Talk:CBG Wiki

From The CBG Wiki

(Redirected from Talk:Main Page)
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, welcome to the discussion of the CBG Wiki. Please put any requests, comments, concerns, or criticisms on this page, to be addressed as soon as possible. Here's some info on what the plans are.

Eventually, when enough people are using the wiki, we will probably set up a "Featured Article" section (much like Wikipedia uses) to high light different settings every now and then.

We would love to reskin the wiki, but I'm not that good at wiki editing, programming, and styling, so anyone that is, please send me a message.

Cheers! --Ishmayl 15:36, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Requests for Updates to Main Page

Please place all requests for updates to the Main Page right here. This section will be pruned at least once a year.

Page Protection

Out of curiosity, why is this page protected? I don't think we really need to worry about vandalism here, and it's nice to be able to edit this page (for example, I added some settings that weren't on the main page yet earlier today). Xathan 00:37, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Mainly because I don't trust just everyone who posts on the wiki to make good decisions on keeping the page look nice. :) It's not so much about intentional vandalism, but more about unintentional misspellings, grammatical mistakes, bad formatting, and other things. We can discuss it though and see if there are some better options. --TheWizard 21:56, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough. It's not a huge thing: there isn't a pressing need for users to edit the main page, since it's not like things are time sensitive. :) Xathan 22:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Namespace Issues

I'll repost some comments that I posted on the Guild Superheroes talk page, which was kind of buried, and this issue is more relevant to the whole wiki. The discussion was about the current system of classifying everything related to settings/projects/etc. basically like Category:Thing.

The basic issue is that something like Wikipedia is dealing with one "reality" (being an encyclopedia) whereas this wiki is dealing with many different community-created worlds, settings, and whatnot.

It's fair to say that most of the keywords in a setting are going to be unique. If I have the "Land of Ngongongong," it's rather unlikely that anyone else's setting is going to use that label, and I can probably take it. However, for something like "Elves," I can't really just write about my idea of elves because everyone's got their own idea of elves.

This makes the namespace thing sort of make sense for separating my setting from yours, so Sparkletwistworld:Elves can talk about my elves and YourSetting:Elves talks about yours and CrazyPlanet:Elves can talk about someone else's and so on. However, the problem is, this is kind of ugly.

My suggestion is, instead, do what Wikipedia does: put things into categories. All of my setting's pages would belong to a category. Generic terms like "Elves" will point to a disambiguation page, on which you can choose which type of elves you meant. In my own setting, I can link specifically to Elves_(Sparkletwistworld) or whatever nomenclature we decide on (I'm just borrowing Wikipedia's way for the time being).

The advantages of this are shorter, nicer looking page names, better alphabetical order searching, and all kinds of fun things that categories get you. The disadvantages are greater overhead for the users (and the admins when the users invariably screw it up) to keep things organized, and keep pages disambiguated when two people both decide to create an "Island of Ungabunga."

Truthfully, I don't know what's better... it's just an idea. :) Of course I'd not mind helping out sorting things out, if anything needs to be sorted out. --sparkletwist 14:12, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

And after looking into it, another solution would be to keep the colon notation, but actually add them as namespaces. This requires php editing so it'd be something Ishy (or whoever) would have to do, but it's another idea: Here's the information on custom namespaces from the manual. --sparkletwist 14:23, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Sparkletwist, my php-and-wiki-fu are not really very strong, so I don't know if I really feel good about editing the php files. As far as the disambiguation pages goes, though, that could definitely work... how can we go about organizing and renaming all these pages though? And before we start that, we need to set some sort of system in stone. --TheWizard 14:28, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, I'm not sure if there's some database magic you can do, otherwise everyone will have to go through and rename the pages of their projects. I've whipped up a couple of templates that should make disambiguation super easy, though, all you have to do is use the template and type the name of your setting. I'm testing it on the Zombie Drunkards page. --sparkletwist 14:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, let me know how the testing goes. And then, you can explain everything to me in full detail, write up a document file for it so that everyone else will know how to do it, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get some appreciation 'round these parts! :) --TheWizard 15:08, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
The templates are looking nice, though I have some ideas for nice ways to automate linking and such and I'll have to wait until we have parserfunctions to do that. --sparkletwist 15:30, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
They are looking nice, but I'm not entirely sure I really follow very well how exactly they're used and what exactly they're doing. :) Yes, I'm obtuse. --TheWizard 15:38, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
No problem, I got a bit ahead of myself. I will try to explain better. Basically, an ambiguous topic like "Elves" or whatever would get a disambiguation page, which would consist of a DisambiguateTitle template up top, and then a list of DSetting templates. If someone comes along and creates elves, all they have to do is add {{DSetting|MySetting}} and the template will create a link and whatnot, so people will see "Elves in MySetting", and it will automatically link to the page Elves_(MySetting), or whatever nomenclature we decide on for disambiguation. Once we have parserfunctions and stringfunctions (sorry! I keep wanting more stuff!) I can create some sort of automatic linking template, that will first try to link to your version of something, before falling back on a generic version. --sparkletwist 15:54, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

User Pages

Serious Suggestion: While it doesn't seem like many wiki users have put much meaningful content on their user pages yet, what do you think about the idea of making the "by So-And-So" information under settings link to our respective user pages? It might help get user pages and user talk pages some more use (and give us all incentive to make them more useful.) --Luminous Crayon 19:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it could be a good idea - also, I'm going to get to work on creating a generic "author" template that can be used to link to other projects the user has made, so that could be useful in the same scenario. --TheWizard 21:56, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
If you want help, I'd be happy to - I'm getting pretty good at templates. template:xathan is my specific one, though a more generic one is probably in order for individual use. Xathan 22:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
I think I am totally for this, since I first of all agree, and second of all, will need your help!LordVreeg 17:53, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

