Talk:Main Page/2008

From 1d4chan

This is an archive of the conversations during 2008 about the wiki as a whole.

Do not respond to these conversations, as they are stale and no longer read; this page is for archival purposes only, so we know what we were talking about.



Well now, I'm proud to present our first infobox. Here it is.

You can see an example of its usage on my Talk page.

I do understand, however, that the infobox is far from ideal, so I encourage you to change whatever you wish before we start using it in the articles, when changing the template will require rewriting of the articles it's used in.

The reference I was using is here, and the main problem with the template just yet is that it uses the defaults for the fields you don't specify, not just hide the fields. There is a way to hide them, and you can find it here. My brain is exhausted now, however, so if you want it implemented, go for it.

Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes.

Fatum 11:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Field hiding is done, I also restyled the box to look more like Wikipedia infoboxes. 10,000 hours in a copy of mediawiki running on my laptop Tgcodefag 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the template is good now; I don't think we need publisher in the same field as the game's name, though. Look at the example in my talk - it can get quite ugly. Fatum 10:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, we need a bunch of templates for RPG character classes, publishers, persons etc. Fatum 10:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
\o/ -- 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fucking stupid shit[edit]

Yes I am putting this at the top of the page because it's annoying me.

We don't need pages for shit that isn't /tg/ related. Case in point: Furry. We're not Wikichan, we're not ED, and dear god we're not Uncyclopedia. So please stop posting this shit. It's just trollbait crap that has no purpose on 1d4chan.

Feel free to rage at me lol Aegis 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But furry is /tg/-related T_T Fatum 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
They are subjects that are relevant for understanding /tg/ in one way or another I'd say, I don't really see anything bad in having them. Currently they only take up one category. --Myomoto 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, furry stuff shows up on /tg/ a lot. As long as the article is written such that the major part of it describes the topic from the perspective of /tg/, I don't see why these "unrelated" articles can't stay. --Carcer 22:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest the page itself isn't a problem, I'm just concerned about the proliferation of the faggotry. It tends to get fucking everywhere and destroy all that's good. Aegis 08:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
We could start posting articles about Ironclaw, Furry Pirates, Furcadia d20, Worldtree... or we could have one article called "furry" and not speak of any of these horrible, horrible things ever again. :3 - Lord Licorice 08:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I'm deliberately picking controversial topics to write up, and giving them a sensible and relevant treatment in each article. This will help to pre-empt trolls, because if they can't produce a better article then they'll either get reverted quickly or just won't bother in the first place. The best trollbait is a blank page. -Destro


Alright people, try to use the Categories markup so everything's nice and easy to search for - Kasdaye 13:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Dear gods. If you have twenty-hojillion, please put them into image galleries at the end instead of the article body - Kasdaye 13:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Please don't go stub-crazy. The Stub stub was largely a test, and is way too generic for widespread use. I'm going to make a D&D stub and a Warhammer40K stub, since those seem to be taking up the most pages with the least content. If there are any other low-content areas that require expanding, feel free to make a new stub, and try to follow the Template:Stub example.

Grand. The Template:Dnd-stub and Template:Wh40k-stub are ready to go - Kasdaye 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kasdaye. Nice stubs. I'll try to use them reasonably. As soon as I figure out how to wiki. BloodyWanker 00:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unportant notes[edit]

Are you stopping us silly niggers having userpages for people to whinge at us? I was looking forward to the bitching, lol. Aegis 19:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this some tripfaggotry? Nothing's stopping you customising your User:page, but then again, nothing is stopping anyone else posting about what a gigantic faggot you are on it. Especially not me.--Wikifag 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the rule is that you can't make a page called "Edward" reading 'Edward is a cunt and whacks off to GURPS' but you can go to "User:Edward" and write 'Edward is a cunt and whacks off to GURPS.' A subtle but important distinction. -Destro
I thought it seemed more to be that there should be no articles for tripfags, and if a known tripfag registers on the wiki using a recognisable name, Wikifag doesn't particularly care if you fag up their userpage just because. Although one would hope that it's done creatively, at least. Making a userpage for a nonexistant user is just silly. --Carcer 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. I'm not even sure whether you can create a userpage for a non-existent user. -Destro
Don't be silly. This is a wiki. You can create anything. - Ahri 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of making User:pages, could we all just write a stupid blurb and cut down on all the broken links? That'd be great. --FlintTD 09:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Two cents: Is it possible to have a user page that is only editable by who created it? This would have the benifit of 1. keeping tripfaggotry out of the real wiki pages, and 2. prevent the god-damn annoying wars - which leads to MORE than user pages being vandalized - as best demonstrated by encyclopedia dramatica. --Sintua 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Seconded for the reasons mentioned. While it would be fun to have massive internet arguments, it would fuck up the rest of the site, and like Sintua said, we're not ED. Aegis 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It's possible to put various locks on a page, I'd suggest waiting until it actually becomes an issue and then locking individual pages. Everyone's done nothing but have good clean fun on each other's user pages so far. -Destro

