Recruitment/Archive3

Sample Question

Blah, blah, blah blah. Blah blah? --User: Blah 16:53, 17 August 2007 (BST)

yeah i gots a question

wheres the archive of this page? or did you just delete years worth of discussion?--Bullgod 17:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here. Sorry, I archived the part which explained that I created an archive.... - User:Whitehouse 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about maintenance

Can anyone "comment out" an ad if it does not comply to the rules at the top of the recruitment page, or is that something a sysop must do? I would be more than happy to help out with this task, but I don't want to overstep my bounds.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Historically, anyone has done so. I've created the {{RecruitWarning}} template for the task of telling people (there's no rule saying you must, but I'm a nice person :D. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's terrific, Link! (and it'll save me some time) Thanks! :D *pushes up her sleeves and cracks her knuckles* I've plenty of work to do from what I've seen! Wheeee!--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 03:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this, I noticed that one advertisement was breaking the TOC since it uses subheadings. I posted the information on the group's talk page and on the editor's talk page a few days ago, but so far no response. Since the guidelines state that adverts will be commented out for not following the rules above that statement, but the guidelines regarding advertising content and subheadings are below that statement, I didn't know if it was proper or appropriate to comment out the advertisement now. —Aichon— 16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A mere oversight in word selection methinks (now fixed). Yes, it should be commented out. --  RoosterDragon  16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Other Discussion

New Maintainer

Of the two people who have been maintaining this page, Whitehouse has left the wiki, and Iscariot reports internet difficulties. So I'm volunteering to help maintain this page for a while. If you got a friendly notice that your ad was about to expire, that's why. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

if you need any help with shit i have alot of free time lately, and ive been on the recruitment page since there were only three groups on it, so ive seen whats worked in the past and whatnot, all the dissent as to how the system works, blahblahblah, complaining, etc.--Bullgod 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep on eye on the monroeville/borehamwood adverts.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, gents. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 06:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My computer is still dead but I can use a friends pc most of the time if I need/want to. I'll help out whenever I spot anything that needs doing. - User:Whitehouse 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Recruitment Rules Discussion

Jesus, what a load of crap

This page is so full of crappy posturing that isn't solving anything. Seriously. The actual recruitment page is currently unwieldy and fairly useless; your average player looking for a group is immediately going to be put off and quit.

Organise by Group Type: Simple. People are looking for groups initially based on their type. Makes this page actually useful again. Recruiters simply post their advert into the part they want: Survivor/ Zombie/ PKer/ Other. People can figure out for themselves if the dramatic groups aren't what they're looking for. Sorted. This page is a useless mess without it. --Sir Topaz ^{DR ♣ GR} 20:09, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I agree, it would be simpler.--Dr Mycroft Chris 17:38, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Overhauling The Page Rules

So, with the age of the page we've found quite a bit of drama arise from a few things and some discussion has been under consideration about how to change the presiding rules. Category:Recruitment has been a great place holder for a more able system since it was thrown together by a user but has started to experience significant growing pains as it has become more part and parcel of the game's Recruiting Structure.

It is about time we put them to a discussion here and seriously begin about trying to implement the changes seen as necessary to the growth, usability, fairness, and over all likability of this page as a user tool so that it can continue to serve in a growing and valued capacity for the years to come or until such time as a better system arises.

Some changes that have been proposed and discussed for this purpose are as follows;

• The organizational limitation that places the advertisements in alphabetical order is counter intuitive and probably not the best idea for the page. Separating advertisements by group type first and alphabetical last makes more sense but, shouldn't be subject to a policy in and of itself. It's something that may need to be semi-annually altered as the need arises or better means appear. Cementing it in policy makes it that much more difficult to fix as necessary. As of current the major groups types in-game are Zombies, Survivors, and PKers.
• Drop the advertisement size limits. They're extremely restrictive and don't actually serve any real valid purpose other than to try and prevent inclusion limit breaking. That can be managed by other means, possibly even by placing the advertisements on the page itself like they were originally.
• Completely remove the 600 pixel limit and any reference to a similar limit. It has absolutely no purpose that proper maintenance of the page wouldn't itself provide.
• Removal of all page maintenance based rules that are not considered essential to the page. This includes anything that can be redundantly classified as covered under the breaking of the page clause; Headers, Oversized Inclusions, Too Many Inclusions, Width Altering Advertisements, Oversized Advertisements, Categorization Mistakes, etc.
• Alter date removal for groups, the current way it is enforced is overly constant and a hassle that makes the page not worth bothering with. Groups on the stats page shouldn't need to re-verify that they are active every 14 days, you already know the answer to that. Groups that aren't on the stats page, however should be warned that they may be required to prove they are active upon inquiry. This may include timestampping if that is deteremined to be the best method.
• Add a section of Maintainer Guidelines, this is not rules for how to maintain the code of the page but rather standards for removal of advertisements, the previously suggested text of such and area was simply;

said:

Any advertisements that do not meet then minimum standard of requirements outlined on this page above can be removed by any user at any time so long as due notice is provided to the group in question and the user who placed the advertisement if so possible. To not give fair notice of removal or need for alteration is vandalism and should be reported to A/VB.

• Remove requests to self-moderate advertisements in favor of a standard notice on the page informing users that Advertisements may be altered by a user working to make them viable for use on the page. This is simply a means of informing users that substitution and other fixings that may be needed for the proper functioning of the Advertisement and this page may be done and does not provide for significant or severe alteration of the advertisement, if such changes are needed it should be removed and the Author informed of why.
• By and large alteration and simplification of the Eligibility rules to something more akin to This. This includes the alteration of the "DEM Rule".
• Restructuring and removal of most of the Formatting rules to more accurately reflect the new system and to provide more ease with which to read and follow.

Everything above is open for discussion at this point and improvements or opinions are more than welcome, encouraged even. That is what this whole section is for after all.--Karek^maps?! 08:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit weary about placing groups in their "sections"-there has been drama on the North Blythville page on the listing of TZH as a "pro-survivor" group, and similar disputes over the PK on their pages. Might want to add that it's up to the group to list themselves where ever they want, and other editors can't change it.

I would rather keep the page as templates, but that said, I'm no technology expert, and if that is stupid from a technical POV, then don't listen to me :). But, yeah, as for size limits, ether remove them, or double them (to roughly five hundred.)

