I took a note out of the Spanish Wiki's book and made a change to the Northmen category page and I was wondering what you think.
I think we do some things alot better than the Spanish wiki, like sources for example, but one thing they do that's really neat is they add little blurbs to category pages with a slideshow as well.
So if someone is very unfamiliar with a certain race, faction or Warhammer in general, they get a feel of what its all about in the category page right away, rather than having to dig tough and piece it together for themselves.
I think this would be really cool of us to do as well and its what I've just done for "Northmen". The reason I did it there in particular is that its kind of a secondary catagory on top of "Chaos" and "Norsca" so I think people might be a little more confused as to what "Northmen" is all about and how it differs from "Norsca".
Here's the Northmen Page. Just added a little blurb saying what the ethnic groups are, how they differ and stuff. Let me know what you think :)
Also, just for reference, here's an example of the Spanish wiki and what it does. Just have to to translate the page.
You have to use wikitext. Put the link to the page you want to go to, and immediately after a pound symbol, then type the name of the section you want to go to. So if you want to link directly to the Reikland Council section of the Reikland page, type [[Reikland#Reikland Council]].
The reason you can't see it on that page is that it goes through a redirect.
@Peter thanks so much. You said pound sign but then used a hashtag, which was it?
@MrParaduo I did but I'm not too familiar with discord, I'll see if I can migrate over there. Which ones are for what? I get, AoS and TW Warhammer but what's the difference between fantasy rp, the old world, game room, fantasy rules, etc
I've not made any new categories since our conversation, but I'd like to bring up a few that might be useful.
First would be Places of significance to a particular faction. The Wiki seems inconsistent with this currently. Some faction pages have loads of settlements and areas of the map related to the faction listed in their faction page, but others dont.
For factions such as the Vampire Counts in particular, I think it'd be handy to create a sub-catagory for places of Importence to them. The only problem is what to name it? I attempted to make it yesterday but "Vampire Settlements" wasn't broad enough, as it should also encompass places like the Forests of Sylvania, Ruins, Tomb of Nagash and so on.
Second would be Military, which I'm a little torn on. It might be useful to have sub-catagories for Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, etc (I believe the Spanish site does this), but some army lists are relatively short.
Finally: Sorcerers. This seems to be one of the only pages I've found aside from main faction pages, that actually has sub-catagories...but it also has every sorcerer character filling out the list as well. Why not just have the different categories on their own? The only benefit I can see for having the characters hanging out there is the fact that they come up in the trending pages. But then people can get that from elsewhere and you cant even see that on mobile I don't think.
Q2: You are correct. We generally avoid making categories that have less than 2-3 articles, which sometimes means we can't make overarching categories if one major faction doesn't meat the prerequisites.
Q3: Sorcerers is the catchall term for magic users in general, be they wizards, witches, divine channelers, etc.
2. Yes I figured you'd avoid, not only that, but also having categories that have 2-3 sub categories too. I've been avoiding such things from the get go thankfully, but I need to discuss it with you when you get back to me.
3. Yes I Know, but the sub categories of "Slann" "Asur Mages" etc is already in the "Sorcerer" category. My issue is that all of the characters within the sub-catagories are also in the category of "Sorcerer" rather than just having the Sub categories. There is no need to have maz and Kroak and Tepec-Inzi and all them bloating the category of "Sorcerer" when the Sub-catagory "Slann" is already in there.
That's because some people play around with the categories while I'm not looking. Not that it matters. Montonius - the original administrator - wants to do a trickle down format. The more general categories are full of all the relevent articles, which then trickle down into sub-categories.
Concerning Q1: Vampire Lairs(?) will suffice. At least for now. Might change it later if something more official comes up.
I was suggestiing more trickle down stuff with slightly more sub-catagories though, and Is this not a community Wiki? can we not discuss these matters? (not being hostile, just asking why you're implying his vision in particular is important to maintain).
Lairs has the same issue as settlements, it doesn't take into account tombs, places of power, malestroms and stuff like that. I'll leave that to one side until we can figure out a better idea.
Push comes to shove, put it under "Vampire". As for Montonius, it's more about keeping consistency and avoiding a mess like some of the other wikis. There've been plenty of times where people've posted fanfiction over articles on the site, oblivious to the point of the article. As an example.
I was wondering about getting Beurocrat/admin rights so that I'm not cut out of renaming certain pages. As I understand it I have to ask permission from one of the current admins correct?
