View source for User talk:Mr Doom Bringer

{{EmphasisBox|dark=yes|<div style{{=}}"float:right">__TOC__</div>Talk, just be nice about it.

--[[User:Mr Doom Bringer|Mr Doom Bringer]] 09:44, 25 November 2006 (CST)

New Editor? Welcome! Go read some information in the [[User:Mr_Doom_Bringer/Examples|Writer Intro page]].

[[User:Mr_Doom_Bringer/archive|Archive #1 - 19 August 2010]] <- Read this for important information about wiki formatting and other stuff!
[[User:Mr_Doom_Bringer/archive/2|Archive #2 - 3 June 2011]] <- Read this for important information about object documentation and other stuff!|green}}

{{TitledBox/start|red|heading=Things which need doing to the wiki|headinglevel=2|floatfix=yes}}
<small>Moved from [[User_talk:NXTBoy#Dev_work]]</small>
Put change requests requiring server access here
===Mega-high super-priority===
<ul style="margin: 20px -5px;"><li style="margin-left: -1000px; margin-right: -1em; padding: 20px 1em 20px 1005px; background: white; box-shadow: 0 0 50px black"><p style="font-size: 200%; margin-bottom: 20px;">'''Install the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi correct syntax highlighting extension]'''</p>

<p>As I described in [http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=59592566 this post], [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GeSHiCodeTag Extension:GeSHiCodeTag] is considered harmful. It claims the widely-used <nowiki><code></nowiki> tag for it's own uses, breaking many pages across the site (including this one). Without this tag available, there is no sensible way of marking up inline code.</p>

<p>Please can we switch to [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi]. This extension uses the <source> tag instead, which makes much more sense, and doesn't hide the native <nowiki><code></nowiki> tag. Additionally, it's much more customizable.</p>

<p>The sooner we switch the better, so that there are as few pages using Extension:GeSHiCodeTag to be converted as possible.</p>{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=22:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)}}

<p>
Alternate solution - add this to GeshiCodeTag.php:
</p>
<pre>$codeTag["simple"] = 1;            
$codeTag["advanced"]["mode"] = 0;</pre>
{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=19:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)}}

I was going to try to get someone to get the permissions (if not myself) to change this, but since MDB is back, I imagine he could do it. --[[User:Samacado|Samacado]] 15:06, 15 January 2012 (EST)
</li></ul>
:I like this idea, but I think we should change practice and use the <nowiki><tt> and </tt></nowiki> tags anyway. It's extremely unlikely that these will ever be changed. I've already changed a few pages to use these tags. 
:<div style="border-top: 1px dotted #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px">([[User:Merlin11188|Merlin11188]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=128839 Send Message] | [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Special:EmailUser/Merlin11188 E-mail] |Wiki Writer) — 01:45, 22 December, 2011 - UTC</div>
::[https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/tt <nowiki><tt></nowiki> is obsolete]. We should not use it. Code is the tag to use.{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=08:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}}
:::Well, we have to have something for the time being. Are there any non-obsolete, non-destroyed alternatives? (Which most likely won't be changed?)<div style="border-top: 1px dotted #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px; overflow: hidden;">([[User:Merlin11188|Merlin11188]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=128839 Send Message] | [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Special:EmailUser/Merlin11188 E-mail] |Wiki Writer) — 15:18, December 22, 2011 - UTC</div>
::::No. The whole point in the obsoletion (is it a word?) is that there becomes only one tag for marking up each purpose - the code tag. What the best solution might be is to make [[:template:`|a template]] that uses a styled span, and then we can use the "what links here" to remove all uses of it afterwards. That would look {{`|like this}}.{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=13:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)}}
:::::That's ironic! I was just trying to experiment with a template for this. It would be as simple as <nowiki><p style="font-style: Monospace;">{{{1}}}</p></nowiki>. <div style="border-top: 1px dotted #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px; overflow: hidden;">([[User:Merlin11188|Merlin11188]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=128839 Send Message] | [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Special:EmailUser/Merlin11188 E-mail] |Wiki Writer) — 21:40, December 26, 2011 - UTC</div>
::::::Wouldn't this um.. new... cover thing be considered getting a little bit obsessive? Erm.  It does need to be fixed.  Anyway, I don't think he's logged in recently. Why don't you send him a PM? {{User:Quenty/sig|date=January 16}}
:::::Yes yes yes, I've got a queue lined up for a dev about this. Also, I don't read my PMs. Email me if you need to. ---[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]]) 14:08, 17 January 2012 (EST)
:But, the <nowiki><source></nowiki> tag is already used by HTML5... for media files... <div style="border-top:1px dotted #AAA;color:#AAA;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em;overflow:hidden"><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]&nbsp;</div><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:right">28 January 2012</div></div>

===High priority===
*Install the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi GeShi] code syntax highlighting Extension
**Change lua.php to [[User:Anaminus/lua.php|this]]
*Give Move permissions to Editors

===Medium priority===
*Install the ParserFunctions Extension
*[[User_talk:Mr Doom Bringer#Logo Change|Update]] the wiki's logo (current logo is fuzzy)
*Give editors the rights to delete pages. [[:Category:Pending Removal|This]] category is getting full.

===Low priority===
*Add "Object" as a real namespace ([[User:Mr_Doom_Bringer/archive#The_Object:_.27namespace.27|instructions]])
*Allow me (and or the original wiki editors) to edit the master [[MediaWiki:Common.css|css]]/[[MediaWiki:Common.css|js]] files, perhaps (if you feel it appropriate)
*Add jQuery to the pages, so that I ([[User:NXTBoy|NXTBoy]]) can add some snazzy js

{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)}}
{{TitledBox/end}}

{{TitledBox/start|orange|heading=CSS changes|headinglevel=2}}
Here are a bunch of CSS changes I'd like made to [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. I'm happy to discuss the colors of the code boxes, but I'd like it if you could add the wikitable class to the stylesheet ASAP.

Thanks
{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=15:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)}}
===Inline code===
The <nowiki><code></nowiki> tag currently looks rubbish (<code>like this</syntaxhighlight>). I'm suggesting we apply this style to it, which makes it actually readable (<nowiki><code style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #AAA; border-radius: 2.5px; padding: 2px; display: inline-block; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 0.9em; line-height: 1em;">like this</syntaxhighlight></nowiki>)
<pre>
code {
	background-color: #f9f9f9;
	border: 1px solid #AAA;
	border-radius: 2.5px;
	-moz-border-radius: 2.5px;
	-webkit-border-radius: 2.5px;

	padding: 2px;
	display: inline-block;

	font-family: Consolas, monospace;
	font-size: 0.9em;
	line-height: 1em;
}
</pre>

===Block code===
This of course leads to me wanting consistent styling with the pre tags, now that code can actually be used. That would be this code, looking like this:

<pre style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #AAA; border-radius: 5.5px; padding: 4px; font-family: Consolas, monospace; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.25em;">
pre {
	background-color: #f9f9f9;
	border: 1px solid #AAA;
	border-radius: 5.5px;
	-moz-border-radius: 5.5px;
	-webkit-border-radius: 5.5px;

	padding: 4px;
	font-size: 1em;
	line-height: 1.25em;

