{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=15:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)}}
{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=15:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)}}
===Inline code===
===Inline code===
The <nowiki><code></nowiki> tag currently looks rubbish (<code>like this</code>). 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</code></nowiki>)
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>
<pre>
code {
code {
Line 385:
Line 385:
== API access - {{`|=$wgEnableWriteAPI = true;}} ==
== API access - {{`|=$wgEnableWriteAPI = true;}} ==
Please? {{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=11:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)}}
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; </code> {{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=18:05, 6 April 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 ==
== Reviewing ==
Line 467:
Line 467:
}
}
}
}
</code>
</syntaxhighlight>
{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)}}
{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)}}
Line 507:
Line 507:
/* NOTE: Most sysop things will already be enabled */
/* NOTE: Most sysop things will already be enabled */
</code>
</syntaxhighlight>
:{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)}}
:{{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)
::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)
Line 548:
Line 548:
display: none !important;
display: none !important;
}
}
</code>
</syntaxhighlight>
{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=15:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)}}
{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=15:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)}}
{{User:Tomtomn00/Signature|date=11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)}}
{{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)}}
: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)}}
Line 662:
Line 662:
:I really don't think the staff are too stupid to do this themselves.{{User:Trappingnoobs/Signature|date=00:13, 13 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)}}
::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.
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?
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)
As I described in this post, Extension:GeSHiCodeTag is considered harmful. It claims the widely-used <code> 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.
Please can we switch to Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi. This extension uses the <source> tag instead, which makes much more sense, and doesn't hide the native <code> tag. Additionally, it's much more customizable.
The sooner we switch the better, so that there are as few pages using Extension:GeSHiCodeTag to be converted as possible.
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. --Samacado 15:06, 15 January 2012 (EST)
I like this idea, but I think we should change practice and use the <tt> and </tt> tags anyway. It's extremely unlikely that these will ever be changed. I've already changed a few pages to use these tags.
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 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.
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? - Quenty (talk • 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 (Talk) 14:08, 17 January 2012 (EST)
But, the <source> tag is already used by HTML5... for media files...
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.
The <code> tag currently looks rubbish (like this</syntaxhighlight>). I'm suggesting we apply this style to it, which makes it actually readable (<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>)
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:
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?
We should get a really rare limited hat or a new type of tophat ;D Emess (talk : 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. --MrNicNac 00:40, 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. --ArceusInator (talk | contribs) 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.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 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 official wiki writer.
I'm being serious. I got banned for saying I was a Wiki writer in my group description. Someone reported me for staff impersonation.--MrNicNac 11:32, 12 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.
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 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.
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 has no gameplay. also, lol bump, i want a badge. --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. - Quenty (talk • 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.Nightname
Nightname, please sign your posts using ~~~~ or ~~~ (but if you use the latter include a timestamp).
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?
--Brandonhare 16:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is a good idea.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 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. Emess (talk : contribs) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the portal pages to the help articles should be restructured too - see my post in archive. --SNCPlay42 17:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I've got a draft rewrite of the Lua Help page 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. --SNCPlay42 18:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I personally think the tutorials should all be deleted (except for a few minor exceptions) and rewritten. Emess (talk : contribs) 02:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, you can rewrite them. Instead of deleting you can tag the ones in need of update. -- 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.
Trappingnoobs (Writer)
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 ~~~~
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.
I agree. It's really not fair that the commercial guys get a bunch of stuff and we get nothing. --ArceusInator (talk | contribs) 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.
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 (Talk)
That would be good Mr Doom Bringer! ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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 (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.
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. - Quenty (talk • 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. Legend26 (talk | contribs) 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.
Currently, I'm rewriting the string manipulation section in my draft article. Is it alright if I post a link to this page for the string.format function?
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.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 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.
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 (Talk)
How to read Class Reference
Do we have a page on reading and using the Class Reference on the Wiki? -- 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. --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.
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.
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? - Quenty (talk • 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 (Talk) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (EST)
New homepage
I've developed (with the help of others), a 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. - Quenty (talk • January 9)
I like the idea, but I think it's too cluttered. The Lua box thingy looks out-of-place to me, also.
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.
Sorry, my screen resolution is massive. Suggestions on changing it? - Quenty (talk • 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 (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)
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?--~SDuke524~ 19:53, 13 January 2012 (EST)
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?
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.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:22, 18 January 2012 (EST)
Oh, really? I thought that editors could update them, though? Anyway, thanks for letting me know.
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 some problems.
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. --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.
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.
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 (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 - Quenty (talk • 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...
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.
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. Legend26 (talk | contribs) 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. †MrNicNac - Wiki Editor†
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.