New theme[edit]

Just putting an official request out here for a more 4chan like theme for the wiki, just a simple recolour would easily do. --Myomoto 23:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconding. The wiki white is very bland... even 4chancolors would add alot to the look, but i don't know how easy that'd be to do. --Sintua 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Somebody on /tg/ mentioned it like it was just a matter of changing a few numbers somewhere, but I honestly have no clue how to do it. --Myomoto 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Now you just need to get rid of this:
DEAR GOD WIKIFAG, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? - Ahri 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing most be located somewhere, he could replace it with a gradient like the one on 4chan, or he could replace it with a transparent image. --Myomoto 22:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I approve of the Blueosity. --ManWithNoName 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
We need a "YOU ARE INFERIOR!" Howling Banshee sound emote from DoW. --Myomoto 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw wikifag, do you have any plans of making a nicer front page any time soon? --Myomoto 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, we need to move the discussion to the Community portal from here.
Also, best articles on the front page. Fatum 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Community portal? Sorry, I'm a major wiki retard. --Myomoto 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Community Portal. Don't you see the link on the left, just below Main Page and over Current Events? Fatum 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikifag, could you name the default 4chan theme something other than monobook (for instance, '4chan') and restore the old monobook as one of the optional themes? I don't know why the blue scheme is bothering me so much, maybe the 4chan colours just bring back too many bad memories of 4e flamewars.-Destro


Do you use them, motherfucker? Fatum 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like this. Like this, baby.
Well you sure walked into that one. -Destro
AMIDOINGITRITE?!? --ManWithNoName 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It's cold out here, let me back in guys Aegis 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


I know jack shit about them, but I'll see what I can learn. I was adding the 1,000 Blank White Cards article and realized we should probably have a template for some slight standardization (e.g. # players, difficulty, length of a game, etc.). - Lord Licorice 08:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to go steal code from wikipedia! --Carcer 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Woohoo! Road trip! --Myomoto 13:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Dammit, that's MY line! - Ahri 18:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just gonna leave this ting here... --Myomoto 23:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to get it to work, does wikifag need to enable something first, or am I just too hamhanded? --Myomoto 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Video games[edit]

Should we, or should we not include a section for /tg/-related video games? We already have DoW on here. --Myomoto 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add a section for it, but every single fantasy themed game out there does not deserve it's own page. Strictly /tg/ related by way of virtue. --ManWithNoName 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Even strictly /tg/ related is a lot. I say a page for roguelikes (Castle of the Winds, Nethack, Dwarf Fortress, etc), a page for adventure/RPGs (Torment, Baldur's Gate,NWN, etc), and a page for board/card analogs (Blood Bowl, RISK, XBL Board games etc).Björn Freigh 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be the most logical choice. Any naysayers? --ManWithNoName 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Individual games with a lot to them (like Planescape or BGII) should have their own page. If it's YET ANOTHER NETHACK CLONE with nothing really special to distinguish it, then a separate page isn't particularly warranted. --Carcer 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
We could have a main /tg/ related games page with a paragraph for every game, that links to games that deserve their own pages. --ManWithNoName 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've already made a category for video games, sounds a lot like what you just described. --Myomoto 18:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I was envisioning something more descriptive, so that games that don't deserve their own page could still be discussed. Also more like a standard page.
You could create a page for that? Sky's the limit in this business. --Myomoto 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Means testing would be good but that never fucking works on the internet. If someone can produce evidence of significant /tg/ discussion on the vidya then it should be allowed a page, perhaps? With non-entity games going into the general "some video games" pages? Aegis 21:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If someone's willing to write a full-length article on a game, it gets its own page; if it would otherwise be a stub, it should just get an entry in a larger page. -Destro


Ok, I seriously think we need to discuss some sort of overall style for when we make articles, stuff like if we should stick to American spellings or British spellings of words, for example: Flavor, or flavour. Overall we just need some sort of style guide to make a consistent experience out of reading this thing. Now, I know this is something we can always add in later, and we should probably focus on getting some articles written and all that wash. But the fact remains, it'll be a goddamn hell to edit a gazillion articles up to the same style, so why the hell not try and produce them in a similar manner in the first place? --Myomoto 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikifag's a Britfag. If so, Brit spelling? - Ahri 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How about a table for RPGs? Like recommended players and so forth. Wern't we going to do that? --ManWithNoName 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we need stuff like this. To be honest I'm just hoping wikifag will get off his ass and make some general designs for the different kinds of pages, if not we'll just have to do it ourselves. --Myomoto 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should just use our native spelling when we write, it's readable either way and not worth the hassle of trying to 'correct' it. As for general designs it's probably best to let them evolve somewhat organically, although I am making some effort to establish a standard for describing games (System, Setting, Relation to /tg/, See Also/Links). -Destro
Seconded. Either version is fine, as a mix doesnt really make things any less legible. Hell, I was raised in American schools by a British father, so I already tend to alternate between valour/valor, etc. --Sintua 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Seconded--Hanyufag 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikifag does indeed appear to be British. As am I. Brit spelling ftw. Regarding article layout, I generally format proper content pages (i.e. ones that don't solely consist of a dumb joke like the DURR CLANG and what have you) similarly to wikipedia, which is to boldface the first instance of the article's subject in the text, and place a relevant image thumbnailed on the right at the very top of the page. Most of our pages aren't actually long enough to warrant additional side images in the body of the text, so additional images go in a gallery at the very bottom of the article (after See Also and External Links sections). Stub notifiers and the Needs Images template and what have you should probably be placed at the top of the page. --Carcer 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Even if initial article is written out of style, having a neat guide when cleaning it up is great. As for the spelling I don't really care.--Hanyufag 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's alternate British and merkin spellings within each article, and switch them all on alternate Tuesdays. Or we could just have a nice cup of tea and a sit down and not bother about which way it's done. Me, I prefer darjeeling, but if you guys want to constantly switch spellings I can go along with that. HUGE 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Destro, or anybody for that matter, feel free to simply create a page for no other purpose than to show off the intended style of a page, just dump it in the under development section in a new category called style guides or something like that. --Myomoto 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Check this shit yo. --Carcer 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Damn bitch that's some fly shit.
Shit is SO cash. --Myomoto 19:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed how there are many copypastas that are, well, copypasta'd. Should this kind of text be in italic or do you guys prefer another way of differenciating it? Quotes don't really help when many paragraphs are involved. - Murmur 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Articles[edit]

Can we do this yet? I didn't think we could, This page is really bothering me.

I don't think we can, wikifag needs to hand out some more powers to a few people to help us clean up. --Myomoto 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
We are not sufficiently popular and hectic for me to feel any additional sysops are required to maintain order at the moment. If there is consensus that a page should be deleted (as in on its talk page) and you want to make sure I notice, leave a message on my talk page. --Wikifag 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and for a little additional clarity: the only things I'm deleting by default are articles about tripfags and articles which are just pointless ranting or racist drivel or suchlike. In other situations I'd prefer to see some sort of consensus reached by the users and I'm going to err on the side of non-action when opinion is divided. --Wikifag 19:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's run with it. --Myomoto 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hooray! - Ahri 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Great news, everyone[edit]

My new Special Page tells me that we're close to our first thousand articles. And 50000 page views as well. Hooray for us! Fatum 20:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just know all the NSFW will the most viewed once we actually make them.. --Myomoto 20:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the way that only about 1/5 of our pages are considered legitimate. Must have been a whole lot of extramarital fucking going on. - Ahri 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we just surpassed the 50k mark. --Myomoto 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is our "angle?"[edit]

I'm asking because we've made a lot of articles that dispense no information whatsoever, and are intended to be jokes to people who already know about said subject. This is suspiciously akin to ED, is that our purpose, to make a /tg/ related ED, are we going to make a general knowledge encyclopedia of /tg/ related topics, or are we doing something of an in between: A general purpose wiki that gets the whole point across with humour in some parts? --ManWithNoName 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the last one. --Myomoto 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles that are just jokes are fine, but if someone writes an informative article on the subject and puts that up, the informative version is preferred. I believe Wikifag said in a thread that his intent was that the wiki be primarily informative, yet where possible convey information in a humorous manner. --Carcer 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur. -Destro
It's probably also worth saying that where possible articles should not simply be isolated descriptions of the topic but at least include a mention of how the topic in question relates to /tg/ in general beyond just "it's from a traditional game". --Carcer 21:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If random opinions count at all, I would vote for the informational & helpful as a priority, but with the comedy stylings upheld as a way to encourage visitors. I came for the story on The Bitch Who Ruined TSR, and stayed for the lulzy learnings.--Furore23 13:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Allemandtando page?[edit]

Start putting in some recent events? --ManWithNoName 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you know, I might know a man named GameJunkieJim who's not familiar at all with Warhammer 40K but helped get that article protected for a few days. Well him and his logged out alter ego. It was fun fucking with EMIV or whatever the fuck his name was. Björn Freigh 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh god no. All this invasion and raid shit was what caused wikichan so many problems in the first place. Wait until it blows over and then document it later. --Carcer 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Change vote for this. --ManWithNoName 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I vote for an Allemantando page. That shit is hilarious. --Dunefag 15:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean up of Categories and such[edit]

Would anyone a bit more adept at wiki editing like to clean up the categories page a bit? All the 40K races should be linked into a single article "Races of Warhammer 40K" Or a general purpose "Races of Warhammer" that has sections for Fantasy and 40K. Other races from other games could definitely use the same treatment, If a race is similar enough in multiple games, change the specific page by adding a paragraph as to how they differ in each game system. All D&D category pages should be subcategories of a D&D Category too, that will clean that up and make stuff easier to find as the wiki grows, I think. Björn_Freigh 04:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also made a cleanup template. --Björn_Freigh 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, I've been doing a bit of cleaning today, but far from enough. --Myomoto 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bold text

I'd be willing to make a Rac es of 40k and such. Also, OH GOD WHY IS IT SO BLUE?!? CAN YOU SEE THE BLUE? CAN YOU?!?
DO YOU SEE THE BLUENESS TOO? Blame Wikifag, he's the only sysop here. - Ahri 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Sysoppery has nothing to do with style editing. You have to be able to get at the .css. Unfortunately what RGB value in there is actually tied to what is not immediately obvious and I'm far too manly to actually look this stuff up so expect to see some bizarrely coloured items for a bit. Also, consider yourself lucky I don't know how to make this thing do gradients, so no RAINBOWIKI today --Wikifag 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
My only complaint is that it's about thrice the bluenosity of /co/, and the lines under headers are hard to see. --ManWithNoName 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind, I'd just like t get rid of the background in the segment outside of this. --Myomoto 22:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems somewhat related. What about all of these "Campaign" articles that have been popping up? I'm not even sure of what category they belong to or if a new category is needed. Other then those, I went through and categorized most of the uncategorized articles this week.--Anonykota 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'ma go make a Campaign category with subcategories for each campaign. Let's see how that works out. - Ahri 09:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Aaaaaand done. Sorry about filling almost the entire Recent Changes page with that lot, but now the wiki's vaguely more organised. - Ahri 09:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Woops, looks like I missed half of them. Fuck doing any more I missed. And fuck you and your million character sheets. - Ahri 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are these on the wiki anyways? Seems like it'd be easier to host text documents somewhere else and link them all in one artcile instead of making a crap ton of them here.--Anonykota 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
People seem to like using wiki-markup to make their character sheets all pretty. It wouldn't be quite so bad if they all started helping expand other articles on the wiki to show their appreciation for wikifag letting them do this.--Tgcodefag 01:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


I've seen a lot of pages featuring stories and nothing else, while I think it's acceptable to have them here, I think they should include some sort of template to mark them as stories and a short (one, two sentences) foreword. Perhaps also containing something like [story] in their article titles. It's weird clicking on a link and getting just a wall of text with no indication of what it's about. What do you think? --Teataine 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -Destro 12:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they should be differentiated from regular text. Either italics or a template would do the job. I don't think article names should be changed though, if we do this. - Murmur 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Made a template, feel free to put it on any stories/fanfics that you come across. I've done all of the categorised ones but I imagine there's a few more that aren't correctly categorised. - Tgcodefag 02:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps one page that links to all fanfics/writefaggotry, and then those pages link back? It could encourage wikipedos to copy-paste from the suptg archives for an easier read (by not having to slog through all the trollan and "oh em gee epic winzz" shitposts) and help cleanup Special:DeadendPages. --CreatingAnAccountJustToHideMyStupidIP 08:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

Now that Wikifag has unprotected the front page, how do we want to go about making it easier on the eyes? Do we want a featured article box or what? - Tgcodefag 06:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I say let's have a voting for the best article once in a month in the Community Portal page, and then place a box on the main linking it and give the article itself a 'chosen best' template, just like they do in TOW. Fatum 09:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a featured article box would be nice. And while I can see why you would knock this back, perhaps a featured suptg archive thread once a week/month/whatever? Just throwing it out there, could foster some good relations between the two sites so we can all totally cyber and stuff. NightRapier 11:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that's just ass-licking, sup/tg/ already has a rating system allowing anyone including us wikipedians to vote on the threads. Like the thread - vote for it, make it an epic one, it's that simple.
On the other hand, we could link the best images from the Paintchat somewhere. Fatum 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
My vote goes to a giant ASCII horse penis. --Anonykota 00:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
180px-Symbol support vote.svg.png Vote--Anonykota 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


They don't work. [1]

They were never meant to. This is wiki, it has it's own way of formatting stuff. Fatum 14:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Seriously