My page got deleted because @Magical-Zorse fucked with it.

At 5/9/15 03:48 PM, CGA-999 wrote: My page got deleted because @Magical-Zorse fucked with it.

You're still mad about that? Fuck, just let it go, that was weeks ago. You don't even matter anyway.

It's funny how far this went, it really is. A Wikia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for one specific thing ran by fans of said specific thing. Thus making it a reliable source in some respects. I asked for The Interviewer to be added to it due to The Interviewer being an archive of the talented people and users of Newgrounds. Sadly I was declined until Tom Fulp started sharing The Interviewer on the Front Page, then The Interviewer was accepted.

Wikigrounds isn't a place for people to find neat information and interesting facts about Newgrounds. It's a popularity contest. I see that now.

At 5/13/15 09:20 AM, Amaranthus wrote: No-one gives a fuck about Wikigrounds any more. It's incomplete, it rarely updates and all the info that's on it is terribly uninteresting.

True. It was a nice start, but it went nowhere. I thought about re-building Wikigrounds, starting from scratch.

At 5/13/15 11:36 PM, The-Great-One wrote: I thought about re-building Wikigrounds, starting from scratch.

Sounds like a tough job.

Hard to find individuals who'd care enough to assist you and maintain it regularly, too.

At 5/13/15 11:36 PM, The-Great-One wrote: I thought about re-building Wikigrounds, starting from scratch.

It'd be nice if someone went through and fixed, updated, and improved it so it'd be better than it is now.
As it is now, it's in very dire need of an update. Also the mod and staff lists weren't up to date the last time I went on there...

At 5/14/15 09:54 PM, Viper wrote: It'd be nice if someone went through and fixed, updated, and improved it so it'd be better than it is now.
As it is now, it's in very dire need of an update.

That would be wonderful if it happened.

At 5/13/15 12:19 AM, The-Great-One wrote: It's funny how far this went, it really is. A Wikia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for one specific thing ran by fans of said specific thing. Thus making it a reliable source in some respects. I asked for The Interviewer to be added to it due to The Interviewer being an archive of the talented people and users of Newgrounds. Sadly I was declined until Tom Fulp started sharing The Interviewer on the Front Page, then The Interviewer was accepted.

Wikigrounds isn't a place for people to find neat information and interesting facts about Newgrounds. It's a popularity contest. I see that now.

- As I understand it, the articles are intended to be about Notable things and somewhere in the Wiki are some kind of definitions of what are Notable. That is, of course, similar to "popular" and although I don't suppose it was intended to be a contest, it is true that if some things are and some are not considered notable, then that means it will seem that way. Would you think it should have everything that anyone cared to write about, then? Perhaps it should- what do I know? What does anyone else think? I assume the original team had the idea that it should be like Wikipedia, which decides on certain things as being Notable and others it deletes. No?

At 8/25/15 08:40 PM, NoFinTitles wrote: - As I understand it, the articles are intended to be about Notable things and somewhere in the Wiki are some kind of definitions of what are Notable.Perhaps it should- what do I know? What does anyone else think? I assume the original team had the idea that it should be like Wikipedia, which decides on certain things as being Notable and others it deletes. No?

If you are volunteering to help fix it, then go ahead. If you are looking for articles, use some imagination.

Wikigrounds isn't a place for people to find neat information and interesting facts about Newgrounds. It's a popularity contest. I see that now.

- As I understand it, the articles are intended to be about Notable things and somewhere in the Wiki are some kind of definitions of what are Notable. That is, of course, similar to "popular" and although I don't suppose it was intended to be a contest, it is true that if some things are and some are not considered notable, then that means it will seem that way. Would you think it should have everything that anyone cared to write about, then? Perhaps it should- what do I know? What does anyone else think? I assume the original team had the idea that it should be like Wikipedia, which decides on certain things as being Notable and others it deletes. No?

--- Notability is not the same as popularity, but yes, they can be similar. I didn't make the rules, but I do, occasionally uphold them. As I see it we don't want piles of pages about things that are generally considered insignificant on Wikigrounds and all the other admins have always seen it that way too. My critic in this debate compares himself with me- but I do not have a page on Wikigrounds and I WOULD DELETE IT IF SOMEBODY MADE ONE- because I am NOT NOTABLE.
One of the reasons why people often perceive themselves as Notable when they are not, by our standards is that the site is primarily about the animations, music and art- that is what the bulk of the traffic always was and stiil is, but people who talk every day on the forums imagine that that makes them significant- it doesn't. Sorry to disappoint people, I don't delete things to upset people. :)

At 5/14/15 12:42 AM, ThePulp wrote:

At 5/13/15 11:36 PM, The-Great-One wrote: I thought about re-building Wikigrounds, starting from scratch.