	font-family: Consolas, monospace;
}
</pre>
<hr />
:We really need some syntax highlighting. {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=19:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)}}
::It's first on the list of things which need doing! {{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=20:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)}}
{{EmphasisBox/end}}
{{EmphasisBox/start}}
==Wiki Writer Payment==
As time passes, the amount of constructive work on the wiki is diminishing.  I believe it occurs because the wiki writers have no incentive to write articles.  If they had incentive, the amount of articles would shoot up and each article would be more detailed.  I think Roblox should create incentive for the writers by a virtual payment of Robux/Tix to their account every day.  I don't know how much this would be, but anything would be better than 0.  Anyways, this is just my thoughts on the subject.  Comments/Suggestions?
{{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)}}
:Everyone here is a volunteer for the Wiki. You asked to join, not to be hired. --<font color="green" family="fantasy, cursive, Serif" size="2px">[[User:MrNicNac|MrNicNac]]</font> 13:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
::I know.  I am saying that almost nothing is getting done on the wiki because of the lack of incentive. {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=19:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)}}
:::We should get a really rare limited hat or a new type of tophat ;D [[User:Emess|Emess]] ([[User_talk:Emess|talk]] : [[Special:Contributions/Emess|contribs]]) 19:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
::::If anything, I'd think we NEED a badge to show that we are truly part of the Wiki. Possibly a forum tag like the Top 100 Poster or Moderator tag; but one saying Wiki Staff or something. --<font color="green" family="fantasy, cursive, Serif" size="2px">[[User:MrNicNac|MrNicNac]]</font> 00:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yea, that would be pretty neat. {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=02:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)}}
::::::I would very much enjoy a hat, badge, and salary.  But a salary might be too pushy, 'cuz we '''are''' volunteers, like MNN said. <span style="font-size: 75%; line-height: inherit;">--[[User:ArceusInator|ArceusInator]]&nbsp;([[User talk:ArceusInator|talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ArceusInator|contribs]]) </span> 15:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
*Just saying, nobody has to edit here if they don't want to. Edit because you enjoy to edit, not because you want stuff.--[[User:Gordonrox24|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36B">Gordonrox24</span>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Gordonrox24|<sup><span style="font-family:Arial;color:red">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 00:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
:You'd better not be playing devil's advocate again.  :P  Either way, I still want at least a simple badge to show that I am an <u>official</u> wiki writer.<div style="border-style:dotted; border-width:0px; border-top-width:1px; border-color:#888888; padding-bottom:-4px;"><sup>Posted by [[:User:Blocco|blocco]] ([[:User_talk:Blocco|talk]]) on Jun 11, 2011 (Saturday) at 19:56 (UTC) [[:User talk:Blocco/sig#format|[Discuss format]]]</sup></div>
::I'm being serious. I got banned for saying I was a Wiki writer in my group description. Someone reported me for staff impersonation.--<font color="green" family="fantasy, cursive, Serif" size="2px">[[User:MrNicNac|MrNicNac]]</font> 11:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
:::I'll see what I can do about that ---[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]]) 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
::::I have an interesting solution: Rather than getting paid a salary, get paid on the amount of work you do. How about for every approved edit, you get a non-fixed amount of ROBUX. Using me as an example, I rewrote most of the metatables page; let's say I added 4000 bytes and it was approved. That might get me 400 tickets or 200 robux or something (I'm not particular; I intend to write no matter what). Just a suggestion.
::::<div style="border-top: 1px dotted #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px">([[User:Merlin11188|Merlin11188]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=128839 Send Message] | [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Special:EmailUser/Merlin11188 E-mail] |Wiki Writer) - ([http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=writer&limit=50 Writer/Editor List] | 05:25, 12 July 2011 - UTC)</div>
:::::We don't need payment though.  :/  I'd do with a badge.  What if an editor goes crazy and edits in spam for tickets?  We don't want that, do we?<div style="border-style:dotted; border-width:0px; border-top-width:1px; border-color:#888888; padding-bottom:-4px;"><sup>Posted by [[:User:Blocco|blocco]] ([[:User_talk:Blocco|talk]]) on Jul 12, 2011 (Tuesday) at 10:41 (UTC) [[:User talk:Blocco/sig#format|[Discuss format]]]</sup></div>
::::::That's why they're ''editors'', they won't go crazy =) They got a promotion; however, I too would be fine with just a badge or something.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=17:51, 12 July 2011 - UTC)}}
{{EmphasisBox/start|green|dark=yes}}
:::::::Well, what makes me have incentive is looking at another Java based games Wiki. After playing (and then quiting) for a wiki, I was on the wiki, and realized how much better it was, and how it allowed me to master the game in about 3 days.  Then I looked at ours, and realized it took me about a year to master this game. And so I started looking at what made the MC wiki much much better then ours.  I realized it was the fact it was being revised everyday, by a ton of people.  I soon realized that this wiki isn't being revised because no one knows what things do.  That's when I started the [[User:Quenty/Appeal|Appeal]]. The goal of the appeal is to get documentation for updates, allowing us to state/find bugs for ROBLOX to fix, to understand what objects do, then write example code, and allow new users to learn more quickly, because we KNOW what Roblox did to an object, and what we can do to update it.   Please fill out this poll for documentation.  [[User:Quenty/Appeal]].  What I hope for this wiki, is that someday, we will have a completely documented ROBLOX API.  

::::::::{{User:Quenty/sig|date=October 9}}
{{EmphasisBox/end}}
::::::::maybe because the MC wiki is covering a game instead of what is basically a kids game-development engine? it also definitely doesn't hurt that MC [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap87xnjOh8E has no gameplay]. also, lol bump, i want a badge. --[[User:Samacado|Samacado]] 15:05, 15 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::We've got something like 6 million games.  We can atleast talk about building strategies, ect., something that has yet to be updated.  But the real problem might be considered the community.  Our community, to be quite blunt, is immature.  {{User:Quenty/sig|date=January 16}}
::::::::::A Badge seems like a good idea and all - but I don't see any advantages to having a badge... Do you want respect or something? I do not understand.[[User:Nightname|Nightname]]
{{Outdent|::::::::::}}
Nightname, please sign your posts using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or <nowiki>~~~</nowiki> (but if you use the latter include a timestamp). {{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=03:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)}}

==Regarding MrBlockson's account==
Can I let him use my account?  I don't really do any editing (sorry), and he obviously can't access his.  Would this be ok?
--[[User:Brandonhare|Brandonhare]] 16:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
:I don't think that is a good idea.--[[User:Gordonrox24|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36B">Gordonrox24</span>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Gordonrox24|<sup><span style="font-family:Arial;color:red">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 17:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

== Concern on beginning scripting tutorials ==

Frequently in the Scripters forum, there are posts asking for help on learning how to script, who also mention that the beginner tutorials on scripting are very unorganized and difficult to understand. I think the older scripting tutorials should be deleted and be rewritten. A problem I have is that making beginner tutorials are very hard to do, but I know it can be done with our massive team of staff members. [[User:Emess|Emess]] ([[User_talk:Emess|talk]] : [[Special:Contributions/Emess|contribs]]) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
:I think the portal pages to the help articles should be restructured too - see [[User:Mr_Doom_Bringer/archive/2#Restructure_navigation.3F|my post in archive]]. --[[User:Sncplay42|SNCPlay42]] 17:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
::GO GO GO GO GO GO. ---[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]]) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I've got a draft rewrite of the [[Lua Help]] page [[User:Sncplay42/Lua_Help|here]].
:::It contains all the tutorials which were in [[Tutorials]], [[FAQ]] and [[Scripting]]. My idea is that we use Lua Help as the one portal to scripting tutorials, and make [[FAQ]] and [[Tutorials]] link to or include it, and use [[Scripting]] as a reference page. --[[User:Sncplay42|SNCPlay42]] 18:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I personally think the tutorials should all be deleted (except for a few minor exceptions) and rewritten. [[User:Emess|Emess]] ([[User_talk:Emess|talk]] : [[Special:Contributions/Emess|contribs]]) 02:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Obviously, you can rewrite them. Instead of deleting you can tag the ones in need of update. -- [[User:GoldenUrg|GoldenUrg]] 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

== Enums ==

Can I redo all the enum pages to get rid of the ugly caption and replace it with a proper 3 colspan table entry? I'm willing to do all of them.<div style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px">Trappingnoobs <span style="color:skyblue">(Writer)</span></div>
:As long as it looks good and you make sure it works before uploading it, then you should be fine.  Also, please sign you posts using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=22:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)}}

== A few things ==

A while ago Mattchewy mentioned the fact that a lot of us have a lack of incentive to work on articles, and that something that would encourage us to be more active would be a payment/reward. Maybe that, but can't we have our own unique badges on our Roblox Badges section? I really can't see why not.

Another thing is that maybe we can get some more traffic on the wiki if a link is put on the navigation bar. The entire page is being rewritten; just put in a link while they're doing it.

Also, when wiki writers get hired and the week they are hired, activity is sky-high, but after that it usually dies down. Instead of just turning the number of wiki writers unto an ugly one, maybe we can just have some motivation and encouragement? Maybe not a payment, because this is volunteer work, but some 'gifts' given to active wiki staff members.

