"Help Desk" archived: 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment templates for dummies

DK13 advertisement has been removed again, even though i do my best to keep the time stamp up to date, and now i can not remember how to restore our group advert. Could someone please tell me how to restore it, or could a mod restore it for me and i will just update the timestamp? Thanks! --T13 14:25, 28 April 2008 (BST)

i made a guide for making a recruitment ad, it may be usefull to those of you that are having a hard time figuring out how to make one. --Bullgod 02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Balls of Steel recruitment add help

I need help with setting up an advert for my group. It keeps getting deleted. What exactly am I supposed to do?

from what i see you tried to put one up in the old style, we don't use that any more, you'll have to make a recruitment template. you know me over on the FU boards, i can help you there if you need a guide. --Bullgod 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Right, what you need to do is go to this page Balls of Steel/recruit, and copy all the text and the image that you have made for the ad onto that page. Once you have done that, you go back to the Recruitment page and put the following under the Balls of Steel header:

{|
|-
|
{{:Balls of Steel/recruit}} - ~~~~
|}

That will call the text and picture onto the Recruitment page under the header, and lessens the total amount of text actually on the page making it easier for people to edit. Also, please sign all posts on wiki talk pages with ~~~~. Hope this helps! - W 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

G.I.F.D. troubleshooting

Could someone more wiki-literate than me please check the following to see whether our advert is disrupting others:

"G.I.F.D. recruitment excerpt.

Its screwing the recruitment page and at least 1, or even all the ones below it don't show (depending on what you do) Mainly it seems to screw the group directly below although orginally it was the whole page. You might want to look into this quickly and get it fixed up.--Zach016 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)"

This was originally posted on User_talk:Zyll. I've checked the recruitment page and couldn't see any obvious problems. Has someone already fixed it? Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Dan Everyman 01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Whitehouse --Zyll ^GIFD

10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just explain very quickly. The GIFD ad page had an unclosed table tag. So if you have a {| tag on a page, you have to close it with a |} tag. This resulted in there being two {| tags, and one |} tags, which resulted in one of the tables trying to include subsequent ads alongside it. This was only a problem in IE, because Firefox didn't seem to have a problem interpreting an unclosed tag... no idea why that is... always close tags however, unclosed tags cause problems. - W 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. --Dan Everyman 02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What Gives?

TNR's ad has once again been removed. Why? Im beginning t think that the admins here don't like us. Ill wait for a reply before putting our ad back up with any changes it requires, unless someone is just getting rid of our ad to screw with us. --Blanemcc 10:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

They get removed after a period of time so only active recruiters get space and defunct groups disappear. - Pardus 10:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My recruitment ad was less than a month old. Mobius check it out for me and said there was nothing wrong with it that he could see. Maybe some formatting error or something? --Blanemcc 14:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be that the time limit is two weeks. Put it back up again, and remember to keep updating the timestamp every two weeks. - W 18:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

2 weeks? Aye aye aye Gordon! Will do, I thought it was a yearly update :p. Thanks --Blanemcc 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort by Suburb?

Why not sort the page by suburb -- It would save new players the trouble of having to find a group, then find one in their area. -- Starman537 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Many groups aren't localized to a suburb, most zombie groups are completely mobile out of necessity. --Karek^maps?! 09:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Perhaps there could be both, as in if your group operates in a suburb, you put it in your suburbs category, and all the unsorted could be put below in Zombie and Living categories. --Starman537 16:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Their is also survivor groups that have multiple suburbs they work out of. Look at DEM for example. I can't name any suburb they are not apart of. This would make things a bit more difficult for new players to make their way threw the wiki on top of being new to the game. In my oppinion it is a great idea, but, would make things so much more harder for new players that they could become discouraged with the whole idea. --XxPale HorsexX / XxCannon FodderxX 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my idea is, we have categories, by suburb, alphabetically. So, as an example:

<example>

Dartside

No groups from this suburb have posted here

Darvall Heights

Survivor

Join the Darvall Police Department today!

Zombie

Join the Darvall Horde and start enjoying fresh brainz today!

Player Killer/Other

Join the Philosophe Knights today! Annihilate the ignorant!

</example>

We would have the all encompassing ones like the DEM on the top with a brief explanation as to why its not in a category. I would suggest having the groups only post in the main suburb that they operate in. The Crimson Clan would be under Havercroft even though they also operate in the surrounding burbs a bit.

For Nomads, we could put that on top or bottom of the whole thing as well. I just think that if done right, it would save a lot of newbies some trouble, as well as generate groups more interest and activity when people can filter by location. If I'm in Grigg Heights I dont want to have to scroll through groups who are in Gibsonton. Also, sorry for the huge wall of text, I didnt know how to clean it up. --Starman537 22:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

its still overly complicated and unneeded, if a group wants to advertise what suburb their in they can add themselves to the known groups area of that suburbs specific page. if you go to the Darvall Heights page you would see what groups operate there, if the advertising group doesn't want to make the effort to put their name on the list then thats their loss. it also causes a problem for groups that operate permanently in more than one suburb, take my group the Feral Undead for instance. alto often nomadic we try to keep permanent presence in both Scarletwood and Whittenside, we would have to put ads for both? what about the groups that operate in five suburbs? this idea just wouldn't work as well as it looks on paper, and we finally have a system that works fairly well on the recruitment page and i for one don't want to mess with a good thing. --Bullgod 11:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I figured what the heck we might be able to work the suburb recruitment so I made it Suburb Recruitment --Gamerman191 23:30, 16 October 2008 (BST)

Why?????

Juuust curious, for some reason people keep killing off my recruit poster (below Penguin Mafia where it's meant to be) it follows the requirements set out on the page but for some reason it keeps getting killed? why? Peoples Militia of Malton

--Medico 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see your image is way to large. And as such I can remove or hide your ad. Resize the image to the correct size, put it back up and timestamp it. - Whitehouse 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Confused

(...and for the record, it doesn't take much.) It doesn't look like the groups posted are using the new template. Am I wrong? Speaking of the new template - I'm really confused as to how to use it. (I'm a relatively new wiki user.) I'm sure it is explained in plain English, but I don't see it. Could I get some help, here?--Lois Millard 11:48, 27 September 2007 (BST)

There is no single template. Instead, you make a page yourself (typically named Group/recruit) and include it in a manner similar to a template, using the code {{:Example_Page}}. The Format for Posting Adverts section explains this briefly, but I'm happy to help step by step. At this point, the first step would be to create your advert "template" page - just edit a (new) page called (your group's name)/recruit to contain your advert (and nothing else) and from there it is quite simple.

Swiers 13:52, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Oh! I see! So I was making it much harder than it needed to be. Thanks! I'll see what I can come up with!--Lois Millard 17:11, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Would you mind taking a look at it to let me know if it is alright? It's the 10 Minutes from Hell section. Thanks!--Lois Millard 17:31, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Looks great. In fact, its a very good example for others to follow.

Swiers 00:08, 28 September 2007 (BST)

Thanks for your help!--Lois Millard 13:14, 28 September 2007 (BST)

50% failure rate?

Yeesh, if I disregard the adverts I myself posted, it looks like there is a 50% failure rate in following the new guidelines. Is there something that should be done about this? I din't want people getting upset because they slapped up an advert and then come back two weeks later to find out it was never displayed. Then again, there's only so much you can do to contact people / explain the system... Swiers 14:52, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Well, two failed on the timestamp. If they had only posted below rather than trying to include it in their line of code they would have passed. One didn't try, just reposted the whole ad instead of converting. And one failed on image size. All in all that doesn't look too bad. I'll contact the creators of any future ads that I remove. I think we should do that for first times. Or maybe we could create a template that we simply post on the talk pages of the creators of ads that need to be redone. - Whitehouse 18:24, 19 August 2007 (BST)

That is partly my concern- the failures are so TRIVIAL that they seem to indicate a lack of simple reading / following directions. Anyhow, I fixed the two cases where the timestamps were included but implemented in a manner that did not display (easier than making notification) and also added a bit to the code in the guidelines so that every advert section now "encases" the advert in a table. This last bit fixes a common formating problem caused when an advert's image is taller than its text. Seemed easier to do this way than by forcing every advert page to contain the table code or otherwsie avoid formating cross-talk, and I think it actually makes the Recruitment page code easier to read, as well.

Swiers 18:51, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Didn't think of it like that, you make a good point. Anyway, in future if I see timestamps that are there but not displayed I will "make them appear". As for the table part, good idea. - Whitehouse 20:11, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Question about the table. Is the "|-" part necessary, will it not work without it? - Whitehouse 20:23, 19 August 2007 (BST)

It was my impression that you DO need the "|-", as it is equivalent to the "<TR>" tag in HTML. But after having experimented a bit, it does seem to work equally well without. Still, it seems best to keep it in there so the code is "official" - maybe not all browsers handle the "shortcut code" the same way. Is there some reason you'd rather its not there?

Swiers 20:48, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Not at all, I was just curious. - Whitehouse 21:06, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Cool, it looks like a few people did it right now. Having table code as part of the advert seacion seems to work really well- no formating problems, and its super easy to read the code. Whew!