Regardless, there are a few changes I think could really benifit the site, one of which is quite fundemental:
Can we get rid of the red?
I come from the total War Warhammer forums and A few people mentioned there that the red background against the white is extremely harsh on the eyes, which is something I'm inclined to agree with. It seems like a strange point, but It would really help with navagation and whatnot.
I presume that people from the Spanish counterparts of this wiki created the English version too correct? based on the Source code, phrasing of things in the singular and some pages being lifted from there?
The reason I bring this up is that Their cite has literally the exact opposite background. Very cool colours that make the White text and links stand out more.
I'm not really in favour of nicking their ideas, but at the same time, their cite is way more slick and organized. I think we could still learn alot from them.
Admin/Moderate rights are not on the table. Again, though I appreciate your help, you have not earned my trust enough to be granted that much power. Altering categories without permission is also faux pas. Please refrain from making major changes to articles from here on out.
I'm not sure what you think I might do if I get them. I've sort of been trying to prod you guys to open up dialogue but you're very distant. I'm not a fan of doing reshuffles and stuff without someone to bounce off of but I'm kind of out on my own here.
All I wanted them for was so I could change the names of some articles like Karak 8 peaks (currently called the City of pillars. Also wanted to rename "Dwarf King" to "Dwarf Lords" and to rename "Dwarf" to "Dwarfs" and so on like that.
Like I said, It'd also be useful for going back and forth between names or deleting any duplicates or wrong pages that I might make (I think I've been careful, but I have made duplicate photos once or twice)
Then there was the Background and colour pallet but I absolutely wanted to discuss that with you guys first.
I have (partially on request) been working on rearanging some of the Catagories and creating new ones so as to help with navagation and catagorization.
Have a look on the Empire characters, Bretonnian characters and Holidays Catagories pages to see what you think. I'm not 100% done but I think I've helped a little.
Beforehand everything was all in one big list (so big in some cases that it was over 2 pages or more) and you couldn't tell what was what or who was who, you had to go through them individually, and unless they were from a specific catagory (High King/Royarch/Elector count) then you had no way of getting an idea of how many x people there were.
I added a bunch of new catagories like Criminals, Religious figures, Peasants, etc so as to better collect them up.
A few of the catagories are perhaps a little messy in and of themselves and some might be contraversial (like I said, I've had no one to bounce off of and I'm not 100% done).
Empire Religious Characters for example gathers together every priest, scholar, theologain and noted worshipper who is defined by their religious affiliation, but at the same time, it doesn't destinguish between Morr Cultists, Sigmar Cultists and so on.
I was planning to put sub catagories for each god, but I also dont want to force people to go through multiple catagories to find a character, it makes it a little too unintuitive. maybe just make the cult symbol the characters thumbnail? thats what I've been doing with the holidays.
Barony of the Damned might be a contraversial one because its a bit specific, but I really wanted to see who was in Mallabaude's enterage, which I think is of reasonable size to warrent its own little section.
If you take issue with my changes, please discuss it with me first. it took a long ass time to catagorize all that and It'd be really heartbreaking if you just undid it in a click or two.
I will admit that I've been concerned about the multiple pages that people might have to sift through, but I've had people tell me personally (and I've experienced myself) that having them all in a big list with no hint of what they are is also a big issue.
Forgive my shortness. It's been a trying couple of weeks.
You make valid points, and yes, our categories are a bit of a mess at this time, but you still need permission to create new articles. Otherwise everyone and their mother'll start doing it too. I know and see that you're enthusiastic to help, but please be patient on the matter.
I understand, this is a difficalt time for all of us. I hope you're doing ok.
I'm here at your disposal for when you get round to giving me the the full run down and if you need help.
I'll refrain from making new catagories until you get back to me. In the meantime I'll focus on toucning up the code, grammer, images and stuff like that of the pages that already exist and add any new pieces of info I come across.
There is actually alot I wanna discuss about the site so I'd love to have an extended back and forth on it at some point :)
Hey. I'd just like to pop by and say that I should be available to bounce ideas off of for the next few weeks (despite the fact that I tried to retire as moderator last August).
Your changes to the categories are not bad, per se. But if you want to restructure categories like that, that's the sort of thing you should discuss with others before launching into it. Heck, I got in trouble for doing that even when I was a moderator.
Hey there, I noticed you edited some of the pages I created or edited yesterday.
You mentioned that I should only link the first instance of something and that I should only bold the title subject once.
