Talk:Main Page

From 1d4chan

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 personal 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)

Cultist Simulator[edit]

Should I write an article about this game? Because I want to write an article about this game. That, and it has all the goings of a tabletop classic. Hell, the author even penned two TT RPGs before. So, is this the place for it or not? -VyroVR (talk)

Math extension[edit]

Could the site administrator add https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math to the wiki software to use for articles related to probability? I find trying to manually typeset equations to be quite tiresome and not very amicable to editing. --Derp commander (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


Arguments Between I and Another User[edit]

...God, I feel like such a self-important ass putting this here, but I've been begging for literal months for someone else to come to the Mage: The Ascension discussion page and arbitrate between me and another user who started by vandalizing the page and insulting everyone who didn't like a game system he liked but has been the butt of jokes for decades, and settled for instead ripping out and burning up all the humor from the page and filling it up with a mixture of weasel words and better-hidden, more-condescending insults towards people who don't like or get the game he liked. And, well, if begging on the page isn't helping...--SpectralTime (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobledark Imperium[edit]

When is the "Rescue of Isha" going to be published? Also, the battle during The Scouring when the Nurgleites try to recapture her and she rips them to shreds, would be something I would like to see put into prose.

MidHammer Drafts[edit]

Hi there, I have been working on my own spin on MidHammer for the past year or so, would it be ok if i published the pages on this wiki, or would it be better if i moved them off site? I have a lot more pages to write and fill out.--Wammnebu (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You're better off asking this question on MidHammer's talk page, you're lucky if anyone besides me even notices it in this section. -- Triacom (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Will do, thanks

im starting a new project does anyone seem interested in getting shit done?[edit]

Hey! savagereaper here. I'm starting a new initiative to get more homebrew started AND finished on /tg/ does anyone want to help us write/edit/other stuff my new work in progress setting: hr giger's dark world setting? let me know here, in the conversation on Setting:HR Giger's Dark World page or in my user talk page. looking forward to working with some fellow fa/tg/uys again Savagereaper (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


A chorus speaks as one voice!

Manticore IRL[edit]

Getting as many eyes on this as possible.

The US Army has a Manticore, your numerical superiority is irrelevant. 70.123.234.204 16:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What to do about Spammers[edit]

That spammer is back, currently going by "I LOVE gardevoirs!". You remember the one that Overwrites perfectly good articles with meme Ramblings. What to do about him Stephenlucas600 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this website needs to have more moderators so that spammers can be banned more quickly.--73.41.249.220 16:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What, this isn't the first time this room-temperature IQ dipshit does this? --174.94.85.155 17:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe adding more difficult questions to the Captcha would deter spammers --174.94.85.155 17:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We honestly do need more moderators/people who can ban skidmarks like this. It would make occurrences like this much less common. CoolGuy99 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Admin blammed him, good riddance.--174.94.85.155 18:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Could we have an article edit rate limit to prevent one account editing more than 5(?) in an hour until approved for greater rates Robtom 21.57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors such as me that prefer to remain anonymous when making edits and that wouldn't be fair to them.--73.41.249.220 21:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You're not exactly anonymous, anyone can do a backtrace on your IP either on the talk page or in the edit history. If you want to be anonymous you could just make a second account. -- Triacom (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure they just mean editing while not logged in, Triacom. The wiki tells them their IP is recorded in edit mode just like any wiki would, so I doubt they wouldn't already be aware. --45.18.185.176 06:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
That just seems odd to me, the point of using a username is so you're actually anonymous. -- Triacom (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Which I totally get, I think some people just don't really want a name associated with their edits for whatever reason. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:B03F:D38B:DC8D:2B23 09:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Same guy came back again and made a ton of spam pages. I am getting sick of this. We really should have more moderators or administrators so we can block people like this sooner.

