UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2012 Q4

Template:A/PTsub

Shortcut:
A/PT

This page is for the request of page protection within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to philosophical concerns, the ability to protect pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request a protection from the system operators. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for Protection Requests

All Protection Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:

• A link to the page in question. Preferably bolded for visibility.
• A reason for protection. This should be short and to the point.
• A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request.

Any protection request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.

Once the protection request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be reviewed by a member of the Sysop team, and action taken accordingly. Once action has been taken, the system operator will add a comment including a signed datestamp detailing his course of action, and the request will be moved into the Recent Actions queue, where it will remain for one week. After that week is up, it may be moved to the archive (see navigation box below). If the Protection has been granted, the system operator should place the tag {{protect}} on the page(s) that have been protected.

In the event of a system operator requesting a Protection, all the previous points will apply, excepting that a system operator other than the requestor shall review and take action on the request.

Pages in the Protection Queue may already be scheduled protections. For a list of scheduled protections, see here.

Protection Queue

Place pages requiring protection here.

Requested Edits

Place pages requiring editing here.

Recent Actions

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive

A minor edit, but User:The General is no longer a sysop. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 17:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection Gingerbread Men

I am looking to unprotect the Gingerbread Men, the page needs extensive edits, mainly due to Ram Rock Ed First extensive 'notes', there is also some duplication with the Candyland page and the other GBM pages. I am also re-activating the group - a note on the Un-historiciseing a group states that a new group page could be started or that edits could be added to this page. I am hoping to bring back the full group so this would not by the GBM 2.0 but the origional group, also the edits needed are quite extensive and I have access to the origional notes of the GBM activities. Night Haunter 21:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. Pretty clear your a original member, and I see no reason to deny this. Second sysop want to ok this? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 21:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Second sys-op incoming. Unprotected. -- Spiderzed█ 21:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense and needlessly devalues group page ownership while murking the hell of some very important lines. How's that for a reason why not to do this? Or how about even with overlap in memebers it's still a second separate group unless the page owner/we can verify it isn't?(we can't here)--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I don't get this either. If he wants to re-start the group he should, like Aichon already suggested, make a new page like Gingerbread Men (new) for example. I'm pretty sure that is the precedent we apply in these type of cases, see also zom. Besides, how can we possibly confirm that after all these years one seemingly random group member now has full page ownership? The page belongs to history now, leave it as it is. Suggestion re-protection and a rollback of any edits made in the meantime. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As much as I hate users who don't usually come on the wiki having to be subjected by our massive amounts of wank, I think the recent umbrella historical vote is a clear reminder that, as upsetting as it can be for users like Night Haunter, one user's recommendation on their group from 3 years ago just isn't enough in most circumstances. I'm a bit divided on it. I'd like to think we can have an open-ish policy as long as the acting ops are held accountable for any fuckups over page ownership, group ownership and historical group-related drama, post-protection. A ZOMBIE ANT 10:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How about we move the original Gingerbread Men to Gingerbread Men (historical), fix the links, and leave the old page for Night Haunter? At the very least we should prevent the issue from occuring that a group-page is both active (therefore being constantly updated) and historical (which should be left alone as much as possible). I don't care what happens exactly, but we should keep the old version somewhere for historical purposes. Whether or not the historical page is historically accurate is an entirely different discussion. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still with Ross on this one. Unprotecting the page is a valid way for restarting a group, and a less awkward way as far as in-game links to the wiki go (profiles, stat page). I wouldn't mind if there was additionally a Gingerbread Men (historical) as a conservatory page, though. -- Spiderzed█ 17:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Precedent was that this should have stayed protected (e.g. The Dead vs. The Dead 2.0), since restarted groups are supposed to use a new page on the wiki, but I too like the idea of simply archiving the original, fixing links to it, and then letting them restart with the original page name. —Aichon— 01:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Paradox and The Shambling Seagulls (both of whose old pages were moved to the historical subpage) would be a better precedent, as they both asked to have their pages resurrected. The Dead just created the v2.0 page, as far as I remember -- boxy 08:03, 19 December 2012 (BST)

