Terraria Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Issues-2012
The contents are kept for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Do not add new comments here or edit this page.
| Issue Archives |
|---|
|
|
Collector's Edition bypass
All right, I'm a bit torn on this. Should we allow the "workaround" that allows anyone to "upgrade" to the Collector's Edition to be posted or not?
Technically it's somewhat similar to discussing the piracy of Terraria or posting cracked download links, especially if more content is added in the future (to be honest, I hope not). I'm not a big fan of exclusive content, and the information will no doubt spread elsewhere. Should we revert it or turn a blind eye? Is there an official statement along the lines of "we don't care"? --Lunboks 20:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- It sounds to me like this is an activity that would be counter to the EULA, if that is the case, no, it has no place on the wiki. If it isn't prohibited by the EULA, and you do choose to add it to the wiki, please do so with a disclaimer that it is not something supported by Re-Logic, or endorsed by Terraria Online/Curse. -- Wynthyst File:Curseicon.png talk 21:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Protected files
A while back the images on the homepage changed, but those images aren't protected like the old images where. To prevent vandalism I think it would be a good idea to protect those images: Terraria tree2, copper pickaxe, green slime and NPC2. --Icke 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done --JonTheMon 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Terraria's development has been discontinued.
Just an FYI: It seems like 1.1.2 will be the final version of Terraria. I've removed everything about future content. Now you know why, and if you encounter anything I've missed — slash and burn.
Since Terraria is, as it were, no longer subject to change, will there be a content archival of some description, or do we just carry on as usual? --Lunboks 20:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's valid to state 1.1.2 is the final version. The dev blog you posted states, "However, we are still planning at least one more bug fix for Terraria." I'm referring specifically to the "Final" reference on the homepage. --Sinister Stairs 21:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. --Lunboks 21:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There is also the possibility that the game can be picked up by someone else, though for the purpose of the wiki it would not work to advertise the possibility. Would it be better to simply archive the data for later, or just make new pages if it happens?--Ragen 00:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Since hardly anyone uses this page (that i know of.) should we delete this section or save it, so in about a year or two, we can say that we BELIEVE that Terraria development has been discontinued. I believe that that fact is highly unlikely, just look here[1] All those updates prove that development is still going on. Also, when did the game come out? 2011? 2010? That is recent for a game, thus, Re-Logic (if it wants to stay in business) will not stop a huge game like this from being patched and/or updated. -Brass.Dragon 13:12, 2/23/2012
- I'm not sure what page you are referring to... that hardly anyone uses. This page is for communication with the wiki admins, and is used by the entire community. -- Wynthyst File:Curseicon.png talk 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read the developer post I linked? Red's saying Terraria is done, and I hope he's not throwing that around lightly because that did not go over well with a lot of people. People pointing to the upcoming features page as a blame list or proof that this is indeed not the end is part of the reason why I removed it. It's back now, and I'm not sure why, but yeah. That article is speculation based on developer posts — definitely not proof of anything. Obviously, if the developer calls it quits, then they're not going to happen. Unless someone else picks it up, which personally I don't think will happen. --Lunboks 22:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I hear there will be a mod pack coming, as well as they are also planning to release a final bugfix version. Finally, they would also be planning to publish their programming API, in which case, content would be created by the users faster than ever.
- I think it would be a mistake to make any conclusions at this point, we and simply wait and see. happypal (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Admin nomination
With activity levels being down, I think it might be useful to have another user become an admin. I nominate Icke since he's demonstrated that he's active and willing to keep the wiki clean. --JonTheMon 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- He has my vote. happypal (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can vouch for Icke as well as JonTheMon. They have both have been extremely dedicated and helpful users of the wiki. They are both the rare breed of user that makes large amount of edits AND keeps them consistently constructive. --Moxxy 01:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, i think that enough time has passed and with good support, let's promote him. --JonTheMon 14:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Requiring constructive edits before removing sections should be removed
I say this primarily because there are only so many different ways to be constructive. If you can't be considered constructive by removing content, you can only be constructive by adding it, and there's only so much content that can be added to a wiki about a game that isn't updating anymore. Besides, this is a wiki, it's not like malicious edits can't just automatically be undone instead of having the software globally ban anything that matches vague heuristics before it can even be executed.
I bring this up because I am not allowed to do this. --24.220.133.35 06:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually you can't automatically undo edits, because there is no way to determine whether someone removes something useful or something useless. Hence every undo have to be done manually, which would take way too much time. Also there are more enough articles that could use more content. Also, I'm not going to tell how the filter works, but that edit would be allowed even for new users, so apparently you wanted to make a different edit than the one you're showing me. --Icke 10:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- This rule is preventing me from mass-reverting spam by this 'user' -24.5.242.38 07:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've slightly changed the rule to allow you to undo vandalism. --Icke 10:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Mods
I recently got a request about whether or not it was allowed to add mod info to the wiki. I won't mind if this will be added to the wiki, but I don't want to make this decision alone. Furthermore I think the best way to do this is by making a new namespace. What do you guys think about adding mod and what way of doing so would you find preferable? --Icke 08:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I realize this is old but can we get this started? Does anything need to be done technically besides creating pages that start with Mod:? Equazcion (talk) 02:13, 26 Aug 2012 (UTC)
- The wiki itself would have to be configured to recognize "Mod:" and "Mod talk:" as namespaces. I can't recall if it would be a problem to start making pages such as Mod:Modding before the namespace is official though, so if you want to start work it might be best to use your userspace for now. --timrem 02:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, using the userspace is best. You shouldn't create any "Mod:" or "Mod talk:" until the namespace is set up.
- If you create any "Mod:" or "Mod talk:" pages now, they'll technically be in the main namespace. Setting up a new namespace doesn't transfer them, so you'd end up with a weird situation where a page titled "Mod:Foo" exists in the main namespace and is still in the database, but the title "Mod:Foo" now represents "Foo" in the "Mod" namespace, which is a different page. You could actually end up with two (actually, even more than two is possible) pages titled "Mod:Foo", but only one would actually be reachable at any given time.
- Be sure to let us know if you do decide to create the namespace. Eyes 03:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The wiki itself would have to be configured to recognize "Mod:" and "Mod talk:" as namespaces. I can't recall if it would be a problem to start making pages such as Mod:Modding before the namespace is official though, so if you want to start work it might be best to use your userspace for now. --timrem 02:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)