UDWiki:Wiki Questions

Community Portal – General Discussion – Wiki Questions – Featured Articles – Did You Know

A page for wiki-related questions. Please consider visiting the Help pages to see if your problem is already addressed there. For questions about the game, see the FAQ.

An archive is located here.

Advertising an event?

If I wanted to advertise an event I am planning, do I just use the page I created or is any other place I could advertise it? Sorry if the question is confusing. --Mindlessidiots 22:59, 24 August 2010 (BST)

If it's an advertisement for an event you seek, you can post it here. Also, I'm very happy to advertise anything in my signature. Kinda worth your while too, since my signature is on the most pages in this wiki... >< --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:24, 24 August 2010 (BST)

Thank you, where do I apply for permission to post the advertisement on community projects page? --Mindlessidiots 18:46, 29 August 2010 (BST)

In community projects, you make human inertia work for you by just editing the page yourself. With Axe Hack'ssig, you just place a request on the page he linked and wait for him to include the ad himself. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:58, 29 August 2010 (BST)

Templates and server load?

Could anyone explain to me the relation between template use and server load? Is just the fact that they require the movement/copying of data from one page to another? I've seen a template (ironically) disparaging the use of templated signatures as they increase server load; is this actually a significant problem? --aClashInRedSnow^|talk 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert, but I've read that the server load increase is insignificant, if any. The main objection is that they are prime targets for vandalism (once the whole Developing Suggestions was posted in someone's sig,) and the server load one. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Template parameters

Does anyone know if there's a way to change the output of template parameters so that if "location_type=police dept" is entered it can display "police department" in the category section of Template:Locationblock? It's also needed for Necrotech buildings, libraries, cemeteries. If I can't figure out a way to do this, I'll probably have to rollback to the old system -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:42 30 December 2008 (BST)

If you create a template in the format Template:Info_X, and then input the last word into the "location_type" parameter when using the template, then it will work, as shown here. (To make it so that a category is given to the page, use <includeonly> tags and put in Category:Police Departments, for example.) --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I added the category to Template:Info Police Dept (and other corresponding Info templates), which worked fine -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:00 5 November 2009 (BST)

signatures

how do you change your signature?--Sgt Gonnella 01:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See this. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Time Travel?

Ok, something is seriously up with the timekeeping all of a sudden for me. I was happily reviewing my bot and checking the odd edit to make sure it hadn't broken anything. My refresh of RC yielded no new results though. Fearing it had crashed I checked my program, it was still trodding along happily. I pasted a page to check the edit history. It had updated just fine and at the current time.

Looking closer at RC, it's fucking jumped a hour off and fucked the edit history over.

My bot was working in alphabetical order, and the mass of edits certainly helps me a bit here...

This question started at 23:45 UTC and posted at 23:58 UTC.

Recent Changes, top of list, show bots on.

(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Edgecombe)‎; 00:24 . . (+39) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) ... A ton more bot edits here, you get the idea. ... (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Ferreol's Hospital (Dartside)‎; 00:20 . . (+81) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . N User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A8‎; 00:20 . . (+956) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{UDGame| top=Somewhere| NW_location={{UDBox|B7|a field}} | NW_color=Field66|)

All these times, and notice the usual edits too, have suddenly jumped an hour into the future!

The bots edits were being made at the correct UTC time though, and had gotten stuck deeper into the stack, inamongst edits that had been made an hour previous (the edits from an hour before have now jumped an hour ahead, remember)

See how the alphabetical order has continued! Louis Hospital to Luke Cathedral. The non-bot edits I believe were made from the hour ago streak. Thus the edits are getting interwoven.

(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Margaret's Church (Wray Heights)‎; 23:24 . . (+90) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Luke's Cathedral‎; 23:23 . . (-14) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . Lockettside Republicans Army‎; 23:23 . . (-2) . . Devilz-fury (Talk | contribs) (→What we do - ) (diff) (hist) . . m User:Rikev‎; 23:21 . . (0) . . Rikev (Talk | contribs)

So...WTF?

If there's some edits during actual UTC 00:20 to 00:24, they should intersperse with an unbroken bot edit streak. If anybody else is getting this error, you could turn turing on bot edits in RC and seeing the result.

For the record, this is the streak as of now, currently just far enough into the future to be undisturbed.

(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Edgecombe)‎; 00:24 . . (+39) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Chancelwood)‎; 00:23 . . (-18) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Lazarus's Church (Paynterton)‎; 00:23 . . (+57) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Laurence's Hospital‎; 00:23 . . (+44) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Joseph's Hospital‎; 00:23 . . (+74) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Lockettside)‎; 00:22 . . (+82) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Gibsonton)‎; 00:22 . . (-105) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Cathedral‎; 00:22 . . (+24) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Joachim's Church (Starlingtown)‎; 00:22 . . (+60) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Jeremy's Hospital‎; 00:22 . . (+58) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Hubertus's Hospital‎; 00:21 . . (+86) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Holy's Church (Starlingtown)‎; 00:21 . . (+16) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Henry's Hospital‎; 00:21 . . (+91) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Helier's Hospital‎; 00:21 . . (+72) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Helena's Hospital (Roachtown)‎; 00:21 . . (+43) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 03‎; 00:20 . . (+132) . . Zombie slay3r (Talk | contribs) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Gall's Church (Pennville)‎; 00:20 . . (+49) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Ferreol's Hospital (Dartside)‎; 00:20 . . (+81) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . N User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A8‎; 00:20 . . (+956) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{UDGame| top=Somewhere| NW_location={{UDBox|B7|a field}} | NW_color=Field66|

Anybody know what the hell's going on? --  RoosterDragon  23:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The same thing was happening to me. Oddly enough, the wiki was awfully slow around that time. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought maybe a DST change, but that's not til late this month. It also happens at 1/2 AM depending on whether we're stepping on or off. My preferences reports the server time correctly, and my local time correct too (not hard, no offset) I am considering making an edit summary that will "pre-empt" another edit just for the awesomeness though. --  RoosterDragon  00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. One awesome for me.