[[User:Emess|Emess]] ([[User_talk:Emess|talk]] : [[Special:Contributions/Emess|contribs]]) 02:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
: I may be new, but I like that idea. <div style="border-top:solid 1px #AAA; font-size:10px; width:20%;">[[User:Jopc67|<span style="color:green;">Jopc67</span>]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=4813126 <span style="color:red">Send Message</span>] | <b>Wiki Writer</b> | <span style="color:orange;">Twitter: @Jopc67</span></div>

::Yeah, a badge would be sweet <div style="border-top: 1px dashed #000; font-size:10px">[[User:WildSurvival | WildSurvival]] | [http://www.roblox.com/User.aspx?ID=2385146 Profile] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=2385146 Send Message]</div><div style="border-top: 1px dashed #000;"></div> 05:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

:::I agree.  It's really not fair that the commercial guys get a bunch of stuff and we get nothing. '''''<span style="font-size: 100%; line-height: inherit;" >--[[User:ArceusInator|<font color=#1111FF>ArceusInator</font>]]</span>'''''<span style="font-size: 75%; line-height: inherit;" >&nbsp;([[User talk:ArceusInator|talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ArceusInator|contribs]]) </span> 06:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

::::I'd only like a badge (being modest), but payment in any currency that is in Roblox is nice.<div style="border-style:dotted; border-width:0px; border-top-width:1px; border-color:#888888; padding-bottom:-4px;"><sup>Posted by [[:User:Blocco|blocco]] ([[:User_talk:Blocco|talk]]) on Jul 12, 2011 (Tuesday) at 10:48 (UTC) [[:User talk:Blocco/sig#format|[Discuss format]]]</sup></div>

:::::I'm looking at a badge for you guys (have been for months) but I don't think a stipend of RoBux would be allowed, sorry :/  I will try for the badge though, that shouldn't be that hard to accomplish. --[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]])
{{Outdent|:::::}}
That would be good Mr Doom Bringer! {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=10:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)}}

:So how about a hat? Because apparently a badge is a bit harder to accomplish than I thought. ---[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]]) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (EST)

::A hat after about a month of being a wiki writer is a good idea. Reinvents your incentive to work, I would think.<div style="border-top: 1px dotted #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px; overflow: hidden;">([[User:Merlin11188|Merlin11188]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=128839 Send Message] | [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Special:EmailUser/Merlin11188 E-mail] |Wiki Writer) — 01:31, January 21, 2012 - UTC</div>

:::I would rather have a badge then a hat, badges being infinitely cooler.  However, I wouldn't say no to a hat.  We don't really need payment though. Working on the wiki is a privileged. {{User:Quenty/sig|date=January 21}}
:::If at all possible, I think most of us would prefer the badge. Hats seem more like a temporary incentive. A badge makes a bigger impact than a hat would and might help us get outside opinions easier/faster. As it stands, not many non-writers seem to volunteer their suggestions without pulling it out of them. <span style="font-size: 75%; line-height: inherit;">[[User:Legend26|Legend26]] ([[User talk:Legend26|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Legend26|contribs]])</span> 22:00, 25 January 2012 (EST)

::::I already have an incentive to work on the wiki: wanting to make it better. And I don't want a payment, I already have one: being able to make the wiki better. However, it'd be really nice to get a badge, as that'd indicate we're official wiki writers. But an hat? No. I don't see the point in an hat, however, I see the point in a badge. {{User:JulienDethurens/signature|date=03:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)}}

== Offsite Links ==

Currently, I'm rewriting the string manipulation section in my [[User:Merlin11188/Draft | draft article]]. Is it alright if I post a link to [http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/cstdio/printf/ this page] for the string.format function?
<div style="border-top: 1px dotted #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px">([[User:Merlin11188|Merlin11188]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=128839 Send Message] | [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Special:EmailUser/Merlin11188 E-mail] |Wiki Writer) - ([http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=writer&limit=50 Writer/Editor List] | 05:44, 12 July 2011 - UTC)</div>
:As long as it neither confuses the reader nor contains any content against the normal site rules, I think that the link would be allowed.<div style="border-style:dotted; border-width:0px; border-top-width:1px; border-color:#888888; padding-bottom:-4px;"><sup>Posted by [[:User:Blocco|blocco]] ([[:User_talk:Blocco|talk]]) on Jul 12, 2011 (Tuesday) at 10:46 (UTC) [[:User talk:Blocco/sig#format|[Discuss format]]]</sup></div>
::Why would you use a C++ help article to explain Lua? {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=16:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)}}
:::I'm pretty sure we've always used a few offsite links. I don't see an issue with it, as long as it truly helps the reader understand the topic.--[[User:Gordonrox24|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36B">Gordonrox24</span>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Gordonrox24|<sup><span style="font-family:Arial;color:red">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 17:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
::::@Matt, because they're the same format, with some minor exceptions, and the string.format doesn't cover formatting at all whatsoever. <div style="border-top: 1px dotted #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px">([[User:Merlin11188|Merlin11188]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=128839 Send Message] | [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Special:EmailUser/Merlin11188 E-mail] |Wiki Writer) - ([http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=writer&limit=50 Writer/Editor List] | 17:49, 12 July 2011 - UTC)</div>

::Pretty much what other people are saying. Off-site links are OK so long as they make sense to a reader and don't have any against-Roblox-rules content on them. --[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]])


== How to read Class Reference ==

Do we have a page on reading and using the Class Reference on the Wiki? -- [[User:GoldenUrg|GoldenUrg]] 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)+
:I did add a small explanation of the syntax of the declarations of members to the page. Nothing else that I know of though. --[[User:Sncplay42|SNCPlay42]] 20:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

== The Home Page ==

Well, to be frank, it looks eww... and nothing like any other pages on the wiki.  I know NXTBoy created a version that matched the site, but I can't remember the link.  Anyways, someone send me the link to the updated home page and I'll update it. {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}}
:Can't seem to find mine. This one looks OK: [[User:Quenty/sandbox]]{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=09:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)}}
::I'm thinking the same content/layout, but with the same headers/boxes as the members page. If anyone finds NXTBoy's, or makes one (I might if I get time), I'll add it to the home page. {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)}}

== ROBLOX Slang ==
Maybe devote a page to explaing what the heck a ''noob'' is, what a ''PM'' means, and what an ''AA'' is in the world of ROBLOX? {{User:Quenty/sig|date=December 24}}

:Eh, not so sure about this one. Forum slang isn't very useful, but a disambigulation page for scripting terms would be pretty cool. Remember that the purpose for this site isn't an all encompassing site for everything Roblox, it's a game manual. ---[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]]) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (EST)

{{EmphasisBox/start|green|dark=yes}}
== New homepage ==
I've developed (with the help of others), a [[User:Quenty/sandbox|new home page]].  It's not done, but I want your feed back.  It looks very nice, and NxtBoy helped with tables.  :P  What do you think? 
I definitely think the new ones needs an update.  {{User:Quenty/sig|date=January 9}}
:I like the idea, but I think it's too cluttered. The Lua box thingy looks out-of-place to me, also.<div style="border-top: 1px dotted #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px; overflow: hidden;">([[User:Merlin11188|Merlin11188]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=128839 Send Message] | [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Special:EmailUser/Merlin11188 E-mail] |Wiki Writer) — 08:21, January 10, 2012 - UTC</div>
::As Anaminus once stated, the Roblox logo looks a little too big.  We want content as the first thing the user sees, not a gargantuous logo taking up half of the screen. {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=22:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)}}
:::Sorry, my screen resolution is massive. Suggestions on changing it? {{User:Quenty/sig|date=January 12}}
::::The limit is that it needs to look readable on 1024x768, that's the bottom limit. If you can still read and understand it it's ok. ---[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]]) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (EST)
:::::I just looked at it with screen resolutions:
:::::*1280x800 and it looks great
:::::*1024x768 and it looks good (slightly too skinny, but definitely still looks good)
:::::*800x600 and it looks okay (really skinny, but bearable){{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=19:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)}}
::::::Should I change the page, then? {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=01:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)}}

{{EmphasisBox/end}}

== More Advanced Articles ==

What if we were to start writing articles on more advanced things such as 3D projection, B-trees, etc. in an attempt to get more advanced programmers interested in roblox? Or even to help further the more advanced community on roblox?--[[User:Sduke524|~SDuke524~]] 19:53, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:Yes. --[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]])

==More detailed explanations and examples in each method, event, and object pages==
Good idea? Like, snippets of scripts that have the subject used in action. [[User:Tenal|Tenal]] 02:35, 17 January 2012 (EST)
:I agree. If it's possible for the property, I think images would be nice.<div style="border-top: 1px dotted #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px; overflow: hidden;">([[User:Merlin11188|Merlin11188]] | [http://www.roblox.com/My/PrivateMessage.aspx?RecipientID=128839 Send Message] | [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Special:EmailUser/Merlin11188 E-mail] |Wiki Writer) — 03:35, January 18, 2012 - UTC</div>
::Any other thoughts? {{sig|Tenal|date=02:52, 17 January 2012 (EST)}}

== Ability to update images for writers ==
I and a few others noticed that writers can't update images. We can upload them, but it would be more effective in many cases if we could replace the old ones instead. Would it be possible to fix this? {{User:Shagabash/sig|date=15:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)}}
:This actually isn't an issue with the writers, this is an issue with the software. Just another of the items that need fixing. Sorry.--[[User:Gordonrox24|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36B">Gordonrox24</span>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Gordonrox24|<sup><span style="font-family:Arial;color:red">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 13:22, 18 January 2012 (EST)
::Oh, really? I thought that editors could update them, though? Anyway, thanks for letting me know. {{User:Shagabash/sig|date=18:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)}}
::It's an issue with the software? Yet, editors can update them, right? Anyways, yeah, it seems writers have no way to update images, which actually caused me [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/File:Copy_Of_Quenty.PNG some problems]. {{sig|JulienDethurens|date=19:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)}}
:::It doesn't let us update them either {{User:Mattchewy/sig|date=01:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)}}

