Hello,
This is a pretty short post, I'm curious to see what the community thinks:
Should we create a separate category for pages to denote that a boss is optional?
I personally believe we should, as it will help with categorization as well as help more clearly denote that a boss is optional rather than a required boss than just mentioning it in the first sentence of the boss's page.
Please leave your thoughts below
Thanks,
Cosmic
This thread has gotten Necro-posted a lot over the years. Can I get a close thread please? XD
The armor template is officially fixed, and doesn't have that ugly glitch with the code popping up around the image anymore. This happened because of a user who likely had good intentions to help the template, but ultimately made it become glitchy. As such, the Wiki's DkS1 looked pretty sucky for about 5 months.
The Switch template is still broken, though. I would love to see people who are coders (I am far from) come together and try to fix this problem. If we could get a functioning switch template again, it would be a great piece of progress in getting the Wiki looking good again.
Ah, I'll throw my vote in there, why not?
Mr. Plant seems like a fine person from the few interactions I've had with him, and I think he'd do a good job managing the discussions (which I know 0 about). Calm demeanor is the most important aspect when it comes to a position like that as far as I'm concerned.
Red has contributed pretty heavily to the community as a whole, which is a key attribute of being a Sysop. I'm totally in favor of him becoming a Sysop, as I know the responsibilities the job entails and feel Red would do a fine job at executing them.
Best of luck to both of you.
I have Volknur, one of our former admins, on Steam and he knows Balagog personally. I could try reaching out but I doubt anything would really help.
Y'all can do whatever you want with the site since you're the staff running it now, but I would like you to consider what will happen when you make people leave the Wiki to participate in community discussions. You invalidate the point of the Wiki's chat and make it seem like less of a community. The Wiki loses visitors to it as well, which means our WAM score will drop. This would be kind of like using a different forum instead of the one provided here. It kind of invalidates the community part of a Wikia. Just what I believe.
Here is the page you'd need to look at. I would speculate that way back when Wikia had a major security breach and had to temporarily block the use of MediaWiki to secure the site, that this was impacted. It may not work anymore with the present code.
2 points:
1) You're a disrespectful jackass
2) Use Google and figure out how cheat engine works for yourself. This is a Wiki, not a cheat code book.
I will briefly speak my mind on this issue.
On the one hand, talk pages make the Wiki look a lot more professional, and can be a great place for people to communicate about improving pages.
On the other hand, do we really care how "professional" we appear? Furthermore, comment sections make for great community discussions about fun things, as opposed to everything always being serious business.
I noticed a lot of pushback over the removal of comment sections back when the past administration (yes I'm included in that technically) did it basically overnight with very little voting. I think that comment sections overall bring a more fun environment to build a community on, as opposed to simply having talk pages which have to be nothing but business.
I vote to restore comment sections.
Well, I'll suggest (again) some alternatives to this.
We can create a Member of the Month award, and award it to deserving users. They can get a template placed on their userpage, and even receive a masthead that says MOTM.
We can start an initiative to use positive reinforcement to help other users who are emerging as editors to get into the swing of things while receiving positive, constructive feedback. This feedback would practically help those users to become great assets to the Wiki, and once that occurs, they will receive the praise they deserve for their work.
Weekly updates can be brought back, and in them we can start doing user shoutouts again. I obviously never received one, but I would like to see if this would help users feel better appreciated, or to receive feedback from those who were around when I did them to see if it made them feel appreciated for their work.
These are just a few of the ideas I have which I feel would be a far better alternative to this.
I'm far from concerned for myself, friend :) I couldn't care less if I have a colorful name or not. I gave mine up, after all.
I'm simply trying to point out flaws in this idea, and I am not the only one expressing these concerns. The reason I am doing so is because this Wiki is all about its community, and it should be an inclusive community. This idea, in my eyes, isn't very inclusive.
I'd like to also say sorry if you thought I was trying to argue with you. I'm just stating my opinion and you're stating yours :)
I don't understand how a colorful name is a reward, though.
If you want to mark someone doing something awesome for the Wiki, leave a message on their wall, create a template and post it on the profiles of the people you feel did great things, but don't do something that makes it seem like the administration is playing favorites.
Some concerns I have with this: Will the color be the same for all people who get this? Having ever color known to man as highlights on the Wiki will get confusing if that's not the case. Will users see this as special treatment? Will this make other users feel inferior or unappreciated if they don't get it?
I've always seen name highlights as only being there to separate staff from regular users to help the new people out. Now new people will see that highlights are on both staff and non-staff, which might throw them off.
I don't mean to be a downer, but these are things that should be taken into consideration regarding this.
Voted yes.
I've spoken thoroughly with Red, and he seems more than qualified for the position. He knows the ins and outs of the Wiki, and I wouldn't be surprised to see this as the first step of many here. Y'all have a great user here, don't take it for granted.
He's not looking for what every boss is the most resistant to, but what boss is the MOST resistant to that each type of damage. So (even if these examples are incorrect) Najka has more magic resist than any other boss, Ancient Dragon has the most fire resist out of every boss, etc.
Hiya folks.
So I wanted to open a discussion about the (very widespread) use of the Incomplete category. The reason I'm bringing this up (I know, I'm not an editor here anymore, hush your face) is because the same thing happened with the release of Dark Souls II, only at that point it was Category:Article stubs, and see how that worked out for us...
I would caution against using the Incomplete template lightly, as it is creating a backup of pages that need to be completed and will be a large pain to take care of down the road. Instead, I would recommend using your Advanced Contributor Tools (Found under the Customize section of your bottom bar) which allows you to find pages based on their different needs.
Just thought I'd give my two cents on the matter, obviously y'all can do this however you want. Feel free to discuss other alternatives below, or just tell me I'm wrong :)
Have a nice day! -Cosmic
Well I'd say this has been open for long enough. It's clear to me that Mats has full community support, I'll promote him ASAP. Regarding LaVey, I will leave that one up to Mats as I do not see it as my place to make this decision since I'm not nearly as active as he is. Any votes that were placed without explanations have been removed from the final poll numbers.
Final Poll Numbers (Mats)
Yes - 8
No - 0
Neutral - 0
Final Poll Numbers (LaVey)
Yes - 2
No - 2
Neutral - 5