MTG Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Archive1

Brand new admin page

Hopefully, we won't have to use this much.Voice of All^Talk 01:17, 15 December 2005 (CST)

I wonder if we should make a quick policy against inflamtory/in your face sexual content on userpages. Wikipedia never said anything in policy about that, so it ended up being an issue. Maybe we can just nip in the tosh right now.Voice of All^Talk 12:57, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

Seems Fair.VestDan 13:30, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

Deck Lists (Technical Question)

Hi there, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I hope someone can help. What do you use to make the decklists on the wiki here? Specifically, I'm talking about the <deck title="Dragonstorm"> type formatting. I ask because I have my own (private) wiki which I use to keep track of lots of different notes and pieces of information, and would really like a good way to write up my magic decks. Thanks! --Stoz 13:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said somewhere else, some time ago, Hannes is probably most familiar with this wiki's coding. VoA(MTG) is familiar with WikiMedia coding, though; from what I hear. ^M_M ^(talk!) 15:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Archived: ^M_M ^(talk!) 12:23, 17 November 2007 (GMT)

Tournament decks

First I made all tournament decks to have a lower case d for deck.

I've notice inconsistency with the way tournament decks look. I feel Lands should appear first, then creatures then the rest (artifacts, enchantments, instants, sorceries). All cards should be alphabetical within each section. --GeoMike 02:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I don't get the whole tourney deck project - it requires people to constantly update it in a considerably professional tone. By the way, careful with paragraphing (and coding); double enter/return gives you a paragraph; one gives you a run-on sentence, I believe, GeoMike. Keep up the good work! ^M_M ^(talk!) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Exansion sets

Another topic regarding expansion sets, but completely different so I added this section here rather then continuing the one below --- I think that on Expansion set pages that, for example on the Alliances page, if the word Alliances is used in the text, no matter how many times it is uses, all instances of the word Alliances should be bolded. What do others think? --GeoMike 18:39, 24 February 2008 (GMT)

==Broken redirects== We have a number of broken redirect pages, wanted to post them here. I deleted the ones I knew were ok to get rid of earlier. --GeoMike 02:23, 21 February 2008 (GMT) I deleted the broken redirects about a month after i wrote this section here. --GeoMike 13:49, 29 March 2008 (GMT)

Topics of expansions and core sets

It took me awhile to do, but I've counted up the number of occurrences of topics (and subtopics) on expansions and another list for core sets. First, not all of these topics occur in the same order on individual pages (should References be above or below External links). Which order should they fall in? Second, notice redundancy in some pages grouping them together while others do not.

Expansion sets

Of the 46 Expansion sets, only one topic occurs on every single expansion set — External links. The reason why, Weatherlight is severely lacking on information.

Following is the list of topics and subtopics for expansion sets, in no particular order:

• 26 Set details - 2 with subtopic Promotion Cards, 1 with subtopic Planeswalkers, 1 with subtopic Pro Tour player cards, 1 with subtopic Storyline
• 1 Set history - Eliminated this name of topics and renamed Set details instead.
• 2 Setting
• 1 Setting and storylines
• 6 Storyline
• 3 Design & Development
• 1 Development information
• 2 Themes - 1 with subtopic Boros Legion, 1 with subtopic Selesnya Conclave, 1 with subtopic House Dimir, 1 with subtopic The Golgari
• 1 Flavor
• 1 Keywords
• 3 Keywords and mechanics - 1 with subtopic Design & Development
• 1 New keywords
• 13 Mechanics
• 1 Mechanics and abilities
• 2 Themes
• 7 Mechanics and themes - 1 with subtopic The Izzet, 1 with subtopic The Gruul, 1 with subtopic The Orzhov
• 3 Themes and mechanics - 1 with subtopic Protection
• 1 Storyline
• 2 Marketing cards
• 43 Cycles - 1 with subtopic Tribe-Related cycles, 2 with subtopic Vertical Cycles
• 1 Mirrored pair
• 3 Creature types - 1 with subtopic Points of interest
• 1 Famous cards
• 34 Notable cards - 1 with subtopic Legendary cards, 1 with subtopic Creature types
• 1 Notable cards and tournament impact - 1 with subtopic Other notable cards
• 3 Tournament impact
• 1 Other information
• 27 Reprinted cards
• 4 Misprints
• 29 Theme decks
• 1 Points of interest
• 6 Trivia - 2 with subtopic Trivia about individual cards, 2 with subtopic Creature types
• 2 Points of interest
• 9 References
• 46 External links - 1 with subtopic Planewalkers, 1 with subtopic Flavor - 1 with subsubtopic Kithkin

So many topics, some grouped together. Notice in the Ravnica block, 1 lists their guilds under Mechanics and themes, another lists their guilds under just Themes, the last doesn't list their guilds on the page at all. Note: I personally know that only 27 expansion sets have Reprinted cards, personally verified that. So at least we have two correct topic numbers: External links and Reprinted cards. I'd like to see every expansion set with at least a Set details topic and Notable cards topic (come on, there has to be at least 1 notable card in each set somewhere ;) ).

