Feed The Beast Wiki:Centralized discussion

Group overhaul proposal
Under this system we would have five primary groups. Groups determine your rights, as laid out in this lovely spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16-kgsjweghlZVEXkbSOoI8Z8G-qy8PUynlPpj9ctZII/edit?usp=sharing

Each rank up has all the rights and privileges of the previous rank. To get to the next group, you must first be in the previous group and undergo a vote. All users may participate in votes, although only the votes of autoconfirmed users will be counted. When the vote duration is over, the ratio of support votes to against votes will be calculated. If the ratio is greater than 2 (or some other number we decide on) then the vote passes.


 * 0. Anonymous. People who aren't logged in. They can do basic edits and read the wiki but need to log in to do anything more.
 * 1. Users. Anyone who logs in. Able to do stuff, but not given access to any powerful tools which are annoying or difficult to undo.
 * Autoconfirmed user. Automatically granted by Mediawiki to users when they satisfy the requirements whatever they are.
 * 2. Editors. Requires a vote (at least 3 days). Given access to a variety of tools to enable all sorts of editing. Anything that is a normal day to day operation on the wiki should be doable by an editor.
 * 3. Admins. Requires a vote (at least 7 days). People that can be trusted with various technical things. Able to use the powerful tools that are difficult to undo, and do stuff like edit the CSS/JS, edit templates that are heavily used, and so on.
 * 4. Bureaucrats. Requires a vote (at least 14 days). Handles all the bureaucratic nightmare stuff. Trusted with tools that are highly abusable and rarely needed, such as assigning user rights, managing achievements, dealing with wikipoints, taking care of the abuse filters, and so on.
 * 5. Curse. Has all the power because they're Gamepedia.
 * bot. Any user may apply to have a bot, with a vote (at least 3 days). Bot edits are hidden.

In addition to your group, users may additionally have roles. A role does not confer any additional rights, but does confer responsibilities. Roles are not mediawiki user groups, but rather just arbitrary labels.


 * Translators. Requires a vote where existing translators in that language have greater voting power (at least 3 days). All users are allowed to translate anyway, so this is just a rubber stamp that the user's ability to translate to that language was verified.
 * Developer appointed curator. Must be at least editor. Someone who is responsible for maintaining a specific mod's documentation. Needs to be appointed by the mod author. If not already an editor, then the mod author's nomination counts as an extra support vote towards the user's editor vote.
 * Translation admins. Must be at least administrator. Responsible for marking up pages for translation (all admins can do this, but only translation admins are responsible for it).
 * Any other role we decide to come up with, or even on request. Want to be responsible for public relations? Go for it. Want to be responsible for posting bunny pictures to new users talk pages? Why not.

After the proposal passes but before the transition actually occurs, there will be a vote for each staff member to decide whether they will become an editor or an admin. 7 days, staff can vote, required support/against ratio is greater than 1.

Thoughts
Thoughts? I bet would love it since it gets rid of staff. 🐇 R e t e p 9 9 8 🐇🐰 Bunny Overlord 🐰 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After a quick run through...
 * should be dropped to 0 as IPs should be allowed to mark their edits as minor
 * should probably be moved up to at least 3, as editors don't require a vote (or even much experience at all it seems) and so might not necessarily be trustworthy
 * looks to normally only go on bots
 * should be moved up to at least 3 too, as it's designed as user spam protection
 * might want dropping down to 2, otherwise translation admins are actually admins too. Unless that's what we're going for, then it's good.
 * definitely needs dropping to 2, otherwise pages can be deleted by editors but then not restored.
 * There might be other things (and I'm sure there are more rights on Special:ListGroupRights than your spreadsheet), but that was what jumped out.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 22:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I think if we do go through with this reform, editors should need a vote, but just a quick 3 day vote. For admin I'm thinking 7 days at least. Bureaucrat at least 14 days. We can also decide on a different support to against ratio for each group, so editors just need a plurality of support while bureaucrats need overwhelming support. 🐇 R e t e p 9 9 8 🐇🐰 Bunny Overlord 🐰 22:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that editors will require a vote if we do this proposal. I don't know if the waiting period is particularly important. The ratio thing definitely needs to be defined. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 23:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking that under this reform the DAC program would simply give out the editor right to those people. 🐇 R e t e p 9 9 8 🐇🐰 Bunny Overlord 🐰 23:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah that sounds good, that's basically how it is now but with different groups. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 23:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Coolio. It's great as the groups are role based, which give clear criteria for requesting it. undelete usually goes with delete so that sounds good. I think ipblock-exempt for 2 is fine. it's more of a utility right (regular users getting blocked by ip blocks) and I don't expect it to kick in often, so your call. i agree that noratelimit should go to 3. you shouldn't ever hit the rate limit under regular use, unless the oredict and tilesheet extensions messes it up. --  Jin bo  bo  03:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