== Giving the new writers reviewer permissions ==

as it is, I have to keep accepting their revisions for them to go through as the current version. it's redundant, and all it does is slow down articles getting updated. I believe most of the writers added before 1/16/2012 have this permission in any case. --[[User:Samacado|Samacado]] 17:54, 18 January 2012 (EST)
:I agree that it makes no sense to have to review articles. This is a closed wiki and every of its users was chosen closely by the ROBLOX admins. I don't think reviewing articles is required in a closed wiki. {{sig|JulienDethurens|date=23:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)}}
:I agree. Plus, if a writer changes something to something bad (like I did, that one time. I have a draft article for a reason...), it will be changed back very quickly. Personally, and sort of off-topic, I think the idea of a quality review is dumb for every category except readability. If it's inaccurate, change it. If it's not in-depth enough for your liking, change it. There are some instances where readability is difficult to improve due to the nature of the article, though. {{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=05:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)}}
::We should only have reviewers to moderate/ban the writers. {{User:Quenty/sig|date=January 19}}
:::Why would a reviewer/editor need to ban a writer? O_O {{User:JulienDethurens/signature|date=05:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)}}
::::The only writer who ever got banned (once the Wiki was closed, that is) was [[User:tomtomn00|tomtomn]], and he was unbanned shortly thereafter. {{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)}}
:::::He was banned for obvious reasons.  And it was [[User:MrNicNac|MrNicNac]] who did it.  Really, it's nice to have extra powers. {{User:Quenty/sig|date=January 19}}
::::::Exactly, he was banned for obvious reasons. I'm not even sure how to respond to your next statement. It sounds more greedy than logical D:{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=06:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)}}
{{Outdent|::::::}}
So to be frank, this is exactly the point of review permissions. Writers aren't supposed to be able to create stuff that the public can see, it should go through a moderation step first. Rather than clean up after a mess we'd rather be able to prevent the mess in the first place. Hence, reviewing. If you guys think it's completely and absolutely unnecessary I can talk to the devs about being more leniant with it. ---[[User:Mr Doom Bringer]] ([[User Talk:Mr Doom Bringer|Talk]]) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (EST)
:I can sound pretty greedy... D: Anyway, usually in most wiki's, there are enough people checking things over that there aren't that many mistakes.  I usually check over most changes... Since this is a closed wiki/there isn't THAT many people going over the pages relatively speaking, I think we could afford a change. I would wait for other's positions though. :D {{User:Quenty/sig|date=January 21}}
:But, this is a closed wiki, so why would we need reviews? If we can't trust the writers to write quality articles, then there's a problem... {{User:JulienDethurens/signature|date=01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)}}
:Precisely. It would make sense to have reviewers for an immature community with an open wiki; however, we don't have an open wiki. Lots of writers/editors go through the recent changes list anyway.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=01:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)}}
::Well Reese mentioned promotions will happen some time soon, so I guess I'll just wait and hopefully make it. I'm good with the idea overall, but I find it can be especially annoying when the editors seem to take ages to approve something or just seem to never log in anymore. <span style="font-size: 75%; line-height: inherit;">[[User:Legend26|Legend26]] ([[User talk:Legend26|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Legend26|contribs]])</span> 21:36, 25 January 2012 (EST)
:::Reviewing is for good reasons. Even if it is just for spelling mistakes. A writer could drastically change something and the public could see it, where it might be completely wrong or full of mistakes. Moderation is a good idea. I'm sure a lot of you are saying that I am writing this just because "I'm an editor", but I thought this way before my current rights.  [[User talk:MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]][[User:MrNicNac|<font color="#E52B50" size="3" face="Harlow Solid Italic">MrNicNac - Wiki Editor</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]]
::::Well, then, what we would really need is that all edits must be accepted by someone, whoever it is, as long as it isn't the person who wrote it. That would mean at least two persons have seen the edits. Editors aren't less likely than writers to make mistakes. That would prevent simple mistakes. However, a moderation system is just useless, because it's not like anyone can edit this wiki. A reviewing system where two persons have to read the page to try getting rid of every error is fine, but a moderation system in a closed wiki is useless. <div style="border-top:1px dotted #AAA;color:#AAA;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em;overflow:hidden"><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]&nbsp;</div><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:right">29 January 2012</div></div>
:::::I have a proposal myself which is on my [[User_talk:Tomtomn00|talk page]]. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=21:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)}}
{{Outdent|::::::}}
I don't think that your proposal (open wiki with current writers becoming reviewers) is a good idea. Even when there was an army of people who actually wanted to help the wiki back when it was open, there was too much spam. Look at the [[Special:BlockList|block list]] and you'll see. Do you want to have to search recent changes to see whether or not someone posted a link to an inappropriate video?  We'd be overloaded, account deletion would be inadequate (as well as IP blocking). No, I don't think that this is a good idea.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=01:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)}}
:Well, merlin, back in these times, there was only the staff and some picked members who could moderate stuff. With Tomtomn00's idea, all the current writers could. And everything would need to be reviewed. Besides, I'm sure we could find some extensions or bots which could help reverting/rejecting vandalism. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">8 March 2012</div></div>
::I'm inclined to agree, but then we would need to prevent them from creating pages. And we would need to allow editors to make bots (if that's possible) to keep up with different things, and prevent new users from doing this. And we would need to prevent page blanking (probably with a bot). And I would want my namespace pages restricted because I'd become paranoid. And then we would need a ''much'' larger group of people who are willing to go through and look at these edits. I'd be perfectly okay with this idea if all of the above was true, and, primarily if there were enough '''qualified''' wiki writers (we're pretty much all qualified, but we aren't many). Just look at how many pages are pending changes now.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=23:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)}}

== ImageMapEdit ==

Considering we use the ImageMap extension, perhaps we could install ImageMapEdit on the wiki? It's actually extremly easy (adding a single line to the Common.js file and that's all), here are the installation steps: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dapete/ImageMapEdit#Installation_2.

In the editing policy, you link us to an old version of ImageMapEdit, as it says at the top of the page. Perhaps this would be useful, as it'd let us use ImageMaps directly on the wiki?

Of course, we don't use ImageMaps that much, so I don't really know if we should add this to the wiki. <div style="border-top:1px dotted #AAA;color:#AAA;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em;overflow:hidden"><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]&nbsp;</div><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:right">28 January 2012</div></div>

== Math Extension ==

I noticed that we can't use the <nowiki><math></math></nowiki> tag in this wiki. In fact, it is because the Math extension got removed from MediaWiki in the version 1.18, which this wiki was updated to. However, I believe this extension could be useful. Wikipedia and other wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation have it and it was a part of MediaWiki before version 1.18. I'm not sure if it's worth installing it, but if installing an ImageMap extension that is only used on some pages is worth it, then installing this will surely be, considering I think this wiki contains more maths than ImageMaps. Anyways, the page is here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math. <div style="border-top:1px dotted #AAA;color:#AAA;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em;overflow:hidden"><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]&nbsp;</div><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:right">29 January 2012</div></div>

== Logo Change ==

[[Image:RobloxWikiLogo.png|thumb|Potential logo|right]]
The current logo we have is the official ROBLOX logo. It's really blurry and doesn't fit there as a size. I created this image a while back, and I think it would look much better on the wiki. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}

== Promotion ==

Because of the fact the writers got promotions when we were hired in 2011, as I highlighted in the e-mail, may I please have a promotion. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=20:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}
:No. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}
::[[User:Tenal|Emess/Tenal]] - me and Mr Doom Bringer have discussed this. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)}}
:::Then why did you post it here? You make it sound as if you actually discussed it via e-mail. If he's going to promote you, he'll do so.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)}}
::::We did, but he asked me to post it on his talk page. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=16:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)}}
:::::Okay, then :D {{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)}}

== Reviewing System ==

Do we really need that reviewing system? This is a closed wiki, so I don't see why we need it. Even if you think we really need to keep it.. COULD YOU AT LEAST MAKE IT NOT BLOCK MY EDITS IN MY '''OWN''' USER SPACE? >_>

It seems I can't even edit my own signature without an editor approving it... I don't see why edits would need to be reviewed anywhere else than in the article namespace, anyways. And I don't even see why we need a reviewing system at all. It's frustrating to have to get almost every single of your edits approved by an editor, even though they're perfectly fine. And I don't really think the reviewing system helps improving the wiki much. 