Agree on the pixel limit, as long as they are not too big (Pictures that are unnecessarily large may be removed?)

Agree on the useless rules. Moving on...

I agree with Wan's rule below. Groups with over twenty members are excluded to any "activity" rule, and groups under twenty should just have to timestamp once every few months.

I've stated my opinion on taking people to A/VB-some sort of "soft warning" would be needed so that newbies don't get unnecessarily warned. Does "fair notice" cover adverts that are clearly breaking the page (that is, they can be removed intermediately, with a warning on the group's talk page?)

I agree with Wan below on the DEM rule. But if this isn't clear enough, remove all references to all in-game groups.

Finally, Rosslessness stated that someone should write a guide on "how to have an advert and not have it removed." I'll write such a guide once we finally settle on some guidelines for this page.

Linkthewindow  Talk  09:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fair notice essentially only covers adverts that are up for removal for other reasons. This does not include any actions needed for the page's functioning, such as adverts that break the page. Although it's still generally expected that you inform the user of why their ad has been removed.--Karek^maps?! 03:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

These are just some rough drafts for some of the rules... Please feel free to "tweak" them.

• I suggest that "DEM rule" goes. Out the friggin' window. Replace it with the following: "Alliances and organisations consisting of several independent groups may be listed. However, if an alliance wishes to be listed, its member groups may not be listed again seperately." Combined with the relaxing of the length/content rules, this should allow alliances the flexibility they need to list all their members. What does everyone think? --WanYao 08:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Groups should be asked to update their registration. However, 14 days is absurd! Should be more like every 60 days or so. And, any group with an active membership of 20 or more is exempted from this. --WanYao 08:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The DEM rule must die. It's caused too much drama, and your proposed rule is much better (that is, there being a choice.)

I do agree that timestamping once every two weeks may be a bit short, once a month would be better, and groups on the stats page (that is, with over twenty members,) don't have to timestamp. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Or, everyone has to timestamp every 60 days. Across the board. That's not really unreasonable. But 14 days is ridiculous. --WanYao 09:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Quite frankly, if you can't be bothered timestamping once every two months, then why have an ad? 60 days (with a warning at 50 if someone can be bothered, (I'll make a template if this becomes consensus,) is fine. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with timestamping is it is essentially saying "Change your advert this often". Most people won't have anything to add to it and won't have any reason to edit it.--Karek^maps?! 10:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I more see timestamping as a way so that we can check that groups are active. As Mid said below, this is also so that people who use this page to find a group don't find dead groups. Two weeks is too short, but anywhere between a month and two would be fine. We must also enforce this across the board. Large groups shouldn't get a free pass on this. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The only problem i see is with "events/alliances" like the Big Bash and Mall tours... Should they be allowed to recruit without having to "delist" groups who are taking part? I dunno.... --WanYao 09:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we would have to write in a clause about that. How about:

Short term events are not covered by this rule-that is, the event, and all groups taking part, can still keep their ads.

I only came up with that in less then a minute, but thoughts (and yes, the wording would have to be fixed, but you get the idea.) Linkthewindow  Talk  09:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The reducing bureaucracy part is fine, but...

First, I'd prefer the page was kept in alphabetical order. Organizing it by group type is going to hurt the more curious groups (like dual nature groups). These are groups that badly need recruitment as they don't usually get that many members. The more regular type of groups shouldn't be favoured just because they're more regular.

Second, timestamping must stay, for all groups. Big groups shouldn't be exempt from this, as they actually need the page less than the small groups (they already have members). The time period could be changed to a month or even two, but the timestamp is needed to keep the page comfortable to use. It's not about verifying that the group is active, it's about verifying that the group is recruiting. If the groups can't be bothered to update the timestamp, do you really expect them to bother removing their ad when they're no longer actively recruiting? Or even when they're disbanding?

You need to remember that the page doesn't exist solely for the groups that want to recruit, but also for the people looking for a group, the actual recruits. Without timestamps the page would quickly get crowded and that could easily put off people from reading the page at all. Anyway, it's probably more effective to have your ad occasionally on a short list, than permanently on a huge list.

There's one aspect of the page it isn't using to the fullest. It's a category page. All the pages in the category are listed at the bottom. This could be taken advantage of by moving the inactive groups' ads to another category and pointing people towards the list of pages, while keeping the amount of ads included on the page itself small. You'd have your ad linked to from the page as long as your group is active, but you could get additional visibility if you're willing to bother with the timestamping. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 16:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• The reason for the changing of the formatting isn't actually about favoring the groups so much as favoring the user trying to find what group he wants to join. Dual Natured can certainly be added to the list of group sections, they slipped my mind when I was making that list.
• I don't really see the point to timestamping except sending a big FU to people who don't frequently update all their wiki pages. There are groups(large ones even) that don't have members that edit the wiki, timestamping doesn't help people trying to find a group find a group, it limits that groups exposure for not adding four ~ every x days. The benefits gained are simply nothing that page maintenance and actual inquiries into whether a group is active wouldn't do better, or that Stats.html doesn't already do in the case of groups that appear on it. If a group doesn't want to recruit new members they can always remove the advertisement, shunting it to the category portion of the page is little better than removing any reference simply due to the fact that this page is in actual use. If that solution turns out to be the one decided upon it would be best to actually split this into a page and a category with a descriptive text directing users to the category list for finding groups advertisements that aren't featured.--Karek^maps?! 03:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses

I've avoided much of the drama since it's spilt over to more pages than I can be bothered to follow, however since as these 'new' ideas seem to have taken on a terminal course I thought it'd be better for me to respond and give my opinion on the whole thing. I took over the majority of the maintenance of this page back at the end of April, which means I've been maintaining it for approximately eight months. In that time despite hinderance from sysops and the exceedingly vocal complaints from one group I have managed to make this page run consistently and fairly. No special treatment is given to any group during my maintenance, all groups are subject to the same guidelines that are stated clearly at the top of the page. These rules have been challenged and discussed before, unfortunately the drama whoring of one person in particular has seemed to have ignited a crusade for short sighted rules changes that will damage the running of this page.

