FANDOM


  • If you haven't, I recommend you to read a previous blog about a big incident on one of the biggest wikia wikis in Spanish: User blog:Ciencia Al Poder/Portable Infoboxes, the first step into Wikia taking control over our content. Basically, wikia seems to be forcing the implementation of Portable Infoboxes on large communities. A Vanguard member comes to the wiki and propose to adapt some templates to Portable Infoboxes. If there are reluctant users to the change , they even create the templates to show the change. A lot of effort is put into convincing users to migrate to Portable Infoboxes.

    What happens if a community decides to not use Portable Infoboxes, but instead find alternatives to it (for whatever reasons)? It doesn't matter. A Staff member (User:FishTank usually) implements the change to some selected templates anyway, and protected those templates from editing for normal users. This caused (and it's still visible) a lot of display and content issues on our pages (see this gallery to compare "old" templates vs "new PI" templates). Because this change was rejected by the community (which is different from a "not approved"), and causes issues, I reverted the change. My revert was reverted by another staff and I was demoted with the reason interfering with Fandom network operations.

    Wikia staff hasn't made any official statement as of yet. And, sorry if you're disappointed, but I don't know what's Fandom network operations either, and why article content changes need to be approved now by Wikia staff even if the community rejects those changes. I've made this forum so you can stay informed about this mysterious Fandom network operations concept, and that wikia can now force changes to content pages (apart from the reasonable removal of ToU violations) about how pages should look, and who knows if that applies even to editorial content. Decisions made, remember, by a wikia staff that has no involvement nor relation with the wikis and communities. This is a very important fact that everyone that wants to create a new wiki on wikia should be aware of.

      Loading editor
    • Ugh.

        Loading editor
    • 81.7.9.157 wrote: Just f*ck off already!

      Go add yourself to your awa list or whatever.

      Said the anonymous coward.

        Loading editor
    • Ditto Duck Penguin
      Ditto Duck Penguin removed this reply because:
      Oh wait. OH OHHHHHHH
      18:39, May 2, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Please, even if you hide it, don't use rude language. It is very much appreciated.

      ~Shei Meredith Hansen~

        Loading editor
    • 81.7.9.157 wrote:
      Just f*ck off already!

      Go add yourself to your awa list or whatever.

      Said the anonymous coward

      @Fandyllic: ;)

        Loading editor
    • While I like PIs in general, forcing wikis to use them or making design changes on a wiki overruling a community consensus is wrong. Content and design is the wiki's choice (bar the obvious, no porn, editing "Fandom" space, etc), otherwise Fandom should just outlaw communities altogether and create every ounce of content themselves. I'm sure they'll be pleased not to have a fan site anymore.

        Loading editor
    • Huh what now? Ok... never mind

        Loading editor
    • I've heard through the grapevine that Fandom will give a staff reply to Ciencia's post (no ETA, though). I will say that it certainly sounds like Ciencia was poorly treated, but there are two sides to every story.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:
      I've heard through the grapevine that Fandom will give a staff reply to Ciencia's post (no ETA, though). I will say that it certainly sounds like Ciencia was poorly treated, but there are two sides to every story.

      and that will be viewed as "damage control", they knowingly went too far with their actions yet do it anyways...just because you are frustrated does not mean you should be taking out your anger on volunteer editors. its funny how staff realized they couldn't push further with cod, rs, mlp yet continued with es pokemon in the hopes it would not result in going nuclear. there's a reason certain independent alliances were constructed, this only proves their point each & every time an incident like this happens...

      if staff truly wants to take over all aspects of the wiki plantation, they are free to do so and at the cost of editors simply giving up. if the goal is to eliminate the wikis for something else, they are best to simply notify to give us time to leave with full database and image dumps.

      ps: staff generally give a response after a few days to figure out what won't infuriate/escalate the situation further

        Loading editor
    • 35.20.173.109 wrote:

      if staff truly wants to take over all aspects of the wiki plantation, they are free to do so and at the cost of editors simply giving up. if the goal is to eliminate the wikis for something else, they are best to simply notify to give us time to leave with full database and image dumps.

      These are ridiculous conspiracy theories and totally irrelevant to the discussion, not that I ever understood the "q_q staff are taking over infoboxes" argument anyway when PIs are just as customizable as non-PIs while being much better at loading and not requiring users to spend hours coding a metatemplate. Seems like a worthwhile sacrifice for something far more beneficial to the communities who can't code their own metatemplate and even better to those who can.

        Loading editor
    • You all aren't making any sense. I shouldn't be part of this conversation, so I'm not going to post any more responses to this thread. Bye-bye.

      ~Shei Meredith Hansen~

        Loading editor
    • Technobliterator wrote:

      ...when PIs are just as customizable as non-PIs...

