Feed The Beast Wiki
← 2015 | 2017 →

Ore Dictionary backlog

Gamepedia updated to a new but unstable version of the OreDict extension. For the time being, no new entries can be added. Therefor, feel free to add on to this list here; I/other staff will register the entries when the extension is fixed.

-Xbony2 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Santa corrected me; new entries are okay, but modifying current entries is a no-no. I guess you can put anything needing modification here instead. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
To be more specific: Don't touch OreDictEntryManager. I'm currently looking into the database query issue where it always returns 0 rows, as that's higher priority. These 2 bugs are my top priorities in regards to coding and wiki work right now. -- SatanicSantaFTB Wiki Admin 00:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Toolbar customization

Recently, I've been working on an extension (JS, not PHP) to the WikiEditor interface (see User:Xbony2/common/toolbar.js). Hopefully, when complete, it can be part of the wiki for all users to have if desired.

This idea is something that I quite honestly one hundred and ten percent stole from the unofficial wiki (just the idea, not the code). It makes it easy for new users to use templates without needing to research through other pages and incomplete wiki guides. Anyway, this is what it currently looks like; obviously, it's missing icons. I am slightly lazy when it comes to finding icons, so I'd like to avoid finding icons before having consensus on what buttons should even be on the toolbar; that way I don't need to throw any icons out of the window. The current button list is (in order):

These are templates that should be generally useful for new users and beginning editors; this really isn't aimed at experienced editors like me and other staff, who know the names and usage of these templates by heart. Anyway, what templates should be included, and what templates should be excluded? -Xbony2 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I quite like that. Can you show some examples of what appears when you actually press those buttons? I'm mainly interested in Gc, and the Infoboxes, though. -- SatanicSantaFTB Wiki Admin 22:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Why did you put everything in pre? Putting the ending in post would make some of them so much easier to use. Like having {{Tl| in pre and }} in post for example makes them so much better so that you can start typing straight from the middle where the template name is going to go anyway. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Gc: (referred to as "Item" in the "Grids" group)
  • Infobox: (referred to as "Block/Item" in the "Infoboxes" group)
"PAGE_NAME" is the actual name of the page being edited, in this case "Feed_The_Beast_Wiki:Centralized_discussion" was inserted in its place.
Listing all of them would be tedious, so for more you'll want to refer to the code or maybe enable it yourself. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Chocohead: I don't know that was an option actually, but I'll look at it. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Modified. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've added images for everything. I'm too lazy to list all of it, so look at User:Xbony2/common/toolbar.js or just add it to your common.js.

A few images are in the Curse cache of hell- Block/Item should be an Electric Furnace, Mod should be a Wrench, Item should be an Electronic Circuit. These are all images from Vanilla or IC2, because I wanted to maintain consistency. Thoughts? Ideas? -Xbony2 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we should stick purely to Vanilla. -- SatanicSantaFTB Wiki Admin 00:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Vanilla doesn't really have enough items to well represent the used concepts. I chose IC2 because it's pretty well known in the modded community, and this is a modded wiki. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and I changed Cleanup to a Painter. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar covering content

"When I snap my firefox window to half the screen, text from different parts of the wiki overlaps the actual content." -guy from the survey. See [1]. This is particularly bothersome if on mobile in desktop view (used since we all know the mobile view sucks). -Xbony2 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@media screen and (max-width: 768px){

div#content { margin-left: 11em; }
div#mw-navigation div#mw-panel div.portal { width: 9em; font-size: 66%; }


you'll probably want to reposition the sidebar for narrower frames. i've experienced ads overlapping content but I can't seem to reproduce it. --

04:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That didn't fix it. -- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 07:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Bleh. CSS Specificity. Fixed it. Keep the divs. I've noticed that the navigation bar and the logo are disappearing now. While digging around I did actually find a rule that is identical to my old one except it met the same fate and got overridden by some rule with higher specificity. This is dumb. -- 22:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
btw accidentally hovered over the share link. it's ugly as hell. -- Preceding unsigned comment was added by Jinbobo (talk β€’ contribs)
Indeed it is. -- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 00:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I took a look at some other popular wikis (habbo, mc, wow, etc), and it seems like they either remove it, or leave it looking this terrible. I guess we should decide on one of these options, or investigate whether it's actually possible to make it not look like crap -- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 03:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to disable the share popup too for anon. because I'm pretty dang sure that anon won't ever want to share their edits. -- 04:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed this in the global stylesheet. -- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 00:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Reformed groups proposal

