Codex Gamicus
Advertisement
Discussion is now closed. Accepted changes will eventually be merged into policies.

Accepted changes will be applied to the wiki:

  • The current list of admins and bureaucrats will be trimmed down to reflect those that have been active for at least three or more months.
  • A new request for admin process has been implemented.
  • Efforts will be made to seek out wikis who would like to be linked to and how they might like to be represented here. A banner at the top of major pages would link to specific wikis.
  • Import gaming-related articles from various wiki-owned gaming sites (such as pc.gamepedia.com).
  • Have game-savvy users create original editorial content for existing and upcoming games.
  • Clean up and revamp articles that are direct imports from wikipedia. Preferably articles would be recreated from scratch; in the future, wikipedia articles would not be copied directly.
  • Go through User Pages and delete those that are obvious spam, such as advertisements for other sites. (Completed)
  • Existing content will not be removed.
  • Should content be created that is later part of an entire wiki about a game, that content will not be deleted either.
  • For existing wikis that are represented here, only summary information would be present from here on out (excepting case-by-case). IE - keep the current content, but if there's already summary info, refrain from making any more.
  • Regarding overlapping content with other wikis - if there's a fear that the minutia of a game won't be fully detailed here because it goes beyond summarizing, interwiki links are easy to use that point to full information.
  • Anytime info is presented on the wiki it should be done with home templates.

Administration (1)[]

Proposal: Trim down the current list of administrators and bureaucrats to reflect those that have been active for (x) amount of time.

Leave comments below

  • I think 3+ months is better, although that we may not get many admins when we make the RfA page; it'll be harder to get admin. So I'm up for 3 or 6 months. Samuel Najdowski (talk) 21:33, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • 3+ months is Wikipedia policy, but I have no abject problem with six.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:01, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
Unless nothing further is said, it looks like there is consensus on this point. Sam and Fox, it looks like you guys could go either way with three or six months; because Mime gave a solid number of six months, it looks like that's the direction that should be taken. Raylan13 (talk) 22:41, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
We agree on 3+ months will result in demotion, as per our skype chat. Samuel Najdowski (talk) 23:30, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Administration (2)[]

Proposal: Put in place a system that details how and when users may apply for and become administrators and/or bureaucrats.

Leave comments below

  • This way, community can discuss if this person can be admin. Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me!
    Contributions! | Edits!
    20:45, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • I plan for this system to make it harder than it is to get admin, I'll put details when we make the RfA page. Samuel Najdowski (talk) 21:38, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind that if it is agreed a system should be put into place, the details also need to be by consensus agreement. Raylan13 (talk) 21:41, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • I know, if we have an agreement about the RfA system; I have a few ideas. That's what I meant. I know it has to be a community consensus. I'll tell the details I have in mind if we agree. Samuel Najdowski (talk) 21:48, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • There was already a RFA program on this Wiki, however, it wasn't properly maintained. This would be supplemented by additional code (such as automatically listing when someone makes a request).--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:01, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
Unless nothing further is said, it looks like there's consensus on this point that a system should be formulated and enacted. Sam, you seem to have the most ideas on the matter, so if you'd like, go ahead and make a rough draft of the suggestions (maybe on your sandbox) so others can start commenting and things can get polished. Raylan13 (talk) 22:44, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
Will do, I'll make my ideas in the sandbox now. Samuel Najdowski (talk) 23:30, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
Done, done and done. You can see my ideas here. Samuel Najdowski (talk) 17:26, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Looks pretty good :) The only suggestions I would make are 1) to make things more specific (time frame nom stays open, what % does it need to pass by) and 2) under the Old Requests that admins can also close out and move them. Raylan13 (talk) 20:37, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

All right, I'll do that now. Samuel Najdowski (talk) 20:39, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it, take a look :) Samuel Najdowski (talk) 20:52, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done - just make sure the top "Process" section matches with the bottom. Feel free to reach out to the others for their feedback (I already poked Adan). Raylan13 (talk) 21:14, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
I had to fix it because mime didn't like it and he had a better idea, so take a look. Samuel Najdowski (talk) 14:06, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

That seems to place a lot of power in the bureaucrat's hands, when something like that should be more a community decision; also, it isn't spelled out if the bureaucrat can make the determination on a case-by-case basis (extremely unfair, promotes favoritism) or if it's a single decision that affects all RfAs. The situation arises where a bureaucrat can say "I don't like you, so you need 75% to pass" or, on the other end "I really like you, so I'll fast track you through with under 50%". It's going to be far better to have an agreed upon, concrete number that people are comfortable with, imho. Raylan13 (talk) 17:32, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Me and Mime decided that we'll go back to my old plan. as for me, mime and TTF, will we have to do an RfA? Samuel Najdowski (talk) 17:41, January 22, 2014 (UTC) 