addendum: when I say groups are role based. that means rights are assigned based on what they need to do their job (for example: giving banhammer to staff is a dumb idea). editors should edit, admins should administrate and bureaucrats should turn everything into a bureaucratic nightmare (read: bureaucrats should assign user groups, among other tasks). --  Jin bo  bo  03:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What would this translate to on the forums? I think the way the ranks are presented on the forums are 1. inaccurate, and 2. implicitly exclusionary, so perhaps we should change that too. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 07:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sysops lumped together with bureaucrats for one wiki admin rank on the forums. I don't know whether I want a rank for editors, but if there is one it should be a separate wiki editor rank. 14:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * and the translator rank? --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 18:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Staff is more than a few rights. It's a commitment; it's like a job. By being staff, you're expected to take care of the wiki- to contribute to it, to monitor newcomers, to find ways to improve the wiki, etc. Staff are what make the wiki work. Yes, they form a sort of government. Maybe an unfair government. Maybe staff have too much power, but I don't think the answer is removing them. I don't think a "government" of a dozen or so staff members is less fair than a "government" of a few elitist administrators with all the power. Although we should try to give more rights to regular users wherever possible, I think staff has a place here, and I think removing staff would make this wiki less democratic and less energetic, not more. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're thinking about it the wrong way. Why are you assuming that regular editors can't do the exact same things? Are you claiming that you're superior in some way by being staff? Editing wikis shouldn't be a job. The entire sustainability model of wikis is based on the community receiving and returning. Right now the community is receiving a lot (you say the wiki is going up), but isn't giving back. I see that as a problem (editor retention has always been a problem, even with staff, believe it or not. no staff that came before me is still staff. I also had to deal with staff inactivity during my term, there was a time when I actually had to recruit staff on the forums. retep doesn't count as he started as a dac).
 * In practice, "staff" is still here, it's just renamed to editors. Your claim that the "staff" label implies some sort of commitment, means you are implicitly shooing away people who can't spend as much time as you can. Editors shouldn't need to worry about time being a problem (your preliminary survey results agree that most people don't edit because of a lack of time commitment, so you're actually arguing against yourself). The task of organizing of wiki should fall naturally on active editors and administrators. The majority of edits should be made by the majority of editors making a bit of edits, not by a small subset of active editors making a lot of edits.
 * All I have been arguing for is to take down barriers, and you seem to be focused too much on yourself and your current role (go back and look at your initial rejection of my comments). So I ask you to please, take a step back and think about it again. Of course, changing the groups aren't just going to fix everything. It is going to take deep community interaction to fully have them involved in this again. --  Jin bo  bo  01:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters whether I don't count since I joined the wiki after you became staff anyway, although by only 3 days... You also became administrator a few weeks before I became staff, and you became bureaucrat only a few months before I became administrator. 03:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regular editors can do that. They haven't really been doing that, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.
 * Establishing staff as a commitment may push people away from being staff, but from editing in general? I doubt it. "The majority of edits should be made by the majority of editors making a bit of edits, not by a small subset of active editors making a lot of edits"- I agree with this, at least sort of. The way you word it makes it sound as if the few active editors making a lot of edits are the problem, but really it's there being a lack of a large group of users editing. I guess that's you were trying to say. To be honest, I think the few active editors here don't really make a lot of edits, it's just that they look like they make a lot edits because they are the majority of edits.
 * Maybe I come off as self-centered, and maybe I am, but I'd like to make it clear I'm wiki-centered more than anything else. I want to make this wiki fucking great. Although it seems like things aren't going my way, I won't storm off in protest like you and other staff have done in the past. It would only damage the wiki- I don't trust the staff-not-staff-editors (whatever they're going to be referred to) to maintain this wiki without me; they haven't been very good at that. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "I don't trust the staff-not-staff-editors (whatever they're going to be referred to) to maintain this wiki without me" are you joking? This is a wiki, not your masterpiece. --  Jin bo  bo  21:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When I'm on vacation, I always check the wiki. The reason why I do is because the other staff are very slow to react to new contributions, if they do at all. I'm usually the guy who hands out the IP award because I'm usually the guy who does the patrolling. And I know for sure non-translation staff don't look over translations, even when there's glaring issues like templates being incorrectly translated. This is a wiki, but it's also my baby. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry my language got a bit heated there. But what I'm trying to say is that while it is your baby, you can't expect the wiki to go exactly how you want it to be. I also put a lot of time into this wiki, but I've accepted that you can't force an entire community to do everything your way, that would be selfish. I guess what I really want you to do is keep in mind people who wish to contribute or use the wiki (or don't know they can, have little time etc). Think about your objection to visual editor (you say it messes up translation tags), or heck, any objection in general. Is it more geared towards your needs (messing up translation tags means more work for you)? Or is it made with the community in mind (visual editor provides a lower barrier to contribution)? --  Jin bo  bo  02:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say that I know for a fact at least Peter and I look at just about every edit. If you happen to be the one who patrols them first, that doesn't mean you're the only one who looks at them. When I leave an edit unpatrolled, it means I'm unsure about the information that was changed (often this is the case for mods like Botania which I have not used in over a year), or I don't have the time/ability to verify (often this is the case for recipe changes when I'm on mobile, because GitHub mobile is a PITA). Point is, just because an edit was not marked as patrolled does not mean other staff did not look at it. It might, but it might also mean that we left it unpatrolled to keep it in the list of unpatrolled edits so someone can confirm its information at some point. And I think it's kind of sad that you don't trust fellow staff with patrolling edits on the wiki :( --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 05:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't look at every edit, only edits that interest me, so talk pages and GregTech stuff. Also I sometimes look at Santa's edits because they're a common source of mistakes for me to laugh at. 05:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I swear I remember you saying the other day on IRC "I look at every edit" --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 06:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not expecting it to go exactly how I want it to be :P I'm pushing for it of course; anybody would push for what they think is better. I want this wiki to have exactly more than a million articles, but that hasn't worked out so well :P (seriously, if we had all of the mods documented, we'd probably be there by now).
 * The translation issues with it is a bit more than my objection apparently ;)
 * [[File:Translation plus VisualEditor.png]]
 * Pages made with the VisualEditor have glaring issues. I don't think I've ever seen a page made by the VisualEditor without issues- they always lack important core templates/tags that we require in pages, and the spacing of templates (if there are templates) is always off. And there's not a lack of other issues. It would be great to improve VisualEditor to make it more fit, but some of the issues it has cannot easily be resolved. It isn't the ultimate solution to the wikitext barrier, and that can be easily proved by noticing that all of the major editors here (and largely elsewhere) use the wikitext editor instead of it.
 * I think porting my toolbar to VE would help. TemplateData would help. Both would help. The thing I don't like about TemplateData is that creating documentation through it is very difficult (I hate JSON... why the hell is it even a standard thing? Why can't we all agree that it sucks and use YAML for everything?) and it takes about twice as long to create (or more) . I don't think it's really worth it, considering VE points to the regular documentation anyway if TemplateData is not there, plus I'd guess a large amount of the users who use VE don't know what templates do in the first place. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you shouldn't push for your own views, but from what I can tell, your objections are mostly made with yourself in mind. You keep saying that people don't know how to use templates then why not make them painfully easy instead of saying it's not worth doing? --  Jin bo  bo  17:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. But, how do we do that, Mr. Quantum Computer Scientist? -Xbony2 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By creating a stable quantum computation model so that we have enough computing power to create artificial super intelligence programmed to edit wikis and replace your job 𝜘 you don't seriously expect me to give you a possible solution that you're aren't already against? come up with your own or accept other people's solutions.
 * I would also argue translation was never a priority, it should not interfere with usual wiki operation. If translation is one reason not to fully support VisualEditor, I would argue for the suspension of the translation project. I revived that project, but I think I made the wrong decision there. We shall see once we have your survey (where you buried the important questions under translation related ones haha) data back . --  Jin bo  bo  04:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The survey is naturally biased against translations since it in itself is English-only. I don't want to close the translation projects, even if it is providing for a niche community, it is one of our largest attractions. Anyway, translation markup is a pain in the ass. One of my "secret projects" that I would of started on a bit more recently if it weren't for the current reforms (I'm a fan of incremental change) is called T3- the idea is to create a final iteration of the translation interface. The first two "versions" of the translation interface had their issues- the first being that it was difficult and tedious to translate through, and impossible to maintain translations. The second interface, using the Translate extension, has the issues of markup and a limited amount of pages being translatable. I'd like to combine the ease of translation and maintenance of the Translate extension, with the ease of having no markup and having all pages translatable by simply having a language bar of the original interface. I think this would be possible through JavaScript and modules. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Go on, that's interesting. If you do plan to work something out, I would argue that it is feasible to suspend the translation efforts temporarily, by that I mean do a full rollout and support of VE and TD without regard to what that would do to tl tags and then rollout your new translation interface. I really don't know how big of an attraction translated pages on this wiki is, during my time there isn't much interest in the community. I only revived it because I started as a translator. I should also say that you should take input from the community (instead of making it a secret :P) before you do whatever you are planning to do.
 * We used to have an analytics plugin and I presume there is a replacement for that? You can probably use that to supplement your survey data? Also how can translations be niche and also be our biggest attraction (is this claim backed with data)? I still argue very strongly that translations really should not be an obstacle to rolling out new features and changes (in fact, I suspended the translation project during the initial transition). --  Jin bo  bo  17:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've slowed on marking pages up, but I won't be telling translators to slow down or stop translating, since the translations can be moved over. VE is already "rolled out"- it's on per default (on all Gamepedias, actually). TemplateData doesn't really have much effect on translations. T3 is (semi-)secret because I'm not ready to work on it yet, because of the already existing reforms/refactors (groups, mass tile translations, etc).
 * We have an analytics extension, but it's admin+ and doesn't contain a lot of information related to languages anyway (country visited from != language used), and much of that data is currently is missing (Gamepedia hasn't been counting number of views, and by extension number of views for specific pages or number of views from other countries and whatnot). Non-English content is a niche community in that they are a small part of Minecraft, as indicated by a few factors-
 * One being Dinnerbone here- about 64% of the community uses English while playing Minecraft (if we combine the Englishes), with German and Russian being around 4% each, and other languages being a lot smaller. I have some doubt in the numbers he provides though- zh_CN isn't even mentioned, although Chinese communities are quite large- Japanese is listed as having 2.68% usage, but the Official Japanese Minecraft Wiki has 37,689 edits compared to the Official Chinese Minecraft Wiki with more than twice the same amount of edits. You can point at a lot more numbers to show the Japanese community and many of the other communities shown there as larger are smaller than the Chinese community, but I don't feel the need to. Maybe whatever server Minecraft sends their data to is blocked in China, or maybe the majority of Chinese users pirate the game, I really don't know, but I am more than sure they are underrepresented for some reason or another.
 * Back to the Minecraft Wikis- if you compare the numbers of the wikis, the English wiki crushes the others. English dominates.
 * Look around at youtube and other sites- English dominates once again :P I could do a lot more research, but I'm lazy and you probably see the point.
 * So, as you can see English usage is far greater when compared to other languages. That's why I call language-specific documentation a niche community. I would expect that modded, a more specific subset of that community, is even smaller percentage wise, although I don't have data to back that, but it does make sense since mods have weaker translation support, making it harder to get into.
 * But yes, I called it one of our biggest attractions anyway. The reason for that is that a very large number of recent contributions to this wiki is translations, and almost all of the recent staff are translators, things I don't mind taking a bit of credit for. The reason the activity for that is because there aren't many other non-English modded wikis, so potential users interested in creating/translating modded information are likely to flock to this international wiki where we support their niche. We're basically the only large multilingual modded wiki there is, so the other options are to join existing language wikis if they exist (which they do for some languages [Russian and Chinese come to mind], but they often don't) or to create a new wiki, the later being something quite difficult to do. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By rollout I just mean full support (actually start improving the editing experience with VE, instead of just leaving it there) and no more excuses like "but it messes up translations", that's all. And yes, I'm just asking you to take outside input once you've actually formulated T3, nothing to comment on when there's nothing there :P That's dumb, make them collect pageviews. And I think origin country of traffic is strongly correlated to language preferred, while it isn't an accurate metric, it's a place to start. I am well aware of why we provide the opportunity to translate our pages, you need not lecture me on that. But being the only wiki that provides these accommodation won't mean that any such traffic will flock to us, neither does it mean you need to maintain such status. Other wikis may as well had this conversation already and decided that language support is not worth doing so citing other wikis doesn't mean anything. Furthermore, since English constitutes much (I'd say more than a supermajority) of our traffic, we naturally (and rightly) put our attention to that. So unless there is a demonstrated need for a specific language to be supported, there really isn't a reason to object to anything on grounds of translations, to do so otherwise would be a waste of effort. I don't ever think I've advertised this wiki as "the wiki that anyone can translate," that simply isn't our goal. (as an aside, I don't see any feasible way you would be able to merge the best of two translation systems by just javascript and modules, so surprise me). --  Jin bo  bo  02:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't screw with that extension. It's something that Gamepedia will hopefully fix at some point. We cannot look at the numbers related to traffic by country anymore- it basically just says 0 0 0 0 :P hopefully it's fixed soon. I remember when we last checked, the country the most traffic was from was the US (big surprise), and the second being from Germany, and the third being from the UK. So if you judge by those results by corresponding countries to languages, our German translation project is pretty big, and the combination of the other languages would make the whole translation project be bigger. There are, however, a lot of Germans who speak English and use it, so, like I said I don't think these results are very accurate. I consider multilingualism to be a very important part of this wiki- it's really the only big thing that separates us from our rival wiki, the wiki that must not be named :P and it certainly does get a lot of usage, even if it's a much smaller amount of usage than the English documentation.
