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

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

Comments re Proposed Advert Guidelines

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

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

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

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

04:17, 11 August 2007 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swiers 15:27, 12 August 2007 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swiers 15:48, 12 August 2007 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recruitment /for Dummies?

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

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

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

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

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

Swiers 17:28, 13 August 2007 (BST)

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

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

Regarding edits of DK

WHITEHOUSE:

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

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

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

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

--MK

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

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

Timestamps

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

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

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

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

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

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

November Update

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

September Update

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

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

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

August Update

Now Under New Management.

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

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

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

March Update

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

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

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

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

Alternate Arrangements

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

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

Page Creation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page Deleted

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

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

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

100 Word limit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture size restrictions

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

Sections

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

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

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

Problems with people bumping/moving other groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recruitment Template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Management

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

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

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

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

Sub Groups

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

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

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

At Random

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

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

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

We're new

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

My stab and fixing a bit of a mess

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

DEM is an organization, not a group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

01:08, 5 July 2007 (BST)

Organisations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malton Defense Corporation AND Malton Defense Corporation SQUAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recruitment/Archive