-difficulty hell captcha as a punishment for not allowing Google to keep an extensive dossier on you. It may not even help significantly, as humans are cheap where spammers usually operate and services exist to buy captcha solutions in bulk; the fact that the questycaptcha change didn't help at all suggests that they may be doing that already. I'd say we're better off enabling autoconfirmation so the bots/humans will fail to create a new page on the first try and either give up or get outed before they can do significant damage OriginalPrankster (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. Also it didn't work. I've changed the questions and set a time-based autoconfirm before allowing create rights. We'll give it a few days for them to realise they can't do shit and then tone it back down. Also enabled the Nuke extension to do that rapid cleanup; I think AssistantWikifag should be able to use it too, if I'm not around. Thanks to those who spent some of their time today trying to fight the spam.--Wikifag (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. If Google captcha didn't help at all then either there's a new exploit to break the captcha or the spam is human-assisted. Fucking sucks, man. Do you have some kind of IP-based blacklist feature? Dumping the StopForumSpam database into there might help if you haven't done so already. OriginalPrankster (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

-- Just noticed this and would gladly help if i only knew how? The Awkward Man 10th august 2017

What to do about the Awesome category[edit]

Currently, the Oldschool template is set up to categorize any page it's on under "Awesome". I find this problematic for a few reasons - we also categorize general things that are awesome under this same category, which means that Fist of the North Star is in the same category as literally everything relating to Squats. As much as I do find Squats awesome, I feel that having one category for two things defeats the purpose of having categories to begin with. Does the "Awesome" category mean things /tg/ thinks are cool, or things relating to old-school games? If it's the latter, why isn't it called "Old-School" or something? Furthermore, categorizing everything old-school under "Awesome" gives the impression that anything old is awesome by default, which is probably more hipster-ish than we want, and our own page on Old School Roleplaying presents a more nuanced view on the subject. I feel like it'd make a lot more sense to have the Oldschool template (and the Forces of the Squats one) categorize any tagged pages in a new "Old-School" category, and we can save "Awesome" for pages or topics that are simply considered awesome. What are people's thoughts? --Captain Lhurgoyf (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--Namefag (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

New page proposal: Imperium Bias Defeat Syndrome[edit]

During my discussion regarding the Swarmlord page with Malignant, I've distinctly identified a pattern in which none of the major xenos characters (e.g. Eldrad, Ghazghkull, Swarmlord) are able to win a significant victory against the Imperium, which I believe is due to GW's persistent favoritism regarding the Imperium in general and the Space Marines in particular. As I am interested in seeing how said favoritism has skewed the depictions of most of the non-Imperial characters a la Abbadon, would there be any major opposition to the creation of a page regarding what I've tentatively dubbed "Imperium Bias Defeat Syndrome"? --Newerfag (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Does that need a whole page? We already have one for nearly every treebranch in 40k other than the non-Slaanesh Daemons. Seems more like a category for the Imperium and/or 40k pages. But then again that's just my opinion. --Thannak (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I thought about that, but feared it might offend Imperium fans reading the page. --Newerfag (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I certainly think it'd be a valid page as a look at a phenomenon that pretty clearly exists in 40k. But I'd definitely be unwilling to actually go ahead and do it considering what it would imply about the setting's overall main message of 'human=better at everything'. I'd be happy to edit or help give ideas, but that's it.Malignant (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I guess I'll start hashing it out on my user page when I get the time. --Newerfag (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

        • On an unrelated note, I've been considering making a Darkest Dungeon page. Seems like most of /tg/ is familiar with it, and the mechanics are very similar to a tabletop game. Takes a lot of inspiration from WFB too. --Thannak (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Rotating Text[edit]

I was looking into whether it's possible to rotate text on a page to display words at an angle. I feel that this might be useful for certain tables, but I've not been able to find out how to use this. Wikipedia suggests that this is some kind of inherent template, and W3C talks about how this needs to be done in CSS or some shit:

Is this possible anyway and did I overlook something or did it wrong, or is this as-is not possible right now? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Remember kids[edit]

whatever edits you do are undone and changed to suit other peoples needs. try writing an article in the Space Marine Page about why you think they are bad, or write an article about the flaws of a Card game, and watch as its instantly removed within the space of a few days. Welcome to 1D4chan kids!

--Nicol bolas (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

They wouldn't be undone if they weren't so consistently terrible. Now stop whining and learn how to be a part of the community. --Newerfag (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
>being this assmad and ignoring that what he says can and has been written better
Wew, lads. --69.115.135.209 17:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Collapsible sections within vignettes[edit]

  1. Basically how do I do it. I'd like to add a list of synergy models to the Warlord Trait list...but making it collapsible so it doesn't bloat everything to hell or disrupts the list. So far no success, found no relevant info in the help section. Any ideas? -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's how it works in a short form. Take the text above this sentence in the edit tab. Everything you write after that will not be collapsible.
Once you've done that, take the text above this paragraph. Everything written after that will be hidden by default. Also don't forget to add both of the close div commands afterwards (the ones with the slashes), as they tell the wiki where the two sections end (both sections that can't be collapsed and collapsible), otherwise they'll stretch throughout the page. -- Triacom (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Thanks. Though I was trying to get this line to be numbered 2 instead of 1 and the collapsible section be contained within a vignette, as it's part of a list instead of a regular collapsible section in between two normal non-consecutive numbered vignettes. Srry for the confusion. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
In that cast it would be better to make the vignette inside the collapsible section with a description as to what it is outside of it. -- Triacom (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