      This is not quite true. Currently PI's have some limitations that many admins run into when trying to conditionally display certain parts of the infobox. As someone who has worked on non-PIs for years, PIs are very flexible, but they're a bit more of a pain to work with since you often have to decipher the layers of CSS to change things that were easier with non-PIs. WoWWiki still has some places where PIs don't quite work the way we want.

      That said, I think the resistance to PIs is overblown and the Fandom dev team is quite responsive to feature requests (unlike Discussions). While PIs may not match the previous non-PI rendering perfectly, you can work with Fandom to get them where you want.

        Loading editor
    • It does seem that Fandom did not seek community consensus...

        Loading editor
    • You did say there are two sides to every story.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't say they were balanced or fair.

        Loading editor
    • Technobliterator wrote:

      35.20.173.109 wrote:

      if staff truly wants to take over all aspects of the wiki plantation, they are free to do so and at the cost of editors simply giving up. if the goal is to eliminate the wikis for something else, they are best to simply notify to give us time to leave with full database and image dumps.

      These are ridiculous conspiracy theories and totally irrelevant to the discussion, not that I ever understood the "q_q staff are taking over infoboxes" argument anyway when PIs are just as customizable as non-PIs while being much better at loading and not requiring users to spend hours coding a metatemplate. Seems like a worthwhile sacrifice for something far more beneficial to the communities who can't code their own metatemplate and even better to those who can.

      rediculous conspiracy theory, what a joke. that is based off trends from before and adds up, i have no idea what the end goal is but from the looks of it doesn't involve a whole lot with wikis; that i can tell you. I'm also sure that PI is acceptable when its BREAKING templates on pages as of current. not to mention as Fandyllic said, you won't be able to reconstruct like for like replacements. either way, we have moved from wikitext which was standard mediawiki to now XML tags (call it what you want).

      if staff wish to claim this is limited to one community, not many are going to buy that explaination as they could just arbitrarily extend it to whatever other wikis they wish to force this upon.

        Loading editor
    • Note that I'm not against PI. They're great for new wikis that don't have templates and want to start from scratch. But if our templates work, they shouldn't force us to change them. Wikia can recommend changes to our pages to make it look better, but not force us to do that if we don't want. This is the issue being discussed here. They start forcing template changes, and may end forcing an encyclopedic wiki to accept non-canon (fandom) content, demoting admins that delete non-canon content or oppose to accept it, just because more pages mean more ad surface and more ad revenue.

        Loading editor
    • 35.20.173.109 wrote:

      rediculous conspiracy theory, what a joke. that is based off trends from before and adds up, i have no idea what the end goal is but from the looks of it doesn't involve a whole lot with wikis; that i can tell you. I'm also sure that PI is acceptable when its BREAKING templates on pages as of current. not to mention as Fandyllic said, you won't be able to reconstruct like for like replacements. either way, we have moved from wikitext which was standard mediawiki to now XML tags (call it what you want).

      Yes, it is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. You have no evidence to back up your "staff wants to take over all aspects of wikis and remove mediawiki!!!!!!!!!" claim, and no, "trends" and "adds up" is not evidence. Portable Infoboxes are not some nefarious plot to take control away from local communities. They are a tool that provides standard syntax for every infobox across the network, allowing any new community to easily set up their own infobox, and then very easily style it with CSS, separating code for content from code for presentation. This allows infoboxes created for the desktop skin to work easily on non-desktop skins by using standard syntax that can more easily be interpreted than custom code. And no, it actually is very possible to create like-for-like replacement with PI, or if not, infoboxes that are such a close match that it makes zero difference. I have done it before, and it's been done throughout the network (most obvious example being how Star Wars' infoboxes are basically identical in appearance compared to before).

        Loading editor
    • Technobliterator wrote: Portable Infoboxes are not some nefarious plot to take control away from local communities.

      Portable Infoboxes is not per se the plot to take control away from local communities. It's the excuse to take control away from local communities. Look, I'm usually very critic with some Wikia decisions, and on our wiki we don't implement/use some wikia features, like video embed tool (we have a custom template and JavaScript for embedding youtube videos) among others. This resistance was causing a lot of noise on wikia staff, because our wiki is a referent in the Spanish community (and even some english communities that use our tools and our monobook theme!), and this was an excuse to demote me once and for all. I can create a lot of noise here with this incident, but they know this won't last forever, and they're gonna win more in the long therm with less critic voices on the big wikis.