Core sets

Once again, only External links is found on every core set page.

• 6 Set details
• 1 Storyline
• 1 Design & Development
• 1 Mechanics and themes
• 2 Card changes - 1 with subtopic Cards removed, 1 with subtopic Cards added
• 3 Rules changes
• 1 Equipment
• 2 Core game cards
• 2 Keywords
• 10 Cycles - 1 with subtopic Cycles, 1 with subtopic Vertical cycles, 1 with subtopic Mirrored pairs
• 1 Notable cards
• 1 Creature types
• 4 Theme decks
• 1 Summer Magic
• 1 Marketing card
• 8 Cards added to
• 3 Changes in rarity
• 7 Cards removed from
• 4 Misprint
• 1 Points of interest
• 1 Hosers
• 2 References
• 11 External links - 1 with subtopic Articles

Beta is the only one with the subtopics of Cycles, Vertical Cycles and Mirrored Pairs which all fall under the topic Cycles. Should they be grouped like this as subtopics? Should the topic then be called Cycles when Mirrored Pair is nothing similar to a cycle?

Discussion on all expansion and core set topics

I'm bringing Topics up to start a discussion. Which order should topics fall on a expansion/core set page? Which of these topics should be reorganized to fall under one name. I love working on the expansions and core sets, but I'm asking everyone for help with this. Thanks. --GeoMike 03:44, 17 February 2008 (GMT)

I'm starting to add sections of "Functional reprints". I thought about placing those at first after cycles but then think they should go after "Reprints" sections. Should "functional reprints" be a subtopic of "reprints", I'm not sure but I'm leaning towards no. --GeoMike 14:15, 17 February 2008 (GMT)

Article of the Week

On www.wikipedia.com, their Article of the Day takes up almost 1/2 the page, we should think about where we'd want an Article of the Week on the main page, and how we'd want to rearrange the main page.

We could start by nominating articles for an Article of the Week space, each mini-article on the main page needs to take up 6-7 sentences if we go for the kind of space that Wikipedia uses. Things are still up in the air as to where to place this article. This rules out any stubs as being Articles of the Week, also. I think Wikipedia somehow keeps the featured articles on a master page, yes found it here. But I don't know how they store those 6-7 sentences where they can just read it on the main page.... Just thinking out loud. --GeoMike 03:27, 27 November 2007 (GMT)

Editing Buttons

When editing there is a button that takes what you have highlighted and turns it into an internal link (by putting brackets around it). I wish there was a button that would take what is highlighted and and make it a card link by putting the c tags around it. My Christmas Wish :) --GeoMike 17:20, 27 November 2007 (GMT)

Should Hannes ever browse by MTGS Wiki, I'll try to get him to do that. Either that, or I will/may have to do something utterly stupid, such as messing with the MediaWiki files. ^.^ ^M_M ^(talk!) 03:18, 28 November 2007 (GMT)

One thing, though; should it be "<c> and </c>" or "<card> </card>"? I reckon that the button add "<card>", because it's already simplifying one's task. ... not to mention "<card title="...">...</card>"... ^M_M ^(talk!) 03:18, 28 November 2007 (GMT)

Wish I knew more about programming, then I could try my hand at it. Yes "<card>" sounds good to me. --GeoMike 15:42, 29 November 2007 (GMT)

There would be no difference between <c> and <card>. But yes, <card> is better for unexperienced users. --^MOR_T ^(T) 20:04, 29 November 2007 (GMT)

Wish someone could and would upgrade the software. We're about six or so patches behind the current stable release. ='( ^M_M ^(talk!) 02:14, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

Capitlization

<This is a place to discuss capitilization issues>

Core set

Should both words be capitalized? Why should or shouldn't they be? Currently the article is Core set, but what irritates me most if I want to link to "[[Core Set]]" it can't find Core set. --GeoMike

"Core set"? Isn't that a redirect to Core Set? What do you mean, GeoMike? ^M_M ^(talk!) 02:14, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

Sorry - forgot to sign above --GeoMike 17:47, 1 December 2007 (GMT)

You did. But you didn't close the "nowiki" tag properly, and when I closed it and saved changed, my nick appeared under you message ;-) --^MOR_T ^(T) 17:52, 1 December 2007 (GMT)

Official product page use "Core Set" form, so I think we should use the same. --^MOR_T ^(T) 17:33, 1 December 2007 (GMT)