 * Not feasible? Pfft. It's feasible. It's just going to be hard to make- particularly the JS part, because I don't have a ton of experience with it (fortunately, I have experience in general programming, and also experience in learning how to do things I don't have experience with). -Xbony2 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BEHOLD. STATISTICS. http://i.imgur.com/qfxy6La.png 16:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Coolio. Well, if you combined the English countries and combined the non-English countries, the ratio is 283,368 to 96,957, pretty close to 3 to 1. It's still not ideal since there are more non-English countries that aren't counted, and lots of people from non-English countries know and use English as a primary language in modded Minecraft. But if we were to assume these numbers correctly corresponding to language usage, that would mean cutting our translation projects would hurt 25% of our traffic... pretty bad. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * [insert outdent here]
 * do you really think that translations are the only big thing that separates us from ftbwiki.org? seriously? now I'm really skeptical your motivations.
 * I'm saying translations not our priority. It shouldn't distract us from the important stuff, given that translations are, ultimately, just translations of english articles. (aside: feasibility implies that I've considered difficulty. given that people spent probably thousands of hours on the translation extension and you claim to have a better solution, I would imagine that you'd also need to spend hours upon hours on that.) --  Jin bo  bo  04:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Translations are the biggest thing that separate us from them that I can think of. What else is there? Tilesheets? Do non-editors really care about those? In other differences, they have more documentation on the bigger mods, they have a dark skin per default, their staff doesn't spend all their time arguing, they're usually first in the search results, their editorship is declining (at least when compared to us), um, they don't vote over user rights (or at least it doesn't look like they do formally), they have one bureaucrat and about two dozen administrators (majority of which are inactivity- they don't unpromote inactive staff), and... hmm... they don't have visual editor, which has seemed to work out pretty well for them.
 * I'd like to point out translation also brings another type of traffic. Many users who joined through translation became tremendously helpful producers of English content. LuminousLizard, 3tusk, ImmortalPharaoh, etc, contributing much to Project Red, BuildCraft, AcademyCraft, Thaumcraft 4, etc. If translation wasn't here, I think there would be a lot missing than we can imagine. That's why it is a priority, and not a small one at that.
 * It'll take time, sure, a fair amount of time, but it will be a lot simpler. The Translate extension is highly complex, and it contains a lot of features that T3 never will. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * T3, at least in its initial stages, will probably only apply to articles (mainspace mostly). -Xbony2 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I myself came to the English Minecraft Wiki first, and only later did I turned my sight to the Russian wiki. Even people that use English as a second or later language may opt to use and edit the English-language wiki. Because it usually appears to be more full.
 * I would be interested in exact statistics in relation between Russian Minecraft Wiki and this wiki. The statictics showed by Retep show that Russia comprises about 14,800 unknown to me points (visitors per day?). Now I need to know what’s the value for my home wiki. Game widow, can you check that? — NickTheRed37 (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. A lot of users are like "Hey, a wiki. Look, it's translatable. I suppose I could translate something?" (simplified dramatization). It's sort of the same thing with edits in general, but translation is easier for users to get into (you don't need to worry much about templates, you don't need to do much research, etc), and translated documentation is a bit rarer than original English documentation (You can find English documentation on pretty much any mod; maybe not here, but if you combine this wiki, other wikis, in-game docs, youtube, etc, you can. One of the response to "If you don't contribute very much, why not?" was "well, I can usually find the information I want through Google", one that I didn't foresee when I made the survey). -Xbony2 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the rest of the staff so I'll stop here.
 * frankly all your arguments made for translations being our biggest attraction are bullshit with no justification. I don't know why I even bothered, talking to you has been like talking to a pit that just spits out angry responses. I'm pretty sure everyone can see through you easily. --  Jin bo  bo  15:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? -Xbony2 (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pages made without VisualEditor also have blaring issues, too. I don't see your point there. That was the same argument used to oppose anon editors. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 19:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't get it at all. Many of the glaring (but not really blaring) issues are largely caused by VE. It's like a bad IDE causing bad code. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Arent the issues fairly consistent (like broken lang tags)? We could just write a bot to fix those issues until VE gets fixed. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 20:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how possible that is. Do you mean a JS gadget? Feel free to work on it though. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean a bot that polls the RC log and checks for the visual editor tag, then does some regex on the page. It'd happen within a few seconds of the edit, I'd imagine. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 21:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean a bot that polls the RC log and checks for the visual editor tag, then does some regex on the page. It'd happen within a few seconds of the edit, I'd imagine. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 21:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This proposal still sucks. If you're going to remove staff, you should at least do it right. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) You're removing staff on the idea groups should be solely right-oriented and not role-oriented, and yet you're still keeping "translator".
 * 2) Same with DAC.
 * 3) Same with translation admin. Well, it's unclear if translation admin is an extension of admin or an extension of editor or just a random right.
 * 4) You're unclear who can vote. You're also unclear on the vote ratio.
 * 5) The abuse filter should be administrator+, as it is on pretty much all wikis. Much of what can be done through the abuse filter can be done through JS anyway. Same with editwidgets, same with nuke, same with protecting pages.
 * 6) Does extending the bureaucrat vote to 14 days really make it better? Does the additionally 7 days really make it more right?
 * 7) You're going to have to remove the ranks on the forums. You're going to have to remove the ranks on Reddit. You're going to have to remove the "Wiki Team" channel on CurseVoice, or replace it with a public "Wiki" channel. You're going to have to make IRC rights admin+ or something. You're going to have to tell Slowpoke we're no longer run by staff, and that anyone who says they're staff is nostalgic or full of crap. You're going to have to depreciate the Staff's Noticeboard and the FTB Wiki Staff page. This is what removing staff means.
 * I don't really see your point in #7. "Things will have to be updated to this new thing!" isn't really a good argument against something. Peter and I also already talked about the forums; we would have a wiki administrator or bureaucrat rank that can access the secret wiki forum, and everything else would be public. Given the current amount of discussion in that section, I don't think this would be a very major change. Most of the discussion about wiki changes that occurs on the forums is in the public section anyway. I don't see what needs to be hidden from the public aside from boring bureaucratic shit. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 01:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Point 7 is some things you need to do, it's not an argument against it. There should not be any forum ranks with the removal of staff, period, especially not for three administrators. The "new staff" should not be a very small elite group, which is one thing I'm afraid of. Wiki discussions should be public and on the wiki anyway; we agree on that I suppose. But, the few (very few) things that are non-public are better discussed elsewhere. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't there be any forum ranks? You didn't give a reason --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 02:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well...
 * Translators aren't a separate group. They're just a role. Roles determine responsibilities, while groups determine rights. I should probably clarify their orthogonality.
 * Ditto for DAC.
 * Ditto for Translation Admin.
 * I will update and clarify this.
 * You do realize that only Curse has the editwidgets right at the moment? As for changing protection, that brings up a question, since protection can be set to bureaucrat only, if admins had the right to change protection, could they remove that bureaucrat only protection? I'm not sure how I feel about your logic "Because this group has power X and power X can be abused to do some really bad stuff, they should be given access to all these other powers that can be abused." Nuke should probably be given to administrators since they have the power to block anyway. I'm not sure how I feel about abuse filter so I will defer that decision to santa.
 * Higher power groups should necessarily have a longer vote period because there is more responsibility and power at stake.
 * I want all wiki related discussion to be public anyway. I don't like having a private channel for the wiki on Cursevoice, I don't like having a private section for the wiki on the forums. Really all that is needed for bureaucrats or admin+ to have some sort of channel for communication with Gamepedia and FTB for technical and bureaucratic reasons. Forum ranks are nothing more than shiny stickers in my view, and I fail to see how removing the staff group means that all wiki related forum ranks have to be removed. IRC has a variety of rights and privileges that can be granted, so if staff was removed I'd just rearrange the IRC groups a bit to reflect the new order, no need to only give IRC rights to admin+, never mind you don't say what an "IRC right" even is. Definitely can't be the right to use IRC since everyone can do that. Also "deprecate", not "depreciate". I don't see a problem with getting rid of the staff noticeboard and focusing discussions in places like centralized discussion or any of the other noticeboards. The Wiki staff page would just be renamed and updated to reflect the new order. The way I envision the staff page is a section for each group, where each group is a list of all the people in that group and their roles.
 * 02:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the abuse filter stuff should be for bureaucrats, because it is a right that is very rarely used, and when it is, it is usually after a very long discussion. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 04:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's Curse-only, why is bureaucrat now? Maybe Curse doesn't want us to have it? The proper right is for admins, but we don't have that extension installed... if we did, though it would be better as admin+, but without?
 * Extending it to 14 days seems arbitrary at best. How is 7 days not long enough to tell if someone is a bum or not? It's 7 days of extra waiting. If I make an application for bureaucrat, I know half of you are going to vote against me in the first day. After a week, I have little doubt all will be said.
 * Some of the things you can do with the abuse filter have disappointingly not been implemented here. Having tags for the addition of translation tags, bad words, deprecated templates, etc, would be tremendously helpful. But anyway, I don't think a right being "very rarely used" means that no one should have access to it. That doesn't make sense. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * no one = everyone qualified 𝜘 --  Jin bo  bo  02:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be as liberal with rights as possible. Obviously things that can be abused shouldn't go to people that could abuse them or misuse them. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me being over-conservative, but is changing the conditions of the vote during the middle of the vote kind of sketchy? -Xbony2 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In particular, changing the conditions of the vote without asking anyone at all if it is a good idea or not. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I realized that making votes contingent on being editor+ was basically preserving the staff exclusiveness thing the proposal is trying to avoid. I thought it would be fairly uncontroversial for anyone who already supports getting rid of staff. You're free to change your vote if you disagree with that though. Also, that isn't changing the conditions of this vote itself, because the proposal hasn't gone through yet and as such cannot apply to this vote. I'll poke anyone who voted to notify them of that change. 21:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My vote is still against either way (I'm against having votes be autoconfirmed, too). If you're going to make a vote, figure it out before making users be able to vote in it. If you're going to change the vote over time, then I don't think this vote is valid at all. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A reason to make all autoconfirmed be able to vote is partially because wanted to have more groups between user and editors for more fine grained control of permissions. Should those people also be allowed to vote? Anyway, as long as everyone who voted support is notified of the change and has the opportunity to update that vote, I don't see any reason the change shouldn't be allowed.  00:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ask people first and then change it.
 * I do not think I should be able to summon all of my friends from, say, Wiktionary, users who have little place or experience here, to vote in my favor and manipulate the vote. The editor right shows trust by fellow editors, autoconfirmed shows trust by the software. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * right, but at that point "editor" is just the staff rank renamed and the wiki stays as exclusive as it already is. In the future the plan is to not even vote on things very often, so I doubt it will really be an issue. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 18:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is judged by numbers, it should certainly not be open to anyone who can make an account. If it is judged by your idea of "consensus", Wikipedia's "consensus" is an admin's decision, and our "consensus" is the staff's (or preferable the editor's) decision. I don't see how the first is less exclusive than the second. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're oversimplifying this. Just because everyone gets the right to vote on things does not mean every single vote is equal. A vote made by a frequent editor with thousands of contributions is "more" than a vote by an IP that fixed a grammatical mistake. Furthermore a vote that also provides an actual list of reasons and creates discussion to improve the proposal has always had more weight than a vote that is simply "Support". Pretty much everything that gets voted on is ultimately up to the administrators (Peter and I right now) anyway, it's just that voting gives us a much easier time coming to a decision. The difference would be that the administrators would need to actually discuss the comments and come to a decision based on that. The group coming to the conclusion doesn't change (except by adding more admins which is not very relevant right now) (therefore the exclusiveness of that decision doesn't change), just what it is based on (discussion rather than numbers). Besides most votes are conditional anyway lately :P --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 21:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * >Pretty much everything that gets voted on is ultimately up to the administrators
 * It's ultimately up, or should be ultimately up IMO, to the full staff. They have the powers, sure, but if the administrators act too totalitarian those can easily go poof. This applies to both the current system and proposal. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So, what is going on regarding this proposal? What are you waiting for? —  NickTheRed37  ( discussion  &  contribs ) FTB Wiki Revolutionary  10:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 18:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying this has a negative effect on my evil agenda, but what does the consensus look like to you?
 * Also, like ImmortalPharaoh pointed out, new admins should be elected before this system is put into place. I don't want the one and a half admins to be relied on for translation and vandalism for a week. You can simply vote "support if the group vote passes" if you want to, but I don't really see it not passing at this point. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we will be electing new administrators and shit before the groups are changed. There are still some things I need to figure out and discuss with Peter before the overhaul IIRC. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 22:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about it last night, and I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we are doing this. No, not exactly doing this, but also the way that we are looking at it. If we really care about less exclusion, we shouldn't be thinking of rights in terms of "if they won't use it, don't give it to them". If we really care about having less of a power gap, we should be thinking in a liberal sense of "if they won't abuse it, give it to them". If we want less of a power hierarchy, we should be thinking in this latter sense. This is largely how I was thinking when I came up with the idea of merging admin and bureaucrat in one of my earlier proposals, whether I realized it or not. Part of this proposal strips down admin rights based on the earlier clause, which is something that I do not find constructive about it. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Votes
If you wanna vote on this proposal, vote here. All users are allowed to vote, although probably not all votes will be counted.


