Talk:Main Page/2016

From 1d4chan

List articles- what is to be done?[edit]

I've noticed a few pages being made that seem to be little more than knockoffs of the stuff you might find on TvTropes and its imitators, like Medieval Stasis or Hard science fiction. While technically they're relevant to the wiki in that the setting elements that they describe occur in traditional games, there's minimal effort into really giving them the special touch most 1d4chan pages have. At worst, they seem to come off as boring lists of what works fit in what categories or people taking things too seriously even by neckbeard standards.

Is there something that can be done to make such pages mesh with the wiki better? I personally don't know what exactly could be done about them save for a total rewrite of all of them and ensuring that no listing is done on those pages, but I know from past experience that I have a tendency to become overzealous in such matters and would like another opinion.--Newerfag (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but I'd argue that at the very least the Medieval Stasis page focuses pretty hard on settings relevant to /tg/ rather than every fantasy work ever. Again, this wiki features a variety of pages on real-world history and medieval weaponry only vaguely connected to /tg/. Why are they arbitrarily fine, while this page that actually describes a phenomenon in the tabletop gaming world isn't? Because the title got taken from TVTropes? --SpectralTime (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Those may qualify as well (I doubt we need articles like Communism and Capitalism, for instance), but the problem of extraneous pages is best dealt with one category at a time; low-effort listicles are a good place to start. Such pages aren't "arbitrarily fine," they just tend to pile up as few people bother to either remove them or make them more relevant.--The Forgefather (talk)
Then why fuss about bandaging up the papercuts when gaping bullet-wounds of relevance like the China page are on this wiki? Is this or is it not a legitimate question? --SpectralTime (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Because the subject line of this section is "Trope pages," which I intend to use for discussing Trope pages. If you truly are concerned of these other pages, nothing is stopping you from creating a subject on dealing with such pages. Do you have something of note to contribute to that discussion past your original point, or are you just being contrarian for the sake of it?--The Forgefather (talk)
Because I dispute the primary point. Why, really, should anyone give two-fifths of a shit about where the title of a page came from? Why should that title be grounds for erasing the page? Why purge such pages in the name of "purifying" the wiki before making the slightest effort to fix other unsightly problem-pages that haven't even been touched? Why, in other words, discuss trope pages at all? --SpectralTime (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
For the same.reason the articles you listed are a problem.for you. They're symptoms of the same.underlying problem, with the difference being that the list-articles have nobody to defend them. If I tried to flag one of the history articles for deletion, A Walrus or another one of the /his/ rejects would try to argue their relevance to hell and back. You're free to help deal with them though- I swear, some days I seem to be the only one who cares about quality control here. --Newerfag (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I care, but the article I'm familiar with (Medieval Stasis) is related to /tg/ rather heavily. It's got a few introductory paragraphs defining them, and then the rest is all about games. And while the hard sci-fi one is a bit bare-bones, I'm working to fix it now. Even then, both pages describe terms and observations that greatly predate their installation in TVTropes. Why, once again, are they in your sights for quality control? (Also, when I last ran around deleting shitty content I got a warning and all my edits revoked. I don't remember if you're a mod or not, but you're much higher-profile than I.) --SpectralTime (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps my name for this topic was imprecise, and I shall.change the topic title appropriately. The important thing is that they just mindlessly list shit and that most if not all of it sounds as if it was copypasted from other wikis. And I approve of your attempts at rewriting them just as much as I dislike the history pages (which incidentally have no place on this wiki now that /tg/ is no longer the de facto "history board". In retrospect, the only reason they were allowed to thrive was because of a handful of editors here who were so deeply invested in their creation that they actively refused all attempts at examining their pages' relevance, along with AssistantWikifag's constant refusal to delete any article that isn't outright spam, no matter how irrelevant or poorly written it might be. As incendiary as this may sound, I am starting to think that maybe he's too soft for his given task.
Medieval Stasis in particular got my attention since most of the article came off as "WAAAH WHY AREN'T THEY ADVANCING IN THIS MADE UP SETTING!" and other such whining we would be exponentially better off without. You can document it fine, but passing judgment on it only makes you look like a faggot.--Newerfag (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as the person who wrote most of those entries, if I copy-pasted them then I did so unintentionally and from memory. I'm not really mad about "medieval stasis" anymore than I'm mad about soft sci-fi, unless the work brings it up and then does nothing with it, like the Forgotten Realms. Hell, I tried to go out of my way to praise, say, Ravenloft for having a unique spin on it, and to note the little divergences that make them deserving of mention, like Murlynd or tinker gnomes. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I can understand where you're coming from a little better now. The only thing I really have against it is the whole "complaining about why they don't advance" chunk at the beginning; it comes off as little more than baseless whining. I'm tempted to cut that part out, but I don't know.what I should put in its place if anything. --Newerfag (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Can't help you there, I'm afraid. That's a part I didn't write. Maybe I'll take a crack at it sooner or later... --SpectralTime (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
And I brought up the history issue further up on the talk page. I could use your input on it sooner rather than later. --Newerfag (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