It's confusing. Sometimes we refer to them simply as a "core set" (as most often used in an article, and seeing as we don't arbitrarily capitalize it just for linking purposes - not that it makes a difference - e.g. "Core set"); sometimes we refer to it, only in the Sets template, at most, as "Core Sets" (but that's only because Wizards of the Coast's MTG.com calls it that). I believe that that is, however, capitalized for the sake of it, for aesthetic reasons - not because they truly are, and refer to, these "base sets" (as referred to by some) as "Core Sets". ^M_M ^(talk!) 02:14, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

... or, heh, maybe we can do both and use a template for the rest of the info in the article; that is, "Introductory sentence. Common info template." ... then, we'd have a duplicate article, though. ^M_M ^(talk!) 02:14, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

Italicization of set names

It's on Wikipedia, not that we're not a clone of them, of course; but perhaps we should introduce italics when referring to a set name, so that we avoid confusion with, say, the plane (e.g. Lorwyn), the novel (e.g. "Lorwyn" - oh yeh, we should probably get quotation marks official introduced into a style guide), the set (Lorwyn, as I said, and is the header of this section), and the comic ("Lorwyn", if any), and... I hope that's all we'll need to address. ^M_M ^(talk!) 02:33, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

Lorwyn block v. Lorwyn Block, maybe? I prefer the former over the latter more often than not, but at times, e.g. "Lorwyn block Constructed" v. "Lorwyn Block Constructed", I rather the capital B. ^M_M ^(talk!) 02:33, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

Renameuser

“

Soory guys, this account was created by accident, I wanted find find out what would happen if I tried to create an account without a password. Also get this extension.

”

From User:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa's user page.

^M_M ^(talk!) 03:28, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

On another note, just saw that we have 1216 user accounts. I wonder how many of those are active members. --GeoMike 03:42, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

Quite a number of them are banned "bots"; a few others are vandals; a number are people from forums who have signed up (to vandalize, in the likeliest case); and the rest are the rest. I would estimate that only a fiftieth are (notably - notably enough) active users. A number of MTGS users have accounts but contribute virtually nothing to the wiki.

I wonder who Aaaaa... exactly is, on another note. ^M_M ^(talk!) 07:44, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

Template:R

"{{R}}" does not work; it won't show up as a red mana symbol. However, "{{r}}" does, so in the future, rather than type {{manar}} for the red mana symbol, you may wish to use {{r}}. It's much shorter, but just remember case actually matters (in this case, it surprisingly does; the first letter of the template doesn't usually make a difference - whether capitalized or not, same for page names and categories). Yay!

Anyway, I'll look into the cause of our woes. ^M_M ^(talk!) 15:12, 2 December 2007 (GMT)

magiccards.info

Am I the only one, or the site doesn't work properly... or rather links in our wiki doesn't work at all any longer. Sample: Terror. (however, it works when you click right button on the link and open it in the new chart/page). Any idea's how to fix that? Is it only a problem of IE and Firefox? Probably not... --^MOR_T ^(T) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is strange, the popup of clicking on a card link doesn't work, but right clicking to open in a new window does work. --GeoMike 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe it has something to do with the changes on the site (it looks much worse now, IMO) --^MOR_T ^(T) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... the same thing happens on MTGS forums. --^MOR_T ^(T) 13:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the problem seems to be solved. --^MOR_T ^(T) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad for that. --GeoMike 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be messed up again. --GeoMike 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, now. --^MOR_T ^(T) 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Common talk area

Use the main forums? All wiki mods should have access to the "wiki mod lounge".

Btw, I think some thing has to be formalised with translations. I don't see it happening all that much, but with set names and stuff, I think we should have a very, very clear and common way to deal with translated pages - or pages in other languages. ^M_M ^(talk!) 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll just trust the translation teams to do this right. But then again, I am a translator ;) . What "wiki mod lounge"? I agree that this is not the right page for general talk. Oracle of Truth 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you get to this forum? If so - it's there. --^MOR_T ^(T) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no I can't. Oracle of Truth 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this, is that everyone can see it and edit it. Oracle of Truth, I think you need to get Hannes to change your forum right/priveleges so that you can access the (rather dead) "Wiki Mod Lounge", or whatever it's called. =) ^M_M ^(talk!) 01:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive me, pl0x!

Dudes, someone please archive.

Also, news and major events need updating and archiving. Cheers. ^M_M ^(talk!) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Uh, guys? Should this be archived??? :S ^M_M ^(talk!) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Mr Bloody Minded

Just wondering why my user page was protected? Mr Bloody Minded 11:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why it was protected, so I removed the protection. --GeoMike 12:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Bloody Minded 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)