Removal of all base lists

[thunderforce]

1 hour ago, BlackSpectre said:

In my view, this is the real problem. I saw this on the Excelsior page, and since I pretty much live on Excelsior, I edited the page, reorganized it, and fixed all of the malicious code. There were several where someone had replaced the base access code with a different base access code... presumably to get more traffic compared to other bases listed.

Is what you're referring to fixing here the removal of COSMICTRANSPORT-6608 done in edit https://homecoming.wiki/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_Base_List&type=revision&diff=309771&oldid=309770 ?

Edited February 13 by thunderforce

[BlackSpectre]

There’s a LOT of important information in the wiki that is not linked on the main page.  Probably too much for any kind of usable list of contents. That said, I don’t see any problem with adding Supergroups or Bases. I stay away from messing with that main wiki page, though.  I’ve always seen it as the purview of @Michiyo , our proud wiki maintainer and developer.  I’d contact him about it. 

Edited February 13 by BlackSpectre
Typo

[BlackSpectre]

4 minutes ago, thunderforce said:

Is what you're referring to fixing here the removal of COSMICTRANSPORT-6608 done in edit https://homecoming.wiki/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_Base_List&type=revision&diff=309771&oldid=309770 ?

In all honesty I have no idea about specifics. It’s been almost a year.  But all my edits are stored in the wiki for all to see.  I might have been thinking about other pages from other shards as well. Meh. 

[Dacy]

1 hour ago, BlackSpectre said:

But I have to say, the base listing pages are the ONLY wiki pages I've run across that have been maliciously targeted.  They might require some special handling, It would be worth checking into how other wikis handle these things.

We're well aware of the problem; that is why Easter Bunny was adamant over maintaining control over the input. Everything is compared to the master sheet, which only we can access, and any unauthorized changes are reverted to whatever we had originally intended.

 

This is why, AboveTheChemist, I am not sure you need to look for differences between the wiki and the document? The document would be accurate, whereas the wiki could have been altered; I am not speaking with confidence here, not knowing all that is involved, but it seems to me that it might be better to just wholesale input the document as it is each time it's updated; the net result should be that just the new things show up, as it's inputting things that were, for the most part, already there. Unless that's more of a pain? Again, I know nothing except for the things I stated: the sheet info is well controlled, the wiki is not. So therefore, I would think that updates should just be wholesale to sweep up any malicious edits that have occurred. I hope my logic there is clear, even if what I suggest is not feasible. Also, we're looking for the least labor intensive option, of course.

 

-Dacy

[thunderforce]

18 minutes ago, BlackSpectre said:

In all honesty I have no idea about specifics. It’s been almost a year.  But all my edits are stored in the wiki for all to see.  I might have been thinking about other pages from other shards as well. Meh. 

That's the only base list you have ever edited. I think it must be that - it's about a year ago and the only edit you've made to the base list that corrects a bunch of passcodes (and you write "someone had copied the Costmic Transport passcode onto every copy link"). In that case I have some good news and some bad news:

 

Good: the spurious passcodes were only up for about an hour (on Christmas Day) so it's unlikely they had much impact on users.

 

Also good: the edit adding the spurious passcodes was almost certainly not malicious, but a case of editor error. Because...

 

maybe not so good - the editor in question was you and obviously you weren't malicious.

 

I don't know what can have happened but (for example) maybe you added the command but, before you realised you'd made a mistake, there was some kind of RL interruption that meant you came back an hour later and forgot exactly what you were doing.

 

17 minutes ago, Dacy said:

the sheet info is well controlled, the wiki is not

Given the above, I'm not actually aware of any malicious edits to the wiki base lists. I review most edits (I didn't catch this because the bogus passcodes were only up for an hour) so I'd like to think I would know if that happened with any significant frequency.

 

I think it's best to have the sort of check AtC discusses just as a belt-and-braces thing, not least to be sure conversion works as expected. Also anyone doing a replacement of the entire table after changes to the sheet needs to be somewhat careful that someone hasn't added their base to the wiki and not to the sheet since the last upload was done.

Edited February 13 by thunderforce

[BlackSpectre]

5 minutes ago, thunderforce said:

 

maybe not so good - the editor in question was you. 🙂

ROFL. That’s hilarious! 🙂

 

[Dacy]

11 minutes ago, thunderforce said:

Also anyone doing a replacement of the entire table after changes to the sheet needs to be somewhat careful that someone hasn't added their base to the wiki and not to the sheet since the last upload was done.

Definitely. We hope to have a section, separate from the table, for people who'd like to do that. But it still should be checked, and I believe we plan to.

 

-Dacy

[Matsiyan]

7 hours ago, BlackSpectre said:

Openly editable spreadsheets stored off the wiki can not be monitored at all. It side-steps the small amount of oversight that the wiki has.. 

Hi Spectre, The new Directory is actually two spreadsheets. The master can only be updated by a small team of editors, who respond to requests submitted via Google forms. The second sheet is a selective mirror of that, published as readonly.

[UltraAlt]

On 2/10/2024 at 4:29 PM, Dacy said:

Yeah, didn't follow that link at that time, forgot about it, was more focused on my frustration with being told that "bases are irrelevant".