Right now, the wiki is active, so changes are reviewed quickly, but, as everytime new writers are chosen, the activity goes down after some time. And I really don't want to have to wait 3 days for my changes to be reviewed.. :/ <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em;overflow:hidden"><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;line-height:inherit;float:right">1 February 2012</div></div>
:The thing is, no one should have or be able to 'review' anything in a users subpage in the first place. Blame Quenty, ask him to unprotect it if he can. <span style="font-size: 75%; line-height: inherit;">[[User:Legend26|Legend26]] ([[User talk:Legend26|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Legend26|contribs]])</span> 20:02, 31 January 2012 (EST)
::What do you mean? Nobody protected my signature... It's just that the reviewing system wants my signature to be reviewed... <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">1 February 2012</div></div>
:::Explained on your talk page. Stop bringing this subject up. [[User talk:MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]][[User:MrNicNac|<font color="#E52B50" size="3" face="Harlow Solid Italic">MrNicNac - Wiki Editor</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]]

I'm with Julian. What's the point of only hiring people who prove themself, clearly aren't going to vandalise, then protecting useless pages. The main page I can understand, but the data persistance tutorial? Me and flurite wrote all of that, unless it's changed, and now we can't even edit. I find the system horrible, limiting, and condescending. It's one of the reasons I barely edit anymore. I don't play roblox nearly as much, so that's the major factor, but having to contact an editor _EVERY_ time I make a change to a protected page, and their number seems to be growing by the minute, is ridiculous, and as I said, condescending. You're treating us like 8 year old vandals who have nothing else to do.<div style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px">Trappingnoobs <span style="color:skyblue">(Writer)</span><span style="color:red"> Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my [[User_talk:Trappingnoobs|talk page]]</span><span style="color:grey;float:right">  16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)</span></div>
:The page I mentioned has changed beyond recognition, but my point still stands.<div style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; color:#000000; font-size:10px">Trappingnoobs <span style="color:skyblue">(Writer)</span><span style="color:red"> Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my [[User_talk:Trappingnoobs|talk page]]</span><span style="color:grey;float:right">  16:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)</span></div>
::Well, I believe it's fine to protect really important pages like the homepage. But there are many pages that are protected and shouldn't be. Actually, the only pages I believe should be protected are those that should only be edited by sysops/administrators. I don't really see where the difference is between editors and writers, except that editors have probably been on the wiki longer. Writers aren't more, neither less, likely to make mistakes or mess up things, which is already really unlikely whoever the person is, since every writer/editor was chosen by the staff. The problem is, it's frustrating to have to ask an editor whenever you think a change should be made to a protected page. As an example, why is [[Lua_Help|this page]] protected? I don't see how it needs to be. :/ <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">1 February 2012</div></div>
:::Reviewing has nothing to do with protection. A page is only elected a stable version when a reviewer actually reviews a page. It isn't done automatically. This being said, a page should only be reviewed when it seems it is completely done - additions only being made when new information about that article is released. This is so no one can just changed an article that is already deemed completed and it is instantly shown to the public - that would be a bad idea. Writers/Reviewers/Editors can be wrong. [[User talk:MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]][[User:MrNicNac|<font color="#E52B50" size="3" face="Harlow Solid Italic">MrNicNac - Wiki Editor</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]]
::::I was talking about protection because trappingnoobs talked about it. Anyways, if it's as you say, then no page in the wiki should be reviewed, considering there isn't a single page on the wiki that is complete. The only exceptions are some of the scripting tutorials. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">1 February 2012</div></div>
:::::There are a lot of pages on the Wiki that are complete, don't tell me there aren't. Second of all, reviewed pages make a stable public version - which means any addition things added go through moderation. Maybe someone had some false information they put on accident? People make mistakes, and that is why it isn't instantly publicized. Can you not see this obvious factor? [[User talk:MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]][[User:MrNicNac|<font color="#E52B50" size="3" face="Harlow Solid Italic">MrNicNac - Wiki Editor</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]]
{{Outdent|:::::}}
Yes, it would be nice to be able to review your edit after you finish it. But the entire point of reviewing is so somebody else check for mistakes and what not. I agree, it would be nice to be a reviewer. But you must see why it's set up to have somebody else check your work before it's official. {{User:SCARFACIAL/Signature}}
As you said, "Writers/Reviewers/Editors can be wrong." So the moderation step is only a moderation step for the writers, from my understanding. It should be that ''any'' other user (or two users) checks your work before it's shown to the public, no matter what your rank. A specific group of people is just useless. Plus, an article shouldn't be complete until there isn't any room for improvement. Then you can review it. If you review it, then it should have a perfect score. On a different note, reviewing is just dumb anyway. There's no reason for an article not to score perfectly. If you feel something is inaccurate/not in-depth/difficult to read, then fix it.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=04:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)}}

== More detailed object pages ==

People compare the object browser to the wiki, which shouldn't be happening. The object browser should be scarce on information, and the wiki shouldn't just tell people that certain objects exist, but actually teach them how to use it. [[User:Tenal/Sandbox#More_Detailed_Documentation|Here]] is something I created quickly. You can look at that or maybe we can create something better out of it. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}

:I like it, but I think that the ''Change Log w/ Tables'' section should be moved to beneath the See Also. Few people care about the update dates, so I don't think that it should be before the pretty ''More Detailed Documentation''.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=04:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)}}

::That's a different part of my sandbox. Ignore it. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}

::The wiki is suppose to be documentation of ROBLOX, but I think we should focus more on other stuff too.  It will make users '''much''' more interested in scripting, while learning, and looking at ROBLOX. :D {{User:Quenty/sig|date=February 3}}

:::Like fancy mathematics! That brings [[User_talk:Mr_Doom_Bringer#Math_Extension|this]] into scope. (I also really like the blank line in between each of our response things, in edit mode. It looks really nice.){{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=04:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)}}

::::Well, we should focus on that, but scripting is a huge division of the wiki that we must focus on. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}

:::::Let's just add everything...  :D Also, we should put [[User:Anaminus/Navbox]] on object pages.  It looks nice, and promotes people surfing the wiki, and learning about ROBLOX.  Here's how it looks:
{{User:Anaminus/Navbox}}
:::::Yes, it does need some updating, but once that's done, I think it would be good.  {{User:Quenty/sig|date=February 3}}

::::::That looks great. Let's use it... One thing is, the instances are detailed already. We need to focus on events and methods. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}

:::::::We don't want around 50 bajillion events here, but we can put the basic ones.  The objects are more interesting though.  {{User:Quenty/sig|date=February 3}}

::::::::Of course we won't create a navbox for events and methods. I mean, we need to make each and every one of them more detailed like the example in my sandbox page. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}

:::::::::I think that replacing the class reference with that would be good. Currently the load times are horrible with so many templates. <span style="font-size: 75%; line-height: inherit;">[[User:Legend26|Legend26]] ([[User talk:Legend26|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Legend26|contribs]])</span> 16:46, 3 February 2012 (EST)
{{Outdent|:::::::::}}

Yes, the load times are horrible with the class reference, but I don't think we should replace it with this. It's nice just being able to click the down arrow to see everything in that object. But because of the load time on the page, I think that we should start a discussion on what to do with it to reduce load-time but keep most people in agreement with it.
Tenal, although that's a different part of your sandbox, I like the idea that I got from it: an update log in the object pages. That would be pretty neat. You'd get to see all of the updates/added methods, the times, etc. That would be pretty cool :D{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=23:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)}}

:The updates on object pages? Bad idea. We don't know the time of most updates, and we don't even know what most of these updates were. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">5 February 2012</div></div>

::With the [[Change_Log|change log]], we can get updates to objects and things like that. We don't have to document ''every'' update, just those since the log was made. We could add a simple note. '''Note:''' No updates before the [[Change_Log|change log]] was created on January 31, 2012 are mentioned. Or something along those lines.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=21:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)}}

== Security ==
As a reviewer, I can ban you from the wiki.  I'm not sure if you want to fix this or not, but you probably should.  {{User:Quenty/sig|date=February 3}}
:I'm sure nobody here would, but if they did MrDoomBringer could probably swing back around and annihilate you. [[User talk:MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]][[User:MrNicNac|<font color="#E52B50" size="3" face="Harlow Solid Italic">MrNicNac - Wiki Editor</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]]
::Precisely. If an editor decided to randomly ban a writer from the wiki, I think MrDoom would bring doom upon that editor. Therefore, fixing this issue would be good, but it isn't really a priority, considering no editor would be stupid enough to... bring doom upon himself. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">8 February 2012</div></div>

