RimWorld Wiki talk:Community portal
Page Creation Permissions
- Also interested in finding out this info, especially TALK pages. The "Community portal" says under Want to discuss stuff? "If you want to discuss anything specific to an article, you can use the Discussion page for that article.", but if an article's talk page is still empty that's not really possible: unregistered users are shown and newly-registered users are shown -- so it's easier to just vandalize right away (editing articles) than to talk about what we want to improve. :-( -- Noob hoarder (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- The answer is everywhere (it's the most FAQ):
- Under "How to help out" within this same page:
- You can also create "New pages" for missing pages but your account must have at least 10 edits a priori, this is configuration to prevent vandal bots. If you don't meet the count yet, just perform any of the above mentioned tasks to rise your count.
- In Help:Basics:
- Under "Creating New Articles": With a brand new account, you will need at least 10 edits to be able to make a new article. This is an anti-spam bot measure.
- Check out the Special Pages area to see articles that could use links, pictures, categories, etc. Fixing up grammar and spelling on pages is always appreciated as well, and is also an easy way to get your 10 edits.
- ...and also...
- ...in my talk page: User talk:Yoshida Keiji. 15:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do get that vandal bots are a problem to public sites, but what good is it to allow a bot to vandalize actual, useful, important articles but not empty discussion pages?
- New members can't even create their own(!) user page or user talk page.
- Maybe pseudo-empty discussion page stubs (»Use this discussion page to discuss the article's content, propose changes etc.«) that auto-vivify along with every article could help? Coming from other wikis I also find it very strange that I'm required to edit the actual articles in order to be allowed to suggest edits to articles. It just feels wrong to trample all over someone's work instead of being able to add a section to the discussion page politely proposing a change along with a proper explanation on how this change would benefit the article. When editing the article right away any reasoning behind the change is lost, discussion is impossible. Previous authors just see their work »corrected«, maybe don't intuit the reason for the change, feel offended, revert it (also without proper discussion) and contribute to an atmosphere of mutual disrespect and hostility that was never intended and would have been prevented if only the discussion page had been doing its job: being open for discussion.
- If auto-vivification is too hard to implement, maybe permissions could be fine-tuned to allow for creation of discussion pages and only need ten edits for actual articles?
- If that, too, isn't an option, maybe long-standing users could give the wiki a once-over and create a discussion page for each and every article? I'd certainly volunteer to help with that once I have the edits to be allowed to. Except, of course, if discussion is explicitly not wanted, in which case I'd love to be pointed to the reasoning behind such sentiment.
- Another idea involving manual labour: privileged users seeing the first edit of a new member could just upgrade them. Bots don't make meaningful changes to an article, so if the first edit seems well thought through it's likely its author is a human. Olfan (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Formatting guideline for "Weapon" pages
Version 1.0 is out and I'm not sure if more will be added as to evaluate the usefulness of this at the time, but since we are editing such pages, this is my draft and I would like everybody else's opinions to polish this layout and make it standard to all related articles.Yoshida Keiji(Let's talk) 02:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Formatting guideline for Biome guides
Discuss what would you expect from Biome specific guides, the content, the parameters in which it shall be focused on, what it must have and what nots. How would you give points based on a score system to determine whether an article shall be part of the Community with members consentient by including it in mainspace or if it shall remain a user exclusive article that solely exposes the views of a single person rather everybody. Yoshida Keiji(Let's talk) 12:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts for the future (frontpage, templates, SMW)
Since this wiki doesn't have an Admin noticeboard, this talk page appears to be the best spot to raise issues or thoughts.
Recently I've uploaded a couple of pictures, extracted uncompressed from the game files. I tried to name them sensibly before uploading. Partly as a result of that, there are now de facto duplicates here and there, in various quality. We can try to deal with that, or just let it be. I've also started categorising images. It makes it easier to find them later, and use them in articles, if users can look through categories.
Because most "things" have 3-4 images now (east, north, south), the initial idea was to add them to a small gallery on pages. It helps to fill out some pages, and later we can add "live" shots of the animals and such as well. There is much I didn't upload, however, such as hair styles, body differences, and loads of interface images.