Slam. This is my renewed group proposal, since the current system is a bit of a mess. Comments? Concerns? -Xbony2 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User-only protection is stupid.
I don't think I want editors to be able to have bots. Bots can be very, very destructive. Personally I think all of the bots run on the wiki should be open source but that's just me.
For DAC, what if their mods are considered complete for the time being? I don't think that should mean we demote them, they are just inactive and have no reason to be active.
I'd prefer bureaucrats be the only ones able to manage wikipoints and achievements and things like that. Same with the deleted revision stuff.
-- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 22:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
User-only protection gone then.
There's already closed sourced bots in place, so making that a requirement is a bit tacky. I guess editors shouldn't have bots.
If you haven't done anything in a large time span, you don't really need the user rights or the title. You can call your work done and retire.
This is how it is right now and on other wikis. Considering anyone who's an administrator should be hella trustworthy, I don't think it's much of an issue. Although to be honest I think only Curse should have the rights to muck with wikipoints and achievements.
(Replying to Choco after a movie break) -Xbony2 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
There have actually been a few occasions where Peter and I have had to muck around with wikipoints and achievements due to bugs in the extensions. I don't really want to bother the Gamepedia folks for shit like that. -- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 00:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If it did work properly, there's no reason why you would need to touch it. Hopefully some day Gamepedia will remove those rights once everything is sorted out. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If you ever wanted to add an achievement though or change the wiki points calculations it would be much better if the admins/bureaucrats can do it rather than having to wait for a Curse/Gamepedia person to get around to it. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 15:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I don't trust administrations though- not the administrators here, course', in the category of trustworthiness they're fine, but the administrations of other Gamepedia wikis not so much. I'm pretty sure there's been at least one person who pretty explicitly abused this ability, and there's probably been others. Again, if wikipoints and achievements worked as they should, there would be no need for these rights (#BlameCurse) -Xbony2 (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Rubbish, to have features you have utterly no control over would be silly. Anyway, comparing other wikis is a poor idea as we've literally just got Retep and Santa, who are barely on the wiki to start with, compared to other wikis with much larger admin bases (look how good ours is with our efficiency). Your proposal is dependant on the admins being trustworthy, as you frequently reinforced below, to say they are suddenly not is unhelpful to your cause that this proposal is what we want. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff
I'm saying some of the administrators on other wikis have abused wikipoints/achievements. I trust Retep and Santa (and future admins of this wiki, assuming I'm around to vote for them) not to give themselves a million wikipoints, but other administrators on other wikis? No way Jose. Becoming administrator on other Gamepedias isn't too tough- all you need is a couple of contributions and a well-written WikiClaim. Simply- admins here are trustworthy, but admins elsewhere... ???
Ultimately, Gamepedia has the master keys to give the rights to adjust wikipoints/achievements. Some people have abused this, although most admins have done good things- like us, triggering broken achievements, like whichever-Minecraft-Wiki-that-it-was that added cool custom achievements, etc. If they take those rights away some time, I won't put up a fight. Of course, there's no point in removing wikipoint/achievement rights here, because that's not going to stop abuse elsewhere and it's just going to stager our efforts here. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
We must just be so much better at being a wiki than those ones I suppose. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 14:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
obviously -Xbony2 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Four levels of bots is unnecessary, limit them to just Staff and Admins then there's no need for anything other than just Bot. Whether it's open source or not is entirely irrelevant as it's more about whether it's destroying stuff or not.
Official translator sounds pointless as it is too limited for only Staff to gain a single extra permission, and not even a major one at that.
Editor protection seems a little extreme, there are very few if any pages that would need such a thing.
Staff minimum should be able to see deleted revisions of pages, you can't take old but useful information if it's being hidden.
