Talk:MouseHunt Wiki

Below are current discussions regarding the wiki in general and the Main Page in specific. Older discussions can be found in the following links:

Archive 1, Archive 2

---

Alignment

If someone could fix the alignment on the gameplay sections, the terminology and community sections. I had the gameplay section fixed until someone deleted my edits. The words should be in a straight line. They should not be staggered--Tmm stinson 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the words look fine to me staggered. -- Camomiletea 16:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They used not to be staggered i looked at an older version link somewhere.--Tmm stinson 17:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the oldest version I found of the page in its current form. I saw older versions of the page where the text wasn't staggered and it looked rather messy to me. The Gameplay box also then wasn't in line with the way the other boxes looked. -- Camomiletea 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I was able to change to make it look like it is now. If you dont like it feel free to change it back all i did was add < br/>  & nbsp; (minus the spaces)all you have to do it delete it.--Tmm stinson 22:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone else changed it so. I still liked them indented but whatever.--Tmm stinson 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Gave it a shot but only could find a workaround via bullets.... _____m. 22:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What you'll find:

I think having the potions under "What you'll find:" there is unneeded as there is a potions section in loot and the page is relatively short. Thomas5436 15:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

New! Tag

Please keep the " NEW!" tag for a standard 1 month or so after the page using it is created. That should be enough time for it to be recognized by players, and not too long that it becomes old. Older pages should not be using the NEW! tag, but instead a more appropriate REVAMPED! or something similar can be used, if needed. -- Grexx 17:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pooflinger Tools

Was suggested on the forum that a link to Pooflinger be added to the main page. Is very useful, and currently quite well hidden. Just thought I would get feelings on this. Fishwick 18:47, 08 April 2009 (UTC) Just seen Brossows comments: No worries.

Just to further clarify, the developers do not support any 3rd party tools so they do not wish to have a direct link on the main page. At the moment however, they have allowed them to stay as links in the related links section. See the old edit here for reference. -- Grexx 07:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Trap Check Update?

"Thanks for your ungoing patience and support." Shouldn't that say ongoing or was it ungoing on purpose? --Stevehanler 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the devs made a typo.[1] -- Camomiletea 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Pfft we never make typos :P Okay joking, I make at least three each news post. I guess you'll just have to have ungoing patience with my many typos! --Dave Vanderburg 19:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. I thought it might be some inside joke I didn't understand. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. -- Stevehanler 04:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tournaments

There should be a link to Tournaments in the Info Section, with all the necessary information about this. It confuses many people and they use the Wiki only to get disappointed when they find no links/references to it, especially newbies. Someone was dazzled by the difference of hunting group and party, for instance.

I added one. It doesnt look great but its there. I have also added a party horn button to the terminology section--Tmm stinson 02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I made it look better it took some trail and error but it looks better--Tmm stinson 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirects on Abbreviations

Never realized there were so many redirects based on abbreviations. I would like to take the chance to clarify some points. Abbreviations in MouseHunt are not really set in stone. There are a good number of them, all player created, as can be seen from Abbreviations. Many people don't use abbreviations at all. Thus if everyone were to add their own abbreviation into the MH Wiki, it would result in many redirect pages that are useful to a small group of users, and meaningless to most others. There aren't that many articles on MouseHunt honestly, so please consider using bookmarks if you need to frequently access an article, rather than adding a redirect so that you can search an article faster using the abbreviation redirect. -- Grexx 20:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of such redirects have only been added recently. At the time I wondered if they should be there at all, but didn't do anything about them. -- Camomiletea 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there really any harm in redirects? They:

• take up so little room in the DB (from an Admin's point of view for backup purposes)
• make common acronyms / abbreviations used on forums / chats / boards / etc an easy lookup reference for the full item of reference
• are a feature of mediawiki that even wikipedia uses very heavily to avoid many pages with similar titles with nothing more than a link to the "other page".
• can help enlighten users what people are referring to on forums, etc. (Type in acronym, and get taken to the expanded definition and it's own page)
• reduce maintenance of multiple pages.
• are used when renaming a page so that people who have book marked previous (old) pages are still taken to the new page thanks to the redirect.