I will now give my own responses to the majority of suggestions found above:

1. Separating the sections into group types - This is simply idiotic. There's evidence on this page that the person who started this drama doesn't perceive certain groups to be pro-survivor, all this will create is edit wars and flaming over whether a group 'belongs' in that category according to another group's subjective opinion. The current method allows groups to define their own group type to their own satisfaction without censure. An ad cannot be removed for anything in this section, the RRF can call themselves pro-survivor if they want and the ad won't be removed.
2. Advert size limits - Those ad limits are there for a reason. This is a low tech browser game. People shouldn't need a higher spec computer to view an official resource than they do the game. There have already been examples of pages on this wiki freezing computers that can play the game with ease. These limits prevent such occurrences on this page. These current limits are clear and open, and do not require any subjective judgement from anyone. An ad gets removed if it's 201 words and left if it's 199. Making it a subjective call by having no written limits invites the beginning of biased maintenance and the associated drama.
3. Remove the picture size limit - I don't actually remove many ads based on this, this is therefore one of the least policed rules on the page. However this written limit is in place for the same reasons as above, it prevents people being subjective and therefore showing favouritism on the page and helps those with lower spec machines.
4. "Removal of all page maintenance based rules that are not considered essential to the page" - I've maintained this page for eight months. All of those rules are essential. Someone who actually maintained the page would understand this.
5. Timestamp validity changes - Some of you might think this sucks, but it serves two very important purposes. It is a very convenient limit to those maintaining the page, going above that will lead mistakes to made by those maintaining it (which now could apparently lead to escalations) especially around the month changeovers. The most important reason is an indication of input from the person placing the ad to their potential recruits, who really wants to join a group where they can't update a signature within two weeks? This page is here for newbies, not for people with an established wiki presence who can find groups easier. We're on the main page for these newbies to find us for that reason. 14 days is an excepted standard amongst wiki projects, suggestions are open for this long, so are promotion bids and both the suburb and radio massacres use this as their timing standard. Anything more is going to lead to a messed up page.
6. Adding rules for page maintainers and escalate them for failing to do X - This is a clause that Karek has inserted to specifically target me. It is well known that I don't use notices and this is his attempt to stealth escalate me. We already have maintainer guidelines, they are the same as the page guidelines, i.e. if it doesn't fit one of the guidelines then it removed. Adding escalations for doing this against the whims of certain sysops will lead to no-one maintaining the page and then imagine the state it will end up in. In eights months I can count the number of vandalism cases against me for removing ads without handing out warnings, can you guess? That's right, none. The community does not consider removal of ads in accordance with the page guidelines to be vandalism, this section is purely to serve Karek's agenda. This also goes contrary to the rest of the wiki, you don't get warnings before your suggestion is removed, you know it'll be open for 14 days when you enter it if you read the rules, you don't get a warnibng before your unused image is deleted, and you can't get that back and you only have 7 days to use that, you don't get a warning before your suburb is removed. All of these examples are precisely the same, however it seems like Karek wants a special case made here, I wonder why? Notice is not required for this maintenance, the edit summaries that are used categorise the reason for removal to the specific rule in question. I was going to standardise these in a help section with reasons and solutions, this whole drama has forced me to cut back my editing of this page, hopefully temporarily.
7. The Large Group Rule - Welcome to controversy. Because this rule is so unfair and targets any successful group? Erm, nope. Do you know the amount of groups that have had problems with the large group rule after their ads were removed? One, yes that's right, the arch-drama-whore herself (the person who admits she turns people away from this wiki) decided it was unfair and caused this entire conflagration. The RRF don't have a problem with this, the Imperium didn't have a problem with this, and neither did ZEMA. This rule exists for one simple reason, to protect the small group that actually needs to use this page from being flooded by ads from the larger groups. At the moment we have 18 groups advertising in the Malton section of the page (how many of those are valid ads I don't know because I've been hesitant to maintain given this drama) that total does not include the DEM (odd how they are trying to advertise all their groups and yet can't even maintain a single one), the Imperium or the RRF. Now if this rule is abandoned, then those three groups are going to add nineteen ads between them. Three groups are going to more than double the page. That's before we get groups like The Fortress or Extinction adding their smaller components. Remove this rule and you kill the page for the small groups abiding by the spirit of the page. "But this rule is unfair because it targets just the DEM!" - No, it doesn't. The DEM and the DHPD are named in the guideline as examples, this doesn't target either group, the rules was actually written by a member of the DHPD.... The rule is also (contrary to what certain people would have you believe) enforced on other groups than the DEM, the Imperium and ZEMA have both had ads removed under this rule. "But you haven't removed other ads from what I consider a large group!" - Contrary to popular belief, I don't have an omniscient ability when it comes to group politics and alliances, but when something is brought to me I investigate it. Notice in the below discussions I had with the DEM, I asked specifically for examples of groups they thought were breaking the rule, they declined to give this information and instead pressed on with wanting the rule removed. You'll notice at the bottom of this page that Kristi accuses me of showing bias towards the Dulston Alliance and not removing their adverts, you'll notice my response. Accusations such as this are fucking nonsense (I've tried to avoid swearing here for obvious reasons, but this is well deserved), you'll notice she avoids responding to that, because the number of Dulston Alliance adverts on the page was zero. All this drama about a non-point. Certain groups are automatically removed because their coverage by the large groups rule is without doubt to the person doing the maintenance. I'm open to people bringing me new groups to be included, but I insist to be allowed to speak with them and hear their case first. Of all the people on this wiki I'm probably the best to play this role, as I pick up on the small details and don't allow loopholes, however this was also put before the DEM below and rejected as biased. "Well, if the group shows up on the recruitment page you can have an ad!" - This is the stupidest alternative to the current rule I've heard in these discussions. You want the maintainers to search another page while doing basic maintenance? Go away, it's hard enough trying to deal with this page at times when work and real life are all on the go. This idea also prevents the fledgling groups this page is made for from advertising, good move. This also discriminates against zombie groups, feeding groan forces them to have exactly the same group tag due to the game mechanics, the group tag must be Ridleybank Resistance Front, not The Ridleybank Resistance Front or RRF. Penalising groups for following the demands of the game is plain wrong. Not to mention this rule can be undone with basic zerging. Create ten characters, set the group affiliation, log on every five days. It costs a player 10 IP hits to do this, still leaving enough to maintain three characters.