 * . I wrote this proposal. 19:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I this -- sokratis 12GR   Staff  19:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My stance is pretty obvious --  Satanic  Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 19:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * -Xbony2 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * $$ \times \infty$$. you know, xbony's arguments are pretty focused on trivialities or non-issues if you think about it for a moment. -- [Insert IP here, totally not me] 04:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Amendment, I would not mind the current listing of former staff just get moved to some archive or get changed to something simple like just a list of names and their roles. I don't know why I bothered bloating up that page, it just looks stupid to me now with that timeline and crap. --  Jin bo  bo  04:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

* ... because it is not my area of expertise and the others know what they are doing. --LuminousLizard FTB Wiki Staff de-N / "en-2" (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - After reading the entire discussion I think I can change my opinion. I support it because a flat hierarchy is better because the rights are more clearly distributed and every person has a clearly position and a short distance to the leadership. After reading the comments I think that a distinction between an "editor" and a "wiki staff member" is bad. It's like a 2 class society among the editors. I don't think that an editor who often contributes to the wiki should get more rights than an editor how rarely contributes. Maybe one has less time to contribute or to play (some people should have a girl-/boyfriend, I have heard), the other doesn't know many about a mod/item/block to contribute much, and again another doesn't want donate to much time for contribution. And sometimes the editor who only contributes rarely writes better articles as an editor who contributes more. Experienced editors (for help) can also be recognized by the number of posts respectively wiki points or . But I'm wondering that the admin losses quite a few rights. What I also learned from the discussion: Xbony2 and Jinbobo don't like each other. --LuminousLizard FTB Wiki Staff de-N / "en-2" (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to compare the rights that admins currently have (Special:ListGroupRights) vs the rights that they will have in the spreadsheet linked above (admins are 3). If you have any suggestions, feel free to offer them. 00:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I'm the last one around us who has the knowledge and understanding of the system to make proper changes. I was referring primarily to the number of rights. Nevertheless, I wonder why rights like  and   are given to the bureaucrat because these rights are more technical than bureaucratic. That ,   and   is given to the bureaucrats, I think that's ok.


