Wowpedia talk:Community teams/Old

I would also suggest implementing a Fact-checking Team as well to confirm the accuracy of articles, particularly History and Lore pages. We could cross reference off official Blizzard sites and in-game materials (from all Warcraft games). We could create a stub for Suspect Accuracy so we can easily access articles that need a fact-check. --Anticrash 12:57, 9 Dec 2005 (EST)

Created working versions of template: Stub/Accuracy and template: accuracy for fact checking purposes, in the event something comes from it. Feel free to expand. =) --Anticrash 13:44, 9 Dec 2005 (EST)

Example stubs: {Stub/Accuracy} {accuracy}


 * I think I understood what you meant... I started something similar, the Bookkeepers. Rage is heading up this one, not I, however - I asked him and he sounded enthusiastic; I recommend you request to join on it's /Join page! --  &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide|undefined 22:09, 9 Dec 2005 (EST)

Change in format
Took a long time and used over-complicated syntax, but at least it looks better! What do ya think? -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide|undefined 01:29, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)

I created a new template (Template:TeamList) which considerably shortens the length of a team member's link. --MyndFyre

For whatever reason, Template:TeamList would stop rendering after being called so many times in a page. This might be a bug or a limit inside of MediaWiki. For now, I created a hack which is simply a duplicate of TeamList called Template:TeamList2 which should be used when the first TeamList stops working. I don't know what else to do besides put it back, and this still seems like less hassle as long as people make sure to preview their changes. --MyndFyre

Cleaners
So what would people who like making the Wiki look more professional come under? :) The Formatting Patrol? Design Anonymous? (As you may have noticed, I like trying to make things simpler and sensible, yet still keep it a sexy-wiki). -- Kirkburn 12:20, 1 June 2006 (EDT)


 * You get an "Admuhn" sticker slapped on your forehead. Consider yourself pwnd. :-)  -- Mikk  (T) 20:43, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

WoWApi Community Team
Does anyone think that having a WoWApi Community Team which helps keep the WoWApi pages in order would help? --Klishu 08:19, 13 July 2006 (EDT)


 * It sort of exists already. All of the regulars in #WoWI-Lounge poke around in the API pages and talk about them in the IRC channel :-)  -- Mikk  (T) 20:42, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

Formatting/style Team?
As I browse around the wiki I see a large inconsistency in styling, especially in tables. There is also very little use of CSS classes, which means that the non-default skins often look like crap. Having discussed a lot about this with Mikk and Kirkburn, I'd like to propose we form up a Styling Team (the Fab 5?) to patrol around the wiki and try to push everything into a more consistent style. This team would probably start out by finding some styles that fit the current skin and getting these added to the CSS sheets. After the classes are in the CSS, cleaning up tables and the like will be much easier (and changes can be applied to the whole site very easily). --Tekkub 01:30, 27 November 2006 (EST)


 * That's cool, I'd be interested. I was thinking about doing that very same thing the other day. --Hobinheim 06:19, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Rehash!
Current suggestion:
 * "Watchdogs" (RC and NP team combined)
 * "Bookeepers" (as before, lore nuts)
 * "Crow's Nest" (stubs, cat, wikinav watchers)
 * "Style Council" (formatting and style gurus, charged with making the wiki consistent)
 * "Helpers" (as before)
 * "Welcomers" (as before)

Discussion
Can I suggest we rehash the teams and get rid of the ones that really aren't needed? That way we can concentrate on the important stuff.

My recommendations:
 * Dissolve the AMA team.
 * Combine the RC and NP teams.
 * Dissolve the commentator team.
 * Combine the Stub and Cat team.
 * Combine the Help and welcome team.

Ending up with:
 * "Watchdogs" (RC and NP team)
 * "Bookeepers" (as before)
 * "Crow's Nest" (stubs, cat, nav watchers)
 * "Helpers" (Help and welcomers)

Thoughts! -- Kirkburn  (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2006 (EST)


 * Mostly fine with me. I'd like to keep Help and Welcome separate, though. Since Help can be in-depth, but Welcome is usually not. And we can add a Style team as mentioned above.
 * "Watchdogs" (RC and NP team)
 * "Bookeepers" (as before)
 * "Crow's Nest" (stubs, cat, nav watchers)
 * "Style Council" (keep formatting and style more consistent)
 * "Helpers"
 * "Welcomers"
 * I don't mind being leader of Welcomers indefinitely, but now that we have alot of admins, I'd like to see some of the new admins fill leadership of the other teams unless an active concerned user steps up. We should also have backup leaders.
 * Hopefully, I'm not the only one to get "Style Council" ;-) -- Fandyllic (talk) 3:58 PM PST 30 2006


