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 do some little help 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)

The jokes were Walky's trademark schtick and should stay unique to the new tfwiki. This wiki shouldn't be seen as a copycat evan1975 17:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the case since basically every member who added material strove for it to be humorous. You don't have to make edits funny if you don't want to but based on community response so far don't expect humor to be deleted, or that people won't add it on their own. Shawn (talk) 17:34, 20 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)

I'm new here but I love the wiki and I really hope that all the funny captions and such will stay. I have lost count of how many times I have almost suffocated from laughing. So yeah, let the funny stay. :D

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)

This is just me, but I don't really think we need to do that, specifically because that's addressed here. Any other thoughts? Shawn (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

^{Just an opinion, not suggesting.:)}I agree IDW comic (including Heart of Steel) broken into a new continuity... well, if possible, since is really distinctive (but not as Shatter Glass). --TX55^TALK 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I'm talking myself out of it. The IDW universe is different, no Unicron (yet?), no Quintessons, no Witwickys, etc., but the characters are the same. All the description parts of the character pages would be pretty much identical.—Starfield 14:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was going on initially - aside from covering the differences in the storylines, there's not much of a need to break it iff since it really is just G1 characters. Shawn (talk) 17:57, 18 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)

I strongly endorse this idea as a clear path forward for this site! -150.253.90.123 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This has come up on several wikis I've been on, and I've never really liked the idea. Currently, most of the users here now are anonymous users. We should make it easier to allow people to log in, and let them know that it will get the adds out of their faces. However, I still think that we should allow anonymous users to edit. They are the bulk of a wikis community. -- SFH 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think we should promote user-name registration instead of just switching off anonymous editing for at least two reasons:

• Not all anonymous users are frequently editors, some of them may just pass by and find some problems(grammars, broken links, etc) and fix them by editing. IE, pass-by-correction.
• Some users have their problem with logging during working time and some other circumstances.

--TX55^TALK 00:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting conversation, because it's something that's been in discussion in the Wikia office for a couple of years now. For a long time, we didn't support this, it was open editing on all sites. Then a couple of wikis joined us that already had login-only set up, and a couple of others asked for it for themselves. We took some persuading, but we started allowing it. Now I'm still in the "somewhat dubious" group, but changing to this seems to have been a success for the wikis that have tried it. They say they see less vandalism, and have a stronger feeling of community because they know the "names" of everyone contributing. So it may be that this can help you rebuild the community here rather than hinder it. Perhaps those pass-by editors will be more likely to return if they have made an account to attach those edits to. Just some thoughts :) -- sannse (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my logic behind it. It's been proven to work on other sites specifically because it fosters a sense of community. Truth be told, the majority of the users on the previous version were all logged in as well, and it seemed to really work to the wiki's advantage. Shawn (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at the Allspark Forums, and I noticed that to post or even search on that forum, you need to sign in and verify your e-mail address. That seems like a strange double-standard to me. Imagine being told on this wiki that you couldn't search for an article unless you provided a valid e-mail address! Compared to that, being asked to create a user name in order to post on a wiki is pretty tame.

Why are the standards so different between forums and wikis? -- Danny (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what some people are assuming is that this would be permanent - - in my original post I suggested doing it as an experiment for a short time (week or two) to see if it actually does affect the wiki. I think we're in a stage right now where experimentation wouldn't hurt, and testing the waters of different things can only be a win/win situation. If it works in our favor, fantastic! If not, we haven't done any damage as we're still in a big period of change.

If it turns out we drive any anonymous people away during the experiment, well, we still have all the power of Google directing people here, so we won't be starving for a constant influx of new users no matter what happens. And having a solid community based on users who know one another is what we really need to try and get. Leaving it open for a week has gotten a few people to sign up but we still have a ton of anonymous users - I want to see how login only affects the edits and amount of new usernames we can get. Shawn (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New Look

Hey guys - I mentioned above we've been thinking of a new look for this wiki that stands apart from the new one, that differentiates the two sites. I spent the last few days creating some really professional-level graphics for our wiki logo and welcome page, that replaces the TF Animated logo and look with some old-school G1 love, and some behind-the-scenes folks tweaked the CSS into a new color scheme.

The test page is here, and I'd love some feedback before we make it live. The linked page is JUST a test, there's some things we want to tweak (like making sure we're designated as a Toys wiki rather than Entertainment, etc). In addition, we'll be changing the sitenotice telling people about the switch and redirecting them to this discussion instead. It's been over a week, and I think that's more than gracious, considering.

Thoughts? Shawn (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite nice, I like the new logo. :-D As for the background, in my opinion, I think we could use other colors instead of SteelBlue (current color). As for the "Wiki" on the logo, it should be colored not red nor purple. --TX55^TALK 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I couldn't figure out how to properly leave a message in this area--new to this kind of thing. But just a quick comment--if you're going to "compete" with the new wiki, you have to be at least as slick as they are. The new logo on the test page, with respect for the work you did, looks, well, a bit chintzy and fan-made ( a quick critique--the stock star background is cornball and cliche, and the heavy glint across the upper half of the main "TRANSFORMERS" letters gets swallowed up against a white background, and makes it hard to "read") . I suggest putting a call out for a member who is a working graphic designer to help lead the charge with something a bit bolder and more polished-looking.218.183.223.70 06:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's fan-made, it's a wiki ;)

So my suggestion is that anyone with ideas on how to change the logo, goes ahead in the good old wiki way and makes up their suggested version. With the skin colours, you can try out your tweaks and changes in your personal css on the test wiki, and then Shawn or I can copy over the chosen versions. And, of course, we can always copy over something that's sorta what everyone likes, and leave all the tweaks to the community and new admins later. -- sannse (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a second take on the logo - Shawn (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the background picture is much more retro-TF-package-styled. ^^ (But I still think the "WIKI" should be other color instead of red and purple, oops. Um, perheps something blue.) If we could use this one as logo, the back ground color of the new monaco-skin could be a darker color. ;-D --TX55^TALK 02:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Shawn is away at the moment, so I'll switch over to the new look as it is, and then we can gather more feedback and ideas for changes. He should be back soon to see how it's working for everyone -- sannse (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that css pages are taking a while to show at the moment, should be visible soon - sannse (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking the old blocks

On Spetember 15, the old admins unblocked over a hundred of the "old enemies" (although there are still some old blocks left, even a /16 range block - you should really lift those!). There has been some contention as to how that was intended to give the wiki trouble as opposed to making it start over with a clean slate and a chance to make its own enemies (in politics, a change of regime has often been used for a general amnesty). I have reviewed the 20 blocks that have been established since then, and none seem to have had a prior block history, so we can safely say that the big unblocking action has not created any "trouble" in a noticeable way. --◄mendel► 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't politics, it's a wiki. And wiki vandals aren't (usually) considered the same as political enemies. The fact that it didn't end up being a problem should be cause for relief.

As for your research, nobody here has even spoken about this issue since it was originally brought up last week - your doing so now makes you out as a person looking to cause trouble, or at least keep it going. I can safely say that because as someone who seems so concerned about the welfare this wiki, you haven't actually edited any articles or participated in its expansion content-wise yet. Are you more interested in the Transformers content here or in frustrating members and Wikia staff? If you work on a few articles, your criticism might be more welcome. Shawn (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)