Swiers 04:43, 21 August 2007 (BST)

B.E.S.T.

Why did my B.E.S.T. recruitment poster get deleted??Agent Fenix 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's either because that timestamp wasn't updated in two weeks or it was improperly formatted.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Aftermath - huh?

Bloody Aftermath Logo

Bloody Aftermath is an open-to-all group. We will do various things, but most of all: we are a non-PK group. Raids on zeds are okay, but remember that there are some zombie members....

The above is my advert for Bloody Aftermath. I don't see the problem with it. --Bloodkiller 01:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)--

I'm guessing you didn't display a timestamp with / in your advert. Looking at the histories, I'm pretty sure of it, in fact.

Swiers 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Might be that, but also notice that he isn't actually calling his ad, but writing within the template. Which does not reduce the amount of text on the page, as you intended when you created the system. - Whitehouse ^T 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Yep, that's a BIG boo-boo too. Although the point of using includes isn't so much to reduce the amount of text on the page, as to reduce the number of edits made to the page. By making people design the adverts on their own group sub-pages, we keep a lot of messy edits (and resulting conflicts / forks) off this page.

Swiers 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So, add timestamp, and it will be fine? -- 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You need to create a new page (called something like Bloody_Aftermath/recruit) and design it so it looks like what you want your advert to look like. Then take another look at Format for Posting Adverts section; it should be clear what to do then, and will tell you how to "include" your entire newly designed advert page onto the main page via a little code trick. Be very mindful of the EXACT punctuation used; there is a big difference between {{:this}} and [[:this]] or [[image:this]].

Swiers 02:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Other Discussion" archived: 23:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Istambul (not Constatinople)

Recruitment is now Category:Recruitment. The purpose of this move is to allow the category listings to be shown on the same page as the recruitment adverts. This talk page wasn't moved because... well, laziness mostly. Instead, the [[:Talk:Category:Recruitment]] page redirects here, turning the two pages into a "two headed monster page". Simplify it if you wish, or make up a song about it, it works either way. Swiers 23:51, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Timestamps:2

What happened to the good old courtesy call? i.e. "Your timestamp has expired". I understand it only adds to the crazy workload, but a quick warning is genuinely appreciated. --Karloth Vois ^RR 00:00, 13 August 2007 (BST)

We have recently had some problems. And no ads are being removed for a while. Anyway, I don't normally give people a heads up, though if you really feel that I should then I guess I will begin to do so (great, more work). Do note that only groups that have someone sign with their user profile will get heads up, as the person who signed will get the heads up. Anyway, as I said, no deletions for about another 10 days. - Whitehouse 12:37, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Actually, that brings up a question, and I think that obviously the advertisers need to be reasonable about this. How long before the expiration date should I give a warning? 1 day? 2 days?. Or should I on noticing an expiration send a message and then if it's not updated within a set time after the message is sent, it gets deleted? - Whitehouse 12:40, 13 August 2007 (BST)

The latter method would necessitate you keeping track somewhere of who you've sent messages to? 'T'would seem much simpler to go through daily, pull the ads at >14 days as you're doing now, then go through and drop "Your ad goes poof in 48 hours" to the folks that are at 12 days. If that becomes the customary practice (me, I understand it's a nice courtesy, but I'm not sure I would require the pagemaster to do it), then you can be sure that anyone being removed got two days' notice. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 19:07, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Once we switch over to the individual recruitment page method, it might make sense to just put / update a dated warning template on any [[Talk:Group Name/recruit]] page when its timestamps is about to / has expired. Anybody who has that page watch listed will then get the notification. Can't really be any more directly communicated than that, I'd think. Personally I'd favor only giving notice of actual expiration; it keeps all the work in one chunk, and the new system makes it trivially easy to just go back and put your advert up again with a fresh time stamp.

Swiers 19:39, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Right, well you both have given good suggestions. I am not sure which to go with. Either warning before expiration, or a warning after expiration. Swiers is right in it being simple to put it back, almost as simple as updating the timestamp. But I guess some people would rather never have their ad removed from the page. The idea of giving the warnings on the ads talk page is good and I will do that. But as to when the warning is received I will have to think about. Maybe I could have some more feedback, anyone else going to say something. Karloth, anything to add? - Whitehouse 20:05, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Ach, it all sounds good to me! Sorry for the note- I just remember (quite some time ago, I can't honestly say who was doing this page back then) a courtesy call a couple of days before it expired. Obviously, it's a lot more work- please don't feel obligated. --Karloth Vois ^RR 01:27, 14 August 2007 (BST)

Just a note, I am now attempting 1-2 days warnings (it's hard to be accurate when school work gets in the way). You get a warning stating that in 1-2 days time your ad will be removed for either expiration or non compliance. Expiration meaning that the timestamp runs out in two days time. And non compliance meaning something is wrong with the ad, such as too large images, incorrect format and so on. - Whitehouse 17:56, 1 September 2007 (BST)

As some may have noticed (but hopefully not) I am no longer giving warnings. I tried for two weeks, and it really is more bother than I want to mess around with. It's a cumbersome way to do things, and until I can find a new way to do it people will have to remember for themselves. If someone really has a hard time with this, then leave me a note requesting that you be given warnings (seriously, only if you truly can't remember on your own. - Whitehouse 20:04, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Timestamps... um, sort of

Hola Whitehouse. Hey, this edit has dorked a good many groups' timestamps; it seems likely the editor was working from an older version of the page. Some group reps have caught it and updated their timestamps, but others haven't. Might I suggest that no ads be removed for the next 13 days, since anyone who updated their timestamp shortly before the page got dorked would have no way of knowing they're endangered? Thanks for the work you do keeping this monster in shape. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 03:42, 11 August 2007 (BST)

Ouch, I see what you mean. Fine then. For the next 13 days I will not remove ads. Maybe I should be thankful this happened at the time when a new system is being suggested. - Whitehouse 02:53, 12 August 2007 (BST)

Sometime tomorrow I begin to remove ads again. You asked me on the 11th, it will be the 24th. I guess that was the date you had in mind. I'll probably do it late tomorrow. Sometime near midnight. It'll be Friday (or Saturday depending on how late I do it), so I can be up late without worrying about school. Any objections? - Whitehouse 15:25, 23 August 2007 (BST)

Uncategorized pages

Hey this whole ads as subpage thing has really incressed the number of uncatgorized pages in the wiki becasue of this im going the change the wording of in the format section mainly the lines

"You should put the following on on your "Group Name/recruit" page: <noinclude>[[Category:Recruitment|Type]]</noinclude> This information will be used to construct a list of links to adverts which is sorted by type rather than name. It is not required that you include this (or even the type listing in the header) but it almost certainly will aide in your advert's success."

to

"You need to put the following categories on your "Group Name/recruit" page:
<noinclude>[[Category:Group Subpage]]</noinclude>
or
<noinclude>[[Category:"Insert Group Name Here"]]</noinclude> if your group has a category of it's own.
Additionally you should add
<noinclude>[[Category:Recruitment|TYPE]]</noinclude> where TYPE is one of the follwing: Human Groups, Zombie Groups, PKer Groups, Mixed Groups and Organizations."

- Vantar 15:42, 20 August 2007 (BST)

Is there some problem that uncategorized pages cause? Most templates are not categorized; rather, the page they ae USED ON is categorized. And that holds here. Anyhow, if you do make the above edit, check how the edit actually shows up on the recruitment page. The intro section is an include, and you need to be aware that simply putting "<nowiki>" tags around "<noinclude>" will NOT cause the text to be included. I resorted to HTML escapement codes, such as those you will see if you edit this section.

Swiers 15:57, 20 August 2007 (BST)

Uncategorized pages may or may not cause problems on their own but they do get in the way of identifing other problems by cluttering Special:Uncategorizedpages, templates are not a problem becasue they exsist in the template namespace and do not show up in the Special:Uncategorizedpages list but since the recruitment ads are in the main name space they do. The <nowiki>s where just so the <noinclude>s whould show up while I was talking about them. I'm aware that there are some formating issues with what I have written and how the intro section works, I'll try and work them out but that may not get done today.- Vantar 17:33, 20 August 2007 (BST)

I would request that you do not add "Human Group", but have it as "Survivor Group". Many groups are already referred to as survivor groups. - Whitehouse 18:37, 20 August 2007 (BST)

That can be arranged I used "Human Group", because that was on the main Recruitment page - Vantar 23:14, 20 August 2007 (BST)

Image Sizes Changed?

Whats up? I see five or six images in various groups adverts containing images of about 400PX X 600PX in size ... have the dimensions been increased without my knowing about it?

Everytime i go even 1PX over the 275PX X 275PX square limit, i get whitehouse "resizing" my image almost within the hour ... so what gives? --MK 20:16, 12 October 2007 (BST)

I am sorry MK, I have been really busy lately (in real life) and as such I haven't had the time to check everyone's image. I will do so today (weekend gives me enough time). - Whitehouse 14:50, 13 October 2007 (BST)

Okies, no problems! Im the same myself right now. I wish there were an extra few hours in each day so i could actually finish the things i get started and still have time for a hot meal and a shower before i pass out with exhaustion! Bring on the thirty two hour day!