        Loading editor
    • Technobliterator wrote:

      35.20.173.109 wrote:

      rediculous conspiracy theory, what a joke. that is based off trends from before and adds up, i have no idea what the end goal is but from the looks of it doesn't involve a whole lot with wikis; that i can tell you. I'm also sure that PI is acceptable when its BREAKING templates on pages as of current. not to mention as Fandyllic said, you won't be able to reconstruct like for like replacements. either way, we have moved from wikitext which was standard mediawiki to now XML tags (call it what you want).

      Yes, it is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. You have no evidence to back up your "staff wants to take over all aspects of wikis and remove mediawiki!!!!!!!!!" claim, and no, "trends" and "adds up" is not evidence. Portable Infoboxes are not some nefarious plot to take control away from local communities. They are a tool that provides standard syntax for every infobox across the network, allowing any new community to easily set up their own infobox, and then very easily style it with CSS, separating code for content from code for presentation. This allows infoboxes created for the desktop skin to work easily on non-desktop skins by using standard syntax that can more easily be interpreted than custom code. And no, it actually is very possible to create like-for-like replacement with PI, or if not, infoboxes that are such a close match that it makes zero difference. I have done it before, and it's been done throughout the network (most obvious example being how Star Wars' infoboxes are basically identical in appearance compared to before).

      first i'm going to agree with Cienca.

      staff controls what you can do with PI along with any bugs that may exist compared to either HTML or wikitext style templates. XML like syntax is not standard, not more than using HTML to build with.

      During the transition from monobook to Oasis, there was mention at WOW's fork discussion that comments pertaining to eye sore complaints were deleted by Sannse (based on logs with reason "Spam"). Now that can't be verified besides those who made the charges.

      Staff have been ever more encrouching especially with the js security, which was on them to harden and secure in the first place. not to mention staff accounts were hacked twice within a month period before they bothered to take any action. Most features they create are abandoned after a year at minimum before they give up. some features could be brought back though would be on condition of them executing correctly and within what they claim. appreciation isn't a bad thing, they forgot to add in the bot check and opt out. very few things that are done correct, outdone by the majority of horrible features released. from recent it appears they wish to do better. the last skin design was shot down but it appears they are probably still working on a better one, in the end that will still be forced.

      previous more detailed view logs were removed in favor of insights, which tells you near nothing. there were a lot more statistics avaliable. you can buy the explaination it was barely used but at the same time those same statistics were used against staff in proving their claims wrong when attempting to convince a wiki to use some new feature.

      the email system was removed with claim "barely used" yet AWA was most likely responsible for that as staff wanted to prevent the use of hidden private contact.

      this isn't to mention that closed tickets with TimQ indicated while it wasn't immediate, they are thinking of moving away from mediawiki at some point.


      that said, staff can demote people and replace them by hiring someone but that's not going to last long.

        Loading editor
    • One big problem is that WikiDex has no active bureaucrats, so the leadership is unclear. Do we know which admins supported PIs and which opposed?

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:
      One big problem is that WikiDex has no active bureaucrats, so the leadership is unclear. Do we know which admins supported PIs and which opposed?

      skimming through the discussion, its evident that active people were opposing the proposal. staff went nuclear possibly to try and scare RS, MLP, COD

        Loading editor
    • Cqm

      @above: For what it's worth, I spoke to staff and go no promise that this wouldn't happen to RuneScape Wiki (and thus MLP, COD, etc.). The option of not having PI didn't seem to be on the table, but perhaps that's a misinterpretation on my part. In general, I find most staff members to be reasonable people, so let us hope there can be a proper discussion with all options on the table should the event ever arise.

      I have concerns about the suitability of PI in complex scenarios - simple use cases shouldn't have too many pitfalls during conversion other than CSS. For RS, the complex instances are also the richest in data, so doing it badly doesn't do the data service and could do more harm than good.

      As a purely speculative point, I do wonder why edit warring over the conversion to PI is considered a ToU violation and why conversion itself is considered part of Fandom operations. My theory is that having everyone using PI enables Fandom to sell the data and work with third-parties who may want to utilise it. It could put a potential partner off when discovering that the top wikis, and thus the most desirable, do not make their data available. As ToU violations tend to come into play when it involves the Fandom brand and/or advertising, i.e. revenue from advertising, this is the most likely reason in my mind as to why there's been an expansion in the scope of ToU. As I mentioned, this is speculation and I may be proved wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be correct.

        Loading editor
    • Cqm wrote: As a purely speculative point, I do wonder why edit warring over the conversion to PI is considered a ToU violation.

      I think it wasn't considered ToU violation, just a matter of the new Fandom network operations concept that includes demoting or banning users that edit against Wikia commandments. I expect to see a modification in ToU to clearly reflect this position, for transparency. Otherwise

      Cqm wrote: My theory is that having everyone using PI enables Fandom to sell the data and work with third-parties who may want to utilise it. It could put a potential partner off when discovering that the top wikis, and thus the most desirable, do not make their data available. As ToU violations tend to come into play when it involves the Fandom brand and/or advertising, i.e. revenue from advertising, this is the most likely reason in my mind as to why there's been an expansion in the scope of ToU.