Hmm, thanks for those links, and I'm glad to hear it, since that's the approach I'd prefer anyway. I don't like it when wiki stuff gets in the way of regular people doing stuff that makes sense. —Aichon— 16:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion:20120408 Headshotted zombies will reapear somewhere else in game

Can someone cycle this correctly please. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. —Aichon— 17:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Um...Actually, it was cycled correctly the first time around. The suggestion stayed up there for it's full two weeks period, and was never cycled early, despite being eligible for early cycling. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it stayed up there for two weeks and five days, exactly, well over the two week voting period. To my knowledge, we don't cycle it as spam unless it was cycled early, and in this case, it was not. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't noticed that. However, I would consider that even considering that timeframe, the category it is assigned to, in the end, should reflect what the suggestion is as per the voting. This suggestion was emphatically spamminated, it is a spam suggestion. Even if no one cycled it before the two weeks were up I still think that's what it is. In fact looking back, I think it's lucky he wasn't vandal warned for it, calling the type of suggestion a 'troll suggestion' and all... A ZOMBIE ANT 05:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It was cycled correctly. Suggestions are spaminated after 7 spam votes (and if 2/3 of the votes are spam). This one only received 6 spam votes. It should be a peer rejected suggestion. There is no rule that a suggestion must be taken down to be cycled as spam. A sysop can cycle it early or it can be cycled as spam once it reaches the above mentioned criteria, but if it isn't cycled early it doesn't mean it isn't spam cycled. ~ _{06:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)}

Oh wow sorry. I thought for some reason it was 5 spam votes. Sorry Axe and others :| A ZOMBIE ANT 08:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverted, since you guys are correct about it being done right the first time. Mea culpa for not double-checking on the exact number. —Aichon— 19:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that Aichon. May be interesting to find out first hand how many stuff-ups I have to make before you stop trusting me ;D A ZOMBIE ANT 02:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

sorry, I'm so sorry ;( boo hoo --- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Peralta‎

Please. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. —Aichon— 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Uploadtext

Well, since we're revamping a lot of the core parts of UDWiki, I figured I'd at least do a colour change to ugly uploadtext that shows whenever you upload an image. Well, I did a mockup here but if people think the colours could be better, defo up for ideas for changes (if you wanna even just do them youself feel free, either way). It obviously doesn't have to be changed. But that yellow us uuuuugggllyy! A ZOMBIE ANT 00:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Seconded! Yay! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the border-radius issues that existed in both versions (someone used -moz-border-radius), darkened the border a few shades so it could be seen, and made the change. —Aichon— 01:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion:20120919 Call Backup

Protect guys!! Before more poor dudes come and vote on it! A ZOMBIE ANT 07:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Suggestion:20120915 Newbie Radio. Took me a good 5 minutes to remember how to cycle them properly. And I probably still boned it up. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Served by Aichon. -- Spiderzed█ 19:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sidebar

Can we please have this reverted or something until a discussion takes place and the community actually agrees that a drastic change is necessary. Not only was there nothing wrong with the old one, but the new one is infinitely more unintuitive and retarded. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:06, 20 October 2012 (BST)

It looked like there was agreement (or, more accurately, a lack of disagreement) on all of the changes, with the possible exception of stats being excluded. Most of the grousing I've heard so far is unfocused and seems to either be of the "I don't want to learn something new" variety or the "We should roll it back until we add X, even though X wasn't in it to begin with" variety. I'm open to discussing changes, but we should start that discussion with this version as the baseline, then tweak accordingly. This version is not set in stone. —Aichon— 06:40, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Thank you Aichon. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!}

Wait, wait, hold on a second. You've got to be kidding me, right? This is a horrible, unintuitive layout which makes it harder to use in almost every way, I can't think where to start on how it is worse than the previous version.