 * JZTech101 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * . I see that staff rank cannot be removed. Staff are probably a well known active editor. I see that editors are people who are still learning the wiki and haven't yet mastered how to create almost anything. In my opinion, I see that editors are here to edit and create articles but not create templates, uploading icons for making navboxes and all that work that requires wiki text skill. Staff, on the other hand, have knowledge on how to create almost anything the wiki needs thus, Staff are needed in order to guide people where editors can only teach editing. Indestructible Pharaoh VII  21:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So do you mean that regular wiki users can’t be as experienced as staffers do? Then it becomes a paradox, because the staff system requires first users to be experienced in the first place. Also do you mean that regular users can’t have the right to teach other users? You appear to be too staffist like xbony2. The suggested system still does have an intermediate group between regulars and admins, it’s called “editors”. But it’s not for a role, it apparently should be granted to simply experienced users. — NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that staff are the go-to for new users as they are more experienced than editors. You can basically say that staff have more experience and knowledge about the wiki than editors. Or you can say that editors are staff in training as they are considered new or if the user isn't active enough or they do not want to submit a staff application. Indestructible Pharaoh VII  16:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But there is a group more experienced than editors. The admins are people with a lot of technical knowledge and are where users can go to ask for help with complicated stuff. Plus there would be more admins anyway, not just me and santa. 16:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I repeat. Absolutely anyone has the possibility to teach other users, regardless of the status. Also experience doesn’t necessarily correspond with status. I don’t have any special status here anymore, but I can find out and explain how the wiki works. The models for newcomers may quite easily be just administrators, the amount of which will be necessarily increased with abolition of the system. — NickTheRed37 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I repeat too, staff are the go-to for new users. If you didn't know, new users are new, which means that they know no-one and they would probably head and ask for staff (like I did) or admins for help. I don't see many admins here and I suggest postponing this request until there are more admins. Indestructible Pharaoh VII 16:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the point of this proposal is that there would be more admins. Postponing a proposal due to a problem that would be fixed by the proposal seems wrong. 16:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you can remove that point then postpone it until there are more admins as there would be clearly some time before people who are eligible of becoming admins and time to accept the application, etc. Indestructible Pharaoh VII 16:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the current staff will automatically become admins during the transition. Why would I remove that point, that makes no sense. 17:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By your dictatorship? -Xbony2 (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, instead before the transition actually happens we would have a vote for each current staff member to decide whether they should be admin or editor. 00:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea that staff is here to help new editors is just condescending, the very label implies that there is a divide between roles. That label is what NickTheRed and I am against, we're not against having experienced editors nor admins. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from making "technical aspects" of editing painfully easy. That is what we should be working towards instead of defending legacy artifacts and practices. Crafting grid parameters are hard to learn? Maybe you can make VisualEditor generate syntactically correct wikitext, or maybe have the tilesheet extension parse regular ol' strings. Thinking that having a staff is the only solution the problem that wiki editing is difficult and requires experience is completely backwards, unsustainable and against the wiki spirit. --  Jin bo  bo  21:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he's saying newcomers are more likely to approach users who have the label of "staff" to ask for help. If you look at the Minecraft Wiki, there are a fair number of users who ask the "staff" there (admins) for help, even with things that do not really need administrative attention. I wouldn't really say it's enough of a point in itself to vote against it, though. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Xbony2, you understand me! \o/. - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 18:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * . Liberty, equality and fraternity! — NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed your mind about not voting, huh? -Xbony2 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on discussions with Peter, assuming some of the requirements are met, then I'm okay with this. Developaws (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Who has the right to vote
Who should have the right to vote, or rather whose vote actually counts? The current system is staff. Under the proposal it would either be editors or autoconfirmed users. There needs to be some sort of minimum bar to prevent people from bringing random people over to vote, and to prevent vote fraud, but what should that minimum bar be? Please vote on what you think it should be here. Also, if the bar becomes editor, supposing in the future we get more fine grained groups below editor and above user, should those groups also get voting power? Also, would there be votes where the voting requirement is more stringent, such as voting on whether to take punitive action or whether to make someone a bureaucrat? 01:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As a point of comparison, wikipedia specifically discourages voting and instead works on "consensus". Don't vote on everything. 01:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I could get behind following a "Don't vote on everything" system. I think it would encourage more thoughtful discussion on things, and perhaps reduce the amount of "What he said" on votes. Furthermore, voting on a project such as this is by default restrictive, and could end up reproducing the issue this group proposal is trying to address. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 20:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See also- the way I was running my group proposal. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Random TODO
"Stained clay blocks are renamed from ' Stained Clay' to ' Hardened Clay'."-mcw:Hardened Clay -Xbony2 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Voting/consensus change
This is a proposal to change how we achieve consensus on policy changes and what-not. As per Don't vote on everything, I am proposing that we use a new method to achieve this consensus. Rather than voting on everything, we will simply have a discussion and share insights on the subject, we* will, once discussion cools down or the proposal discussion period ends, interpret the peoples viewpoints to eventually take some action. This allows for better compromises based on peoples opinions and needs, which voting support/oppose does not allow for, among other things.
 * The people responsible for finding consensus is dependent on who has the ability to enact the change. If only a bureaucrat can enact the change, then the bureaucrats are responsible for finding consensus. If only an admin can enact the change, then the administrators are responsible for finding it. If any editor can do it, then the administrators or bureaucrats are only necessary when the consensus is not overwhelmingly obvious.