      This is not to be used for storing structured data. The real reason are ads. FishTank already confirmed they are using PI to place ads below the infobox (which means in the middle of the article). You know, if an ad appears at the top, you quickly scroll down to move it away from your screen, and because it may take a time to load you can even scroll before it loads completely. Now it will be placed below the infobox, so you'll see it for sure. That's why it's so important for wikia to implement PI on all pages of all wikis (specially the important ones).

        Loading editor
    • Cqm wrote: @above: For what it's worth, I spoke to staff and go no promise that this wouldn't happen to RuneScape Wiki (and thus MLP, COD, etc.). The option of not having PI didn't seem to be on the table, but perhaps that's a misinterpretation on my part. In general, I find most staff members to be reasonable people, so let us hope there can be a proper discussion with all options on the table should the event ever arise.

      I have concerns about the suitability of PI in complex scenarios - simple use cases shouldn't have too many pitfalls during conversion other than CSS. For RS, the complex instances are also the richest in data, so doing it badly doesn't do the data service and could do more harm than good.

      As a purely speculative point, I do wonder why edit warring over the conversion to PI is considered a ToU violation and why conversion itself is considered part of Fandom operations. My theory is that having everyone using PI enables Fandom to sell the data and work with third-parties who may want to utilise it. It could put a potential partner off when discovering that the top wikis, and thus the most desirable, do not make their data available. As ToU violations tend to come into play when it involves the Fandom brand and/or advertising, i.e. revenue from advertising, this is the most likely reason in my mind as to why there's been an expansion in the scope of ToU. As I mentioned, this is speculation and I may be proved wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be correct.

      Your analysis is extremely good. The summary is that Fandom has priorities they don't want to explain that clearly in public, but they don't involve diplomatic negotiation with the community, but more of "my way or the highway" process. The ToU is just general enough that many things could be a violation... or it could end up being a "hey, your tail light is broken... *smash*" situation.

      I suspect the Runescape wiki has better relations with some Fandom insiders, so they are protected at some level for a period of time before forced conversion happens. Aka politics. We'll see what happens down the road.

        Loading editor
    • Cqm

      @Fandyllic I did notice we had over 100 infoboxes according to the category which might slow the conversion down dramatically, but I doubt any amount of influence would stop us being stuck with PI if it came down to the wire.

        Loading editor
    • Cqm wrote: @Fandyllic I did notice we had over 100 infoboxes according to the category which might slow the conversion down dramatically, but I doubt any amount of influence would stop us being stuck with PI if it came down to the wire.

      You're talking to a WoWWiki admin... Fandom and Vanguard don't require even a majority of the infoboxes be converted to PIs, if a dozen will cover over 50% of the usage (don't really know what their threshold is... maybe its 80%). I think Runescape has political protection. Otherwise they would have gone through the conversion queue awhile ago. If you look at Special:PortabilityDashboard, Runescape is #3 on the list and has by far the most non-PIs until you get to Sponge Bob wiki (not even in the top 20).

      Just be glad Runescape has inside help. It could be an equivalent firestorm to WikiDex.

        Loading editor
    • A quote from the Wikia Staff FishTank:

      We are a platform to build, not an empty canvas. Management and maintenance are not the same as ownership. We are interested in training communities to reach their best potential; Training an athlete sometimes means a small challenge or else he can not make it to the Olympics.

      I think it would be fair to put in the main page of wikia.com, and other important parts of the site, that wikia is not just a hosting. When you create a wiki here, you're basically releasing it to Wikia, and you're a mere contributor, and your relation with the wiki may be terminated at any time with the sole discretion of Wikia.

        Loading editor
    • Absolutely appalling, but completely in line with Wikia's modus operandi. smh

        Loading editor
    • So basically, people don't have control over the content they're producing and are being bullied into doing what Wikia wants, even if it goes against the opinion of the local community? If they start going into English wiki's like Narutopedia, then I'm deleting my entire presence on Wikia.

      This is a total joke and Wikia has no right to get involved in how wiki's operate: I thought it always worked on "we let wiki's run themselves and don't involve ourselves in their matters"? This thread just proves they're going against this and shoving their opinion in people's faces and demoting people who go against them. This isn't how to run a site, this is how to drive members away.

      Wikia was good before 2015. Now it's just a corporate magnate running everything their way and ignoring members and demoting those who get in the way of their "personal vision" of Wikia. I've lost my interest and if Wikia continues this route, there will be no members left.