One possibility would be to flag such pages for deletion, but not blank them, and summarize your reasoning above. If an editor comes across such a page and begins work on it, it stays. If no one is willing to work on the pages in a certain allotment of time (say three months), they are deleted completely.
Alternatively, we could create a new template for pages that are to dry or too much like conventional wikis. Some variant of "not Orky enough," but for *chans.--The Forgefather (talk)
1) Why is this not a thing already? Seems perfect for Skubwar resolution. 2) Orcy rather than Orky? --Thannak (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Block IP[edit]

I mean he's pretty much doing nothing but vandalizing this place by blanking articles on the basis of "gb2/his/". Tactical Mehren (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

im sorry, i thought this wiki was about traditional games, not the shit i had to put up with in high school history. not like u care, u just keep defending wikepidia copypastes while tons of stuff stuff actually related to /tg/ isn't even touched.

If you bothered to read the opening line, its a wiki that documents anything related to board: /tg/, not solely to the genre of Traditional Games. Not to mention you have to be several kinds of deluded if you think blanking articles like you own the place will magically cause actual /tg/ related pages to update themselves. Tactical Mehren (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ammia Ammia amm ie au heru knuw? In all seriousness thank you "Tactical Mehren" for bringing this to the attention to people who can actually see the complaints then what i did (which was bitch on my self page which was the first thing i did when i joined this wiki, which was why i created dabeztezt account) it's good to know that these pages weren't going to be gone forever. That and the feels i have thinking that I AM HERO DUDNDUDNDUDNUDNDUD somehting something somehting fuck that ggggguuuuuuuuuuiiiieeeee COME ON finish it for me....... - Jimmies_Rustled

>bragging on your user page you didn't do shit, but take the credit anyway
You might want to make your user page make you look less butthurt about a drive-by vandal who will probably never show up again. And we sign posts with four tildes here, by the way.--Newerfag (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


Having to input the captcha answer after every edit gets annoying quickly. Is there a reason the requirements have been extended to every edition made, rather than only page creations, as it was in the past?--The Forgefather (talk)

True, this is annoying nonsense. Even with captcha vandalism and unwanted links seep into the wiki - wasn't that its main purpose? -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It also doesn't make sense that they would need to apply to registered users, who by definition would need to prove they weren't bots to make an account, are affected by captchas too. (Plus, since there are only two "correct answers" to the captchas we use they can be defeated rather easily as well so they aren't even very good at their original purpose. )--Newerfag (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the group rights, it seems that autoconfirmed users don't have the "skipcaptcha" right anymore. It may have gotten lost in the update at the end of last year -- looking at the MediaWiki documentation, it looks like autoconfirmed users do not get to skip captchas by default. Wikifag's the only one who can edit which groups have which rights; I'll drop him an email to let him know about this. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Second test. -- 09:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a problem with the ConfirmEdit configuration in that it no longer seems to be handling namespaces properly. I had previously configured it to enable the captcha on edits to the File namespace (i.e. you upload a new version of a file) but at present that seems to be also catching edits in the default namespace. I've disabled the relevant option for now, but will try and fix properly after work. --Wikifag (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Very Annual State of 1d4chan Address[edit]

