MediaWiki talk:Sidebar

so, because there is little thing happening ingame a page dedicated to it should be removed ? bullshit!! game events should remain in the page even if it is kept two years without an update! People should be encoraged to use it, rather than making it harder for them to edit it --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 19:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I might be a little lost. 19:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my(!) Should we cycle old things that have no use in order to keep the wiki current? It's not like we do it for suggestions, groups, admin cases, suburb news and er... everything else on this fucking wiki.

Stop being butthurt and go cry to some people that give a shit. If anything, the user hub and the community portal should both come off it as well because they're both pointless now and the news section should be changed to the game's news url given it's in the game section (the map is an obvious exception as the game doesn't have a full one). -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of removing CP too, but with UHub I like to think that it may still be of some use even though I don't personally use it. I like the idea of changing news tbh. --

 

 

 

 

22:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hagnat, call me naive and reactionary, but seriously, weren't you the guy who pushed most of current events when it was in its prime? I'm hoping I'm wrong, because that would mean that once again you're only trying to save something I am purging simply because you made it, regardless of the merits of its removal. --

 

 

 

 

22:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I only used to update it during mall tours (the first two), and did a really poor job there. And looking at the page you'll notice that they look like only a footnote there. I did asked goebi to make a nice layout for it when he was creating all those fancy pages in his Style Up! Project, but other than that i had little involvment in that page. So, yeah, you are wrong about it. And you not only removed it from the sidebar, but you forgot to add it somewhere on the main page where people could access it. I had a hard time finding somewhere that had a link to it. Like i said, you are making it harder for people to use a page that should be used more. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Should be used more, but isn't. Notice A/A. Nice little battle just occurred with plenty of work in the wiki page, yet nothing added onto the Current Events page. Same goes for several events and users chose to overlook Current Events in the last few years. Pretty sure its usefulness is long dead. --

 

 

 

 

02:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So, because a wiki centric page is edited far more often than a game centric page, the second should be removed ? Shees. Last time i checked, this was supposed to be a game's tool of information... and i fully expect the horde of trolls yelling that the game is dead --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, all of this isn't because the game is dead. It's cause that page is. Death is natural hagmeister, don't fight it... --

 

 

 

 

09:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

reboot

Added skills, hoping no one objects to it. The idea came, ironically, from local retard Zombieman. If anyone does have a problem, I'm more than happy to discuss here (which is what I probably should have done in the first place but it isn't really hurting anyone like this). If anyone has any other ideas of important pages to add, feel free? -- LEMON #1 10:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I Think the order should go News, Map, Skills Personally. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't wanna move anything around, cause I figured the users would be used to them being in the specific order they've been in for the last year (especially maps, which I imagine is used more than most) but I'm up for changing them if you think there's a better order. -- LEMON #1 12:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I thought the idea was good at first but after sleeping on it realized that Skills is not the most high traffic or even important pages around. Its kind of one of those things that after you see it, commit it to memory, you rarely go back to it. I did however read it A LOT when I started and do still go back to it as reference so I have no problem with it being on the sidebar. ~ 15:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean and Sexy

Ignoring the ridiculous header, Are there any objections to this. At current almost all of that content is duplicated on the main page which is the page the game itself links anyway. The whole The Game section basically is preventing the sidebar from seeing more reasonable navigational use for things not already, or that shouldn't be, on the main page. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:26, 9 October 2012 (BST)

Also as a note, before we added Map, Skills, and News those were the most accessed pages anyway so there wasn't a particular navigational need for making them more prominent. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:28, 9 October 2012 (BST)

Maps and Random

Map should stay at least because it's something frequently updated, which means there's a reason to come back to it frequently (so make it more accessible). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:52, 9 October 2012 (BST)

I also like having the map linked in nav as well as stats. I use those links all the time. Personally I could care less about recruitment but that's probably just me. I am in full support of removing random page (pain in my ass when using touch screen and trying to click recent changes) but am against putting the link to the game right next to RC (for the same reason). Administration services is a nice addition. ~ _{04:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)}

I like the link to administration services, but I'm going to counter that having a "random page" in the sidebar is a part of almost every wiki I've ever seen, and is a fun way that new users often get a "feel" for what a wiki's content is. If I were new to this wiki, having used several others, a lack of "Random Page" would be a flag to me that the people running the wiki have something to hide. That said, I'm all for moving it somewhere less obtrusive (like below "Help"). Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:37, 9 October 2012 (BST)

I can agree with Map, I removed it because it's always been through the Main page but I can agree with the justification of it wasting time. Stats not so much, stats are only useful in a few situations, like Random Page, it's a niche user thing. I like Random Page, I like Stats, I used them frequently in suggestions and Search Odds but they don't have much relevance as a top level resource for most people. Random page is still in the Special pages area, Stats should probably be linked prominently on the pages it can be useful for. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:30, 9 October 2012 (BST)

Random page has actually been used to vandalize easier, when they go on sprees, if anyone can remember. So, that one should probably go. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:04, 9 October 2012 (BST)

Play Urbandead

Play Urbandead is where it is because it's a primary resource, like Main Page and Recent Changes. It's theoretically the most important link on the wiki as it's urbandead.com core navigation, it's our Leave The Wiki resource. Is the objection because of a penchant to use Recent Changes(and accidentally hit other links) or because of more appropriate placement? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:30, 9 October 2012 (BST)

iirc using the link to the game from wiki is problematic. Something about contacts added to incorrect character profiles I think. I stopped using that link after problems long ago so I don't remeber the exact problem. Honestly it doesn't matter what link goes beneath RC, my fat finger is gonna mash it. I'd prefer an inner-wiki link than a link to somewhere offsite. I guess even Random Page has its merits. Just the other day I found a C1 by accidentally clicking Random Page. ~ _{00:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)}

The game doesn't redirect to a single subdomain or have universal cookies which is the issue with the www or no www. We can always make it just use the server magic words. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:53, 10 October 2012 (BST)

Stats

Map and stats are the only ones I'd fight for. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 22:50, 9 October 2012 (BST)

don't get rid of maps. No discussion. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:03, 10 October 2012 (BST)

Maps is already back in. Stats I'm personally against. 90% of no one needs stats and I've yet to see an actual argument for why it should be kept when it's such a niche link. The way I currently see it it's like having PKer Groups on the list. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:53, 10 October 2012 (BST)

Okay sorry I was quick on time and on mobile. Yeah I wouldn't miss stats all too much myself. It's a nice handy little thing to have but the least missed out of all of them A ZOMBIE ANT 07:30, 10 October 2012 (BST)

Right. You want a justification? Here we go. Stats is the best thing in the world. I click the link at least once a day. Why? Because it's the closest thing we have to fact on this pony express. In a single page it gives indicators of the city itself, (ratio, mobile coverage etc), lists all active large groups, (and links them back to the wiki), allowing for new players to find the existing meta and importantly flags up suspicious new groups. You know the ones, 70 members, spring up overnight, generally having something to do with the Reich. It's never more than 59 minutes out of date, and it also information not available on the wiki at all. You could argue groups can be found here, but not with the ease of this one simple external page.