== Removing Pages ==

I put this here because it's kind-of a general talk page. Currently, the most linked-to category is [[:Category:Pending_Removal|pending removal]]. That's not good. We need a better method of screening the pages to be deleted, to ensure that no one is just trying to delete random pages, and a better method of actually deleting them. Although I don't think that this should be so, editors' having move and delete permissions isn't going to be added. An idea I had was a voting system, where enough writers/editors had to vote on whether or not a page should be deleted, and then an editor had to okay its deletion, but I think that that's too difficult to implement with Mediawiki. What are your opinions/ideas on what to do to clean up this category?{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=03:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)}}
:By telling Julien to stop adding a ton of user namespace pages to the category? <span style="font-size: 75%; line-height: inherit;">[[User:Legend26|Legend26]] ([[User talk:Legend26|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Legend26|contribs]])</span> 22:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::No, silly =P Those pages should be deleted. {{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=04:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)}}
::As merlin11188 said, these pages are supposed to be deleted. We're not going to not delete them just because there are many of them, right? That'd be the complete opposite of logic. What the admins should really do is delete every user page/subpage and every user talk page/sub talk page on the wiki, except those of users that are in the writers, editors, reviewers, sysops, administrators, etc, groups. Oh, and they should also delete all the 879 files listed [[Special:UnusedFiles|here]]. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to let editors delete pages or things like that. Deleting a page means deleting its history, and the history of a page should only be deleted when we are <strong>completely</strong> sure we don't want it anymore. What I think we should let editors do is delete any page <strong>except pages in the main namespace</strong>. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">8 February 2012</div></div>
:::You didn't have to go write a huge paragraph on something I already knew. I still disagree on letting editors delete pages, however. <span style="font-size: 75%; line-height: inherit;">[[User:Legend26|Legend26]] ([[User talk:Legend26|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Legend26|contribs]])</span> 18:13, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::There is always the possibility of making trusted users sys-ops. The person whom I have in mind is [[User:NXTBoy|NXTBoy]]. He's made a lot of good contributions to the Wiki, continues to contribute, and very obviously knows what he's doing. The suggestion is controversial, but we don't have many alternatives.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=04:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)}}
:::::No. It'd be better to not delete any page at all than that. Anyways, it's not like we need more sysops or anything, it's just that we need the admins to delete all these pages at once. It's not like they're hard to find or anything, they just need to delete all the unused files (there's a list of them in the special pages) and they just need to delete all the userpages/subpages of user pages and user talk pages/talk pages of user subpages, except those of users that are in any group at all (considering everyone right now is at least in a group. A single person, alone, could do it, without that much time. All that's needed is some sort of bot that can delete them all at once. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">13 February 2012</div></div>

{{Outdent|:::::}}
Mmkay. Then we need a way to write bots. I don't know if we can already, but if we can't, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Pywikipediabot pywikipediabot] looks easy to install and easy to use. Simply write:
<pre>
python category.py add -unusedfiles
python add_text.py -namespace:User -text "{{Delete|Non-existant User}}" -except:"\{\{([Tt]emplate:|)[Dd]elete" -excepturl:"<!--DONOTDELETE-->" -up
python delete.py -cat:"Pending Removal"
</pre>
Someone will have to modify those to work better.{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=05:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)}}

== Tutorials on how to do one little thing ==

We have a lot, and we need to remove them all. Such as [[Adding and Removing Tools in Your Place]], [[Changing Brick Materials]], [[How do I add in Teams?]], list goes infinitely. We also need to categorize new tutorials and such. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}
:You should start deleting these pages; however, before you do, make sure they aren't in [[:Category:Archive|this category]].{{User:Merlin11188/sig|date=02:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)}}

== Why don't we just wipe the wiki? ==

There is more junk than good articles, and simply diluting it won't work at all. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}

:I'd agree with creating a whole new wiki on another subdomain and leaving the current one here temporarily. Then, we move every template we need to the new one, we move the homepage and we move our user pages (note: all of these would be moved manually, not automatically). Then, the current wiki would still stay here until the new wiki becomes good enough to be open to the users. However, the main reason I'd agree with this is not only to clean articles, but also to clean everything in general. The databases, the css files, all that. As time passed, the JavaScript and CSS files, the database and all the rest all got clogged up with useless things. We should create a new fresh wiki with the Vector style (because it looks 3x better than Monobook, Wikipedia agrees) and wiped groups and everything. That'd remove all the unwanted pages, all the unwanted user accounts and all the rest of the unwanted stuff from the wiki. We all know the wiki is kind of slow right now, but I'm certain a refresh would help. Besides, it can't cause any harm, since the old wiki would remain available at the same location (wiki.roblox.com) until the new wiki is completely ready. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">15 February 2012</div></div>

== API access - {{`|=$wgEnableWriteAPI = true;}} ==
Please? {{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=11:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)}}
:I corrected the title. As it is in php, it needs to be: <code php> $wgEnableWriteAPI = true; </syntaxhighlight> {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=18:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)}}

== Reviewing ==

If we're really going to keep the reviewing system, then we at least need active reviewers accepting pending changes. There are over 50 pages to review in the pending changes list and some of them are from 14 days ago. Someone needs to review these, seriously. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">18 February 2012</div></div>

== A Note to all: RBLXWikiquette. ==

Hey guys! I've been noticing something going on around the wiki, and it's starting to get worse. We are lacking in what I like to call RBLXWikiquette. What I see happening is one writer contributes something, and another writer disagrees with the content. The second editor will then revert the change, angering the original writer. The original writer may even put what he wrote back up, angering the editor who reverted the change. Now, we have what is called an edit war. There isn't a problem with removing content that you feel is wrong, or that can be presented in another way. That is constructive, and it makes the wiki better. However, when we start reverting each other over and over again, and don't talk about why we are reverting each other, then we run in to a problem. This causes tension, we don't get along, and the wiki suffers.

So, from here on out, we need to do some things to make sure we can continue to work together to help the wiki.
*Use edit summaries. Keep them short and to the point. They should tell us why you made the change you did. We should not be using edit summaries to talk to each other. If you want to tell somebody something, either use their user talk page, or the talk page of the article. However, don't use edit summaries to argue or discuss. They are for summaries, not discussions.
* Don't undo each other over and over just because you think the content could be changed. If you revert once, and then go to a talk page and talk it over with the other writer, chances are you can come to an agreement on what to do with the article. This is much more productive then reverting over and over again.
* Have patience. We are all here because we enjoy writing and we enjoy Roblox. If we have a little patience with each other, we will get along just fine.

These are just common sense things we can all do that will help us get along, and be able to work constructively. I know there will be times when we disagree, however we all need to have patience with each other. If we follow the rules of the wiki, and also follow these common sense tips, we will be able to work it out. Everybody is here because they want to help, so we need to have respect for each other, and be ready and willing to talk about our ideas and edits. Thanks guys! --[[User:Gordonrox24|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36B">Gordonrox24</span>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Gordonrox24|<sup><span style="font-family:Arial;color:red">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 21:20, 27 February 2012 (EST)

== Pending Changes ==

There are pending changes from 24 days ago. Yes, TWENTY FOUR days ago.

Is anyone still checking the pending changes page anymore, or did the wiki become too inactive for any editor to actually accept these?

Some of my edits have been waiting TWENTY FOUR days to be accepted, and they haven't been accepted yet.

Is it just me or is that reviewing system the most useless thing on this wiki?

Did that reviewing system ever help the wiki at all? Because, seriously, it is demotivating me from contributing. I often link people on the forums to the wiki, and having to wait 24 days for my edits to be approved doesn't exactly please me.

Seriously, that reviewing system is getting frustrating. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">28 February 2012</div></div>
:Sorry for the harsh tone, it's just that it's getting really frustrating. Especially since almost all the edits on the pending changes list are by me. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">28 February 2012</div></div>
::Could any editor accept all the changes on the pending changes list? It is growing bigger and bigger.. :/ <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">4 March 2012</div></div>
:::I'll do them all. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=19:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)}}

== CSS ==

Could an admin/sysop/whatever edit the stylesheet of all pages to make code boxes have a tab size of 4? It can be seen [[Template:Code|here]] and [[Template:Lua|here]]. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;padding-bottom:.5em;height:1em"><div style="font-size:75%;float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="font-size:75%;float:right">3 March 2012</div></div>

== SVG Uploading ==

Whaaaaaat? O_o

We can't upload SVG files? o_o

Erm.. Would it be possible to configure the wiki to allow svg files? SVG is a perfect format for a wiki, since it can be resized at will... <div style="border-top:1px dashed;margin-bottom:.5em; overflow: hidden;font-size:75%;"><div style="float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="float:right">12 March 2012</div></div>
:For now you can convert it to a large .PNG file. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}

:I looked into it - it's not as straightforward to set up as you might hope. I agree it would be nice. {{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=07:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)}}

== Suggestion ==

This is only one suggestion of mine, we should have an abuse filter ([http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter MediaWiki Extension]) - just saying. If ever the wiki went public again, you would need filters. I would create ALL the code, for filters to find bad words, spam, link-vandalism and more. Currently on the English Wikipedia I have made 19 active (running) filters, with over 4 million hits. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=19:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)}}
:That's only if the wiki ever goes public again, which might not happen. I personally believe we should make it public, but make all edits and creations of new pages need to be reviewed by any of the current writers, restrict file uploading to the current writers and implementing protections such as perhaps a bot that could automatically reject vandalism. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;margin-bottom:.5em; overflow: hidden;font-size:75%;"><div style="float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="float:right">15 March 2012</div></div>
::I want to write stuff, not click on little 'Review' tabs. :D But public wiki's work well with a strong community. {{User:Quenty/sig|date=March 16}}
:::Hopefully, all current staff could become 'autopatrolled'? {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=16:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)}}

