Talk:Main Page

This page is for discussing changes to the Main Page. To discuss this wiki in general, please use the Community Portal.

Archives of this page: 1.

Redesign

The current Main Page is still optimized for Wikia. If we redesign, I suggest we:

• keep the deep links to monsters, items, etc. that make the page useful for experienced players and search engine optimization,
• keep it visually similar to the old one (brand identity),
• add a box aimed at people stumbling into the wiki that explains what Nethack actually is, and points them to a good place to get started. --Tjr 21:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Good ideas there. I'm not sure our current main page has much of an identity, though: the generic pastel box design is pretty common across Wikia and Wikimedia wikis (I think it goes back to an old Wikipedia main page design), and our isn't even a particularly nice-looking one. About the only really distinctive elements on our current main page are the greeting and the monster box. I do think we should keep both of those. Other ideas:

• Regularly updating content is good, it keeps readers interested and entices them to look deeper. Besides the featured article, we could have a DYK-style rolling list of trivia. Could also consider something like a "monster of the day" box etc..
• We have a huge number of links on our main page now. Many of them do serve as handy shortcuts, but some are simply useless clutter. Some even lead to outdated information, making them worse than useless. We even still have some redlinks in the monster box (though I'm working on those). Go through each link and decide which ones to keep and which to toss.
• Images. I realize NetHack is mainly a text-based game, but still, images are important. There's a reason Wikipedia's main page always has an image in each of the main sections.
• Related to the above, I'd suggest incorporating {{Moon phase}} into the design. It's kind of a silly gimmick, but it provides eye candy and a sense of timeliness.

--Ilmari Karonen 23:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Images: Many things can be best explained with graphs. Prime example: the web of possible alchemy recipes. Somebody needs to create such graphs.

I believe the main page should continue to double as site map in order to be search-engine friendly.

Regularily updating content is a good idea SEO-wise.

Moon phase: If it fits onto the same pages as all those links and a newbie-friendly explanation what NetHack is, all the better.

Timeline: In 1-2 weeks, Sannse will take down the notice we moved out. Then I'll have to buy Google ads. It would be good to have the new Main Page in place. --Tjr 00:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that having our main page serve as a site map is both user and search engine friendly. I do think most of the links to actual content pages are fine, even if I'm sure some improvements would be possible. It's the community links in the right column that I'm more concerned about (and part of the problem is that much of that part of the wiki seems neglected in general). We should try to reorganize those to offer actual useful ways for users to help, communicate and learn about the community, instead of random links to dead-end pages nobody reads or edits. --Ilmari Karonen 01:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's way too much stuff on the front page. We could remove the Meta, Community and Wiki -boxes (possibly moving one or two most useful links in them into the sidebar and move the rest to their own pages, or link to those pages from the sidebar). That would add some space for the moon phase, at least. Some new css styles for the page would be nice too (rounded corners, better colors, mousehover, ...) --paxed 07:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, excellent suggestions. Tjr 14:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• See how how search engines see us. It's quite a surprise. We need to make clear the site is about NetHack. --Tjr 18:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really a fan of the new "Screenshot" design of the main page. The links are clever but it's not very useful for navigation purposes. The previous design was a lot clearer. --The Cheshire Cat 12:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• On my work computer at 1024 pixels the Screenshot won't fit on the screen so the header and screenshot content is shoved below the news side bar. The in-screenshot links are cool but not particulary useful.--PeterGFin 11:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

rumor + moon make welcome box too full

The black box that previously contained only "Welcome to NetHackWiki" now also has a random rumor (which may stretch over 2 lines) and the moon phase. That's way too much IMO. Our own name should stand out prominently. --Tjr 13:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could have the moon phase (when it is relevant) replace the rumor instead? We don't need a rumor every day, and that will make the box less cluttered. -Ion frigate 15:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion. Alternatively, we could also just get rid of the moon phase thingy and just show rumors all the time. --Ilmari Karonen 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nay, the moon phase thingy is pretty cool. I never thought you could do something like that with Mediawiki. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 23:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Community link