Sounds like a tough job.

Hard to find individuals who'd care enough to assist you and maintain it regularly, too.

There is now.

I started off on Wikia several years ago as mod and then admin for the Kingdom Hearts wiki. I stumbled upon Wikigrounds and there was just too much that was left backdated.

A few concerns:

1) Many of the people who were previously marked moderators are now former moderators (@Khuskan, @Back-From-Purgatory etc.) I updated the information on them.

2) Also, no Manual of Style? Or at least not one that is followed regularly, I take it. The formatting across articles is confusing; I'm not really sure how to do this.

3) I am an audio moderator. It's not right for me to make my own page on Wikigrounds just because I'm audio moderator; it goes against my very principles of 'no self-promotion unless it's your own space or a public space to do so.'

4) There are pages in the List of pages without categories that actually have names, existing page data, but no content. Presumably the content has been deleted due to lack of notability, but the pages can still be accessed. @IceDragon64

5) When it comes to notable musicians, I don't really know what the filtering criteria are. Quite a few of us can be notable for a few things.

EDIT: By the way, I've forgotten to mention this. My username on Wikia is troisnyxetienne, the same as my former NG username. In case you're wondering where this unfamiliar user came from in the Recent Changes, that's me.

1) Many of the people who were previously marked moderators are now former moderators (@Khuskan, @Back-From-

ok i will keep that in mind...

There is now.

I started off on Wikia several years ago as mod and then admin for the Kingdom Hearts wiki. I stumbled upon Wikigrounds and there was just too much that was left backdated.

-- Welcome to the madhouse!

A few concerns:

1) Many of the people who were previously marked moderators are now former moderators (@Khuskan, @Back-From-Purgatory etc.) I updated the information on them.

-- Ta!

2) Also, no Manual of Style? Or at least not one that is followed regularly, I take it. The formatting across articles is confusing; I'm not really sure how to do this.

-- There was virtually nothing when I started, provided you stick with what little is written, I have no objection to you creating more.

3) I am an audio moderator. It's not right for me to make my own page on Wikigrounds just because I'm audio moderator; it goes against my very principles of 'no self-promotion unless it's your own space or a public space to do so.'

-- will take a quick look...

4) There are pages in the List of pages without categories that actually have names, existing page data, but no content. Presumably the content has been deleted due to lack of notability, but the pages can still be accessed. @IceDragon64

-- sounds trivial compared to the task of updating the 'pedia, but if it interests you, OK.

5) When it comes to notable musicians, I don't really know what the filtering criteria are. Quite a few of us can be notable for a few things.

-- I will try to find/remember any guideline to Notability. I recall that until we actually made sections for Music etc- right towards the end of my presence here, there were virtually no musicians as none of us knew much about NG Music. It was not until I started to put together the 500 Pages project that we realised how poor Music was on Wikia.

EDIT: By the way, I've forgotten to mention this. My username on Wikia is troisnyxetienne, the same as my former NG username. In case you're wondering where this unfamiliar user came from in the Recent Changes, that's me.

Sounds like wikigrounds is in need of some work. Whats wrong with it?

At 3/19/17 05:39 PM, Kehmicle wrote: Sounds like wikigrounds is in need of some work. Whats wrong with it?

What is wrong with it is that virtually nobody does any work on it! Us old guys have moved on to other things and I, for one am not coming back. You, or anybody else, are welcome to join in and create/improve the site- once you have done a substantial bit of work here, of reasonable quality, you can become admin- go get some points!

At 1/25/18 08:17 PM, IceDragon64 wrote: What is wrong with it is that virtually nobody does any work on it! Us old guys have moved on to other things and I, for one am not coming back. You, or anybody else, are welcome to join in and create/improve the site- once you have done a substantial bit of work here, of reasonable quality, you can become admin- go get some points!

Sounds good. I've noticed that the wiki needs a bit of updating. I'll do what I can!

At 1/25/18 08:17 PM, IceDragon64 wrote:

At 3/19/17 05:39 PM, Kehmicle wrote: Sounds like wikigrounds is in need of some work. Whats wrong with it?