• Firstly, the addition of unnecessary words just adds to the disgusting block of text that it has. Instead of "maps" there's "game maps", instead of "help" there's "wiki help". it's fucking stupid and pointless and leaves more to read to know what you're going to click on. It looks ugly, and for a list we should be cutting less text down, it's totally unnecessary.
• If you're going to cut stuff out we could at least group them decently. we've gone from something with separate groupings that's easy to navigate to everything lumped into one ugly ass box. It's shit. Shit. Shit.
• The administration links are NOT necessary. Wow. Like, there was already a link to administration before? I honestly don't understand where this mindset has come from on this wiki (example is the initial request below) where everyone's OCD'ing themselves into fucking around with stuff to save someone literally one click/scroll of the mouse.
• The pages that were removed were useful and never needed to be removed beyond karek's OCD which no one generally agreed with.

furthermore why was this even changed when no one really supported it, and therefore why should it be harder to change it back (even though more have complained about it than those who supported it). At the moment it seems that all one has to do to change something even for the worse is to be a sysop, and anyone who isn't a sysop and who cares won't have their opinions justified even with a discussion. And honestly, I'm sort of shocked Aichon that you haven't picked up on these absolutely abysmal decisions in design, rather citing lack of willingness to try it out. The crux of this matter is that you don't fix what ain't broke, which is why I'm really shocked towards your attitude because the time for changing it is now, as it sure is broke as fuck now. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:49, 20 October 2012 (BST)

I took part in that discussion and feel my input was just ignored. Specifically, I'd like stats put back on and I'd like an inner-wiki link above and below Recent Changes. I don't like that the link to the game is so near a link which I click on so often. Yes its just fat fingers which cause that problem but I don't want to be taken off-site when it happens. If you want to leave Play Urban Dead (not even necessary imho) then please put the link somewhere else. ~ _{16:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)}

Rather than cluttering up this page again, let's take the discussions back to MediaWiki talk:Sidebar and get things ironed out there, then come back here with the conclusion to it all. I'll make a new section there in a few minutes. —Aichon— 16:40, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Also, just to make a point of clarification, I didn't cite lack of willingness to try it out as being the problem. I merely characterized the complaints I had heard up to that point as being of that nature, but I made it clear that I was open to discussion and changes just as soon as people started citing specific issues that they had with the new system rather than moaning in an unhelpful manner. You, Ross, Vapor, and others have started citing specific issues, which is exactly the sort of helpful thing I was looking for, since those are things I can respond to and act on. —Aichon— 17:03, 20 October 2012 (BST)

How about citing the specific issue of having your direct input ignored? Nice work taking that into account A ZOMBIE ANT 01:11, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Also, the discussion was made here first, and since this is an official channel it should be made here rather than the talk page. Ironic, a link to this is now on the sidebar so it's more accessible for the community to use this one to voice their obvious complaints! And you know, the fact that it's official channel might actually encourage you administrators to, you know, do the right thing? A ZOMBIE ANT 01:18, 21 October 2012 (BST)

The discussion was already happening there long before you posted here. Also, be practical. Don't split the discussion. That'll just complicate things and make it take even longer to get it all sorted out. —Aichon— 02:45, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Ah- Right you are. For some reason I thought there had been no discussion when I posted this. And regarding splitting the discussion- you know I only think there's one way to sort all this out in the short term and it's something you refuse to do. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:58, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Poking people here just to make sure no one is left out. If this topic interests you, make sure you weigh in on the discussion taking place at the end of MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. It looks like we may be getting close. —Aichon— 14:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Page

So back in July there was a discussion which started at Template talk:UDThisMonth and later moved to Talk:Main Page#Main Page Organization Discussion. The idea was to swap the Navigation and Community Portal templates so that the Game Information boxes, which are more relevant to new players, would appear above the community portal (FA, community projects, and ThisMonth). But I just realized that the change never happened. Should I reopen discussion or can the swap be done? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:56, 2 October 2012 (BST)

I'll wait for another sysop since there were only a few people in the discussion and I was one of them, so I don't want to just shove my own opinion through, since I am in favor of swapping them. —Aichon— 07:59, 2 October 2012 (BST)

Sound good to me. *rubber-stamps* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:26, 2 October 2012 (BST)

Ew, any chance someone who wants this to happen could fix the design of the navigation templates so it looks okay? The designer in me is crying out of fear that putting the small boxes hanging from the top-down with a big box below will look ugly as hell. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:47, 3 October 2012 (BST)

I've done this and I've spread out the nav boxes to try and make it more visually appealing, but it's still not perfect. Short of making all the boxes the same size (meaning removing links), I don't see an easy solution. If anybody does, feel free to make it look nicer.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 12:18, 5 October 2012 (BST)

It stretches the main page (forces side scrolling) on small screens (like mobiles). Might need to adjust the widdth on the individual boxes. ~ _{15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)}

Fixed the issue with it stretching the page by redesigning it, but it still looks a bit ugly, as was mentioned, with it being so skinny and above something so wide. —Aichon— 17:12, 5 October 2012 (BST)

Also, this. At least it looks balanced with something like that, though it looks weird for other reasons then. Maybe it's time for a main page overhaul anyway? —Aichon— 17:12, 5 October 2012 (BST)

Still forces side scrolling on my phone. Truthfully it may have been that way all along and I just never noticed. I see that the 4 smaller tables' combined width is just over 800px so should be fine on most all screen resolutions. I suppose you could change the width of the small tables to "25%" rather than defining a specific width. Probably a non-issue for most. It looks a lot better than it did this morning. ~ _{17:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)}

Yeah, it's been that way all along. I gave it the exact same width it had before Shortround's changes. It kinda looks like crap if you try to do 25% and have a larger resolution, since it fills it with a lot of awkward whitespace, and at smaller resolutions it can force line wraps, which makes the tables all jagged along the bottom as well. Also, if we do 25%, I don't think we'll be able to line up the stuff in the top table with the things underneath very easily, so that'll look silly too. All I really did was mostly fix the issue with the jagged bottom that we've always had. —Aichon— 20:50, 5 October 2012 (BST)

You could try shrinking the Game Information to take two columns instead of four. See what that looks like, although it might just push things down not so nicely. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:22, 6 October 2012 (BST)

I think that'd end up pushing things down more, which is exactly the problem it has right now. I fixed the problem of it having a jagged edge, but I did so by adding height to it. We can fix the height problem by either stretching it wide or giving it a jagged edge, both of which have issues as well. A fresh design might be in order, because all of our options at the moment come with trade offs, but I don't have time to do one at the moment, since I'm gone for the next week. —Aichon— 08:18, 6 October 2012 (BST)

Well, good luck with that. Last time around I was pretty much only able to change the colours, add the CP box, and fix up the top UD header box thing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:12, 7 October 2012 (BST)

Ugh.... Looks much worse than originally. Like is this that important anyway? I mean I think we're being a bit pedantic when we're changing things for (what I think is visually) the worse just so it helps a newbie find information easier, by two scrolls of the mouse. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:52, 6 October 2012 (BST)

I think we're getting our priorities straight rather than being pedantic. It doesn't look that much worse, and it makes the information much more obvious since it would be "above the fold" on many common screen resolutions. Again though, a new design might be able to fix everything. Maybe toss some ideas around or sandbox something? It certainly beats choosing the lesser of two evils with our current options. —Aichon— 08:18, 6 October 2012 (BST)

I personally disagree, the previous one looked adequate, this looks ugly. So to me that is a fair bit worse. And yes a redesign would suit well, but I'm not going to beat around the bush. I couldn't help with that on a technical point even if I tried so I wouldn't be able to throw around ideas. As for priorities, again, all someone had to do is press the down button on their keyboard twice to get there. It was never that bad. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:49, 7 October 2012 (BST)

I'll have something you all can check out in a day or so. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:31, 7 October 2012 (BST)

User:Karek/ProjDev/PD18MP01PT01--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:55, 8 October 2012 (BST)

I haven't been involved in this but I saw this page in RC and had to say it looks nice! --Klexur 13:39, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Why the color change to most recent change box? White looked so much better. Also, could you explain why Community Projects was removed? ~ _{16:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)}

At the time I changed it it didn't work with the page. It's white now. Also yes, I removed stuff that's better placed in the toolbox, we don't need redundancy in links that are already potentially on the page and work better there. For most all of the large removals they're diff notes on the respective template clones in the projdev pages.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:00, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Also see this. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:49, 8 October 2012 (BST)

You plan on putting this in the sidebar? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:11, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Yeah I'm not really seeing any redundancy by including Community Projects on Main. It isn't even within one click of any of the linked pages. I think I understand that you wanted to save space but of all the things you could have removed, Community Projects seems a little like overkill. Maybe that box can be split into thirds with Community Projects and UD this month in the smaller, upper two-thirds and Featured Articles in the larger, bottom one third. ~ _{01:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)}

I'm proposing a redesign of the whole core navigation structure not just the main page. That includes making Community Projects where it actually should be and makes the most sense, Community Portal. Community Portal, as noted in the sidebar diff, will be in the primary sidebar navigation box which is being split into navigation core and Administration quick access and then re-flowed to give a more common sense and less cluttered navigation experience. Community Portal should be the core location for Community related group sourced pages like Open Discussion, Policy Discussion, Community News, etc. Community Portal just hasn't been updated yet, I did just post a request for some suggestions for it's new content though.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:42, 9 October 2012 (BST)

You can pretty much ignore the content on the Community Portal page and pretend nothing exists, since its present form was meant only to be different from the prior. It was supposed to be fixed up along with the main page back in '09, and made into something actually useful and something that people would go to, but that never happened. I think it should function as a links portal and have some sort of "community interest function". We should be taking after Wikipedia's CP, and other similarly successful wikis.
I have to disagree on removing the CP news from the main page (and any other significant content existing in the current version, for that matter). The point of the CP news box is to attract attention to community projects, and the main page has considerable more traffic and visibility than the CP has or ever will have. (You can compare the 118,000 hits it had in earlier '09 to the 146,713 it has now, and then think about the couple of million the main page has gotten in that interval.) It's not redundancy, it's advertising. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:47, 9 October 2012 (BST)

I do think CP could use a new layout but I share Gnome's concern that it won't likely replace the high visibility factor of Main no matter how awesome it looks after a facelift. I think we should play around a bit more with the main page layout and come back to Karek's idea. I'll throw my hat into the ring as well. ~ _{04:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)}

The only other removed content were navigational links and flavor text that's already on the game's home page. We don't need to duplicate a page you need to go to to know this page exists and that's linked from every single wiki page. Nor do we need to be forcing people to go to the main page and essentially add a click to do administrative things we should have added to the sidebar half a decade ago. At least that's my view on it, we're inconveniencing the users and demotivating us from doing what we should be doing(managing navigation better) by having it there as a crutch. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:18, 9 October 2012 (BST)

So if you want a news section why are high profile news projects not being added into Wiki News like we used to do? Right now that extra content basically makes a decent page design painful, smushed, and realistically all but impossible with little marked real impact. Yes, more people see it there than in it's old location but contributions(conversions, which we can track in who is contributing) haven't gone up because of it which is the only realistic measure of whether or not the placement was a success. The basic design principal I'm working off of here is justified space optimization. The current shove it all in design approach to the main page is actually making it less functional than it could or should be. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:18, 9 October 2012 (BST)

Community projects can stay advertised indefinitely as long as they're active, which is longer than wiki news section rules, and keeping community projects there would make it very long and thick; there is also a nice little empty white space in your design that could very much be filled with CP news. It doesn't make anything smushed and the space is optimized fine. You should back up your statement here.
As it is now, you can't deduce where someone has found a community project. You could assume that since these projects have mostly regulars contributing to it, lurkers and non-regulars must be getting from a news item (assuming also they never use the RC or see it elsewhere). You can't assume that any absence of lurkers are non-regulars means they are not seeing the advertisement on the main page. It does not follow. Perhaps community projects attract more regular users because they are a large time investment, and people who are not very "into" the wiki don't want or don't know how to get involved. We don't know where people are finding community projects, whether its the RC, the news item on the main page, someone's talk page, or whether someone mentioned it to them. I can say that people will more likely see projects on the main page than anywhere else because of the main page's visibility; they may not actually read it, but with all the traffic, chances are someone will notice, certainly a better chance than the CP news item being anywhere else (not that it must only be located in one place). Also, I can say it shows people looking up the wiki that the wiki has some active projects going (that is, one thing showing the wiki is actually alive). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:51, 9 October 2012 (BST)

I made a spot on the proj dev talk page where we can discuss this further and actually I noted some of this ther as well. Figure we've spammed this page quite enough with such an alternative. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 18:38, 9 October 2012 (BST)

I left space because I was expecting smaller navigation templates and as a back up in-case there was consensus to keep it and a good argument for it. I'm not really personally moved by the arguments provided here but if the consensus is we want something It can totally go back in. I'd rather redesign Wiki News to split for Ongoing Projects and Current Headlines from a stylistic perspective and keep descriptions succinct. Personally I don't put much stock in the Community Portal isn't popular enough to be the only house for our unpopular Community Projects news. My other major concern is the placement on the page, it's below the fold as it would be described in newspaper terms. That means it's getting less visibility than a news section should and it's new placement would keep it there but, it's not important enough to move any of the other content below the fold for. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:05, 10 October 2012 (BST)

That's a sure, I can do that but I do also want to keep looking into better options. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:07, 10 October 2012 (BST)

Any chance we can have consistent width on the three main templates. The links templates just look so small. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 17:13, 8 October 2012 (BST)

The current flow of the Community section causes problems with it, specifically the Featured Articles section because it was made with tables instead of flowing divs so the text gets squished instead of flowing around the image. It's on my list of things to fix. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:42, 9 October 2012 (BST)

Don't know whether it was mentioned above but soft corners aren't showing on your demo (in firefox). The ugly jagged corners don't do justice to the time you've put into it and it. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:25, 10 October 2012 (BST)

Simple answer. I cut them because they are the worst thing ever and 90% of the wiki users should be ashamed for using them. Rounded corners are the blink of web 2.0, it's overused, and just like with cell phones they aren't *always* an improvement. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:49, 10 October 2012 (BST)

I've heard over 90% of the wiki users live in a dwelling. Dwellings are overused. Moar homeless in UD!!! Sometimes things are overused because they are aesthetically pleasing (like rounded corners). Sometimes things are overused just because they are a novelty (like blinking text). Now, I'm off to figure out how to make all my corners round and blinking. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:36, 10 October 2012 (BST)

You can round the corners and then blink your eyelids very fast. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:59, 10 October 2012 (BST)

This isn't one of them. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:31, 11 October 2012 (BST)

Well I personally like rounded corners, the jagged corners look shit tbh. A ZOMBIE ANT 09:46, 11 October 2012 (BST)

Also, I'd warn that if (and it often does) more news appears on Wiki News template, it's gonna push the Game Information lower and lower until the nice tight page looks uneven and weird. Might be best avoiding putting that below something that easily fluctuates over time. A ZOMBIE ANT 09:54, 11 October 2012 (BST)

I'm actually debating cutting the borders off of the left table for precisely that reason. I'm not sure they're actually needed for the space to be visibly and distinctly separate in its current format and it expands better. The only thing that might move is the smaller menu section which, we can cap height for expansion with styles easy enough. It's also worth keeping in mind that there's about a third of an inch which wouldn't be on the final page due to the page header. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:10, 12 October 2012 (BST)

Also, in relation to what this entire conversation was about, we wanted Game Information to be more visible, but currently Karek's fix doesn't actually do that, I'd argue it does the opposite, pushing it into the bottom right corner of the screen and magnifying the community box. Was there ever any issue with simply swapping Community Box and Game Information and fixing the Game Information template so it didn't look as silly? Are we getting ahead of ourselves or something? The issue at hand isn't being addressed and now we are discussing an overly compressed version of the old main page, what happened in the last week!? A ZOMBIE ANT 09:52, 11 October 2012 (BST)

Yeah, the page is overcrowded and I halved the vertical content area while making the menus more navigable to people that don't already know where they are going. My version has better flow for smaller screens and almost everything is visible on standard ones, even with more news expanding the newsbox size which is something that can be formatted to lock down should it be necessary. So it does meet the visibility metric, it also meets the ease of use metric better than switching the menus would. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:07, 12 October 2012 (BST)

I definitely don't think it looks terrible and either one are good but I do like the original a bit better- I don't think lack of compression was an issue with it. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:54, 12 October 2012 (BST)

This fixes things for me. My only gripe is that the UD logo in the top section is uneven vertically. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:08, 14 October 2012 (BST)

In theory I should be able to fix that easy enough. In practice, well we'll see. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:57, 14 October 2012 (BST)

In THEORY, communism works... A ZOMBIE ANT 01:02, 15 October 2012 (BST)

Let me start off by saying I LOVE the new version Karek has put together and think it is way better than what we have. Even so, I wouldn't be myself if I didn't have a few comments to make.

1. Sharp corners = great. The old rounded corners were poorly done from a design perspective anyway.
2. I love the trimmed down links and other content, since we definitely needed to prune some stuff.
3. I share DDR's concern that the wiki news will push the most useful links for newcomers out of sight and out of mind, though I absolutely love Karek's squared-off design for them.
4. At low res, the main content gets pushed into a narrow column that doesn't fill the page very well, though it otherwise does a good job.

So, to address #3 and #4, I made a mockup design ripping off some of Karek's ideas. It's not as polished as his, but it hopefully shows off a few ideas I wanted to discuss. Rather than explain my rationale here and clutter up the page, I've explained it on my sandbox's talk page. —Aichon— 05:07, 15 October 2012 (BST)

AICHON! Now that I really really like! My only suggestion- that white space to the right of "featured article" and the community content under it leaves a bit to be desired- maybe make those two boxes wide enough to make up that space, and it might also save you some vertical height in the middle column (which at the moment is longer than the other columns) A ZOMBIE ANT 05:16, 15 October 2012 (BST)

Yeah, that whitespace you're seeing all depends on your resolution (I'm guessing your window is between 1000-1300px, for instance). On higher resolutions those boxes are next to each other, while on lower ones they get pushed out of the center column and sit side-by-side at the bottom. Anyway, I'm going to see if I can fix it to do pretty much what you suggested, though I haven't thought of a way to do so yet. —Aichon— 05:30, 15 October 2012 (BST)

Ah. Just had a check. Yes, my window was just a sliver too slim to show them side by side hence my confusion. Aichon, I like. ME RIKEY RERY MUCH A ZOMBIE ANT 06:43, 15 October 2012 (BST)

Check again. I changed it so that they don't sit side-by-side at all any more. It was causing too many issues. The new version uses the available space better at more resolutions. I haven't checked compatibility in IE at all, however, and I expect that it will ruin my day when I do, just as an FYI. —Aichon— 08:26, 15 October 2012 (BST)

Yep- that was exactly what I thought would be the best way! I mean, of course having them side-by-side is just as good but this way there's less room for error on small windows I guess. Looking good. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:16, 15 October 2012 (BST)

I just want to say, when I submitted this change, based on a conversation which happened in July, I did not expect it to turn into what it has. That said, I am so pleased that not only have people been working on a redo of the Main Page (which I've always thought is one of the most poorly-designed pages on the wiki), but that we've had several awesome proposed replacements. I personally like Aichon's, as it seems most cohesive and moves the totally inactive "Game News" away from the top of the page. Not sure what level of consensus we need to get it (or another proposal) implemented, but I think y'all deserve congratulations anyway. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:55, 15 October 2012 (BST)

Yes thank you for killing {{Lastupdate}} that's probably the biggest improvement to Main I've seen suggested so far. ~ _{01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)}

So, rather than letting this die the slow death that things die sometimes around here, let's push something through. Is one of the designs ready to go? If not, what needs to be changed before it's ready? Or do we need to try for something even better than what we've already seen? Should this go to Open Discussion or some other place better-suited to designing pages? —Aichon— 21:55, 17 October 2012 (BST)

Yours. Do it. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:29, 17 October 2012 (BST)

Agreed I like Acorn's version. Just proofread it before putting it up. I'm pretty sure "...sorts of information..." isn't grammatically correct. ~ _{00:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)}

I'm planning to scrap a lot of that text, to be honest, but just hadn't done so yet. Also, "sorts of information" is grammatically correct, though the "is" after it is incorrect, since the noun ("sorts") is plural. —Aichon— 00:20, 18 October 2012 (BST)

Yes "sorts" is plural but "information" is an uncountable noun and should be treated as singular. ~ _{01:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)}

If Aichon's version is put up, this will be one of the most productive Protections discussions ever. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:34, 18 October 2012 (BST)

Good work, you just jinxed it, now nothing's gonna happen... A ZOMBIE ANT 09:38, 19 October 2012 (BST)

Should I put this in as a separate requested protected-page edit then? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:19, 19 October 2012 (BST)

I told you! A ZOMBIE ANT 05:47, 22 October 2012 (BST)

For some reason I remember seeing somewhere (now I can't find it) that maybe Aichon was going to continue revising his suggestion? If that's complete I'll make the request. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:01, 22 October 2012 (BST)

That was on DDR's talk page, and I am. This sidebar stuff kept me busy during my wiki time over the weekend, however, and it'll take awhile to make the changes I'm thinking of, since I need to check how to do them first. —Aichon— 14:45, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Ok, cool. Keep us posted. And great work so far! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:13, 23 October 2012 (BST)

I may be flogging a dead horse (although until one of these great changes comes into effect I'd like to think it's still acceptable to complain) but I've only just realised that since we swapped the info bars and the community section, I haven't read the community parts once, ever. In fact, I totally forgot they even existed until just then when I accidentally scrolled down. I really miss being, ahem, reminded that they do exist as they do have some good info and I like seeing the community pages there... I dunno. Either way, once one of these changes are made (or the super new one Aichon's got under his belt atm) then it should be a null issue. Just whingin' is all. A ZOMBIE ANT 12:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I've been busy enough that I hadn't even gotten a start on the new one yet. I'll see if I can throw something basic together soon (today?) if I get the chance. Just keep poking me about it. —Aichon— 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have something new up with a menu bar across the top. At higher resolutions it's not quite as pretty, but at more typical resolutions it should look a LOT better. All of the links that were in the left-hand side navbar have been moved up into the menus, and I think the menu may actually look better if we bring back a lot of the links we were planning to cut out. Anyway, add comments on the talk page there regarding what you think, how well it works, etc.. This is just a courtesy notice to everyone watching this page. —Aichon— 18:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I totally forgot about this. Okay, I do think it's good, but I still can't get over the boxes under the wiki news template being perpetually pushed down. I much prefer them under the Community Projects page. It may make the page a bit long, but... It's a bit long anyway haha. But obviously, I've been banging on about that since the beginning, so no doubt you've already taken it into account. Honestly I'd really like to see this implemented in one form or another, that's for sure. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps out of both the boxes under the wiki news template, simply moving one of them to the left may balance it out a bit? That's all. I promise not to complain about this yet again. Maybe. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That would reintroduce the chief problem that was fixed by moving the navigation section into the pull-down menus at the top. Of course, the fact that we haven't figured out a way to make the pull-down menus work for all users unless we have Kevan intervene (either to fix the problem keeping the CSS from working on all themes as it should, or else to force everyone to migrate from the default theme to a different one) has kinda put a damper on everything. Without the menus, I'd have to bring back the navigation boxes on the left. Also, the current issue isn't so much that the right side pushes things down (which was made to look ridiculous since I intentionally stuffed the news box just to see how bad it could look), but rather that the center is not the one doing it, if that makes sense. The center content should be the one dictating the size of the page, so it seems to me that we just need to come up with some new feature content for the main page. —Aichon— 02:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

:'( so close yet so far A ZOMBIE ANT 05:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if we get a jumpstart on Vapor's featured images idea that could work? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Spiderzed/Alts/Sally/Kills200

One of my personal userspace archives that will never ever need any further editing. Hence protected by myself as judge, jury and executioner in one person. Roll in the Misconduct! -- Spiderzed█ 15:24, 4 October 2012 (BST)

You made me check this page for no good reason! Misconbitration! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:53, 4 October 2012 (BST)
P.S. As a generally-established rule of thumb, sysops are allowed to futz around with admin tools on their personal pages to their hearts' content. A minor perk of the job. ;)

Archives

e Protections Archive

2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019