>the sothion is to let the website die so there’s no bots or humans for that matter

Site back online, any plans to avoid further outages?[edit]

As on the title, any plans to prevent down time outside of necessity? A Patreon account or donations pages could be useful if the problem is on that end. Don't feel shy or think its wrong to do so, this is a place where I have a lot of fun. I would happily donate if I had disposable income, surely others would be glad to help as well. MrPhantom (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  • A guy on /tg/ made a new 1d4chan (a 2d4chan if you will), using the archives of the site. Since this site is back now he's going to shut it down but it may be a good idea to make sure that certain pages like the tactics pages and some of the more popular are archived and regularly updated so that if the site goes down again people can get hold of these pages and if it goes permanently re-creating a new site could be done quicker since all the important pages are archived. SabbatMartyr (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I was also thinking of doing that, although under the moniker of 1d6chan, I wouldn't mind archiving some pages at the end of each month just in case. -- Triacom (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Should have been 1d12chan. That poor die never gets as much love as it deserves... --Konrad13 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Which templates do you use for images and formatting[edit]

I'm setting up my own wiki and really like the way that images work in this one. Which tamplates / plag-ins are being used?

Thanks!

Help![edit]

I’m new to editing this wiki and I need to know how to upload photos and files, can you lot help?

Sure, if you're on PC the link to upload a file is on the left bar, below most of the other links. If you're on mobile you need to click on the gear in the top right and then choose "upload file". -- Triacom (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

thanks for the help man! Also if you can find templates for stuff like Awesome or Heresy that would help me a lot as well

What do you mean finding templates? If you mean how to use them, you just type {{awesome}} and {{heresy}} at the top of the page you want to put them on. -- Triacom (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes actually! I can’t seem to find any templates Such as those

See Help:Template.--Nubnuber (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the help guys, if I make a suggestion: please add Help:Template To the Wiki tools

I figured it out[edit]

Ya know this file?: https://1d4chan.org/wiki/File:Big_Gay_Purple_d4.png

Well.. I figured out what’s so gay about it:

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Gay_Purple_Man

Custom thought for a day?[edit]

Is there any way to edit the thought for a day section?:

Herecy.jpg
This user has been found guilty of heresy by the Imperial Holy Inquisition (which no one ever expects).
You can help 1d4chan by summarily executing him/her/it. Emprah protects!

+++ THOUGHT OF THE DAY:+++
THERE IS NO INNOCENCE BUT ONLY ALTERNATING ASPECTS OF GUILT
THE DIFFERENCE FROM TREASON TO HERESY IS IGNORANCE +++

How do you create a new page?[edit]

Newfag. Hi how do you create a new page? Uploading images seems pretty easy but I can figure out how to make a new page.

Talk: Female Adeptus Custodes Page[edit]

What about making a page about the topic of Female Adeptus Custodes? I do believe it's that a lot less than Stone about it if you can make girls into Adeptus Custodes.

If you want to make it, it should probably be a subsection of the Female Space Marines page, not its own page.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, we seriously need to archive this.[edit]