To paraphrase, it's current, accurate, not available anywhere else, and a useful tool for both experienced and new users. Of course we should keep it. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 12:53, 10 October 2012 (BST)

Ross just nailed it. As above. --BOSCH 20:36, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Yeah relating to my posts above, I was medicated and half asleep, thought it was the Wiki Statistics page. Now I realise that it's the UD stats page, I'd say definitely keep it. Like you said elsewhere karek, "Play Urban Dead" is the quick way out of this wiki eo the game etc etc. I think that sort of applies to the stats page. I'd be for keeping it for sure. Again as I said above (or below, cant remember) I don't really see the issue with the current layout and selection of links on the sidebar, particularly in culling map and stats. Random article? maybe, I wouldn't miss it. But the others are ways to information that would make things very easy for those who use them A ZOMBIE ANT 14:18, 10 October 2012 (BST)

misc

I've been awol and only saw this today, I'll put my opinion down on the table and say I don't really mind how it's done now, though I do think 'recruitment' could do with being changed to 'groups'. Obviously I'm a bit biased because I played a bit part in how it currently looks. I'm not against changes in any way but I think it's simple enough now and I just don't see adding links to admin protections, vandalism etc. as an important essence in improving the user experience. my two cents for the record. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:38, 10 October 2012 (BST)

Ugh...

Common needs of users... maps, recruitment, page protection... the hell. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:50, 19 October 2012 (BST)

What pages would you suggest instead? For regular wiki users, the only pages that most of them visit often are admin ones, so for regular wiki users, there's not much we can reasonably link up there. For newbie users, they need maps, recruitment, etc., and we can link those since there aren't many of those pages. Hence how things ended up. If you have a good suggestion though... ;) —Aichon— 23:22, 19 October 2012 (BST)

It's obviously far easier to complain about the work of others than do it yourself. As for specific pages, I'm not sure. I don't really need that many. I'd like to see something like: naviagation, game resources and wiki resources; for the major categories. In navigation: main page, play UD, recent changes, ??? (basic pages that just about anyone might want). Game resources: the new map link, the old map link, recruitment, guides, possibly tactics if there is main page for those other than just linking the category, ???. Wiki resources: help, editting information, a welcome page (that might have to be made, think welcomenewbie but self-service and maybe a list of users willing to help newbies with wiki matters), direct link to bot reporting, admin link, templates link (seriously I still can't find templates for shit), ???. But, that said, I don't really know. Keep trying and I'll complain until someone just reads my mind. :P -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 05:30, 20 October 2012 (BST)

So...your complaint is not that this version in particular sucks, but that it has always sucked because it has always lacked the links you're talking about? If so, I'm certainly open to discussing tweaks and changes as we get a feel for what's missing or going unused with this new version. That said, I'd let it settle in for a few days, that way we don't overreact simply because it's something new and different. —Aichon— 06:37, 20 October 2012 (BST)

It looks a little... fat. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:40, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Theoretically we could remove Main Page as that's linked from every page anyway but that may be pushing it considering most people wouldn't be expected to realize the image is a link. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:59, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Lost two of the three links I personally used the most, Suburb and Stats. The current Maps page has way too many different maps for niche purposes, whereas the simple Suburb page has all the suburb links, the Danger Map and links to all the other maps that you may want and need at the bottom. Can we have a suburb link back in place of the Game Maps page, please? --BOSCH 00:50, 20 October 2012 (BST)

As Bosch. Suburb and stats back please. I think everyone agreed on maps during the discussion above, even Karek so why was it removed? ~ _{03:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)}

Clearly you must be seeing things, check again. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:57, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Also Stats was agreed to be largely unnecessary. The only argument even provided for it was Ross arguing that the wiki doesn't contain factual information. Everyone else left it at yeah, I'm good without stats. So no, stats is gone you had a ridiculous amount of time to provide a reason to keep it and chose not to so I'm finding it a little hard to take this as much more than a fit for the sake of being upset. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:37, 20 October 2012 (BST)

I never agreed that stats was uneccessary. Perhaps when you broke the discussion up into different headers you missed the part where I said I use the stats link all the time and wanted it kept. Even so, by your own admission, a legitimate argument (Ross') for keeping stats was brought up and you chose to ignore it when you implemented. ~ _{16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)}

What Karek has done is assume that if no one commented, they must support him. Likewise, if I decide to add it back in, anyone who doesn't specifically protest against it must support its reinclusion. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 18:28, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Vapor literally said "I liked stats". DDR actually said he had no issue with not including stats though he was a fan of it. What you said was an actual argument for the inclusion of the link. That's one person for the link, one person sorta liking the link but choosing actively to not defend it though he's involve in the rest of the active discussion, and one person who was indifferent. If your the only one willing to express a strong positive stance on it how did you expect it to be taken when the conversation settled? Yes, Silence equals consent is a standard wiki consensus tool, particularly when the active contributors in a discussion are notably silent on agreeing to a particular objection when they're jointly agreeing on others. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:14, 21 October 2012 (BST)

It's not like Stats is forever gone. Now you've actually got people actively supporting the idea of inclusion of Stats. So you can contribute to a real discussion about how to improve the current format to have stats being added not just add more vertical scroll.

• Since no one wanted community portal to take a bigger role lets swap that link with stats.
• To solve Vapor's issue with an in-progress change(I literally just rereverted and added Suburbs) I'm going to move Main page down one, though I honestly think this could potentially be removed if the header image were more clear in its linkness to main page. What links would best flow surrounding recent changes?

