Discussion

It's like Discussion, y'all. Anything that you might want to draw attention to can be posted and commented upon here. For now, a central location for discussions is more viable than commenting in talk pages, where it may be easily overlooked. --Snickles 12:55, 20 May 2005 (Central Daylight Time)

Ban Length

• At User talk:Rottingflesh, we concluded a need of a concrete standard about editing others' talk. Discuss. --CG1:t,c,e 07:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Is the talk really old? Is it completely misleading and inaccurate? I see nothing wrong with deleting that kind of stuff, even on talk pages. Maybe things could be archived for posterity, but not many people know how to do that. Also, I'm of the opinion that keeping around misleading and inaccurate stuff is just bad form. Modifying someone else's talk should first result in a standard warning on the offender's Talk page, simply stating that they should not modify other people's talk (unless it's old or useless?) This warning could probably link to the policy about editing talk pages, and resultant ban lengths. I understand that's a judgment call, and probably why the blanket "editing other people's talk is very frowned upon" is stated. I also think that any potential infraction should take into account how much the user helps the wiki and contributes. If it's a newbie, and they're just deleting old things, that would probably induce a larger penalty than someone that's been around a while, and has established that they are a helpful and knowledgeable editor. If they are warned, and continue to do it against a polite warning from a mod, then maybe a 1 day ban, to be like "we're not kidding. Stop it." then if they continue, a longer ban would be in order. --RoyalTonberry 08:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • 1. Though I'm in a large way responding to things from CG1's last post on RottingFlesh's talk page, this seems like a much better and still relevant venue for discussion. Not sure if all of these are relevant, but I'm not sure where better to mention them. Please redirect/relocate this to a more appropriate location if needed
      2. To me, a ban length of any amount of time (for a first offence in particular) is unwarranted when there are no policies being broken. CG1 said the the KolWiki tends to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, which is fair enough. But how is anyone to know that? I browsed through a bunch of pages today, and couldn't find that kind of info. What I see about discussion page editing: Established Standards doesn't have anything about talks, it just mentions that the page "assumes a basic knowledge of wiki editing." That page, under its "Discussion Pages" section, it says "Click on the "+" tab to add a new section, or edit the page in the same way as an article page. Use talk pages for questions, comments, or raw data." (bolding mine). That implies that deletion of comments is acceptable, no? Though, Help:Contents says this: "Also, editing or deleting other people's comments is generally not appreciated, although discussions may be archived." Not appreciating is a lot different than blocking, to me. Also, information about how one goes about archiving things is absent as well. The standards about editing talk are vague at best, nonexistent at worst. Maybe we should have a link to the wikipedia standards saying "when in doubt, refer to this"? If I were to go solely off what I've seen on the pages here, editing and deleting individual talk posts would seem okay - if sometimes questionable, depending on what's being removed - and definitely not worthy of time spent blocked. --Kirkpatrick 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This wasn't a simple "deleting ancient talk and a horribly outdated page". I didn't bother reverting his blanking of the outdated page, you might notice. I didn't even realize that the page existed until he waltzed into it, and I could tell it was something in need of either deletion or a massive revamp. So I was fine with the idea of someone coming in with a rewrite ready to go. Not that that page needed blanking to make the incoming rewrite necessary; it was already tagged for one, actually. The problem was the way in which he did it. I see the Hogs have a general problem with realizing that they are not, in fact, the center of the (KoL) universe. Waltzing around and waving your wang about while professing your excellence and dominance does not make you a productive, helpful, or knowledgeable editor. It makes you an ass. Your arguments run something like this: "I told a woman that she was beautiful and smart. I did a nice thing.", all the while refusing to acknowledge that you were covered in shit and bashing her face in with a dead baby while you were doing it. That changes things quite a bit, even if you don't realize it. But I think I'm growing tired of feeding the trolls from the Hogs. We can work on a way to make certain policies more transparent, that much is well and good. I think there should never be an explicitly stated policy of "don't be an ass", however. That is understood by anyone in a public situation who isn't an incurable ass already. RF was banned for being an ass. And then banned some more for being a bigger ass. And if he persists, he'll likely be banned forever for being a known incurable ass. It's very simple. His cadre of clanmates who came in and went about putting in his rewrite without being an ass? They were not banned for being an ass; or anything else. They were being helpful, knowledgeable, useful editors. And I dislike playing favorites with ban lengths, too, at least not with this sort of infraction. You don't earn the right to be an ass. You don't earn the right to spam links to boot brands. You don't earn the right to turn a wiki page into your personal vanity site. Etc. etc. You do these things, and you get banned like anyone else; the length only goes up depending on your editing history (or lack thereof), not down. There are admins that make themselves available for contact should the banned party feel they should be unbanned or the like if they think they had that one-in-a-million situation to explain it away. --Flargen 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Wow, thanks for painting my whole clan with your broad brush. I appreciate your mercy in not banning RoyalTonberry or me for trying to clean up that horribly useless page, too. RottingFlesh asked in /clan if anyone was interested in helping him turn that page from the mess it was to something useful and informative. A couple of us volunteered, so (since we're all in the same clan! funny how that works when you're discussing stuff in /clan) RF put that notice up just to get a blank slate to start with. It's probably not what I would have done, but I was under the impression that anyone who wants to see old versions of a page can simply click over to the history. Anyway, Kirkpatrick and Stupac2 both contributed sections to the page (I believe at RT's request) so it's not like we think we're the only ones who understand basic game mechanics. Seeing these kinds of inflammatory comments from an admin (who apparently had some personal issues with RF while he was still in your clan and is now taking it out on an entire other clan) makes me really feel like I don't want to put in the kind of effort again that I just did for that page. I don't expect gratitude for my efforts, but I could do with fewer of the ridiculous insults. --Deandra 23:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Rewrites are fine if they're topical and fitting. As the new version of the page appears to be. Collaborating with others--clan members, friends, or otherwise--is also well and good. Blanking a page with comments to the effect of "THIS IS NOW THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE HOGS" is neither well nor good. If I paint your clan with a broad brush it is because I have had the misfortune of primarily seeing the ones who don't know enough to see an infraction on common sense etiquette that even my socially-inept self can pick up on. You seem to be thinking "he had the good intention of writing a better version of the page" is all that is needed, ignoring the whole "he also decided to make a page into his own little vanity piece, caps-lock included". I've never voiced any problem with rewriting the page. My problem is with the penis-waving he felt he had to make the talk page into. If you can't figure out the distinction between those two and which side of that fence you were falling on...there's nothing I can do for you. If you want gratitude for me not liking a wholly inappropriate edit someone made on a page that wasn't even the one you and others were working...then I think you just made my brain explode. And my personal clan associations right now aren't very meaningful. I am not an active KoL player, and am retired for all intents right now. --Flargen 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
