Talk:Main Page/2012

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of the conversations during 2012 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.

2012


Where all the Hrud at?[edit]

Nothing big, just a simple question: what exactly happened to the Hrud and Umbra pages on the wiki?

I found what happend to the [[Umbra]] page:
06:27, 11 February 2009 Wikifag (Talk | contribs) deleted "Umbra" ‎ (wat)
But no mention of the [[Hrud]] page, not even in the logs. Maybe it was always a redlink? --NotBrandX 04:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall why the Umbra page was deleted. Unfortunately the archived revisions do not exist due to regular cleanups. It was probably a non-content random stub or something (and as it happens nothing else on the wiki links to Umbra and I'm not sure what it would be expected to be about in the first place).
If the Hrud page ever did exist it might have been created during that week we lost when I had to restore from a db backup, and hence ceased to appear to have ever existed after the restore. The wiki certainly has no recollection of the page existing. --Wikifag 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... alright then, I have work to do. --FlintTD 05:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Homebrew Roundup[edit]

As part of my crusade to clean up and update neglected parts of the site I'm going to nominate some homebrews for deletion. Now don't get me wrong, home brews are awesome and the best example of how /tg/ gets shit done. Unfortunately there's also a lot of them that are abandoned vaporware. I'm only talking about deleting games that are:

  • Terminally "in development" with no rule sets or updates.
  • Without any functioning links to either of the above.
  • Unable to be located via a routine google search.
  • Aren't homebrew settings. Settings can get split into a separate section where they can live in peace and harmony.

Once that's finished I'll do what I can to buff up the remaining pages. That cool with everybody? --Petro 20:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we only had Category:Homebrew Settings for a long time, you may find some homebrew rulesets in that category that should be moved to Category:Homebrew Rules or retired. --NotBrandX 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This ended up being a lot harder than I thought. I did what I could, tagging the worst offenders for deletion and others with the new template:abandoned. Eventually we're going to have to go in and decide whats worth keeping, but I don't want to decide that on my own. --Petro 03:22, 23 April 2012 (BST)

Deathwatch Chapter Creation Tables[edit]

I have some free time, and a need to see them all neatly laid out (i.e. not scattered over a dozen pages), so should I put up the CC tables in an article? I'm pretty sure we don't have them yet (there's a redlink on the Deathwatch page and a search turns up nil). My only concern is the reproduction of copyrighted matierial - especially GW's stuff. Should I go ahead and do it? --Dr. Thompson 04:58, 29 July 2012 (BST)

Category pages are not listing all pages within that category?[edit]

I've noticed that many category pages are not displaying all of the pages within said category - for instance, the Makari page is in the Orks category, but the Orks category page does not list it. Is this because it belongs to more than one category, or a bug? --Dr. Thompson 03:30, 29 June 2012 (BST)

If you look at Category:Orks, you will find Makari under "M" (at least, I do). Possible reasons that you won't see a page:
  1. If you use a pipe (this guy: |) in a Category link, you can have the page show up under a different name (used if the title has a "The" in front of it, for example).
  2. If a category has over 200 items in it (as some of our largest categories do), you may have to browse with the "next 200" and "previous 200" links.
Anyway, the short version is that the categories seem to work just fine, as far as I can tell. If you find other pages whose categorization appears to be malfunctioning, put them here and I'll investigate (though if anything's broken, Wikifag is the only one who can fix it). --AssistantWikifag 14:27, 4 July 2012 (BST)

Article of the Now[edit]

We need this. What are you guys, gay? --75.172.47.63 03:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

PROTIP: if you want people to do volunteer work for you, don't call them fags.