 

I was trying to post the earliest threads/posts you were involved with, but  here one with a back-and-forth between us in 2022 about the base listings on wiki.

 

I post, your reply is next, and the next post is my reply back to you.

 

I understand that it was "way back then".

It should be obvious from some of my posts that I forget things and get confused, so this just to point out what went on back then and nothing more than that.

 

On 2/10/2024 at 4:29 PM, Dacy said:

Are you aware that you can log out of your google account and access the sheet anonymously? All I see when others are in it are "anonymous (some silly animal avatar)". And they aren't even logged out.

 

No. It doesn't even operate for me with the link that you posted on one thread or another thread even when I'm logged into google.

 

On 2/10/2024 at 4:29 PM, Dacy said:

We have discussed updating the wiki with the updated, accurate, checked, and calibrated information.

 

Yes, EB, you, and myself did talk about that in a PM and it looks like it was discussed (at least) here as well.

 

On 2/10/2024 at 4:29 PM, Dacy said:

We will link the doc, yes, and we will encourage people to submit entries to the doc, but, and this part we haven't said  yet, we think offering a table for submission of new information in the wiki will give those such as yourself who want nothing to do with Google, a place to make entries.

 

I would suggest making a thread for that or using an already existing one (I think there is at least one) and putting that link as well as the base listing excel sheet in your signature and in EB's so that players can have easy access to those.

 

On 2/10/2024 at 4:29 PM, Dacy said:

So currently what we'd like to do is reformat the information, clean up the inaccuracies (which we have done on our end), and let people know that this information is sourced from a protected document, and we'd appreciate it if they would submit changes to us, and if that is not something they wish to do, they may enter their  information into the "new submissions" chart on the wiki.

 

Your goal is noble from my point of view.

You know I backed out of the general base building community because I felt it was a bit too elitist.

But that doesn't mean that I didn't want to provide my bases for general use/transport and/or RP settings. Some players seem to want that for different RP experiences. Other players would rather not have to deal with creating a base in order to have access to base transport, leveling, and enhancement and insp dealers.

 

"Clubs" get lost in the shuffle and I don't know if many players even know that they exist.

There is another dormant Club that was based round checking out bases and roleplaying.

It is public so anyone can post on it. It could be used by the Base Building and RP'ing community.

 

On 2/10/2024 at 4:29 PM, Dacy said:

There is absolutely no point in maintaining two base listings.

 

Well, there is a point. history. It existed.

Leaving it there doesn't harm anyone.

I'm assuming in the end (at least I hope), you will be promoting the spreadsheet and being contacted to enter bases on the spreadsheet through the forums enough they will be the go-to, but that doesn't mean that the wiki is irrelevant or that people didn't put time into trying to utilize it when there wasn't any other organized method of sharing the information going on.

 

And, as I indicated, it can become obsolete and just as full of errors as you claim the wiki to be.

Do you or EB has a list of the shard base listings and the passcodes from the DEVs and have the ability to keep the spreadsheet updated from that information (not to say all of them, but ones that have been entered into the spread sheet)?

 

(I thought I might have read something somewhere that may have implied that or well ...

 

 

... or maybe just ...

 

 

... oh, well...)

 

Or maybe you are hoping that players will be better about updating base codes and/or relaying the information that their passwords have changed?

 

As I said, I think that your intent is noble.

 

 

[UltraAlt]

On 2/9/2024 at 3:45 PM, Dacy said:

I have a question. As noted, I've been trying to update some of the base information, which is terribly outdated. I'm looking at entire sections that no longer apply, and they need to be modified not only in the applicable sections, but in the table of  contents. Here is what I mean:

Item origin: that entire section no longer applies.

Base Rooms: the only difference in base rooms is between the entry and the others, in terms of function, and then there are various sizes. So none of the categories listed after base rooms apply.

Could we move these items to "Legacy Concepts" and redo the table of contents? Do I need to have a discussion for approval before doing something that major? (Or "attempting" as I'm not yet confident in my ability).

 

If @Michiyo isn't involved with this yet, they should be. They run the wiki.

I meant to put something here to notify them of what is going on when I posted on Saturday or Sunday but I was really tired (I work 12's on the weekends).

 

 

On 2/10/2024 at 7:49 PM, Dacy said:

Also, the wiki will have an external link or two to the spreadsheet, but the information will be transferred to the wiki, not simply linked.

 

👍

 

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:07 AM, Easter Bunny said:

I believe the bulk upload occurred in Dec. 2020. Looks like GM Kal brought them in. 


Looking through their contributions, it seems they created all of the shard base lists that month.

 

well, honestly, I know for sure that most of the bases listed on the Everlasting page were after I made a post about the base listings on the wiki.

The Everlasting page had like ... I don't know ... 3 to 4 times or more the number of bases listed after that.

 

So, no, i don't think a bulk of the bases were uploaded to the wiki at that point.

I'm assuming someone in the Everlasting base community/rp community started entering bases after I started putting links to the wiki base pages in the forums.

 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:07 AM, Easter Bunny said:

This is where the Google Doc format and bulk listings were brought into the wiki.