What is wrong with it is that virtually nobody does any work on it! Us old guys have moved on to other things and I, for one am not coming back. You, or anybody else, are welcome to join in and create/improve the site- once you have done a substantial bit of work here, of reasonable quality, you can become admin- go get some points!

Exactly what do you mean by Points?
Do I require a specific experience level, or are you talking about game badge points.

At 9/9/18 08:02 PM, RightTime wrote: Is anyone still actively editing or monitoring the Wikigrounds anymore? There hasn't been any activity since June and Icedragon said he was semi retired.

As far as I know it is usually just me blowing through about once a year and finding one or two changes. Are you offering? If you do a set of good edits, I will give you the keys :)

At 12/1/18 05:05 PM, IceDragon64 wrote:

At 9/9/18 08:02 PM, RightTime wrote: Is anyone still actively editing or monitoring the Wikigrounds anymore? There hasn't been any activity since June and Icedragon said he was semi retired.

It has been slow for a long time.

As far as I know it is usually just me blowing through about once a year and finding one or two changes. Are you offering? If you do a set of good edits, I will give you the keys :)

Give it a chance, RightTime. You might really like running it. :)

At 2/7/18 12:51 AM, Kehmicle wrote:

At 1/25/18 08:17 PM, IceDragon64 wrote:

At 3/19/17 05:39 PM, Kehmicle wrote: Sounds like wikigrounds is in need of some work. Whats wrong with it?

What is wrong with it is that virtually nobody does any work on it! Us old guys have moved on to other things and I, for one am not coming back. You, or anybody else, are welcome to join in and create/improve the site- once you have done a substantial bit of work here, of reasonable quality, you can become admin- go get some points!

Exactly what do you mean by Points?
Do I require a specific experience level, or are you talking about game badge points.

No, you don't need a specific number of points. You will earn Badges as you go, which are worth points, but no, it is WHAT you do, rather than how many edits you do that will, when one of us drops by, encourage us to support you.

No, you don't need a specific number of points. You will earn Badges as you go, which are worth points, but no, it is WHAT you do, rather than how many edits you do that will, when one of us drops by, encourage us to support you.

Oh, alright sounds good. We just, post edit requests here? or new page requests?

At 12/9/18 11:17 PM, Kehmicle wrote:

No, you don't need a specific number of points. You will earn Badges as you go, which are worth points, but no, it is WHAT you do, rather than how many edits you do that will, when one of us drops by, encourage us to support you.

You should take your time and only do quality edits.

Oh, alright sounds good. We just, post edit requests here? or new page requests?

Posting the edits here seems like a good choice.

At 12/9/18 11:52 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 12/9/18 11:17 PM, Kehmicle wrote:

No, you don't need a specific number of points. You will earn Badges as you go, which are worth points, but no, it is WHAT you do, rather than how many edits you do that will, when one of us drops by, encourage us to support you.

You should take your time and only do quality edits.

Oh, alright sounds good. We just, post edit requests here? or new page requests?

Posting the edits here seems like a good choice.

I don't entirely agree or disagree with Doctor Strongbad on this -

1. So long as the edits are not BAD edits - ie incorrect stuff, they need not ALWAYS be something timetaking as such. I am a Wikidragon (see wikipedia) so I believe that we have a lot to do and if someone feels like doing a lot of quick, basic work that is reasonable, to allow us to catch up, other, slower types will fill in the details. HOWEVER
In a sense, Dr S is right, that if we had 200 pages about authors, but none of them told us anything that was not on said author's Profiles, why would anybody bother to go to Wikigrounds?

2. There is no harm in telling people here something about what you are doing- a summary from time to time of the projects and what help you would like to support you. For example, if you decided to create a set of Pages of the recent Weekly 1's, you could knock up ten basic pages, then invite people to add info from other sources to fill them out.

If you tell me now that you intend to do a solid project, then I will drop by a couple of times in the next month and give you some kind of support. I have, in fact, been inspired by the little flurry of dialogue that has taken place since my return here in the last week and, as you will see on Recent Changes, been doing some housekeeping.

At 5/13/15 09:20 AM, Amaranthus wrote:

At 5/13/15 12:19 AM, The-Great-One wrote: Wikigrounds isn't a place for people to find neat information and interesting facts about Newgrounds. It's a popularity contest. I see that now.