As someone who used the wiki frequently (especially on mobile) before editing It, I strongly disagree. Having to sift back through the article for that one link you wanted to chase up can be really annoying and needlessly so (especially on mobile)
as for the bold, again, if something has no page to link to and yet its of great improtance (like the person/thing the article pretains to) then It should stand out to the reader and not just the first time. It just makes it look better.
I was talking to another editor about this: if its not wiki policy then it should be.
Alright, so here's the thing. We only repeatedly link a given article if the current article being written is very long. Even then, though, we do not link every instance of a given word. That would just be distracting.
Regarding the bolding, Some wikis do inded bold every important term, but that is a completely subjective determination that can be made by every editor. We always try to avoid any policy that requires almost total subjectivity on the part of editors, since that interferes with wiki consistency, which is the value that should be upheld above all.
The only objective standard is to bold the term that is the name of the page. This is the standard used by other online encyclopedias like the Britannica, and was the original standard used in the original paper encyclopedias long ago. Please understand, what you're proposing would be too subjective and would require a central editor to go over every page to make sure that the same consistency of what was bolded is true across every page and every editor -- an impossible amount of work (even for me!). Instead, if a term is important enough to be noticed, that's what a hyperlink is for.
Let me be clear: I did not say we didn't have central policies. I said we avoid policies that require total subjective determination when in regards to editors. We only bold the first instance of the article's title, as there is no point in bolding it more than once save in the instance of an extensive article such as the ones pertaining to the major army factions.
You are more than welcome to work here, and we are grateful to your contributions. None of this is meant to be taken as personal or derisively, and we hope to see more from you. If I have come across as such, I apologize.
Its cool, I'm not taking it personally, I just felt like it looked a lot better and that, if I did it on my articles it wouldn't necessarily be a problem.
On mobile, every sub section is hidden under a drop down tab, so if you read half way through an article and feel like you want to read more about x, then you have to close and open a bunch of drop down menus and hunt around for the one instance where it was a link.
Similarly, on the PC version, I feel its better to have character names stand out more against the red background, it allows you to navigate the pages easier.
Maybe its because I'm Dyslexic and highlights help with that issue. that could be a reason in and of itself to do it though.
I'll abide by your rules though, I'm not looking for a fight or anything, I just wanna make the wiki as complete as it can be and put all the research I've done to good use.
Hey again. Im struggling with translating a source and thought I'd reach out to you and any of the other editors that might be around.
The reason I'm struggling with it is because it states that the "Old Slann" created the amazons.
Now, this being second edition, these ideas were not yet fully formed and it seems (even from the other points in the timeline within this very source) that Richard Halliwell conflated "Old Slann" with "Old Ones" when he was creating this lore. There was no first gen slann back in these days and the slann weren't even the slann back then, that was a catch all term for the frog people that made up the bulk of the lizardmen.
In the rest of the lore, not only in this book, but in later editions, Rigg, one of the Old Ones created the amazons and this isn't just a myth, the amazons have the ability to summon her to the real world.
Gamesworkshop, to this day, likes to use terms and misspellings to imply the info is coming from a certain perspective. For example: empire scholars will often say things wrong or believe false information because they think they're so smart, they don't know what we know and they live in a pre-modern science world. Like with the British empire naming places "Peking" instead of "bejing" and stuff like that. "Old Slann" might be another instance of this, were he's trying to talk from the perspective of the now primitive lizardmen or the highly misinformed empire, where "old slann" means like "the porgenetors, the father gods" that kind of thing.
So the question is, what do we believe and what should be put in the wiki? did the first gen slann create the Amazons? are they referencing Rigg? or did the Old Ones as a collective group create the amazons and then perhaps Rigg freed them or something which is why she became an exile?
Its like there is one missing piece of lore that should connect these two threads but I've yet to find it. Let me know what you think.
Reading it again "Old Slann" is almost certainly "Old Ones", it just felt like I was making too many leaps in logic to translate "Old Ones" to just Rigg on her own. still, any input would be appreciated :)
Following the guidelines given in this this blog: The best possible local navigation bar, I would like to propose the following changes to the top-level navigation to make it more reader-centric. The changes are itemized below, but it might be easier if you edit the MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation page and replace the contents with the code block at the bottom and then use the Preview feature to test it out (just don't accidentally save the changes).
Move "Timeline" from under History to the second level, rename to "Timelines", link it to the category, and put links to 10 of the timeline articles under it (Beastmen, Elves, Lizardmen etc)
Leave Heroes as it is? You can choose up to 10 here but it currently displays only the seven most popular (again, possibly incorrect)
Under Geography, replace these with links to articles and categories of large geographical area or importance. (Having two "Old World" links is confusing.)