--  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 22:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Votes
Ironically, we are voting on this. This vote has been closed for a long time.


 * I this, obviously. --  Satanic  Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 22:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * because this gets rid of the barrier of entry. Anyone and everyone can participate and have their voice heard. At the same time, because it isn't vote based, there's no vote fraud to worry about. 22:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * . For one thing, this is something we kind of do already- we usually talk over changes and apply them if everyone agrees, without voting. Votes are usually reserved for user group changes and large scale, possibly controversial changes; things that should be voted on and discussed before a vote (see also- on Wiktionary, where they generally discuss things on the beer parlor before voting or if voting at all). The problem I have with your idea of "consensus" is that admins/bureaucrats have the final decision instead of the staff's(/more preferably editor's) decision. Anyone can "have their voice heard", even if they can't vote, in discussions. This has hardly been an issue; non-staff editors [the group] themselves have been very rarely involved in votes/discussion, much less non-editors! It is/should be not be too difficult to get editor rights (it's somewhat akin to Wiktionary's requirements- 50 edits predating the start time of the vote by a week, but we go by our own scales than edit count, since edit count is not a perfect measurement, especially here). -Xbony2 (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your problem with it makes no sense because admins/bureaucrats will only have to find consensus in a few cases. Most of the time the consensus will be found by editors. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 20:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What's voted for is exactly what should be done. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * because it's not actually solving anything. Either we don't bother with a vote because everyone agrees or we vote on it and the same people vote every time. We've never really had any non-staff input on major votes, so consensus isn't really going to change what happens past Retep and Santa potentially getting what they want slightly more because they're the ones resolving the winner. It doesn't even fix vote fraud as people could just appear and support an idea informally rather than putting a vote down. The current system is a bit naff, but this won't fix it, if we had more normal users providing input maybe it might.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 23:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If it solves the problem that you guys were talking about, then I (sry xbony2 for not voting like you but I want to end this loop)  Indestructible Pharaoh VII  06:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 vote support and 2 votes against generally don't meet a passing requirement. Instead of voting to "end the loop", vote on what's logical. Read Santa and Retep's arguments and then mine and Chocohead's. -Xbony2 (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, from what I have understood that there will be voting except when there is a vote for someone who wants to be an editor or an admin, and I agree with that. Indestructible Pharaoh VII  08:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Basically the proposal is that votes are not counted by number, but ultimately by the interpretations of the person/people that can enact the changes (ultimately Santa/Retep). Santa/Retep have argued this opens up voting for everybody (even though non-staff have hardly ever voted, much less non-editors) and this allows everybody to have their voice heard (even though you can still "have your voice heard" without the right to have your vote count, just like I have talked to my dad about who to vote for vote for US president, even though I cannot vote). I've argued this allows Retep/Santa to pretty much get whatever they want because they're making the final decision, and Chocohead thinks this won't help either. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, but they said they will only do that when they there is no consensus achieved. Also, there will be more admins. Which means that there are more people non-editors who can vote and the wiki will pretty much be what the users (those who read) want (which I think what you guys want to do). Ps: Sorry if I did not make any sense but I am sure that you will get what I mean. - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 12:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sad that you really don't trust us that much. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 19:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sad that nobody realizes this vote has been over for nearly a month now. It was only supposed to last 7 days. 19:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did notice that, but I didn't say anything.
 * ImmortalPharaoh7- if we all agree on something that isn't too major, we generally don't vote on it and just do it. That's something we all argue on and already do. There being more admins doesn't really change anything here or have anything to with this vote. Non-editors rarely give their feedback on noticeboards, talk pages and the like, them having the right to vote doesn't really do anything. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You say that as though you can see the future --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 19:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Official wiki renaming proposal
I propose for the renaming of this wiki from the "Feed The Beast Wiki" to the "Feed The Beast and Modded Minecraft Wiki" (FTB&MM Wiki for short). Originally when this wiki was created, it was purely an FTB Wiki. This is no longer the case. This wiki has been open for all of Modded Minecraft for a very long time, and I think it's appropriate our name reflects that.

Our rival wiki, ftbwiki.org, did something similar to this almost two years when they turned their wiki into an FTB/ATL Wiki rather just an FTB Wiki. However, I think adding other specific modpack names for us would be too exclusive, as there are many more modpacks and mods outside of Feed The Beast and ATLauncher and other popular mod ecosystems, hence why I'm proposing it be "and Modded Minecraft" rather than "and ATLauncher" or "and Technic" or other options.

According to my survey, 44% of our users don't use the FTB Launcher, 75% don't use Curse, and 30% don't use either. For the amount of users who don't use FTB, you can round that number up a fair amount if you consider that Curse (and also the FTB Launcher) don't exclusively host FTB packs. This wiki is marketed as a "Feed The Beast Wiki", even though it's more of a general Modded Minecraft wiki. Like I've said, we've been very welcome to the documentation of mods outside of FTB for a long time, and I think it's important we reflect that to potential editors and viewers that may not think of us as that.

Lastly, this allow us to do a proper "merge" with Modpedia, which is something that has been discussed in IRC and the Gamepedia Slack for a while but hasn't been done yet.