No-one gives a fuck about Wikigrounds any more. It's incomplete, it rarely updates and all the info that's on it is terribly uninteresting.

-- There is a lot of truth in this, of course. In the pursuit of quantity of pages, a lot of pages were created that had little on them, or nothing that was not on a User's Profile etc. It is very out of date and nobody has fully taken up the work of our team that went for the 500 Pages project, which was years ago. HOWEVER...

A vandal who kept attacking the same page recently referred to it as a "dead wiki" , but was warned by us. We were perfectly polite to the vandal and invited them to do some good work, which is our usual style- however, he continued and we had to ban them. Not a thing we like to do. We are usually boringly patient and they give up,

People DO create and update stuff on WG. I left a few years ago, just after the 500 Pages project and it now has way over 600. Obviously if we look into it we will find a lot of junk, but there is good quality work too, such as the recent work by Georgeacartini123, adding good pix and data- They just do it quietly, with no fuss.

The reason why people assume it is dead is largely because of the Front Page being years out of date- basically frozen in time from 2012ish. However, that can all be changed if Troix and the others that have spoken to me recently choose to get involved.

HERE is a link to the NEW PAGES on Wikigrounds. If anyone knows how to change the daft yellow on yellow on this unreadable page, please do :)

At 5/11/16 04:41 AM, demon1000 wrote:

1) Many of the people who were previously marked moderators are now former moderators (@Khuskan, @Back-From-

ok i will keep that in mind...

--- Anyone feel like tackling this one? The official policy is that all Moderators are considered Notable, as long as they are Mods. Once they cease to be Mods, we look at the Page and can remove it if the User has done nothing else Notable. In practice, I would be happy if someone would just change their status, unless we really get back to 2010 standards, where we examined every Page and removed it if it was not up to scratch.

At 1/27/18 11:18 AM, littlbox wrote:

At 1/25/18 08:17 PM, IceDragon64 wrote: What is wrong with it is that virtually nobody does any work on it! Us old guys have moved on to other things and I, for one am not coming back. You, or anybody else, are welcome to join in and create/improve the site- once you have done a substantial bit of work here, of reasonable quality, you can become admin- go get some points!

Sounds good. I've noticed that the wiki needs a bit of updating. I'll do what I can!

Here is a list of Winners of our Monthly Projects on WikiG. Somebody might be able to track down one or two of these and drag them, kicking and screaming, back to the grindstone.

At 12/25/11 02:35 AM, TomatoSalad wrote: I;ve made you a template based on the user template for Groups, do you think it has enough information on it for an infobox? Group Template

Yeah, I know I'm not really part of this crew but I got bored and figured that crews could have done with in infobox for quick information.

-------Did nobody thank you? Well I am. :)

At 5/14/15 12:42 AM, ThePulp wrote:

At 5/13/15 11:36 PM, The-Great-One wrote: I thought about re-building Wikigrounds, starting from scratch.

Sounds like a tough job.

Hard to find individuals who'd care enough to assist you and maintain it regularly, too.

Amazingly, dozens of people have created Pages on the Wiki and literally hundreds have dropped by at least once to maintain it. In the years I have been gone, hundreds of Pages have been made, most of which seem to be quite reasonable. I was editing Jazza's Page, today, which was made after I left and I can see that lots of vandalism has been carefully put right by passing, non-registered people. Cool !

If anybody wants to work on pages that need work- take a look at the Recent Changes Page- on the right hand side is a list of pages that have no categories. These include about 40 pages that are either crude pages knocked together by people who don't categorise, or vandalised pages.

Glad to see you back on this and keeping the wiki going good.

~X~

At 12/10/18 06:57 PM, IceDragon64 wrote:

At 12/9/18 11:52 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Posting the edits here seems like a good choice.

I don't entirely agree or disagree with Doctor Strongbad on this -

1. So long as the edits are not BAD edits - ie incorrect stuff, they need not ALWAYS be something timetaking as such.

That makes sense.

I am a Wikidragon (see wikipedia) so I believe that we have a lot to do and if someone feels like doing a lot of quick, basic work that is reasonable, to allow us to catch up, other, slower types will fill in the details.

Every little bit helps. Especially, some doing the quick stuff and others the longer more complicated fixes.

HOWEVER In a sense, Dr S is right, that if we had 200 pages about authors, but none of them told us anything that was not on said author's Profiles, why would anybody bother to go to Wikigrounds?

That is a valid point. Glad that I was correct in a sense. lol