 

Yes. That does appear to be the starting point.

The base listings were pretty bare when I ran into them on the wiki the first time.

If you look at all the shard base listings, only Everlasting and Excelsior have categories broken down on different tables (and Excelsior only has 2 tables). The other three Shard listings are as they originally were posted (as far as I can tell/remember).

 

8 hours ago, Dacy said:

That format would be fine, if that's not a lot of work (although I'd probably recommend that they be sorted according to "purpose", which is similar in many cases);

 

I would suggest letting players decide what "purpose" their base has and, if possible, allow them to pick more than one "purpose" if they feel it is relevant - and limiting that to 2 or three. A base can easily be a transport hub as well as an RP location.

I do think that the environmental listings on Everlasting's list are all subcategories of RP locations.

 

I'm not even going to ask why ...

Talos Key Lounge

Dining

skyway

...isn't in Talos. I'm assuming it was some kind of zoning issue or a cheaper lease.

 

As CRs, I think you should determine what the list of standard "purposes" should be.

 

7 hours ago, Dacy said:

See, right now they are just under "supergroup", but I will tell you that there are a good number of bases that are created, not as part of a supergroup

 

You can't have a base without having a supergroup.

You have to make a supergroup before you can make a base.

 

In fact, I was in supergroups before there were bases, and I had to buy CoV to get access to bases.

Things have certainly changed, but you still have to be in a supergroup in order to make a base.

 

7 hours ago, Dacy said:

For many players, bases are truly a thing only connected to supergroups by the fact that you have to create a sg in order to make a base.

 

I agree that some people just make a supergroup in order to make a base.

I have done that.

More times that not, I make characters that are RP characters for that base.

But I will admit that I did build one SG base fronting for transit that is actually a mule/alt-storage base.

 

Since you can type in "base" in the wiki search and get: https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Supergroup_Base

It even words it like you are registering for a base versus registering for supergroup though the process will take you into the sg stuff.

 

"Before building a supergroup base, you must first register the base. Registering a base does not cost anything. This is done by speaking to the Super Group Registrar. Once the base has been registered, a supergroup may then begin construction."

 

7 hours ago, Dacy said:

Many bases are named something other than the name of the sg that ownns them

 

How do you do that?

...or are you saying that they are listed by another name in the spreadsheet/wiki or passcode versus the actual name that would show up in the base portal if you were on a team with someone who was an sg member of the base?

 

I understand the use of passcodes pretty much bypasses the SG/Coalition and the systems need to list the base as an option during baseportal entry.

 

Have I been bothering too much to name my SGs by what I want the bases to be called?

 

 

[UltraAlt]

On 2/10/2024 at 7:49 PM, Dacy said:

So any bases that are not updated by the owner or builder is at least accurate to the best of our knowledge, and listed as it has been previously published.

 

That appears to be what was happening before unless I'm missing something.

 

On 2/10/2024 at 7:49 PM, Dacy said:

No, it does not fix the issue going forward, we still need to rely on players updating, but this is an effort TO GET PLAYERS TO UPDATE and to correct existing inaccuracies.

 

Okay. I'm not trying to upset you.

I'm just pointing out that you are against the current wiki use because of the inaccuracies that occured over time ... and that the same thing is likely to happen with the spreadsheet over time as well.

The only change is really the number of people that will have direct access to edit the information and that your team will check to see that the passcodes are working around the time that they are first added to the spread sheet. (at least, I'm not seeing any indication that you intend to recheck all base codes at a certain frequency of time to see if they are still functional - not saying that you should either, but ... if accuracy is the goal ...)

 

On 2/10/2024 at 7:49 PM, Dacy said:

This is not us unilaterally deciding how to list a base and whether or not a code should be public.

 

If it is a "base" listing and not a "supergroup" listing, then I see no reason to list base that is not public and does not provide a base code.

Can you explain the reasoning of having a base listed on the base list page if it isn't accessible by the "public"?

 

is it a "supergroup" list or is it a "base" list?

 

To my understanding, this is about the "base" list redirected from here https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Supergroup_Base which says:

 

"Open Player Made Base Listing

Listings of bases by shard intended for open use by the public, with entry passcodes."

 

Is there some confusion on my part?

 

On 2/10/2024 at 7:49 PM, Dacy said:

This is us attempting to increase base visibility and accessibility for those that want to find bases for whatever reason.

 

I understand.

You know that I have posts in all the Shard sub-forums with links to the wiki pages "increase base visibility and accessibility for those that want to find bases..." .. on their shard ..."...for whatever reason."

I do feel it is pointless to list bases that don't provide a passcode. The base is neither visible or accessible without the passcode.

 

In the end, it looks like you all are going to do what you are going to do.

I'm not sure that it is worth my time to even give input at this point.

 

But I will respond.

 

[Dacy]

UltraAlt, you are prolific in your postings, but there seems to be some confusion or misunderstanding of things I thought we'd already covered. I'm apparently guilty of that, or at least forgetfulness: yes, you caught me, apparently you mentioned wiki to me before and I completely forgot about it. I also have zero recollection or visible record of "PMs" between you, me, and Easter Bunny. I will have to ask him, as his memory is better than mine.