          • You're implying that the entirety of my clan's contributions to the wiki are akin to bashing someone in the head with a dead baby while covered in shit. Perhaps you intended that part only for RF, but since you stuck it in the middle of a statement about how Hogs think we're the center of the KoL universe and how tired you are of us trolls, that's not how I read it. Since you've already admitted to being socially inept, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and drop it. --Deandra 01:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• I see two things in need of clarification:
  1. What are reasonable guidelines for initially handing out a ban?
  2. What are reasonable ban durations for a given infraction?
• It's pretty common for wikis to use the principles of Wikipedia in their administration, but that needs to be noted somewhere, otherwise users cannot find said policies. In the case that started this, my personal view would have been to revert the change and give the user a talk page warning; it wasn't abject vandalism, even though it wasn't the way things should have been done. I also think a one month block after they came back was a bit much -- yes they were insulting, but a user's talk page is a user's talk page. If they want to delete things from it, they have the right to do so (since the comment is technically archived in the edit history). That's right from Wikipedia -- it's discouraged, but but is not in and of itself a bannable offense, in my opinion. So this is the thing: if you want to use wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then the admins have to be consistent with them. Even a personal attack deserves a warning followed by a short initial block at most. Banning should always be used as a last resort -- in practice it rarely works well when used as a "go sit in the corner" kind of punishment.
• So, if wikipedia's policies are going to be considered the 'de facto' policies here, it needs to be clearly stated as an established standard. Then, it needs to be followed. And any deviations from wikipedia should be noted in that standard. --Lordebon 14:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. i would always counsel against making rules explicit, since rules make lawyers, and lawyers are assholes. leaving the whole "oh look douchebaggery, what should i do?" process up to the admins' discretion leaves no space for "but the rules say" nonsense.
  2. a stern typing to, or the threat of a ban? don't cut it. bans are pretty much all we got as far as punishment goes.
  3. making bans and the procedures of banning consistent by codification has the opposite effect to the one you propose: it just demands acres of text debating equivalence.
  4. since editing talk is such a douchebag thing to do (hey, look, i changed what you said and now i look smart and you look stupid hur hur) and the edge cases start so close to what would be otherwise be considered normal that a flat ban is the smartest and easiest for everyone.
  5. rottingflesh didn't get banned for editing talk. he got banned for disobedience. and rightly so. --Evilkolbot 21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • • If that's the case, then there should be a short standard saying banning is at the admin's discretion for cause and duration and say that standards of action are considered mostly the same as Wikipedia (and then link to wikipedia's standards). Then a user at least knows where to go to see what they can or cannot do. As an aside, I agree that editing others talk is not acceptable but that's not the same as just deleting talk on one's own talk page (which was the case that started this discussion). As another aside, it might be getting time to archive some of the old discussion, since this page is over 100k. --Lordebon 21:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • move done. --Evilkolbot 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Evilkolbot, I need to ask you; how could RF have been banned for disobedience? Obedience is defined as following rules or orders, but there are no outlined rules! And not only are there no outlined rules right now, but Evilkolbot, you are suggesting that no rules ever be hammered out because they will lead to lawyers and "acres of text debating equivalence." I would call this discussion an acre of text. The only difference being that we are not debating equivalence but debating the lack of defined rules. If your goal is to reduce the amount of text that must be written and read by admins, you are definitely not accomplishing it with this scenario. If Flargen had issued a warning rather than a ban, I doubt that it would have ruffled RF's feathers, so he'd never have told Flargen off, and everyone would be getting on with their happy lives. The admins are treating RF like he is a hardened criminal that either won't or can't change, but until this shitstorm occurred, no one had any problems with him on the wiki. Look at all of the people who are defending him! Mr. Green said on RF's user talk page, "Excessive bans only prolong the conflict, encouraging the accused to continue the debate. Which leads to more bans." I believe that this is precisely the case. This ban should never have happened and is only making matters worse.--DarthDud 22:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I banned RF for removing talk. I also tend to agree that the first instance probably should have been a warning as opposed to a ban - this is why I shortened his ban duration. I assumed there was a reason necessitating a ban the first time, which is why I did not completely unblock RF. --CG1:t,c,e 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll acquiesce to the request that a "slap on the wrist" that's lighter than what I imagined (a week is nothing; seriously) is the proper first course of action in this sort of situation. And certain types of behavior rub me in the wrong way. RF's edit to the talk page is exactly the kind of edit that strikes me as wholly inappropriate and unwarranted, and a mini-vacation cuts the problem off at the source. And using caps lock does not lend me to believe that the transgressor is not going to engage in "retaliatory" edits that vandalize the same page, or other pages. Having dealt with several such problem editors here has given me a short fuse with them, and he threw up all the warning flags I needed to give out a strong slap-on-the-wrist in the form of a 1 week ban. If I profiled a little to swiftly, then resolving incidents resulting from that is one of the good things about having several other admins around, and I'll keep that in mind in the future. --Flargen 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect plurals