Change Videogames to link to the category and remove the "more games" entry that links there now.
Leave Races as is, it's great.
Change "Want to help us?" to "Community" and link it to Special:Community which is designed for this purpose.
Remove the obsolete (yes?) Moderator Elections announcement.
Consider moving the "Join the Crusade!" blog page to the section of Special:Community designed for it.
Remove "Fill in the gaps" and "Write new articles" because these are covered by the Speical:Community page or the Add New Page button.
Consider moving Add Sources to Special:Community as well
Fix the broken links to the other wikis (done below)
Move the Forum links under the Community tab and rename it to "Old Forums"
This frees up an entire 7x10 navigation menu for additional links to important content as you see fit. Of course, feel free to substitute better or more appropriate pages or categories. I just picked ones that made sense to me.
* Warhammer World|The World
** category:History|Historical events
*** Age of Three Emperors
*** Grand Ball of Sigridschlosse
*** Night of a Thousand Arcane Duels
*** Night of the Black Waltz
*** Night of the Restless Dead
*** Plunder in the Jungle
*** Scandal of the Shroud
*** Winter of Woe
*** Year of Woe
*** Bretonnian Timeline|Bretonia
*** Dwarf Timeline|Dwarves
*** Annals of the Black Tower|Dark Elves
*** Book of Days|Elves
*** Greenskin Timeline|Greenskins
*** Imperial Timeline|Humans
*** Chronicles of the Lizardmen|Lizardmen
*** Skaven Timeline|Skaven
*** Vampire Timeline|Vampires
*** Wood Elf Timeline|Wood Elves
*** Chaos Wastes
*** category:Eastern Lands|Eastern Lands
*** category:New World|New World
*** category:Old World|Old World
*** category:Mystical Realms|Mystical Realms
*** #category# Age of Reckoning|Warhammer: Age of Reckoning
*** Warhammer: The End Times - Vermintide|Vermintide
*** Warhammer: Vermintide II|Vermintide II
*** Total War: Warhammer
*** Total War: Warhammer II
** #|Specialist Games
*** #category# Mordheim
*** #category# Dreadfleet
** #|Forces of Order
*** #category# The Empire|Empire
*** #category# Bretonnia|Bretonnia
*** #category# Dwarf|Dwarfs
*** #category# High Elves|High Elves
*** #category# Wood Elves|Wood Elves
*** #category# Lizardmen|Lizardmen
** Forces of Chaos
*** #category# Daemons|Daemons
*** #category# Warriors of Chaos|Hordes of Chaos
*** #category# Beastmen|Beastmen
*** #category# Skaven|Skaven
*** #category# Chaos Dwarf|Chaos Dwarfs
** #|Forces of Destruction
*** #category# Greenskins|Greenskins
*** #category# Dark Elves|Dark Elves
*** #category# Ogre Kingdoms|Ogre Kingdoms
** #|Forces of Death
*** #category# Vampire Counts|Vampire Counts
*** #category# Tomb Kings|Tomb Kings
** User Blog:Aresius King/First Crusade of the Hammer - Users assemble|Join the Crusade!
** #category# Sourceless|Add sources!
** Special:Forum|Old Forum
*** Board:Guidelines_and_Rules|Guidelines & Rules
*** Board:News_and_Announcements|News & Announcements
*** Board:Fun_and_Games|Fun & Games
** #|Our wikis
*** https://ageofsigmar.fandom.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity|Age of Sigmar [ENG]
*** https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/es/wiki/Especial:WikiActivity|WH Fantasy [SPA]
*** https://ageofsigmar.fandom.com/es/wiki/Especial:WikiActivity|Age of Sigmar [SPA]
*** https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/es/wiki/Eswiki/Especial:WikiActivity|WH 40k [SPA]
Is there any way to note this on the wiki (since articles in here are strictly lore focused and not on the surroundings like GW, individual books etc.)? It seems significant enough to note it somewhere.
Thank you! I will continue to convert old infoboxes to the new style (slowly) and consult the admin staff if any decisions need to be made before deployment. If you prefer some other process, I'm sure we can reach an accommodation.
The old wiki-specific app is no longer supported and will eventually be removed from the app stores. Would you mind if I either remove the current Main Page box or replace it with one that points to the newer, supported Fandom App?