But seriously, we need it. --Kattalakis 20:39, 28 April 2012 (BST)

What would such an article entail?141.241.129.21 00:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Image spam[edit]

March 2012: Aw shit, the spammers are upping their game. Wikifag and Assistant already know this, but:

   deleted "[[Health treatment is where the money at 15]]" content was: "Image:1_health_insurance_2245.jpg"

and I see four of those health-insurance images. This is like the email spam where they're using pictures of text to get around filters. The RSS feed for recent changes is going from 1/5th to 1/3rd just messages about bots making accounts, and Wikifag & co. deleting and blocking spammers. If you need an extra set of hands to fight this, you can call on me. --NotBrandX 16:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

225 blocks in the past 30 days. I count 141 unique IP addresses based on the auto-blocks from bots trying to re-attempt spamming. Fuuuuuuuck. One IP address block that keeps coming up over and over again is 173.208.0.0/17, owned by the "Nobis Technology Group". Another is 184.82.186.0/24 owned by "S. Matthew Arcus" of Scranton Pennsylvania. Blocking IP ranges won't do much though; these addresses are spread out all over. --NotBrandX 14:38, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Strikethrough Corrections[edit]

Okay, so, I realize that a lot of the strikethough stuff is a lame attempt at comedy by lonely neckbeards humorous, but what's up with people treating strikethrough like it was the proper way to correct idiotic stuff on wikis?

For instance, let's say a user added something like:

Before he died, Gary Gygax said that 4th was the worst edition of D&D ever.

And, later, another user changes it to:

Before he died, Gary Gygax said that 4th was the worst edition of D&D ever. Actually, Gary Gygax said that he like 4th edition, though whether this was just pure marketing or what he actually felt is an exercise left to the reader.

Why not just remove the incorrect information and just replace it with good info? Or at least funny info?

A good example of both humorous-strikethrough and actual-correction-strikethrough can be found in this article.

My question is: should I just remove the bad info (and make appropriate changes to the good info) when I see it, leave it because that's what people want, or do something else? Metatron 01:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, its fucking obnoxious. The only times when I approve of it are humor and for correcting information that is so commonly misunderstood that its likely to be re-added. (like here). --Petro 04:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
On the one hand, I still find that a bit annoying as a user and would prefer to put such stuff on the talk page. On the other hand, the type of people who believe really stupid things are also the least likely to actually read the talk page. "Damned if you do..." I guess the best option is to integrate it into the page, like the note on Archon retinue there. Metatron 07:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I went through a bunch of pages and gutted out most of the strikethroughs. Shits getting out of hand. I urge others to do the same. --Petro 19:32, 22 May 2012 (BST)

Most of what you did appeared to be vandalizing various articles because you didn't like the strikethrough comments...and you seem to have a personal vendetta against strikethroughs--77.109.139.87 04:49, 23 May 2012 (BST)
This problem (which as you'll notice wasn't brought up first by me) has been around for a while. Strikethroughs killed my parents are at best a grievously overused attempt at humor and at worst a tool for raging neckbeards to try to publicly humiliate each other in the article space. I tried to leave "funny" entries where appropriate and integrate actual useful information instead of deleting it, but these things are so long its just not always possible. The articles around here are like a looted wagon, everybody who comes through tacks on another bit without regard for the others until its an indistinguishable mess that collapses under its own weight. Sometimes deleting is the best thing you can do. At any rate its a damn sight more constructive than vandalizing my user space then whining about it here with an IP address. --Petro 07:34, 23 May 2012 (BST)
Good, let the butthurt flow through you... --Emperor Fapatine

Yea I give everybody one real response for the benefit of the doubt. Anyways if nobody else has any non-trollan concerns I'm going to keep pruning articles. --Petro 17:34, 23 May 2012 (BST)

While I do agree that the strikethroughs are getting out of hand and I'm not trying to troll you, but you seem to be going overboard with their deletions and some on here might view it as vandalizing so you might want to stop deleting so many at a time and instead just delete some every now and then. --88.198.14.171 14:16, 24 May 2012 (BST)
Way too early for an edit war, I haven't even gotten my coffee yet. I'm just going to leave this until somebody else chimes in. Edits in question starts here. --Petro 17:20, 25 May 2012 (BST)
Strikethroughs that are actual jokes are ok, but ones where someone has hit their head on a wall until they couldn't tell the difference between a wiki and a forum aren't. Wiki pages are theoretically supposed to sound like they're written by one person, and "incorrect statement actually, correct statement" doesn't really help with that. Tim 07:29, 28 May 2012 (BST)

So we got a bit of an edit war on this page, basically, Petro removed a load of the unnecessary strikethroughs, and now there are at least 2 (or 1 if he changed IP) people undo-ing the undo's of their undo's of Petro's corrections.....yeah.... --Luigi 20:14, 8 August 2012 (BST)

1D40KChan[edit]

Fuck yea board games.