(diff) (hist) . . m User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A7‎; 00:11 . . (0) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (eh x2) (diff) (hist) . . m User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A7‎; 00:10 . . (0) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (eh) (diff) (hist) . . N User:A Helpful Little Gnome/A7‎; 00:10 . . (+922) . . A Helpful Little Gnome (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{UDGame| top=Somewhere| NW_location={{UDBox|B6|a field}} | NW_color=Field67| N_location={{UDBox|B7|a field}} | N_color=Field66| NE_location={{UDBox|1Wood1|Woodland}}| NE_color=Woodland| W...) (diff) (hist) . . m Wiki Questions‎; 00:09 . . (+1) . . The Rooster (Talk | contribs) (→Time Travel? - I am using my time travel powers to known the AHLG is about to create a page in his subspace, titled A7. Then double eh when it goes wrong!)

And minus half an awesome for the "known" typo as opposed to "know". Or maybe that is correct. Bloody time travel, screws with tenses. --  RoosterDragon  00:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Kevan. I suspect it's just a weird bug. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaag, what's going on? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

conflicted Time's caught up Gnome, we'll be fine now.

Good show, Link. I'll just wrap up with this bit, I had the bot run 6 extra edits just to show how the edits got interwoven. (Seven, if you count that fact it then recorded that brief streak in the UpdateReport) Compare to the earlier list I posted before time caught up.

(diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReportTimekeeperBot/UpdateReport‎; 00:24 . . (-2) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Last update has been recorded.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Edgecombe)‎; 00:24 . . (+39) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Chancelwood)‎; 00:23 . . (-18) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Lazarus's Church (Paynterton)‎; 00:23 . . (+57) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Elson Building‎; 00:23 . . (+76) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Laurence's Hospital‎; 00:23 . . (+44) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Edgecombe Museum‎; 00:23 . . (+96) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Joseph's Hospital‎; 00:23 . . (+74) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Lockettside)‎; 00:22 . . (+82) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Eden Museum‎; 00:22 . . (+50) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Gibsonton)‎; 00:22 . . (-105) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Dunham Building‎; 00:22 . . (+61) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. John's Cathedral‎; 00:22 . . (+24) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Joachim's Church (Starlingtown)‎; 00:22 . . (+60) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Jeremy's Hospital‎; 00:22 . . (+58) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Doubting Building‎; 00:22 . . (+44) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/The Dooley Building‎; 00:21 . . (+75) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.) (diff) (hist) . . b User:DangerReport/St. Hubertus's Hospital‎; 00:21 . . (+86) . . DangerReportTimekeeperBot (Talk | contribs) (Bot Edit. Over 1 month since last update, status set to Unknown.)

What fun. --  RoosterDragon  00:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't edit my userspace still. Summary from a page I tried to create "funny thing is, this page isn't in my contributions or RC, yet the code is here and there's a history. It also goes straight to the edit window from A8" --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, everything seems fixed, including my userpage problem. This wiki never ceases to amaze me. :O --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Template Creation

People appear to use templates for creating awards/badges for all manner of things and I was wondering if there are any rules outlying their creation? I've considered creating my own several times for different purposes (mostly fun) and I want to know if there any requirements I need to fulfil? Category:Templates and Help:Templates have told me how to make one but not if I'm allowed to.

On a side note putting Category:Templates does not include it as a link... why is this? (It's actually in both sentences without the <nowiki> tags! --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:57, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Use [[:Category:Templates]] (notice the colon at the start) if you want to make it a link that doesn't include the page in the actual category. There is no specific rules about template creation, but unless they're used on multiple pages (or likely to be), mostly it's better to just put the code on the page itself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:06 1 June 2009 (BST)

Thanks. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:18, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Wiki 'Zerging'

Is there any defense against one user creating multiple wiki accounts and causing grief for other users? This could include voting multiple times for a suggestion using different accounts, plus spam and the like.--Degree7 05:33, 15 August 2009 (BST)

Sure, A/VB. No one is allowed to vote multiple times with different accounts. And teaming up on someone with alt user accounts can be viewed as bad faith as well. But it needs confirming with more than just suspicion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:50 15 August 2009 (BST)

Isn't that a tad tough to prove though?--SlegthVonDraco 07:43, 26 September 2009 (BST)

No. We can compare IPs of users. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:10, 26 September 2009 (BST)

How about if the log on to a school or public computer.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sexualharrison (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

That can easily get around the system, yes. Truth be told, we rarely rule that two accounts are the same unless we have some very substantial evidence that they are run by the same person, ie. ip addresses. Using an account from school can cause "damage", though it's easily reversible and the vandal alt will get warned (most likely banned if they trip up any suspicion/evidence it's an alt). Despite this, yes, it will in most cases avoid the actual blame coming down onto the real culprit's main account in the end. --

 

 

 

 

15:24, 28 July 2010 (BST)

Table spacing

I can't find or figure out how to make a dead space between rows in a table. I would like to put just a blank line or two between my characters on my user page, ideally without resorting to using empty cells. Is this possible, if so, how? Thanks. Captdrett 22:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest making each one its own table, then putting some line breaks between the tables. Otherwise, inserting an empty row really is your best bet. You could also try to use cell spacing, but I don't think it'd achieve the results you want. —Aichon— 23:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasnt sure where to put this...but how do I advertise?

