User talk:The Rooster

Home Talk Bots Contribs Sandpit . . .

Use the '+' tab at the top in order to create a new talk section at the bottom. If I've come to you, let's keep the conversation there, if you're coming to me, I'll be replying here. The archive can be found here. User:The Rooster/Sandpit/7 Maybe we could get some sort of project going? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) That was the general idea, though I'm not entirely sure where to start. I'd like to get something set up so that it gets maximum attention, preferably with a nice block on the main page. Though that's beyond even my generally bold editing of things, and also my user rights of course. I'd be happy to see a project created, but it would need a little time with a few users helping out to set everything up properly, and then a big intrusion onto the main page and general wikispace to try and get the community ball rolling. I wouldn't want to waste my own effort, and especially other user's, setting it up only to have nothing happen. Project CP was a good idea, but CP being the generally deserted area that it was, and the lack of any mission to get people involved again means that the community portal continues to be a generally deserted area. I'm aiming for all or nothing here, and nothing isn't an option. As a reasonably active but almost all behind-the-scenes user, I'm not that well known or particularly influential. Yet here I am, with a backwater sandpit page, pondering nothing less than one of the biggest shake ups in the wiki in recent times. You can see my predicament and general pessimism at this working by now, I hope. --  RoosterDragon  00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Wiki news could help with visibility, but it can only be up there so long. Something large and noticeable would be great, but I don't know where that would fit into the main page. Speaking of the main page, it could probably do with a redesign. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I'm kinda thinking of a new entity entirely. A nice, permanent, fixture on the main page. Highlighting all the interesting stuff happening. Like I note on my list, maybe an article of the week and/or article in need of help of the week. Wiki news would be a section of it, and the 'Community Portal' (or something else if renamed) would be the general one-stop shop for finding out which wiki-maintenance projects are going on, what ideas people are proposing for new pages, and for getting help in getting pages updated more. It would also be the place to suggest big changes on the wiki, because I envisage it as being a place where users will check a lot. An entry in the wikinews if the project starts would suffice in trying to attract a few users. The first thing we could attack would be a redesign of the main page, to include whatever 'Community Portal' block we'd like, and whatever other changes people might be after. (I'm guessing you have some to suggest, since you mentioned it) Once done, the main page gets updated, and the general invasion of the wiki starts. I'm really am talking about a big attempt to get a proper community spot set up, no half measures. I am probably being somewhat insane. --  RoosterDragon  01:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC) I have a few ideas for a new main page and how to set things up. I'm thinking Urban Dead themed with the colours and style and all, something different from the common Wikipedia-like look to main pages. I'll be gone for the weekend however, so don't expect anything yet. :O --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC) When you guys get the ball rolling, you can count me in. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Sure thing Maverick. Anyway, Gnome I did a little test and found there was 821x550 room on the page in IE, fullscreen for the most common res of 1024x768. Obviously you can have more than 550 height, but that's gonna be in the scroll down region for most people. So if you design it with that in mind, you'll probably be able to get a page that makes the most of the space without too big a cramp. The current version does have some obvious points for improvement, like the 95% width of tables could be 100%, the wiki already gives a margin, no need for extra. --  RoosterDragon  14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Main Page Redesign I started it, but I don't like rounded borders. Annoying to code, looks fugly etc. It's at a rough outline right now.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) The rounded corners can go, as an IE user I can't even see them. All the pages here seem fine without them and all the places I've see the code I can't imagine actually add much since the page looks fine anyway. The other places I've see it are coder idiocy because they wanted 'teh kool korners' and didn't think about if it was actually a smart idea. Your page looks fine to me without them, and probably better than with since everything tessellates nicely. Also, it matches the UD style better. Coding wise, three things jump out off the bat. You can lose the br clear bit I think, just leave a gap. It seems to work fine and also allows there to be a nice gap. Border wise, I'm pretty sure there's a way to compact the code that might be applicable here. I think it goes something like "border-something: 10 3 10 3;" where each number relates to each border, revolving clockwise from left I think. Might also be possible for padding. Drop the divs, it doesn't allow you to set spacing between the two sections properly. Nested tables are probably nastier to code by can give the correct result. --  RoosterDragon  13:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I'm good with tables, oddly. Updated.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Well that took care of all the points I had pretty neatly, didn't it? I like it very much. I made a couple of minor fixes. (Well one, the v-align for news, in case the CP bit is ever taller, otherwise little). May I also congratulate you on some wonderfully obfuscated code at the bottom, that's brilliantly evil. Onto the more subjective stuff: Do you think it's worth keeping the current header, that shows the latest game update and the logo? I don't think it's worth repeating what the main site says for its header anyway, but I feel the page is lacking a focus point at the top...maybe just inserting the logo in the top left of the introductory text box? What other links are you planning to include? I don't think we need the same amount of insane links as now, but there's room for a few more. I think keeping a few of the important map/information centre links would be good. Suburb definitely, maybe also the MIC/MPM and NIC/NT Status Map. I prefer the maps, but the IC's are good too. What do you plan on transcluding? I assume the CP and news sections, anything else? Finally, any thoughts on what to stick in the CP bit as a place holder until it's decided what we should actually have there? --  RoosterDragon  20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Updated the top part with Urban Dead, let me know if the cracked font doesn't work or if the alignment looks wonky, we can always switch it for an image. I agree though, less links are needed for the site nav at the bottom. Maybe projects, or community activities should be in the CP section? Things that aren't normally announced in the wiki news section, but deserve a notice. Also, yep CP & Wiki News will be template, that's it though.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, font doesn't work for me, you'd have to stick to something standard anyway, or else use an image. Link wise I've had a thought, if the links tend to be ones that link to the other stuff (IE: Administration links to all the various admin bits, and the BIC links to all the maps and other status information) then you can cut down a lot, while still providing a leap pad to get to places. I agree that current community projects would make a good bit for the CP section, though no doubt that'll be expanded upon somewhat. --  RoosterDragon  22:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Image it is then. Think the wiki news section needs little aesthetic boxes like the site navigation section at the bottom?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Sounds good, go for it. --  RoosterDragon  22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I'm thinking these links for the site navigation part: Gameplay Information Frequently Asked Questions Gameplay Character Classes Skills Items Map of Malton Malton Monroeville Borehamwood Player Information Info for Beginners Playing Guides Glossary Groups Suggestions Portal Building Information Center Wiki Information Wiki Questions Help Templates Administration User Hub External Links Game Stats Unofficial UD Forums Urban Dead IRC Channels Iwitness Searchable Profile DB more... We could probably do with some obvious in-your-face general starter guide like on what's on the main page now. Feel free to edit the list. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I made only a few additions and changes, you basically got everything I would've added. Do you plan on indicating that external links are external? --  RoosterDragon  23:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Mmm, I don't know. I don't like the little blue box things. I could change the colour of it, maybe. Should it be indicated? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Updated. The site navigation looks nice, but it feels off balanced because of the cities. It could be compensated by adding stuff to the other 3 sections, or moving the cities elsewhere? Would it be a good idea to put the game updates somewhere? Seems silly not to have them, but I'm not sure where to put it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I feel the cities should be included, maybe a mention of them at the end of the intro? "The main city of Urban Dead is Malton, but outbreaks have been seen in the cities of Monroeville and Borehamwood too." or something like that? Hmm. External link wise, I've never been a fan of the system either (Though it's the lighter text that annoys me). Normally, I would say you should indicate them as a matter of continuity, but in this case, the only external links are under the aptly named 'External Links' section, and so people should expect them even if the usual symbol isn't there. I think you can get away with it. Also, if you wish to be very pedantic about the section heights, you could add a link to the Community Portal under Wiki Info. Slightly redundant, but it makes everything a nice 6 links tall. --  RoosterDragon  18:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Added the latest news section. Other than templating the news sections and CP, all we have left is the Community Portal. I'm not sure what should go there. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Maybe just make a small list of active projects until we get something better set up. The Great Suburb Group Massacre is definitely a good example. 'A Tale of Undead Cities' is a reasonably good one. Should probably have one more to fit the rule of three...maybe a quick mention of the UHUB having recently come online? I'm think basically the name and then a quick description (might even be able to use the 'aesthetic tables' like the News and section lists) EG: Some of the current projects around the wiki: The Great Suburb Group Massacre - To keep the wiki up to date, groups have been queried as to whether they are still active, you can help out in the maintenance effort. If you're part of an active group, make sure you confirm it as active before the 27th February! A Tale of Undead Cities - An organization effort to clean up, improve and revamp the three city pages about Malton, Monroeville and Borehamwood. Help discuss ideas and add your own suggestions for improvements. User Hub - Recently implemented, the user hub allows you to search for users on the wiki more easily. Bookmark it, and come add your name. Is the tone suitable? Also, you probably want to write something about the user hub, I've made a right hash of that one. --  RoosterDragon  02:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC) CP updated. I've been scouring other wikis to see what they do with their main page. I think what we have now is fine and we can always add something later. Other than the templating, does it look good to go?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Looks fine and dandy to me sir, and it works an utter treat on smaller resolutions too. The only minor things I can spot are: Your edit link for the news has a case error, it should be 'Wiki News' not 'Wiki news'. You need a proper article in the spotlight. Either that and you need a proper description for the example page. Hehe. You could always be a bit cheeky and have: "Main Page - Our main page has just received a really nice redesign, go check it out!". Ok...maybe not. Last time the main page was changed, a vote was called on its talk page, is that what you are planning to do? --  RoosterDragon  23:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I can't think of anything new or amazing that would go under the spotlight, except perhaps the redesigned suggestions portal. Perhaps an article needing work? For implementation, I was thinking of sneaking it under the radar through A/PT, may require a few bribes though. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC) We can work on what to include in the CP bit in due course. You could just ditch that bit for now, it'll be back I'm sure. As for a 'sneaking' it through A/PT...that's a joke, right? I'll go up the Drama template to 'wikigate' in preparation... --  RoosterDragon  23:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I'm totally serial. But seriously, I suppose a little announcement and some discussion on the talk page couldn't hurt. Yarp?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Indeed. I'll swing by and put down my vote once you've announced your little redesign. --  RoosterDragon  00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Will do. Something else we might be able to add is that 'coders central' thing, and projects like Project Mentor. Anyway, deal with that later. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Main Page Redesign V2 Updated with a white background. Anyways, I've got something going on at the bottom. Few things: the rounded borders can be done with images, the Urban Dead can be an image urban dead themed thing, and the links are just placeholders (the most important stuff will go there). What are you thinking? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I'm slightly lost. I get the white thing for those who don't fancy the green. But I have no idea what you're getting at with everything else. What are you after? --  RoosterDragon  14:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The bottom hmm... section. The edges can have rounded borders with images (so people using IE can see it). The words Urban Dead could probably something better, an image. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I thought you meant rounded borders worked on images. Heh. Ok, so this random section, is this a third page variant in progress or what? At the moment you're just throwing random musings at me and I don't know what you're trying to achieve. --  RoosterDragon  15:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure yet either. It's another attempt, like the current main page except it has some changes. The redundant Frequently Asked Suggestions bit can have important links to go through right off the bat, while the rest of the navigation can be at the bottom. See DHPD for the rounded image corners. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) If you're going to use images you can have it look like whatever you like. No need to limit yourself to rounding corners. Beveled corners. Some gradients. Pictures of things. All sorts of stuff. --  RoosterDragon  16:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Good points. I like the idea of having little iddy biddy images for titles, like Evelopedia.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, they're alright. I was also thinking, since a few people seem to be against change in general, might it be worth just trying to rearrange and fix the current page to fit in the CP and make other minor fixes? It is mostly just layout problems, especially when it's scaled up. Could it be worked around? --  RoosterDragon  16:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) It could be. The very first Urban Dead title could retain it's shape, but I'd like less height and be able to incorporate those most-important links to the side. The latest news may need to go somewhere else, or be shifted. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Updated. Perhaps with some better alignment, latest news could be put under those links in a white rounded box? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah maybe it could, give it a go. As far as just messing the current page around: Yeah, the main header is too big, the image can be scaled down too. I was thinking having the introduction take up the full width after that, with the CP and news side by side below that. Then the current navigation below that. The news takes up too much width to be floating in the intro's space. I'll go usurp the Sandbox for some test editing. My sandpit is beyond overused. --  RoosterDragon  16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Usurping complete. If I can hack that together in a few minutes then no doubt a proper setup can no doubt be made. I had to subst the wiki news somewhat in order to get rid of the fixed width it's set to. Letting the browser deal with the width's helps to kill the whitespace somewhat. The news box template is a bit messy to say the least, and I'm sure more can be done to get it to align seamlessly. --  RoosterDragon  17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Updated with the links, probably needs better alignment. I like a lighter green, but the logo background will need to be changed. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Well, it's one possible way of cleaning up the nav bit. --  RoosterDragon  21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Perhaps it could do those silhouettes behind the 9 links at the top right? For the old main page design, perhaps it could be made of use on the Community Portal page? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think we need them behind the links, it won't add much there given the lack of room and the fact there are links in the way. I can whip up a transparent logo for you though. As far the the CP goes, one page at a time, eh? --  RoosterDragon  22:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Of course. Oh, I can easily make text on images. Click the H in my sig. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I'm not doubting you can put the links in front of the image. I'm saying doing so would look weird and that adding the image behind wouldn't add anything. --  RoosterDragon  22:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Mmkay. Anything else to add? I'm not fond of the colour scheme for the wiki news section. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC) You're right, it looks really wrong, especially given the white background. Maybe two light shades of grey? Also, the Community Portal bit, even if just a placeholder, also needs fixing up. Up to you how to tackle that. --  RoosterDragon  22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Chucked the transparent image up. I need to know which fonts to use to be honest, the bottom part looks off since the background was deleted from around it, and the top part I had to use a close font match since it wasn't going to come out ok otherwise. SO it's not an exact copy this. --  RoosterDragon  22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, it looks kinda faded. I'll give Kevan a shout, maybe. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Updated. Rounded borders on the bottom of CP and Wiki News, they're fatty thick because that's the only way I could get the curved edges to work only on the bottom. Is the interchanging colours in the Wiki News part better? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, the colour interchange is better, and I'm impervious to ye rounded corners so I'll take you word on that. The only probably is when I shrink the window, and the news seems to be set to have it's overflow cut off rather than forcing the nav bit down. Is that intentional? The CP section is likely to get a lot bigger once we have some idea what to put in it, which will likely solve the news problem. I can't imagine it'll create too much of a whitespace issue, we'll see I guess. --  RoosterDragon  13:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I can set it to a set width for the Wiki News section. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Oh dear lord no! Leave it up to the browser so it can divide up the news and CP as it likes and cut down on the whitespace. I had to remove the fixed width in my initial muck about because it just leaves the CP with a big gap underneath since it gets to absorb most of the screen width on bigger resolutions. I'm actually not too worried, like I said, I'm sure the CP bit will be longer in most cases anyway. For completeness though, would a br:clear thingy do the job? --  RoosterDragon  16:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Ok, so your magical coding means that when you set it to a fixed width, it works just bloody fine. Ignore my nonsense. :P --  RoosterDragon  16:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC) *Wiggles fingers* Magik. Well, I got nothing significant to change. The links might need altering in the Nav, but we can let the rest of the peoples decide that through discussion. All that's left is figuring out the rounded images for the corners. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Can I assume you want them at all the places you currently have the rounded code? I can knock up some with the radius's specified, they'll be a fixed colour which is a downside. Unless you want to be cheeky and have the inverse made white. That would cover the corner of a rectangular box and you could change the colour if ever needed then, it just relies on a white background being the default instead. Have I made sense there? --  RoosterDragon  18:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm, either or. It shouldn't matter. I'd just start with the first Urban Dead header part block thing, then we can go from there. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The bottom doesn't want to work. I can't get it centered properly without pushing everything else up, or giving way to the upper right. Could you combine the upper left and lower left & upper right and lower right? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Oh you... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Gotta love divs :) Are you getting a colour mismatch though? I had it mismatched originally, and reuploaded after making sure the saved file had the right colour, but somehow I've got a different colour on my screen. --  RoosterDragon  19:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) It looks off in Safari, but fine in Firefox. Except what you have with the image alignment doesn't work in Firefox. Might I suggest combining the upper right and upper left etc like looks like here? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Well, I still don't see why the colour refuses to match up, I swear the server is toying with my images. And if the divs won't work on FF, we better drop em unless there's a workaround. Can't have a main header of fixed width since the table is variable width. --  RoosterDragon  19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Mmm. Go for fixed height instead? Things may be screwy if Kevan decides to update the game, though nothing else comes to mind. The problem with FF is the curvy images are placed on top/under the background, instead of over it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC) That's easily fixed with z-order. I'll add that in. I'll have to do some investigation of the colour issue another time. --  RoosterDragon  19:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC) No change. this is what it looks like. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC) (Deindented for Sanity) Oh, I thought you meant something else. Sorry about that. Not too sure about how to fix your error. You might try editing it yourself to try and correct it. Might be something about how IE and FF deal with the top/bottom absolute div. I've done some googling and I can correct the colour mismatch though. If you can't sort the div's, you could always go back to the border radius code and drop the images. Not having rounded corners isn't really a problem. --  RoosterDragon  20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Tried that. While I can align it properly in FF, it'll make it wacko in other browsers... I'll put it back the border radius. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, tis probably for the best. I'll go get the images speedied. --  RoosterDragon  20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The Great Suburb Group Massacre, 2009 Is there a page for this anywhere? I noticed you posting on a group's page asking if they were still active, but I didn't see a link to a page for the project. --Pestolence(talk) 20:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I had just followed suit based on some earlier posts. Could go back and link it I suppose, though it's not too much of a worry since all they have to do is respond on their talk page. I'll go back and link when I get the chance. --  RoosterDragon  20:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC) OK, cool. Just wondering. --Pestolence(talk) 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC) My sig Can I increase the size of the images so those two white bars above them don't show up? Or, is there another way? --Haliman - Talk 16:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Bots Do you think it would be possible to program a bot to work off the user list and add the welcomenewbie template to all new user talk pages automatically? The template will need altering if this can be done, but I'd thought I'd check with you if it's viable before planning that. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC) It'd definitely help, and it gets rid of the user provided WN spam.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC) This section of the conversation was tactically lasered from orbit due to: Irrelevance, later followed by juvenile bickering. Go whine about each other on your own pages, mmmkay? --  RoosterDragon  Is there a way to go through the user list and only pick out "newbies", rather than users without talk pages, that may be long abandoned?. Perhaps Special:Contributions/newbies may be a better page to work on? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:44 17 February 2009 (BST) Well we know that bots can work from current time as they can do updates based on time with danger reports, so if we tell the bot to start from X time and give every user that is created after that time a template (with a line of code telling it not to repeat itself of course) we should be fine. The only thing that will need to be done to prevent duplication will be to tell users not to add the template any more, provided the bot is running often enough to cover newbies. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Already done, tell users they are adding the template in error as it's duplicating an already existing wiki function, that text I linked appears to all new wiki accounts when they first load a page.--Karekmaps?! 03:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) While the current text based wall of doom method is pretty high on the insensitivity scale, having an automated script do it really takes the biscuit. Whatever happened to people just leaving a nice message, anyway? --  RoosterDragon  12:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Rooster Evening. A quick initial purge of the current navigation. Several of the pages left can be lost if they are referred to on other pages, (the lexicon if mentioned in chronicles for instance.) I'll sort that out tomorrow, anything I got read of that you feel is needed? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) How opinions differ. I like the creation of the cities bit, but otherwise I would've had a different list to a some extent. I would've kept some of the more useful external links. Namely: stats, forums, IRC and IW. I would've dropped more from Player Info, namely: Lexicon, Chronicles, and historic groups/events. The first two are long abandoned and the latter two are of lesser interest. Wiki Info. Drop the Style Guide (until not horribly outdated, anyway) and keep Wiki Questions & Help (even if outdated, it's useful to some extent). That's just my opinion of course. --  RoosterDragon  19:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC) A difference of opinion! Oh noes!! I lost stats, as its listed in the side bar, and indeed linked on the front page every time you log onto urban dead. I also feel that most people find out about the IRC, forums by joining a group? (I don't know about your own experience). Lexicon I will drop, I just need to modify chronicles so its linked from there. Help, again linked on the sidebar, and Wiki Questions, HAs only been viewed 20,000 times, and was last used in December. I don't think its needed, with FAQ, help and the remnants of project mentor. I'll bring back Iwitness though. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Good points. That's a reasonably good list then, still I doubt that'll suade the many Nay voters. You should inform the Gnome of this list on his sandbox talk I think. --  RoosterDragon  19:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I thinking the nav boxes should be uniform in color, mmm? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC) You're more than welcome to go tweak. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) A couple questions regarding you Mobile Phone Mast Bot. Greetings Mr. Rooster. I am the creator of the Mobile Phone Mast Coverage template, which is on the Mobile Phone Mast page. I was wondering if your bot could be made to update my template, and if you could be persuaded to do so. My original idea for the template (before your bot started running again) was that it would serve a few purposes. First, all of the changes would be recorded on the template's history rather than the Mobile Phone Mast page's history, making the Mobile Phone Mast page history easier to dig through. Second, the mobile coverage data could be easily included on other pages (admittedly, I don't know what other page would need it, but I thought it was worth a mention.) The last benefit is a personal aesthetic opinion of mine (and I'm certain I am biased) but I think "operational masts accounted for" is slightly more intuitive than "mapped active network coverage." Anyway, as I said earlier, I was hoping to combine our creations. I realize the benefits are likely small. I don't know the difficulty involved in modifying a bot. So if the difficulty doesn't justify the benefits, or if you just don't want to, then forget I mentioned it. My other question / comment regarding your bot is that I think it may be missing masts mapped as active. The last update came up with 12, but I'm almost certain there were 14 masts mapped as active when the update happened. My speculation is that its missing 2 masts that were updated by users without user pages, but I don't know for sure. --Zarneverfike 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)