      No doubt someone will come along and delete my post for having an opinion and block me for posting it in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      So basically, people don't have control over the content they're producing and are being bullied into doing what Wikia wants, even if it goes against the opinion of the local community? If they start going into English wiki's like Narutopedia, then I'm deleting my entire presence on Wikia.

      This is already happening on English wikis, including the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki: see [1], [2], [3]. If you're waiting for a sign to get out, consider this it.

        Loading editor
    • Cqm

      Those aren't quite like for like comparisons - Two Tailed Fox is a bureaucrat on Yu-Gi-Oh Wiki. He is clearly biased towards PI, but that view does seem to be vaguely shared by the wider community there. Dinoguy1000 seems to be the only notable opposition, and I would agree with his points about the general lack of argument provided in the proposal (although that is the case for almost every PI thread I've seen). The note about preventing reversion of the conversion in the closure is an over-the-top approach to take in my view, but that may be how they do things there. Nonetheless, it would be a cause for concern if an admin or bureaucrat did the same on my home wiki.

      As a philosophical point, Fandom claims that PI improves the infobox experience for mobile because they cannot style all possible variants of infoboxes generated using wikitext or Lua. Yet if they allowed some user-defined styling in mobile, they might find the problem vanishing. It seems an awful lot like a problem of their own design.

        Loading editor
    • A bureaucrat TwoTailedFox may be, but it's been years - close to a decade, in fact - since he's been anything like a central figure in the YGO wiki community, not that that's stopped him from bandying about his status as founder, as though that actually has some significance.

        Loading editor
    • I imagine many communities are being informed about this thread, and while I've never met DaNASCAT and am somewhat troubled by the accusations described here, without knowing their side of the story it's difficult to discern what actually happened.

      Anyway, I just wanted to note that as an admin over at Marvel, I've had the pleasure of working with FishTank on multiple occasions and found them to be very polite, patient, and extremely accommodating, no matter how large or small the task I've needed their assistance with, so don't think it's really fair to somehow blame them for a willingness to tackle problems and do their best to help improve our communities.

        Loading editor
    • I don't understand why people hate Portable Infoboxes so much. They have a cleaner markup than wikitext infoboxes, making them a lot easier to build and manage. And on the desktop side, they're still just as customizable through CSS and Javascript as wikitext infoboxes, and they still accept wikitext within their parameters.

      I think the "anti-Wikia" crowd (which is easily identifiable because they call it Wikia instead of Fandom) is getting a little bit out of hand here. After actually reading through WikiDex and reading through Ciencia's posts, this is what I see: an admin stuck in his old ways who can't evolve to change, even the most minuscule of change, and forcing his community to preach the same thing he's preaching, and gathering what support he can from the haters that fill Community Central.

      For the love of God, people, there's no conspiracy at Fandom. They're not trying to take your wikis and cut you out of the equation through Portable Infoboxes. They're not trying to un-attribute your work. How can you even extrapolate to that from all of this?

      If we want to talk about Fandom forcing their way into wikis and making them change out of malice, that's something entirely different from Fandom literally improving something we use every day and making it easier and mobile-friendly and trying to get the top wikis to convert to it to make mobile lives easier. Fandom wouldn't be pushing so hard on WikiDex if they weren't such a popular wiki on mobile, I'd bet. And none of their infoboxes were compatible with mobile, but Portable Infoboxes are compatible with mobile and FishTank offered support and asked the community for any and all feedback on how to further improve PIs specifically for that wiki. Ciencia chose instead to attack FishTank and any Vanguard who went there, and made sure the rest of the community followed.

      This is disgusting to look through. I'm glad to see Ciencia stripped of his powers if they want to hold their wiki hostage from Fandom to prevent something that's literally designed to make our lives easier. As for the rest of the people replying to this thread with more "haha screw Fandom", it's getting really old now. Don't you have anything better to do with your lives than throw spitballs?

        Loading editor
    • It’s the principle of the thing that matters lad. Whether PIs are the way a community wants to go or not is, or at least it should be, totally up to the communities in question. As far as I know, an option wasn’t given to WikiDex; it was simply done, albeit after unsuccessful suggestions, & Fandom had to strike down a legitimately appointed bureaucrat to ensure that their dictates were followed. This wasn’t a ToU violation where it would be reasonable to step in, this was a purely aesthetic choice (beyond tagging ads to the bottom of PIs) that was thrust upon the Wiki without their consent. There is no point in freedom if you cannot choose to decline “help,” no matter how well intentioned, if you don’t want it.

      “To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
      —C.S. Lewis[src]
      Needless to say, a statement from Staff on the matter would be appreciated. Whether it be in clarifying their ‘side of the story’ or in apologizing, I’d like to see the reasoning behind it.
        Loading editor
    • We all know that Fandom is in it for the profits. They're a commercial website.