Also, slight problem with the DK13 advert, problem as in you have removed the content? Any chance you can "revert" it back or whatever it is you wiki moderating people do? Thanks!!!!!!!!!! --MK 17:35, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Reverted and all that stuff. :P - Whitehouse 20:02, 14 October 2007 (BST)

_{below sourced from the Recruitment page and to be left here for reference}

Eh.. MK.. you are the one who pointed it out, then you go above the restrictions? - Whitehouse 15:04, 13 October 2007 (BST)

Sorry mate, all the oversized group images i seen (five or six in total?) were all dated as being several days old, and knowing first hand how "on the ball" you are with that kind of thing, i figured you would have spotted them long ago and resized them already. I therefore, presumed that current limitations had been lifted, and didn't have time to go over the fine print again as i was on my way out, having only popped in to update the timestamp. My mistake and i apologise!

That said, i done you a favour by pointing it out, right? So why you have to remove our advert and post this here, and not towards any of the original offenders, when a message would have done the trick?

Two further point's:

1: Will we EVER see these current image size restrictions improved slightly, or increased, rather than disaproved, or at least restored back to the previous, more sensible or at least "flexible" restrictions?

2: I didn't sleep now for thirty one hours and forty minutes, give or take a few minutes, due to real life work commitments, and NOT late night gaming/pron/blog/witchcraft/ninjitsu/interweb activitys ... i need to sleep right now, so can you please, please, pretty please with sugar on top restore our DK13 recruitment advert? --MK 17:31, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Monroeville groups

i realize its a temporary thing but should Monroeville groups have a separate section for recruitment? they are after all in a different city.--Bullgod 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ALL pages related to Monreoville should be in the format [[Monreoville/PAGE]], so essetially, Monroeville should have its own recruitment page. But I suppose for now we could do a seperate section on this page, yah. Given that recruitment is more of a metagame thing, and opertains to PLAYERS, not CITIES, it might even be appropriate.

Swiers 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Swiers 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Timestamps and rules

Timestamps

Current rule:

The ad must have a timestamp (five tildes - ~~~~~) or a signature with an attached timestamp. This can be placed either on this page or on your ads page.

Now I think it will be necessary to demand that all timestamps appear when editing the recruitment page. As such, having timestamps on your ads page would no longer be acceptable. It would have to be on the recruitment page in some form. Acceptable versions would be:

===[[The Electric Light Torchestra]] : Survivor Group===	 
 {|	 
 |-	 
 |	 
 {{:The_Electric_Light_Torchestra/Recruit}}	 
 --{{User:PsychoLychee/Sig}} 12:26, 29 May 2008 (BST)
 |}

 === [[Feral Undead]] (zombie group)===
 {|
 |-
 |
 {{:Feral Undead/Recruit|200|--[[User:Bullgod|Bullgod]] 03:07, 4 June 2008 (BST)}}
 |}

Both of those show the timestamps in the editing section. Other versions, such as those that have the timestamp on the called page do not show their timestamp in the editing section. Unacceptable would be:

===[[The Malton Zookeepers]] : Equal Opportunity Employer===
 {|
 |-
 |
 {{:The Malton Zookeepers/recruit}}
 |}

No timestamp shows, it is actually there, but only displays if you preview. Now, you should always preview before submitting, but having to scroll though the editing section and the preview section and after all that previewing it all again, this time to check that nothing is crashing, that is just annoying.

So the rule would be altered to:

The ad must have a timestamp (five tildes - ~~~~~) or a signature with an attached timestamp. This must be placed on this page.

Rules

I'd like the rules to see a change or two. we currently have a commenting out rule that I am not too fond of. Simply because it leaves the remains of broken ads on the page in the form of headers with nothing under but a comment. Commenting out is meant to be used to remove ads with minor problems, but not completely. The ads with major problems on the other hand are meant to have their stuff removed. I'm suggesting we remove the commenting out rule, and remove all traces of ads that have are broken in some form, both major and minor.

But then they would not know what was wrong with their ad? Which is why I was thinking we could possibly have a section either near the top or bottom of the page listing ads that have had a problem and been removed. something like:

Ads in need of repair

The following ads are in need of some form of repair and have been removed from the page, please replace them with the required adjustments. Your ad will be removed from this reminder list in two weeks from the timestamp made by the editor, or when you fix it:

British Military Corps/Recruit - Needs to fix the image size - User:Whitehouse 16:15, 10 June 2008 (BST)
Roftwood_Emergency_Response/recruit - Has subheaders, please remove them. - User:Whitehouse 16:15, 10 June 2008 (BST)
Hei-bei Heroes ~ Wu-shu Warriors/Recruit - Has text on this page, follow the link and put your text on that page, then post as part of the format given above. - User:Whitehouse 16:15, 10 June 2008 (BST)

Ads whose timestamp has run out will not be mentioned.

The advantage of having such a section is that all ads would get a comment near the top of the page, and you would know where to look. It also keeps the page tidier, without headers with no content beneath except editors comments. This means a minor addition of workload for the editors. Also: as with my other suggestion above, it is possible to keep it all in the editing section. Is this needless, comments please. :) - User:Whitehouse 16:15, 10 June 2008 (BST)

Image Question.

My question is as follows, what do i need to do to this image (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:Dk13_logo_008.jpg) which i have been told is NOT allowed, in order for it to be allowed on the recruitment page, as in the case of this image (http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/b/bc/Wiki.png) which IS allowed.

They look pretty much the same to me!?! Help? --T13 14:59, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Who told you that image was not allowed? And where did they do that?

The ad format is clearly stated on the page, with regards to images;

"Images are limited to a total of 76,000 pixels, which allows 275 pixels square, or a similar area (multiple images that total under this size are allowed)."

is the relevant section you want.

By and large Whitehouse and myself (the main two who maintain this page) don't generally care if images go over this by a bit. However if the image breaks the page, is generally obnoxious (or belongs to someone who is) or makes our eyes bleed then we can fall back on the guidelines and remove the image.

Hope this clears everything up. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:33, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Yeah, it was whitehouse who removed firstly approved the image, then removed the image, and then removed our entire content over the course of several weeks last year. Just a misunderstanding i guess? So, we are cleared to use that image now without having to edit it at all? Thanks! --T13 03:15, 30 July 2008 (BST)

+

Cheers Iscariot, but it isn't all cleared up yet. Am i approved to use the banner style image (link above) or not? I don't see ANY problem with that particular image myself, but i don't want to put it there until you say so as i guess our whole section will be removed if you don't like it! Let me know? --T13 20:21, 31 July 2008 (BST)

I am a user just like yourself, I have no rights to approve or disapprove of any image or entry on this page. The page guidelines are clearly stated at the top of the page, provided your ad conforms to these it should be fine. You might want to try asking Whitehouse why he removed it originally. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:04, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Whitehouse? Are you reading this? If so, what do i need to do to the image i want to use in order for it to be accepted? Cheers! --T13 20:03, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Either we were under a different set of rules, or in all likelihood it just might be that I am more strict than Iscariot when it comes to image size. But if Iscariot says he has decided to be more lax about this I will accept his judgement on that, but one request, keep it to max 600px in width (with the sidebar for the wiki it should fit only just for a monitor with 800x600 resolution [actually it only just doesn't but we can overlook the small disruption]). I know few people have such small monitors, but some still do. - User:Whitehouse 17:34, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Do whatever you wish Whitehouse. The main reason that I don't bother enforcing the image rule is pure laziness to check. If something looks too big, or clearly breaks the page I kill it on principle.

It all balances in the end, I'm more strict on some things, you on others. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:18, 9 September 2008 (BST)

oh for peats sake...

Any one still looking after the page? Have you looked at it in a while? Everyting has gone to shit, someone make the bad posts go away. :'( --Bullgod 09:47, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Bah, I cleaned it up a bit myself, just got rid of all the adds not using templates, because frankly its retarded that people cant read the damn guidelines for posting an ad.--Bullgod 16:45, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I wasn't cleaning this page due to disillusionment with the wiki due the conduct of the sysops, the supposed 'trusted users'.

Since I've altered the rules to my page and this isn't connected to any admin section I'll continue to maintain this page. 19 groups removed....including all three of yours BG ;)

--

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:49, 30 August 2008 (BST)

The wonder of the recruitment page.

Personally I feel this page is Rubbish.

My main concern is the ordering. I mean alphabetical? I'm sure the Army Control Corp do quite well out of it, But im sure the Williamsville Horde of Organized Zombies, get a bum deal.

Would it not be easier to break it down into separate areas/pages, by zone/district/group type?