I'm done with the bitchfest, if you want to actually get something done these are the lines of discussion for it. Not assumptions that I'm zomgwikidictator for assuming an idled conversation meant the discussion was over. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:24, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Is it possible to replace the Urban dead Image with one that says Urban Dead (Main Page)? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 00:42, 21 October 2012 (BST)

P sure only kevan can. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:55, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Yeah its rather senseless to keep bitching now. I made my suggestion below along with a summary why. I also like Kirsty's version or perhaps a blend of the two. ~ _{02:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)}

That in itself is the wrong decision by far, and I refuse to believe Karek thought no voice meant no one had an issue. This is a wiki where the community would rather shy away from telling someone their idea is a bad idea than address the issues. I'd be surprised if Karek didn't know this already. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:55, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Seriously Karek this change is really bad. Surely when something has no real support you're supposed to not implement it not wait 2 weeks and do it anyway A ZOMBIE ANT 04:59, 20 October 2012 (BST)

What discussion have you been reading? Clearly it wasn't this one. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:23, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Nice try 3/10 try harder next exam A ZOMBIE ANT 14:58, 20 October 2012 (BST)

New lineup looks fugly. Enough said. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:33, 20 October 2012 (BST)

So did the old one but this one is actually usable and readable. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:39, 20 October 2012 (BST)

No, that is not enough. This is a wiki. If you're not going to voice complaints until after the change is made, at least offer something constructive. —Aichon— 06:52, 20 October 2012 (BST)

OK, well, you want my opinion? There's too many links, I think. For the Administration stuff, if we're to keep it there in the sidebar, why not just link to UDWiki:Administration instead (more specifically, the section title, "Page Maintenance Requests")? Heck, linking it to the Administration NavBar works fine too. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:59, 20 October 2012 (BST)

I second the motion to re-compress the Admin links into a single link. Probably along with splitting the "navigation" box above it into two (possibly along the lines with Kirsty's suggestion above, although I'm up for whatever). In regards to the whole "stats" discussion, I don't ever use it, but I'm tempted to throw my support behind the "add-it-back" group because I prefer happy wikizens. I also want to say, that despite the vitriol that is currently flying around this page, I do think it was a good idea to get the process moving by making changes, as long as further adjustments are made as we go. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:52, 20 October 2012 (BST)

The idea for spreading them out is that the Administration page is useless, particularly for users who don't know the wiki intimately. The new format makes learning navigation easier, particularly when you want something removed(which is a clear issue users have had for years, it's why A/SD Crit 1 was made). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:14, 21 October 2012 (BST)

I definitely disagree entirely. The Administration is very useful to those who use it, which is almost entirely non-new users. It seems that more often than not, new users who want pages deleted get that done by blanking the page, having a sysop trawling RCs notice, offer to delete it on their talk page then it's done so. Putting links on the sidebar won't change that. My vote stays with re-merging administration. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:40, 21 October 2012 (BST)

When I say it's useless I mean that it as a resource isn't drawing users to it for this purpose unless they're actively trying to learn about the wiki. A link that says Administration reads as "About The People Running The Wiki" to the layman as that's roughly e-standard(Staff links generally link to lists of Staff, not services). We can always link the box header if that's whats desired but this does visibly change the user experience with getting to services palpably and in a positive way. Certainly moreso than making them go through Two page resources to get to something they don't even know exists. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:22, 21 October 2012 (BST)

I support shifting the (single) administration link to wherever people think it will be most useful, whether that's the Administration page or the linkbox or wherever. Call me a cynic, but I don't think that anything we do will instruct new users where is the place for what if they don't have the initiative themselves. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:02, 21 October 2012 (BST)

The sidebar isn't just for new users, its for everyone using the wiki. ~ _{21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)}

So, what you're saying is that, the Administration page is useless because newbies don't know how to use it. So, you're saying that, newbies won't be able to use a page that has all the administration pages listed with a small description on what their use and purpose is, so to get around this, we'll make a smaller list with 4 of the administration pages on the sidebar, without any sort of description as to what they do? A ZOMBIE ANT 01:44, 21 October 2012 (BST)

What I'm saying is things like Crit 1 are addressing the result of a problem and not a problem itself. That problem being administration tools are not located intuitively for users less than heavily involved or dedicated to being heavily involved in the wiki. The names of the links are descriptions that are self serving, Request Deletion is pretty straight forward and putting it out front makes it pretty straight forward to users wanting to get rid of stuff that are currently otherwise just blanking or duplicating pages. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:22, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Seriously. What is this. In the specific discussion on stats alone, both me and ddr supported its inclusion, with only Karek arguing against it. Unless anyone else comes up with an actual argument I will be putting it back in. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 12:33, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Oh, I also note Vapor and Bosch agree with me. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 12:33, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Misconduct much A ZOMBIE ANT 14:59, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Honestly what the FUCK? How many people need to complain before a sysop with balls reverts this and a proper system of improvement actually happens? A ZOMBIE ANT 14:58, 20 October 2012 (BST)

You have that backwards. It takes balls to not make a hasty decision when people start shouting. Reacting to pressure from the crowd is easy. —Aichon— 16:44, 20 October 2012 (BST)

No, it takes balls to admit when you fucked up something shocking. It takes balls to actually take advice into account when asking for it. It takes a bullish, offensively ignorant mindset to do the opposite, which is what Karek did. Even more so considering he (and others) refuse to change it back while this retarded version exists, and the one that had no issue is being left in the dark simply because it's an older version. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:13, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Main Page

On an unrelated note, why do we need Main Page? There's a link to main page directly above it anyway. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 15:56, 20 October 2012 (BST)

I think the argument is that people don't know the main page is where the logo links to. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:45, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Tsk. You and your logic. Fair comment. Any way to combine them using wiki fu? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 19:57, 20 October 2012 (BST)

You could make a large blinking (non-linked) arrow with the words: "The logo links to the main page". That way, there'd be no extra main page link. (In other words I have no idea.) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:34, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Both of these are exactly the argument in my head. I tend to favor ease of use over concision in these cases. I'd prefer something that made it clearer the image was a link as I'd love to get rid of it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:13, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Wordage

Another issue is this. Its wordy beyond use. The last three links in its current form should be simply Groups, Maps (Although Id prefer Suburbs) and Help. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 16:00, 20 October 2012 (BST)

I second this. Although I do understand that there could be a counterargument that having the lines line up looks more aesthetically pleasing. But right now, "Request Page Protection" is bumping down onto a second line, which definitely needs changed. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:55, 20 October 2012 (BST)

So here's the reasoning for why I did that. It was done for the sake of visual flow so the links didn't look to randomly have one jutting out out of nowhere. It's not something I'd particularly fight for, I like short links, but the reasoning was purely an aesthetic one. We were actually talking in IRC about completely redoing the Administration link names because of that issue, thought it'd already been done. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:11, 21 October 2012 (BST)