Look. I love 40K, you love 40K, everybody loves 40K (except heretics), but this shit is bananas. There are other games that /TG/ loves (some statistically more) that deserve our attention. I'm going to start making and improving articles for them. I request backup. --Petro 05:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's always been like this; not because /tg/ prefers 40K over any other game, just that the 40K guys are really verbose. Don't get worked up about it; it's not like the 40K articles will squeeze out the other articles. In any case, you have my axe. --NotBrandX 04:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Your move fatguys. --Petro 06:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Being overly predisposed to 40K all over the place, I would love to see some articles about other games as well. I will do what I can on my own to buff out other board game articles and such. --FlintTD 08:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As a 40K-fanatic myself, I can safely say we need more articles that are not-40K. That's just good manners, there. --Jaimas 13:07, 22 April 2012 (EST)


I think the bigger problem is the lack of disambiguation or sub headers. People are starting to write articles with the implicit assumption that everything is about 40k. Take for example Daemon, Missile Launcher, Lances, and a whole bunch others I'm too damn lazy to find. Most of them have a passing reference to anything outside of 40k, if even that. I suggest we try to correct these as we find them. --Petro 20:06, 7 June 2012 (BST)

Template:Board Games and Template:Card Games[edit]

I'm tempted to just wipe them out; this idea will be more hassle than I think it is worth. The lists of boardgames and cardgames are not finite, even if you include only "notable and not homebrew" ones. BoardGameGeek has fifty games just in its list of "recently popular" on their front page. Fights will also break out over what gets put in the ubiquitous space of the template. The Category:Board Games and Category:Card Games already serve the purpose of these templates without using up real estate on each article nor needing maintenance nor pontificating on what is "worthy". --NotBrandX 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Categories make more sense than templates. --Zecro 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Categories are kind of a mess, but I'll agree the templates aren't a great solution either. The problem is that as it stands there's no good ways to navigate around the wiki, particularly abandoned sections like board/card games. --64.202.243.128 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Templates are the best option so far. If it gets too bloated you can start sorting by, say, different types of board games, or manufacturers. Biggus Berrus 21:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
If we had the collapsible functionality back it wouldn't be such a problem since the template could be mostly hidden unless the user really wants to look at it. --87.194.31.223 21:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Consider using portals for topics? Board games, tabletop games, card games, quests, homebrew, etc. Put what you would have put for the templates there. --128.208.111.197 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation?[edit]

Should we have a disambiguation template for pages like Dark Elves or Deathwatch, where we have several page-worthy concepts with the same name? --Not LongPoster Again 04:15, 8 April 2012 (BST)

A noble goal, especially given the increasing problem of people assuming all articles are about 40k by default. --64.202.243.128 05:24, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Old Campaign pages[edit]

So, I'm looking through the lists of Wanted, Orphaned, and Dead-End Pages, and I see scads of Campaign: namespace articles. Character sheets especially. This is particularly bothersome when the parent campaign page has been deleted, because any sub-articles now have redlinks, and since they're not linked to anymore, they fill up the Orphaned list, and since they often don't have any other links in them, they fill up the Dead-End list.

I don't have any amazing ideas of how to deal with this, since the only people who really "ought" to be editing these pages are the players themselves, but here's a couple of proto-plans of action (that are not mutually exclusive):

  1. Delete Campaign:-namespace articles that haven't been edited in in, say, a year (or two, or however many years we need to wait to be certain that the sheet is no longer in use). Possible modification: only delete articles whose contributors haven't been active in that same period.
  2. Delete Campaign:-namespace articles whose main campaign page has been deleted.

