MTG Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard
Cardtag formatting[edit source]
I noted in the Wiki Slack channel that I find the cardtag formatting to be a bit too aggressive; the bold brown text stands out more than I like. If it were up to me, I'd simply remove the bolding; the actual color I don't have much of an opinion about. --Sene (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Considering that proper cardlinks/tooltips are actively being pursued, finally, how would we feel about letting them take on the styling of ordinary, underlined, blue links? That passes muster on the forums. Do we feel there's a need for differentiated styling here on the wiki? --Corveroth (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Wiki identity and name change[edit source]
I want to start a discussion about the possibility of renaming this wiki to simply the "MTG Wiki", rather than "MTG Salvation Wiki". I am not aware of any potential administrative roadblocks to doing so, and I welcome being informed of any that might exist. If there are none, I imagine that the decision ultimately lies with the wiki community, and I think that there are several potential benefits to going forward with a new name.
Currently, our name is a historical artifact. The wiki began as an offshoot of the MTGS forums, and when it existed solely as a component of that site, the naming made sense. However, even then, the purpose of the wiki was primarily to cover the game itself and related topics, not to document MTGS (although admittedly, there were a few articles regarding forum games and persons). Now, the wiki retains that name, but is also a part of the larger Gamepedia. That membership serves to highlight the oddity of the wiki being named, not for the game it documents, but for just one (Curse) community site. We are not exclusively a part of MTG Salvation, and we are the foremost MTG encyclopedia on the internet (our Wikia counterpart is hardly a blip on the radar).
In light of this evolving context, I think we'd be well served to change our name. Such a change would make our wiki more open and more credible. Rather than implying that our wiki is a project for only a fraction of the game's players, we would be rebranding ourselves simply as the preeminent (if unofficial) resource for information about the game. By severing the explicit link to MTGS, we would make ourselves more accessible by avoiding tribal concerns. The wiki could stand on its own, separated from anyone's views on the history, atmosphere, or moderation of the MTGS forums. Reputation aside, I think that the current name diminishes the wiki's standing, by portraying it as only a fraction of a whole, rather than an independent, fully-fledged resource.
Behind the scenes, of course, nothing would change. Both sites remain Curse sites, regardless of the future of this proposal. This is simply a matter of branding and perception, and in that domain, I think that an encyclopedia is best served by declaring itself apart from any faction. --Corveroth (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have nothing against this change. I usually am to lazy and type MTGS anyway. Simply dropping the S doesn't seem like a big deal to me. - Yandere Sliver 11:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm kind of attached to the current name, since I was here when it was created. Also, it feels like a definite separation from the forums. And then there is http://mtg.wikia.com/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_Wiki, which could cause some confusion. That said, I understand your reasoning and I'm not the one who decides. --Hunter (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- The conversation regarding this has moved at a breakneck pace since this was first posted. Sene joined the Gamepedia Slack and explained the shared history of both the Forums and Wiki, which persuaded the Gamepedia folks, MTGS assented, and the rest of the active admins are on board. I pinged your user page to join us on Slack, and this moved a lot faster than I'd anticipated. I hope you're not too terribly upset. --Corveroth (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- No preferences from me, i just find deep Salvation in the current name ;P --Hanmac (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
With consensus among the admins and a broad preference for the name
mtg, the deed is done! We also have redirects from
magic and the old name, to ensure that we're no old links break. --Corveroth (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
An admin from another Gamepedia wiki has suggested a change that we could make over here. Interwiki links, the technology that allows us to make links like Wikipedia:George Washington with only the page title, rather than a URL, can be used for non-wiki links as well. They can be made to work for any scenario in which there's a common URL "stem". In practice, that means we could use interwiki links for replacing Template:DailyRef with a syntax like
[[wizards:feature/magic-story-podcast-james-wyatt-2017-02-15]] (or MTGS forum links, or Blogatog links, or whatever else is common and consistent).
I'm of mixed opinions on this idea. On the one hand, it's a bit simpler for editors. On the other, these links would become simple inline links, rather than references. I'm inclined to think that this breaks the implicit contract of wikilinks, both because wikilinks should lead to further encyclopedic content, and because an given inline link could now lead to an external website without warning.
Additionally, the subject came up in the context of performing maintenance on the broken DailyRef links. While interwiki links could minimize that effort if all that changes is that "stem", our existing TumblrRef and DailyRef accomplish exactly that. Neither solution effectively addresses problems like the one Wizards gave us. In a situation like the one we're in, the references approach has actually given us additional information to help resolve the bad links, whereas the URL fragments in an interwiki link provide less data.
Ultimately, I'm disinclined to utilize interwiki links for this purpose. However, I'm only one editor. If enough of our community is interested, it is something we have the power to implement. Discuss! --Corveroth (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer that offsite links that aren't Wiki links should display as such (i.e. have the arrow icon thing). I also haven't been using the DailyRef template at all, essentially, partly because I have in many cases linked to the Internet Wayback Machine rather than directly to Magicthegathering.com in order to play around the next time they change their website and break all their links... --Sene (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- We are still in the process of updating around 600 articles, because DailyRef will not produce proper results most of the time. Wizard is so bad with their site structure, that I am highly doubtful that interwiki links might work there. Take a look at these links: en/MTGO article1 en article1 en/MTGO article2 en article2. This is just very different behavior. If interwiki links can easily work around these inconsistencies I think it would be a good idea to switch otherwise not really.
- On Blogatog and other blogs, I would be more happy to switch. Simply because tumblr forces a proper structure onto its editors. I mean if Maro ever decides to delete his blog we are fiddling around with wayback machine in either case. - Yandere Sliver 11:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Log in[edit source]
- Well, that's interesting. Did you merge a Twitch account? --Corveroth (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's probably something related to the Twitch/Gamepedia merge. I let them know on Slack and they're looking into it. If you wanna try merging in the mean time, that's on you. --Corveroth (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, they just poked something behind the scenes. Try re-logging in. --Corveroth (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- But thanks to that merge, now we don't suffer anymore of the (1) (2) bot registration problem! Yay! --Tuamir (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)