But the visual flow of links is a LOT worse this way? Less clarity and less aesthetically pleasing than before, this is generally why I'm so confused A ZOMBIE ANT 04:28, 21 October 2012 (BST)

The reason it looks overstuffed now is because It is your links in a new format, it's about 2-3 links overfull due to pending discussion to remove them. In addition to that with Community Portal removed all of the links can easily be justified in being less wordy, becoming Game, Map, Groups, Stats, Help. Honestly there's a lot less difference here than you may think and the challenge points are the ones in the middle of being resolved. Which is part of why I was trying to remove stuff, the problem is over preservation of low priority content. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:06, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Perhaps, and if so fair enough. We're going to have to agree to disagree on what we deem low-priority by the looks of it. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:10, 22 October 2012 (BST)

3 People specifically saying it's wordy yet nothing's done. What a fucking surprise. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:16, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Consolidating complaints

I'm a bit disappointed that (with one or two exceptions) the specific complaints I'm hearing were not brought up prior to the change being made. Where were these complaints in the week-and-a-half that things were being discussed? That said, though the complaints are late, it's obvious that there are quite a few, and people have finally stopped shouting and starting reasoning, which means that we can work together to make some forward progress.

Towards that, here are the complaints I'm hearing:

1. The individual links are too wordy.
2. The links could be grouped/ordered better.
3. The stats page should not have been removed.
4. The main page link should have been removed.
5. There are too many admin links now.
6. X link from my wishlist didn't get added.

Does that about sum up what everyone is complaining about? Let's start with that, then focus on solutions. —Aichon— 16:54, 20 October 2012 (BST)

That looks right. Should we reorganize this talk page into that format? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:55, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Aichon, my complaint was neither late, shouted, or without reasoning. I raised my points, I stated my actions. Karek did not discuss them, he ignored them. I can't have a discussion on my own, now can I? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 18:18, 20 October 2012 (BST)

As you said, you raised your points. Isn't it apparent that you're one of the exceptions I mentioned? —Aichon— 00:04, 21 October 2012 (BST)

It's simply the fact I feel your comment trivialised the whole debate. As if it's somehow a one sided problem of Karek against the world. It isn't, that certainly isn't my intention. I want a sensible side bar that reflects community opinion. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 00:30, 21 October 2012 (BST)

You are correct, though DDR's blatant hostility makes it easy to trivialize and lump. I thought I had responded to your comment, I know I went to do it a number of times, when I didn't see any edits for over a week I had assumed that stats had been settled. Clearly I apparently never saved those edits. My bad. In a nutshell my reasoning for not wanting to include Stats was a combination of there being too many links for a to the point page and that I don't believe it makes a good enough argument by itself for it's existence, particularly in that the people that get true use from it are generally those few of us that spade out this information anyway and don't have a heavy necessity for it beyond purely convenience(and convenience to the minority only). It's not a link that I feel strongly about particularly which is part of why I don't see a good reason for keeping it when in my opinion it puts other things on the block for removal. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:27, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Discussion on the Main Page redesign and the Community Portal page clearly also change the role of Community Portal and in the light of those discussions it's probably not necessary at all as a link in the sidebar. There seems to be no real desire to promote heavier use of that page nor remove the community portal aspects from the main page. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:27, 21 October 2012 (BST)

You're welcome to trivialise it all you want, but in time I know is I'll be able to look back on this and know that behaviour aside, you were the one that fucked this up, not me. And not because I think so. But because everybody does. A ZOMBIE ANT 14:40, 21 October 2012 (BST)

If you want to throw a fit at my User_talk:Karek is right there. Aside from the nonsense you're spewing everyone else has added singular specific complaints and this revived the conversation that had ended. So call it what you will but you're the one actually derailing productivity here. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:50, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Fuck your talk page. The issue is here. You're referring to me in passing in a conversation? I have a right to respond. Especially regarding the issue at hand that is that you dun goof'd something shocking. I've made my points and am going to continue hammering them home until this atrocious sidebar is fixed. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:19, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Also I can't help but point out the colossal irony in complaining about derailing productivity considering your behaviour here right from the get go. That is all. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:21, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I'm not really seeing the issue with late comments. There appears to have been little discussion on the changes and I never noticed it until the side bar was different. Did I just miss it or was this not on main page (like in wiki news or community projects)? It seems anything remotely important ends up there. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 01:12, 21 October 2012 (BST)

There was little discussion, sadly. But it remains that what little discussion had was completely ignored. As you can see above, I laid my opinion down onto the table above, in a simple paragraph. There's nothing wrong with how it is now. Ross was less resistant to change, opting to omit some changes Karek said. A week passed, little to no feedback on our suggestions, mine completely ignored. Then he just implements everything in this awful setup, many of the changes directly against what was said. Not only is the resistance now completely understandable, but if Karek was set on making something people actually liked, he would have not only listened to the little advice he got, but he would have made more of an effort to get people to give feedback, like put it on the main page. Ross and I had no indication he was going to just go through with the changes so obviously we didn't think putting it on main page was necessary as yet. But the real issue is its offensiveness. Every day this ugly, ridiculous sidebar setup is there, is a day I find it harder to navigate the wiki, and a day I'm embarrassed to be part of it. It's a sidebar an 8 year old would suggest. And it stinks of a greater part of a wider issue where Karek has massive people problems on this wiki, something he got his arse half kicked in for on his A/RE last month. Obviously he hasn't learned much. The very fact that this should (should, even though I'm trying to get it fixed as quickly and on as little pages as possible) be on misconduct for ramboing a protected page against what little community opinion he had. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:32, 21 October 2012 (BST)

If part of the point is to have the Community Portal links to be more prominent, why was the community header removed? It's less visible now, and the navigation header is fat. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:48, 20 October 2012 (BST)

What do you mean by "fat"? Takes up more width? The text is too wordy? —Aichon— 00:04, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Too lengthy of links and too many links under the nav header, and maybe the administration header. (But it looks like other people are addressing this so no worries.) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:21, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Ha, you serious Aichon? I believe I'm probably the only one that actually did address the issues and say what I thought; that there was nothing needing fixing. What? Completely ignored for a week and a half then the shit is implemented anyway? Yeah, you're disappointed. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:10, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Dear God, can someone revert it back to it's origin, until we actually have reached some consensus in the discussion below? Every minute the current atrocity stays up is one too long.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:51, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Suggested Alternatives