Right now the Community link on the right links to NetHackWiki:About. I think it should point to NetHackWiki:Community_Portal. --99.239.146.253 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed the link. --99.239.146.253 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Does anyone object to semi-protecting the main page? This wiki doesn't generally have spam problems, but I don't see any harm in protecting against the occasional drive-by IP edit. The CAPNTHLA should mean that few if any spammers will succeed in making active accounts. -Ion frigate 20:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, I find that protecting the main page tends to not really be massively important even in wikis with heavy spambot attacks (Esolang, which I also admin, is heavily targeted by spambots but they mostly don't care about the Main Page; and in general, helpful mainpage anon edits are more common than drive-by vandalism). I don't have a strong opinion about it either way, though. Ais523 20:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Object to" is a strong word, but in case of a tie I vote against protecting it until some spam attack takes longer than 10 hours to get reverted. --Tjr 20:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, seems people in general want it to stay as is. That's fine by me; trying to deal with the excessive spam at CrawlWiki (where no one had admin powers) made me kind of jumpy about it. -Ion frigate 23:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, since anybody cann rollback, it's a safe risk.

Detonator coil, suitable for a small nuclear device. (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

a stabborn option, potion use

Moved this to Forum:A stubborn option, and potion use; this page is about discussion of the main page, not about general wiki discussion (see NetHackWiki:Community Portal instead) or general NetHack discussion (see Forum:Watercooler instead). —bcode ^{talk | mail} 18:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nethack wiki replacing WikiHack?

Personally, I like wikihack, the format, everything. (For those wondering what WikiHack is, it's the old NetHack wikia.)

What's to happen to WikiHack now?

(leave a reply on my talk page, thanks)

--WaveDivisionMultiplexer (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope nothing, until it fades into oblivion. Wikia certainly do not honor shutdown requests (unless requested by a lawyer). --Tjr (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But what's to happen to WikiHack? It's got many pages, and some users still add to it. Also, I'm rather fond of that wiki now. Perhaps if I had found this website before, I wouldn't have bothered to ask.

--WaveDivisionMultiplexer (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A little note at the beginning: I've tried to explain as clearly as possible below. If anything is unclear, feel encouraged to ask. :) (I should also mention that I joined NetHackWiki after the move. I also don't claim to represent all of NetHackWiki or that my opinion is in any way official; I do think that parts of the NetHackWiki community might agree with me, though. Anyone may feel free to comment otherwise.)

"It's got many pages" – yes, but NetHackWiki has more; 2337 "content pages" as opposed to the old wiki with only 2030 pages. Keep in mind that NetHackWiki is essentially WikiHack without Wikia: this independence means there is no need for ads, and you aren't forced to use the Wikia skin (which most people dislike as it gives little room for content). The idea is to keep all the good things from WikiHack (the "many pages" you mentioned) while removing the things people don't like (ads, the skin, Wikia).

The same applies to users still adding to it: there are more edits to our new wiki (c. 85 thousand) than to the old wiki (c. 57 thousand). (Special:Statistics, if you're curious.) Also, many edits to the old wiki are vandalism or edits that were well-intentioned, but still incorrect. Some of that is fixed, but the majority is not.

Now, of course some edits to the old site are actually very useful and would improve the new wiki, too. That is quite unfortunate, as it actually splits the wiki – if the old wiki had just spam/vandalism/other trash edits, we could point at it and say "we moved, now only vandals frequent it". This way, however, it looks like there's an actual community around the old site when the community really just moved.

Most of the people who actually know a lot about NetHack – those people who can tell you exactly how the code for something works and why a wiki entry about it has to be improved – also know that we decided to move to NetHackWiki. Unfortunately, as Wikia would not allow us to "properly" move, they artificially created a divide between those who know about the move and those who don't – and the old wiki is still better known outside certain parts of the NetHack community, mostly because it was there first (and on Wikia, too) and Google's algorithm doesn't care who "should" be found. Thus, there are still edits to the old wiki, and we can't do anything about that. (We tried. Wikia fought our tries, though.)

It'd be best for WikiHack to close down or redirect to this new site. That way, the community wouldn't be split anymore. That's not going to happen, though – Wikia won't allow that.

What will actually happen? Probably, it'll stay like this – WikiHack will remain there as a trap for people searching for information about NetHack while actual improvements will be made to NetHackWiki. I hope that at some point, NetHackWiki will actually outrank WikiHack on Google – it's a long way to go, of course. I hope you'll follow us on that path, even if it's just to end the confusion caused by having "two wikis".