I have issued my traditional invitation for personal abuse on /tg/. If you ever had a burning question you wanted to ask me or suggestion to make, this is probably the best time for extracting answers from me or having me motivated to actually do something. --Wikifag (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If it doesn't survive, please look at one of the archives to see what feedback there is (even if you can't respond to it). Here is a link to such an archive: --Emerald Claw (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal ramifications of posting stats.[edit]

Hey, so I'm a new guy, been on 1D4chan for about a year, recently made an account and went on an editing crusade, planning to add stats and gameplay comments to more-or-less every 7th ed character. I'd made it through the Wolves and Blood Angels when Triacom pointed out to me that posting stats is generally considered a bad idea on this wiki, as it's thought that our overlords will come down on the wiki for violating their intellectual property. Like I said, I'm the new guy here so if silence is the rule I'll quit posting stats, but there are two things I'd like to discuss pertaining to this. First, stats are already here. Plenty of characters (including all the primarchs) already have stats posted and have had them for a long time. If GW really cared, wouldn't they have come down on us for this already? Second, as long as we provide commentary we're protected under fair use even if we do post the stats.

To clarify what I mean when I say posting stats, I don't mean just saying that, for example, Dante has 6 WS, 5 BS, etc. I'm specifically referring to posting the stats in a fashion reminiscent of GW's own format, as shown below. Josman (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Pts WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
Commander Dante: 220 6 5 4 4 4 6 4 10 2+/4++
The thing I'd call out wouldn't be the stats, but the points price. I've also seen similar warnings, but they seemed directed against disclosing the points cost rather than the stats themselves. But it can be easily handwaved by sayind "for +X more points than a regular Captain you could have Dante", and that wouldn't count as disclosing the actual price...I think. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I've thought of plenty of ways to dodge posting the actual stats themselves, but what I'm more looking for is some grizzled neckbeard who's been around the wiki long enough to know where exactly this fear of retribution from GW came from, because this genuinely confuses me. Near as I can tell GW doesn't have any moral or (more importantly) legal ground to stand on. It doesn't violate copyright or fair use for me to post the stats online, especially if I'm providing my own commentary and I own the actual codex, which I am and which I do. Ford would never come down on someone for posting the specs of a truck online. Square Enix would never have a problem with someone reviewing their stuff. No examples of a company restricting fairly-used information on one of their own copyrights exists (long term), so why do people expect Games Workshop to have a problem with this? I know they have a reputation for being petty but they aren't so dumb as to waste money seeking a court order to shut down the wiki when any court would deny them. Josman (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as we've seen in the "Spots the Space Marine" saga, GW doesn't need to be right to threaten litigation -- they just need to be richer than their opponent (which they are). For little old us, they'd probably just firmly request that the information be removed (they have done so in the past, when someone posted the entirety of the short story "The Last Church" on our article) if it bothered them. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising they'd want The Last Church taken down if someone posted the whole story, as that's blatant piracy, and the "Spots the space marine" thing isn't really the same issue. In those two cases it was someone blatantly stealing their intellectual property and someone using their trademarks without permission, so this is kind of an apples-and-oranges situation. I'd refer you to miniwargaming's reviews of the different codecies (and those guys get a lot more traffic than we do) or even our own tactics or primarch pages where stats are posted in the context of reviewing GW's content. Sorry if I seem like that guy arguing against the community here, but after looking through GW's assorted petty lawsuits and copyright strikes they send out, it's for things like 3rd party model companies using their intellectual property or the famous example of Flash Gitz's space hulk video; I can't find examples of them shutting down fan discussion and review, and I think if they were going to come down on us they would have done it long ago. Josman (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Correct. "Fair use" is the call to arms of small-time content creators everywhere. And having more money is a non-issue if the dispute doesn't go to court, and the vast majority of tort disputes stay out of the court system.--The Forgefather