Incidently well done to the Monroeville Many. Long may they be the only recruiting group in monroeville. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 21:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Haven't been working on this page in ages, only just crossed my mind to check what was going on. About sorting; well there are always going to be complaints, and alphabetical seems most neutral, but if you have a better way please do expand upon it here and we will take a look at it. I'm going to be back to doing weekly checks on the Recruitment page and this the talk page, so hopefully I can help out. - User:Whitehouse 17:26, 2 September 2008 (BST)

I'm not opposed to a different method of organising the page, it's just, I can't think of a fairer one. By suburb? Then they'll be arguments of whether we organise them alphabetically or geographically. If geographically, where will you start and will you work North/South or West/East?

The table of contents shows the names of all groups at the top (provided the ad is placed correctly), with myself and Whitehouse clearing the detritus out quickly, this should minimise the effect of being at the bottom by keeping only valid and indate ads on there. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Ive been thinking about it for a while, and I found myself thinking the only ways to do it (Which inthemselves involve effort) are as so.

1. Divide malton into 4. NW,SE etc. Separate page for each.

2. Replace group links on suburb pages with links to adverts. They expire, they get lost. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:36, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Sorry Rosslessness, with all that's been going on I must have missed your response. The problem with dividing Malton is that we're going to then have to make arbitrary decision as to where a group is active, for example if someone is near one of the borders and put and ad in the adjacent zone's page, do we kill it? Or is the fact that a couple of their members occasionally frequent one building in there count? I don't like the idea of making that kind of decision towards groups I might not know as part of page maintenance.

Also what about nomadic groups? Do they get an ad in each zone or only one in the area they're currently in? Again, how will we police either of these? If a group says they're nomadic (or have a team in that area) I can't really remove their ad, and as soon as people realise that, we'll have everybody being nomadic just to increase their profile. All I can see this idea doing is making three other copies of the current page.

Now the idea of making links in suburb pages does intrigue me. Take it to the people behind the Suburb Massacre project and see what they think. It could possible for the maintenance we do here to keep the suburb pages up to date as well, provided there's a way to code it. See if they think it's a feasible idea. On the surface, this definitely has my support. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:17, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Well, let's hope that folks will actually search the whole page before picking a group. Not that I'm complaining, I mean... Axes High ain't that far from the top. --Hardcore Rockabilly 23:33, 4 September 2008 (BST)

There is a recruitment page that is set up by suburbs.Suburb Recruitment It's new made only yesterday. --Gamerman191 22:18, 12 October 2008 (BST)

Huh?

did the time limit on ads change? is it one week instead of two? /me is slightly confused.

No, old time limit is still here. Why do you ask? - User:Whitehouse 13:19, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Plan for Advert Posting Guideline Update - Archived 16:49, 17 August 2007 (BST)

I have made a draft re-write of the Recruitment page posting guidelines. Please see Talk:Recruitment/intro. Already in use is Recruitment/intro, which is simply a "template" that gives all the old posting guidelines. Unless a good reason not to do so is raised by 0:00 16 Aug 2000 (BST), I will make this replacement as a "good faith edit" that should improve the pages function. This will grant users of the Recruitment page a 2 week "heads up" period before the new guidelines go into effect, and another two weeks to update adds. Hence, the normal cycle of visiting the page to update adverts should give uses ample warning. _Δ^‌_Δ Swiers 19:33, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Comments re Proposed Advert Guidelines

Should I do this? Any changes that need to be made to the guidelines I wrote? _Δ^‌_Δ Swiers 19:37, 10 August 2007 (BST)

I like them, Swiers, and have already updated the HARD recruitment notice to comply with them. I think it's a great idea and can't think of any changes that need to be made. the one, the only, sushiknight ^{(talk contribs HARD E.N.D.)} 19:39, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Not sure. I worry about a dramafest of people saying they have been 'messed' with it's not like any changes to this page don't bring complaints galore. If it ain't broke dont fix it. However some would say the current system is broken.Johnny Lunchpail 23:23, 10 August 2007 (BST)

When certain users can't edit a page (as the "dahhhmn that biathc is FAT" warning states when you try to do so), the system IS broken. Also, this change would happen in the natural course of updates- nobody really need do any extra work. You can convert your advert to the new format with a few simple cut-and-paste operations, as part of normal maintenance. True, it does introduce some organizational changes along with the cosmetic / functional ones, but nobody gets treated unfairly by those changes, while a very clear argument could be made the current system is unfair to certain groups. _Δ^‌_Δ Swiers

04:17, 11 August 2007 (BST)

I don't know about this, will this make it a lot harder for some users? I think I can see how it will make it easier to keep in order for more experienced users. But now it is 03:48, and I just got back from two weeks holiday, so I hope you will forgive me for not giving a full reply until some time later today. - Whitehouse 02:49, 12 August 2007 (BST)

Ah what the hell, read through it now anyway. And I like it. Neat, is what I think. Well you have my support for this, if it counts for anything. My only minor concern is the amount of images someone could get out of 275x275. - Whitehouse 03:14, 12 August 2007 (BST)

They could use a lot of images, but the other limitations would keep them from doing anything abusive with them, in terms of screen space hogging. Truth told, it was mostly selfish provision; brainROT RUM ☣

uses an array of images (1 per member) as the group logo.  You can see it at brainROT RUM/recruit.  Technically that advert breaks the current rules, because it uses 6 images in a table, although the entire table is less than 275x275 px and LOOKS like a single image.  Seems silly not to allow such things, unless there is a technical reason I'm not aways of.  Can using to many images break the page?   Swiers 04:17, 12 August 2007 (BST)

Hmmm, I'm not sure, but I doubt it. Make it load slower? Probably with slower connections, but out-right break? I don't think so.--the one, the only, sushiknight ^{(talk contribs HARD E.N.D.)} 06:26, 12 August 2007 (BST)

I believe the idea behind image restrictions was to stop people from having images that dwarfed the ads. You know, like wallpaper sized images, or banners that went out of the page. I thing it will be ok to use several images as long as they do fit within a 275x275 block. Truth be told it didn't used to be limited to one image, that was a rule that was agreed on while I took care of the page so that some ads didn't have images all over the place. I guess it all depends on how people set up their 6 images, but the other restrictions you described seem to control that well enough. - Whitehouse 11:32, 12 August 2007 (BST)

I'd also think a single 550px by 130 px image would not be disruptive. Maybe the specification could be changed to "275 px square or any comparable area"? The potential abuse would seem to be having an image that was (say) 50 px wide and 1500px tall- and that is covered by the "single screen height" guideline. Similarly, overly wide images would force page scrolls, and so would not be allowed. The phrasing I used would allow smaller images to be "tiled" for this same exact effect, so I see no reason not to make this change.

Swiers 15:27, 12 August 2007 (BST)

There have been requests for me to change the rules concerning width, to allow banners. If people would keep to a set of guidelines (as you suggested) it wouldn't be a problem:

275 px square.
To keep within a single screen (both height and width) at a low resolution (800x600).

If people could stick to that it wouldn't be a major problem and banners could be used. Banners would be max 600 px wide (because not the entire width of the page is used for the picture). But I am ok with it as long as people stick to the rules. If we do begin seeing stupidity that somehow stays within the rules it will have to be removed anyway, as a better judgement call. But those rules should stop any really bad image use. - Whitehouse 15:44, 12 August 2007 (BST)

This should allow such things- it allows a single 125 x 600 px banner, for example.

[[User:Swiers on Talk:Recruitment/intro|Swiers on Talk:Recruitment/intro]] said:

An advert may contain images and any text formating you wish. Images are limited in size to a total of 76,000 pixles, which allows them to be 275 pixels square or a similar total area. Multiple images that total under this size are allowed. Please make sure your formating (including these images) does not "break the page" for those with smaller screen resolutions.

Swiers 15:48, 12 August 2007 (BST)

Good. There is nothing else that I feel needs to be discussed. If no one else has anything to say then I guess we just wait for the 16th of August, and by the 14th of September will be able to look upon a new and simpler system. Thanks a lot for this, it will make things a lot easier. - Whitehouse 15:56, 12 August 2007 (BST)

bah! this witchcraft frightens and confuses me. im barely competent enough to use the system we have now. >.< -Bullgod 11:42, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Yes, cause you haven't managed to make a perfectly good one already. All you have left to do is get the timestamp to work on yours and you are ready. BTW, I think Swiers posted in the guidelines about not being allowed to call templates, needing to use a substitute of sorts. - Whitehouse 12:45, 13 August 2007 (BST)

i just dont like it, doesnt mean i wont go along with it. no idea what your talking about with calling templates and substitutes tho, all mumbo jumbo to me. -Bullgod 12:56, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Doesn't matter about the substitute thing. I was wrong, it wasn't relevant to your ad. - Whitehouse 13:07, 13 August 2007 (BST)

well ok then. looks like i have everything sorted out. now that i have all this bunk figured out i fully support this witchcraft! ^_^ -Bullgod 13:11, 13 August 2007 (BST)

	WHAT THE FK!**
	This user is frustrated by the moderators decision of forcing groups to advertise themselves with templates

hello swiers, do you like my first template ever? its a ripoff from the frustration template :P hehehe :D anyway, I realise that the recruitment format change is for the good of the wiki. I just made this template because...I don't know how to make a template! lol! (I created this template as a joke with a ton of help from another wiki member, who may choose whether or not he/she wants acknowledgment) The man 12:34, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Leave me out of this Chris. You managed perfectly fine on your own, and you know how to make a page for it if you want, and use the call system if you want to. - Whitehouse 12:46, 13 August 2007 (BST)

thats why I kept you anonymous :P . BTW, great UDtool swiers ^^ keep up the good work ^^ The man 12:50, 13 August 2007 (BST)

No need to keep me anonymous, it doesn't make much difference to me. But it's not as if I made the template, you did, you managed fine on your own, and that's what I am pointing out. - Whitehouse 12:56, 13 August 2007 (BST)

I just converted our add for the ELT. Boy, that was easy! (Hope I did everything right :-). And I'm by no means wiki-savvy. So this goes out as an encouragement to all those who think it's hard to do. Just follow the three steps below and you're done!

UPDATE: Ah, I now see something I don't like: the table of contents gets all overcrowded with that "survivor group" stuff after every group's name. What can be done about this? Balcony Jedi^ELT|Talk! 01:14, 14 August 2007 (BST)

Swiers, I just thought of something, and I was wondering if it is to late to ask for a minor change. Could you change the bit about timestamps to ask that people must put the timestamp on the recruitment page, and not on their own ads page. If it is on the ads page it means I can't see it when I am editing. I would rather not look over the whole recruitment page for timestamps, when I can just click edit and get a lot shorter page which would include all of the timestamps. If people don't want the timestamp lying beneath their ad they can put {{{1}}} on their ads page where the timestamp is to be, and use this form {{:YourGroupName/Recruit|~~~~~}}. It would help me quite a bit when it comes to checking ads as then all the timestamps would be on the edit page. - Whitehouse 17:57, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Recruitment /for Dummies?

Anybody wanna work on a page like that, or at least feal it would be hlepful? The new system really isn't all that complex- you make a new page for your advert, and past it into some code- but I know the terminology is gonna throw some folks. I tried for a decent explanation, but was also trying to keep it short.
This page could offer a lot more than just info on how to follow the new guidelines; it could offer an entire plug-n-play recruiting ad, sort of like the group page template, and other similar goodies. Swiers 14:56, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Well the new system is very very simple and can be summed up in three steps (I know you know this, just doing it anyway):

Create a page called YourGroupName/Recruit (replace YourGroupName with the actual name of the group).
Paste your ad or whatever you want in the ad onto your newly created page.
Create a headline on the recruitment page saying ==[[YourGroupName]] : Type== (again obviously replacing YourGroupName with the actual group name, and Type with the type of group) and post {{:YourGroupName/Recruit}} and ~~~~~ beneath the headline.

So I don't really feel we need it. Can't we just create a help section on this talk page? And direct people here from the intro if they are confused? - Whitehouse 16:16, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Oh yeah. Duh, I forgot that this talk page would be mostly empty once the contents get moved over to the main page. But actually, the help should go on Talk:recruitment so that when people click the "discussion" tab while reading, they get the right page. Or maybe one could duplicate the other. But yeah, it make sense using a talk page (especially if there's a link to it) rather than a whole new page.

Swiers 17:28, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Ok, so we use Talk:Recruitment. We set up a section called help. And if we need to we can write more instructions there (I hope it wont be necessary). All we need then is to have a link directly to the help section, which we could maybe put on the intro with the line: "Don't understand? Still have questions? Ask for help." (or something else, as long as there are directions). On another subject. I think I am going to archive a lot of what is on this page, as lots of it is rather old, 2006 stuff. - Whitehouse 17:53, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Below content archived: 18:00, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Regarding edits of DK

WHITEHOUSE:

Just got this message from you: DK13 - please do not undo the work I do, I am enforcing the rules of this page. Breaking the rules will end with me reporting it to vandal banning.) Ok, number one ... every time i visit this page lately you have edited our advert in some way, shape or form. Our advert complys with, and always has complied with, all of your rules regardless of whether or not we agree with them, and including the ones you just make up as you go along.

Secondly, you already told me yourself that the 275PX limit is for the size of the image width ONLY as you are unable to limit the height. So why go and change our image size again when the height is already set to 275PX as per your request?

Thirdly, i am NOT a vandal, as you very well know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS: Sorry, it looks like i posted this in totally the wrong place:(

--MK

MK, I do know you are not a vandal. But you are repeatedly changing edits I make to the DK ad. The edits I made are controlling the heigh and limiting it to 275px. Yes, I can control both width and height now. Because I limit the height and because of the ratio your ads width shrinks a bit. If you want to change that you will have to find an image that has the same ratio of height and width. I am sorry for being harsh. - Whitehouse 19:24, 5 July 2007 (BST)

No problems whitehouse, i just found it a bit frustrating, but im over it ;) --MK 13:38, 24 July 2007 (BST)

Timestamps

18:49, 5 July 2007 (BST) a good 20 or so groups have expired or no time stamps. --Johnny Lunchpail 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pleas echeck with all persons working on the ad section the WGW ad was deleted priar to a full two weeks over so I'm requesting that you have him taken off now, this means that if he can not wait until two weeks end he hasprobly taken off other ads not ment to be to

User:Popa01 14:23, 16 May (UTC)

I simply respond with what I posted on your talk page:

Hello, I am the current monitor and editor of the wiki recruitment section. Now please, before you acuse me of anything, check the facts. Your ad was over the two week time limit, admitedly only by a few hours but still enough for me to justify a deletion. If you do not believe me then why not check it for yourself. Look at this edit, it was made by you two weeks ago. And since then you have made no edits, until the one you made today in which you acused me of being trigger happy. By the wiki history page you will see the last edit by me was the one that removed your ad. Do notice that your ad was created 14 days and 4 hours before I deleted it. Now if you still want my removal then talk to one of the mods. - Whitehouse 19:47, 16 May 2007 (BST)

Also note that I am the only person who monitors and edits this page, and I have had no complaints about ad removal before now. A few hours early might occur some times, but I can not stay up all day and night waiting for the exact right time to delete an ad. But I repeat, you ad was not deleted early. - Whitehouse 15:56, 17 May 2007 (BST)

November Update

As this aproaches, I'm going to be giving all groups Until the first to update their timestamp, and then will be delivering the deletion hammer at that time. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 12:18, 27 October 2006 (BST)

September Update

NOTE: If you place an ad back on the recruitment page that had been previously deleted due to an expired timestamp, and you fail to update the timestamp, it WIL BE CONSIDERED VANDALISM and handled acordingly. Thank you. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 15:46, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Vandalism? That's harsh! I was waiting for the 48 hours warning but it never came. Would that still count as vandalism? --Will Smogg 13:01, 26 September 2006 (BST)

This was specifically at someone who was cutting and pasting numerous ads without changing teh expired timestamps, not for replacing the add and then putting a fresh stamp on. Thats still fine. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 12:20, 27 October 2006 (BST)

August Update

Now Under New Management.

Note to Advertisers: Effective Immediately. Every Monday I will review the time stamp of all adverts. If the timestamp exceeds 2 weeks, I will post a request for update on that groups talk page. If the Ad is not updated (with at least a new timestamp) within 48 hours of that posting it will be deleted with no further warning.

Groups wishing to Advertise must have either an active Wiki page or contact information included in their advertisement as well as the required timestamp. Failure to include both will make the advert eligible for deletion without warning.

Thank you, Conndraka^{mod TCFT} 16:02, 4 August 2006 (BST)

March Update

The page has been updated and mostly overhauled, with groups now arranged by member type and then alphabetically. If there are any problems with this action, please fix it and let me know. --John Rove 08:12, 24 March 2006 (GMT)

I don't have a problem with the group sepperation, but unless someone maintains it,the alphabetical will quikly devolve back into oldest first newest last as people (being the lazy sods that, generaly speaking, we are) will not be bothered to find their correct spot. Kripcat 00:38, 25 March 2006 (GMT)

I am going to be regularly maintaining the page so that this does not happen, and so that groups can be notified in a timely fashion if they are about to be removed. --John Rove 02:58, 25 March 2006 (GMT)

After looking through some of the ads llast night, I realized that a number of groups whose ads have been here for a long time were over the 100 word limit, but that the ads didn't seem overly long. As a result, I have increased the word limit to 200 words, since groups with very specific requirements can and do use the extra words efficiently. If there are any complaints about this, please leave them here. --John Rove 20:51, 29 March 2006 (BST)

Alternate Arrangements

I reverted the page, it had been left blank. Thing is, it was blank for over a month without action. This says to me that either the majority of people don't know how to revert pages, or else that this article isn't that useful. Further down this talk page User:Slicer suggested a better approach would be to create a category "Groups Currently Recruiting", and groups that ARE currently recruiting could then add that tag to their wiki page. The newb user looking for a group would then click to this page and see an alphabetical list of groups they might join. Sound good? Elliothatman 10:58, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I stand corrected on the length of time it was blank for, but I remain convinced that the recruitment section would be better served by a category. Discuss! :P Elliothatman 11:20, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Page Creation

I created this page as a quick reference guide - I can see it coming in handy for the newbies. Comments would be nice, if you've got something constructive to say. --Daxx 18:05, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Although I approve of the concept, I think it will be much easier and more efficient to create a new category: Groups Currently Recruiting. Some kind of check on inactive or dead groups will be nice, too. Maybe make it so that everyone has to update their page with "Still Recruiting" once a week or so. Oh yeah, and I'll bet you a couple of shotgun shells and a zombie head that the goons will be coming for this page in eight hours or less, as they don't want anything taking traffic away from their cesspit.. Slicer 18:23, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

You're right. The category would be easier in some ways, but this way a group gets to detail their membership requirements - that's faster for someone to look at than trawling through group pages.

Perhaps a rule that recruiting ads must be made with a timestamp, and the ad will be removed after a month unless the timestamp is updated. That seems about right. --Daxx 18:29, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Er, aren't all groups considered to be recruiting new members? --Spiro 09:56, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

No. I would have thought that was obvious. Some groups are closed. --Daxx 13:04, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Can you name one? I can't find any in the list of groups (even the Councils suggest joining affiliated military groups), which at least shows that obviously most groups are completely open to new members, that closed ones are a rare exception. --Spiro 13:37, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The KGB, Fazed, I.B.I.S., MCDP, Magnificent three, and The Lance of Rehel are some I found by just casually browsing the human groups section. RuleZero, The Wild Hunt and the Dead Kennedys are a few zombie ones. I'm sure I can find more for you if you want. --Daxx 13:47, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Page Deleted

The page seems to have been deleted by Huhgfww. Is there anyway to restore it? SJC Cato 13 Jan 2006

There is and it's called reverting. Just go to history, load the most recent unspoiled version, hit edit, and hit save. I'm surprised no one got to this before me given that it was vandalised for over a month before I saw it. Elliothatman 10:52, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

I just reported him, hopefully it won't be happening again. --Bullgod 09:21, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

100 Word limit

How strictly do we enforce this? One group has already posted 116 words - I will ask them politely to trim it, but if we start letting that slide then how far to we go to? --Daxx 13:06, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Note: I have now asked them to trim it and they have agreed. --Daxx 17:08, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That would be us. However, 116 words to advertise four seperate groups (the MFD, MPD, MCDU and MEMS) = 29 words per group advertised. If we consider the DEM as yet another group on top of the other four groups (since an in game character can only be affiliated with a single group), that works out to 23.2 words per group advertised. Of the two other groups currently posted, The Feral Undead has 88 words for a single group, and Kronstadt Sailors has 41. I would say we do, in fact, run the smallest and most space-efficient ad on the page. Mojo 21:00, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Update! I've gone ahead and trimmed it down anyway; though my point still stands, I don't want any unneeded crap over this. You should clarify that multiple closely affiliated groups recruiting under one advertisement is, for the purposes of a word count, considered one group. Mojo 21:11, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Thanks a lot. I will add that clarification to the page, if I may. Thanks again. --Daxx 23:21, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Go mad, that's what wikis are for. I'd suggest a minor change, though, if I may. If a group is closely affiliated (for example I'd say we advertised for four groups) perhaps allowing an additional small amount of words for subgroups might help. Say 100 words for the first group, then maybe 5-10 extra words for every other affiliate. That way it won't bog down the page much, but it won't limit groups to explaining requirements (for example, those extra ten words per group could have been used in the DEM advert to explain requirements for paramedics, firefighters, cops, and civil defence units.) It would be a shame if people came to the recruitment page looking for a good group to join and ended up passing over their ideal group because they couldn't read a bit more up on requirements or who did what. Mojo 02:00, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think I have a better idea. The first instance of each group name will no longer be included in the word limit. That gives you an extra 19 words, if I'm right. That also means those with longer names won't be penalised. --Daxx 13:58, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

RE - I think that works fine Daxx, thanks! --Gilant 15:56, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think from now on, if anyone posts more than 100 words +name in the future it should be trimmed for them. Imagine this:

...are many of the benefits of joining the Randomgroup. To contact us, you might

Or should the advert be totally removed? I guess that makes more sense, and might cut down on people doing drive-by advertising for smallish groups without reading the rules or returning to the page ever again. --Daxx 17:48, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

i was wondering if image URLs and tables counted towards the 100 word limit, do they? --Bullgod 12:22, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Pictures

Anyone have any ideas for limits on picture sizes? Some are ridiculously large, I would advocate a max of 120x120. --Daxx 00:43, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)

-ok, i think we need to talk about pictures again. im all for the limiting of size but i think 275 pix is a bit on the small side, im shure 350 would be prefered by most. -Bullgod 15:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

275 is quite large enough and is double the size orginaly set. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

first of all Daxx never implemented that as a rule, i never saw anything about it on the main page untill you put up this new limitation. i know im not the only one that has a problem with this, i see you "fixing" these images all the time and that doesnt tell you anything? just today there were the Feral Undead, Assault on Stupid Survivors, The Ridleybank Resistance Front, and Sebright Union! -Bullgod 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures should be kept small if they are used at all. Please don't break the page for those with smaller screen resolutions. Predates me on the wiki. Its on that bit at the top telling you how to put an ad on the recruitment page and the guidelines for doing so. ASS and the RRF were changed because although they looked the right size they were not and when I cought it I took care of it. Seabright Union was new and FU was you...again. And You are the only one who seems to have an issue with pic size. I do give you props for staying under the 200 word limit though. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 11:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Xoid sent me a message today and he had a realy great idea, he thinks it may be a better if instead of restricting image dimensions we instead start limiting the file size of the images to keep people from "sucking up shitloads of bandwidth" as he put it. and yeah, i never had problem with the 200 word limit, it was a big step up from the old 100 word limit back when the page started. XD --Bullgod 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

i hope you dont think ive given up on this. if it comes to the point where i have to continue "vandalizing" my groups ad just to keep your attention i will. -Bullgod 22:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture size restrictions

It's clear to me that im not the only person that dosn't like the size restriction of 275 pix. now i agree that size needs to be limited, i remember those wallpaper sized pictures from several months ago, but i realy think it should be discussed untill we can come up with a size we can all agree on. -Bullgod 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections

Now this has gotten big, I think it might be time for some sections. I would say Human Groups and Zombie Groups. If a group is both they can put it in one of them. Any thoughts? --Daxx 16:54, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)

i like the idea, but id rather see a different section for mixed groups instead of just having them post in one or the other. --Bullgod 18:03, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Fair enough. I'll work on it when I have the spare time. --Daxx 18:05, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Problems with people bumping/moving other groups

People keep moving the added groups around to put their own groups first. For example, the Feral Undead has repeatedly done this, pushing other groups that signed on to this page (ie: Kronstadt Sailors and DEM) below them despite the instructions to put their sections at the bottom of the page. I've tried to rectify this but its becoming nigh impossible.

You wanna get them to stop. Simple. Everytime a person does it. Ban them. Then hilight, and delete. It's as simple as that.--Duce Nauks 16:50, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

i have never moved Feral Undead to the top of the page, when i first placed our group in this page the bottom of the page rule had not yet been implemented, so naturaly i placed it above the Kronstadt Sailors and DEM, it wasnt untill later that the rule was added (i admit that my actions may have been the insperation for this rule, but the damage was already done and nobody seemed to mind that we were on top, so i left well enough alone). for a short time when Daxx was temporarily banned people ignored the rules and started adding groups to the top of the list, when he came back he placed them in the proper order. if Daxx or anyone from the Kronstadt Sailors or DEM (not zombes inc. because they showed up later) has a poblem with my group being at the top i'll be more than happy to move it below them, but there is no reason for us to move to the bottom of the page when we were the third group here. --Bullgod 09:20, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

So when do we just break down and organize this page? how about if we split it into human and zombie groups, and alphabetize therein? Does anyone have a problem with that?--Bulgakov 20:36, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

That sounds fine to me. one page for humans, one for zombies, and one for mixed groups is what i believe Daxx had intended. alphabetical listing is as good as any idea for organization. --Bullgod 10:43, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Ok, I'm kinda pissed, 'cause my group wasn't moved... It was deleted! Who did it? Why? What did I do to you?(I redid the post, but i still want to know how deleted it :/) --DHRR10 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First read the guidlines for posting on this page that are at teh top of the page, and when you conform to those guidlines your "Ad" won't get deleted. as to who and how...Well that would be me.

Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 23:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, wait. Excuse me? "Ad"? What are all of these posts but ads asking people to join their groups? I redid it, and if i do something wrong, DON'T DELETE IT! Just tell me what I did wrong, and I'll fix it. We're small and new. Just be nice, ok? I've got a a small understanding of html and just give me help if you can.--DHRR10 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

you still need to have a time stamp or your group will be removed from the recruitment page, just sign you group ad like you did with your above comment. -Bullgod 18:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, im just making a new site, and I'll just post the URL with the timestamp--DHRR10 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Recruitment Template

Should there be a Recruitment template - similar to the one used in the Suggestions section? There would be a place for the group name, group description/policy, contact information, and timestamp. This would ensure dated entries and links to group pages. Images would be saved in the description value and suggested to be aligned left. Or perhaps pass an inner table that arranges the image and description.

 +--------------------------------------+
 | (recruit_description)                |
 |                                      |
 +--------------+-----------------------+
 | Contact      | (recruit_contact)     |
 +--------------+-----------------------+
 | Learn more   | [[(recruit_name)]]    |
 +--------------+-----------------------+
 | Last updated | (recruit_timestamp)   |
 +--------------+-----------------------+
 ----

--Lint 04:16, 25 March 2006 (GMT)

I just made a Recruitment template. It should work with group with images ONLY :(

{{Recruitment|
timestamp=~~~~~|
group_image=YourGroupImageHere.jpg|
description=your group description here|
contact=[[YourGroup]]
}}

--hagnat ^{talk • wcdz} 17:49, 8 April 2006 (BST)

The above template is fully operational for groups with or without images. --overlord hagnat ^mod 17:56, 4 September 2006 (BST)

New Management

There is a serious need for someone to take over this. I did one stint, hoping someone else would pick up the baton, per se, but no. Any volunteers? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 00:23, 19 July 2006 (BST)

Apparently not. And the page is in serious need of pruning. --V2Blast ^{T•P!•C•SR} 16:28, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I May be convinced to do this. If I do it would be my only responsibility. Conndraka^{mod TCFT} 15:17, 2 August 2006 (BST)

I Guess its my baby for a while then... Conndraka^{mod TCFT} 15:54, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Sub Groups

What is our Stance on Sub-Groups advertising seperatly? For Example The DHPD has 9 Seperate Strike teams, each operating Independantly can they advertise seperatly or are they prevented from doing so because of the "Primary" add for the DHPD. the reason I ask is that we are about to launch a huge push for membership, and the various members of the staff want to know how they are limited. Conndraka^{mod TCFT} 15:15, 2 August 2006 (BST)

I would think it would be better to keep it in one ad, otherwise it gets too cluttered up. Perhaps you could advertise the various groups in the one ad. What's the difference between the various groups? --V2Blast ^{T•P!•C•SR} 20:33, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Oh, and by the way, you need to put a space in your sig between the talk link and the CFT link. --V2Blast ^{T•P!•C•SR}

At Random

"No time stamp gets you deleted" - Does that remind anyone else of the "No ticket" part of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? ^^ --Sirens^{T RR} 21:29, 6 August 2006 (BST)

Not until now... lol Conndraka^{mod TCFT} 22:34, 6 August 2006 (BST)

god that was a good movie! XD Bullgod 04:02, 8 August 2006 (BST)

We're new

Oi, I'm DHRR10 and we are Rigor Mortis. I used to have more members, but only one other was commited. Please join and we'll gladly be in alliance with any zombie group!--DHRR10 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My stab and fixing a bit of a mess

This is about the best I could do merging in some edits that I think were accidentaly deleted. If you find any other corrections spiff it up. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 05:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

DEM is an organization, not a group

The Department of Emergency Management is an organization, not a group. The MFD, MPD, MFU, MEMS, MCDU and Malton Marshals are all affiliated groupd that do not all share a common command structure. Does this mean that organizations can only recruit under the organization's name? --Kiki Lottaboobs 06:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

that would be correct. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 23:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So, all of the groups in the Big Bash should have their recruitment ads removed? --Kiki Lottaboobs 05:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Organisations and member groups should both be allowed to have their own ads, but organisations (such as the DEM) should post their advertisement in the correct section. Perhaps someone from the DEM would move the recruitment add to the Organisations section? -Certified=Insane^☭ 04:36, 4 July 2007 (BST)

I don't speak for the DEM as a whole, C=I, but the Organizations section on the recruitment page is for organizations seeking to recruit entire groups. The DEM recruits members for its existing groups. It's my understanding that the DEM welcomes pro-survivor allies, but is not seeking to absorb any other groups as a rule. I'm not sure I disagree with your other premise, that our member groups maybe should be able to run their own ads, but the community has long ago spoken on this issue. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 05:52, 4 July 2007 (BST)

Yup, as DEM does not recruit groups it can not have its ad in the Organizations section. As for the individual groups. I am not sure about this. - Whitehouse 13:46, 4 July 2007 (BST)

Well, a substantial period of time has passed, and the page has gone through a change in maintainers. I wouldn't mind revisiting the issue, if the community so wills. I'm dying to create a kewl ad for MFU... *sinister chuckle -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 20:12, 4 July 2007 (BST)

Uh..No. The DEM should not be strewn out into a bunch of organizations. The page is already long enough as it is, and under this same thinking the RRF ad should be taken out and replaced with a DoHS ad. --User:Axe27/Sig 20:18, 4 July 2007 (BST)

I don't really want to change the current policy. And as Kamden says, making the page longer is not a good idea. Even if we do discuss this I am pretty sure the outcome will be the same as last time. - Whitehouse 00:20, 5 July 2007 (BST)

Ah, you have a good point. It makes sense then that it is in the survivor groups section. -Certified=Insane^☭

01:08, 5 July 2007 (BST)

Organisations

What about organisations, in qhich the member groups have very little in common, other than general belief or area of influence. In other words a system of alliances, that would be willing to recruit any other group that qualifies for a certain criteria. Should they be allowed here? -Certified=Insane^☭ 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a fine line... What I'm really trying to avoid is huge number of deletions/reposts/redeletions that come with large groups and orginizations posting. DEMS has a significant amount of cross polination between groups (and does have some leadership tie ins) and nobody (espescially me) wants to see an ad from every subgroup of the DHPD (all 27 or so of them) posting here. RedRum has two groups under diffent headings so its a kinda touchy feelie judgement call. I'm guessing the Urban Gurellas and the IUSS and similar groups that have a common umbrella, but arn't that large even combined would be OK, but Organizations that are recognised as supergroups like DEMS,DHPD, RRF, and the like wouldn't be. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 23:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 4 divisions on the page: Survivor Groups, Zombie Groups, Mixed Groups, Pker Groups. Perhaps a fifth should be added for organisations? Though we don't have any official umbrella, we are indeed thiking of something. Just saying, organisations could be allowed to try and "recruit" member groups here too, I think it'd be appropriate, no? -Certified=Insane^☭ 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There's not that many "Supergroups" active.I can think of 7 and four of them already have ads in the appropriate sections, and three arn't activly recruiting. But if enough of those group-heads see a need then I guess we can look at it... Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, just saying, if there are organisations that want to recruit groups, not players, then it shouldn't be with the other more "standard" groups. -Certified=Insane^☭ 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ahhhh I Understand where you are coming from now... Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Updating

Is anyone cleaning the page? --Abi79 ^AB 13:37, 5 April 2007 (BST)

Conndraka took over after Daxx left, but Conndi has been gone a while now too.... if any one wanted to step up to the plate we could use an enforcer. id do it but with all the crap i have to deal with now i just dont have the time. ...that and im realy lazy. -Bullgod 09:33, 6 April 2007 (BST)

I'll do it, if no one minds that is? I just finished clearing it now, and will continue to clear it until someone else weants the job. Whitehouse 16:22, 6 April 2007 (BST)

cool with me buddy, have at it. :P -Bullgod 07:51, 8 April 2007 (BST)

er... you may want to take a second look at it tho, there seems to be somthing wrong around the middle of the human groups section... -Bullgod 07:57, 8 April 2007 (BST)

Headbangers of Malton? And their section called recruitment policy? Whitehouse 11:54, 20 April 2007 (BST)

ah, never mind, it was a problem with my browser. all is fine. XP -Bullgod 04:03, 9 April 2007 (BST)

So whats the deal with the 275 pixel limits on the pictures, I think it's gotten outta hand on some of the listings Johnny Lunchpail 15:03, 18 April 2007 (BST)

As far as I know there is no actual rule, it is requested that users limit their pictures to the size of 257 pixels so that it doesn't break the page and look ridiculouse. I will not be forcing this limitation on anyone at the moment as I find that the pictures that so far exist are at an ok size despite some obviously being over the 275 pixel limit. I only ask that people keep it reasonable. If I do find that it gets out of hand or that there are complaints about too big pictures, we will discuss a size for images that will be set down as a rule and not as a request. I have no wish to cause annoyance, but if this page becomes hard to navigate because of oversized images it will have to be limited for the good of all users. Sound ok? If not then please give your opinion. - Whitehouse 11:53, 20 April 2007 (BST)

No it's fine I was just liek why was I forced to make mine smaller. If its just a guideline I'll do likewise. Thanks. Johnny Lunchpail 20:16, 30 April 2007 (BST)

You were probably forced to do so under the previous managment. You will only be forced to do so if I get complaints about the page being unreadable because of the images being too big. Though I do prefer smaller images I see no reason why you can not use the banner you are currently using. What really annoys me is the images which are to high, not wide. Unfortuneatly I have yet to discover how to limit the height of images. - Whitehouse 14:10, 1 May 2007 (BST)

Images

Right, I am getting ever so slightly annoyed with the groups using more than one image. I want to limit the amount of images allowed per group to one (maybe two if they are small) each. Simply because more than one image takes up a lot of space. They sometimes spill over into other ads and some overshadow the ad itself, the whole point of the page is so that people can read about different groups. I will not be including templates in this, meaning that you will be allowed a small template with your ad, as some already have.

Further, I am worried about oversized pictures. Yes up untill a few days ago I said I wasn't bothered. But I have had a friend complain, and I have checked it in low resolution myself and it doesn't look good. Many places the ads overshadow or take up much of the space meant for text. Others simply end up having parts far off screen. This is bad for people with low resolutions. And as such I would like feedback on what some of you think is a reasonable size for images. I am seeking your opinions now as I don't want to do stuff without letting you know. Mind you, if no one comments I will do as I see best. - Whitehouse 17:29, 6 May 2007 (BST)

Most folks never had a problem with the old 275px. As for number of images, one per ad seems reasonable; few groups have more than one. But some groups I see have included a flagbox too (and I would hate to see the Penguin Mafia have to remove their business card)... maybe one image and one flagbox is a better limit. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 05:56, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Agreed about the flagbox, I sort of meant that when I said template. But template can be many things so flagbox is probably a more accurate term. As for the image size, I admit I was stupid to allow them to keep bigger images and I will be enforcing a smaller size for those that are too big. The question is if we should use 275px, or allow a little more. People who want bigger image sizes better speak up or be cut to a smaller size when I decide that this discussion has been open long enough and served its purpose. - Whitehouse 22:57, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Personally, I think that images shouldn't be allowed. I notice every time I go in to re-add my groups ad, it gives the special warning at the top "This page is approching ___KB in length. Some browsers cannot support pages over ___KB in length"... most of this data comes from images. If so many browsers can't support it,... why do we even allow them on this particular page at all? Especially with so many people visiting it regularly, and all..... --Poodle of doom 23:48, 10 May 2007 (BST)

No offense, but you are wrong. I checked how much we would save by removing all the images. And it amounts to a grand total of 2 KB out of the current 63KB. So I don't feel that forcing everyone to remove their images in trade for 2KB less space used is worth it. - Whitehouse 16:10, 11 May 2007 (BST)

Perhaps its possable to make a template for this? I think it might be kind of nifty to have a wiki code that would automatically place your group in the recruting section. On that it would only allow for so many words, and the certain size picture, taking the guess work out of everything. Then you could place the code in your groups wiki section, and it would automatically place your group in the right spot with that ad. Make since? --Poodle of doom 23:38, 12 May 2007 (BST)

I am no genius with wiki code, but I don't think it would be possible as each group structures their page differently and therefor the said wiki code would not know which text to take. It would kinda suck if your ad included a membership list instead of a description. Anyway that is not the current issue. What I need to know now is what people think about image sizes. So far it looks like I will be reverting to the old 275px. Discussions will continue untill the 16th of May, then I will summarize the decisions and put them into effect. Unless someone has a problem with that? - Whitehouse 12:54, 13 May 2007 (BST)

No problems from me. One image and/or flagbox template per group seems reasonable. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 02:55, 14 May 2007 (BST)

One image /template works for meJohnny Lunchpail 15:05, 15 May 2007 (BST)

I completely agree with reverting to 275px limitation. I have seen what happens to this page on lower resolutions and think that it would greatly benefit from this implementation. -- Sirbradock 18:58, 15 May 2007 (BST)

For what it is worth, i think things are fine as they are and i have NEVER had ANY problems with this page at all. I think it SHOULD be clarified and that groups SHOULD only be allowed to use TWO IMAGES MAXIMUM, but trying to enforce any particular size or dimensions, and/or making people remove images is a bit uncalled for --MK 15:02, 14 May 2007 (BST)

Things are not fine as they are, some viewers have lower screen resolutions and we can not make things harder for them because they have a low resolution. Image restrictions will be imposed so that we don't get oversized images. If you could mention a size that you feel is acceptable while not breaking the page I will consider it. As for removing images, that would only happen in cases where people have to many images in their ad. I do not see the need for several images. And if allowed more and more people would use them resulting in ads taking twice as much space. This page is meant for easy access to a summary of the recruiting group and links to where one can find more info and join up. - Whitehouse 16:08, 14 May 2007 (BST)

Summary

Below listed changes will be implemented on the 18th of May. This is to give people time to alter their ads and be selective about their images instead of me just chopping out any extra images. Also gives people time to change their image for one better suited at 275px if they feel that their current one looks to small in 275px. I also advise people to check their ad lenght as I will also be paying extra attention to that.

One image and/or flagbox template per group.
275px limit will be enforced.

Thanks to those who took part in the discussion. If anyone should feel that this is very unjust then post, but I am not saying that I will change anything now (that means that there better be a very good arguement). - Whitehouse 00:18, 17 May 2007 (BST)

Shouldn't the 275px limit be applied to the height of the image rather than the width?

My new image is 275px high, but there is a lot of blank space on the page next to it, where the original banner image has been removed/resized. My point being that the original image was less than 275px in height, extended across the page in a "banner" fashion, and took up no more actual room on the page than the current image ... which now looks no bigger than a postage stamp!

Why can we no longer have a banner image? Why must it be square shaped image?

--MK 14:35, 19 May 2007 (BST)

Because I don't believe that is possible to do. Wiki seems to measure across and not in height. Though if it is possible would someone please explain how. But the previous point still remains. Some people have small resolutions, and that means that an image which is very wide will end up off screen. I am not saying it is much better with images that are extremely high either, I would like to limit them to a reasonable size too. But currently I have no tools to limit that. - Whitehouse 16:14, 19 May 2007 (BST)

Hey Whitehouse, i am not sure of the answer to your wiki related question, but i can confirm that my original image was 214px high and did not require a horizontal scroll when viewed on ANY sized monitor, yet since the "limitations" were introduced it is now 275px high (IE:Bigger) and surrounded by blank (IE:Annoying) white nothingness, even though the actual image is smaller!

The current "limitations" have actually increased the actual ammount of viewing space required to view the same image, making no real sense to me at all. With that in mind, might i suggest that you remove the current "limitations" until such a time as you can figure how to limit BOTH the height AND the width as opposed to just one or the other? Im sorry that i can not help you do that, but if you do still feel the need to limit image files, i would like to suggest the "industry standard" image limitation of 250px(H) X 650px(W) @ 100k or less! Cheers! --MK 18:48, 19 May 2007 (BST)

Though you kept nicely within a reasonable limit doesn't mean everyone did, or that everyone will. Restrictions are there so that no one does go overboard with images, both present and future. If we just allow any size someone is bound to make an image way too big. I can understand that you want a banner. And it is obvious banners were not taken into consideration when the restriction was first set (no idea when or why that limit). I take it you do agree that there are differences between a banner and many of the images. Not only size related but also the position on the page (banners mainly go over the ad, but all the other images get placed all over the place). That would mean that I would have to impose different restrictions for the two types. As allowing the same restrictions for both would mean that images that go alongside text (if they had banner dimensions) would force the text out and make it look silly. Anyway, are there other people here who feel that we should create seperate restrictions for banners and (other) images? - Whitehouse 19:53, 19 May 2007 (BST)

Whitehouse, would it be ok with you and the others if i put our original banner back in place until this issue regarding "width" has been resolved? Granted, the original image is "wider" than the current image, but it is actually a smaller file size, and half the size in "height" of our current image (which is surrounded on both sides by useless white space!) and will take up less room on the actual page. How about it chief? --MK 15:40, 27 June 2007 (BST)

The problem is not with your image, it's with this predefined table size. You weren't distorting the page until you put that in. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 03:49, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Jeez, I hadn't checked the page in low resolution for a while.. I better see about trying to fix that. - Whitehouse 14:59, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Right, I fixed that. Page now looks ok at lower resolutions. But the ads (DK13, PK, and Rouge Heart Aces) look a bit small while at a high resolution. I suggest that they use the same style-width as the Olney Milita use. I didn't change to that style as I feel that they themselves can chose what they want to do. Thanks to Atticus Rex for pointing out the problem. - Whitehouse 17:53, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Malton Defense Corporation AND Malton Defense Corporation SQUAD

I am a member of the Malton Defense Corporation and I was checking our ad on the recruitment page to find that there is a group with an almost identical name, the Malton Defense Corporation SQUAD. Within their advertisement, I find this message directed at our group:

this note goes out to the clan posted above us not in rank thou there below us and we were here befor them because technically speaking they forgot to keep timin there post n it was gone for a week

NOTE: THE MDC ARE A WASTE MANS CREW WHO LIKE TO SPAM AND FLAME ALOT ON OTHERS ==

I took the liberty of removing this part of the message from their ad, but I would like someone to inform them this is uncalled for and will not be tolerated. Thank you.

-- Sirbradock 20:02, 14 May 2007 (BST)

Whitehouse, Mdcsoldier totally removed our ad this time. I expect that you'll see to this. Thank you. -- Sirbradock 11:26, 15 May 2007 (BST)

Recruitment/Archive