And is it acceptable to advertise in certain ways but not others? I'm trying to make a Survivor Mall Tour but noone knows about it. I dont wanna bug its just that survivors probably "need" this: something fun to do that gives an excuse to repair areas and kill a ton of zombies efficiently. Right now everyone is just in their own lil' groups, not helping each other out exactly.

So how do I advertise? Any free ways? And so on...--Supercohboy 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Recruitment. Make an ad for your group as a sub-page, e.g. Survivor Mall Tour/Recruit, and then link it there as instructed on the page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, groups are helping each other out. My survivor group (40-50 active members) is currently out of their home suburb, helping another group/suburb get back on its feet. And I know The Big Prick has been organizing an RP cleanup of eastern Malton for a few weeks now, which is just starting to get underway. Plenty of groups are helping other groups out. But yes, as Yonnua said, post on the Recruitment page. —Aichon— 02:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Also, I just knew saying that would offend someone eventually, and I know there are groups out there that are helping each other, but I meant in the big picture there are more zombies working together and making a bunch of targeted events then we are, and it is messing up Malton*! I want to help by making an event we all can look forward to as survivors. *Messing up Malton in a non-Barhah point of view. You zombies are fine bringing Barhah, we just need countermeasures!--Supercohboy 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Images as direct links

I've seen, on a few different wikis, coding allowing images to be used as direct links to other pages - not like the redirects we tend to use here (such as with Iscariot's sig, for a prominent example). Examples of this can be see with the sprites here, or with the flag images in the infobox here. Now, I'm not a huge fan of redirects, and if it were possible to set up something like that here, I'd make use of it, but having viewed what source code I have, I'm not entirely sure I understand it. From what I can gather, the first example runs from a standardised image archive, the likes of which we don't have, while the source code for wikipedia's example seems similarly tied to a small subset of images. Basically, is there a way to do this kind of thing in a manner which allows any image on the wiki to be used as a direct page link? 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure I've seen this before, but it might be that the mediawiki isn't good enough to sustain it. I had a fiddle, but I couldn't see an easy way of doing it. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, after checking out the template calls on WWII flag image template, [1], I didn't go further than that page I just linked cause I'm concentrating on a lecture atm, but judging by the code it's most like a div template hovering over the image that links straight to the page, so you can't actually click the flag cause it's hiding behind the transparent template of the same size. I believe Rooster (it might have been AHLG and Iscariot too) spent a bit of time in 2009 messing with the concept. --

 

 

 

 

23:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried an alternate way than redirects originally, but couldn't get it sustain large areas. The aborted attempt can be found here if you're looking for an alternative to redirects. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That should work, thanks. I'm trying to fix my sig with images so it actually displays right, so nothing's going to be much bigger than a tiny image. Cheers. 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Wait no, scratch that. Can't line up stuff with it horizontally. Thanks anyway, though. 23:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As shown on this test (banner at the top), even when putting in larger values I couldn't get the link area to sustain beyond a certain limit. It might work for sigs, but I'd do some serious beta testing first, that example was for Bob, but I don't recall him ever using it so it's never been put into the wilds to interact with page code and other people's sigs. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For those following at home, this page now contains last year's tests, combined with a proof of concept and a rendered sig using this method. My only real concern with this is the increase in template calls within the templated sig. It might be possible to use raw code as a replacement for the click template, but I just can't be bothered at this time of night. This concept will also need testing regarding its interactions with other common coding on talk pages and in sigs before I'm happy for them to go into the wild. Comments? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be fiddling up the raw code as soon as I have the images finished, then we can see what it looks like on bigger and busier pages. Thanks again, Iz. 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Update the second, Mis and I just tried the multi-templated version in my sig. The template calls didn't cause page breakage, however we found that the sig would automatically rejustify itself on a new line, away from indented comments and that it would displace the timestamp as well. My table speak is exhausted. Spellcasting: SUMMON CODEMONKEY. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's never going to work like that, other wikis use some sort of extension for signature images like that. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sick and heading to bed in a sec, so you'll have to excuse the fact that I just skimmed what you all said, but I can think of two possible ways to rig this up by using the technique that was described earlier (covering the image with a link).

1. Set the image you want as the background image for a div. After that, create a link in the div with span around it that has display:block set for it and its width and height matching the size of the div. You can see an example of how to create a link with span in that manner here (mouse over Dakerstown on the map).
2. If you can't set wiki images as background images (I honestly can't remember if it's possible at the moment), then do the same thing with the link as what I said for #1, but make sure its first in the code, with position:relative, float:left, and a z-layer that is higher than that of the image. Then, just have the image in the div like normal after that. Assuming my brain isn't horribly addled (and it might be), the image should just float under the link, meaning it'll work as desired.

If neither of those work, or nobody can get them working, I'll see if I can find some time in the next few days to put something together, but it should be possible. All of the other things I saw mentioned here seem to require additional extensions (but again, I only skimmed). Hope this helps. And now, to bed... —Aichon— 07:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't set background images. Mediawiki itself is coded to remove the image code as it's a "security threat" (I think it's something about external images executing arbitrary code, but don't quote me on that. I don't get why you couldn't use local ones either). You put the code down, and the parser will silently remove the whole lot. The only thing that makes it when setting a background definition is the background-color attribute.

So the other, working, option is just laying a big div on top. You then have to set a link up using spaces to fill the box. Unfortunately Click doesn't take the best route to it. It's uses a 100px font size and 3 non-breaking spaces to set up the link. 3 nbsp's aren't even 100px wide, and only 100px tall because of the font-size. So anything bigger than that and you won't get it covering the whole area.

I think I can make it less fail and create a new version once I post this, but I'd still recommend image redirects for signatures. They work just fine and don't require the additional template call, and the template is a bit kludgey anyway.

Skimming quickly the mediawiki documentation on images, it seems they added a handy link= parameter as of 1.14. We're on 1.9.something IIRC. So add it to the list of stuff we don't have. --  RoosterDragon  18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In reference to your second paragraph, I've already tackled that problem if you check the link I provided earlier to here. Anyway, rather than explain how it can be done, I'll just link an example of it in action. I changed the link's color to be semi-transparent red, that way you can see that it's overlaying the image, but it'd be trivial to remove that coloration. Does this satisfy what everyone was looking for? I can clean up the code and simplify it a bit, maybe even toss it into a template, if people want it. —Aichon— 18:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I lost points for skim reading your previous reply. And I just fixed {{Click}} to be less fail too. You should go ahead and alter that template. In the meantime, perhaps there's other stuff I can solve half-assedly that you already have solutions for? --  RoosterDragon  18:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could possibly stop fucking arbitrarily altering the templates others are using, particularly if you're going to make them worse? For fuck's sake, go create a new version and we'll decide which one we prefer. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot you had tests for it. But I don't see that I broke anything. --  RoosterDragon  19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to your own documentation, five times height/width causes breakage whereas the old one had no such limitation. Going backwards is not good. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The previous version left out the note that it failed above 100px high or ~80px wide. Far worse, in my opinion. --  RoosterDragon  19:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More often than not, you're the one with the solution that I'm looking for. Anyway, Click looks like it can be simplified quite a bit if we use my approach, and my approach also has the advantage of not showing the underline through the middle of the div when you mouseover the link (the text of my link consists of a single space with a font size of 0px, so the underline doesn't appear at all). I'm pretty sure my approach would also work for any size at all. I'll toss together a template quickly, as per Iscariot's suggestion, and you guys can see what you think of it. —Aichon— 18:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, added a bit to the demo page to show off the new template in action. If it looks good, feel free to move it to the public namespace with an appropriate name. Also, mine lets you set the mouseover text if you want, which Click doesn't do, I just realized, but otherwise you should probably be able to swap mine in directly for Click, since they need the same variables. —Aichon— 18:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine, may as well just replace Click outright. --  RoosterDragon  19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed up a few more things, so now you can have multiple image links on the same line. I think it probably also needs some fool-proofing done in cases where the sizes are set incorrectly. I notice that Click has overflow properties, which might be useful here as well. Otherwise, it's close to being or is ready, I'd say. Let's see what Mis thinks. —Aichon— 19:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I owe you guys pints. 16:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept cookies as well. ;) —Aichon— 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I will accept Fiffy being flown over to the UK instead of pints. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Iz mah Fiffeh! U cantz haz! :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I did a bit more editing, and near as I can tell, it works in almost every major browser. I've fool-proofed it a bit too. All told, I made the following changes:

• If you set your height too small for the link to cover the entire image, the image gets cut off. Should be obvious to the user, I think.
• If you set your height too large and the link exceeds the image, rather than giving you blank space that acts as a link, the excess area is colored in fuchsia and instructions for fixing it show up in that space (true story).
• IE8 degrades gracefully, near as I can tell, and in most cases acts as if the link wasn't even there (i.e. you should still use image redirects for IE users). I didn't test IE7. And I'm willing to bet that this thing breaks IE6 all to hell.
• Issues with cross-browser vertical alignment seem to have been fixed (FF was behaving differently than WebKit).

Take a look at the new examples I've posted here to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Anyway, unless someone sees issues in their browser, I think it's done. I'm just hesitant to replace Click myself. ;) —Aichon— 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, after seeing several of you guys copying the code from my Sandbox to use in your signatures (*cough*Misanthropy, DDR, Axe Hack*cough*), and with me wanting to clear it out of my Sandbox, I figured it was finally time to sort this thing out once and for all (at least you all had the decency not to include my Sandbox page in your sigs). Since I didn't know for sure whether my template was a drop-in replacement for Click that would always work where Click had worked, or if there might be some edge cases where Click worked but my template didn't, I've been really gun shy about replacing Click. Instead, I just went ahead and set it up as a new template, just to be safe. Well, more precisely, two templates: Template:ClickInternal and Template:ClickExternal. As the names imply, the first is for internal links, while the second is for external links, and they should both work just as you guys expect already. Let me know if you run into any trouble with them. —Aichon— 20:42, 8 August 2010 (BST)

That's cool, but I subst-ed your old template so I'm using the raw code, you could have cleared it out a while back. 20:45, 8 August 2010 (BST)

Sure, I could have, but then what would everyone else have done? :P —Aichon— 21:00, 8 August 2010 (BST)

It should be noted that images can now be used as link as a feature of the wiki software. For instance, . It works for external and internal links in the same manner you'd expect. —Aichon— 05:20, 22 April 2011 (BST)

Wrong Page?

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/People_of_Malton/Headquarters

I found this page linked in the Malton Fire Department building listings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBardofAwesome (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

If it was linked there before, it's not now. These are all of the links to that page right now. —Aichon— 06:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. What do you mean and what does it mean in terms of the question you are asking, if any? --

 

 

 

 

06:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I the coding.

Kudos if you get the reference in the subject title.

Anyway, I was working on a part for Ross's new town and I seem to have ruptured the very fabric of coding that was in place.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:TheBardofAwesome

It used to have a form like the one above it. If anybody can help me out and fix it, I'd be eternally grateful. --TheBardofAwesome 04:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured out the problem. --TheBardofAwesome 05:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Policy on Impersonation

I have a question regarding the content allowed or not allowed on group pages, related to UDWiki:Specific Case Editing Guidelines. If a group attempts to impersonate and claim to be part of a different group that is has nothing to do with, can this be prevented? Can such a group be forced to include a NPOV introduction containing the notice that the following claims and so on are POV?
I am aware that impersonating another wiki user is considered vandalism, does this apply to impersonating another group as well?
An example is the page Malton Vice Unit. While this group most obviously claims to be a part of the DEM and is impersonating it, as a matter of fact it is in no way affiliated with the DEM. Can this group (if it even is a real group, which can be doubted) be required to preferably remove the DEM references or at least include an introductory notice that the connection to the DEM is POV/RPing/whatever but not a fact and thus untrue?
Thank you, G F J 14:27, 19 April 2010 (BST)

I firstly must thank you for that NPOV notice on the NDEM, that'll do wonders for my chances to get a policy through to ban enforced NPOV sections.

Remember that the notice at the top must be NPOV, which means you going "They're not us!!1!" is not NPOV ;)

Anything else on those pages is up to the group in question. Which means they could put sections about that top notice being a deliberate lie and that in fact they are the dedicated rotted zombie wing of the DEM that are unleashed on any survivors that remind the metagame that you alt polices break the basic laws of this game as set down by Kevan and there's nothing you can do about it. I'd remind you that editing another group's page outside that NPOV into paragraph is vandalism, as is altering that paragraph from NPOV to emphasise any opinion you may have about them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:33, 19 April 2010 (BST)

Basically, you can add a brief, neutral explanation to the top of the page, explaining any deceptions. But you must be prepared to justify any claims you make in arbitration if you do, and it is challenged. You can also remove the page from any category owned by your group, no matter where on the page they include the category tag. Sometimes this may mean subst'ing a template (like the DEMnav one on that page) and removing the category manually -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:06 20 April 2010 (BST)

Not really. On his group's templates he can, but not when the problem is community templates that the DEM has seen fit to brand as their own with a category tag. Especially when he's already been going around demanding people remove themselves from his category when the fault is his members not knowing how to <no include> them on template pages. The fault is with the DEM here, not wiki users. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:18, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Template:DEMnavbar isn't a community template. It's a DEM template, created by the group, for the group. Using it on a page not affiliated with DEM, in order to impersonate them isn't what it was designed for. They're within their rights to remove pages that do use it from the DEM category, if they don't belong there. Putting category tags in group specific templates is a legitimate way to ensure they are all categorised correctly -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:28 20 April 2010 (BST)

Thank you for the replies, Boxy. They certainly helped to clear this up. And yes, the Navbar template is indeed not a community template, it is group specific, edited only by DEM members and intended only for internal use. G F J 12:15, 20 April 2010 (BST)

It makes no difference, you'd be better sticking no include tags on it as you cannot prevent groups using code and content, so they can still use an exact copy of that template. Still no response on why community templates somehow find themselves in the DEM category? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:21, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Just replace their use of the template with the code, and leave out the category tags. Here's some precedent for you -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:31 21 April 2010 (BST)

Content outside page area

I know it's normally forbidden, though permissable when there's a pressing reason. Now, on my talk page I really like everything having the biggest header possible and that means 90% of the time I have to fix the way that the "+" button adds a second-level header automatically. So what I want to know is, would anyone actually give a toss if I were to throw a fixed-position blank space on my talk page that hid the "+" button so it couldn't be used, forcing manual addition of new headers? 23:32, 10 June 2010 (BST)

Lol! Dude, there is a secret button which does that that is in the wikis coding and therefore isn't against policy. ;D --

 

 

 

 

06:59, 11 June 2010 (BST)

Despite my teasing, I'm gonna come right out and admit I don't know what it is anymore, I've forgotten. The only example of "+ mainpulation" on the wiki is UDWiki:General Discussion, where Linkthewindow (god bless his beautiful soul :*() added the secret word which forced a + tab on non-talk page. There's an opposite one somewhere, I swear. --

 

 

 

 

07:01, 11 June 2010 (BST)

The magic word to remove "+" appears in a more recent version of the wiki that we don't have. --  RoosterDragon  09:37, 11 June 2010 (BST)

It only works properly if you're using the default skin. The increased usage of content outside the normal page area annoys me, regardless of the "pressing reasons" that some people come up with to justify using it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:28 11 June 2010 (BST)

Good luck convincing everybody using CustomTitle that other skins even exist. --  RoosterDragon  09:37, 11 June 2010 (BST)