I think that plurals of items should redirect to the item. Example: Moxie weed Moxie weeds.--Starguy 01:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that example is terrible It's merely a misunderstanding of wiki syntax. Instead of [[Moxie weeds]] use [[Moxie weed]]s and the parser will do the right thing with the link: Moxie weeds. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• What's the point? Most people search in the singular anyways. Also, that would also imply creating pages for boxen, which aren't standard plurals and thus unlikely to be searched. --CG1:t,c,e 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Abnormal plurals would seem the most warranted for redirects. Remember how many people got confused when the game first told them they'd gotten things like gimlis and vodka carlisles? Still, I'm not fond of the idea. --Flargen 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Abnormal plurals are the most warranted for redirects. A search for gimlis returns no results. In more obvious cases, I don't think they are needed. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's a consequence of the plural being in the data page and thus not actually appearing in the wiki-code for an item. If you use an advanced search that includes the Data namespace it'll show up. Of course, most users aren't going to do that. The occasional odd pluaral that's commonly referred to in-game by said plural might be a ok for a redirect (or disambig, as necessary). But obvious plurals (like moxie weeds) certainly do not need nor should have redirects. --Lordebon 21:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I notice that there already are redirects for some plurals, regular and irregular. Crimbux and twinkly nuggets for example. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Twinkly nuggets" is singular. The plural is clusters of twinkly nuggets. As for Crimbux, that is the result of wiki admins not noticing that being created during the influx of crimbo content. --Flargen 02:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Potions update

Trivial update today has created a new field that needs to be added to item template. Potions is pretty large, so what would be the best way of going about it?--Toffile 20:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Potion-type items now have a clickable indication of what effect they'll give you in their description popup." Only one Effect/Duration is shown in the item description window, even If a potion grants multiple effects. I guess just add effect=X, and duration=X. I'll add it to {{item}} around rollover now if no one beats me too it by then. But check in-game which effect is being shown. Just remember potion Effect is not equipment Enchantment. (Note: I'll prob make it a little more robust later, & make the effect a link, etc.) --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright. One minor question, can you add it so that any potions without effects/durations can get dumped into a temporary category to ease checking?--Toffile 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)