TTS Quotes[edit]

I know people are gonna throw opinions like "its cancer"....etc, I'm in the minority about this, and this is an incredibly minute issue; but considering we keep, user-made, LOL ECKSDEE I'M A TEEGEE MEMER XD, quotes, which TBH is both edgy and cancerous but I keep it anyway because...actually I don't know why; why is it that there's a specific bias against occasionally using fitting quotations from TTS? I mean I can understand removing it if there's no context to the article at hand and just thrown in there for LOL FUNNI, but any mention is almost guaranteed to get shut down, even if its appropriate or fits a long-running joke. Tactical Mehren (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If you feel the need to use a TTS quote to punctuate a point, feel free. I certainly won't revert it. But I suggest you use them like any other quotation: in full, with attribution, and not as an in-sentance punchline. --FlintTD (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the issue here isn't that they're LOL ECKSDEE MEMER XD quotes. It's that they aren't /tg/'s LOL ECKSDEE MEMER XD quotes. --2605:A000:122D:2313:0:CF2F:7678:B024 20:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
To join in on this way too late, in my opinion it's more that it's from a show that once was funny, but has since gotten its head shoved so far up its own ass that it's well into becoming impossible to tell a joke apart from what they're earnestly trying to do (and sometimes one retroactively becomes the other and vice-versa). Also the show likes to mock the lore while getting a lot of it wrong, lot of of times it's intentional, and a lot of times it's not which makes it feel like it's somebody who wants to tell you how wrong you are about something, but doing it in a way where they don't realize they're in the exact same boat you're in and with no awareness that they could even be getting anything wrong. In any case I've removed TTS quotes in the past, usually because they've wrongly described what they've been attributed to. -- Triacom (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Captcha[edit]

I've been having an impossible time getting past it.

With which question do you have problems? What browser and which extensions are you using? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I kept getting one of three questions. I just made another go at it, got one of those 3 questions and answered it fine. So I assume it's not a problem anymore --Emerald Claw (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't bother newfags[edit]

If you attempt to write anything some body doesn't like here, more than likely they will spam revise it to its original state. Attempting to provide something serious or writing a page here will result in it being spam edited to suit other people's perspnal preferences. In the grim darkness of the far future, is a wiki held in power to suit the needs of a few people on here. --Nicol bolas (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

He said, having clearly learned nothing from the last time he whined here.

Back to the mine with you, salt beast. --72.89.208.68 10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Unban request for Evilexecutive[edit]

Hello, I am evilexecutive. A couple months ago I requested a temporary ban so that I could get my shit together for college, now I have returned for Remoon's summons. I'm apparently needed to help fix up Codex: Knights Inductor for 8th edition. Also as an aside, I have apparently forgotten my password.

You're unblocked. Welcome back, and I hope college has gone well for you. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Rules in the Pages[edit]

I don't like rocking the boat, but I want to get everyone's opinion on including explicit rules for Warhammer models or units within their main pages, and therefor outside the army's Tactics page. I personally find it bothersome, as most of the rules are injected into a less-than-fitting place in the article. This is really noticeable to me now, since 8th Edition has changed how all kinds of things work. I've been moving these rule blurbs into their approximate Edition's Tactics pages, if they aren't already present there in paraphrased form.

Let me be clear: I have no problems with referencing how the game works, especially how it changes from edition to edition. I take issue with articles that start out in the fluff and then make a hard turn into the crunch: discussing gameplay tactics, complaining about one faction's special rules or weapons countering another's, and outlining exact "Heavy 5, AP -1" statlines in a sentence and paragraph that seemingly was fluff-oriented. Can I get any kind of consensus on these "floating rules"? I would prefer not to start edit wars over this. --FlintTD (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Tangentially /tg/ Related Pages[edit]