Yesterday PigeonGuru prompted me about the intent of the image uploads, and I touched on some more topics, including an idea for changing the frontpage. This is (probably) the page new users see first. Hope I don't step on any toes here, but I do think it could be improved. It's usually a good idea to have a brief intro or summary of the game, and those links to policy and consent and suchlike looks a little off for the frontpage, at least in such a prominent position. I see there have been quite some storms in here with edit wars, so that is probably why, but maybe it could be placed elsewhere?
RimWorld is a dark-themed game with, suffice to say, some pretty darn dark behaviours at times (like the hats meme). I'm not sure how much extra work it would be, how badly if would affect tables and so on, but it might be fitting with a dark-coloured theme for the wiki as well, to better reflect the look in-game. Unfortunately the game doesn't really have much art assets to go on in terms of UI (it is very basic with boxes and suchlike), but otherwise we could have used some of that here, for infoboxes, stylised headings and the like. Any thoughts about this? Would it be a total no-go? I did look through the history of the frontpage a few weeks back, and it looked to have had basically the same design from the start. Have people sort of built brick by brick since then, or was it decided to have it like that, and we shouldn't change it?
- I don't think there was much of a "decision" regarding the frontpage, nobody just ever bothered changing it. I'm in favour of having a short description of the game on the frontpage. As far as the theme for RimWorld, it's as light or dark as the player wants to make it. Some colonies are all rainbows and kittens, others consist of nothing but organ-harvesting psychopaths. It reflects more on the player than on the game. --Mehni (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. Welcome, and thank you for your additions.
Dear Cthulu... I've been sat here for hours trying to wrap my puny head around it, and it still doesn't make all that much sense. Like the main author Spdskatr says in the Define/doc:
This template defines the stats for an item that, after a long and confusing chain of transclusions, will end up in Template:Infobox/Thing.
There are loads of templates that do various things, including tiny stuff like closing a table, or making a heading. The chain-transclusions make it very hard to read and understand for regular users, or even quite experienced ones like myself. There are some errors here and there on pages, and many others still use the infobox main template instead, but given the above, it's hard to try to fix things. For all I know, it will break something else.
It is honestly tempting to start anew (and copying the relevant bits of code) instead of keep banging my head against the wall and not really getting anywhere. If we were to start over, I'd suggest to use one template for each thing instead of super-templates with loads of sub-templates and chaining. It's much easier to deal with both for users and staff -- because it's more easily understood. This is kind of a nightmare example, but imagine trying to wrap your head around this as a new user :D
Another dark horse here, however, is the SMW. That too is hard to get a good grip on, because it appears to be dealt with in other templates as well. More chaining.
That brings me to another possibility: Using Cargo instead of SMW. Especially on the management/overview side, it is much better to use than SMW. Essentially it's a MySQL database, so it's easy to get an overview of everything, instead of the complex setup of triplets from SMW, and no proper database or table where users or admins can look at the data, check it, and fix it. Managing both the templates and the data would be easier.
Usually SMW is also a drain on performance, though I don't know if that is the case here. As usual there are lots more property+query pages than content pages (and outdated entities), but we're not talking about millions here, so it may be manageable.
I'm hesitant to suggest it ofc, because it's not a small task. I did it for Pillars of Eternity, alone, and it almost broke me, sapped me of energy. But having done it, I can use much of that code base (it largely remains intact I see, although I've not been active there for a year or two, and resigned as a wiki guardian).
All in all this wouldn't be small matters of course, and a lot of work, but I do think it would benefit the wiki, and probably make it easier to update pages now that 1.0 is out, and there are likely to be fewer mass-changes going forward.
Would be grand to hear some feedback about these ideas from the staff, ideally including Zesty. If it's not agreeable by others, either as a whole or the individual ideas, then say so and we can end the discussion here.