I have a proposal myself which is on my talk page. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I noticed that we can't use the <math></math> 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.
Potential logo
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.
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. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 20:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
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.. :/
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. Legend26 (talk | contribs) 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...
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.
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The page I mentioned has changed beyond recognition, but my point still stands.
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page 16:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
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 this page protected? I don't see how it needs to be. :/
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. †MrNicNac - Wiki Editor†
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.
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? †MrNicNac - Wiki Editor†
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. ( Scarfacial | Message | Talk )
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.
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. Here is something I created quickly. You can look at that or maybe we can create something better out of it.
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.
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 - Quenty (talk • February 3)
Like fancy mathematics! That brings this into scope. (I also really like the blank line in between each of our response things, in edit mode. It looks really nice.)
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:
We don't want around 50 bajillion events here, but we can put the basic ones. The objects are more interesting though. - Quenty (talk • 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.
I think that replacing the class reference with that would be good. Currently the load times are horrible with so many templates. Legend26 (talk | contribs) 16:46, 3 February 2012 (EST)
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
With the 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 was created on January 31, 2012 are mentioned. Or something along those lines.
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. - Quenty (talk • February 3)
I'm sure nobody here would, but if they did MrDoomBringer could probably swing back around and annihilate you. †MrNicNac - Wiki Editor†
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.
I put this here because it's kind-of a general talk page. Currently, the most linked-to category is 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?
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 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 completely sure we don't want it anymore. What I think we should let editors do is delete any page except pages in the main namespace.
You didn't have to go write a huge paragraph on something I already knew. I still disagree on letting editors delete pages, however. Legend26 (talk | contribs) 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 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.
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.
Mmkay. Then we need a way to write bots. I don't know if we can already, but if we can't, pywikipediabot looks easy to install and easy to use. Simply write:
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.
I corrected the title. As it is in php, it needs to be: $wgEnableWriteAPI = true; </syntaxhighlight> ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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.
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! --Gordonrox24 | Talk 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.
This is only one suggestion of mine, we should have an abuse filter (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. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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.
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. JulienDethurens
Below are lines 81-89, in what they should be like.
Could the 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. --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. --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)... --JulienDethurens 22:41, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
On LocalSettings.php someone with server access should type this (php)
All pages could be restored anyway without Oversight actions being used, which this wiki doesn't have. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I know they can be restored, but only by admins. --JulienDethurens 23:09, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
Anyone with delete has undelete automatically. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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. --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. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 18:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Tutorial of the week/day
This has been suggested a few times on the Roblox Wiki Group wall. Just another link under Navigation that would direct them to an article on the wiki.
--~SDuke524~ 19:04, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
Anyone with MW namespace edit permissions could do it. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 18:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
All I see is a bunch of unformatted javascript and no explanation. --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. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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. --JulienDethurens 15:15, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
Allow me to stop you from doing something stupid: Host it somewhere else and link to it. --Anaminus 15:17, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
Done most of it now, with Google Docs. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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.
/* 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>
~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 15:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Pages which should be unlocked from specific rank only editing
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)
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page21:48, 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). --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
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed that protection. Was protected way back in 2008.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 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~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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. --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 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 LocalSettings.php. I will create the AbuseFilters, once installed and granted permissions.
/* 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.
$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['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'] Then add this to LocalSettings.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.
$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.
Thanks for reading that,
~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 10:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, almost forgot. Put this bit on LocalSettings.php for Administrators:
$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>
~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
For the exact thing to put on LocalSettings.php, which isn't split up, see Google Docs. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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. --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. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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... --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. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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. --JulienDethurens 19:33, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
I'll change the code later, so Editors can only add it to themselves, but Reviewers can add to anyone. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I really don't think the staff are too stupid to do this themselves.
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page00:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
To do what to themselves?~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, this is the code for editors to add it to themselves.
$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...) ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 11:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they're capable of writing their own basic array in PHP, like I said.
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page12:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've done it for them. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 15:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This "Abuse Filter" already sounds like it's causing more problems than solving. --Anaminus 13:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
It works on all WikiMedia Projects, works on my wiki. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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. --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.
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page22:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
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
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia have 27 people that can do this, we have 105 writers. :/ ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 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.
Trappingnoobs (Writer) Have I done something bad? Good? Tell me on my talk page22:45, 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 --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?
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. 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.
Ahh, so all of those RBX.lua pages are auto-generated template-inception. Nice. Thanks for the warning/explanation. 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. 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. †MrNicNac - Senior Wiki Editor†
As MrNicNac said, this was already discussed. And I am still supporting that idea; a badge on the main website would be useful. --JulienDethurens 16:09, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