Understand, here the rules are blind and black and white. People complain about this wiki's rules being arcane and inconsistent. That's not the case here, whether I like or dislike your group you are entitled to advertise here until the rules say you can't. There's no perception or subjective judgement. If there were do you think Extinction would be allowed to advertise here whilst I was maintaining the page? I think Extinction are a bunch of zerging scumfucks, and their representative to this wiki is a drama causing retard, but that doesn't enter into my thoughts when deciding to delete their ad.

We (myself and the other mainatiners) have (or at least had before this drama) here the most efficient and accurate page on this wiki. Ads are either accurate and up to date, or they aren't here. There is no page on this wiki as transparent and up to date than this page. You, the wiki community, will now decide the future of this page. You must make your decision whilst mired in the drama and agendas others and decide if you want this page to degenerate like the rest of this resource has. There are thoughts of updated rules and expanded help for this page, but that can only happen if the page is not crippled by vague and short sighted rules put forward by those with a vested interest for whatever reason.

Me? I have no vested interest, this page causes me extra effort which I can, and will, give up if need be. I contribute my experience of maintaining this page, which only Whitehouse surpasses to my knowledge, and my experience tells me clearly that these proposed changes aren't good for the page and are made by people who do not have the best interests of this page in mind. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if you actually tried to consider this from a standpoint that isn't based on the belief that it's out to screw you as opposed to actually for the development of the page. Then I got to point 6 and all question vanished. However, I'll answer some of the points anyway.

• Number 2 shows a lack of understanding of computers along with the assumption that these things won't get fixed when found. They will and always have been. The second part is kinda part of the reason why these things need to go, 199 vs 201 just shows the uselessness of such rules. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by deleting an advertisement for 1 word. It's not an issue of creating drama but rather that the current system is overly strict with quite literally nothing to show for it, the old one worked better in regards to advertising and had no such limit.
• Point three is based on the pre-assumption of ridiculous bias. The type of thing you're claiming as defense for the rule is vandalism, as you said it's not a big issue and thus doesn't need policing. Much less some ridiculously precise and arbitrary size limit.
• Point four shows why I'm not putting much weight behind your claims that they are important. You start from a false assumption that because things have run amicably that it is because of the rules already in place. It's not, it's because the people who make the advertisements understanding that there is limited space on the page and acting accordingly.
• Work backwards. You can't determine there is a problem when you don't actually have something showing it to be a problem. You can't claim timestamps to be more effective than legitimate inquiry simply because it's convenient. Timestamps can always return if they are found to be necessary, right now they don't seem to be in the least.
• ⁽⁶⁾Yes, and I also killed Conndraka's kitten, am really Grim S, sued Kevan for copyright infringement, and raped the Statue of Liberty. Twice.
  • So you're a bad maintainer who doesn't actually care about letting people know their advertisements have been removed. Congratulations. I didn't actually know or care. However as someone that has been on the other side of it that kind of thing is very obnoxious and frequently leads to outdated advertisements because the timestamps are long enough to be put out of mind but soon enough that they're frequently dropped due to it. It's not contrary to anything other than a mistaken belief that this is comparative to highly visible and constantly updated suggestions, it's not, there is no parallel there. Talk:Suggestions, however, does have warnings before removal and always have.
• Actually, regarding the large groups rule. You listed groups that don't meet the thing that is an issue about it as justification, at least one doesn't meet those qualifications because of something I pushed for them to do in the past. Of the groups that do run into the problem it presents you have absolutely none with current recruitment Advertisements. Those groups would be DEM, NMC, and Dulston Alliance. Extinction would have qualified, a year ago and the DHPD would not have at any point in at least the last 3 years. I don't really think I need to say more than that.

The rules clearly aren't that black and white, especially when they're being used in the manner you paint above. It seems more that the rules are there to make it as hard as possible to place and maintain an advertisement simply so that they can be removed frequently and without notice. I know that isn't what was intended but that is what it has become. As you said yourself; 1 word too many is too many.

This is hardly the most efficient page on the wiki, and is far from the most transparent or up to date. Those honors go to various map and administration pages which have far better turn around. It's not even the best of this type of page, that's Talk:Suggestions which despite it hitting the inclusion limit from time to time is cycled more frequently, with less conflict, and is a proven resource. --Karek^maps?! 17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

tl;dnr. Seriously, I am getting fucking sick of trying hard to work on this project and getting subjected to walls of text interspersed with drama and peurile ad hominems. I mean really. A group of us were working seriously to try to fix things... No drama, no bullshit, just working on ideas. And now? I'm ready to walk away.

Seriously, Iscariot... While you have valid things to say, the way you're saying them has got out of hand. And, I really can't be bothered to read your rebuttal, either, karek, sorry, again -- tl;dnr. But kudos for the effort, I suppose, to all of you. Perhaps you's wanna write a summary for those of us like me without any patience for slogging through the bogs of text? --WanYao 00:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I broke down and skimmed all that. :) Here's my 2-1/2 bits worth:

1. ) For optimal ease of use groups should be separated into categories. I suggest the following: Zombie, Survivor, PKer and Other/Miscellaneous. Groups will be permitted to "self-identify" and the only time their wishes won't be respected is when it's fucking obvious that their classification is bullfeathers, e.g. the MOB trying to call themselves pro-survivor. It might also be possible for a group to be listed under more than one category. This might be how to deal accurately with the Philosophe Knights, for example (list them twice: once in survivor groups and again in PKer groups).
2. I believe that size/length restrictions need to be in place. This, too, is to keep the page as easy to navigate and read for the end user. These restrictions, however, need to be relaxed and also enforced in a relaxed, common-sense way.
3. The rules are too long and need to be pared down. Again, for ease and convenience of use. As it is, the veritable Talmudic textbook of rules is one more obstacle to convenience and ease of use and readability. And, respectfully... Iscariot you say they're all necessary? Well, I don't necessarily think so and I might respectfully suggest that modified rules, combined with a different style of "moderation" of the page, might render many these detailed rules quite superfluous....
4. Timestamps must remain, and be enforced. However, 14 days is absurd. I'd suggest more like 60 days.
5. Re: the beloved "DEM rule".... Frankly, there seems to be a general consensus on the issue of organisations and alliances and only one person objects to this consensus.
6. Re: penalties. No. No "special penalties" on Recruitment. Recruitment is a community page just like, say, the MIC or the main suburb page or Suggestions (especially cycling, vote striking, etc.) Penalties" should follow standard VB protocol similar to how it's practiced on these sorts of pages. This, too, is a variant of the "ease of use" ethos I've expounded above -- just this time for people maintaining the page.
   