 * Heh, well I'd definately be on the style council :) Mainly I don't want it to be split up as much as it currently is - everything's too thinly spread for it to mean anything atm. Also, there should be an IRC team who have whips to make everyone get on it ;) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2006 (EST)


 * Please put a note about this discussion on the talk pages of admins and current team leaders (if you haven't). We should try to get their input before making any major changes. I think we can target mid-January 2007 for this change, unless there is major protest. I've already put a note at the top of all the team home pages. -- Fandyllic (talk) 5:06 PM PST 30 Dec 2006


 * I'd naturally go for the style team, maybe the RC patrol (I sorta do that anyway), but are there any teams that are sorta neglected/need help? --Hobinheim 21:33, 30 December 2006 (EST)


 * I totally agree to style team, but think it's mostly pointless until Mediawiki:Wowwiki.css works as intended.  23:56, 30 December 2006 (EST)


 * I'd like to be a part of the Helpers team, but leading it might be out of my time capabilities at the moment. 02:14, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Looks good to me- essentially the same, just more concise. I shall carry on as previous, I presume, unless you'd like to change the name. On the subject of AMA, everyone who has come to me for mediation has done it through the Bookkeepers and not through the AMA. Same for Commentators. Watchdogs and Bookkeepers will overlap somewhat, but that shouldn't be a problem.--Ragestorm, Head Bookkeeper 23:03, 30 December 2006 (EST)

I agree with this 100%. With the addition of the Style council, that is. -- Mikk (T) 07:19, 31 December 2006 (EST)

I agree. This looks much more concise :-) -- T inker  er  07:30, 31 December 2006 (EST)


 * I have notified all team leads and all admins should know now. It's also on the village pump.
 * Glad you all approve. -- KB < User talk:Kirkburn · Special:Contributions/Kirkburn > 15:40, 31 December 2006 (EST)

I agree - However I think we definately need a sytling council. It is extremely important that there be continuity between pages. -Tetsuo86 04:47, 2 January 2007 (EST)

I like this, and like to be involved somehow into however things get re-setup. --Xmuskrat 10:12, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Sadly, I probably won't spend much time on wowwiki, at least not frequently. I have things to do in WoW! -- let alone my real life. :( That said, I shouldn't belong to a team -- at least to the point where anyone will have any dependency on me. But I'll do what I can to help develop the CSS model and I'll give input on overall formatting. As Tekkub said, it might not be of much use until Mediawiki:Wowwiki.css is functional. Schmidt 17:48, 2 January 2007 (EST)

I'd love to be in the Crow's Nest due to the fact that it has category maintenance, but I'm not that into stubs. I mean, it's all but impossible to remove a stub these days. The tag reappears days later even if the article seems to have all the info it needs. -- Varghedin (talk · contr) 13:10, 3 January 2007 (EST)


 * I do agree, there's too much stubbing. Articles don't have to be long to qualify for unstubbing. If it has most of the possible info on it (which, for many NPCs, isn't a great deal), it should be unstubbed. Otherwise the whole thing is pointless ... -- 13:34, 3 January 2007 (EST)


 * I personally feel there are too many short pages that could be mergerd together. Take for example the various sub-regions of Elwynn Forest.  Does each sub zone really warrent having it's own page?  Personally I would have mad a single page with each zone as a section.  I generally hate short pages, if the only content is a one-paragraph description it feels more like a dictionary definiton that a useful resource.
 * Another thing that bugs me are things like the druid forms. If you look, we've got like 3 or 4 sets of data.  on Druid there's rather lenghty descriptions, each spell's page has a big description and there's also Druid forms.  I personally think that Druid should get simple one-line descriptions and all the big rambling details put into Druid forms.  The spell pages should just have the key spell data (ranks, costs, talents), and link to Druid forms for all the strategic info.
 * Druid forms might be an extreeme example, but I've seen a lot of places where there are 3-4 different pages for the same mess of crap. Do we really need a definion for Jewelcrafter?  Why doesn't that just redirect to Jewelcrafting?  Do we have a proposed merge template maybe?  I think we need to merge as many like-subject short pages as we can.   13:49, 3 January 2007 (EST)


 * I'm part of the reason there's a separate page for each subzone. While it may seem neat to have all the Elwynn Forest subzones on one page, it could quickly get messy in other zone, such as Stranglethorn Vale, where there are a whole bunch of subzones that can quickly accumulate a whole bunch of information. As for the Jewelcrafter/jewelcrafting, I agree that they could easily be one page (same with any other -er/-ing combination in tradeskill), and the druid form section of druid could also just make a reference to the main article. -- Varghedin (talk · contr) 13:55, 3 January 2007 (EST)


 * Merge template: Merge. -- 14:21, 3 January 2007 (EST)