 

4 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

I would suggest making a thread for that or using an already existing one (I think there is at least one) and putting that link as well as the base listing excel sheet in your signature and in EB's so that players can have easy access to those.

Perhaps we'll make one for the directory. I don't have anything for my YouTube channel, our Discord, or a few other things, so I doubt I'll make one for this, either. I'm not on the forums nearly as much as the forums themselves are. Between the Directory topic, the wiki, and the information available on Discord, I should think players who want the information can get it easily. Adding things to my sig has just never been a priority for me as something I need to learn how to do.

 

4 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

Well, there is a point. history. It existed.

Leaving it there doesn't harm anyone.

I'm assuming in the end (at least I hope), you will be promoting the spreadsheet and being contacted to enter bases on the spreadsheet through the forums enough they will be the go-to, but that doesn't mean that the wiki is irrelevant or that people didn't put time into trying to utilize it when there wasn't any other organized method of sharing the information going on.

The point of a wiki (I thought and previous to all of these interactions, assumed) was to provide information. Information which is updated.  Information that is hopefully accurate.

 

The few listings that were not part of the Google docs that was the origin of the wiki information were added into our document, if the information was accurate. We were only able to test base codes, but if they worked and matched the name of the base listed, that information is then listed and is confirmed. Further information needs to be input by the owner or someone who knows the base well. So in effect, the listings will remain, just not in the exact format they are in currently. Like any wiki page, it's subject to updates and revisions, and if it's irrelevant in a wholesale kind of way, it gets made into a historical reference.  None of that is ever meant to diminish those that have worked on it. But when you correct a page, do you leave up the old page because "it existed"? Imagine a wiki where old pages and the new versions exist side by side because "leaving them there doesn't harm anyone". It does. It creates confusion. It's highly unusable to have to wade through several iterations of information. It makes for a cluttered interface, and leaving up the pages as they are now only perpetuates inaccurate information. People who want to see the changes of a page can visit the history tab.

 

Fact is, the wiki page came AFTER the google docs were posted, were started with the information from the Google doc, so there was in fact an "organized method of sharing the information". The history of the pages does not bear out the idea that you proffered that the download of the document info only provided a thin listing of bases, whose ranks were then swelled by individuals listing bases after you alerted them to the presence of the wiki. Neither does the number of bases that Easter Bunny found that were listed here and nowhere else, support that. The whole reason we started the directory listing on a Google doc is because that's how the majority of the players have shown us that they will list on. They understand it, and we have done a tremendous amount of work and testing to try and make it much more usable and intuitive and informative than the original doc was.

4 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

And, as I indicated, it can become obsolete and just as full of errors as you claim the wiki to be.

Do you or EB has a list of the shard base listings and the passcodes from the DEVs and have the ability to keep the spreadsheet updated from that information (not to say all of them, but ones that have been entered into the spread sheet)?

If you'll but read more carefully, how we are protecting the information in the document has been explained.  And I wish there WAS a listing of bases and passcodes that was official. There is not. Our list has been compiled from various sources, and the codes checked to confirm if they are valid. The rest is up to the players, but we will guard the information they give us, it won't be corrupted on our document as information has been in the past. Unfortunately, there is only so much we can do to get the information, and we do not wish to usurp the player's right to designate their base as they choose. But this is why we are trying to get the word out to have people update their information, so it can reflect what each base owner wishes it to reflect, about their base. This is not only important to be true to what the builder/owner wants, but to give information to those seeking bases to visit. Some people have very specific things they're looking for. Believe me, we get many questions.

 

So no, we have no magical (or technological) way to keep the bases updated. What we saw was a base directory that was languishing. Players weren't using it for various reasons, but a big reason is that there is less and less reason to list a base as the number of people using the directory and listing bases drops off, and there is less and less reason to use a directory when fewer bases are being listed, and the ones that are there may not be accurately listed. We noted that some players don't use the forums, and some don't use Discord, so any directory we came up with had to be able to be accessed from either place. The success of this directory is yet to be known; will it, too, die off as players ignore it? It's a self-reinforcing circle, but so is the circle of success: many people enter their bases in the directory, and so they know that the directory lists many bases, and the word spreads and people learn to go to the directory to look up a base, and builders know that if they want their bases to be seen, they need to be sure to list them in the directory. Of course, we hope that people will use the directory. We've worked hard on it. But that's not up to us to control; we can only make the best directory we can, and hope that it's appealing. We will do our best to keep it up to date, but routinely going through the hundreds of bases and checking the codes would be a lot of work.

3 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

would suggest letting players decide what "purpose" their base has and, if possible, allow them to pick more than one "purpose" if they feel it is relevant - and limiting that to 2 or three. A base can easily be a transport hub as well as an RP location.

I do think that the environmental listings on Everlasting's list are all subcategories of RP locations.

We do, and more than one "purpose" would be "Multipurpose", also a purpose.  Further specifications come with later categorical tags. I'm sure you'd have seen this if you'd been able to open the documents and actually see what it is we're doing.