== Object Documentation - Icons ==

How do you add an icon to a certain object? I'm too lazy to look at the templates to find out how they do it. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;margin-bottom:.5em; overflow: hidden;font-size:75%;"><div style="float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="float:right">18 March 2012</div></div>
:Erm, I tried redirecting [[:File:BindableFunction Icon.png]] to [[:File:Function Icon.png]], but it didn't work.. :/ How do you do it? I need to do it for BindableFunctions and BindableEvents. <div style="border-top:1px dashed;margin-bottom:.5em; overflow: hidden;font-size:75%;"><div style="float:left">[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]</div><div style="float:right">18 March 2012</div></div>

== Bug - Special:LinkSearch ==

The [[Special:LinkSearch]] page does not work and shows the follow error when I try to access it:

 Notice: Undefined variable: out in /var/www/html/wiki.1.18/includes/specials/SpecialLinkSearch.php on line 82 Fatal error: Call to a member function addWikiMsg() on a non-object in /var/www/html/wiki.1.18/includes/specials/SpecialLinkSearch.php on line 82

I have no idea what the problem could be. I tried it while logged out and the same error displays.

Even though I don't think that page is really used that much, I believe this should be fixed. [[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]]

::Below are lines 81-89, in what they should be like.
<code>
	if( $target != '' ) {
		$searcher = new LinkSearchPage;
		$searcher->setParams( array( 
			'query' => $target2, 
			'namespace' => $namespace, 
			'protocol' => $protocol ) );
		$searcher->doQuery( $offset, $limit );
	}
}
</syntaxhighlight>
{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)}}

== Beginner tutorials ==
We need to cut the poop and merge every single beginner tutorial together, and organize it from least advanced to most advanced. Really. {{sig|Tenal|date=20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}}

== The mark Element ==

Could the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/mark.html mark] element be allowed? I believe it could be useful in articles. However, I'm sure it will become allowed in a future version of MediaWiki, as it is quite recent. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 19:42, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

== Load Time ==

The load time has really became a problem. Could something be done about it? Sometimes (twice in the past 4 days...), I have to change the theme to the Simple theme to be able to edit the wiki at all (btw, it makes the wiki completely ugly and makes it extremly hard to do anything). I think these ParserFunctions really need to be implemented, and I think it would be good too to host the wiki on a better server. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 22:55, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move Permissions ==

I was wandering around, creating redirects and adding links to articles, and I've noticed about over 20 pages which needed to be renamed (such as plurals, capitalization, and other similar things, things which are not worth copying/pasting and losing the history). Therefore, I reiterate the demand NXTBoy has already done: could writers receive move powers? It's not like move powers are going to allow us to do any harm to the wiki, considering we can already ban eachothers, anyway (yes, yes, that's a bug, Quenty posted a message about it on this page)... --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 22:41, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
:On LocalSettings.php someone with server access should type this (php)

<code php>
$wgGroupPermissions['writer']['unblockself'] = false; /* Cannot block anyway */
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['unblockself'] = true; /* Can block */
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['unblockself'] = true; 

$wgUseRCPatrol = true; /* Allow patrol right */

$wgGroupPermissions['writer']['patrol'] = true; /* Autopatrolled right, stops reviewing */
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['patrol'] = true; /* Some users are only editors */
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['patrol'] = true;

$wgGroupPermissions['writer']['move'] = false; /* writers write, editors edit */
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['move'] = true; /* If we're hired, we're trusted? + some users only editor*/
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['move'] = true; 

/* Lets put in delete! (my suggestion (Tomtomn00)) */
$wgGroupPermissions['writer']['delete'] = false; /* writers write, editors edit */
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['delete'] = true; /* If we're hired, we're trusted? + some users only editor*/
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['delete'] = true; 

/* NOTE: Most sysop things will already be enabled */
</syntaxhighlight>
:{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)}}
::I disagree with editors being able to delete pages. Deleting a page means we lose all of its history. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 17:01, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Not entirely true. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages]. {{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=21:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)}}
::::If you give a mouse a cookie....[[User talk:MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]][[User:MrNicNac|<font color="#E52B50" size="3" face="Harlow Solid Italic">MrNicNac - Wiki Editor</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]]
:::::All pages could be restored anyway without [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight Oversight] actions being used, which this wiki doesn't have. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)}}
::::::I know they can be restored, but only by admins. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 23:09, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
{{outdent|:::::::}}
Anyone with delete has undelete automatically. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=07:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:I know that, however, other persons will not be able to view the history. The only case where other people shouldn't be able to see the history of a page is when it contains content such as copyright violations or similar things which can not be kept on the page, or when the page is really useless. This shouldn't happen often, and, therefore, there is no point in having many people able to do it. However, having many people able to do it would indeed make it possible to delete all the current unneeded pages faster, though, once it is done, it would become useless again. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 01:28, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
::Anyone who can delete can review the page ex-history. '''Any''' viewer of the wiki can see the log, and '''when''' something was deleted, and could ask for someone with delete permissions to userfy it to their personal userspace. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=18:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)}}

== Tutorial of the week/day ==

This has been suggested a few times on the [http://www.roblox.com/My/Groups.aspx?gid=127081| Roblox Wiki Group] wall. Just another link under Navigation that would direct them to an article on the wiki.
--[[User:Sduke524|~SDuke524~]] 19:04, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:Anyone with MW namespace edit permissions could do it. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=23:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)}}

== Suggestions for the Wiki ==

Could you have a look at this: [[User:Tomtomn00/GRWS]] - basically, it's all of my suggestions, but '''VERY''' laggy, as it is 250,000+ bytes. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=18:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:All I see is a bunch of unformatted javascript and no explanation. --[[User:Anaminus|Anaminus]] 15:02, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
::Yep. It's under construction. It's also got php. I need to add the 24,731,028,000 byte source code for a Bot I made for the wiki, as Doom said it was a good idea '''ages''' ago. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=19:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:::Please explain your suggestions instead of just putting a bunch of code. I don't really want to read 5000 lines of code to understand what you're suggesting. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 15:15, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Allow me to stop you from doing something stupid: Host it somewhere else and ''link to it''. --[[User:Anaminus|Anaminus]] 15:17, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Done most of it now, with Google Docs. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=15:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)}}

== Can you... ==

Add the code below to [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]] and [[MediaWiki:Vector.css]]? It removes the title and the line below it from the main page, without any mess.
<code css>
/* Don't display some stuff on the main page */
body.page-Main_Page #deleteconfirm,
body.page-Main_Page #t-cite,
body.page-Main_Page #footer-info-lastmod,
body.page-Main_Page #siteSub,
body.page-Main_Page #contentSub,
body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading {
  display: none !important;
}
</syntaxhighlight>
{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=15:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)}}

== Pages which should be unlocked from specific rank only editing ==

* http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/How_Advertising_Works

Not sure if this already exists, the page is too huge to find out, but I'm guessing it doesn't, so I'm posting it. This seems to be the general chat place for any moderation-like action, so here seems the best place. I'm not even sure who can unlock it anyway, might only be MDB, might be editors, who knows. (Feel free to add to this list, by the way, one entry seems kinda puny){{User:Trappingnoobs/Signature|date=21:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:The only pages which should be protected in this whole wiki are the pages that are protected by default by the software (MediaWiki namespace, user preferences, etc), the main page and the editing policy (actually, it doesn't really need to be protected, and it current isn't protected). --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 17:52, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::I find it mildly funny that important high traffic pages are unlocked and that my example that probably gets one or two visits a week isn't{{User:Trappingnoobs/Signature|date=21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:::I've removed that protection. Was protected way back in 2008.--[[User:Gordonrox24|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36B">Gordonrox24</span>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Gordonrox24|<sup><span style="font-family:Arial;color:red">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 17:54, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I come back to my brilliant suggestion. Make the wiki public again, but not allowing normal users to create pages other than userpages and talk pages. To stop vandalism, there would need to be an AbuseFilter installed, with another userright with all the filter edit, hid, delete and more things. I would happily make around 100 filters for this. We would need strict policy and more users with delete, move and block permissions. I will raise another thing here tomorrow{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=23:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:::::What should be done if we make the wiki public is add abuse filters, give every single writer, editor, reviewer and sysop every right, prevent creation of new pages outside of the User namespace (excluding talk pages, of course, anyone should be able to create a talk page in any namespace at any moment) and configure the reviewing extension to require reviewing of all pages under the main namespace. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 21:05, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