To clarify, this is a request to change the website name and how we refer to it. This does include this namespace (we'll probably make "Feed The Beast Wiki:" redirect to "Feed The Beast and Modded Minecraft Wiki:") and how the name will display in certain places (like the "wikis" section of the Gamepedia main page) However, I do not want to change the url of this wiki and the location of the main page (although I would like to update as well as improve the main page). -Xbony2 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't like to change the name since it is too long (that is my first opinion without thinking much about that subject). - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 14:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, but it's not like "Feed The Beast Wiki" is already pretty long. You can still call it the FTB Wiki, or the FTB&MM Wiki, or the Modded Minecraft Wiki, or whatnot, it's just that we'd refer as the Feed The Beast and Modded Minecraft Wiki formally. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with changing the wiki name, however I'd strongly prefer something that isn't too long. Also, we'd need to have it approved by FTB to make sure they're okay with it. 15:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We should be either FTB/Feed The Beast Wiki or MM/Modded Minecraft Wiki, not both. Also what Peter said about talking to FTB (mainly Slow, Quetzi, and Tfox). --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 04:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Combing them both allows us to still have a focus on FTB while at the same time not being exclusive. I don't see why it has to be either or :P I do get that it's rather long, there's not many wikis that we can compare with. It's worth investigating if we can use something smaller, like "Feed The Beast Wiki and Modpedia", but I don't really like the sound of that. -Xbony2 (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably more like Feed The Beast and MineModPedia Wiki? (I know I am good with coming out with names :P). Indestructible Pharaoh VII  07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds rather silly :P -Xbony2 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm just curious about why do we even consider a merge on a wiki that has ~200 articles (compared with the 13k articles on here), and the last edit was made about two weeks ago. On the other hand, I don't agree that the wiki should cover all the mods for minecraft, as there's problems even covering the ones that already are available on FTB alone, such as forestry or Thermal Foundation are kind of outdated, with no mention on popular but not so complex mods such as Extra-utils or decocraft, that integrate most of the official Modpacks of FTB, but yet we don't have pages for their mechanics or items that come with them. Frenchiveruti (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We already DO aim to cover all mods for minecraft. That's kind of a pillar of this wiki, although FTB is somewhat of a focus (or it should be, ultimately people document what they want to). We're never going back to the dark ages of being only FTB :P Anyway, the reason I want to merge the Minecraft Modpedia with here now, even though it's tiny, is because it would very much easier to do now, while it is easy to do and small, instead of when it has a large content base, since it would be very complicated to do so then, which could potentially happen if we don't do this now. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting "merging" at this point basically means making the entire wiki redirect to this wiki, since there's no content worth moving over :P -Xbony2 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, well, what about if instead of naming "and modded minecraft" FTB, like separating the terms, we integrate the fact that the modded minecraft experience it's intrinsic to FTB, as Modded minecraft probably wont be able to distribute its mods in other platform that it isn't curse. Just to be clear on what I mean, FTB IS modded minecraft, but modded minecraft isn't necessarily FTB as there are mods that don't form part of FTB official packs. Frenchiveruti (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure what you mean :c -Xbony2 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record both DecoCraft and Extra Utilities have some very basic documentation here. I started DecoCraft a while ago, but it was really redundant and boring so I stopped. ExU was being documented by someone who I can't remember off the top of my head. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 18:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It was Warlordjones, although other users have contributed a bit here and there. Currently nobody caries that torch, although I might aim to document Extra Utilities 2 since it's very different. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Addons in the navbox
When I was making Navbox Asgard Shield Core, I sort of snuck in a little something. I was hoping someone would notice and comment, but alas. Anyway, it's something I 100% stole from the unofficial wiki- including links to the mod's addons in the navbox. I personally think we should do this for all navboxes, as I would argue they are in within the scope of the mod. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed, I just didn't say anything because I assumed it was something specific to Asgard Shield Core, like addons– upgrades– for the shields or something. Anyway, since you are bringing this up I'm assuming they are mod addons. In such a case I agree completely. I would however like the input of and  if that's possible since they have documented solely mods with many addons and addons themselves, whereas I have documented, since joining the team (really after 1.4 because when I first started I was primarily documenting GT and IC2), primarily small mods or large mods with no addons (like Witchery and Twilight Forest). --  Satanic  Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 00:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems cool to me. We are talking about the apparent addition of an "mod addons" section to the Navbox? My only concern is that with a mod like Thaumcraft it will make a too-large NavBox even larger.GreenZombie76 (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what we're talking about. I suppose for navboxes that make the Addons section larger than the rest we could have that subgroup default collapsed? --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 21:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's really not that many addons. You can look at the unofficial wiki for about what the size would probably be. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also since it would probably be at the very bottom, I don't think it would make it any more difficult to navigate or anything like that ^_^ -Xbony2 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're only adding a single additional row to the navbox with the addon names on, it's only going to be larger than the rest if the base mod is tiny and has loads of addons. Compared to trying to integrate all the addon's navboxes at the bottom of the main mod's (which would definitely be a bad idea), I don't see why it would be anything but a convenience (apart from maintaining the addon list itself of course).  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Voting Conditions
For a while, especially during all the antics with group overhauls, there have been times when votes have happened where the result is ambiguous. There have also been times when new ideas for fixing this situation by deciding on fixed conditions for a particular vote to pass. As fun as predictable order and standardisation is, it makes things less exciting, so I propose we keep the current system just as it is without changing absolutely anything. Anything especially includes creating, voting to and implementing a standard set of conditions for a vote to pass, depending on the type and situation of the vote of course.

In the spirit of the proposal, the vote will end at some vague and unspecified date.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 16:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Support

 * I'm going to support this until Chocohead explains it better 🎅-Xbony2 (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1)  So do I. - Indestructible Pharaoh VII  07:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  - Moritz 30 German translator 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  balance -Xbony2 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Against

 * : The anarchy must end.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 16:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * : I'm a socialist so I think that would mean I would fundamentally oppose this. I don't really understand this proposal so idk. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 20:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Voting against something you don't understand isn't the best thing to do you know. I suggest waiting for someone to explain this more (Chocohead). - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 20:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So is voting for something - Moritz 30 German translator 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * : --LuminousLizard FTB Wiki Staff de-N / "en-2" (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) . Specifically chaotic neutral.  17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * this is all rubbish, I'm just going to make it tie. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing though, sokratis is still going to vote I think. - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 20:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can adjust as needed. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Uhm... wut? I am confused, can you please summarize and rephrase the paragraph into 2 answers for the questions I have: What? Why? - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 18:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Meme has gone too far T3==ThaumicTechTinker, Urey.S.Knowledge Welcome back, commander 23:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Vote-ception
As seen, the "Voting conditions" didn't go very well, it ended as a tie because those who supported had a condition that Chocohead explains what he said. Seeing as he did not till now, I will open a vote on postponing his suggestion until he has cleared out questions (excluding saying "Yes").

Support

 * 1)  Yes. - Indestructible Pharaoh VII  10:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  because immortal said so. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) . The vote by  has not yet ended because I have not agreed to it ending yet. If you want it to end you will have to bribe me and .  10:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How about 2 carrots for you and a ful plate for santa? - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 10:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I find that insufficient. Maybe if you buy me some stuff from my steam wishlist. 10:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can buy you some free games on Steam. - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 10:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How 'bout we don't beat the shit out of you if we see you in real life? -Xbony2 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How about we all be nice to each other without threats of violence? 12:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And not acting dictatorial? Sure :P -Xbony2 (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The revolution has begun :D \o/ - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 12:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "In the spirit of the proposal, the vote will end at some vague and unspecified date." By claiming that the vote has ended, that would mean the vote would have to have an explicit and specified date. Because the vote clearly said that would not be the case, your claim that the vote has ended cannot be true. 12:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) . The order must continue.  Chocohead  Nag • Edits • Staff 16:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  - Moritz 30 German translator 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  I think  should answer the questions but postponing the vote is incorrect because there is no set end date. --  Satanic  Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 20:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  --LuminousLizard FTB Wiki Staff de-N / "en-2" (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Et tu, Brute? - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 09:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ??? --LuminousLizard FTB Wiki Staff de-N / "en-2" (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read some Shakespeare. - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 14:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  I agree with the others -- sokratis 12GR   Staff  18:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Et tu, Brute? Indestructible Pharaoh VII  18:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- sokratis 12GR  Staff  18:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * :'( - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 18:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Results
Welp... that didn't go well for me :( - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Wiki renaming proposal 2
Yes, I'm going to revive this proposal. Most of you guys opposed the original on the account of it being too long. Although, I have another opposition to add of my own- being FTB-focused. If we were, say, going to collaborate with another major modpack, they might not want to be under that banner. Not saying I have something planned, but who knows what is in store for the future? Anyway, that's why I propose this wiki be renamed to the "Modded Minecraft Wiki". It's short. It's direct. And it doesn't hurt that it might be the first thing that comes up when you google "modded minecraft wiki" :P certainly is pretty marketable.