      We also know that Fandom is being visited a lot on mobile, but there are some wikis that do not look good on mobile. Portable Infoboxes was supposed to be one of the first steps to changing that.

      We also know that WikiDex is visited a lot on mobile.

      We also know, according to WikiDex talk pages, that many WikiDex users have wanted to have a better mobile experience.

      Then multiple volunteers at Fandom come in, saying, "Here's this thing called Portable Infoboxes that will help your infoboxes look much better on mobile and conform to mobile standards. Please let us know -- what modifications do we need to make to help them match your wiki? What work needs to be done? We're willing to help you every step of the way."

      Then Ciencia tells them to f*** off.

      Fandom tries again to extend their help in implementing this feature. Ciencia never relents in telling them in no uncertain terms to f*** off.

      I don't see where Ciencia is right here.

        Loading editor
    • Ciencia told them to shove off with local backing. If the “side” the community chose is ambiguous (which you seem to imply it is), then Staff should’ve instead set up an actual vote wherein they could find out just that, or ask other local administrators to do the same. Then, if they had an unequivocal mandate beyond a shadow of a doubt, that’d be perfectly understandable for them to fire the bureaucrat; they’d be doing it because the Bureaucrat was going against the Community’s wishes, & be fully justified. As it stands though, they did it because it went against Fandom’s wishes, in direct opposition to the leader of that community, when for half a decade it used to be “Fandoms are ruled by their Communities”. If that’s no longer the case then fine, just go out & say it honestly, but this skulduggery & hypocrisy is just low.

        Loading editor
    • ^

        Loading editor
    • I have to admit, I'm relatively new to this scene compared to you guys. I only became a local admin a couple of years ago, so I never got exposed to that "Wikia is ruled by the communities" mindset. The way I've seen it, Wikia always had the final say, and now that it's Fandom, they still have the final say.

      However, at the same time, I've never felt that the relationship was "Fandom rules the communities", so I'm not about to tell you that's where we're at, either. Basically, I've seen two main types of communities:

      • The communities who directly work with Fandom to help improve both Fandom (ad revenue, visitor numbers) and the communities (PIs? Let's make them look and work as best as possible. Discussions? Send them feedback on how to make them better because they're still in beta. New headers? Here's what we think would work better.)
      • The communities who attack Fandom and put devil horns on anyone who works for Fandom, who want to keep everything on their wikis the same way it's been for a decade, using old web standards that no longer work and that have never worked on mobile, refusing any help to fix anything that's broken.

      Fandom is a landlord. Communities, and us admins, are their tenants, and we're staying here for free. Is it so unreasonable for Fandom to then set specific rules on their communities?

      WikiDex has basically been acting like this:

      Fandom (landlord): "Your roof is caved in. We're sending guys to fix it."
      WikiDex (tenant): "It's a skylight now. We like it like that."
      Fandom: "It's going to rain in the house, and ruin everything. It's dangerous if you leave it!"
      WikiDex: "We want you to fix the floor instead. We want hardwood instead of carpet."
      Fandom: "But hardwood would get ruined by the next rain!"
      WikiDex: "Yeah, but we like our skylight and we want hardwood floors."
      Fandom: "Look, we're sending the guys this afternoon to fix the roof. And since we're putting a new roof, if you want new ceiling fixtures or a different color or new wires in the ceiling ---"
      WikiDex: "You'd better not fix that roof! We won't let them in! Respect our choices!"
      Fandom: "We own the property. We can't not fix it."
      WikiDex: "Fine. We'll just move elsewhere, then."
      Fandom: "Alright, move elsewhere. We still have to fix the roof."
      WikiDex: "We will attack any repairman you send. We're chaining ourselves to the doors."
      Fandom: "If you attack the repair guys, you will be evicted and the police will come."
      WikiDex: "Stop harassing us!"

      What the hell else is Fandom supposed to do here? You're claiming Fandom is pulling "skulduggery & hypocrisy" here, but I see Ciencia doing it instead of Fandom.