== Making the Wiki PUBLIC Again ==

Yes, I had to say this. This follows on from an idea I made in the thread above this. Currently we are only getting content added slower than if we had the whole of ROBLOX adding it. However, looking at [[Special:BlockList]] - last time lots of people were blocked due to '''SPAM'''. However, to fix that, install the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter AbuseFilter] - which means we can moderate what is on the wiki, and have Disallow, Warn, Block, Revoke Permissions is anything goes wrong.
However, as Bureaucrats would only normally be able to edit the wiki, you should put this code I wrote on the end of [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:LocalSettings.php LocalSettings.php]. I will create the AbuseFilters, once installed and granted permissions.
<code php>
/* The Rights Giving Process */
$wgRemoveGroups['Bureaucrat'] = array('Abuse Filter Editor');
$wgRemoveGroups['Reviewer'] = array('Editor');
$wgAddGroups['Reviewer'] = array('Editor', 'Abuse Filter Editor');

/* The Abuse Filter Right Itself */
$wgAddGroups['Abuse Filter Editor'] = array('Editor', 'Abuse Filter Editor');
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['abusefilter-modify'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['abusefilter-hide-log'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['abusefilter-hidden-log'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['override-antispoof'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['abusefilter-revert'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['abusefilter-view-private'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['abusefilter-modify-restriected'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['unblockself'] = true; /* Sometimes you will get your own actions caught in the filter */
</syntaxhighlight>
After that is done, we will need to moderate the wiki better.
<code php>
$wgGroupPermissions['writer']['block'] = true; /* You may think I, Tomtomn00 have lost my mind, but no. Moderate it, or we can't. */
$wgGroupPermissions['writer']['reupload'] = true;

$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['delete'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['bigdelete'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['undelete'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['apihighlimits'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['browsearchive'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['move'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['movefile'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['editor']['autoreview'] = true;

$wgGroupPermissions['Reviewer']['supressredirect'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Reviewer']['autopatrol'] = true;
</syntaxhighlight>
'''Then once that is done, remove the bit in LocalSettings.php with the Permissions for ['*'] and ['users']''' <br />
'''Then add this to LocalSettings.php!'''
<code php>
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['createpage'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['upload'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['reupload'] = false; /* Not too many permissions */

$wgGroupPermissions['*']['createtalk'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['createaccount'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['read'] = true;
</syntaxhighlight>
'''Just so no errors occur, stick this there as well.'''
<code php>
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['block'] = true; /*Has to have Block in the Right. */
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['createtalk'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['createpage'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['edit'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['editprotected']= true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['patrol'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['review'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['reupload'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['upload'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['patrolmarks'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['unreviewedpages'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['autoconfirmed'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['protect'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['autoreview'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['validate'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['editwidgets'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['editinterface']= true;
$wgGroupPermissions['Abuse Filter Editor']['delete']= true;
</syntaxhighlight>
I have to say, sorry for reading all my lines of code. It's my Big Suggestion in the Wiki Structure.<br />
Thanks for reading that,
{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=10:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)}}
Oh, almost forgot. Put this bit on LocalSettings.php for Administrators:
<code php>
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['abusefilter-modify'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['abusefilter-log-detail'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['abusefilter-view'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['abusefilter-log'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['abusefilter-private'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['abusefilter-modify-restricted'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['abusefilter-revert'] = true;
</syntaxhighlight>
{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:For the exact thing to put on LocalSettings.php, which isn't split up, see [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PA3qMj9zJM6gBsKLRUAG09XgKxblDz1cAF6ikvMuhgE/edit Google Docs]. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=11:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::We should just give all of these rights to all the writers, all the editors and all the reviewers. Actually, no, we should just create a new group which has all these rights and add everyone who can currently edit the wiki to it. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 17:08, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::I have to give the strongest possible oppose ever to that. The AbuseFilter is the most powerful tool on MediaWiki. It can revoke permissions, auto block, warn, tag and more. If used wrongly by an inexperienced person, they can ruin the wiki easily. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=22:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::::Yeah, but the thing is that the users on this wiki are not stupid enough to mess up the wiki. They'll either learn how to make filters, either not make filters at all... --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 19:11, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I just said, reviewers can give the right. However, when there is a hiring, someone could randomly come here, change a filter so it disallows all content. Possible? Yes. Easily done? Very. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=23:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::::::Why would someone do that? I mean...
::::::*He'd lose his editing privileges.
::::::*He'd probably get banned.
::::::*Doing so won't be of any use to him.
::::::*It can be reverted.
::::::*I don't think the staff is careless enough to hire someone who would do that. Otherwise, we have a major problem. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 19:33, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
{{outdent|:::::::}}
I'll change the code later, so Editors can only add it to themselves, but Reviewers can add to anyone. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:I really don't think the staff are too stupid to do this themselves.{{User:Trappingnoobs/Signature|date=00:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::To do what to themselves?{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}}
{{outdent|:::}}
Right, this is the code for editors to add it to themselves.
<code php>
$wgGroupsAddToSelf['Editors'][] = 'Abuse Filter Editor';
$wgGroupsRemoveFromSelf['Editors'][] = 'Abuse Filter Editor';
</syntaxhighlight>
Of course, we will need to warn editors not to add themselves to that group if they are not experienced with Abuse Filters. (I may be the only person who is experienced with them... Made 109 for Wikipedia, 78 published...) {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=11:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:I'm pretty sure they're capable of writing their own basic array in PHP, like I said.{{User:Trappingnoobs/Signature|date=12:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::Well, I've done it for them. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=15:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}}

This "Abuse Filter" already sounds like it's causing more problems than solving. --[[User:Anaminus|Anaminus]] 13:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:It works on '''all WikiMedia Projects''', works on my wiki. {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=19:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::I've just learnt how to use it. It would definitely be useful, and it isn't really complex to use. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 17:52, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Lol, I couldn't find any actual documentation whatsoever so I just looked at some on Wikipedia. Looks incredibly simple to use, worked out pretty much the entire thing in a few minutes. I'd need to reference it for the variables but I'd have no problem writing one otherwise.{{User:Trappingnoobs/Signature|date=22:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::::Here's the documentation: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter MediaWiki: Extension:AbuseFilter]. This extension would be extremly helpful to the wiki if we ever open it again. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 18:12, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Doesn't tell you how to write them. Like I said though, I find a list of the properties and I could easily write one. It's like the insides of an if statement in practically every programming language. It's incredibly simple for something so powerful. I'd be surprised if it took anyone more than a few minutes to figure it out, even if they had no programming experience{{User:Trappingnoobs/Signature|date=22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::::::Wikipedia have 27 people that can do this, we have 105 writers. :/ {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=22:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}} 18:42, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Probably because half the people on wikipedia don't know it exists. It's not an achievement to understand basic syntax like that, at all. Almost all writers here know Lua, and most know a programming language too, so they'd learn practically instantly.{{User:Trappingnoobs/Signature|date=22:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::::::::The page I gave you a link to doesn't explain how to write them, but it gives a link to a page that explains it. :P --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 16:22, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== Dealing with multiple class systems. ==

Posting this here since it's a general forum of discussion.

While I've been on the wiki all day, I've been reminded of how little I understand the organization here.
What is the purpose of these different types of pages? Which should we use?
#[[Object:NotificationBox/]], [[Object:NotificationBox/superclass]], [[Object:NotificationBox/properties]]
#[[RBX.lua.NotificationBox (Object)]]

What should be done about #1, whose pages have little to no content at all? Nominate them for deletion and redirect them to #2 until that happens?

I'm just looking for feedback so I can help cleaning this up. [[User:NecroBumpist|NecroBumpist]] 18:59, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
:'''DO NOT DELETE THOSE #1 PAGES!''' They are essential to the documentation across the wiki. Delete them, and the RBX.lua pages will die horribly. The only pages no longer used are the Object:classname ones. All subpages are required. {{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)}}
::Ahh, so all of those RBX.lua pages are auto-generated template-inception. Nice. Thanks for the warning/explanation. [[User:NecroBumpist|NecroBumpist]] 19:36, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

== Wiki badge on main website? ==

Not trying to ask for too much, but I think we need to stand out a little bit. I just want to show people that I am a wiki writer. [[User:Tenal|Tenal]] 02:18, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
:If you didn't see the section above about payment, MrDoomBringer had said he was/had attempting/attempted to obtain us some sort of badge or other. No need to reiterate. [[User talk:MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]][[User:MrNicNac|<font color="#E52B50" size="3" face="Harlow Solid Italic">MrNicNac - Senior Wiki Editor</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/MrNicNac|<font color="#007BA7" size="4">†</font>]]
::As MrNicNac said, this was already discussed. And I am still supporting that idea; a badge on the main website would be useful. --[[User:JulienDethurens|JulienDethurens]] 16:09, 21 April 2012 (EDT)