For now I would assume "yes", if only for the sake of fairness and consistency; that is, unless some other change is made in the meantime. But just assume yes for now. Raylan13 (talk) 20:34, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration[]

Proposal: Seek out wikis who would like to be linked to and how they might like to be represented here. Possibly create a banner at the top of major pages that would link to specific wikis.

Leave comments below

  • I really like this idea. If people want to know what the game is, how you can get it, this is the place. For extra details about it, we could move them to another site with more info. Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me!
    Contributions! | Edits!
    20:45, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • There a various systems already here that do that (and by that, I mean multiple styles, and multiple templates). This needs to be a unified approach with a singular template.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:01, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
Unless nothing further is said, it appears there is consensus on this point. Fox, if you've got some ideas about how a unified, simple template might look, feel free to draw up some examples for a possible vote. Raylan13 (talk) 22:45, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
We use a system already on Yu-Gi-Oh!. Shouldn't be too hard to import it.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 23:35, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
  • Adding to this, since I just noticed this because of the highlight:
    • This wiki, which is really a gaming hub, should implement formats similar to the Anime/manga hub. For example promoting the primary wiki in the infobox, which has already be suggested and tested here, (infobox), as well as listing alternative wikis.
    • Getting wikis to add this hub in their wiki nav, and add a more beneficial cross-wiki gaming footer (example here, and some rules) that implements spotlights and would bring users to the hub to edit pages.
--Sxerks (talk) 17:34, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Editorial content (1)[]

Proposal: Import gaming-related articles from various wiki-owned gaming sites (such as pc.gamepedia.com)

Leave comments below

  • I have already copied the Strife article from the Doom Wiki (why doesn't the straightforward doom: markup work here, as it does everywhere else?), though I have edited some false bluelinks such as Programmer to point back to the Strife-specific article, and have purged the copy of minutiae which probably aren't relevant to this wiki, such as the list of levels; I also moved the Alien Cabal article here, as it was about to be deleted from the Doom Wiki. Co-operation between wikis is a good thing, and the Wiki setup helps this.
One problem I've often seen (on many wikis) is inept copying (especially from Wikipedia), leading to all manner of problems such as broken template references. In an extreme case, the copied article had two tables of contents; a non-functioning duplicate of the Wikipedia table, plus the local table. People need to be careful how they copy. — RobertATfm (talk) 21:29, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • I would absolutely prefer home-grown content, however, I would copy across game articles if the home wiki permitted it, minus template and infobox code. Wikipedia copying should be either disallowed entirely, or heavily restricted.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:01, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • This is ok, as long as it doesn't we don't go overboard and copy everything (a merge would be the exception). Of course, the license terms (CC-BY-SA) would need to be respected. - Adan Aileron (talk) 00:16, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
Unless nothing further is said, it appears that there is consensus on this point. This might be something that is an "as you go" sort of thing, meaning not much has to be done at this point. If you all want some concrete rules on the matter, feel free to create a policy page on it. Raylan13 (talk) 22:48, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
  • In addition to this, adding content about game developers might be beneficial. Some gaming wikis have limit articles about certain people, mainly related to a specific game, so a larger article here listing all games a person worked on would be might benefit from inter-wiki linking. Also many people are considered "not notable" on wikipedia and internet searches would end up here.--Sxerks (talk) 00:41, January 30, 2014 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. It would have to be treated like other content - we've got sites dedicated solely to the bigger devs (like Nintendo), so just like individual games, look to see if we have a dev first. If so, then just do an overview with linking. If not, fully fleshed out content here. Raylan13 (talk) 17:26, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Editorial content (2)[]

Proposal: Have game-savvy users create original editorial content for existing and upcoming games.

Leave comments below

Unless anything further is said, it looks like there's consensus on this point. This appears to be a situation where the leadership here just needs to keep an eye out for potentially solid users and then approach them about editorial writing. Once something like that starts, it's a simple matter of showcasing the writing on the main page and/or elsewhere. Raylan13 (talk) 22:50, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Content audit (1)[]

Proposal: Clean up and revamp articles that are direct imports from wikipedia.