I'd definitely be okay with a minor use such as this one. It's the obviously annoying ones that I take issue with, such as when they block my edit box that appears at the top of the page, as opposed to the bottom, or ones that block the nav bar on the side. —Aichon— 13:21, 11 June 2010 (BST)

*Grumpyface*

Is {{CURRENTHOUR}} infallible? Or can one page using it lag behind others? --VVV ^RPMBG 05:25, 22 July 2010 (BST)

Pages get cached by the wiki software, resulting in some pages lagging behind others. They'll eventually update, but I've seen cases where they're a few hours off before. From what I can tell, the more unique people visiting the page, the sooner the wiki will refresh the page, though that's just anecdotal and a guess at best. However, doing a "null" edit (i.e. edit the page, then save it without making any changes) will result in it being updated to the correct time, or you can use ?action=purge in the URL to force it to purge the cache for the page. Both of those do work, but require manual intervention. —Aichon— 06:53, 22 July 2010 (BST)

Even just previewing the page without any edits would refresh it too. I've found myself needing to do it a few times on my user page, it's as easy as a null edit only it doesn't clog up RC with nothings. 16:07, 22 July 2010 (BST)

Interesting. So the more traffic I attract, the better gaming experience people will have. I can definitely put ?action=purge to use, though. Thonx. --VVV ^RPMBG 21:56, 22 July 2010 (BST)

Well, as I said, that idea about more people is a general observation I've made, and shouldn't be taken as hard truth. The other stuff I'm sure of though. —Aichon— 22:40, 22 July 2010 (BST)

Null edits don't show up in RC or on Watchlists, Mis. At least they don't if you do them right (e.g. I just did a null edit of this page right before this edit). Also, merely previewing does not always do the trick. Previewing does let you see what the page would look like if it weren't cached, but it does not actually clear the cache in and of itself, I believe, so others may not see what you see necessarily. —Aichon— 22:40, 22 July 2010 (BST)

Permission to edit one of Ross's pages

Alright, so I have some revisions for my earlier submissions to Rosslessness's discussion page for his Unemplementia project. The only thing is, I've been reprimanded for editing his page and since Ross is supposedly camping, I don't want to be whacked on the head again by sysops.

Should I just wait for Ross to return or make the editions? --TheBardofAwesome 10:38, 16 August 2010 (BST)

Hmm. he said he's away but he just edited Kevan's talk page so if you ask quickly you might catch him just now. --

 

 

 

 

10:46, 16 August 2010 (BST)

Go ahead! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:50, 16 August 2010 (BST)

Oh, ok. Thanks Ross. Ignore the new topic on your talk page. It's irrelevant now =D --TheBardofAwesome 10:52, 16 August 2010 (BST)

Wiki page descriptions

Just for clarification, is it considered vandalism if you delete and/or modify the descriptions of building descriptions that are really hard to read due to poor sentence structure, poor usage of spelling and grammar, as well as being biased towards zombies? --TheBardofAwesome 18:08, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Care to provide an example?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 18:38, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Oops, absolutely. The Veysey Building I meant to include this in the original post. Sorry 'bout that. --TheBardofAwesome 18:50, 2 September 2010 (BST)

In my perosnal opinion I don't think it would be, but you may want to ask on a syops Talk page to be certain.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:00, 2 September 2010 (BST)

I know for a fact if you do edit it and someone else signed it you need to indicate you edited the original work or else its crummy impersonation with what would probably be a soft warning as vandalism. I'm pretty sure you can edit descriptions how you see fit, just be wary of Mycock building. It has so much win on it already. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

19:08, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Personally. I'd create an archive page for all the old news. Most malls have them, as well as all the suburbs. Clear everything to that page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:11, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Alright, thanks for the answers guys. I will work on this later, but if you guys want to, feel free. --TheBardofAwesome 19:17, 2 September 2010 (BST)

We'll let you have a go first Bard. The best way to learn is to do! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:21, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Well, I've remodeled the page quite a bit. Check it out if you want or have the time. If I say so myself, it's a great improvement. --TheBardofAwesome 20:25, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Looking around, I found another page that I'm iffy about changing. The Danger Building. Its wiki page is highly biased towards non-prolifers and in general needs editing, but I don't know if that'd be considered vandalism. Your thoughts? --TheBardofAwesome 17:58, 6 September 2010 (BST)

That one's meant to be like that. 18:28, 6 September 2010 (BST)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't wiki pages supposed to adhere to a state of neutrality without being biased or did I not get a memo? --TheBardofAwesome 18:32, 6 September 2010 (BST)

I believe that's just for the News stuff. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:47, 6 September 2010 (BST)

The Danger Building is a parody and a piss-take. Its only bias is 'anti-trenchie'. 18:56, 6 September 2010 (BST)

Much like the extremely well written Danger Alley --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:21, 6 September 2010 (BST)

Image as border of page

I have a idea of making my wiki character page look like a manila folder, that you page through, however I'm unsure how to place the images to allow me to add text to the pages while having the top and right side as the images of the folder. A example of what I'm looking for is here: http://imageshack.us/f/803/peecefiles.jpg/ I also added parts of the images to my sandbox, but am unsure how to align things top, side, bottom, ect. Warren Peece 18:53, 12 May 2011 (BST)

I've cobbled a simple table together to align the two pictures. You need to edit them a bit to make them match up, though. As for text, best you could do is to add another cell below the header image and give it the background color of the images. If you need help on all of that, I can activate my Gimp and see if I get that thingus running. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 19:09, 12 May 2011 (BST)