        Loading editor
    • Not quite the accurate representation of the situation. It’s more like this:

      Fandom (landlord): “Your roof is old. There’s nothing wrong with it, but we want to put solar panels in it so that we can make money off of the electricity. It’ll look sorta like your old roof, but it’ll still be different & we’re just going to do it. We’ll toss in a cheaper electricity bill on the side.”
      WikiDex (tenant): “We were told when we moved in that renovations would be voluntary.”
      WikiDex (tenant): “We just checked with our room mates (community), & most don’t want these renovations either.”
      Fandom: “We don’t care. It’s our property, & we are going to make money off of it. Take the cheaper electricity bill or get out.”
      WikiDex: “We like our current roof though, & for years we stayed under the pretense that renovations would be voluntary only. Has this changed?”
      Fandom: “Oh nah it’s still voluntary, totally. Oh by the way, we’re sending the guys this afternoon to fix the roof. And since we’re putting a new roof, you’ll get that nice electricity bill disco ---”
      WikiDex: “You just said it’s voluntary. We’re telling you, we are not consenting to this. If you send someone, we will send them away. Is this voluntary or not?”
      Fandom: “We own the property. We can do whatever we want with it.”
      WikiDex: “Fine. If we don’t have a choice in the matter, then we’ll just move elsewhere.”
      Fandom: “Oh you totally have a choice. We’re still gonna renovate the roof though.”
      WikiDex: “Then if we have a choice, we will bar them from entry & forcibly eject them if they try to force their way in.”
      Fandom: “If you attack the repair guys, you will be evicted and the police will come.”
      Vanguard: *kicks in the door*
      WikiDex Bureaucrat: *kicks them out*
      Police (Fandom Staff): *arrests the Bureaucrat*
        Loading editor
    • The problem is that there isn't nothing wrong with old infoboxes. They don't work on mobile. And Portable Infoboxes do. Since Ciencia started up all of this crap, Fandom has implemented PIs on WikiDex, and they look nearly identical to the non-PIs and now work on mobile.

      You can't pretend that everything is fine when functionality is broken on mobile, where more than half of all visitors are coming from.

      EDIT: Not to mention, they're reducing the number of ads on wikis, and PIs has literally nothing to do with ads.

        Loading editor
    • The mobile skin is relatively new. This is like saying the old roof doesn’t work because you’re pumping crap into the atmosphere, & the only way to fix that & the environment (mobile) is by switching to solar paneled rooves. It works fine for the community, but the landlord has only recently developed a green streak.

      EDIT: Also, loads of stuff don’t work in Mobile. If Infobox incompatibility really is like a whole in the roof, then the entire house is half blasted apart & Fandom needs to either buy a whole new one that’ll meet city codes for tenants living there, or else completely overhaul the Mobile Skin to enable better, smarter rendering.

        Loading editor
    • Cqm wrote: Those aren't quite like for like comparisons - Two Tailed Fox is a bureaucrat on Yu-Gi-Oh Wiki. He is clearly biased towards PI, but that view does seem to be vaguely shared by the wider community there. Dinoguy1000 seems to be the only notable opposition, and I would agree with his points about the general lack of argument provided in the proposal (although that is the case for almost every PI thread I've seen). The note about preventing reversion of the conversion in the closure is an over-the-top approach to take in my view, but that may be how they do things there. Nonetheless, it would be a cause for concern if an admin or bureaucrat did the same on my home wiki.

      There's a good reason I'm biased toward PIs. I deployed them on another wiki, and they made my life astonishingly easier. I'm not joking, it's literally been the cure to several headaches I've encountered with Wikitext.

      The prevention of editing is to ensure that the three test Infobox templates (and bear in mind, it is only three so far) that were created remain in place, and any problems or omissions in the code or appearance get detected and noticed, rather than brushed aside in a reversion of the template code where diagnosing them is harder. Every issue so far that's been mentioned to me has been resolved and dealt with, usually involving code that I hadn't transplanted.

      Dinoguy1000's objections stem from several factors; moving away from Wikitext for Infoboxes means moving away from what is for him (and many others), a comfortable and (mostly) versatile language. I get that. However, while myself, and many others are of the opinion that the mobile layout is poor, Dinoguy1000, and several other admins, have repeatedly downplayed either the importance of mobile appearance, or the severity of the appearance itself. That scenario is very much "I think I'm right" in my case, and that can only end one way.

      I respect Dinoguy1000 in that he believes that he is acting in the best interests of the Wiki, and I reiterate that I still want to work with him with these new templates, but that's a door that only he can walk through. Nevertheless, it is a door that remains open, and I still firmly believe that the templates can only be made better with his input, given his years of template design thus far.

      76.11.216.124 wrote: A bureaucrat TwoTailedFox may be, but it's been years - close to a decade, in fact - since he's been anything like a central figure in the YGO wiki community, not that that's stopped him from bandying about his status as founder, as though that actually has some significance.

      {{citation needed}}

        Loading editor
    • Let's not compare Discussions to PIs. Discussions actually works badly on desktop compared to mobile, PIs work well on both. Ciencia has been negative about Fandom since the Oasis Wars and they know that, so they didn't put in the extra work to convince him, but they should have.

      To me this isn't about whether PIs are good or not, they are a good thing. This is about whether Fandom really wants to work with a community, if they don't already have an insider smoothing the way. The cases where things have gone well, Fandom almost always had an insider (staff who was an admin or someone on council) or the wiki had very simple infoboxes to begin with, so the transition was smooth.