 

And of course bases can be many things, that is why we agonized over the various tags and tested them with users to see how well they worked. The idea was to give people more descriptive categorizations for their bases. It's been incredibly difficult, as the creative mass of this player base is off the charts, so trying to come up with things that will successfully categorize and describe the vast majority of bases has been both a major undertaking and a major headache. And one reason we wanted to change the categorizations was because we felt that "subcategories of RP locations" was insufficient.

3 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

Things have certainly changed, but you still have to be in a supergroup in order to make a base.

I think I didn't make my meaning clear to you. Of course you must create a sg to make a base. However, many bases are created by alts, not to create an actual sg, but in order to create the base. The fact that they had to create a sg to make the base is just part of the process, one they'd skip if they could, because all they want to do is build the base. That's why I said what I said: many sgs are created, not to be a sg, but to create a base. There is but one person in the "group", it's not a supergroup by any definition but the most technical. The process is still the technical process: you have to create a "Supergroup" in order to create a base.  But as you said, supergroups existed before bases. They are groups of people banded together for whatever purpose. They may have a base, or they may not. I draw a distinction. To me, a "sg" that is created just to create a base is not an actual sg. It is technically, of course, but one alt in the registry does not a "supergroup" make, imo. This is what I meant. This is the distinction I make: there are many bases that exist apart from supergroups, supergroups being defined here as an actual group of players. I hope that is more clear.

 

3 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

...or are you saying that they are listed by another name in the spreadsheet/wiki or passcode versus the actual name that would show up in the base portal if you were on a team with someone who was an sg member of the base?

Yes, this. Some people name their sgs the name they wish to appear for the base, and some people name their sgs for the coalition of people it represents, and call the base something else, often reflected in the code. The game does not leave room for naming a group of people something different than their base, so, the players do what they can to create that difference.

 

3 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

I'm just pointing out that you are against the current wiki use because of the inaccuracies that occured over time ... and that the same thing is likely to happen with the spreadsheet over time as well.

 

We are trying to update the wiki. Wikis get updated. Or should be. Inaccurate information seems inevitable, it does not mean that it can not and should not be improved when it can be. We are not "against the current wiki use", we are trying to make it reflect the current listings with a different format.

 

3 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

If it is a "base" listing and not a "supergroup" listing, then I see no reason to list base that is not public and does not provide a base code.

Can you explain the reasoning of having a base listed on the base list page if it isn't accessible by the "public"?

 

There are some base owners that want to have control over who comes in and when, so they prefer to be asked for a tour. Reasonings: 1) surprise visitors can interrupt RP, especially bad if the base is RPly a secret location. 2). the base owner has been subject of harassment by someone or perhaps a group of people, and giving out the code indiscriminately will result in more harassment. 3) the base is only open for certain events during certain times or seasons, or entrance is restricted and the code is regularly changed to keep it that way.

 

 Some bases have owners that left the game, but did not delete their account, and as a result, the bases they built are still there. We list bases such as these where the code is no longer valid, hoping that someone may know the current code and let us know. We would note that somewhere on the Wiki. However, first, we must get as complete of a response to completing the information for the bases in the directory as we can, in order to know what bases might be abandoned and yet still present.   We'd prefer the owner of the base be the one to update the information, rather than someone not in that position. Getting owners to update is an ongoing process that is likely to take some time.

 

Bases listed without a code are still bases that are worth seeing, worth knowing about, and they are even bases that the owners and builders want to have visited, but for various reasons do not want the code to be publicly accessible all of the time. You earlier stated that you wanted the old lists to remain up and available, that you saw no reason to not present them along with the new lists. If you want old and outdated and potentially incorrect information listed "because it existed" and people worked hard on it, etc, why would you not want to list bases people worked very hard on, if for no other reason than complete accuracy in record keeping on what bases are still around? Because, we have over 31,000 bases + just on Everlasting alone that have been made, but clearly, most of those no longer exist. I think it's good, from if nothing else, a historical pov, to know what bases are still technically here. And, if we've simply lost the code, listing such a base may enable someone to tell us what that code is, so the base is not lost forever.

 

So, those are the reasons.  And I'm done responding, it's late, I stayed up hours past when I wanted to go to bed...ugh.

 

Anything else will have to go unanswered, I'm tired and feel like I'm having to battle every little thing here.

 

An aside, I greatly appreciate the understanding, tutelage, and cooperation and help from AboveTheChemist and BlackSpectre. Thank you again!! We don't quite know all of what we're doing here yet, but we're so much closer than we were. ❤️

 

-Dacy

Edited February 13 by Dacy

[UltraAlt]

3 hours ago, Dacy said:

UltraAlt, you are prolific in your postings, but there seems to be some confusion or misunderstanding of things I thought we'd already covered. I'm apparently guilty of that, or at least forgetfulness: yes, you caught me, apparently you mentioned wiki to me before and I completely forgot about it.

 

As I stated, not remembering something happens.

However, it did occur.

 

3 hours ago, Dacy said:

I also have zero recollection or visible record of "PMs" between you, me, and Easter Bunny. I will have to ask him, as his memory is better than mine.