- (Brief draft here that can be deleted later)
- Obviously needs a ton of changes as the colours are all messed up, but perhaps it gives a rough idea of what I had in mind? Imgur image of draft. Wanted to test out using the background from the game as the background here (I seriously love that image, it really sets the mood for the game). The central content div is slightly transparent so the background image is visible, but without distorting the reading experience too much (Well, that's the end goal). Happy accident that the logo fits fairly well in the top left corner. Not sure what that gradient is about, but that should be altered as well so the whole logo shows. --Pangaea (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting. Tried to check how quickly pages are generated by using Edit -> Show preview and looking at the parser stuff on the bottom. Pages that use the Define template is routinely about 1.0 to 1.2 seconds slower than pages that use the infobox main template. Yet both contain similar amounts of SMW data. So it seems like it's the template that slows thing down, and not necessarily SMW. See if you get similar results. It's a pretty big difference when one type of page generates in 0.3-ish seconds, and another type in 1.5 seconds. Pangaea (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know how to disable the spammy 'thanks for X' notifications?
Uploading images doesn't work even after 10 edits
Hi, y'all. I joined the wiki today because I saw a few missing images for buildings from the Royalty expansion, and wanted to upload the assets I found to help the community out. I saw there was a 10-page edit requirement before you can create new pages (which images are apparently included in). I've edited 10 pages (more than just changing a piece of punctuation for most of it (^: ) but still can't upload images.
- Unfortunately the upgrading of user privileges is automated and annoyingly slow. I think an administrator could do it manually, but by its likely to have resolved itself by the time they see and respond to this. Give it time and should allow you to do it. Personally I think the user account requirements are a little overbearing and act as disincentives to casual editors but there's not much I can do to fix them. In the mean time, if I can help let me know. Side note, don't forget to sign your posts with 4 ~'s like this:~~~~ Harakoni (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Btw, good work on Body Parts. I've never had cause to look closely at it, and god it was a mess Harakoni (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aw, you're too kind! I was a copy-editor for my school's yearbook and currently am for my company's newsletter; god knows I've spent enough time benefiting from this wiki to give some of my skills back. I'm still working up the gumption to tackle the page on supported mods... which still references 1.1 😂😭 Kfsass (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Btw, good work on Body Parts. I've never had cause to look closely at it, and god it was a mess Harakoni (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, from the unofficial Rimworld Discord server!
We're currently experiencing an issue with troubleshooter burnout, due to people coming into the server and refusing to read any of the pins or FAQ information, sometimes refusing to do as we ask to help figure out their issues, and just a general flood that is starting to overwhelm our volunteers.
It's been proposed during discussions about the issue, that we put something on the internet that is actually searchable, such as on a wiki or what have you, to facilitate people potentially doing basic troubleshooting tasks themselves, before coming to us with the issue. We were hoping you'd be amenable to having a page created on the official wiki, specifically for modding troubleshooting. The hope is that, with something people can actually look up themselves, it would stem the tide a little, or at least give us something outside the Discord to point at. How say you all, if I may inquire?
Hope you're all safe and well. Trisscar
Edit: I should mention we'd be the ones maintaining it, not expecting yall to take on more work outta the blue. Figured asking permission was an idea though. XD
- The wiki hosts a number of pages about modding (though some are admittedly outdated) and guides are common as well. I see no reason it shouldn't be on here, ultimately the wiki is meant to be an aid to the user base. Any pages will still be under the normal rules and moderation ofc and dedicated wikis like the SoS2 and Bestiary wikis are still better places for actual mod content, but what this proposes seems sound.
- You won't have page creation privileges yet because you're a new user (you need a min num of edits, can't change that on my end), so I've created your user page so you can experiment. If you have a specific page you'd like created, let me know by linking it here, or stickking something on my talk page. It should probably be the in Modding Tutorials namespace, for example Modding Tutorials/Example page name. :Lastly you can sign posts with 4 ~'s like this ~~~~ Harakoni (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Wiki Mod.
How to help out?
The only problem is it's not possible to create new pages...
This image  should go in Fine stone tile with the caption
Fine tiles (from left to right: [[sandstone blocks|sandstone]], [[granite blocks|granite]], [[limestone blocks|limestone]], [[slate blocks|slate]], [[marble blocks|marble]]).
Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 14:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can only upload files or create new pages once you're autoconfirmed by the bot. That happens a little while after you make 10 edits. Its annoying but unfortunately not something I can change. If you prefer I can upload the file once I'm somewhere I can easily convert from webp to something the wiki recognizes (another annoying thing I can't fix), but feel free to make the requisite edits yourself if you're willing. If you have any further issues, feel free to post kn my talk page or message me on discord, I'm fairly active on the Unofficial Rimworld Discord as well. Harakoni (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Extensions and MediaWiki out of date
I'm a little surprised that the wiki hasn't been updated with more recent versions of extension and core software. Almost all the extensions I checked out, plus the MediaWiki version itself, is around 4 years out of date. Don't know if that has security implications too, but something should probably be done about it?
Secondly, and this is just a small point really given all that could be done here, but I noticed a note about cover on many pages, such as autocannon turret. That note is incorrect, because that isn't how cover works for those items/buildings. The cover that is mentioned in definitions if the cover you get behind that "thing", it's not the cover that thing gets itself. I saw a video reference about a bloke shooting at a miniturret or whatever, which was supposed to show that the cover is incorrect. But that isn't how the whole thing works. You always needed sandbags to protect autocannons and such, and that hasn't changed I suppose (not played since 1.0 version). But try to cover behind an autocannon (cross your fingers it doesn't blow up), and it should give you cover protection. The percentage depends on the angle iirc, but it is 50% in the game files. Pangaea (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- User:Pangaea - the need to update is known about, the issue is that it is not something the active staff can do. Tynan has been made aware, and hopefully it will be resolved. Thanks for pointing it out though.
- As for the cover bug from turrets, you've misunderstood the issue being described. There are two distinct concepts here. There is:
- The cover the turret itself provides when a pawn stands behind it. This works fine and it will provide the cover that is listed in its definitions, in the infobox in game, and on the wiki page (though as you say, actually doing so might be ill advised given it might explode; And
- The cover something like sandbags provides TO the turret itself. This does not work. Placing a turret behind sandbags does not protect the turret (except for "wild" shots but those are by far the minority). This is contrary to expectations AND to the accuracy percentages you get when you select a drafted pawn, and then mouse over the turret. The game tells you that turrets benefit fully from cover, but empirical testing demonstrates that is not the case.
- We might need to make that clearer. If this was confusing to you, it is likely confusing to others. Harakoni (Wiki Moderator) (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the thorough reply. In that case I misunderstood what you/the wiki tried to convey with those notes about turrets. Think I also saw mention of it recently in the 1.4 discussion, that this may be partly solved. I wasn't aware that it didn't work correctly, and assumed turrets benefited from cover. I haven't built a single one since I started playing again in 1.3, so had no real-life experience. About the updates, I'm aware this has to be done by the admins, and hopefully that gets done by whomever Tynan has in charge of such tasks. I also want to add that the wiki as a whole isn't well-suited for mobile reading, which for better or worse, has become important these days. I'm sure there must be extensions for that, so if you have a line to Tynan or others in charge, please mention that as well. Pangaea (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Screen reader content
Alternatively, don't use both — just use the icon like a currency symbol — so it just reads " 15" with an icon for sighted and text for screen reader, not " 15 Plasteel" (read & copied as "Plasteel 15 Plasteel") like it does now. That's like writing "$15 dollars". Saizai (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Be more transparent about create permissions and don't restrict talk page creation
I couldn't create Template talk:Required Resources to put this comment, nor e.g. to suggest a fix.
Seeing just an impossible to create-edit template talk page is hostile, gave the impression that the wiki is admin-only (not actually a generally editable wiki), and required having to have enough knowledge of wikis to find and add to this page. Most people would just not bother contributing. This doesn't seem justified.
I suggest that creating a new talk page for an existing main page shouldn't require special privileges — and that the "you must have 10 edits to edit" restriction (and any others) be stated very clearly on login, and on pages or actions affected, and should link to whatever page where one is supposed to take the contribution that would otherwise have been done in the restricted action. And removing this permissions restriction in the first place, especially for email confirmed users (which ought to generally stop spambots). Saizai (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)