Okay, in the interest of moving things along, could everyone that wants to say something please do so below? I figure we can give folks awhile to post more suggestions or suggest changes to the ones that have been posted. Ideally we'll see consensus converging on a few ideas so that we can get something up, rather than wasting time on a vote that could be divisive. —Aichon— 01:43, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Vapor's

Here is my suggested layout:

• Navigation
  • Main Page
  • Recent Changes
  • Community Portal
  • Help
  • Administration
  • Map
  • Recruitment
• Game
  • Play Urband Dead
  • FAQs
  • News
  • Stats
  • Merchandise (optional)
  • Advertise (optional)

Keeps wiki stuff and game stuff separate and conforms to consensus of what's wanted. FAQs, News, Merchandise and Advertise are all linked from the game screen so it makes sense to put them in their own box. Merchandise and Advertise have never been in the side bar so I said optional. FAQs and News seem to make sense to me, though. ~ _{20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)}

Isn't news already covered on the main page, in the original, karek and aichon versions? We always copy it anyway. Lose merch and advert IMO. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 20:17, 20 October 2012 (BST)

I think that is part of the reason this discussion went pear shaped. Its the idea that sidebar and main pages are inexorably tied. It may be somewhat true that it's redundant having links on the main page which already exist on the sidebar but that's not very true on any other page. Sidebar should be used as a deposit for important links so that they're easily accesible wherever you are on the wiki. Maybe News doesn't immediately seem important enough for that purpose but I can think of times when a wiki editor would want easy access to news (such as when documenting history).

tl:dr - don't confuse the sidebar as an extention of main page or vice versa. ~ _{20:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)}

Which ironically, is exactly what I did. Thanks Vapor, fair point. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 20:44, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Give Administration it's own header. Not all Administration services are required for wiki editing. The problem with it right now, though, is how it is worded. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:02, 20 October 2012 (BST)

I like this layout, but I'd rather have Help be at the bottom of its section. Call me biased by every OS I've ever used, but Help is always the rightmost/lowest option on a given menu as far as I can tell. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:15, 20 October 2012 (BST)

Kirsty's

Stealing Vapor's idea. Here is my suggestion:

• Navigation
  • Play Urban Dead
  • Main Page
  • Recent Changes
• Game
  • Recruitment
  • Suburbs
  • Guides
  • Stats
• Wiki
  • Administration
  • Community Portal
  • Images (Help:Images_and_other_Media)
  • Help

I like the old 3 category system. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 02:01, 21 October 2012 (BST)

^Yep. I like the 3 category system, it's just easier on the eyes and makes sorting them much much easier. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:18, 21 October 2012 (BST)

I'm fine with that layout as well. I think News and FAQs, would be a nice addition but not deal breakers for me. There isnactually some discussion way at the top of the page from a few years back about linking the game version of news on the sidebar. ~ _{02:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)}

Aichon's

I really like Kirsty's version, though I'd still tweak it a bit since I rather liked a few of Karek's changes. For instance, I'd prefer "Find a Group" instead of "Recruitment", for the simple reason that a typical visitor to the wiki won't know what we've named pages or what our jargon is around here, but they will know what they want to do, and that's to find a group. Similarly, I remember not knowing what a suburb was when I first started the game, but I did know that I wanted to find a map of the city, so I'd rather see the link called "City Map" instead of "Suburbs", that way it uses less jargon. I'd also lean towards "Wiki Help" instead of just "Help", since the entire wiki is a help resource for the game. Plus, it's more aesthetically pleasing, since it doesn't look so out of place among longer links.

I also don't see a reason for the Help:Images_and_other_Media link right from the sidebar. We already have a link to Special:Upload in the sidebar's toolbox, and the Help:Images_and_other_Media link would be better placed there than in the sidebar. Additionally, I'm in support of dropping stats (even though I find it incredibly useful). While Ross' earlier argument for stats is one I largely agree with, you can find a link to the stats page just two clicks away (click Play Urban Dead then click the Game Stats link). Providing the 1% of users that care about stats the convenience of a single click is not a good enough reason to include the link, in my opinion, unless there are extenuating circumstances. It'd be one thing if the stats were buried somewhere (like the admin links), but they're already easily accessible.

Also, some of the organization seems a bit odd to me in Kirsty's version. The link to the game isn't in the Game section? Recent Changes aren't in the Wiki section? And while I do prefer three sections, I only really see two sections that make sense with the links we have. I wish I could think of a better name than "Navigation", but for now, I'd suggest the following organization and ordering instead (EDIT: This list is being actively edited, so comments below may not be in reference to its current state):

• Navigation
  • Main Page
  • Recent Changes
  • Administration (Plan A)
  • Wiki Help
• Game
  • Play Urban Dead
  • City Map
  • Groups
  • Guides
  • Stats
• Administrative Services (Plan B)
  • Delete Page
  • Move Page
  • Report Vandalism

And if we do want to keep stats, we can put it right at the end. —Aichon— 03:33, 21 October 2012 (BST)

it was never called suburb. It was always called map. Recruitment, yes I agree would be better off as groups, but again I must stress that I think using phrases is crap to read and simply "Map/Maps" and "Groups" is better than "find a group" and "game map". It just looks and reads ugly. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:42, 21 October 2012 (BST)

I was referencing Kirsty's use of "Suburbs" in her suggestion. ;)

As for the others, while I do want brevity, I also want clarity. "Game Maps" is unnecessarily wordy, I agree, but "City Map", which is what I used, makes it clear what map we're talking about, and both of its words are keywords that a visitor would likely be searching for when looking for an overall reference for navigating the city. As for "Groups" vs. "Find a Group", I do prefer the latter, since it indicates what they can be used for, but I can understand how that might seem too lengthy. Plus, switching it to "Groups" would be more aesthetically pleasing in the suggestion I posted. I'll edit accordingly. —Aichon— 03:53, 21 October 2012 (BST)

I like this version even more. Add stats to The Game section and maybe add News back in and I'd probably be in full support (again news isn't really a deal breaker but its been there all along so why not) I know you guys keep saying there is no compelling reason to keep stats and to a lesser extent news but isn't just liking it reason enough? And honestly I haven't heard a compelling reason to have it removed. Is it to save space? Is that really a problem or just imagined? ~ _{04:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)}