Wow that was very fast, thank you. However how do I now place something below the top image and make it look as one image> Warren Peece 19:13, 12 May 2011 (BST)

Again thank you.Warren Peece 19:25, 12 May 2011 (BST)

I've just extracted the color code from the image in Gimp and added a cell filled with "Lorem Ipsum" below it - it should fit seamlessly. (Not sure why it doesn't properly align the text at the top as it should per valign="top", but I need to run away for a bit and can't tinker further.) Try out Help:Tables until I get back, or another user picks up. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 19:27, 12 May 2011 (BST)

The right side of the image no longer shows the tab part but rather a large yellow tab. I understand this is part of the table at the bottom so that I can type in the area, but, is their a way to show the tab at the top right, as well as drop the size of the entire page so that it actually fits? You have been greatly helpful, thank you very much. As you can tell I am completely daft of what to do with coding.Warren Peece 19:46, 12 May 2011 (BST)

Back. For some bizarro reason, it didn't let me use out the space directly under the top image for the text cell. So, I've crammed all the text into the same cell as the top image, which looks ugly, but at least lets me achieve what you wanted to achieve. I've also shrunk the images to about half their size. Think that should now have resolved everything. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 20:55, 12 May 2011 (BST)

Relevant. The image border is at the other side of the page, but it's the same principle. You just need to nest table cells - it's not as complex as it sounds, but you will need to visualise how to break then down. Draw a grid out and figure out what should be in each one before you start coding the table. 01:06, 13 May 2011 (BST)

I got a majority of the idea down, (thanks again Spiderzed) however it's not exactly what I'm looking for. It might be the images themselves. I want the entire page to look like the cover, with clickable links to other pages. The rest of the pages, will look like if you were looking inside a manilla envolope filled with typed papers, the file tap, with Warrens name will still be visable on all, and have a navation bar linking to other pages. Not even sure if this is possilbe, and I have absolutely no knowledge of how to do these things but I want it to look amazing. Warren Peece 02:13, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Tolman Catastrophe

Hello again. I was updating/working on my character descriptions when I saw that the link for the Tolman Catastrophe was broken, checked it out, and found out that the page was deleted by Vapor. Normally, I don't mind wiki updates, but why was this deleted since it's a part of Malton history, after all, it pretty much destroyed the surrounding area.

--TheBardofAwesome 19:29, 19 July 2011 (BST)

It was brought up on a vote on A/D, and the deletion votes won out. Several similar pages were done at the same time. I think the information was migrated to location pages for some or all of them. 19:31, 19 July 2011 (BST)

It was up for a deletion vote. The information has been merged into Burges Towers and Tolman Power Station, as the article was too negligible to warrant its own page by the view of the voters. -- Spiderzed█ 19:33, 19 July 2011 (BST)

Alright. --TheBardofAwesome 19:46, 19 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah sorry about that. I normally don't touch User pages to edit out dead links while deleting pages. The info about The Toman Catastrophe is found at Tolman_Power_Station#Post_Outbreak so maybe you can change the link on your character page to something like [[Tolman_Power_Station#Post_Outbreak|The Tolman Catastrophe]]. People can still click the link to find out more about the incident. ~ _{19:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

Spambits

Is it possible to limit page creation to autoconfirmed users? 19:37, 19 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah but Kevan has to do it. ~ _{19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

19:51, 19 July 2011 (BST)

There's discussion about it somewhere. I think the argument was that autoconfirmed users are those with 25 edits or one week under their belt and there are loads of non-spambit users we'd be fucking over by making them wait a week. I think there is a way to limit adding external links to autoconfirmed and probably even possible to whitelist certain domains (like urbandead.com). Still might limit some legitimate users and would still require Kevan's hand. I'll see if I can link you to the discussion. ~ _{20:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

Well the discussion seems to be spread out through several policy discussion pages. The most recent one came just after the wiki software update (recent and relevant info). There was also three separate policy discussions specifically addressing autoconfirmed. Uhh, I'm sure your question is probably in the somewhere but short answer is it's ultimately up to Kevan. ~ _{20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

The answer is: yes, you can. The 'create page' ability is a seperate permission which could be un-assigned to the 'users' group and given to the 'autoconfirmed' group. However, I'd be unwilling to do that given the disruption it would cause newbies (why should they have to make 25 edits to a wiki they really aren't interested in just so they can create a group page?)

If we were going to do it then we'd probably have to create a new "page creation requests" page.

For the record, autoconfirmed groups were originally envision purely for use with semi-protection. 'Autoconfirmed' is granted after one week and 25 edits.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:55, 20 July 2011 (BST)

The only way I'd see to make it feasible would be to limit page creation in the main namespace to auto-confirmed users and then adding in a group namespace for all groups to occupy which wouldn't require auto-confirmed status. In that way people who create a wiki account only to create and maintain a group page wouldn't be hindered and no new requests page would be needed (only very special cases possibly). But I couldn't imagine all the page moves and broken links(unless redirects always happen with page moves?) that would be required *shudders* >.>        04:07, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Loosen the autoconfirm criteria then (I'm pretty sure it's do-able, given that it's one day on the big wiki). With the time issue reduced, 25 edits really isn't a lot if you edit your userpage, add links to your new group to places, and then create it. 04:09, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Considering most spambits wait a few hours to post their page and that's the only edit they make removing the time limit and just make 5 or 10 edits the requirement. Heck if you want to keep the purpose of the current auto-confirmed group just make a second group that you'll earn with very little effort (such as 5 or 10 edits) to thwart the spambits. You could even name it aptly "You not a spambit yay!"       04:20, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Second group is possible but requires some fiddling by Kevan.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:28, 20 July 2011 (BST)