--WanYao 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #6, that is what is intended. Alternative wordings that make it more obvious that it's expected behavior is more than welcomed as this is the second time it's been mistaken as a new penalty instead of a restating of the current status quo of A/VB in regards to moderating this page.--Karek^maps?! 15:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Wan. The only rules I really want kept are the timestamp rule (expanded to around a month or two,) and keeping the adverts as a templates and in tables. Other then that, most other rules are not needed. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need a version of the DEM rule... But simple one: you can post an ad for the alliance as a whole, or the alliance isn't listed, but each subgroup can have its own ad. However, loosening the size restrictions allows alliances to properly describe their subgroups. As it is, they don't have the ability to do so properly.

So this goes out to Iscariot -- though also to anyone else with the knowledge.... Within the context of the majority consensus that seems to exist, can you help us draft some guidelines for size, etc. that will be workable? --WanYao 07:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

About the DEM rule-yeah, I forgot about that. Have you thought of what to do about Big Bashes and Mall Tours? I've posted my (rushed) idea above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe about time I actually said something..

• "DEM rule" - the events part: Just say that events due to their temporary nature can have their own ad, and groups taking part in the event may retain their own ads as long as the event only advertises itself and not the member groups. That is a major difference from an alliance, an alliance would look to advertise its member groups because members rarely join straight into an alliance but join one of the member groups, events look to advertise just the event itself. So yeah, I think I just ripped of Link's idea from above.
• Next thing I wanted to mention was how the groups are organised. There seems to be objection to the alphabetical order, so I'll just take a second to explain: previously we had by type (survivor, zombie, pkers, etc.), until some people began complaining that their type was listed below the other types. So alphabetical was chosen as most neutral. I'm not saying type wouldn't be good, just do expect someone to whine when their type gets listed further down the page.
• Time extended.. ok. On one hand the page will probably get a little longer due to less zealous clearing, but it would be nice for the groups to not have to change the timestamps so often. I'd rather see one month than two, but you wont find me protesting if you decide on two.
• You seem to want to lift restrictions (they were mainly in place to limit the possibility of the page being difficult to view for users with lower resolutions, although the text limit is from when all text went on the page and it could cause the page to be hard to edit and rather slow), the only thing I'd ask of you then was to grant users the right to edit ad pages with images that are breaking the page. Something like "by submitting your ad to this page you allow users the right to edit the specifications (not content) of your ad to better fit the page if it is found to be causing viewing problems", the user editing the ad would have to provide a notification on the ads talkpage.

Yeah.. that's all I had to say. Now Link, uhm.. why do you say "ether"? I'm pretty sure you mean "either" no offence meant, or maybe I misunderstand. - User:Whitehouse 09:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the large group rule, in case it wasn't already clear: I'd like to see alliance groups being allowed to recruit separately. In fact I'd rather they only be allowed to recruit separately, but that's irrelevant right now. - User:Whitehouse 09:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That edit specifications thing falls under what I consider standard page maintainability. So it certainly should be allowable.--Karek^maps?! 09:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The most constructive change discussed here would be the adjustment of a required timestamp to monthly or bi-monthly updates, a change which the M.U.M. would support. Bi-weekly is just a nuisance. Mayor MC Cheese 04:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of the people commenting so far have been with the wiki for a while, so I thought I would throw in a fresh opinion, since I've only been with the game since November '08. I'll do my best to be brief.

1. Organization: The way I see things, no matter how you organize groups, somebody is going to complain. If you do it by type (zed/survivor/PK), you run into issues with groups that fit into more than one category and discrepancies over what groups should or should not be. So while it might not be the most effective, I think alphabetical is the most fair.
2. Ad Limits: I don't think the size limits are all that problematic. If a majority of groups find them restrictive, then raise the limit--but getting rid of it altogether is probably a bad idea. Same goes for image restrictions. As a new player, this page should tell you something about the groups here, and pretty pictures don't tell you anything.
3. Date Removal: I will agree that 14 days can be pressured considering real-world concerns, and it's probably an inconvenience for groups like the RRF that have many members. But having the timestamps is a subtle way of showing people browsing the page how active your group is--a factor that new players will want to know. So I'm in favor of longer than 14 days, but not gone entirely.
4. DEM Rule: I like the rule revamp that was suggested already that if a large group has an ad on the page, then subsidiary groups don't get one. This seems fair, since you can then ask for a distinction between (1)a large group like MOB with multiple smaller parts, and (2) an organization like the DEM that does not actually function except as a number of independent groups that generally work together.

Those are my thoughts on the issue. I don't maintain the Recruitment page, so I won't pretend to know how those proposed changes would affect things. But whatever voters decide, remember that the target audience for this page is new players and those looking for groups to join. So if you are going to cater to a target audience... it should be them. --Maverick 08:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you go for categories, make them Other/Mixed, Zombie, Pker, Survivor, in that order on the page. Then the dual-natures etc. get optimum coverage, the Philosophe Knights know where to go, and we promote zombie-apocolapse-ness. Win-win-win-win!--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 07:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Recruitment Rules Discussion - size of ads

We've made a change regarding how often an ad's timestamp should be updated by voting on just that issue. I'd like to reopen the discussion regarding the size of our ads: Specifically the number of words and size of pictures. I recently started to go through the ads on the recruitment page and I noticed that a large number of the ads do not follow the 200 word limit and/or have pictures larger than the rules allow. If I were to start removing them, I'm sure there would be a major uproar.

• Do we agree that 600 pixels is a sufficient size for a picture (or pictures if multiple are used) or do we feel we should increase the size limit and, if so, what should the new limit be?
• Are 200 words enough to get someone's attention? Should this be increased and if so, what should the new limit be?

My personal opinion is that these rules are fine the way they are. We aren't supposed to be recreating our group pages on the recruitment page. We are simply trying to get the attention of someone looking for a group to join. The goal is to get folks to visit our Wiki pages to get more information, isn't it?