 * 99% of the game's "nouns" should have their own article space. I realize that some subzones are really... stupid. Or worthless. Or even not completely used. But they're still subzones. And each subzone is a special little snowflake. -- Hobinheim  ( talk  ·  contr ) 11:43, 6 January 2007 (EST)


 * Also, some subzones are more important than others (to automatically get an article), but to try and choose which to list would be a navigational and administrative nightmare. --


 * Not to divert the discussion... but how do I get the pretty colors on my sig? -- Varghedin (talk · contr) 11:54, 6 January 2007 (EST)


 * Heh, some of us made our own (e.g. User:Kirkburn/Sig instead of using the standard admin one), just change the link in your preferences to your own sig design once done. Plus use different colours :) -- 12:34, 6 January 2007 (EST)

This is all cool with me; looks like a good change. ;)  Anticrash  talk  09:55, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Combining things sounds good to me. I am pretty much inactive now - I log in to look at my talk page and see if anyone has commented about the help team. I assume I will eventually just forget entirely about my monthly ritual. Beside Fandyllic and Montag, who I just added I don't think anyone is really active on the help team... :( Ralthor 00:17, 26 January 2007 (EST)

The rehash has begun!
See Wowpedia:Community teams/Dev for a restructured team page. Feel free to improve it! 13:42, 3 February 2007 (EST)


 * Add the Template Crew to that, too. 23:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)


 * May as well throw this up too :P User:Zeal/Sandbox/Groups -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 13:25, 9 February 2007 (EST)


 * Zeal showed his idea to me a little while ago - I've incorporated several of his idea into an updated list at Wowpedia:Community teams/Dev! Comments please! 17:40, 9 February 2007 (EST)


 * And i've talked further with Kirkburn and made changes to my own again ;) Of course the two still differ in places where we couldn't agree or further talk is needed :P -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 19:26, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Template Crew
I'd like to officially create this team in the absence of any major objections. The purpose will be to provide template troubleshooting, help improve template efficiency and provide help to people attempting to write templates. Currently, I'd like to ask Zeal to head it up, since he's most interested, but if anyone else is interested in the position, please post here and we can discuss it. ~

I'd also like to note that this team shouldn't take over authoring templates completely. In fact, I'd prefer to see them as a force behind improving everyone's templating skills as an example of how to do it right. If you're interesting in joining this budding group, post here. 09:11, 8 February 2007 (EST)


 * I would be interested in joining this team. 10:25, 8 February 2007 (EST)


 * I am rather reluctant to take up the mantle of leadership, but i will if no one else wishes to. Either way, i do want to be on the team. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 14:49, 8 February 2007 (EST)
 * Guess i'll now add something else from my new findings.. We 100%, definitely, no question about it, need parsefunctions. While i don't doubt i will quickly pick them up, i have no experience with them. So when they do come into play, there are people probably far more qualified to use them, and someone with that experience would be a better candidate for team leader than i. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 16:53, 8 February 2007 (EST)


 * I have used them fairly extensively, however, I have absolutely no desire to lead any teams... if you have questions on them, I am sure I can help. MetaWiki has an article that I found very useful.  I would be interested in helping you rewrite Template:Loot to use ParserFunctions if you are interested.  17:10, 8 February 2007 (EST)


 * I learn best by doing, so i'll wait until they're installed. :p But ty, all and any support is appreciated. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 17:26, 8 February 2007 (EST)
 * I'm interested in joining, while my skills arent uber, im willing to learn  19:11, 12 February 2007 (EST)


 * I'm interested in joining as well, how do we keep in touch with each other? I'm still pretty new to WoWWiki at the moment. 13:10, 2 March 2007 (EST)


 * Well it's still not made yet, but several of the highly active wiki contributers hang out in the WoWWiki IRC Channel. Usually fairly active and plenty of template discussion goes on there. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 19:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Sure.-- Hobinheim  ( talk ·  contr ) 21:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

To reflect some recent discussion in IRC, since Tek and I are both expressing our interest in the group as documented at the time of this writing, I will be tagging it with both our names. We feel that we're able to work together effectively leading and managing one group.-- Hobinheim  ( talk ·  contr ) 21:59, 21 February 2007 (EST)


 * I just want to kick Zeal... ^^ 06:44, 22 February 2007 (EST)


 * Do and i think we all know what will happen. ¬_¬ -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 07:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Page Patrol
Maybe that instead of "Watchdogs".

And when is this going to be instigated as official? >_<--Sky 02:08, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * Well it was Kirkburn's idea, and i like it, but i don't care if it's lost. Watchdogs is fairly self explanatory imo.
 * As to when, it's looking like post upgrade and when there's been a full agreement on them. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 11:50, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Is this abandoned?
Can i say this seems to be very inactive is anyone here? --Gilan 18:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


 * When I or another admin gets some time. It's not abandoned. 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahh kk. Tyvm. --Gilan 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)