Who is the boss on this wiki, because I'd like to get in contact with them to discuss this with someone who can give me a final answer. While I'd love to just go on an editing rampage and add stats and gameplay commentary for every single character on the wiki, but when this could potentially tank the wiki I'd like a definitive answer. 21:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be wikifag. -- Triacom (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, after more looking this issue is absolutely laughable. We already have so many images on this wiki that are owned by GW, they could fuck us up the ass if they wanted to. Conclusion: they don't want to. Josman (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I've been contacted twice by GW in the history of the wiki; the second time, as mentioned, was specifically from some chap at Black Library who pointed out the whole story was up and kindly asked if it could be removed, so I did. The first time was apparently by GW main legal complaining that some pages had defamatory/libellous content (I forgot what terminology they went for) re: Matt Ward and a couple of others. I ignored it. In this particular case I don't know enough about the particulars to really judge either way; just keep doing what you're doing and if I ever get a complaint about it, I'll decide then whether to capitulate or ignore it. --Wikifag (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yea, what they probably bothered you about was involving the british Libel Laws, which means that if they bothered you about Matt Ward, it means Matt Ward himself personally took offense to the page about him. That's not surprising at all, considering that if you google his name, the first page that comes up is the 1d4chan article that lambasts him. UNFORTUNATELY for him, british libel law is weird, and its jurisdiction is valid only in the United Kingdom. You can say whatever the hell you want about him, but only on the caveat that what you're saying is true, IE you can't lie to people and say that he's a drunkard who fucks leprechauns in the middle of the night. However if you live in America, you can go ahead and tell people that all you please, because british libel laws don't apply to you. And last I checked, you can pretty much prove pretty much everything on his page; up to and including that he's the fifth god of chaos, in a british court. Evilexecutive (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, amusingly enough, here's a screenshot about a google search for him. Evilexecutive (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It makes me feel so warm and fuzzy inside that the Spiritual Liege himself has been on our wiki. Shouldn't we be getting +2 strength and toughness after being blessed with his presence? Josman (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
If I remember right there actually was a time when the Matt Ward page did have libelous content on it, however that's since been removed, so if he sent that notice back then it would actually make sense. -- Triacom (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In any case, Ward is legally classified as a public figure, and thus unable to sue for libel unless he can prove malicious intent.--The Forgefather
I am British. I live in Britain. The site is hosted in London. I am fully under the jurisdiction of British law. I've dug the letter up and the relevant excerpt of wording is as such:
"We consider that your statements about Matthew Ward, Robin Cruddace and Gav Thorpe are defamatory and as such have informed them that that they are free to seek independent legal advice in relation to any claim for damages that they may wish to pursue against you."
Anyway, what's important was that the stuff written about Ward et. al. is all either factual, clearly an opinion or so ridiculous that it's obviously satire and no reasonable person would take it as an actual statement of fact. I meant to get back to them asking for more detail on what exactly from the listed pages they considered defamatory, but I never got around to dealing with it and nothing further ever happened anyway. --Wikifag (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah British libel laws, without you, we wouldn't get all of this amazing british satire and comedy. After all, how else could such hilarious forms of comedy come to be, if there wasn't some ridiculously overzealous government constantly around to force comedy to evolve this way? So long as we keep their pages to satire; such as naming Matt Ward to be the fifth god of chaos, we should be out of legal trouble. And for that matter, I do welcome the prospect of amusing satire on this website.Evilexecutive (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Brighthammer 40,000[edit]

Hello everyone, I've decided to actually bother to join 1d4chan wiki after perusing it's articles for about six months now. From what it looks like, you're all a bunch of demented sickos, so I'll fit right in. As an individual project I'll be creating a Third Edition for Brighthammer 40,000 (hence the name I picked) just for the fun of it, as inspired by the "in-universe narration" of the horrifically apocalyptic 50k storyline we have going here. Besides that I suppose I'll post this in general discussion as well.