Translating tiles is never mentioned (but editing and adding is), what level permissions would that require?
I agree with Santa's points too, especially Bureaucrats dealing with matters like Cloudflare.
Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 22:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like editor bots are going to go poof. Cursebot is here to stay though, since that's global across Gamepedia.
Official translator is kind of useless, yes.
I like editor protection- I think staff protection is extreme. It allows for important pages to be protected, like Module:OreDict, while still allowing people like KnightMiner to fix it.
This is my fault; it's hard to word this properly. Staff can still see what was of deleted pages, as they can now. We can't see deleted diffs/revisions, ex on wikt:Special:Contributions/ Notice how the date is crossed out and the diff doesn't have a link. Only admins (there, and here) can see it. I don't think diffs should be deleted though, unless they contain personal information, like Eloraam's address or something, which is why only admins should be able to see it.
Translating tiles is the same as editing them at the moment (staff only). There's no difference rights-wise; our extension doesn't disambiguate discriminate.
Repeat what I said earlier- admins should be hella trustworthy to become admins, so I don't think there's much point in restricting their power to a heavy level. If you don't trust an admin with Cloudflare, don't vote them for admin! (you should totally vote for me though, #bonynottrump2016). -Xbony2 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
And derp, Cloudflare rights aren't even a thing any more, so I'm going to remove them from my list. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
What about staff and admim bots?
Why did you ever make it then? :P
Editors can be made with just a few edits and a member of staff that wants to upgrade them, there's not much point for a page to be protected to such a low level.
Then we'll have to make Santa fix it so they can.
Ditch Bureaucrats then, if the admins are so trustworthy there's no need for an extra level considering the power they already hold (and you refuse to remove from them).
Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 10:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Since I'd like it so each user only needs to be in one group; "Bot" (staff bot) and "Admin Bot" are here to stay. I think one group becoming two groups isn't too much.
I dunno. It's more of a title, which is silly. Staff is going to be a "big tent" group now, I guess.
It's not really a low level. People promoted to editor are done so because they're somewhat trusted. I'd vouch and say editors are ten, no, twenty times more likely to not vandalize and not touch templates/modules that they don't understand.
Maybe. I think it's fine staying staff-only though, potentially all of the translations will be imported via bot. Although with descriptions, maybe it would be better to have it be editor+.
I tried last proposal. Everyone disagreed with me. Bureaucrats are here to stay. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
What rights, besides changing groups, should bureaucrats have that administrators shouldn't? -Xbony2 (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Admin Bot isn't needed either, there's not anything else they'd need to do compared to normal bots.
It works better as a big tent than making up roles and pretending it isn't.
There's not a demand for protecting pages down to that level though, which it is low as people who may have very little experience actually editing are being allowed to modify "protected" pages. What you're protecting them from is unspecified and seems non-existent. Even for templates/modules they can suggest changes in the talk page if they want to, and besides, if they don't understand it having the ability to edit it isn't going to help as anything they wanted changing would end up on the talk page anyway.
Descriptions effectively come as translations, there's no break between them at all (all the GT descriptions Retep added are just en-US translations). I don't think limiting who can translate tiles but still allowing the 2nd lowest level users to translate pages is logical.
Maybe you should of tried harder, a lot of the admin level permissions are reliant on being just as trust worthy as someone who is a Bureaucrat, it is not necessary with how the rest of the proposal is working unless admins have fewer permissions. If people have issues with that then they can argue it here anyway, this is a somewhat new proposal so what happened before isn't important if it's not changed to be fully relevant to what we're actually discussing now.
Abuse filters as they can affect every edit, achievements, connectstats, wikipoints, as that is bureaucratic stuff, as is the inter-wiki table. It should form a clear divide between admin rights for actually editing pages and bureaucratic rights for dealing with the backend.
Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 11:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Meh. You never know though. I was thinking making a command to mark up a modified lua navbox via bot would be quite useful, which would require bot-admin rights. There are other possible, although quite rare, reasons an admin bot could be useful, like if the wiki changes URLs. Relying on Curse to fix things like that for us would be a bit lame.