It's 4 days on Wikipedia. The whole purpose of the autoconfirmed is to protect highly visible pages from vandals, so we can't really change that - it would make semi-protection useless.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:28, 20 July 2011 (BST)

It's doable, but quite complicated and so goodluck getting Kevan to do it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:28, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I'm pretty sure that with the way Kevan configured our wiki during the update (which was likely nearly entirely the default configuration) changing group permissions has not been enabled for any level of user (including crat). Crats can assign permissions to specific user by adding or removing them from a specific group but they can't change the actual permissions. $wgGroupPermissions would need to be configured differently before we could go changing group permissions. ~ _{07:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah, giving crats the ability to change group permissions is pretty unusual for most wikis.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:28, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Oh ok, sorry I thought you meant it was something we could do ourselves in your comments above. ~ _{14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

Nah, none of these usergroup changes can be done by us. At best, we might be able to convince Kevan to let the 'crats have the power to create/alter usergroups; but that'd still require a fair bit of fiddling from him.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:19, 21 July 2011 (BST)

What about one edit? People could just create a user page. --Rosslessness 10:32, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah, we could. I am thoroughly against using the autoconfirmed group for that, though. We should set up a separate group if we're going to so it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:55, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Doing that would work wonders; can only create a page after one edit. In the restrictive system message for the "sorry you cannot create the page you're trying to make you need X edits", just add a link to the Sandbox or something, easy enough. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:47, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I'd be for a separate group. Maybe just "confirmed users". Some spambits would likely still find a way by spamming existing articles rather than creating new ones. We already see that in some cases though its more rare. I still think we should explore the option of limiting who can add external links. I think that's an option on the reCapcha extension we have. ~ _{16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

So Kevan forming a second group with the page creation permission to be earned with 5 edits would kill about all spambits. Then making it so users not in the auto-confirmed group have to enter a reCapcha to post an external link(s)? Sounds simple and solid to me.       22:34, 20 July 2011 (BST)

...are you kidding? I'd rather it be the way it is now, instead of spammers going: "Hmm. I can't make new pages, so I guess I'll just start overwriting currently existing pages." --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:33, 20 July 2011 (BST)

You figure they'd send updated bits to our little wiki? I'd say there are bigger fish to fry        00:52, 21 July 2011 (BST)

I'm not a programmer but I'd imagine spambots don't actually have anywhere near that sort of intelligence. P sure they are kamikaze bots designed to just make one page then make another if they havent been banned within the minute. If you find an actual spambot smart enough to have the line of thought you've just hypothesized above then tell me and I'll give it a medal. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:54, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Actually the old bots used to do exactly that and it's not something that would even be code intensive really. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:03, 22 July 2011 (BST)

There is likely some human intervention involved with the bits. That's how they get past recapcha for account creation. Companies will pay people in china and african nations to solve the capchas. I think the going rate is 5 american cents per 1000 capchas solved. Would they pay the extra monies to solve the extra capchas? I don't know. We really don't know how the bits would react. I actually share Akule's concerns. ~ _{01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

If we were to go through with some change i'd recommend doing only the change to adding urls at first since that works across the board without changing permissions. If we're lucky and it snuffs the bits we don't need to change anything else.if we're not, then we can consider adding the new group. ~ _{01:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah I was referring to the programmers/companies updating their bits :P Just be sure only users not in the auto confirmed group have to enter capchas. I hate those things and so does everyone else.       01:37, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Just to say: It is perfectly possible to use a piece of logic which says "if <can create page> = true; create new page" and then "If <can create page> = false; goto Special:Random; edit page" (I could even give you proof-of-concept code to do it). Whether or not most of the bots are that complicated is another matter (I'd guess "no", but that is only a guess). Adding a captcha when adding external links for non-autoconfirmed users is a setting in our captcha extension; it's a matter of toggling an option on. I doubt it will have much effect, though, given that the only bot which actually seems phased by a captcha would be mine.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:19, 21 July 2011 (BST)

That's because your not making your bot run the capcha by younto solve them. Even sophisticated black-hat linkspamming programs like XRumer supposedly use a mix of human and machine to do their evil bidding. I don't know if it would help either but as you said it would be easy to toggle on, it would work well with the autoconfirm settings already in place, and even sysops would have some control over what is allowed through whitelisting. It couldn't hurt to try it. ~ _{02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

True, and it's not worth the hassle to make it work: It only becomes a problem when I mistype my password and the captcha springs up. Yeah, I believe that's the easiest way to do it. Fun fact: The framework that I use is actually capable of solving several types of captcha on its own; reCaptcha just happens to be one of the types that is impervious to it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:03, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Random thought: The best anti-bot measures are actually the ones that ask questions or give maths problems because they block essentially all auto-solving bots and merely leave the human-solving ones.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:06, 21 July 2011 (BST)

That might be something to request. I think it is also a fairly straightforward change. Would you mind doing the honors of requesting the changes fro Kevan. You seemed to have said the magic words last time. ~ _{03:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

2+2=<>< will foil all bots! :D        03:24, 21 July 2011 (BST)