I'm still unclear on the benefits of news. I mean, it'd be one thing if it got bolded when it got updates, but as it is, there's no indication that new news exists, making that link useless to the typical user (i.e. not someone chronicling the history of the game :P) unless people click it every day to check. I guess I never understood its inclusion. It always seemed out of place to me. I get the argument for stats, but I just think it's outweighed by the desire to keep things as pared down as possible so that the list is easier to read and use. —Aichon— 04:24, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Best arguments for news I can come up with is that its sometimes helpful while updating history pages. Since we haven't had game updates in forever its really only good as a reference (albeit a pretty thourough, unbiased reference). It could honestly be removed from the main page and just linked on the sidebar and probably nobody would miss it. Also, like stats, I am having a hard time understanding exactly why some stuff is being removed. This discussion started because of the Main Page discussion and the need to cut out some redundancy. Shouldn't things be removed from Main, and not sidebar? ~ _{05:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)}

Quick additional note: I'd also support the addition of an admin section like what we have at the moment (but with shorter links instead) to my suggestion above, based on the argument that Karek just offered. I think he's correct. —Aichon— 04:27, 21 October 2012 (BST)

Also, all of the new main page versions lack these links, just as a quick footnote. Yet another reason for having them somewhere obvious. —Aichon— 04:41, 21 October 2012 (BST)

More tweaks to my list. Added a Plan A and a Plan B for whether we do admin links or not (I didn't keep A/PT since it's situational, and we already handle those situations just fine). Also, added Stats back in, though I'd prefer to leave them out for the reasons I cited. —Aichon— 01:43, 22 October 2012 (BST)

*blatantly steals Axe's idea for cutting out Community Portal* —Aichon— 01:47, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Axe's

• Navigation
  • Main Page
  • Recent Changes
  • Help
• Game
  • Play Game
  • Guides
  • Groups
  • Maps
  • Stats
• Administrative Services
  • Vandalism Report
  • Move Requests
  • Deletion Requests
  • Page Protections

There. That's what I think the thing should look like. Well. OK, maybe there are some things that needs new wording, but this. This is ideal in my opinion. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 04:35, 21 October 2012 (BST)

I like it. I went back and redid mine to steal borrow work in a few of the ideas from yours. I was concerned that "Administrative Service" might be too long to fit on one line, but I just did some HTML editing to check, and it looks like it'll fit. I think the admin wording could be a bit less jargon-y by dropping mention of requests and making it clear that we're talking about pages, however, which is reflected above in my version. —Aichon— 01:54, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I would like to vote in support of the "Vandalism Report" link addition. It would speed up the reporting of spambot pages. Actually, how about just appending the "Administrative Services" section to #Bob Version 2's "Wiki" section? --Klexur 04:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you ever use the shortcut A/VB/B? I do, and I think it'd be almost as fast? A ZOMBIE ANT 09:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I normally use the "bots" link on Recent Changes, which I'm on anyway (and use to find the bots). Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

DDR

Might as well add my opinion into the fray since I've done so much to create the fray in the first place. I like the idea of putting 'help' down to a new 'wiki' part of the sidebar (which would replace community) as per Kirsty. I also think FAQ and News (albeit official news page, not the wiki version which is currently in place) are great ideas. I won't bother doing a new example because the above ones are good enough.

Basically, I like Kirsty's 3-box layout because it's just much more aesthetically and navigationally(?) pleasing. But Vapor's addition of FAQ and official news is also something I really liked. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:11, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Administration services box? I'm still pretty meh on it to be honest. It's not that I think it won't be useful, and I have to admit that in Axe's example and others, it's worded much nicer than the one that was implemented and I don't mind the idea of it as much, but I consider it a secondary addition to put in after FAQ and news. I think, as long as the rest is easy to navigate (again plugging the 3-box system rather than 2-box) then the administration could certainly have a home at the bottom, maybe even with the 'wiki' box that Kirsty suggested. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:14, 22 October 2012 (BST)

^^^^^^. This. It seems like "Administration" covers the admin needs; are there really that many move/protect requests on a daily basis?-MHSstaff 02:18, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I think it's more a question of discoverability than frequency of use. Typical wiki users regularly blank pages they don't want to use or make mistakes in naming pages as they're starting out. Putting those links in the sidebar puts the fix right in front of them, and it has the nice side benefit of helping out all of us who actually do use those pages somewhat frequently. —Aichon— 02:25, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I understand that logic (in fact that's a lie, when Karek explained that above I didn't get it at all until you reiterated it just now) but it's my opinion that for those people inclined to blank a new page rather than request deletion, firstly I'd be surprised if this helped them request properly, and secondly, we have rules in place where ops can manage that sort of stuff without any issue anyway so I personally don't see the payoff as worth it. I'm only assuming obviously so I could be wrong. But that's my call on whether it would actually help or not. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:33, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I view it a bit as a matter of preference, to be honest, rather than something that has a definitive answer. It's something we can add that benefits both wiki vets like us as well as typical users (i.e. a have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario), but while it will get plenty of use, it will certainly never see as much use as links like the suburb map, so I can understand why others may not want to add it. —Aichon— 02:52, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Yeah, you've got me there. You can't say it wouldn't help. However, it increases the risk of cluttering up the sidebar entirely. And if it does, I think it should be the first thing to go rather than any of the other links suggested by people. Other than that, I think you've convinced me. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:12, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I guess. I just have this feeling it would be under-utilized. -MHSstaff 02:41, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I concur. I'm not quite convinced yet. Why should we have links to pages which only a few (very wiki-savvy) users use, while most (less-wiki-savvy) users will ignore? (Pretty much reiterating my comment to Karek above.) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:07, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I answered that question in the comment to which you're replying. As I said, it's a discoverability issue, not a frequency of use issue. The fact that we get some links that we use regularly is a nice side benefit, but not the reason for including them. —Aichon— 14:34, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Gnome

Doooon't remove Community Portal. Don't. Do not. No. Bad. No-no. Don't.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:03, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Why not? Honest question, not trying to antagonize. —Aichon— 05:35, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I think it's because Community Portal is undergoing a revamp and removing it from the sidebar will make it even less likely people will care. But because only serious wikiers will likely be involved in the revamp process, Gnome, would you be cool with removing it for now and re-adding it if the revitalization goes through? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:08, 22 October 2012 (BST)

No Change

This is always an option. ~ _{03:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)}