It's not that editors don't know what they're doing. It's that some editors do know. I think of editor-protection as staff-protection, plus a few users that can be trusted to not destroy everything, like KnightMiner modifying the OreDict module. Talk page changes are messy at best, and I'd rather not have them for as many pages as I can get away with.
I think translating tiles/descriptions should be an editor+ right. Translations of tiles are hard to revert, technical, and debatably experimental.
Retep and Santa stomped on it after I applied for bureaucrat, skipping admin. That's one of the reasons I lost that vote. I'd like to see those groups be one, but I don't think that's a term that other staff can agree to.
Keeping interwikis as admin+. Revoking other rights. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Choco: What xbony said about translation undoing.
Shouldn't the goal be to make it easier to revert and translate then rather than just hide them for staff to sometimes use but not much because it's effort? Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 15:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably, but until it is ready for usage it should probably remain editor+ only. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I suppose, but it shouldn't just be forgotten as the effort that went into making it work/exist in the first place will ultimately be wasted otherwise. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 22:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
feel free to nag on santa on that -Xbony2 (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll remind him that you sent me too. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 14:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Xbony: If you want people to be able to edit protected pages, nominate them for staff. Don't invent arbitrary protection levels so they can edit protected pages. -- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 00:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's like saying I have to accept a repair man as a new family member for them to be able to enter my house and fix my (um, leaking) shit. It's silly; staff is (or at least should be) a commitment, and not everybody wants one of those. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Going with your simile, they can go into your house and suggest a fix but can't actually carry it out. If it's the first time they're ever trying modifying template/modules, what they want to do might not be what they end up trying. So it is better to ask what you want and having someone who knows what they're doing do it, so in the future you'll have a better idea to suggest a fix. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 15:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
This goes beyond templates/modules. Maybe some of those remain staff-only, I get it. But potentially this can be applied to high traffic pages, like Getting Started (Main) and List of Mod Author Patreon accounts, and perhaps important mod pages. Vandalism against those sort of pages is only going to grow in the future (for sure- especially when 1.9/1.10 goes mainstream; I fully intend to make sure this wiki has as much info as possible on that version, so we're going to get more clicks, which means more vandalism), but we still want pages like those to be accessible past the small number of staff that would edit them. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Our vandalism is nearly only creating missing pages with stupid content, we've never had it on things like Getting Started. I think you're prioritising things based of what you expect to happen, in a different place to where it has and actually will. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 19:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
For the record, page protection can already be restricted to auto confirmed users, which prevents edits from random IPs and totally new accounts. If you have any specific examples of where that sort of protection wouldn't have stopped vandalism on a page you want non-staff editors to be able to edit, by all means. πŸ‡Retep998πŸ‡πŸ°Bunny Overlord🐰 19:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The Getting Started page was vandalized once actually :P auto confirmed didn't work so well there.
Obviously my one example doesn't make much of a point. My point is as this wiki grows, which it's been doing (and there's no way it'll stop ;)), vandalism of high traffic pages may increase and may need protection. In these cases, autoconfirmed protection might be not enough, but staff protection might be overkill. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see a situation like that forming, spammers aren't typically going to bother to autoconfirm themselves just to get banned. Our main source of 90%+ of the spam is IPs, which cannot edit autoconfirm protected pages. Maybe if we become much bigger it could be something to consider, but at the moment what we get spam wise just doesn't warrant bothering. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 22:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ look, an outdent^

