Talk: Community Portal

Policies

SFH, you questioned about keeping old policies above. I'm starting a new section to focus on that and keep any questions of authority out - if people want to talk about that, they can continue to do so below. Are there any other policies aside from the humor that you'd like to see kept? I'm going through a list of those pages that were deleted and seeing what's worth bringing back, and I could really use your help figuring it out. Shawn (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I thought that the old canon, userpage, spoiler, and official sources policies were quite useful. I've been an admin on Wookieepedia for a long time, and I know that a lot of people will spend time on their userpages. I also know how important it is to keep spoiler information away from people who don't want to be spoiled, and the value of official, reliable sources. I am sorry for making it seem that I was focusing on humor in particular. You are right that we do need admins, but I'm not sure how many are staying. Truth be told, I might check out once a few people get sysoped and some policies are going. Right now, we should focus on getting some people with admin privileges. -- SFH 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And, for starters, if he's staying, TXFF is someone who can be trusted with admin rights. There was some controversy over how canon the whole Beast Wars Universe book was, but he knows his stuff and he's here to help the wiki. -- SFH 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I could be a little helper here. ;-D Actually, I'm staying here continuing help this wiki (definitely). As for the new site, I think I won't be active the during the transitional period. :) --TX55^TALK 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're going to be waiting a little bit to decide on new admins - that's going to be a community thing we do in the near future anyway - but holding off for now until the dust settles. Though it'd be a shame if you took off entirely, SFH, as you've done a lot so far. Anyway, I'm going to take a look at those pages you mentioned above and see what we can salvage and revert. If anyone can think of anything else that should be brought back - or created, like a policy on personal attacks/namecalling, please post it here. ESPECIALLY the personal attacks thing, that's something I'd like to make perfectly clear, no-bones-about-it. Shawn (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

edit: for now, I've added it to Policies, but if it should be somewhere else, please comment. Shawn (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I advocate a strict policy of pretending Kiss Plaxers doesn't exist.

Seriously

Those things are creepy. But Transformers. Fortunately we don't have images. Shawn (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New community

So, now that we're starting up, I'd like to ask if there are any old policies that we might want to keep. Personally, I'd like to keep the use of funny captions, as that was always something I enjoyed about this Wiki. Any other thoughts? -- SFH 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Let the Funny Stay. I definitely support it. --TX55^TALK 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

SFH, I am merely an observer of this wiki, but I observe that the first thing you ought to do is to check how many active active admins are left, and maybe get some new ones. Multimoog acts as one, but he's really a w:helper and does not replace or outrank admins. (I'm not even sure whether you have a policy for "making" admins). --◄mendel► 05:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't outrank or replace admins, no, but I would like to be one on this wiki. My main area of work on Wikia is the new toys hub and I work on a number of them (Hot Wheels, Urban Vinyl, etc.). I'm not going to come barging in and take over, but I do want this community to remain civil during the transition. Plus, I really do love Transformers, as well. As far as the funny stuff staying, as long as it doesn't get personal (making fun of Starscream is okay, making fun of Pat Lee isn't), I want it to remain - I agree, it's what gives this place personality. Shawn (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shawn. As such, I've removed elements of Ravage and Dinobot's articles that made fun of specific people (two different fanfic writers, to be specific). This Wiki is not a place to be petty.

For what it's worth, I'd advocate a de-snarkification of this wiki. Otherwise you'll have two wikis that are functionally identical. A version without the snark would be a competitive differentiator, in my mind. --63.203.180.99 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think differences will develop over time, perhaps in the type of humour... not so based on snark? You might also want to start to think about the look of the site. The new wiki is developing its own look now, which will help separate the two wikis, but it might be fun to give this wiki a whole new look for its new life :) -- sannse (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should leave articles alone for the most part (save the Pat Lee, Floro and Don Murphy ones) and new articles will develop their own style based on the new users. There's no need to go through every article and change stuff. But a new look IS something we should seriously start thinking about. Seeing as the new wiki is using their previous Transformers Animated look, we should come up with at least a new logo and front page banner. I do illustration and graphic design, so I'd be happy to - I've been thinking about something more old-school and G1. Shawn (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See ya

Wow, debarred less than 24 hours after the move, and the Site Notice irrevocably reverted to the most uninformative and passive version. Have fun with your trolls and fanfic writers, Wikia. -- Repowers 12:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

we're here and there?

i think that notice should be more informative, at the moment it sounds like it meens "some random people have made a new wiki about transformers" it should be more like "the main editors who made the wiki you all know and love are now operating a new wiki with the same information"212.74.27.54 10:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice. -- sannse (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IDW

I'd like to see the IDW comic broken off into a new continuity. IDW info could be broken off from main character pages into new character pages. It would be work, but I think it really is a different continuity anyway.—Starfield 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Logging in

This wiki is in a big transition period right now, and it's going to take a little while to settle down and figure out what this new version is going to look like. One thing that's making that process harder is that there are so many people contributing anonymously right now. Some of those contributions are great, and some are problematic -- and sorting through them takes a lot of time and energy, which we could spend on building up content and talking about community issues (as I've mentioned elsewhere).

So I want to bring up the option of having people log in before they edit. Some of the most successful wikis on Wikia are login-only, including WoWWiki, Muppet Wiki and Marvel Database. Most of the successful independent wikis are login-only too, like Lostpedia and Battlestar Wiki.

The advantage for the community is that everybody gets a name, rather than a shifting string of numbers. Even when an anonymous contributor is making great edits, it's hard to talk to them, or recognize them when they show up the next day. It also helps to cut down on vandalism. Obviously, vandals can just log in and do it anyway, but having a name makes them easier to spot. Wikis that have chosen to go login-only have found that it makes the community more friendly, because everybody's got a consistent identity, and it's easier to get to know people. It's also something that was really prevalent in the previous form of this wiki - good people get known for doing good things and it builds up a reputation.

I'd like to try it for a little while during this transition period, to see how it works. What do you guys think? Shawn (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a good idea when you are trying to rebuild a contributer base. People who don't sign in probably aren't planning on sticking around long, but might anyway after a while. I wouldn't make it harder for a casual new person to make updates.—Starfield 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)