Can we get a ruling on the pages loosely tied to /tg/, and amount of information allowed on them? Thus far we’ve had full wiki pages that go in-depth into anything related to /tg/ interests even if not outright tabletop games (such as Fallout, World of Warcraft, and Transformers), but currently there seems to be debate on this between users. I am on the “anything goes” side of the fence, but an official ruling and some Contributor-wide debate may be appropriate. --Thannak (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I on the other hand have consistently taken the opposite standpoint that for those pages we only need the most important information about the setting, as well as (for video game articles) one or two paragraphs dedicated to each game in the series and sections for the actual tabletop games that use said settings. There is a difference between merely elaborating on elements of a setting and adding long tangents on matters that rarely come up even in the original media. It is not necessary or even desirable for us to try and give a full analysis of a given setting that isn't an integral part of /tg/ culture, just enough to cover the basics along with a source for people to get more information should they wish for it. --Newerfag (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Counterpoint-this is not a professional wiki. This is partially an informal information source, none of which should be taken as wholly trustworthy and merely as a point for further research barring that rare exception where a citation is provided. It is also partially a joke site that uses parody, sarcasm, and memes combined with a general disregard for legitimate wiki norms. Finally, it is a repository for just about anything /tg/ from people's own homebrews to old archived quests and writefaggotry to article edit slapfights stemming from differing perspectives on works of fiction. So to put it bluntly, this is NOT a real wiki; it can be informative, but trying to hold it to such a high standard can only be interpreted as misguided or as a very clever but ultimately too opaque type of performance comedy. It would be like trying to clean up a Letters To The Editor section of Mad Magazine. Your desired end result would be to cut the bulk of content from most of the pages of this wiki, entirely deleting most of the rest. --Thannak (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, right now we don't really have much of a standard at all. That directly leads to many articles being prone to semicoherent tangents and the spamming of memes that have been forgotten about years ago that comes off as unfunny instead of irreverent. As for "the bulk of the content", that's a gross exaggeration at best since most of our content is what I consider "first order /tg/": that is to say, franchises such as 40k that are considered integral to /tg/'s basic identity or homebrew content that originated on /tg/. Much of what I reduce is far less connected and is much less likely to be missed by the average /tg/ denizen. I've been saying as much for the last couple of years I've brought this subject up, and whenever I have made a cull on a given page only one or two people appear to object at any given time.
To use a recent example, on the Fallout and Command and Conquer pages that I have recently cut down on, the majority of the removed content can be described as either complaining about Bethesda or EA (respectively) as if this was an offshoot of /v/ or focusing obsessively on minor plot points and characters who the average fa/tg/uy that isn't a die-hard fan of those series would have no reason to care about. I am reminded of how we ultimately dealt with the Halo page, but unlike that incident those two in question don't have an extensively written fan Codex they can point to in order to justify all the excess information. Instead, the former has an obscure pen and paper RPG whose system is barely described on the page and the latter has some ancient memes that are now known only to a small handful of people. --Newerfag (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, tangents are fine as long as the article is still readable. I don't know how far it's trickled down but on 8chan there's a common phrase for when people bitch about off-topic threads: /tg/ isn't about traditional games, it's about traditional gamers. There's a lot you can get away with as long as it's relevant to the hivemind's interest and you aren't being a faggot about it. As far as I'm concerned the problems start when an article that should be cool is an overheated slog because a troper or a diehard fanboy bloated it with dry and irrelevant trivia, as opposed to the funny and interesting trivia that /tg/ finds entertaining. Moreover, articles are free: it's not like having (say) a plot synopsis of the C&C games takes away from our ability to write about tabletop games elsewhere. OriginalPrankster (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Problem is, the line between a basic synopsis and an overload of irrelevant trivia can grow rather blurry, and sometimes said fanboys tend to view any sort of reduction at all as a direct attack on the article even if the article itself is better for the removal. There's also the factor that our idea of what we think /tg/ finds entertaining and what it actually finds entertaining can be very different; on quite a few occasions I've seen people on /tg/ dismissing the wiki as hopelessly out of touch. I've also noted that a few articles seem to have next to no connection to /tg/ at all, like the Homestuck one. I can only assume those stay on mostly because no one cares enough to question their inclusion. (On that note, its article went far beyond irrelevant and into the level of "WTF": there was a whole section describing how to date a member of its fandom, which is creepy in all kinds of ways.) --Newerfag (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
While I also air on the side of "anything goes", I acknowledge that a lot of irrelevant diversions can really detract from this wiki (like WTF is that Homestuck article doing?). I have always felt that this wiki is much more about traditional gamers than traditional games, regardless of what state the various /tg/s are in. This is why I like list articles like Approved Video Games and Approved Anime: they endavor to keep things short and sweet. I've heard people complain about this wiki being "out of touch" largely because it preserves old opinions that no longer reflect the state of /tg/ (like left-over GW vitriol from the Matt Ward era), which newfags adopt and everyone has to help deprogram. --FlintTD (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Mobile issues[edit]

I've noticed that when I try to view Recent Changes from my phone, the browser crashes even while the page is in mobile mode. Can Wikifag investigate to figure out what's going on? --Newerfag (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Spamer[edit]

Can someone with mod-abilitys look into https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.40.67.76? He's copy-paste-spamming a list of 40k units with large pictures into pages

Also there are yu gi oh spamming of the same type! --SaltyMan (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspect https://1d4chan.org/wiki/User:Nicol_bolas might have something to do with it, considering he was angry about Card Games, e.g Yugioh. --SaltyMan (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Website is really slow[edit]

For some reason the website is really slow for me. It takes quite a while for pages to fully load; this includes the autocomplete for the search bar, the ability to open or close the drop down for the page contents and the buttons to open or close lists of changes made to pages on the Recent Changes page. The actual page contents are not affected. I can see that the page is loading during this time. I have this problem in both Firefox and Chrome, and I don't have similar problems elsewhere. Are there any known issues regarding this? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It was slow for me a few days ago but today it's really fast, so I assumed it was just an issue I had. -- Triacom (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)