I'm really not sure what should be done. I just really, really want those articles to stop filling up the maintenance reports. Anyone else got input? I don't want to be that guy who tags articles for deletion without talking it out first. --Not LongPoster Again 21:32, 25 May 2012 (BST)

I vote to RIP AND TEAR inactive campaigns. A main page notice or something would be a courtesy, but people really shouldn't be using 1d4chan as long term data storage. They shit up various internal page lists and make it harder to keep the wiki clean and navigable. --Petro 22:12, 25 May 2012 (BST)
I can alleviate some of this problem by actually defining Campaign: and Campaign Talk: namespaces in the wiki software and not denoting them as content pages, which will keep them out of the normal article statistic counts and prevent them coming up using the Random Page feature; I'm not sure if it will keep them out of the maintenance reports but I guess Talk: pages don't show up as being orphaned ever so it'll probably do something. I'm looking into how to do this now. --Wikifag 22:49, 25 May 2012 (BST)
Looks like it worked! There's a bunch of campaign-related articles that aren't in the Campaign: namespace and thus still on the maintenance reports, but that's easy for us users to fix. --Not LongPoster Again 03:35, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Settings: The Namespacing[edit]

After a none-too-exaustive search of the wikimedia page our dear old pal Wiki so graciously left us, I have (as a testimony to my ever-growing incompetence) no bloody idea how namespaces work. So I ask you all, help me stop rolling in the fecal pit of unenlightenment. Tell me how to namespace. Show me the light, so that I may give Inn0cence: Lost Future and other wonderful settings the namespaces they deserve. --FlintTD 07:32, 12 June 2012 (BST)

Namespaces are the prefix that goes before the article name - like this page, Talk:Main Page, is in the Talk namespace. Setting:Tiji Sector is in the Setting namespace. "Campaign:Foo" would be in the Campaign namespace, if the page existed. Putting a page in the appropriate namespace requires only moving it to a new name with the appropriate prefix. The reason there's news here is because you have to define custom namespaces before they're parsed properly by the wiki software and can be given different settings to the main namespace - so before I did this, we had plenty of pages that were Campaign:Whatever but because I hadn't actually set up a namespace for them properly they defaulted to being in the main article namespace, so they would show up in content article statistics and random page browsing; they should no longer be doing this and you shouldn't stumble across them by accident anymore.
So basically just give pages the right prefix by moving them to it or creating them with it and you're golden. It requires no more advanced effort on your part. The complicated stuff is all to do with the subpage functionality, not the namespace system itself. --Wikifag 14:05, 17 June 2012 (BST)

Fuck yes, I can see this being very useful. Someone else. 23:11, 14 June 2012 (BST)

6th Edition Blues[edit]

Other than the new 6th edition page not being specified to Warhammer 40K (Jesus Christ, how horrifying), there is about to be a huge problem with the Warhammer_40,000/Tactics pages as everyone and their grandmother rushes to Rip and Tear up the various Tacticae to make way for the new 6th-ed rules. Firstly, this will ruin the nicely cut horribly disfigured word-lawns that the various Tactica authors have groomed and cut so neatly over the years. Secondly, we should take this opportunity to create a Back-Tactica or something to move the previous edition rules elsewhere and make way for the new rules, before the absolute mess-making begins. Maybe use the namespaces, or create a Warhammer_40,000/5th_Edition_Tactics/Space_Marines and a Warhammer_40,000/6th_Edition_Tactics/Space_Marines delineation. On second thought, can I just do this myself? --FlintTD 09:26, 2 July 2012 (BST)

As a matter of fact I can. And I did. To keep everything consistent, this is what I did (after a fumble or two). I moved the Tactics page (Orks, in this case) from "Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Orks" to "Warhammer_40,000/6th_Edition_Tactics/Orks". That will keep the changes and discussion flowing into the next edition's changes, and maintain a "Tactics" redirect page for that army, which can be used to redirect "tactics" links to the current Edition's Tactics Page. I then created the page "Warhammer_40,000/5th_Edition_Tactics/Orks" and copy-pasted the last known un-6th Edition version of the original page into the new "5th Edition Tactics" page. I also created a link to and from the 5th and 6th edition pages. I will proceed to the next armies' pages. --FlintTD 23:01, 2 July 2012 (BST)
And now, to finish my utterly one-sided rant to myself, I have "Editioned" every Tactica but the Black Templars, the Blood Angels, the Dark Angels, the Witch Hunters, the Sisters of Battle, and the Chaos Daemons. I figure someone can do those, or I will get back to them later if not. Happy reading. --FlintTD 01:36, 3 July 2012 (BST)


Way to nip that one in the bud. Reading those tacticas was already starting to make my head hurt. It was not a good pain. I'll get around to rewriting them to suck less in the future. --Petro 16:41, 6 July 2012 (BST)

Just to let everyone know, don't be afraid to straight-up change anything that no longer applies to 6th Edition in the 6th Edition Tacticas. The strike-throughs are getting migraine-inducing. Doing that is just illogical, we have the previous editions archived and no need to keep the old crap lying about. Unless it is part of a joke. Don't wreck the jokes. --FlintTD 07:25, 12 July 2012 (BST)

WEPON[edit]

Question: why do have seperate pages for the Autogun and Stubber, they're the same thing. Shall I staple them together and add the appropriate weapons like the Heavy Stubber and Assault Cannon to create one general Autogun page?

  • Autoguns and Stubbers aren't the same bro. Stubbers are exactly the same as modern day fire-arms, whereas autoguns fire small caseless ammunition at a colossal rate producing stopping power similar to a Lasgun, which is significantly greater than that of a stubber/modern-day weapon. Having said that, it is true the contents of said articles are kinda mixed up, the Heavy Stubber should certainly be in the Stubber page, the Assault Cannon though....it's awkward.....in an ideal world it would have a page of it's own, but otherwise, I would say it fits better in the Autogun page. --Luigi 00:01, 18 July 2012 (BST)

I made the weapon templates collapsable, so that we don't have pages that have half their length used by a pair of templates. Biggus Berrus 12:14, 21 July 2012 (BST)

  • Very good job, it looks great. --Luigi 12:20, 21 July 2012 (BST)

Spambot overload[edit]

Okay, in recent weeks, it's reaching the point where we have had 10 to 15 spambots a day. Now, I understand that we have Captcha to counter Spambots, which a lot of independent wikis use, but I'm on several non-Wikia affiliated wikis, and they never get nearly as much spam. So either we're being especially targeted, or our counter-spam tools are not working properly. Any comments on which it is? -- SFH 21:16, 22 July 2012 (BST)

The Main Page has nearly a million and a half views, the Angry Marines article has been viewed over a half million times, and nearly fifty other articles have at least a hundred thousand page views. In total, "non-special" pages have been viewed over fifty million times. I imagine that this is uncommonly high as wikis go (big names like Wikipedia aside), and we are editable by the public, which would make us a good target for spammers (over 3,500 of them, in fact -- and that's just the ones who made accounts and got blocked).
I would be interested to see how many failed attempts have been made to defeat Captcha system, versus the number of spammers who successfully made accounts, versus those who have actually managed to make a page.
I'm sorry that the spam situation is so severe; I don't like going to the "recent changes" page and seeing that the last fifty changes are entries in the block log. --AssistantWikifag 02:32, 23 July 2012 (BST)
The deletion log. This shit ain't healthy.

I took this screenshot just now. To get an idea, I made this on a 1920x1080 screen. And that's still missing half a dozen changes. I pleaded for it once and I will repeat it if needed: Give new accounts wait times before they can create pages. I believe this will solve the problems near-instantly. Biggus Berrus 18:37, 9 August 2012 (BST)

Honestly, that's something we adopted on Wookieepedia a while back and it's worked very well for us. -- SFH 19:35, 9 August 2012 (BST)
I support wait times. The current situation is just untenable. Kamaluq 20:29, 9 August 2012 (BST)
My absence (and that of Wikifag) of late, and the resulting backlog of new user accounts, has given me the opportunity to study the "natural" behavior of some of the spambots. I had initially thought that the spambots with extremely long names (e.g. DonaujbzqxxnupKahan) were simply poorly-made, as they appeared to defeat the captcha to create an account, but then fail to make a page, but it seems that they actually wait about two days before creating a spam page. The default value for "autoconfirming" users is four days and ten edits, which would catch this sort of bot, but would also inconvenience legitimate users (though we certainly get many more spam registrations than legitimate ones). A way around this would be to give auto-confirmed users confirmation power, so that users whose first edits are plainly constructive can be sped past the four-day wait and be permitted to make pages (like the people who use the Campaign namespace), but that involves more rigmarole, and I'm not sure how to actually implement this mechanism.
Just my observations. --AssistantWikifag 01:41, 17 August 2012 (BST)
If Wikifag's fixed the email module, maybe you could add an email verification step to user registration? (Addendum: or limit usernames to 20 characters?) --Not LongPoster Again 14:12, 18 August 2012 (BST)

I'm sorry I haven't been around much lately. Real life and things like that are demanding rather a lot of my time at the moment. I'm going to have a poke at things and see what my options are. --Wikifag 12:32, 19 August 2012 (BST)

Okay, here's things. I'd honestly prefer solutions which do not at all impact on the ability of ordinary anonymous and newly registered users to edit the site - I feel strongly about the importance of the ability anonymously contribute and I would prefer to only ever restrict the access of anonymous users on a temporary basis (as a coping mechanism during deliberate attacks, for example). What I have done just now is enable the DNS blacklist functionality in wikimedia and activated a few DNS blacklist servers, so if we are lucky and this spam is coming from sources known to be compromised or spam servers then they will be blocked from editing. Obviously we'll need a few days to see if this is effective at all. If it still proves not to be I can try and look into using more complex anti-spam techniques regarding the captchas and possibly the bad behaviour extensions, but I don't have a lot of time to devote to maintaining the wiki right now, and I can't guarantee any necessary changes will happen particularly soon. --Wikifag 14:55, 19 August 2012 (BST)

Recommended Games[edit]

We have these two pages: http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Recommended_Video_Games http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Video_games

They should be fused, no? Biggus Berrus 20:34, 2 August 2012 (BST)

Totally fused that shit, yo. --Lashlightning 16:48, 19 August 2012 (BST)

Are You Trying to Tell me Something 1d4chan?[edit]

Not that I have a particular problem with this or anything, but is there a reason 1d4chan's advertising is aggressively targeting gay erotica at me? --Petro 01:32, 14 September 2012 (BST)

Maybe the fact that we have a file called Big Gay Purple d4.png has something to do with it. --Not LongPoster Again 04:15, 14 September 2012 (BST)
It is telling you something. GET A GODDAMN ADBLOCK. Biggus Berrus 09:49, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Broken Redirects Not So Broken[edit]

So, the list of Broken Redirects has almost a hundred entries in it. I thought that was okay, but then I noticed that the pages listed at the end of the redirect actually exist! Most notably, all of the redirects point to pages that start with Campaign: or Talk:Campaign: -- and the latter is not valid (the discussion pages for articles in the Campaign: namespace are prefixed with Campaign talk:). I think they were made when a page was moved prior to the creation of the Campaign: and Campaign talk: namespaces (i.e. back when Campaign: was just part of the page title). Then, when those namespaces were defined, the wiki software re-interpreted a bunch of links, and the redirects became convinced that their target pages are gone.

Anyway, the way to fix this seems to be (a) editing the Talk:Campaign: links so they point to the Campaign talk: namespace, and making an edit like adding a space to the other redirects, which causes the link to be re-evaluated and causes the redirect to realize that its target still exists (see my edits to Talk:Tauron and Tauron to see what I mean). Anyway, if I end up making a bunch of minor edits to some old redirects in the next day or so, that's what it's for. --Not LongPoster Again 05:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the dust, but it's all done now. --Not LongPoster Again 19:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)