 

From February 7th of this year?

 

You have requested a visible record, so I am supplying one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 13 by UltraAlt

[UltraAlt]

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

Perhaps we'll make one for the directory. I don't have anything for my YouTube channel, our Discord, or a few other things, so I doubt I'll make one for this, either. I'm not on the forums nearly as much as the forums themselves are. Between the Directory topic, the wiki, and the information available on Discord, I should think players who want the information can get it easily. Adding things to my sig has just never been a priority for me as something I need to learn how to do.

 

It was just a suggestion to promote what you are working on.

Just a suggestion.

 

You need not feel required to respond or even read the spoilered section of this post.

 

Spoiler

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

The point of a wiki (I thought and previous to all of these interactions, assumed) was to provide information. Information which is updated.  Information that is hopefully accurate.

 

Agreed.

That is why I posted there.
That is why I didn't change other people's information.

That is why I said I wouldn't change other people's base information with their agreement.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

if they worked and matched the name of the base listed, that information is then listed and is confirmed.

 

Okay. I'm hoping you answered this somewhere else already so I may be removing this part if I don't forget to do so.

How can you tell what the name of the base is from the passcode?

How an the name of a supergroups base be different that the supergroup?

If the base name listed is different than the supergroup name then it nullifies the listing?

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

It does. It creates confusion.

 

I don't think it would if there was a link to the spreadsheet and the existing wiki, but that doesn't seem to be what is occuring.

I think that that the current pages should be archived instead of overwritten, but the replacement maybe already occurring.

By doing this, there would be fresh tracking of the new page initiated by the CRs.

It isn't just and updating. It is a replacement and the two are not the same.

 

One might correct, update, or modify information on a wiki page, but I think it is against the intent of a wiki to entirely replace an existing page with new content.

Perhaps @Michiyo could comment on that.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

Fact is, the wiki page came AFTER the google docs were posted,

 

By that you mean the google doc was posted in the forums, I'm assuming.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

The history of the pages does not bear out the idea that you proffered that the download of the document info only provided a thin listing of bases, whose ranks were then swelled by individuals listing bases after you alerted them to the presence of the wiki.

 

okay. I'll go take a look ...

I can see where it is showing where I edited a base shard page before Betsumei broke down the table into subtables on Everlasting in 2021.

I didn't do a base count now, but I'm assuming that I thought when the re-categorizing into sub-table happened that more bases had been added.

I don't know the exact counts of bases listed on Everlasting before and after. You are most likely correct that it is the same number as the splitting into sub-tables apparently confused me in regard to the number of bases listes.

So that's my bad.

 

And, in fact, I can only find my posts about base listings on the shards in January of 2023, so it was long after those changes.

However, 5 bases were added with documentation to the Everlasting after I posted the base listings in the forums. Not many, but some.

Faulty memory anyone?

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

If you'll but read more carefully, how we are protecting the information in the document has been explained.

 

I'm not questioning the ability of being able to prevent the corruption of the information by limiting the number that can edit the information.

What I said was that it isn't going to be any better about insuring that the information remains up-to-date over time any better than the wiki has done.

 

The change is apparently happening, so it really seems to be a moot point now.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

it won't be corrupted on our document as information has been in the past.

 

Which I do believe at least some which was determined to have been corrected by others when they found that it had occurred.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

But this is why we are trying to get the word out to have people update their information, so it can reflect what each base owner wishes it to reflect, about their base.

 

Hopefully keeping fresh posts on this thread is helping to keep it showing up for advertising stake at least.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

Of course, we hope that people will use the directory. We've worked hard on it.

 

Yes, there is no denying that you put/are putting more effort into this than certainly I did in the wiki and most probably more than the others that did any editing on the base pages.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

We will do our best to keep it up to date, but routinely going through the hundreds of bases and checking the codes would be a lot of work.

 

Agreed.

Hence my reasoning for commenting on the degradation of current information over time.

You can reduce the corruption of data by the number of people that can manipulate the data, but you can't control changes users make and don't report over time.

 

If it comes down to hundreds of base listings to go through, there are those of us that would be willing to help you - if you feel that you could trust us - to relay back if a base is functional or not. How small a group that you would be willing to work with would determine how time consuming the process would be for each person in the group and how long it would take to complete the process.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

We do, and more than one "purpose" would be "Multipurpose", also a purpose.  Further specifications come with later categorical tags. I'm sure you'd have seen this if you'd been able to open the documents and actually see what it is we're doing.

 

Yes, but I couldn't with the link that I had tried and another link hasn't been provided to me in replies yet.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

And of course bases can be many things, that is why we agonized over the various tags and tested them with users to see how well they worked.

 

Then it sounds like you already have that covered.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

And one reason we wanted to change the categorizations was because we felt that "subcategories of RP locations" was insufficient.

 

okay.

 

What I'm seeing in-game in the /help is players looking for transport hubs, but I'm not a member of the RP community. 

They are mainly stating issues with getting around the City, say that they don't have a base, and then people offer them base access.

 

Just saying.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

However, many bases are created by alts, not to create an actual sg, but in order to create the base

 

I can agree with that.

I have over 150 characters ... and around 9 bases if I'm counting correctly.

Only one does not have characters themed around the supergroup, but the base is themed around the supergroup name.

Some I created a concept for a base, and the based characters for the supergroup around that the base concept.

Others I decided to create a supergroup and themed the base around the supergroup.

 

In the base building contests, I have clearly seen bases are simply built to be an environment versus a superhero base or a villain lair.

The holiday base fall into this category as well.

So yes, obviously, some bases aren't base around using them for supergroup participation.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

There is but one person in the "group", it's not a supergroup by any definition but the most technical.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

It is technically, of course, but one alt in the registry does not a "supergroup" make, imo. This is what I meant.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

This is the distinction I make: there are many bases that exist apart from supergroups, supergroups being defined here as an actual group of players. I hope that is more clear.

 

You seem to go back and forth between multiple players and multiple characters in a supergroup to define it as a "group".

 

All my supergroups have more than one member/character, but some of those only have my characters as members.

The bio's stitch them together as being part of the same "supergroup".

 

We all play our own way and take a different view of things.

Sometime looking at things from another person's point of view allows us to get a better overall perspective of things.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

Yes, this. Some people name their sgs the name they wish to appear for the base, and some people name their sgs for the coalition of people it represents, and call the base something else, often reflected in the code. The game does not leave room for naming a group of people something different than their base, so, the players do what they can to create that difference.

 

Thanks. I didn't think there was a way to name your base something different than the supergroup's name.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

Inaccurate information seems inevitable, it does not mean that it can not and should not be improved when it can be. We are not "against the current wiki use", we are trying to make it reflect the current listings with a different format.

 

Which I said was a noble cause.

I am glad that you agree that inaccuracy over time going to happen regardless of formating.

 

The inaccuracies were not the fault of the wiki.

There were inaccuracies in the original spreadsheet information by the time it was loaded into the wiki pages.

There was some corruption on the wiki that was caught and reverted.

 

It is a good thing to try to insure that the data is up-to-date.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

There are some base owners that want to have control over who comes in and when, so they prefer to be asked for a tour. Reasonings: 1) surprise visitors can interrupt RP, especially bad if the base is RPly a secret location. 2). the base owner has been subject of harassment by someone or perhaps a group of people, and giving out the code indiscriminately will result in more harassment. 3) the base is only open for certain events during certain times or seasons, or entrance is restricted and the code is regularly changed to keep it that way.

 

I understand that you are trying to something different here.

The current wiki pages are for Public Bases and not closed ones. That is my point.

 

In the RP example, the code could be changed during the RP session and then revered afterwards.

 

I also can't figure out how someone would get harassed in their base and be unable to change their passcode to prevent it, but people are pretty creative when it comes to trolling/harassing other people.

 

I'm unsure why the Event Bases need to be on the Public Base list when they are advertised in the forums when players have access to them - and are not "public" for the rest of the year.

 

But that's my perspective on it.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

why would you not want to list bases people worked very hard on, if for no other reason than complete accuracy in record keeping on what bases are still around?

 

Because it is currently and has been a Public Base list.

Perhaps there needs to be a second section or separate page for bases that are not open to the Public.

 

I think if the Public and closed bases are listed on the same wiki page, then the public bases should be a the top of the page.

I would also suggest putting the transport bases at the top. From may experience in-game, that is what most players are looking for. They want a base that they can navigate easily for transportation, leveling, getting insp and enhancements, and possibly buffs.

 

These are suggestions.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

Because, we have over 31,000 bases + just on Everlasting alone that have been made, but clearly, most of those no longer exist.

 

And 99% of them never supplied information to anyone about them being Public or shared the passcode.

I'm assuming well over half of them don't even have passcodes.

 

You don't have to have a passcode in order to let someone into your base.

 

When there is a base contest, the passcodes come out and are posted in the forums.

How many bases were in the last contest? It wasn't that many.

 

I'm sure there are a large number of bases that people wouldn't want listed for one reason or another.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

I think it's good, from if nothing else, a historical pov, to know what bases are still technically here. And, if we've simply lost the code, listing such a base may enable someone to tell us what that code is, so the base is not lost forever.

 

okay.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

So, those are the reasons.  And I'm done responding, it's late, I stayed up hours past when I wanted to go to bed...ugh.

 

sorry. I know how it is. I went with four hours of sleep for a 12 hours shift because I was concerned about this topic.

If the dissemination of information on Public Bases wasn't important to me, I wouldn't have posted links on all of the shard sub-forums about them, and I wouldn't be spending time to so completely state my views, questions, suggestions, and what maybe taken as criticism here.

 

5 hours ago, Dacy said:

An aside, I greatly appreciate the understanding, tutelage, and cooperation and help from AboveTheChemist and BlackSpectre. Thank you again!! We don't quite know all of what we're doing here yet, but we're so much closer than we were. ❤️

 

I'm unsure why you are showing them appreciate in a thread that is only replying to me.

Perhaps is to point out that my participation is unwanted, so yet another reason to try to back out of this conversation.

 

Edited February 13 by UltraAlt

[Dacy]

I just wanted to end on a positive note and let them know that I appreciated their help. A tiny balance to my frustration.
 

I should have sat on the post and just not sent it. It was way too long and I regret it. I definitely won’t do it again.

 

-Dacy

[UltraAlt]

1 hour ago, Dacy said:

I should have sat on the post and just not sent it. It was way too long and I regret it. I definitely won’t do it again.

 

What done is done.

I'll step away so you can do what you feel needs to be done.

[BlackSpectre]

On 2/13/2024 at 10:03 AM, Dacy said:

I just wanted to end on a positive note and let them know that I appreciated their help.

 

-Dacy

 

Well, I've appreciated your help with base editing tips, so right back atcha! BTW, my base is so awesome, so easy to use, and so efficient that I can't join any other SG because I just can't do without all the tools I have set out in my base.  LOL

 

Creating wiki pages is a LOT like creating web pages. Wiki code is a lot like HTML. Except there are more options with HTML, but less automation. Writing text is easy You just write it and it's done. Uploading images and placing them on pages is easy. Tables are probably the hardest thing to edit wiki-side. Page layout and spacing is also not super easy. It's takes time to adjust everything. Lots of trial and error.  But it's as easy as HTML, so if you have any web page editing experience, that will serve you well. If not... at least wiki code is easy.

 

For tips on how to do something, I go over to MediaWiki.org and read their help pages. Actually I google "MediaWiki" and then what I want to do. Usually can find the answer somewhere there.  Sometimes I can get some good editing info from wikipedia, but wikipedia is not quite the same as MediaWiki... and our UHC wiki is based on Mediawiki code.

 

My time is not really my own these days. I try to read the forums and edit the wiki when I have free time, but there has been weeks or even months before time frees up for me.  As a teacher, I have a lot more free time for my hobbies in the summer.  That said, if I can help, just let me know. And don't be surprised if it takes me a few days to respond. But in all honesty, with ATC (AbovetheChemist) lending assistance, I think you're in good hands. ATC is awesome, and does great work and is very passionate about everything COH.  🙂

 

[thunderforce]

I've just found https://homecoming.wiki/w/index.php?title=Everlasting_Base_List&oldid=289794

As such I owe @Easter Bunnyand @Dacyan apology; this was a bulk upload (and furthermore one with some very inappropriate content which I have now removed). I am sorry.

Edited February 20 by thunderforce

[Easter Bunny]

2 hours ago, thunderforce said:

As such I owe @Easter Bunnyand @Dacyan apology

I appreciate the sentiment but it is water way under the bridge. Don't even worry about it 🙂 Onward and upward!

[AboveTheChemist]

Just checking in to say I haven't forgotten about y'all. I'm still in mod update mode (just one to go!) and probably will be for a few more days, with some time off this weekend for a horror film festival. After that, though, I'll be ready to tackle this next project!

[Easter Bunny]

All good! I've been seeing all your update madness popping up on the wiki! It's been a mad dash, i'm sure! Enjoy your time off!

[AboveTheChemist]

Ok, I am finally done with my last mod. Twenty maps at about 1 hour per map turned out to be a bigger chore than I initially envisioned. I'll have time to devote to the wiki base project now, and ideally can knock out a good chunk of it this weekend.

[Matsiyan]

34 minutes ago, AboveTheChemist said:

Ok, I am finally done with my last mod. Twenty maps at about 1 hour per map turned out to be a bigger chore than I initially envisioned. I'll have time to devote to the wiki base project now, and ideally can knock out a good chunk of it this weekend.

I was able to make good progress on replicating the example you gave me.

[Dacy]

Okay, I asked in Michiyo's discord for permission to remove the old base tables. Here is what I was told, after telling someone who responded (Draeth Darkstar) that I'd been told I needed Michiyo's specific approval to remove anything:

 

I just took a look through the conversation. No disrespect meant to Ultra intended, but I personally wrote almost all of the historical sections that were originally sourced from ParagonWiki and most of what's been added or maintained since then has been either by me or editors who are working with the templates that I standardized.

If you want to do the work of maintaining the base lists and don't feel there's a tangible value to keeping a historical record of deduct bases (which I do not), then I see no reason that you should feel the need to defer to Ultra on the matter.

I would also not be worried about what they said regarding Michiyo, because it's simply not true. Michiyo does a ton of work for the CoH community, but micromanaging wiki edits is not typically one of those concerns.

 

So, I did not hear from Michiyo, but out of respect for the amount of work a dev is already doing, and because this person is an apparent authority, we're proceeding with deleting the old and installing the new tables. 🙂 We will see if the table for Everlasting is going to be problematic, feedback welcome on usability.

 

 

[AboveTheChemist]

Just to follow up, especially after having caught up on the conversation that took place on the wiki discord, but it looks like everything is updated. I checked out a couple of the new tables and I think they look great. Granted, I might not have as keen an eye for what might need work as someone who regularly uses the base code lists, but what I saw seemed to work well.

 

If you still need my help with any aspect of this work, please let me know as I am still happy to assist. I feel a bit like I let you down, what with my mod stuff taking longer than I planned, but my offer to help remains open!