But to address your last line, what is it that makes you fond of the old wiki? We started with all its content and now have even more, so I don't think it's that. If you can tell us what you prefer about the old wiki, the administrators might be able to add that on NetHackWiki too. Perhaps it's something trivial that'd help a lot. Maybe other people would also be convinced to follow that way. Feel free to suggest any improvement; whether it can be done is a question for the admins. :)

— Hoping that you'll eventually feel the same kind of fondness for our moved site, bcode ^{talk | mail} 19:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

is there a reason why the main page at wikihack can't be changed to include (or even be just) a link to the NetHackWiki? i understand why wikia wouldn't want it, but what do they do to prevent it? have people tried "talking" to editors there to ask them to come here? are there negative outcomes? --194.116.198.185 12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There pretty much are no editors there anymore. Last time I checked the recent changes page the only edits that had been done in months were changing the spelling of "encyclopedia" to the UK spelling on a few pages, which is kind of dumb because the game itself uses the American spelling. The community of people who actually contribute has already completely abandoned that site, the only problem is that their PageRank means the community of new players looking for information is likely going there first. Wooble (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm thinking about turning wikihack into a fanfiction wiki anyways, so people won't find anything useful for the game there, and a link could be included. I don't think they can do anything about it. Any who, it's to make use of the old wiki as it won't be deleted and to separate the fan fiction from the facts. --Detonator coil, suitable for a small nuclear device. (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikia staff has reverted similar edits before. So it's likely they will do this in the future as well. You can try but you might get banned if you are not careful. I like the idea of changing the scope of the old wiki to a fan fiction. ——Bhaak (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't admins have rights to un-ban themselves? or wait I have to check that on the test wiki. Also, thank you. If you have a fan fiction, you could post it there. --Detonator coil, suitable for a small nuclear device. (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Great idea with the fan-fiction. Should we seed it with the humorous conduct YAAP posts on RGRN, e.g. a pacifist ascension told from the archon's point of view? --Tjr (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We could add anything at all, from Stupid deaths or inventory items named in a humorous fashion. Comics are a good idea, because you have to use a lot of imagination without tiles. It could even be a nethack game experience. That way, we'd have a lot of content to continue with. --Detonator coil, suitable for a small nuclear device. (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the general consensus that we should try to repurpose the Wikia wiki; the staff would likely notice the inevitable mass deletions. It's probably better just to let the site die. It might even worth be pointing out to the Wikia admins that the site is no longer updated and becoming more inaccurate over time, in a few years. Ais523 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, some users will keep editing, and it's gonna take another bunch of edits to stop them from doing so. It's going to take a lot more time for the site to die out. My point here is to make use of a wiki what won't be deleted. Secondly, we do not need to destroy all the content. And lastly, if anything is changed, it will be done gradually, because one cannot change the content of a wiki in a day. --Detonator coil, suitable for a small nuclear device. (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to the forums, it seems like an appropriate page for this discussion.--Detonator coil, suitable for a small nuclear device. (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Strategy

It's possible that this Wiki might be the first port of call for any new players. The game can seem pretty impenetrable at first. I would strongly suggest a prominent link to the Strategy page or other general instruction on how to play. E.g. a link to http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Standard_strategy. Maybe it could go on the Popular pages menu. I thought of this because I'm trying to get some new players involved for Junethack. Wikid (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who wanted to object to this had five years to do so, so I just added it! :) TK (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I broke da wiki.

Sorry, this is almost certainly not the place for this, but I couldn't find anywhere else to put it.

When attempting to create a new forum topic, by entering my post title and clicking "Add New Topic", I get the following error:

No such action Jump to navigationJump to search The action specified by the URL is invalid. You might have mistyped the URL, or followed an incorrect link. This might also indicate a bug in the software used by NetHackWiki.

Return to Main Page.

If anyone could help me out, I'd appreciate it. Skrizzle (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Still broken. --Skrizzle (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the CreateBox extension doesn't work with newer versions of MediaWiki. Also looks like the recommended replacement, InputBox, isn't installed. I'll email a wiki admin to look into this. Infinigon (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's working now, I replaced the CreateBox there with InputBox. ——paxed (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)