Leave comments below

I would be wary of articles from Wikipedia... not outright suggesting a purge, but perhaps they could be re-written.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:01, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • Recreating the imported articles from scratch would be the ideal, but this is still better than nothing. - Adan Aileron (talk) 00:27, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
(Evidently I skipped this :P) Unless nothing further is said about this, it appears there's consensus on this matter. It looks as if all three of you are a bit hesitant about importing articles outright going forward, so that has to be watched (policy change?). This looks like a group effort project, and if you guys want some help on it, I'm more than happy to lend a hand when I've got some open time blocks. Raylan13 (talk) 23:14, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Content audit (2)[]

Proposal: Go through User Pages and delete those that are obvious spam, such as advertisements for other sites.

Leave comments below

  • I have created a list of all external links on this wiki in the User namespace (here). While we are going to clean them, we should also prevent them with AbuseFilter. We can make an abuse filter prevent creation of userpages with external links of accounts not auto-confirmed. Not sure how many normal users will catch that! Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me!
    Contributions! | Edits!
    21:06, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • No issue at all for this. Second to this should be an Upload policy, to define what is and what is not permitted for upload, and if it is uploadable, what is and is not permissible on user pages.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:01, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • On the Fastmail Wiki, we initially had about 30 pictures, of which about 3 or 4 were actually relevant; another 3 or 4 were added in good faith by Wiki staff, to support templates which aren't appropriate for an email wiki; and all the rest were spam, or random rubbish added for no good reason (one idiotor uploaded his holiday snaps, presumably in the belief that Wiki is an image hosting service, or can be abused as one; fortunately, it can't). We have now purged all the rubbish images, and implemented a strict image policy stating that all images uploaded must be relevant to our purpose, even if for use on the uploader's user page. — RobertATfm (talk) 22:29, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not an exaggeration to say that spam user pages appear on a daily basis. AbuseFilter would definitely help and it is probably a good idea to enable it here. - Adan Aileron (talk) 00:42, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: I have created a list of ALL (1651 results!) userpages that have been blanked. The list can be found here. I have a bot that would kill all those pages in under 45 minutes (deleting 1 page per second, so it doesn't slow down Wiki's servers). The bot's name is MuudyBot The bot has over 500k edits. Thanks, Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me!
    Contributions! | Edits!
    22:01, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
With this, my bot will need bot tags in order to delete them (and administrative tools). Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me!
Contributions! | Edits!
22:08, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
I was informed by the VSTF that that link on the userpages are not advertising, but auto-creation links. Shall we still delete all those blanked userpages? Seems to be only users that edited 1 time years ago. Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me!
Contributions! | Edits!
23:15, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with this. However, I am a bit concerned about whether or not we can upload user page banners, and when this change will take effect. Warm regards, The Helixsoft Team (Talk-Contribs) 18:05, January 22, 2014 (UTC).
Unless anything further is said, it looks like there's consensus on the point. It looks like Mime would need temp rights for the bot, Adan, if you want to do that. If you want the Abuse Filter enabled, let me know and I'll get on it. Raylan13 (talk) 22:55, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked and deleted 72 spam users. Sactage has inserted an abuse filter that will prevent most of those spam users come in. Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me!
Contributions! | Edits!
01:12, January 23, 2014 (UTC)
Nice - congrats on VSTF, by the way! Raylan13 (talk) 17:38, January 23, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me!
Contributions! | Edits!
17:50, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Content audit (3)[]

Proposal: Come to a consensus on what content should be on the wiki itself. How specific should information be about a game or franchise?

