This is a forum page. Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~. Be civil and polite to other users!
As many people have been wanting, I've decided its time this wiki's welcome mat received a renovation.
Since this is going to take a while (and since it's never a good idea to leave a homepage a WIP, especially if you have an existing one in place), I've decided to bring the concept of a sandbox to the wiki. Similar to the Wikipedia sandbox. But for now, we'll stick to the userpage ones.
I have begun developing what could possibly be the new home page for The Last Stand Wiki on my own personal sandbox. It's going to take a while, and since it's going to be the place where readers get their first impression about the wiki, it has to look good.
However, as this is a wiki (a website where anyone can edit), I certainly wouldn't want to work on this alone. Firstly, I need you guys to provide feedback - that means giving your ideas on how the page should look like. Secondly, I need you to be BOLD. The sandbox I've opened up on my userpage is free for anyone to edit. Feel free to edit and mess around with the page. If you want to make it better, go for it! There are no chains or lions or lions on chains in the way. If you think it can be improved, go ahead and improve it to the best of your abilities, even if you have none. Remember that, as of the moment, it's not the real home page, so don't worry if you screw up. It might look daunting, but I need you to be brave. Edit BOLDLY like a man! Er... like an awesome person. Sorry about that, females.
Lastly, I need people to speak up! This isn't my wiki, nor is it Ecthel's or SmilingWolf or even the founder, UndefineD. This is our wiki. If you don't like something, step out of the shadows and say it! Yes, I have a whip and a gun, but it's only for the vandals. I wouldn't waste a bullet on you. Unless you are a vandal. Anyways, be bold. Who knows, maybe your idea is better than anyone else's idea!
Feel free to discuss the development of the page below. Try not to edit war.
Link to the sandbox where the new home page is being developed.
K6ka (talk | contribs) 23:43, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Problem I see with the sandbox is that the home page has a unique layout, which isn't available on other pages. Ecthel013 (talk) 04:33, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Well it looks fairly squished now because of the size restrictions and the annoying bar on the right that Wikia insists on narrowing our pages down with. The solution would be to occasionally copy the code from the sandbox, paste it into the home page, and hit Preview instead of Publish. K6ka (talk | contribs) 10:49, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Instead of links to the game pages/articles, we could have what the conartist page does, have a clickable picture, it's more visually attracting imo. This page looks good with the pictures as a visual OrangeSkittles (talk) 15:16, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
- ...I do question our placement of links on the front page in general. Why do we have links to the four games and some of the content when the navigation bar at the top does the job? I've been studying the code for the front page on other wikis, and some of them don't bother with links that are already in the navigation bar, such as The Sims Wiki. They have links, but it's mainly for wiki-project pages, instead of the games themselves. OrangeSkittles, your idea might work pretty well for the The Last Stand series page. K6ka (talk | contribs) 15:52, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is too drastic, but the thing about this wiki thats bothered me the most is the background image.. I'd like to go with a lighter-toned scheme--not necessarily brighter, but just lighter and gentler on the dark colors for less contrast. Im going for something like the background in Conartistgames.com, which is a light grey scheme. Maybe its not important, so idk... Oh, it's ShoopDerWoop... (talk) 02:23, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
┌─────────────────┘
I don't see any sort of "cheeriness" in a zombie apocalypse. I think the background image is fine the way it is. K6ka (talk | contribs) 02:44, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Previewed the code on the front page. It's coming along well - however, the "News and Announcements" section stretches down pretty far so it leaves a large, black void on the left. Should we fill in the gaps or trim it down a bit? K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:34, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Trim it. --Minecraftproman1266, the good o'l Bostonian. (talk) 18:27, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think a new page should be created instead of your sandbox, so we know what it looks like without the preview button? OrangeSkittles (talk) 00:12, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
- That won't make a difference. The home page uses its own unique layout which is different from all other pages. Even if I created a new page and pasted it there, it would still look squashed. Copying the code from the sandbox, pasting it into the home page, and then using the Preview button is the only way to do it, I'm afraid. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:29, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder how we can preview the page if it's protected...
- Anyways, I thought we could do what the CoD wiki does, like have the "portals" for the individual games and include the pages in that specific "portal". It's pretty organized since they have a lot of users, but we could sub for that. Thoughts? Questions? OrangeSkittles (talk) 01:15, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
- Portals for the first two games in the series would be pretty pathetic and small. There's hardly any content to write about in those games. We could merge them, but it would still be small. Portals for TLS:UC and TLS:DZ make sense, though.
- You are an "autoconfirmed" user, which means your account is over four days old and has made over 10 edits. You can edit the home page then, because when UndefineD protected the page nearly three and a half years ago, he set it to "Allow only autoconfirmed users", which means anonymous editors and newly created accounts cannot edit. So this isn't a problem for you. K6ka (talk | contribs) 01:33, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
┌─────────────────┘
Okay, back to the topic that everyone seems to talk about - the featured article.
The previous featured article system involved the slideshow on the front page, which required an image of specific dimensions, otherwise it would look horrible. With the one in the sandbox, the image can be resized and adjusted accordingly, so image size *should* no longer be a problem. The text below is a short summary of the article, similar to what is done on The Sims Wiki (I was actually asked to do the featured article of March 2014, so yeah, I wrote that :P ).
I know this is about the home page and not the featured article system, but who cares? Any suggestions on how the community should nominate/process/discuss featured articles (unless you want The Last Stand: Dead Zone to remain the featured article of eternity)? K6ka (talk | contribs) 22:27, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Did a bit of housekeeping. I removed the "Recent Wiki Activity" section, since it seemed redundant. When people want to look at recent changes, they're going to look at Special:WikiActivity or Special:Recentchanges. The removal of this provided room for me to move the "News and Announcements" section over to the left column, where it doesn't have to look so squished. Then I pushed the random quotes (how do you guys like it by the way?) over to the right, and I might add one more thing there.
- The featured article section could be used right now, but we just need to think of a system to elect articles to take the honourable position. K6ka (talk | contribs) 19:57, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia's FA system is something to model our's on. Maybe we could give any page we feel appropriate a star. But then the criteria for the FA would pop up before they can star it. The criteria should also be based on Wikipedia's own criteria (minus the large table of contents part). But since i doubt that many people would even bother to star a page, maybe we could just have a committee-type group of editors (probs K6ka and Ecthel being the coordinators, OFC!) that elect the pages we feel could be featured based on the criteria. Opinions? Oh, it's ShoopDerWoop... (talk) 02:57, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, i also think the featured article should be featured for that whole month.. so maybe we could elect the featured article a month beforehand. Oh, it's ShoopDerWoop... (talk) 03:00, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking the community got to vote for the article they want to be featured. There's already a page for this at The Last Stand Wiki:Featured Article Voting, which is how our founder UndefineD imagined it - anyone will be able to bring up any article in the main namespace, and anyone can vote for it. At the end of each month (not week - I think weeks are too soon), an admin counts up the votes and the one with the most amount of votes wins. How does that sound? K6ka (talk | contribs) 11:21, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Alright.. I was just scared that too little people would vote, but it would still work. However, shouldn't there be some sort of criteria for voters to read so they can make more rational picks? So they can't say, "I vote for this page because contributed to the pictures in it!" Oh, it's ShoopDerWoop... (talk) 19:16, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Ah yes, criterion. Otherwise we'd have reckless people nominate every single article in the wiki. The article must be well-written - but what constitutes a "well written" article? Is it length? Quality and style of writing? Wikipedia's featured article criteria requires that articles be well written, free of bias, well researched, and well laid out. But since we don't employ the same high standards as Wikipedia does, we don't really need to have these restrictions.
- I was also thinking about the rules for voting. Once an article is featured, should it be permanently excluded from future nominations? If this is the case, someday in the distant future, we just might run out of featured articles to feature. But we'll figure it out by then, if this wiki is still around (that is). K6ka (talk | contribs) 19:43, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
┌─────────────────┘
I think that the article can't be a stub, it should have at least 1 (or 2?) pictures, it should belong to more than 2 categories, and of course grammar, spelling, etc. And I think we'll have to end up "recycling" past featured articles if we have truly "run out", though that won't be any time soon... Oh, it's ShoopDerWoop... (talk) 20:24, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- The categories isn't even close to being a problem, as many articles have three or more. Seriously. K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:52, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- How big should the picture be? OrangeSkittles (talk) 20:24, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Since we're ditching the slideshow idea, the image size is much more flexible now. Most image sizes will work, as long as it isn't thumbnail size (i.e. 70 x 70 might be too small). The image can be resized to fit in the front page, but if the image is too small it'll get pixelated and won't look good. K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:35, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I think we can judge if a picture is good enough or not.. ShoopDerWoop 02:39, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Let's hope this thread hasn't gone stale yet.
- We're almost ready to get this new home page on the road - along with the roadkill and the banana peel someone threw onto the pavement...
- While it looks good, I remember OrangeSkittles said it seemed lonely without an image at the very top. What image should we use? I stuck in The Last Stand Wiki's logo, as well as the Con Artist Games banner. Is that enough? Also, any additional suggestions on the featured article revival? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:31, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
┌─────────────────┘
I suggest putting those links on the top, then the intro, then the featured article. I think it looks more pleasing if something was on top of the intro. OrangeSkittles (talk) 01:06, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Er... that seems out of place. We obviously want to welcome people to our wiki before we throw links at them, right? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:11, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with k6ka on that one: welcome mat first! And the FA system seems is ready to shine! — ShoopDerWoop 17:08, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- @k6ka
Try telling that to the CoD wiki... OrangeSkittles (talk) 19:51, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- @k6ka
- Ha, i see whatchu mean.. But they have an amazingly well planned-out homepage, ya gotta admit... — ShoopDerWoop 19:58, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- K6ka, i asked u on your wall, but here is mor appropriate to point out: i think the space between the last line of the "welcome" section and the links below it should be increased.. And, can the pictures to the right of the links be moved below the links and placed side by side? It'll make it look much more organized// — ShoopDerWoop 01:24, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
- One more thing: can you add back the red thingy that says "Welcome to The Last Stand Wiki", but this time stick it between the pic:wiki-wordmark and the announcement that we have a new home page.. like an official welcome mat, ya'know.. — ShoopDerWoop 16:19, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
┌───────────────────┘
The red didn't exactly make the text as visible as I would've liked it to be, so I took the template code and mended it a little. Should we change it for all the other headings as well? A red background means the text on top isn't very visible as the red steals the spotlight. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:36, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
- Ummm, now i'm not sure it looks as good as the other red titles. It doesnt look good, being different from the other reds.. tbh i rly dont know what to do now lol — ShoopDerWoop 17:16, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
- One question, how updated are the quotes in the Random Quotes section thingy? because there are a few quotes that have been added, like the quote on top of the HERC article. — ShoopDerWoop 12:18, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I typically include whole conversations in the random quote template, so if you want me to include it you should probably give me everything that Dr. Best said, since I don't have the survival kit. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:59, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have it either, since i've contributed on the survival kit comes from Youtubez. Lemme work my magic and dig around to get the whole thang... — ShoopDerWoop 18:07, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Soooo lemme get this straoght: I just put in the quote in any page on this wiki, as long as it has that random quote template and the "<option>" thingies the template will be updated? — ShoopDerWoop 21:24, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
- No, you need to put it in the actual template, which is at {{Random Quote}}. The entire quote needs to be wrapped with the <option> tags. It must begin with <option> and closed with </option>. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:42, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
- Also, i think we need to include some warning for vandalizers on the Welcom Mat. Right now it only says, "However, please refrain from vandalizing the wiki." Include something like ";vandalizers will be dealt with swiftly and severely." Like a warning, you know.. — ShoopDerWoop 14:43, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. Warnings are only really necessary when the user has vandalized the wiki. A warning basically just tells them that their behaviour is not acceptable, and that they should change it. It's not intended as punishment. If vandals persist, the warnings get sterner and sterner, and that's where we mention that they could be blocked if they continue to vandalize. A block is usually called for if it's evident that the user has 1. Read and ignored the warnings 2. Clearly not here to help us develop the wiki, and 3. Something must be done to protect the website from further damage. Some of the larger wikis do not mention that "Unacceptable behaviour will be punished!" on the home page because 1. That does not scare vandals one bit, 2. That may actually encourage vandals, 3. They use warning templates that do the job.
- Alright! Since you are the expert (being part of the Wikipedia anti-vandalism crew and all), i trust that this is the right thing to do.. — ShoopDerWoop 21:12, April 29, 2014 (UTC)