What are your thoughts?--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 11:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Guestimating, I can see at least 2 ads that break the word count. I also think it's fine. Go ahead lois, remove all our ineligable ads. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I assume you mean 600*600? So all ads with an area of under 360,000 bytes is fine? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean 600x600. I simply have to stop trying to do anything before I have my coffee in the morning! That's the second time this week! *grins* Alright, then! I'll work on that later on! --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys on about the advert size or the image size? You're interchanging them somewhat... I'll make mine explicit just to be sure.

The advert width limit of 600px needs to stay. While I have no sympathy for those on 800*600 myself (Get a monitor from this decade, you lazy asses) we occasionally need to remember they exist and so 600px wide is fine. The current image nonsense about 275px a side can go. Instead the included image should be under a certain size, say 56Kib tops. As long as the image won't make you break the advert size limits, you can include it by my books. Finally, the current rules also say "The ad may not be ... longer than one full browser screen". That's ambiguous, we need a fixed limit. Several ads are longer than even my screen which is 900px tall, maybe 700-800px of browser window height. I don't mind some scrolling myself, so a 1000px height limit just to prevent stupidity would be enough for me. A lower one isn't a problem either, though it would start to limit the ad's usable area somewhat. Word count wise, meh. If we have a width & height limit, you can use all the damn words you like in your advert, squash it horribly if you wish. Though the 200 word limit seems mostly fine now anyway. Templates, subst them all. The include limit should be something the need not worry people.

So yeah, my version of the "Format for Advert Content" currently on the page bit would be this, my notes are in italics:

• A description of the group (or coalition), maximum 200 words (header not counted). (Or no word limit)
• Images are limited to 56 KiB in size, this applies to the sum of the filesizes for all images you use in the advert, not each image individually.
• It is important to make sure that your ads formatting does not "break the page". Please check for this.
• Ads may not be larger than what a browser can handle at low resolution. Your advert size is limited to 600*1000px (Or whatever is deemed necessary). You may use the autoscaling code if you wish, but the advert must work when scaled for a 800*600 resolution.
• No templates are allowed in adverts for technical reasons. Before you put up the advert, use subst to replace the template call with the template's code.
• No subheadings.

--  RoosterDragon  19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... looking back at the discussion above, and then at the "rules" I can see that I was mis-remembering them, entirely. I was referring to images, but I had the limits wrong. I somehow had the idea that the image size limit was 600x600 (or equivalent). Obviously I was way off! Regardless, I agree that 76,000 pixels seems a bit small - especially if you are using more than one image in your ad. I can see increasing it as long as it doesn't cause the ad to be wider than 600px. I've no problem with that.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still saying the filesize needs to be under 56KiB, since that's what affects loading. 56KiB is just an arbitrary choice though. --  RoosterDragon  21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to defer to you on that. I'd really have no idea but it sounds like good reasoning.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 22:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

56Kb sounds fine - people using dial up (or slow broadband,) should still at least have a hope at seeing this page. As for the wordcount, it's pretty meh. I would rather a size limit (as in, actual pixel size,) to prevent stretching and so people using small monitors can still use the page, but it could be a bit difficult for people who have no idea about getting an add to work (someone would have to write a guide.) Linkthewindow  Talk  05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we add something to the existing guide that Bullgod created? Some of this stuff gets a bit complicated if you aren't familiar with the Wiki, at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lois Millard (talk • contribs) 11:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, that guide should be updated (I've been thinking about making my own for a while.) Linkthewindow  Talk  11:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, one more rethink on the ad format and sizing restrictions. I've tried to make it as concise as possible.

• Your adverts formatting must not break the page. Preview before you save!
• Your advert size is limited to 600*800px if you are using a fixed width. If you are using a variable width, you ad may not be longer than 800px when viewed on a 800*600 screen resolution.
• All images used in the advert must not come to a grand total of more than 56KiB (56K).
• No templates are allowed in your advert for technical reasons. Before you put up the advert, use subst to replace any template calls with the template's code.
• No subheadings.

I figure a max height of 800px is probably better than 1000, though it might be better yet at 600, though I don't wish to get restrictive. If nobody has any overwhelming objections, vote it, implement it and move onto your next bit of overhaul already. --  RoosterDragon  18:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for re-examining this, Rooster. Yes. I think your limits are reasonable (without being too restrictive) and shouldn't cause a problem. One thing: the variable width limit... I'm not sure I understand that. I figure I'm a novice when it comes to some of this, so if I don't get it then others may not, either. Can you explain what you mean by this. (and if I'm being stupid, please tell me) I just want to avoid a potential misunderstanding. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 20:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I simply mean using width:100% as opposed to width:400px when setting up the table. I couldn't think of a short way to put it, and so I doubt everybody would follow.

Maybe this more verbose version, which explains it properly.

• If you are using a fixed width, your advert is limited to 600*800px.
  --For example, using style="width:600px" in your table gives a fixed 600px wide advert on all screens. If in doubt, use this code.
• If you are using a variable or scaling width, your advert may be no longer than 800px when viewed on a 800*600 resolution.
  --For example, using style="width:100%" in your table gives an advert that uses 100% of the available space, which varies depending on the person viewing the advert.

Sufficiently explanatory without dragging on? --  RoosterDragon  20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes - I understand what you mean, now. I'm afraid sometimes we do have to be a bit more wordy to make ourselves clear, but that is a benefit in this case so there is no misunderstanding. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Advert Limits Revision

Ok, since things have stalled a bit and the first vote didn't have a clear consensus, I figure this bit still needs revision. Considering some of the comments I figure maybe this version would be better for the "Format for Advert Content" section:

• Your adverts formatting must not break the page. Preview before you save!
• When viewed on an 800*600 resolution, as a rough guideline your advert should not exceed 800px in height.
• When viewed on an 800*600 resolution, your advert should not cause a horizontal scrollbar to appear.
• All images used in the advert must not come to a grand total of more than 56KiB (56K).
• No templates are allowed in your advert for technical reasons. Before you put up the advert, use subst to replace any template calls with the template's code.
• No subheadings.

I figured I could condense the width issues into a statement about the horizontal scrolling, to make it concise. Considering Mid's comment about inexact size of adverts, I made the height issue a "rough guideline". Hopefully those changes cover everything. Karek's comment about it being too wordy was probably correct for the width thing but otherwise this seems pretty concise. It's certainly less waffley than the "Format for Posting Adverts" section which could easily be compressed, but let's not get into that for now.