It is, but Community is a silly name for a section that is only half about community; skills are not changing, are already clearly explained in-game (and in an obvious place), and aren't something that a typical person would need to come back and reference regularly; "Recruitment" and "Administration" are not good names for reasons explained above; News is better handled on a front page of a site, rarely has updates, and provides no indication of when updates occur; and Random Page is of questionable use. While we can keep the current version, the only thing really good about it is that we're all comfortable with it. I'd pick pretty much any of the suggestions over it. —Aichon— 03:32, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I'm not against leaving it as is but the community has put forward some good ideas for suggestions, even I'll admit. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:53, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Just putting it out there as an option. I'm pretty fed up with the whole thing now, acftually. Not sure why I cared to begin with. Just don't make another hideous change and its fine by me. ~ _{04:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)}

As one could definitely tell by the above, I'd prefer no change to the version Karek made, although a bunch of the changes he suggested have potential, as do other suggestions made by others above. And really, I'd like to see a few of them go in there, even if just for an experiment or test (in small doses or after much discussion, again I think Karek's drastic change must have been a bit too much for my fragile heart to take) A ZOMBIE ANT 05:08, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Bob's Amalgam

• Navigation
  • Play Urban Dead
  • Main Page
  • Recent Changes
  • Random Page (see below)
• Resources
  • City Map
  • Groups
  • Guides
  • Stats
• Wiki
  • Administration
  • Community Portal (optional, see "Gnome" above)
  • Wiki Help

So pretty much I stole Kristy's organization and gave it Aichon's labels.

Another note, I'm still not convinced that Random Page should go. Yes, it can be used by wiki vandals, but if someone wants to vandalize they'll vandalize. And I've never seen a wiki without a Random Page in its side/top bar (if someone can find one, let me know). Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:14, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I liked the pages Kirsty included (for the most part), but I'll reiterate that I still don't understand that organization and haven't seen an explanation for it yet. As I said above, why is the link to play the game not in the Game section? Doesn't that seem like the prime example of a link that belongs there? Or Recent Changes in the Wiki section, since it has everything to do with the wiki? For that matter, isn't everything on the site about the wiki, so why not just lump all of the links except for external ones into that section? As I said up above, I like three sections, but if you're going to have those links, there are really only two logical sections that I can see. —Aichon— 14:41, 22 October 2012 (BST)

My thinking was: navigation should be general areas, not information: therefore game link, main page and recent changes (I'm either way on random page). The Game section is information about the game (maps, groups). The wiki section is information about the wiki (help, admin). Basically, navigation links do not in-and-of-themselves provide any information. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 21:51, 22 October 2012 (BST)

^^^^^^^ This. That is how I kinda see it. Maybe it might be more clear if Game was changed to Game Resources? -MHSstaff 21:53, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Yeah, or probably just Resources as it's cleaner (and this whole thing's a resource for the game too) ;) A ZOMBIE ANT 22:20, 22 October 2012 (BST)

I concur. So adjusted. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:14, 23 October 2012 (BST)

Bob Version 2

• General
  • Play Urban Dead
  • Main Page
  • Recent Changes
• Resources
  • City Map
  • Groups
  • Guides
  • Stats
• Wiki
  • Admin Services
  • Wiki Help

Second version making the changes Aichon mentioned below. Quick comments:

• I'm not totally satisfied with "General", and would like to hear other suggestions, but Aichon's right that "Navigation" is wrong too.
• I'm up for ditching Random Page since everyone wants to. I mostly had it in my version to make a point. (And is there another place that links to it other than Special Pages?)

Please comment. It'd be awesome to reach consensus sometime. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So....

It would be a shame after all this hoo-hah and community input to leave with nothing. Anyone got any decisive additions they think should be added based on the ideas above? Personally, I like Bob and Kirsty's additions. Tied second are Axe's and Aichon's plan B.

If all else fails... Votes? A ZOMBIE ANT 14:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I could go for Bob's Amalgamation since it's pretty good, but it could still use a few tweaks to push it over the top for me:

• Navigation -> General (or something else more fitting, since "Navigation" is a horrible term to use)
• Drop Random Page and Community Portal (the "everyone else is doing it" argument for RP isn't very compelling, and we can re-add CP when it's revamped)
• Administration -> Admin Services (Karek is right: "Administration" sounds like a page with info about staff members)

I think we can still reach a consensus, and I'd definitely prefer that over voting. Voting sucks since it's basically the majority overruling the minority, rather than the minority being able to contribute to something that's better for both. —Aichon— 15:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Awesome suggestions! Second version is above. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Already liking it better. I do agree that "General" is not ideal either, but at least it's more descriptive than "Navigation" (also, I wasn't just picking on your design with that one, since I used the term "Navigation" as well since I had no better idea at the time). Anyway, more opinions are always a good idea. —Aichon— 20:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. -MHSstaff 20:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 20:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

KEEEEEEEPPP CP. Why remove it until it's revamped when it will be soon revamped anyways? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been any forward momentum on it for the last week? If it was imminent, that would be one thing... —Aichon— 20:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just because I'm busy. I never managed to get CP working right ~3 years ago, so it's personal. It will be properly wonderful.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should leave out CP but put it back in as soon as any (and I mean any) improvements are made. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

But what does that accomplish? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It forces the issue, and encourages a redesign of the portal. Want it back on the main sidebar? Then we need to redesign/improve it. Otherwise, we could go limping along forever with the current version since there is no real incentive to change it. -MHSstaff 21:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is forced enough by me. Should we remove the CP link from the main page, for the same reason? The assumption should be that the wiki has a community portal, hence the need to have it linked, whatever its faults. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it might make sense to remove it from the main page as well. Then after it is revitalized and revamped, it could be added to both the main page and the sidebar during the relaunch, showing off its new awesomeness. -MHSstaff 21:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna second MHS (probably not what Gnome expected) and say we should remove the Community Portal link from the front page for now, except as a News item or Community Project about revamping it. (The Community Portal link on the Main Page barely looks like a link as is, being pink and all.) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I like Bob's version. I would like to see something geared toward new wiki users, like the welcome template but as a stand alone page. Now, I'm going to look at community portal because I have no idea what the hell it is. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 21:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I like CP too : ( but we may be outnumbered. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Poking everyone. I think it sounds like we're going with Bob's Version 2 up above. For the CP issue, it sounds like we're leaning towards wanting to removal it until the revamp is done. Kirsty's idea about a page for new wiki users is a good one, but that page doesn't really exist yet, so it can always be considered and added later when/if it exists. Any additional comments? —Aichon— 14:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yay! My vote is implement. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Implement, promote Bob to sysop and then pound a couple of handles of liquor. -MHSstaff 19:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Bob, what exactly are you supposed to be working on? I too am in favour of CP. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 19:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