This was the longest downtime yet. We need spare mirrors. Root, please set up a Patreon or something. MrPhantom (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Agreed--A Walrus (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely. CoolGuy99 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Begging you, Root.Someone else. (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I know this is going to be a band-aid solution, but this is a good moment to way-back as many pages as you can. Also, following suggestion from a /tg/ thread, whoever feels like they've wrote anything of value on .net should update .org page for that, because .net will be turned into a mirror. If you won't update on .org, .net will get overwritten by current version from .org. No idea if this will actually reach fruition, but better safe than sorry.
  • The Patreon sounds like a good idea on the surface but do you really think it will change anything or will root still be absent? I mean it has been hard enough getting spammers blocked sometimes so I don't think it's gonna change anything if a small sum of money is present too. I mean this as no disrespect, clearly this is a project that had ballooned into something way bigger than predicted and I totally get that it's mostly boring unrewarding work with people bitching all the time but... root mate you don't even talk to us or ask for help with it! We want this place to thrive too ya know. --Tvrfvby (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • PLEASE! I hate having the site down! Konrad13 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this was a bit absurd and the ultimate issue is a lack of administration. I'm not the most technically literate gal but even I was supprised there was no backup or even simple things like advertising (surely there are plenty of tabletop gaming companies that would buy adds here) to offset the costs of some proper backend care and attention. Clearly there are people out there who for whatever reason or no reason at all like to knock this site offline and clearly it's really not hard to do (I had a little poke myself earlier and yeah it's not great) and without the administration even showing signs of being alive it's up to us I guess. The mirror seems a good idea, maybe we'll all start moving over there anyway given this place could fall over at any minute! --Tvrfvby (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with all the comments above, and well, I guess I'm venting here - but not only am I dismayed that all the edits since March are just *gone* but also that there has been zero communication from admin about this or even about the downtime in general. Sure I could go and edit the various other 40k wikis out there, but they are just so bland. I prefer 1d4chan because the comments and commentary actually have character. I really hope the admin are reading this so that something can be done to mitigate future issues. --Cavgunner (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I doubt any edits are missing, because the site was down for multiple weeks; looking at the archives, I see myself noting the wiki was down on the Discord server on March 28th, and my last available edit before the outage was late on the 27th, so I have good reason to think that at most, a very few edits were lost. That being said: There's an obvious plan that anyone can do (publicly available nightly/weekly backups), but I'm not certain how much it would cost, in effort or time. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, some edits I did recently do appear to be intact, but the watchlist and contributions in my user tab are not reporting them. Odd. --Cavgunner (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be the site admin did post updates on /tg/ proper, blaming the ongoing outage on a combination of personal schedule conflicts and the atomic dumpster fire that is MySQL. The second part holds water, at least--I hate MySQL, it's a perfect storm of open source derp and database engine derp. There are a number of tools for backing up Mediawiki sites, and it'd definitely be good to at least make a database dump available to interested parties. Also, at the risk of getting a bit political, it's very likely that a number of countries are going to start pulling out of the public internet in the next few years and smart information distributors are thinking about decentralization sooner rather than later. Kiwix is worth looking at if everyone's cool with people having offline copies. --C

I don't buy it. Who posts on 4chan but not on their own site? I'm operating under the assumption that it wasn't Root, for now. Someone else. (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, with Someone else, it's weird that it isn't posted about here at all in the first place, but to think it would be on another site and still nothing here? --Theohedd 4:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I got a bit of a shock seeing the site disappear, if you guys don't mind me asking, why does this happen, this is like the second time this has happened i think. Is there not enough money to pay for the servers or something simmilar? Blajbara. (talk) 17:34, 01 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely need a backup right now. The site doesn't give any returns on Google, plus it feels like it's being beamed from Mars with the current latency. Westonbirt (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Archive as of 2021-07-24. Archives can be generated with WikiTeam's dump generator script on demand by users. I'm setting up a regular backup on my local servers, and will upload a dump to archive.org yearly / "latest whenever 1d4chan is down for an extended period"-ly. Anyone can run their own archive though, and should not rely on me to do so. --Shanix (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are we not popping up on search engines?[edit]

Ever since the return this site has been appearing on fewer and fewer search engines to the point that we don't even show up on Duck Duck Go anymore. Duck Duck motherfucking Go. Did we do something to piss off every single search engine in existence? Crazy Cryptek (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

When i asked about this site at google tech support they said 1d4chan intentionally prevents indexation. https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/117476950/google-does-not-index-1d4chan-org?hl=en maybe " User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: /" in robots.txt did that?

--Kotenok2000 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC) They say this code stops google from indexing. "<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>"

Why the fuck do we have that code then?

As Root explained in the Discord, this site is not what he wants people to see as the first result when they google their new hobbies for the first time. Someone else. (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Than that code should be on the main pages of all the tabletop games instead. Valvatorez (talk), 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That is not how search engines work. Someone else. (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleting pages[edit]

Hey, I wrote the Titus Marines page but I decided to delete it because it was shit can anyone help?