Anyway, just to extend this a little bit, I'd like to propose a little something more. To keep the FTBness of this wiki, I'd like to suggest the addition of a "Portal:" namespace. The main page we currently use would be moved to "Portal:Feed The Beast". Potentially there will be other portals too- I definitely have "Portal:ATLauncher" and "Portal:Technic" in mind, but there's also potential for portals for specific mods or maybe other future concepts. The regular main page would include a blurb about modded minecraft, a few links to the main portals, and an expanded mod list. I'll try to make a conceptual version in my userspace I suppose. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I have any say in this but here are my two cents anyway. I discovered this wiki (well, I discovered the unofficial one first) not because I was playing an FTB pack (it was an unofficial technic pack), but because I was playing with a mod that I wanted to learn more about. What was the first thing I found when searching for that mod or item in the mod? These FTB wikis. They generally seem to come up as the only wikis pertaining to Modded Minecraft unless the mod itself has a wiki of its own. I feel like this renaming would take that extra step to place the wiki in the spotlight of the Modded Minecraft community forever. Crazierinzane (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am personally fine with the name "Modded Minecraft Wiki". I really do not want to name it "Modpedia" (Benjamin mentioned that in a private convo I had recently; that name sucks). We have to talk with the Gamepedia people (really we should just talk to Benjamin about it). Benjamin said he would "put out some feelers and try and get some info from within Curse" and the Curse people that work with the core FTB team. We also have to discuss this with Slow though I doubt he'll care one way or the other. I can do that if you don't want to. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 00:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea what to expect from slowpoke or the FTB team. It would be good to do it as a team (multiple people arguing can create a very good persuasive effect), but if you don't think he'll get in the way you can take care of it. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hardly like they're very attached to the wiki, we're very infrequently mentioned (if at all by FTB itself). It's not even like we even focus on documenting the mods that are in FTB packs anyway.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 02:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I probably would document their mods if they ever gave a shit about us. We've never been mentioned in their news (even when I explicitly told them every time we had newsworthy shit happen), and none of the important things I've requested (giving us easy access to up to date MineTweaker scripts without having to download their entire modpacks, attempting to get editors, etc.) have ever been done. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll still serve as the Official FTB Wiki, it's just that we'll be more :P -Xbony2 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A new main page might looks like this, btw. Obviously I'm not a web designer, but you can at least get the idea. I'd like it if the links at the top were images instead of just text, but maybe that can be done later. The main portals put forth are "ATLauncher", "Feed The Beast" and "Technic", the most biggest modpack groupings. I wouldn't add any more, unless something else becomes especially popular in the future or if we partner with someone. -Xbony2 (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Logo
If we're going to rename and remarket our wiki, we're going to need a new logo. If anybody wants to play around and design something, go ahead and throw it here :P -Xbony2 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Renaming the wiki to the "Modded Minecraft Wiki" vote
I think everybody agrees with it (or doesn't care), but because it is a big change, I'd like to do this the formal way. This vote is on renaming and remarketing the wiki from the "Feed The Beast Wiki" to the "Modded Minecraft Wiki". Keep in mind this not a change in policy- this wiki has long been more of a general modded Minecraft, and it's allowed for non-FTB mods for years now. A large amount of our users don't play FTB modpacks at all, and I'd say most of our editors don't either. This change should allow us to be more marketable to potential editors and partners who don't want to be under the FTB banner. For a bit more on that, go through the discussion and  discussion. This vote will end in one week. If passed, we'll send a message to Gamepedia to proceed.

Support

 * 1) . -Xbony2 (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) . Then no problem with that :P - Indestructible Pharaoh VII  10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) . -- sokratis 12GR   Staff  10:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) . - Moritz 30 German translator 18:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  I spoke with Benjamin from Gamepedia a while ago and he says the Gamepedia folks support the change. It would require a complete overhaul of the main page, which Benjamin briefly described in private with me. Slowpoke also supports it, basically as long as we don't document the Jadedpacks– fortunately those were never intended to be documented here, but instead to just link straight to Jaded's wiki. It should be stated somewhere on the main page that we are still the official source of information on FTB content, though. I propose we change the name of the wiki to "Modded Minecraft Wiki" and the URL to "moddedmc.gamepedia". Once this is all done (as in, the wiki is renamed and the main page is redesigned), we can begin working with Lordofediting and the rest of Gamepedia to transfer any content from modpedia that was not copied from here over here, and then deprecate/delete that wiki to prevent segregation. --  Satanic  Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 19:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * *cough* sample-ish main page here.
 * I want to argue against the subdomain "moddedmc.gamepedia". "MC" just seems like a shitty partial abbreviation. Maybe "moddedminecraft.gamepedia" (15) is long, but it wouldn't be the longest subdomain- pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com (17), totalwarwarhammer.gamepedia.com (17), strongholdkingdoms.gamepedia.com (18), orcsmustdieunchained.gamepedia.com (20), civilizationbeyondearth.gamepedia.com (23), everybodysgonetotherapture.gamepedia.com (26), legostarwarstheforceawakens.gamepedia.com (27), loversinadangerousspacetime.gamepedia.com (27) to name a few. Other alternatives could include "mm.gamepedia.com" if we wanted to go short, maybe "modminecraft.gamepedia.com"? (I really don't like that one tho) -Xbony2 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think all of those URLs you proposed are ew. Perhaps we should see what Gamepedia people think? --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye, and/or if anybody else has any ideas. I'm learning towards "mm" myself, although I will admit I am not 100% satisfied with that option either -Xbony2 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) . Slowpoke is okay with it, Gamepedia is okay with it, therefore I am okay with it.  21:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'd lean more towards "minecraftmods.gamepedia.com" for domain name. DSquirrelGM (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think "minecraftmods" is all that accurate because we document, and plan to document, quite a bit more than just mods. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 18:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * True. I thought about that name myself, although I didn't suggest it because it doesn't match the name of the wiki as a whole (Modded Minecraft Wiki), which I think is important. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  T3==ThaumicTechTinker, Urey.S.Knowledge Welcome back, commander 23:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

 * I'd rather we confirm whether FTB peeps are okay with this before making a decision here. 21:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Would we still be the Official FTB Wiki? Meaning that we are still FTB's official wiki? - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 10:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes (unless they change their mind, but I doubt that they will be dicks about it). -Xbony2 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I still have not talked with slow or tfox or anyone high up in the FTB bureaucracy about it. Bony did you or are you just assuming they'll be fine with this? --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 21:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am saying if they do not agree that it will not be their call. Nowadays, they don't host us or manage us any more than Microsoft does the Minecraft Wiki. Now, I don't want to be a jerk to them, but we will be jerks if necessary. But I don't think we'll have to. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And an update on this- slowpoke has stated he is okay with this, as long as we generally focus on FTB modpacks (which I generally plan to do), and also that we don't include modpacks that contain mods without consent from the mod author(s) (with a few exceptions for the historical Technic packs), which I think is reasonable. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What about creating a new wiki as modded Minecraft wiki? - Moritz 30 German translator 18:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, take all the years of hard work and start over at a new wiki. - Indestructible Pharaoh VII 18:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe one could copy articles over but I think this wiki should still be focused on FTB modpacks and not small mods. Documenting small mods is good, however I don't think it should take place in a large scale here. This wiki is optimized for FTB modpacks and large mods but not really for small ones. - Moritz 30 German translator 19:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Creating a new wiki just segregates the community even more, makes it a royal pain in the ass for users to find documentation, and doesn't even make sense because we've already been documenting non-FTB mods for at least a year. The wiki isn't "optimized" for any specific set of mods; it works fine for any number of mods. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's optimized for all the mods \o/ -Xbony2 (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW what will happen with the old existing links and pages that linked to this site ? will the other URL redirect them here ? -- sokratis 12GR  Staff  12:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If the url is changed, the old url will redirect to the new url. Links will not be broken. 12:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Final Decision
This has been supported unanimously. It'll take a while to fully update everything, and for Gamepedia to do their part. In the meantime, we can probably work on making some base documentation on other modpacks or making new portals or whatnot. Also above this, we need to decide on a logo (I really don't like Modpedia's logo, no way we're going to be using that) and other stuff. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Guide credits
I really don't like the fact that we put "credits" at the tops of our guides. In many cases that information is accessible via the history. Furthermore it creates a sense of ownership on the articles, potentially discouraging new users from editing it. See also: Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The only case I can see this making sense is for guides which were written by someone, but then put on the wiki by someone else. I don't have a proposal for that situation, but I do propose that for the other cases, we do not put credits on the page. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 20:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As a general principle we should only include credits when content was written by someone not on the wiki and then copied over to the wiki. 22:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing I don't like is that it gives more respect to guides that were created elsewhere rather than made by the editors here. I'd be okay with it, however, maybe if the note was at the very bottom of the page (ex Foreign relations of Armenia, although probably a bit large than that) instead of blatantly at the top (change would be like this). -Xbony2 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. It's not the best format but it's definitely better. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 19:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a thought on this, what about having a fixed-position small link image, or even just an "@" character, in the bottom right of the content area that links back to the original source in this sort of case? Not too intrusive, and easy enough to write a template for. DSquirrelGM (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all of them have original sources, like Getting Started (Flaxbeard's Steam Power). I think something that links to the original source for those applicable could be useful though. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 18:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)