News Section

So, about the news section on this page: I think it might be worthwhile to have a link there to a more "casual" news page that isn't edit-protected, where various users could jointly list pages that have significant new content that might be in need of feedback? This may be too much overlap with the Recent Changes page, but since you must add things to this kind of list deliberately, it would cut out a lot of the minor edits, newly-created stub pages, and other clutter that obscures meatier content in Recent Changes. Thoughts? --Luminous Crayon 11:22, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

I think it's a very good idea - I'll get to work on an idea on that (unless you want to beat me to it!) and we'll go from there... I'm thinking a page that anyone can edit that is simply a list - in some sort of standardized format, to keep things less confusing. Something like this:


  • link to news article - Recent Updates on blah blah blah. Requests for comments --signature

Older Date

  • link to news article - Recent Updates on blah blah blah. Requests for comments --signature
  • link to news article - Recent Updates on blah blah blah. Requests for comments --signature
  • link to news article - Recent Updates on blah blah blah. Requests for comments --signature
I definitely think a standardized format is a plus, and I think a procedure for "cleaning up" the list by removing old entries will also be beneficial. I'll take a look at setting something up this afternoon, if I need a break from grading tests. --Luminous Crayon 11:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, here you go: New_Updates. A rough start, but a start nonetheless. --Luminous Crayon 12:07, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Putting it here cause it was it is in reference to the news section) Poseidon. Neptune. It doesn't matter. I'm known by both. I only made my login Neptune here so that it was the same as the main site. YaY I'm WikiCrew, though I guess that means I have to make a user page now. I liked my name being red. :P --Neptune 15:19, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Difference between "News" and "Hot Topic"

I just thought I should clarify what the two separate categories on the main page are about. The "News" is simply for any new updates to the site in general, and can point to important articles being written, or just to changes that I've made to the site. The "Hot Topic" section is for specific procedures that I'm working on that I would like to be discussed. Make sense? --TheWizard 19:37, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Makes sense to me. (Just thought I'd chime in so you know it's understandable.) Xathan 22:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)


Can someone set me up a namespace, or tell me how to set up namespaces? I need a custom namespace for our Deadlands Campaign so that we can set it up so that it doesn't show up in recent changes. Let me know, we'll try to get this lookin better. --TheWizard


Saw this in the news panel, as a new MW extension. Is there any more information we can get about this, how it works, and how to start using it in our own pages? --Luminous Crayon 21:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's available, I'm still doing a bit of testing on it thought, it doesn't seem to want to let you "unprotect" a page after it's been protected... I'm working on it though. -- Ishmayl  talk  contribs 
How very odd. How very odd indeed! --sparkletwist 23:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I got a page to unprotect by protecting it with an expiration time of 1. --Bface 23:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd request we not go overboard with protecting at this point unless we're having problems with vandalism. For those of us trying to learn how wikis work learning by example is helpful. If all the most experienced users protect their pages we can no longer use edit to see how their source works.--Phoenix 11:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That depends. You can still view the source of this page, for example. Does AuthorProtect similarly replace the "edit" tab with a "view source" tab? --Luminous Crayon 12:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you're right. Never mind then. --Phoenix 13:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Protecting your pages, however, prevent anyone from helping you out with formatting etc., because nobody can edit the page any more. I honestly don't see the point: the only reason it'd be needed at all is because anonymous posting is now allowed, so spambots could edit the posts. We could just not allow anonymous posting any more, the way it used to be. --sparkletwist 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm for that as a better solution.--Phoenix 20:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Edits, Create Pages, Create Talk Pages, etc have been disabled - I didn't even realize I had forgotten to do that. Also, you're allowed to upload files again - another thing that automatically changes with upgrades, apparently. -- Ishmayl  talk  contribs 

That makes me happy. The anonymous edits and the lack of file uploads was really bothering me. Great news! (Jharviss 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

Discussion of Whether or Not We Need Authorprotect

Folks, anonymous edits are currently disabled. We have never had any actual problems with wiki vandals or unwanted page-changing. If we ever do end up with those problems, we can easily revert the changes and ban the offenders. There are enough people keeping their eyes on the Recent Changes page to spot and correct such vandalism very quickly.

Off the subject slightly - we have had vandals and spambots in the past, but ever since I've gotten rid of anonymous editing, it hasn't bee a problem. -- Ishmayl  talk  contribs  17:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AuthorProtect is currently malfunctioning. Even once it's working correctly, it still keeps helpful users from fixing links and typos, adding links where appropriate, and helping less experienced users convert to Sparkletwist's new format for links and page names.

I am convinced that we don't really need AuthorProtect at this point in time. It's not actually solving any problems (because the problems it's designed to correct are not affecting us), and it's kind of a pain in the ass with its current malfunctions. We can always add it in later if we do start having problems with vandals, after all.

What do you think? --Luminous Crayon 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. -- Ishmayl  talk  contribs  17:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely --Phoenix 19:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons License

Probably everyone should have a look at the Creative Commons Discussion. Ishy, do you think you should add it to news? It just seems really important with how much the wiki has grown recently.--Phoenix 12:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll definitely add it to the news once we get it a bit more stable. I believe one more day of discussion, which will probably be a much slower day than yesterday for CC talk, will get things rounded off nicely. --Ish 12:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)