Are there any issues, or it is voteworthy? --  RoosterDragon  19:30, 21 April 2009 (BST)

The second point could be shortened to:

• As a rough guideline your advert should not exceed 800px in height.

The resolution being 800*600 has little impact on this rule, and doesn't serve as an explanation as in point three.

The third point is more problematic though, as the scrollbar appears when content is outside the page, however content goes outside the page varyingly depending on the skin one uses. If we go by the default skin (this is what I recommend to avoid any unnecessary problems), the width of the sidebar+margin is upwards of 160px. Wouldn't it thus be logical to recommend being within 600px (620px if you want [apparently one loses about 20px because of the vertical scrollbar])? The third point could simply be:

• As a rough guideline your advert should not exceed 600px in width.

Although the scrollbar version of point three would let one use the exact limit as long as one is willing to test it with the default skin at 800*600 resolution, so point three could stay as is, as long as people are willing to use the default skin while testing it. We can always just assume that people will.

Other than that I think it looks ok. Sorry for being picky. :) - User:Whitehouse 14:20, 28 May 2009 (BST)

The problem is most adverts don't use a fixed width and instead take up a percentage of the available space. Most scale to use the whole width available, which means their adverts are less tall on wider screens. Whoever makes the advert on their widescreen monitor may be within the limit, but the guy on 800*600 will get a much longer advert when the text wraps. So the resolution in fact has the biggest impact on the rule. The adverts using this system also mean they don't cause horizontal scrollbars to appear (unless you go for a really tiny screen).

As people have mentioned before, there are too many variables to go for anything definite, which is the problem with the original stuff that was drafted. --  RoosterDragon  14:56, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Ah I see it now. Makes more sense now, thanks. :) - User:Whitehouse 15:48, 28 May 2009 (BST)

The screen resolution on my iPod is 480 x 320. Let's decrease the size limit to that so everyone can see every advertisement without have to endure unnecessary muscle use. CITIZEN VI 06:03, 5 June 2009 (BST)

No More Alphabetical Ordering

Simple simple change, group ordering by prominence. What this means is that the recruitment adverts should follow, as closely as reasonably possible, the order of groups listed on stats.html. This would essentially mean bigger groups are higher up on the list and there's some actual sensible, neutral, manner to the advertisment order.--Karek^maps?! 20:37, 30 July 2009 (BST)

That's extra effort to maintain the order, and some groups don't even appear in the listings. --  RoosterDragon  22:57, 1 August 2009 (BST)

That's not exactly true. It's really no effort at all it's pretty static and more sensible than alphabetical because it actually orders them in a relevant and predetermined way instead of random sorting method x. --Karek^maps?! 00:41, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Category:Recruitment Rules Voting

Vote on Changing Timestamping

Very simple and straightforward, this is the first vote on part of the discussion regarding the complete revamp.

Change Timestamping to once every 60 days instead of once every 14.

Seems this is the least contentious bit so here it is in vote first.--Karek^maps?! 05:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Voting (Timestamps)

• Yes - However, i would prefer a 30 day period for the time stamp, allowing groups to "upgrade" to a 60 day period ONLY after they have proven they can keep within the 30 day period for the first year. Can we not recast this vote with both a 30 day AND a 60 day period as available options? --T13 20:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yea - Sure, why not. Betterment by steps is still a step better. --Karek^maps?! 05:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yep - I would rather one month, but two doesn't make much of a difference. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yea Fine. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yea - Much better than 2 weeks. Especially for smaller groups who aren't as active on the wiki. -- Cheese 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Fuck yeah --WanYao 14:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yea - Huzzah! Less work for group admins! --Pedentic 17:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, but as Link I would rather have had one month. - User:Whitehouse 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yea - Make it a lot easier! :]--Gamerman191 02:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - Great if your on holidays and most of your group doesn't always come on. --[[User:Surfraptor|Surfraptor] 2:26 p.m EST, 5 January 2009.
• Yes - What's this? Less work for me you say? I wholeheartedly concur. --Mobius 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yea - Longer than 14 days is certainly an improvement, but I feel that 60 days might actually be too long. Still... it's better than 14. --Maverick 06:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yea - I would have preferred 30 days, but this is better than 14! --Lois Millard 18:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Meh - To this specific version. I'd prefer it was one month. Even if it is this long, I'd prefer it be two months, not 60 days. It's simpler both to maintainers and advertisers. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 08:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - It gets annoying sometimes. --Haliman - Talk 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sure - i like the idea of it being longer, altho for maintenance purposes id say two months is a better length of time to use, less hassle. --Bullgod 09:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think I understand the difference here. Two months would be a variable time isn't 60 days easier to reason out?--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 12:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Neither do I, actually. On another note, when will this vote end? Two weeks like everything else? Linkthewindow  Talk  12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Sounds reasonable enough. I just intended to let it come to a natural end when it did, most things do after two weeks.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 12:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
        • What's two months from now? (Jan 10th + 2 months) = March 10th. What's 60 days from now? 10 + 60 - 31 - 28 = March 11th. At least for me the first case is simpler to calculate. It's so simple that even calling it "calculation" is a little excessive. Sure, when using "two months" the duration can be a couple of days longer or shorter depending on what month you put the ad there, but two days out of ~60 doesn't really make a difference. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 12:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Exactly my point. two months make for more practical maintenance than figuring out when 60 days exactly is from the posted time in each individual case.--Bullgod 06:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
            • This is what I've been using. It's not that hard ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  06:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Know what else isn't hard? Agreeing with the two months idea. ;) --Bullgod 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Oh for frell sake, link. If I stamp it on the 15th of February, it's expired on the 16th of April. It's simple. Oh gee you lose a day or two here or there!!! Who the frell cares, it's not like people need to get deleted the SECOND their timestamp expires. If it goes over (or under!) by a couple of days, ZOMG teh wikiz not gannah fall on youz, sheesh, stop making it so needlessly complicated. --WanYao 18:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • Understand, that I'm not agreeing with you, but I'm not disagreeing. I just don't really see the point in having to revise the thing we are voting on at such a late stage. If we are having problems then just put it up for another vote in a few months time. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • I'm fairly certain that this is so small a change that most would feel it's not worth changing once implemented, which is why it needs to be discussed now, before it's implemented. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Aye - Sounds fine to me. --Private Mark 21:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - Yes, please. --D4rkness 04:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - Definitely. --Cheveyo 07:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - That would make it a lot easier for me, 14 days is too short. Im sure a group will be plenty active within 14 days of putting up a recruitment ad. Now in 2 months or 60 days, either works, they may not so that is a good time to check the ad, make sure everything is up to date. Also, 60 is not that long at all, even if a group went inactive after 30 its not that big of deal to have up. Most people who are not serious about keeping their groups dont even use this anyways. --Lady Cheetara 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been slightly longer then two weeks. I've done one last purge, then shall we implement? Linkthewindow  Talk  14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the consensus seems exceedingly clear. 'Bout time this was archived and we worked on moving another part to a vote. --Karek^maps?! 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So, is it two months or 60 days? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's sixty days, as that's what the rule said, and the consensus (IMO,) seems to be ether apathetic/sixty days. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I count me, Bullgod and WanYao for two months, and you and Karek for 60 days and the rest don't seem to care either way. And you haven't really given any good reason why it should be 60 days. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Two months, at least that way both of those rules of thumb can be valid. Lets the person removing it work with whatever they're comfortable with as it's really not that big of a difference. --Karek^maps?! 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't really care ether way. I doubt that anyone will be bothered regularly maintaining the page now anyway-when I went through yesterday, there where timestamps close to a month old. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, any comments? Linkthewindow  Talk  15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edited to two month. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• YES - 2 mths is a lot easier to keep track of than 60 days--Dr Mycroft Chris 17:49, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Vote on Changing Advert Limits