Leave comments below

  • If the main wiki allows it, we should only have description of the game, where you can get the game (like what platform) and a little blurp about the characters and such. Then, a template (as Raylan said) at the top of the page would be cool. For other games that wikis don't allow, full information I guess. Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me!
    Contributions! | Edits!
    20:45, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • The minimalist approach would have prevented the Alien Cabal article being moved here from the Doom Wiki, as the point of the move (apart from the fact that we could find no evidence for the claim that it was a Doom-engine game) was that the article had a wealth of info which it would have been a shame to lose. I think a case-by-case approach as to what is appropriate would probably be best. — RobertATfm (talk) 21:53, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
Also, abandonware links should never be present on articles.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:59, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pretty much this. If there is already a community out there, we don't need pages like Rupee, especially when other Wiki wikis do it better. This way, efforts can be streamlined to ensure that maximum attention is given to gaming.gamepedia.com's primary use, and that's as a Hub wiki.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:01, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • I am rather opposed to content restrictions, especially if they resemble this worst-case (IMO) scenario: a significant amount of quality content that needs to be deleted because of a newly-created wiki on the topic in question.
  • I also don't believe we should just give up on creating a general gaming encyclopedia (Codex Gamicus's true original purpose) just because other wikis do certain articles "better". - Adan Aileron (talk) 00:52, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
I get this is a sticking point for you, and that change is scary, but allow me to clarify why I have suggested this, both to the community, and to you. It's not about what other Wiki wikis "do better" (though that is a side effect of this point), it's about scope, direction and efficiency.
It is entirely possible for a Wiki to have too large a scope, that is, too great a range of content that is feasible to accomplish.
This ultimately effects direction, because there is no single unifying idea of what, if anything, should be a focus. Users come by, sometimes start a project related to a game, and leave.
That situation then ploughs into efficiency; content has effectively been duplicated where it already exists elsewhere, at the cost of editing time that hasn't been put into unique content.
To quote your previous statement "it is far better to tried and failed (not that EG has failed, or is it, IMO, likely to)", I submit that while we have differing opinions on how success is measured, I think it is credible to say that the current scope of Codex Gamicus is not conductive to a healthy editor base.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 01:07, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
This was expected to be the highest point of debate here. Rather than bog down the page with essentially two people likely going back and forth over it, let's focus on the things we first agree on from the sections above; this way we can work toward a common goal and leave this section open for the time being for others to comment that haven't had a chance to. The plan is to come back to this after another week has passed - that should be ample opportunity for others to weigh in - and then we can parse this particular argument down to its finer points to see if there's any agreement.
In the meantime, take a look at Editorial Content 1, Editorial Content 2, Content Audit 1, and Content Audit 2 to figure out who wants to take lead on those; those four points it looks as if there's little to no disagreement over, so there's little sense in holding back those changes. Raylan13 (talk) 17:24, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
I would take a stab at importing pages, but I need SysOp privileges to do so. Same with deleting user pages. I can make a start on creating/amending existing game articles, but the template I was going to bring over needs CSS inserting into MediaWiki:Common.css.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 21:17, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there's some things that can be readily agreed upon:
  • If there isn't a wiki about a game, full information should be included.
  • If there is a full wiki about a game, some things should be taken on a case-by-case basis (citing the Alien Cabal that Robert mentioned).
The sticking point appears to be about the content and focus of the wiki, so here's a proposal that should be a middle ground, based on community comments:
*Existing content will not be removed, regardless of decision.
*Should content be created that is later part of an entire wiki about a game, that content will not be deleted either.
*For existing wikis that are represented here, only summary information would be present from here on out (excepting case-by-case). IE - keep the current content, but if there's already summary info, refrain from making any more.
*Regarding overlapping content with other wikis - if there's a fear that the minutia of a game won't be fully detailed here because it goes beyond summarizing, interwiki links are easy to use that point to full information.
*Anytime info is presented on the wiki it should be done with home templates. Raylan13 (talk) 23:10, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
What about templates? As it stands a large majority of them are full of redlinks, and would remain so under the new system. Should this then be amended that information is to be created for articles with existing template systems, but new content would not have extended information, and only have summary content?--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 23:35, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
I'd think a lot of those fit into the "clean up" section mentioned above. Anytime info is presented on the wiki it should be done with home templates rather than importing a dozen templates for the same thing from all different sites. So old content should be reexamined to fit into existing templates; new content would focus on summary info, with exceptions already noted above. Raylan13 (talk) 00:30, January 18, 2014 (UTC)
Redlinks wouldn't be a problem, I have a mass redlink remover, I just need a bot to remove them all. Samuel Najdowski (talk) 01:03, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to the difference in article types: current local Thief article, local character article, revised Thief article with interwiki links, off-wiki character article. The revised article is more to the point and gets users to more content by linking to the actual game wiki. The local character article is of no benefit to the users/readers or the wiki with the full content.--Sxerks (talk) 17:49, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Giving this topic until the end of the week for other comments/viewpoints. Once that happens, the first part of next week will be spent hammering out specific details. Raylan13 (talk) 20:15, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

All right - it seems there aren't any more comments to be made on the matter. I assume, given the announced time period has come, that no one has any major issue with what I proposed above. Let's implement this starting on Monday, then. I'll bold it above so it's easy to spot in the wall of text we have going on. Raylan13 (talk) 21:52, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement