Archive This page has an archive
Old discussions can be found at the Archive.

New Global Navigation Bar (and other changes)

If you have visited our wiki recently, you should have noticed that white bar that follows you wherever you go. This is Wikia's new global nav bar under global testing. I would like to receive comments on this bar so we can build a wiki-wide consensus on this issue and react accordingly should the changes be pushed out officially.

My comment first: Didn't like it, mostly for its hue clashing with our wiki's ones. Also, the circle avatar looks weird as most uses a square one. Thirdly, this is a "Wiki", not a "Wikia". They seriously got it wrong.

Also some new page layouts are under testing on specific wikis. This page has the introduction of this new layout. Also looks bad. Recommended content looks weird (you may accidentially looked at another wiki before you know) and ads become too intrusive. Ivan247Talk PageContributions 04:28, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Towards the topic of the gloval nav bar, to be honest, I think the concept itself is a good diea, but how it was carried out wasn't as good. Under the right circumstances, the bar can be very useful, but its layout is pretty bad. When the thing first came out, Istarted commenting on the actual page and reading the other comments, so here's what I've gathered from that:
  1. The bar should (obviously) have an option to customize its colour. I mean, most wikis I've been to use dark, or at least non-bright white or grey colours. Also, pretty much everything else here is customizable, too.
  2. Smaller size. Clearly, it doesn't need to take up this much space. The font doesn't need to be this big, and the space above and below the text doesn't need to be this big.
  3. Square avatar. Like you said, Ivan, it looks weird. I mean, most avatars are meant for square frames anyways (you should see mine. I might screenshot it later).
  4. Smaller drop-down menu. Even the old one was pretty bad, but I never actually used the thing anyways. I mean, it covers half my page when I mouse over it by accident :/
  5. Less-prominent "Start a wikia" button. This could be spammed a lot by people just seeing the button and thinking, "hey, why not?"
  6. Integrated search bar back. As it is now, the global nav bar almost seems like an ad, just because it looks so out of place. I think this bar, and the old search bar would be best.
  7. "Wiki" instead of "Wikia." Now I'm not totally sure if this is really a problem, but "wiki" is more widely accepted, so I think it should be there instead of "wikia" just to seem more integrated.
  8. The bar doesn't "follow" the page. For some reason, it doesn't do this to me, but from what I've heard, this get's very annoying and can cover certain things. Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 06:10, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

Also, just might be time to update the featured media thing :P Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 06:11, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

I've heard about you discussing about the nav bar at community central. My main aim is to obtain comments within our wiki so we can have a stronger overall views on the issue. Thanks for replying anyway! Meanwhile you can change it yourself using custom CSS and JS. I've found codes that can change the colour of the bar, shrink it and also make the avatar square. Ivan247Talk PageContributions 06:19, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

I dislike it too. I used a script so it changes color and doesn't follows you, so at least it is better. But there's absolute outrage about it, and there's the fact that Wikia definitely won't change it until the week with five SR updates... Poisonshot ProfileTalkNo offense intended. 12:58, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

Five SR updates in a week?! That doesn't make any sense! (... Omega16)(Talk) 15:18, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

I seem to be sort of fine with it, though I could really do without the large "+" button and it spamming a large wall of stuff I don't even care about. (... Omega16)(Talk) 15:18, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

About your first post, exactly :p. Five SR updates in a week will never happen. So basically, I'm saying wikia won't remove it, ever...Yet around 99% of the editing community doesn't wants it. Wikia now only cares about it's reading one, not knowing the editing one is much more important. In fact, Wikia could theorically live without the reading community. Btw I think we should add articles on species and head in the bar with links to pages such as "character". Especially species, which can be rather important.Poisonshot ProfileTalkNo offense intended. 17:31, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

I think not only the readers but the mobile users. The new design, in my opinion, is basically made to look like how many mobile systems look, but that does not fit the PC and laptops! Even though more people are using mobile systems, editors are still mostly PC based. (Talking about this, complex templates like SR stage is basically useless on mobile. I should fix this tomorrow. It's important to ensure that the mobile users can use the wiki properly.) And did you meant to suggest add pages such as Species and Heads to the LOCAL nav bar? (the one that is still yellow) If yes, I can make some consideration on this. Ivan247Talk PageContributions 17:45, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

And it seems like an overhaul to Gamepedia would be a long and tedious project, but that's about the only lead I have right now that'll solve this problem. Not even sure how Gamepedia works entirely, in the ways of customization and such, but I figure it's roughly the same. Damn, so much has happened since I've been caught up in other games. This volcano stage better be somethin' fancy. --Shnowshner200 (talk) 23:09, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

An Issue of Abandoned Pages

DB Wiki has had 1000+ articles for a long time now, which is good. There are a lot of articles with sufficient content that are linked together with other meaningful articles. And then there's these pages, which are floating around the Wiki seeming on their own and are blatently unfinished. The latest revision for one of them was 2013, by someone who even acknowledged it was dead. Why do these exist? Whoever the people were that worked on them have long forgotten, some even dating back to 2010 and earlier.

Of course these articles aren't harming anything, but they're not really making anything better either. The pages I showed above were only from the first list of all pages, and that's not even all of them! Considering very few know of their existance and even less actually care enough to improve them, should they just be removed? Landing on one of these via "Random Article" isn't exactly the most impressive sight. --Shnowshner200 (talk) 23:12, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

You know what, why hasn't this topic arisen until now?! If I click the Random page link, there is a very good chance that I will go to:
  1. Stick Ranger enemy page (usually pre-Castle)
  2. Disambiguations
There are at least two pages that have absolutely nothing on them, yet claim to be a guide. All they have is introductory text, and I sadly couldn't find either of them. I actually once wondered why not all of these guides are moved as user pages, but I guess it is because they provide information, albeit opinionated. A surprising amount of guides have very few stages completed, some only going to Grassland 1 or 2. Then there are the guides that list certain stages, such as challenging stages (and offer tips), gold-abundant stages, and stages that give you a lot of EXP. I don't have any problem with these, except that there are way too many that should be on the wiki. But there are also a lot of guides offering help on one stage only, which is somewhat ridiculous, even if it is a hard stage. Don't get me started on the team pages. Long story short, there are tons of combinations for teams, why would a guide for one specific setup be useful to most players? And the guides for "powerful teams", for those beginners who want to follow a supposed successful team with the very brief description about it. Now we all basically follow one guide on the whole wiki (not even bothering to update its main article) and the rest of the guides now lie there, abandoned, quite a few offering little information that can be found on other guides. But what could we do about these? Delete all or most of them? That seems rather extreme. Move them all to user pages? Maybe, we'll see what others think, although this would eliminate them from the search for people who actually could be helped with the guides. Leave them there? Okay, if everyone else is alright with what I said in this post. I really want to hear what others have to say about these abandoned guides. Where the party's at Σ Meet the ghosts of my former self 01:17, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I completely agree. I've spent hours pressing the "Random Article" button looking for something to edit, and all that pops up are these guides, that of course, no one can really do anything with :/
In my opinion, we should start a notice period of a month or so, saying that any Stick Ranger guide deemed "abandoned" and "incomplete" (we'd probably want to list them too) or whatever will be deleted unless someone objects and moves it to their user page or finishes it. Sure, it sounds extreme, but honestly, who actually uses any of these guides except the ultimate Stick Ranger guide? If anything, all it's doing is inconviniencing the editors :/
Last time I checked, there were 120 or something Stick Ranger guides (that are properly categorized). That's, like, 9 or 10 percent of this wiki. Useless Stick Ranger Guides that no one ever edits or reads.
But it's not only Stick Ranger Guides, there are plenty of other articles that don't need to be here either. (things like those "crew" pages and other stuff)
I feel like this is almost a repeat of that Dan-Ball fan art stuff. Maybe eventually we'll have to make the "Abandoned Stick Ranger Guide Wiki" XD Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 02:25, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
Also, I thought I should add this: there are a lot of useless or unused photos around this wiki as well that could be removed. Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 02:33, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
What I though we could do is take any "possibly useful information" out of said guides and apply them to one whole page or put them in TUSRG, and then delete them/move to archive/move to User Page. That way, they're not clogging up the system and their information is not lost. As for the unused files, unless there is something mildly interesting about them, they should be removed. --Shnowshner200 (talk) 17:45, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
Well, now that you mention it, extracting anything useful and putting it into TUSRG and deleting the rest would probably be the best option. Even though there aren't many useful guides with information not covered in TUSRG already. Putting them in an archive or user page wouldn't really help anyone. I mean, half of these authors have completely vanished from Wikia altogether, and the other half that might still be lurking probably won't care, being hat they didn't care to finish or improve their guide in the first place. But lets say we did archive them all on a user page or somthing. The whole purpose of these articles are to be read, but hiding them in an archive will basically be the same as deleting them for most users. Point being, we should start a warning period, saying any "incomplete" guide will be deleted in ____ amount of time (any useful information would be moved to the TUSRG). If anyone objects to the deletion of a guide, they have to improve or otherwise finish it so it's no longer a candidate for deletion. There's no point in keeping things that people don't want or ever use. Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 19:12, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
It's been a few days (16) since anything was mentioned here, and that was because I though we had come to a conclusion and had nothing else to say, but I guess you were waiting for a response... I might go ahead and work on a template or banner for such things until someone approves/disapproves of this proposal...  --Shnowshner200 (talk) 01:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Due to the policy created on X/X/X, guides that are severely outdated or unfinished and have not been edited for X days will be deleted forever. If you plan on making a guide, be sure that it is completed and/or updated, or you might lose all your work!

If you want to know more, ask for a change, or notify the wiki you will be gone until a certain date, please tell us here (link to a talk page)

There, it's a start. We could also, possibly, include somewhere on the wiki our policy for creating SR guides so this doesn't surprise anyone when it happens. --Shnowshner200 (talk) 01:32, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
It looks good. I believe it should also come with a [[Category:Candidates for deletion]]. Where the party's at Σ Meet the ghosts of my former self 02:41, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks good. I think we should wait for Ivan's approval before starting anything, though. We might actually be able to mention the guide policy thing in the Manual of Style. Also, you migth want to add smething aong the lines of "if you disagree with this guide's deleion, please state why in the article's talk page" and "information not already covered in complete guides may also be transphered from these guides to other relevant sources" just so people have an idea of what we're doing. Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 03:47, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding, but I think that we can also have a system that allow people who have their outdated guides deleted to be restored should they agree with certain rules. Ivan247Talk PageContributions 04:41, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

True, but how is that gonna be possible? Most of them have already left and there's, what, 20-25 of us altogether that are still active? ... Omega16(Talk) 07:49, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
I would think it an easier solution to simply move said abandoned pages to user-supages, thus not having them deleted in the rare chance a user comes back to edit them, but they now will not show up on the random page link. As well, as user-supages the guides probably won't require the disclaimer template.   ZXiconTalk 14:23, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that would be any better, in my opinion. The whole point of these guides is to be read. Are they currently being read? At least not most of them. If they're deleted, sure, no one will ever be able to see them or work on them, but moving the to a user-sub page would be about the same. Seriously, how often do you ever see one of these people who hasn't even logged into wikia as a whole in years come back and finish a guide (who's information has probably already been covered on other pages). Point being, yes, deletion seems extreme, but if these people can't fix their guides and they're clearly helping no one, what's the point in keeping them? If they really want to keep their guide, they can fix it or store it somewhere else in their computer, because it really isn't helping anyone here, as it is or in a user sub-page. That's why we would have a notice period to tell these people what is going on in case they wish to save their guide.
Well, a notice period like we mentioned earlier might be better than hiding them somewhere. Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 19:24, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I kind of like Ivan's idea better. If an owner of a guide came back and wanted to update his or her guide, only to find out that it had been deleted, they could request for it to be shown again and edit it. Hiding it from view would solve our problem while being able to retrieve it for the owners to edit them again, and if they leave them not up to date, we could just hide it from view again. Can't say anything about Stick Ranger players who actually could use these guides, though. Besides, if it wasn't possible, then why would Ivan mention it? Where the party's at Σ Meet the ghosts of my former self 20:42, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Well, all "hiding it" would really be is sticking everything on a user sub-page (?). I still don't think there's a point in keeping something no one wants hidden somewhere, though. If it's "hidden," it's obviously still going to be here. We don't keep our old food wrappers hidden in a box somewhere just because "we might want them later." To be honest, we need to let these things go. No one is using them. No one is editing them. If they still want them, that's what the notification period would be good for. Call me extreme, but there's no point in keeping this junk around here. Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 20:54, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
im always late to these god
I feel, if this is a policy we're going to accept, then we might as well get used to deleting them. I'm pretty sure that anyone who is gone for as long as they've been will not be coming back. Moving onto user pages would work, of course, but what's the purpose? If someone really wanted to finish their guide it'd probably be done as we speak instead of unfinished for over 5 years. I don't feel we should worry about anyone currently inactive coming back because it's quite obvious they won't be, and if anyone did, then the front page should probably have a link to show our SR guide policy and maybe to this discussion. Deleting would instantly remove the problem while relocating it would be an ugly cover-up to a serious issue we have on this wiki. --Shnowshner200 (talk) 01:26, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! This is my point exactly. There's no point in hiding these things somewhere. Anyone who actually wants these guides will probably be following them, so the notice period will be enough. To most people, deletion and relocation would be pretty much the exact same thing: no one would ever see them. There's no point in keeping them. Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 04:46, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Anyone know exactly how many abandoned pages there are in total? Just a thought. ... Omega16(Talk) 06:33, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Most likely the majority of the "Stick Ranger Guides" category, which at this point contains over 100 entries. In other words, a lot. ZXiconTalk 14:08, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Well, I expected 100 pages or so, but I kinda wanted an exact number. This is because I'm wondering how much of a hit we're about to take, if we delete these. ... Omega16(Talk) 23:12, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
ughhhhhh good night...  --Shnowshner200 (talk) 23:36, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
FYI I'm not really interested in maintaining my guide anymore; it's just too much work for little gain. I might move it to an archive under my user namespace, but I definitely agree that something should be done with these outdated guides... mildlyridiculous TalkContribs 04:22, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm still halfway mixed with my guide, but my computer's acting awkward now. I'd try to get it done if it weren't for Java failing every 12:00 A.M.
Ugh. *throws computer out the window* ... Omega16(Talk) 17:35, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
So, 115 pages are completely in waste. Thanks for the help, Shnow. ... Omega16(Talk) 17:35, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

So, it looks like most of us agree what we're going to do. Are we going to get started with this soon? (I'm mostly waiting for Ivan to take the first step and create the actual criteria for deletion, etc.) Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 00:26, February 12, 2015 (UTC)

I say go for it, I guess. I'm still a bit worried on how bad this may damage the wiki's reputation if we do so, though... ... Omega16(Talk) 01:10, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
I'm gonna wait for Ivan's call first. I mean, we need the criteria and to agree on everything before we can just start, and I think Ivan would be more qualified for that than me.
What do you mean by damage the wiki's reputation, though? If anything, it should improve it because we would have a higher "good page ratio" with less junk inbetween. I guess I can understand if you mean lowering the article count by 115 making us look "less developed" (heck, most wikis have WAY less pages than we do. We'd still be "more developed" than 90% of all other wikis if that's how you want to look at it), but wikis aren't supposed to be a competition of who can make the most articles, they're surposed to be reliable and comprehensible sources of relevant information. It's pretty much the same as when we had that "fan art refurrendum" a while ago. Yes, it might sacrifice something, but that something never meant much in the first place, especially if there was a reason to remove it. Xparasite gif Starrysock 2 03:37, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
...Okay, then. If that's how you look at it, then I don't mind. ... Omega16(Talk) 01:10, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

Ivan never responded to this...

Should we bring this back up again? The guides are still here, and still pose a nuisance. ______TΣC 17:25, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

I definitely procrastinated on that lol. I'm busy until the 20th. However, I could try to work on this project afterwards. My proposals include:

  1. Warnings before deletions as mentioned above.
  2. Immediate deletions, with a note to contact admins if one intends to restart the guides. (Something like "Delete Reason - If you are the author and would like to restart/backup this guide, please contact any of our active administrators.")
  3. (1+2)/2, i.e. Warning, then delete with note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan247 (talkcontribs) 17:49, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
The only guide that doesn't deserve deletion, in my opinion, is the Ultimate Stick Ranger Guide. Unlike most of the abandon ware guides on this wiki, there are still people working on this guide, me especially on the Stage guide. That one is complete and useful enough that I feel it deserves mercy from the purge.
Of course I say that and everyone already pretty much agrees on that judging by what is said above so blehDMSwordsmaster Talk ContributionsDark Matter Floating 17:53, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, but I'm kind of for 2. The vast majority, if not all, will not read the warning in the time period provided. Why don't we just delete the guides and get them over with? Especially these two (yes, I did find them!). ______TΣC 18:44, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I just realized. Looks like Ivan accidentally typed five tildes instead of four. ______TΣC 18:45, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
heh Ah. One's by Poisonshot from his stupid days, so that makes sense. Dunno who the other guy is. And I'm all for number two as well. Let's be honest, the vast majority of the people who made the guides worthy of being deleted aren't around anymore period. And I highly doubt they'll suddenly stroll in and yell "OHGMF YOU DELEETD MY GUYD WAI YOU SUCK AND I WIL VANDALYZE THIS WIKI" (and get immediately banned). Yeah. And I'm mostly certain Modern PS wouldn't care if that guide died. DMSwordsmaster Talk ContributionsDark Matter Floating 18:55, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
In fact, PS's guide is the shortest page on the wiki at 137 bytes. The next shortest is the disambiguation Box page (144 bytes). ______TΣC 19:25, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
I'll get right on it and start getting rid of some of this shit. ... Omega16 (Talk) 21:44, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
I'm almost certain Ivan didn't give the kayo to go and do that uh DMSwordsmaster Talk ContributionsDark Matter Floating 22:56, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
I'll just leave a message on his talk page. He can change it back if he so wishes. ... Omega16 (Talk) 23:03, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
Well, go for it. Although I think we can keep a few well written but outdated guides. We mark them as "This is an outdated guide. Its existence serve as a reference only." Well, that is really only a few.  Ivan247 Talk Page  Contributions 03:29, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
Keep the content in mind, as well. If a guide has valuable information to some degree that other guides don't have, be sure to at the very least keep up with it so that it can be added to a guide that isn't going to be deleted later. I don't think this would come up very often, though. ______TΣC 03:53, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted a few guides. DMS and Omega: For consistency, use this sentence as the deletion reason (without quotes): "Outdated/Abandoned guide - If you are the author and would like to restart/backup this guide, please contact any of our active [[Special:ListAdmins|administrators]]." This should also give a direct link for a list of admins that one can consult.  Ivan247 Talk Page  Contributions 08:40, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
Welp, I guess I better redelete some of the guides again. ... Omega16 (Talk) 20:40, December 15, 2015 (UTC)

On the topic of the outdated guides, I think many guides were simply not completed due to a lack of interest or devotion(?). In any case, what might help on the matter of outdated images is removing some of the unused fan-art, unless it is considered important. For example, you'd do me a great favour by removing my incredibly low-quality works and most fanart belongs to people that have long since gone, or have already been moved to the Fan-Ball Wiki. I know three kinds of other images that we could consider for either deletion or replacement/improvement.

The first kind is the kind that could actually illustrate what it shows, but could be replaced by a 'tidier' version; the second is similar, but outdated image, and is a little messy. This kind of image can honestly go unless needed for reference; the third type is the type that is fully usable for a main page article.

Type 1 is somewhat likely for deletion unless someone wants to make a better version for quality; type 2 would be the kind that will go sooner. Lastly, I'd personally say type 3 deserve to stay: an example is an image that explains Powder Game's BG-toon effect - useful information and still up to date, tidy, and shows exactly what it has to. However, this is merely my own view.

I'm fairly sure I'm making little sense, but I hope you can follow what I mean. Fire InThe Hole (talk) 16:40, December 15, 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. But, let's just say our inbox is not going to be empty anytime soon. They're mainly user creations that shouldn't be on the wiki, ideas (loads and loads of ideas, they never stop...), and outdated images that have a now-false name or the wrong extension. ______TΣC 17:39, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
wow some of this stuff give some serious nostalgia feels and wow look at that shit that was once mine *Cough* Yeah, I do agree we could trim that stuff out sometime soon. If Ivan wants it, anyways. DMSwordsmaster Talk ContributionsDark Matter Floating 18:05, December 15, 2015 (UTC)

New administrators and rollbackers

NOTE: See Special:ListGroupRights for the exact list of rights held by admins and rollbackers.


Since I have just received Bureaucratic rights, I shall start the administrator selection immediately. As I noticed from the community, there are 2 potential users that were found to be approved by others: DMSwordsmaster and Omega16. Therefore I will set up a section for their election here. No, I'm not making one of them win and one of them lose. Instead it is a vote of trust. So this is just like voting for new enemy names, but instead you have to vote "For", "Against" or "Abstain" for BOTH users. Your vote will be void if you only vote for one. Please use "Abstain" votes if you have no preference over one of the users.

For fairness reasons, 1. I will not vote. 2. Candidates must not vote for him/herself. They are exempted from the "vote for BOTH users" rule. Ivan247Talk PageContributions 10:53, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Extra: If you are preferring another user to be admin, please leave a message on my user talk page. I will decide if it is possible and eligible to be included for election. Ivan247Talk PageContributions 11:00, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Yo just thought I'd drop an update here, real life has been annoying recently. Internet as been shoddy because of the cold season so activity was sparse because of it. Also I'm undergoing real life problems, so editing will probably decrease for an indeterminant amount of time. Just thought I'd drop this here as a heads up. DMSwordsmaster Talk ContributionsDark Matter Floating 12:09, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: As someone asked about the voting procedure, Votes to DMSwordsmaster should go to the subsection named "DMSwordsmaster". Votes to Omega16 should go to the "Omega16" section. Voters should follow the format as the previous voters:

Your vote (For/Against/Abstain) - (Optional Reason) - Signature (4 Tildes)

Ivan247Talk PageContributions 14:02, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

I suppose DMS and Omega16 can vote now that there is a chance their votes alone can change the outcome. Plus, HGD already voted. ______TΣC 16:59, December 14, 2015 (UTC)




  • For - Fire InThe Hole (talk) 16:25, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • For - Assuming he'll be active at least during the times we would need him. He'll probably be alerted at FB, so it shouldn't be a problem. ______TΣC 16:59, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • For - RedHardcore (talk) 00:37, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • For - Yathimc (talk) 06:27, December 15, 2015 (UTC)


DMS and Omega have been elected and both shall receive admin rights. Also a new admin candidate, HankGuideDude has appeared. Ivan247Talk PageContributions 11:58, December 13, 2015 (UTC)

HankGuideDude has been elected.  Ivan247 Talk Page  Contributions 14:56, December 25, 2015 (UTC)


Rollback allows a user to revert the previous user's most recent edits (not limited to 1) to the last revision by the previous user. Because it defaults to a specified edit summary, It is recommended to only use this on blatant vandalism. I am planning to give several of the non-admin-candidate users who have long-term contributions this ability. Ivan247Talk PageContributions 10:53, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand how exactly you want these votes to be placed, but I vote "For" for both people anyways. Fire InThe Hole (talk) 13:00, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you wanted us to put our votes either Ivan, but I vote "For" both. RadiantDarkBlaze (talk) 13:45, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Announcement: HankGuideDude, RadiantDarkBlaze, Yathimc, and Samuel17 were appointed as rollbackers. Ivan247Talk PageContributions 11:58, December 13, 2015 (UTC)

...Is the election over? [§]HankGuideDude[69] 14:21, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

Well, tried to wait for a few more days for a bit more votes. Anyway I decided to end that vote as it seems that continuation of waiting doesn't seem to be working.  Ivan247 Talk Page  Contributions 14:55, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

New Featured Pages and Images

After some discussion, I've decided to hold a discussion for New Featured Pages and Images that will be displayed at the main page of our wiki. There are no limits on which image and page you want to be featured as long as they have a decent quality. In addition, to allow more content to be exposed to readers, it is preferred to have at least one page and possibly one image that are neither related to Stick Ranger nor Powder Game (2). If you have suggestions, feel free to reply here!  Ivan247 Talk Page  Contributions 12:35, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

File:Priests and Max AT.png Yathimc (talk) 13:12, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

Here are two from the Mobile version of Stick Ranger


--Shnowshner200 (talk) 17:08, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

I've scoured the wiki for good pages, and here's what I found:
For Powder Game (2), I would like to nominate Joint, Mercury switch, and Land mine, and suggest Calculator, Player course, Player (Powder Game), Glass (Powder Game element), and Pixel art. The suggestions may need a little work first, but they have the type/amount of content that makes them good articles.
For Stick Ranger, I would like to nominate Type (normally I wanted to stay away from pages with long tables/lists, but this is a good article outside of that) and Enemy (same reason), and suggest AT (is this okay, content-wise?).
Other suggestions: Comment Boards, Monster Box, Lim Rocket, and Shisen-Sho.
Most of the pages don't have a good image that represents the article. That can easily be fixed.
As for media, I think we should have something that represents a feature of physics in Powder Game, but I can't find a good image for this. We should also consider "updating" our pixel art and C-4 mandala. If we should include an upload or uploads, they need to be entirely original, accomplished something new, and perhaps played a role in affecting future uploads in a positive way. *cue some reference to my uploads* Stick Ranger media should include a battle between a team and a mob of enemies in one of the newest stages, in my opinion. ______TΣC 00:46, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions of images and pages. In fact, we don't need to copy the entire thing to the main page for featured pages. We can actually write a short summary of the page and link to the article, just like one of the currently featured page Character. As per PG upload images, I'd suggest something that is at least 3-months old (no longer accepting votes). Further suggestions are still welcomed: this discussion is not closed yet!  Ivan247 Talk Page  Contributions 04:35, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if you have noticed, we now have NEW FEATURED STUFF!!! All 3 suggested images were included, together with a personal pick. As for pages, I've currently included Lim Rocket and Joint. Feel free to edit the consolidated version on the main page. The only incomplete part for this session is that we need an image for the page Joint.  Ivan247 Talk Page  Contributions 08:29, March 23, 2016 (UTC)

New Navigation Bar design

In order to give a more varied and more DB colour theme, and also address the problem of difficult to read titles I am considering to revamp the navigation bar designs for the wiki after the background change of the wiki. You can see a proposed navigation bar design in the Monster Box page. Note that this revamped design only applies to other similar navbars and those with a different design (e.g. PG Elements/SR Enemies) will not be affected. For a linked title example, you can look at this revision of the SR Class Navbar. Please provide your feedback on the proposed design and also the necessity of design renewal. Ivan247 Talk Page  ContributionsMrI 16:07, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

Another design change is proposed and can be seen in my Sandbox page.  Ivan247 Talk Page  ContributionsMrI 05:43, March 12, 2017 (UTC)
The sandbox link one looks waaaaay nicer, IMO. DMSwordsmaster Talk ContributionsDark Matter Floating 07:31, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Gonna agree here and say I prefer the Sandbox example as well. ZXiconTalk 21:18, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

I think I will be adopting the design in the Sandbox then.  Ivan247 Talk Page  ContributionsMrI 15:21, March 17, 2017 (UTC)

Navigation Bar design changes

If you haven't noticed, Wikia has introduced a new header design, which also affects the design of the top Navigation Bar. I have temporarily changed the design to fit with the mainspace background, and would like to receive input on possible design changes.  Ivan247 Talk Page  ContributionsMrI 13:57, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing the color currently would interfere with the new header? DMSwordsmaster Talk ContributionsDark Matter Floating 22:02, June 13, 2017 (UTC)
New Wiki Header Bar
This is how the original bar was updated to. Also it seems that we may now use an image background so I might consider using the yellow background tile similar to DB website like our wiki's current background. It will have a similar appearence.  Ivan247 Talk Page  ContributionsMrI 04:55, June 14, 2017 (UTC)
Hm. That looks pretty good, yeah. DMSwordsmaster Talk ContributionsDark Matter Floating 23:12, June 14, 2017 (UTC)

With a recent test that I can replace the page background with an arbitary image, I think we can use the yellow tile in DB to match with a page BG using the sand tile in DB site. Hopefully I can also change the texts in the Navbar to the Dark Brown for a full DB theme...  Ivan247 Talk Page  ContributionsMrI 15:00, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Restored the Header Bar to its previous yellow colour, together with an update to the page background: we are now having the sand BG from the Dan-Ball website.  Ivan247 Talk Page  ContributionsMrI 16:17, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
We're now one step closer to looking like the real site. ... Omega16 (Talk) 16:47, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.