Ewwwww, where'd the nice indent go? Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 14:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I still think it could be useful. To reiterate, it's like staff protection, but with a few extra folks who can be trusted to improve a page or not touch it if they don't know how to. It can also be used in the rare situation where autoconfirmed might not be enough, but staff is far too much. But since ya'll disagree, I'll probably strike it. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC) └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

Rare situation is the emphasis here. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 14:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ oh god, don't do this

The point is that it is a situation. Needing protection in general is a rare situation :P -Xbony2 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC) └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

Well it's not a situation because there's no examples of pages that currently need it. It might be in the future. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 19:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Well, it is partially to prepare for our future, and for when our future is not our future but our present. I think List of Mod Author Patreon accounts would be a good page to have editor protection. At the moment, and it has staff protection, since it's kind of an official FTB page (it's linked to at the top of forums and on other sites and stuff), but it won't hurt if editors could add to it. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

what's wrong with auto confirmed protection? -- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 05:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It's more or less the no-protection protection. It's good to stop random IPs from editing pages, but it isn't perfect. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
That's all we'd really have to worry about, uncomfirmed users are much more likely to be throwaway accounts for spamming than confirmed ones, and IPs are the most likely to spam anyway. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 12:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I could argue all day, but I don't see this going anywhere. What's next? -Xbony2 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Nagging Santa about translating tiles I suppose. Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 14:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
There should be a separate right, and a group for that right, for being able to import tilesheet and oredict entries. This group should then be assigned to the bots of staff users who understand how to work with the tilesheet and oredict system and can be trusted to not muck it up. πŸ‡Retep998πŸ‡πŸ°Bunny Overlord🐰 13:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Why? If a staff member doesn't know how to use them, they don't use them. Chocohead hasn't broken or created any tilesheets yet, since he doesn't know how to or doesn't want to. Same with a fair number of other staff. There's no point in separating those powers from staff.
I'm going to take away mass OreDict importing from editors, though. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The point is to only give it to the bots of staff, so that you don't accidentally import tiles or oredict stuff on your normal non-bot account. πŸ‡Retep998πŸ‡πŸ°Bunny Overlord🐰 13:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That's an alright idea, actually. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
So now, only bots can import tilesheets/mass import oredict. The regular OreDict entry manager is open to editors+, and the tile manager is open to staff+. I'm downgrading the later, since that would allow translations/descriptions, and to fix names and whatnot. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I knew you'd change your mind. :P Chocohead Nagβ€’ Editsβ€’ Staff 13:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Change my mind? It's still editor+ -Xbony2 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
done -Xbony2 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I can easily create a new right group for tiletranslators, which would allow access to TileTranslator, but not TileManager. Is this something we'd want? OH! And what about SheetManager? -- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 17:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to create that right for possible future usage, although for now it's staying editor+. I don't see a point in changing SheetManager from what it is per default. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

OK! RIP indentation. I've made a few final changes. I've defined a staff vote a 7-day event, as it is right now. I've also changed DAC to needing a 3-day vote; this is no clever guys can make a twenty person team to document a minor mod with two items, and so the ghost of RealSketch can't make a mod and nominate himself. What else needs to be done? -Xbony2 (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I disapprove of this. Originally I wanted to phase out the staff rank entirely, now you're just adding more ranks. This is against the wiki spirit. Bots are just bots, they should not have staff rights. Anyone should be able to own a bot once audited. Admin bots are bots with extended privs, eg. deletion. There should only be semi-protection (against new users), temp protection (only admins can edit, limited time period) and full protection (only admins can edit) and other minor protection policies (eg. move protection, template protection). DACs are stupid just make it so that they don't have to go through the standard new user procedure to get to editor and call it a day. Sysop situation here is also very disappointing. -- J.
Seriously, you should sign your messages properly. I though you were Jadedcat for a second.
Compared to how it was, this is more or less an improvement. It gives more rights to non-staff. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
the issue is that if feels more closed off if there is more "levels" of users. people don't actually go looking at the user rights page now do they. they mostly see the tags people choose to add to their sigs or on their profile. -- properly -- Preceding unsigned comment was added by Jinbobo (talk β€’ contribs)
Where's the issue? There's not really more levels- it's the same. I really wanted to merge admin/bureaucrat, but that was rejected. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

New editor retention, an invitation

As former wiki lead, I invite everyone to participate in the discussion on the issue of editor retention: Admin's noticeboard -- Jin. (so xbony2 doesn't think i'm jc)

Better Than Minecon 2016 2.0

Main article: Better Than Minecon

At the first two BTMs, PaladinAHOne did a panel about the wiki, where he talked about the wiki and answered a few questions (some of them silly, some of them serious). We aren't doing it again, though, as there's not much that can be said that hasn't been said in the first two panels. It would be boring, to say in the least. But, we're still there!

  • Representing the wiki, I have a booth for the wiki. It's a shameless advertisement ;) as the best advertisements are. It's also a mini-jungle with some "corner trivia" and other junk. Anyway, it's on floor 5, near the Vampirism booth and the Better With Mods booth.
    BTM 2016 2.0.png
    I could show more screenshots, but that would ruin the point of you visiting the booth, now wouldn't it? Don't expect much, though, it's kind of a joke/ad booth.
  • 3tusk and exzhawk (you know the former) are hosting a panel named "Translation in a Nutshell - The Chinese modded Minecraft community". It's not wiki-focused, but they might mention us at least once.
  • Sokratis and Chocohead have their own booths for their mods, ArmorPlus/WeaponsPlus and IndustrialCraft 2 respectively. Pretty exciting.

-Xbony2 (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

JS Updates

Curse recently updated MediaWiki. If your User JS uses the "importScript" function, you need to fix it, like I did here. It looks like most users are already fine though. -Xbony2 (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like only Sokratis12GR is still using that function, and I fixed it for him. -- SatanicSantaπŸŽ…FTB Wiki Admin 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)