...not sure what you mean by working on? Do you mean on the wiki (in which I'm kind of in a lull since the FA revamp is winding down), or in-game (in which I'm zombiein' it up in Gatcombeton), or in real life (in which I should be doing tons of homework but procrastinate on here instead)? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Real Life. You appear to becoming super active as deadlines approach. Kind of what I used to do. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 20:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

So true. Although my next big deadline isn't til mid-December. Which probably means I'll find some other big project to tackle rather than doing any work for a month and a half. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Honest question: what's the argument for keeping CP regardless of a revamp? From my side, I see only benefits and no harm in pursuing the path of removing it temporarily until the revamp is done. In contrast, I do see harm in adding it in if the revamp falls through for some reason, since then we'd be wasting space on a link to a page that isn't useful. I mean, it'd be one thing if there was serious opposition to removing it permanently (since that would mean that this is the one chance to get it in), but most of the people here seem to be supportive of the idea of adding it back once the revamp is done. —Aichon— 20:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm for removing CP until the revamp. Seeing what CP might be, there is a good chance it will be a resource for new users, as well as some other things. That said, let's all mosey over there and keep bitching until someone smarter fixes it...well actually that's my plan. But I need still the smarter people to do all the work and make what I say sound less stupid. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have an argument, other than I can't see much of an argument for removing it, even temporarily, and the CP is going to be revamped and it should be successful. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think removing it until it is finished is a good idea since having an unfinished page in such a high-visibility area has this sorta amateur-hour vibe.-MHSstaff 01:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion?

Okay, well, it looks like the only issue we're still undecided on is the CP question, but by my count, roughly 2/3 of those who have voiced an opinion come down on the side of removing it. As such, I'm going to go ahead and put up Bob's Version 2 in just a moment since I haven't seen any other outstanding objections to it. As before, we can always change things again, so if there are any new objections, feel free to say so and we'll work towards a solution. I wouldn't be surprised if after a few days or a week of use we all realize it should be changed in some way. :P —Aichon— 18:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite still thinking its dumb to not put Play Urban Dead with the game section, I rather like it. All three links that I actually use from the sidebar (RC,Map and Stats) are conveniently located at either the top or the bottom of a table, so I'm good. Please don't change it again. ~ _{19:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)}

It looks clean and concise, and solves (pretty much) all the problems above. Now just to wait until CP gets cleaned up. Thanks everyone! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I still prefer "Map" to "City Map" but other than that, noice. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Help Link

The help link in the sidebar now directs to an external site. It should direct to Help:Contents. Can a sop fix plz? ~ _{04:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)}

It's spelled soap. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Discord Link

Hey all! Stelar & I have (as proposed in her A/PM) been setting up a Discord server for the wiki. Since it's easier to link to than the wiki IRC, we are thinking of putting it in the sidebar, maybe under Wiki Help. Would anyone object to this? Thanks, Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No objections here! stelar (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I lean away from linking it in the sidebar, given that the sidebar has only ever been for official UD resources, such as the game itself, its stats page, or other wiki pages. Educate me a bit, however. I know you two have been talking about Discord for awhile, but I've never used it and have no idea really what it is. Is it voice, text, or something else? What would the link look like and how would people use it? If nothing else, maybe we link it from somewhere else that's prominent on the wiki. —Aichon— 18:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's basically like IRC in that it is a chat client, but each server (and you can be part of multiple servers and use different nicks with the one account) has a voice channel and whatever other channels the 'owner' of the server has set up. The link is https://discord.gg/qKr8WZH but as with all wiki stuff, it would probably be UDWiki Discord or something like that. It's really straightforward to use, and you have to be given access to see and participate in the different channels on a server. Come and see for yourself! :D stelar (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

To add on to that, I've heard it described a better-supported Skype, without video, designed for gaming. It's also accessible both by desktop (which I use and can vouch for its speed/functionality) and on mobile. I've been in several groups using Discord for months, and it's been a vast improvement over IRC in my experience.

Right now, the entire UDWiki server is accessible to all who join, as none of the info on there is secret (it's just some light discussion and links to other UD-related Discord servers). I was thinking of keeping it like that, in the way that the wiki doesn't have "closed" sections either. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would describe it as a more user-friendly version of Teamspeak and IRC. Good to see Urbandead get one, however, I'm hesitant about putting it on the sidebar. Has it been made yet? If not, maybe wait until it gets a decent following before promoting it 'officially'. These forums tend to die off over time in my experience. I'd like to see it beat the first of Urbandead's 'Great filters' of metacommunication before putting it on the sidebar. You should consider the front page though, that's not a bad idea. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Bob has set it up already (the link is above in my reply to Aichon). stelar (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, I've added Discord links to the IRC-channels page, the UDWiki News template and the Community Projects section of the main page. Is there another spot on the main page it should go? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed from the Urban Dead IRC Channels‎ page, as (spoiler alert) Discord is not IRC. That page is old and full of dead links, though, so it might even be a good idea to rename it to something more appropriate and useful. Or setup discord-irc, then it would qualify. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

the glorious return of random page

Following some discussion on the UD discord, we have decided to throw Random Page back onto the sidebar unless there is any kind of overwhelming voice against.

This ol' wiki is nothing without a bit of novelty. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Just want to lift up from the above that the main reason Random Page was removed was because it's been used by vandals in the past to better efficate vandalism sprees. I was in favor of keeping it in 2012, and am in favor of bringing it back now, just want to lift up prior discussion.

I'd also suggest moving it above "wiki help", since a "help" link is normally last in sequence for ease of locating it. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Done DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 14:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar request

I would like the random page below the recent changes. Thanks! Plus, in six months, I'd like to become an admin on this wiki. --Auri (Express yourself, be heard!) 02:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that having a Random Page link at all was controversial (see the large amounts of the discussion above) and that it's a specifically wiki-related item, I disagree and think that having it under wiki is the best spot for it. Would love input from others, though! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, let others vote! --Auri (Express yourself, be heard!) 02:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason for it to go under "Recent Changes"? It doesn't really fit within that category on the sidebar. stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 03:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Auri it's not a vote; decision on this (and many other wiki pages) are normally done through discussion and consensus. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Meh, just leave it the way it is. At least I would like to suggest perhaps having a community portal, similar to this kind of pages for discussions. Any ideas? --Auri (Express yourself, be heard!) 03:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you're looking for UDWiki:Open Discussion. Although many topics are best discussed on the relevant Talk: pages. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say, boss! --Auri (Express yourself, be heard!) 03:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)