Talk:Home

Suggestion for credibility
(Sent to Tihocan by Ildiko on the DDO forums): There are a number of prominent forum members who are hesitant about the info in the Wiki currently, and are vocal about its inaccuracies. I'd like to propose a program to help win the trust of DDOWiki vistors.

I call the program VIGaS!, which stands for Verified In-Game and Signed. As registered members edit a page, they may add the VIGaS tage at the end of an article, or element. This signifies that the info in that article or element has been checked by that member, and they are signing for its accuracy. The VIGaS "brand" could be just a wiki page link and signature - VIGaSTihocan 10:55, February 24, 2006 (EST). Or is might be an icon that links back to the VIGaS wiki page.

The signature ensures that if people fake verification, we know who they are, while building trust in those members signing legitimately. All of us who contribute to DDOWiki know that it is not 100% accurate, and we all work to make it that way. This program gives the whole site additional credibility with the naysayers and demonstrates our commitment to providing the best and most accurate information.


 * There is already the template for numbers, but I agree it may not be enough. It's true that too many people have a bad opinion of the Wiki because there is some false information on it. This VIGaS idea sounds like a good one to me. However something just like Verified (with some specific formatting) may be more intuitive for casual visitors. I'm also not sure where we should put this. For instance having one tag for each spell in a list would make the list hard to read. Maybe we could actually just use the  template, and modify its formatting (e.g. slightly different colour) to highlight verified information? Opinions welcome. Tihocan 10:55, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * I'd just say wait. We have a page verification/voting system going up in a bit, but no time to implement it now... was supposed to go up with 2.0, but we may have to implement it with 1.2 instead, I don't know. 12:14, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * Ok, that sounds like a good solution. Any ETA on this? (don't want to press you, but ideally, we would want it up for the retail game launch on Feb. 28th) -- Tihocan 14:28, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * To put it bluntly - no way in HELL we will have any changes to the site software ready for game launch. Everything YOU see go live has usually been in development and testing for about a month - for instance, the slew of changes you see starting now are things we started working on right when we first launched the site. See the LFG: Site work announcement; we just can get anything done at any great turn of speed with only two of us around! 15:02, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * I think you meant can't and not can ;) Anyway, that means we may need a temp solution to highlight the verified content. Tihocan 17:05, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * The idea is that ALL content should be verified. If its not verified, remove it - if it's not verified, better yet, add it in the first place. Perhaps a public plea to STOP ADDING CONTENT YOU DIDN'T GET OFF OF YOUR OWN SCREEN, IN-GAME - not from books, not second-hand, not off the forums - would be in order. 18:01, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * SO I shouldnt have been BOLD and crossposted the spell data as it isnt verified? -- koolkat 18:04, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * Well, i have been thinking about it, but althought I love your attempt to help by cross-posting information, I think from here on we should stick to only information found in-game. I am quite tired of the bashing we are getting - if it weren't for certain trolls, we'd be fine and could keep it up, but not at this point. Our biggest thing is accuracy now... /sigh 18:07, February 24, 2006 (EST)

-> OK, I'm finally able to get real game data now, as the preorder has started, but I am guessing that people will be advancing through the game much faster than me, so I will be more like checking the original data that was entered. I'll probably be active in the ddo numbers project. Does anyone know of any loggers for DDO? -- koolkat 18:19, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * I'm not aware of any logger. I know I tried myself to analyze some packets, just to find the d20 rolls, but could not find them (looked for ascii and hexa numbers, they did not seem to be here). Ok, I have a suggestion for verification. We could use templates like the and  templates, but we would replace  by ✅,  or , depending on the source (verified in game, from Turbine officials, or read on forums or heard from other players). Then we can either automatically add a tag when this template is used, or play with fonts / colors, to make sure everything is clear for the visitors. However there is currently an issue: templates do not seem to work within templates (meaning for instance we could not use these templates in a spell description). Is there any way to fix this? Tihocan 11:32, February 25, 2006 (EST)


 * Templates have always worked just fine within other templates as far as I know - oh, i see what you mean - WITHIN the template TAG, you want another template TAG. No can do, the parser just check for closing curly braces. Howeve, really, the spell template should only apply to the top bit - the description and such should be added after the template, and the template modified to comply. I hadn't even noticed you had done it that way, lol. 14:14, February 25, 2006 (EST)


 * I didn't do it, I suck with templates ;) Deddriiiiiiiiiiiiiiid!! :] Tihocan 16:23, February 25, 2006 (EST)


 * LOL you two... 16:26, February 25, 2006 (EST)


 * Template:Spelldescription existed before I started coming here. I just applied it to a bunch of spells. From some of the discussions though, I believe all the spell bits were added as parameters to avoid having 30 different presentation formats for spells, depending on who wrote them up. I have no clue what you're saying will fix it, Peerless, unless you mean remove all the fields with numbers from the template so the DDO, PnP, Verfied, etc templates can be used. Dedridd 09:04, February 27, 2006 (EST)


 * I dunno... they should work. This needs some more consideration - alas, time is always the barrier. 17:38, February 27, 2006 (EST)

Help! - Verification ideas needed
OK all, this is important - I need you to go post here ALL YOUR IDEAS on the verify system thing. Anything you can think of, the more the ideas the more i have to fiddle with in my head. Post away: http://en.enterwiki.ws/w/Talk:Verifiability_system - thanks so much, I neeeed you input. 00:45, February 26, 2006 (EST)