Toodles! Blinding Brightness

I too am an extreme Newfag on this website and so i must inquire as to what BrightHammer is? Would you care to elabarate?

Adding Towergirl Images to Towergirl Page[edit]

So, I'm an active member and archivist on both of the /tg/ communities on 4chan & 8chan, and have recently come across image files that have expansion-content relevant to /tg/'s erotic gamespawn. I am no master editor, so anyone with better skills than I at formatting please feel free to fix any edits that I made, as I have had trouble getting the specified images to show up on the Towergirl wiki page. Considering recent mod's attempts to purge archived content of Towergirls on /tg/, I felt it prudent to try and preserve some of the material being produced.

Cool. Do ya thang. --Thannak (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

N00B Question[edit]

So, if this is the wrong place for this question, I am sorry. I created a page for a codex I wrote but it only shows up if I am signed in. If I sign out it disappears. Is there an approval process for new articles? Did I do something wrong? Thanks --MrBlades (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2016

I see it (logged in and logged out). You're fine. --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. What did you think of the Codex so far? --MrBlades (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2016

Massive Editwar on the Ollanius Pius Page[edit]

  • Personally, I blame user He might have a point, but he's being insufferable about it, and actively opposes any resolution beyond "I get to write what I want and you all get to shut up!" I'd hoped to resolve it by discussion, but instead of discussing anything he just insists he's right and everyone who disagrees should shut up and go away. But, I'm not a mod, and I think that page could use a little intervention from someone who's not as close to it as I probably am by now. --SpectralTime (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Completely agree with the chap above me. I tried as well, but this user's thick cranium seems to be impossible to get through. May i also add that that user's edit history is pretty horrible as well. -- The Awkward Man 4th June 2016 10:17 (GMT+1)
  • Same here, I tried talking to them, I tried editing the page to include their edits without deleting information, but they're just not satisfied by anything besides their own vision. It's like another Asorel, though I'd actually recommend leaving the page open for at least the weekend, and only doing something if they still can't be reasoned with after that. -- Triacom (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And, after nearly a month of blessed peace, he comes back, having learned nothing and forgotten nothing, to re-light the pyre. Bleh. --SpectralTime (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The user in question has rejected every single compromise that's been proposed to him. He's obviously editing in bad faith, and a bad is almost certainly overdue for him. --Newerfag (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Long Slow Editwar[edit]

  • The same guy with a slightly different IP comes onto the D&D 5e page to bitch and moan about the classes every few months. Half the time, he's armed with factually-incorrect information, and the other half he's deliberately mischaracterizing the facts to fit an unpopular and uncommon thesis. (Namely, that two of the best classes in the game are actually shit except for one particular subclass.) I've repeatedly attempted to engage him in discussion without success, and the only tactic I've found for stopping it is waiting for him to lose contact before editing. --SpectralTime (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


  • We really ought to install the VisualEditor extension ( for this mediawiki. VisualEditor is the editor wikipedia have begun to use per default. It is infinitely more comfortable to use, since it is basically a responsive WYSIWYG editor. If we could get it installed it would probably help with participation levels, as it wouldn't be such a massive pain to format an article. I know for one, that I would be more inclined to update articles if it was easier. A demo can be seen here: We need this.
What is your affiliation with this product? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Readable Spoilered Text[edit]

If I spoiler some text and I link it, then people can still read it even though it's spoilered.--Emerald Claw (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Also italics might make stuff stick out of the spoiler bar. For example: l .--Emerald Claw (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I can kinda read linked things through the spoilers, but regular and italics work just fine:
On mobile it looks off though. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
To my knowledge, on my computer the spoilered text in italics thing only applies with certain characters. And even then it has to be at the last character. --Emerald Claw (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)