Archive:Transformers/Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal

From Complaint Wiki
Revision as of 23:29, 28 October 2018 by Carlb (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by (talk) to last revision by
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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. :) --TX55TALK 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.
Those things are creepy. But Transformers. Fortunately we don't have images. Shawn (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New community[edit]

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. --TX55TALK 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. -- 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<staff /> (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[edit]

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?[edit]

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" 10:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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


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). --TX55TALK 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[edit]

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! - 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.
--TX55TALK 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<staff /> (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<staff /> (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[edit]

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. --TX55TALK 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. 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<staff /> (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 --TX55TALK 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<staff /> (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<staff /> (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking the old blocks[edit]

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)

they're there[edit]

I don't believe this. Over 100 editors (most of the active community) leave the wiki, and you fail to tell your readers where they went. --◄mendel► 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my edit comment for details -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
If reciprocity is truly the issue, I imagine could be persuaded to include a complimenting link on our community portal, for anyone looking for the old community.
I think Sannse's (implied) proposal of linking to one another at the top of our community portals sounds like a dandy idea! -Derik 19:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I read your edit comment the first time; I think it is a good idea to ask for a reciprocating link; my view, however, is that there haven't been 100 editors leaving to edit here, so the situation isn't reciprocal, and there should be a link from here to there regardless, at least for a few months. I realize this may be a minority viewpoint. --◄mendel► 08:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The important part of my edit comment was that "this is something for the editing community to decide". That is, the community of this wiki. I would ask both of you to move on, return to your own home wikis, and leave the community here to decide how and if they want to link. Thank you. -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I suspect what Mendel was pointing out was that there is no community on this wiki to make that decision, or object to it. So either a) the few members active here constitute a quorum, b) you wikia lot do. In either case there is a body that can accept or decline a proposal of reciprocal links. Such a decision needn't be permanent- if the community decided in the future and decided get rid of it (or add it,) they'd be free to do so.
You say 'leave the community here to decide,' but... you're pretty much it, aren't you? I mean, I don't see any editors in Recent Changes not also active on to (I might be missing someone, I'm vague on that sort of thing.)
I suggested reciprocal linking because I think it's the polite (and smart) thing to do, in both our cases.
  • I know at least one hardcore transfan who works seasonally on oil rigs- he'll come back in a couple weeks and be baffled; "Where did everybody go?"
  • As for you guys... I think you've dropped below the critical mass needed to sustain a community. That's happened before, the place was dead when Walky made it his pet cause in aught six. And people are more likely to find this site, to provide that spark of life, if we link to you.
(As blatantly spiteful as our deletion of many community-specific pages upon exodus was, the reasoned intent behind it was genuine; to give the wiki a fresh start- and maybe attract some of the editors who were put off by our way of doing things. But practically the first thing you did was RESTORE half of them, including the frelling POLICY pages-- and people were being given {{caption_bastard}} warnings and told "This is site policy" with no discussion of whether that policy should continue-- and all the editors who'd been put off by our community saw you enforcing the same rules... and they knew they weren't welcome. Despite significant schisms within Transfandom about this Wiki's approach to doing things, you managed to capture approximately none of the dissenting userbase when we left. (Maybe Rotty, I feel like I've seen him recently. I always liked Rotty...)
My point is- the group that left is not... replaceable. A good chunk are hardcores who've known one another since usenet in 1995. That is not a skill/knowledge/social base you can replace. We nuked all those community pages for a reason (other than giggling juvenile glee,) so that Wikia's Transformers community could become something else, so a new community could form, make it theirs and impose their own character on this wiki. Become something vital and different and complimentary to us-- maybe even something better. Instead this site is failing at being us.
Reciprical links wasn't a request for our benefit, it was an offer for your benefit. We'd prefer there was someplace valuable editors could go if they get banned on instead of having their contributions vanish from the fandom. Twin Cities, each with its own character. As for your benefits... Google thinks we're one site. (Why why wouldn't it? The same week we appeared you changed your sitename to be the same as ours!) We are going to... uh... win. And while a link on our community portal page might not send many eyeballls your way in terms of quantity- the potential for capturing QUALITY editors through it-- people good enough to spark your own community, to give you a fighting chance-- is high.
But hey, if you want to come all "leave this place, never to return!" up at me, fine.
Proceed then, on your way to oblivion. (See you on page two of the Google search results!) -Derik 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit suprised that I find myself pronounced not part of the community of a wiki "that anyone can edit". I'm no big wheel, certainly, but why do you decide that I'm not part of this community? --◄mendel► 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I certainly acknowledge that you, and I, are part of the wider community. But neither of us are part of the editing community of this wiki (that's clear here). Wikia staff have taken an unusually active role in this wiki for a while, but our ideal is to pass over to active users here and move on (while being available and willing to help out if needed of course, as we do for any wiki on Wikia). Except in special circumstances, a wiki should be run by those interested in the topic and writing the content. They are the ones who should decide. -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that Sannse felt Derik was deserving of a ban for this post. Oh, sure, the "official" reason might've been repeated bot edits, but let's look at the facts. Since September, Derik's only made two edits - both on this talk page - and his bot has made two edits to completely unrelated nav templates. If the admins are that adamantly against linking to (even with Mendel, who to my knowledge was not an editor prior to the split, requesting it), then they should frelling say so. Don't say "it's up to the community" and then ignore the community members who want it and ban those who speak up about it. That's just shooting yourself in the foot. -- Dark T Zeratul 03:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, we noticed yesterday that some important templates that show on most articles had been adjusted so that links within the articles redirected people to tkwiki. It was set up before the move, but designed to only take effect later (without showing on recent changes). Derik has been maintaining these links, including adding no-follow so that they can't be seen as external links, and using misleading edit summaries. I have never banned anyone for criticising me or Wikia (or before that Wikipedia), but this convinced me that Derik does not have the good of this wiki in mind, and is better banned. Of course, when this wiki has new admins, they will be able to reverse this if they so choose. -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy freak much? --Detour 09:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No, she means the issue hinted at on Template talk:Apr/uri. Examining the anon's contributions, I assume that was Derik cleaning up. I think that the redirection was initially done for the rebranding discussed near the top of this, but of course the timed trigger that was added on September 10th isn't covered by that. I'm "meh" on the misleading edit summaries, having been guilty of forgetting to adjust AWB summaries myself, and I don't understand the "nofollow" bit, but I can see some cause now - if you ban for punishment. --◄mendel► 11:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know tfwiki isn't ending up on page two, a google search for tfwiki puts us at second! (Granted a search for transformers wiki puts us at fifth but when people look here and see how horrible the ads are on the main page and look at wikipedia and see how unimformative it is tfwiki is next on the list!) The problem for you guys is that you have been critacly (sorry, bad at spelling) wounded by most of the comunity leaving, you just don't really have any one left! Soon tfwiki will have made loads of edits and you guys will be sitting around wondering what to do with no one left that knows enough about transformers and when that happens say goodbye to front row seats on the search results! 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New admins[edit]

So it's clear this place needs a few new acting admins, other than Wikia employees. I've asked a couple people about it so far but haven't gotten any responses. So I'd suggest setting up a page where people can request admin status, and you guys as a community can vote/talk/decide how you like. Then when you reach a consensus, you can contact Sannse or I and ask that the change be put in place. Sound OK? Shawn (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've already replied on my talk page after you left a message to me. ^^ --TX55TALK 08:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)