Original

In the interests of keeping this moving,cast a vote on these changes to the advert limits,which would replace the current ones under the "Format for Advert Content" header at current.

Proposed:

• Your adverts formatting must not break the page. Preview before you save!
• If you are using a fixed table width, your advert is limited to 600*800px.
  --For example, using style="width:600px" in your table gives a fixed 600px wide advert on all screens. If in doubt, use this code.
• If you are using a variable or scaling table width, your advert may be no higher than 800px when viewed on a 800*600 resolution.
  --For example, using style="width:100%" in your table gives an advert that uses 100% of the available space, which varies depending on the person viewing the advert.
• All images used in the advert must not come to a grand total of more than 56KiB (56K).
• No templates are allowed in your advert for technical reasons. Before you put up the advert, use subst to replace any template calls with the template's code.
• No subheadings.

Changes:

• No arbitrary and unneeded word limit. (Word count limited only be overall ad size)
• Image size limits changed from random and rarely followed 76,000px limit to 56KiB limit since that actually affects load time. (Image dimensions limited only by overall ad size)
• Redefined max ad size, max width unchanged from 600px and max height unambiguously defined from previously ambiguous "one full browser screen", now 800px max for all cases, with wording clearly still showing that this limit applies to low resolutions (now explicitly defined as 800*600)
• Cleared up waffle about templates, but rule unchanged.

--  RoosterDragon  20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting (Ad Limits)

• No - The size limit should not be an exact number because the size of an ad is not exact (unless it consists only of one image). Your OS, browser, fonts and the settings of each of those can affect the size of an ad quite a lot. What falls inside the limits on my setup might go over them on yours and vice versa. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  It sure would have been nice if you had entered our initial discussion instead of waiting for the vote to say this. That said, what do you suggest? Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 15:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Didn't realize this until now (and I did follow the initial discussion). No, I don't have a solution, but it's not like there are tons of votes, so this could be withdrawn and go back to discussion. This could also have been put to voting in smaller pieces, I have nothing against changing the image limits or removing the word count. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  I wouldn't worry about it, couple of against votes with suitable explanation will help fill the gap in the discussion anyway. --  RoosterDragon  17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - I believe the current size limits are outdated and too restrictive. I think this is a reasonable alternative. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 15:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• No - Too wordy, cut it down, keep it simple. If you need more than three lines to describe your rule people it will become skimmed information. The 56KiB is the only rule that is relevant to the page that isn't repetition of what should be described in other areas already, the width rule fits under page maintenance and would at most need mentioning of a max image size for set size images. Cut it down to those two lines. --Karek^maps?! 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

YESad limits will apologize in advance as I just started playing this game, put a 5 line limit say 200 characters for your groups description which links to a about page for the group that groups can set up. Then have an internal page {or forum}only for group member info... that way the ;list of groups with a bit of info is easy to look throughGKSSDN 06:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• YES - Agree to all, give people a certain amount of space and they can put as many or as little words, pics or whatever they want in that space. Then if they go over, it can be dealt with and nobody has to actually count all the words in an ad. Besides, interest in any message quickly falls off after only 50 words...see? getting bored already aren't ya'?--Dr Mycroft Chris 17:56, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Since this didn't reach a clear conclusion and has stalled somewhat, I've continued the discussion up above. --  RoosterDragon  19:33, 21 April 2009 (BST)

---

Revision

Ok, since there's been no talk, and the current rules are still so sucky that some of them aren't even enforced, here's the revised version. It might not be perfect, but it's better than the wordy nonsensical rules currently in place.

• Your adverts formatting must not break the page. Preview before you save!
• When viewed on an 800*600 resolution, as a rough guideline your advert should not exceed 800px in height.
• When viewed on an 800*600 resolution, your advert should not cause a horizontal scrollbar to appear.
• All images used in the advert must not come to a grand total of more than 56KiB (56K).
• No templates are allowed in your advert for technical reasons. Before you put up the advert, use subst to replace any template calls with the template's code.
• No subheadings.

Vote below. --  RoosterDragon  20:45, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Voting (Ad Limits Revision)

• Yes - User:Whitehouse 18:26, 13 June 2009 (BST)

formatting problem

The box which starts at the 'rot from the moors' advert also surrounds all the ads following. Is some sort of close tag missing? Garum 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Whoever made the ad forgot to add |} at the end of the coding to close their border box. The problem's fixed now. --D.E.ATalk 17:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem: The edit links in each section have got out of alignment somehow, and are off by one. When I click the edit section link of my ad, the section that comes up in the edit window is for the next group on the page. Billy Forks 01:26, 2 May 2009 (BST)