There's probably more reasons too. I propose the reverse question - What are the reasons against having them? -- austin 11:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Austin, addressing the points raised. Firstly, space was never an issue. Every discussion, edit we make takes up space. If there is a need for an article/page, it will be there, be it as a full article or just a redirect.

Specifically with regard to redirects, there was never anything against them, so I don't understand why this has been brought up at all. They are well utilized on the wiki. If you look deep into the page structure, you will find that there are many meaningful redirects. We have never had a serious issue with multiple pages because naming is very direct on the MH Wiki, as only direct in-game names are used, followed by any necessary redirect on the short names, such as Ghost to Ghost Mouse.

The main issue with acronyms/abbreviations (AA) is, how do you define common? If a group of friends started bandying about their own abbreviations daily on the forums, does that make it a common abbreviation? For every AA used, I've seen enough players going "huh?", myself included. Which brings me to the point I made originally: AA are numerous and are all player created, and none are official. The only semi official AA that we might have is the ACRONYM, an intended result from the developers. There is no hard and fast rule on which AA signifies what.

Thus if we were to allow one, who is to argue that someone else should not be allowed to put each of their personal AA as a wiki page so as to avoid having to bookmark their frequently accessed articles. And then what? Back to the point I raised earlier, it will be chaotic, with many unregulated and unmonitored AA pages, that are neither useful, notable, and recognizable to the majority of players.

Regarding knowledge of a particular AA (or lack of it), that is already well covered by the article List of forum abbreviations and acronyms. It serves as a central area to monitor all the AAs in the game, so users won't even have to search for an AA, cutting down on the "huh?" factor. That article also solves any possible disambiguation issues with multiple items pointing to a single AA, and having to work out exactly which article is more notable. -- Grexx 15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So why have some redirects been proposed for deletion then? What's the harm in having them there? I'll tell people on the forums / via chat / etc to punch things into the search bar on here and it (mostly) takes them to the page they need. If redirects for common A/A are taken away, then they get a search list that may or may not have the result they're after near the top. It's just a small way to make it easier for users. Just about every item in the game can be made into an A/A. As long as there's no overlap, is there really a harm in having redirects to the page of the item in question? Camomiletea has decided that having redirects from acronyms of items in game to their respective pages is a bad idea. I disagree. Links from VMT to Venus Mouse Trap, DDB to Digby Drill Bot, are proposed for deletion, but only the DDB redirect and not the variations on its name here, here, here, or here. If it says in the description that it is also known as, then why remove that from the wiki? If it's written there, that's it's known as a DDB, then shouldn't the wiki reflect that?

As for personal acronyms, there's really a defined few that are accurate for the items in game. How many can you make for an item such as the VMT? It's either known as the Venus, or the VMT, or by its full name. Similarly for other items - there's really only a single or at best two entries that are possible. I'm doubting that there have been any cases of unruly A/A that are game related. If it's non-game related, sure remove them, but when they are used in common discussions, why not have them? I don't see why the vast majority of acronyms listed on this page shouldn't have their own redirect page. The main benefits (that I can see) are reducing the number of clicks for someone to find something (instant results), and faster searching. If it's limited to those couple of dozen, then where's the problem? I seriously don't see everyone put(ting) each of their personal A/A as a wiki page, because of the point mentioned before - the majority of the time, there really is only a single way to make an acronym from something.

I think it's a waste of time and adding to frustration removing something that is referenced and used. VMT has been accessed 131 times and DDB 272 times at the time of response, so it's not like it's a "one off" use page. Compare that to the Partybot redirect page which has only been used 8 times, and I think it's existence is warranted.

austin 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)