        Loading editor
    • Aye. I also think PIs are a straight upgrade & I utilize them myself where possible; it’s simply a better feature than Wikitext Templates. But at the end of the day, it’s the principle of the thing that matters. Do communities really have choice or not?

        Loading editor
    • SlyCooperFan1 wrote:

      ...and we're staying here for free.

      How about "we work for Fandoom for free"?

        Loading editor
    • LtLynx wrote:

      SlyCooperFan1 wrote:

      ...and we're staying here for free.

      How about "we work for Fandoom for free"?

      The relationship between Fandom and Wikis is symbiotic. They rely on each other; Wikis get a free platform for them to write about and organise information about their chosen subject, and Fandom gets a wealth of information to use to generate ad revenue, not to mention clout when it comes to negotiating with other media companies on collaboration.

      This is not, and should never have been seen as, "Us" vs. "Them".

        Loading editor
    • Ursuul
      Ursuul removed this reply because:
      not really sure where I was going with that thought
      22:02, May 8, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Ursuul wrote:

      Vanguard: *kicks in the door*

      I fail to see how criticism of Vanguard fits into this narrative.

        Loading editor
    • Not meant to criticize Vanguard, you guys are just trying to help. Perhaps I should’ve said “came in to do their job, only to get caught in a feud between tenant & landlord.”

        Loading editor
    • SlyCooperFan1 wrote: We also know, according to WikiDex talk pages, that many WikiDex users have wanted to have a better mobile experience.

      Then multiple volunteers at Fandom come in, saying, "Here's this thing called Portable Infoboxes that will help your infoboxes look much better on mobile and conform to mobile standards. Please let us know -- what modifications do we need to make to help them match your wiki? What work needs to be done? We're willing to help you every step of the way."

      Then Ciencia tells them to f*** off.

      Fandom tries again to extend their help in implementing this feature. Ciencia never relents in telling them in no uncertain terms to f*** off.

      I don't see where Ciencia is right here.

      I'm glad to see a council member to step here and comment. Looks like you know quite a lot about this incident in WikiDex. However, your information is not accurate. May I ask you how did you get to that conclusions? I'm pretty sure that, as a council, you've assisted to some meetings with staff, and they've informed you about the issue, telling their point of view about the incident, which is probably what you've posted here.

      Just to make some things clear here:

      • I'm not against PI in general, I know they're good for creating infoboxes from scratch, which help new communities.
      • I've also stated in other talk pages that I want a better mobile experience.
      • However, our community already has infoboxes in place, so making infoboxes easier is a moot point here.
      • PI has limitations, and are subject to eventual bugs and errors caused by Wikia changing their code, since it's not standard and nobody knows how may evolve.
      • PI changed the look of our templates, in some situations (the simple ones) they looked better, in some others there was a clear downgrade in design and functionality.
      • The mobile skin is a crap. If you need to reinvent the way infoboxes are coded, there's a clear design problem here.
      • When the problem is not only infoboxes, but all templates, complex formatted code and tables, then the problem is not wiki code, but the mobile skin itself.
      • Because of this, I suggested a way to do practically the same PI does, but as a more standard way: CSS classes. You can put them on every part of the wiki and fix pages as a whole, not just infoboxes.
      • However, Staff discarded this idea with no other reasoning than "PI should be implemented here. Period."

      This can be read from the original forum post on our community. But of course Staff should have told you a different story.

      To make this story more complete, and I admit that I was elegantly telling staff to f*** off, they previously told me to f*** off in several ways, like when they enabled discussions on our wiki without even notifying us (the admins of the wiki) about this. And of course, when we told them to disable discussions. So this was clearly a way to tell Staff that if they don't cooperate with us, we won't cooperate with them.

      SlyCooperFan1 wrote: After actually reading through WikiDex and reading through Ciencia's posts, this is what I see: an admin stuck in his old ways who can't evolve to change, even the most minuscule of change, and forcing his community to preach the same thing he's preaching, and gathering what support he can from the haters that fill Community Central.

      Next time try to actually read those discussions. Many users come to my talk page proposing changes, and I usually tell them to open a new forum post so other users can participate. I'm not the kind of person that want to force people into doing what I want to do. People can actually contradict me and I've been contradicted in forums on my community and I haven't demoted or blocked anyone for this, nor dismissed their propossals. I've expressed a strong opposition to implementing PI on WikiDex, but I haven't forced or even suggested others to support me in this decision. Everyone has been free to join the discussion.

      This has nothing about old ways of doing things or not wanting to evolve. Remember also that you are editing on Wikia, that uses MediaWiki 1.19 as its base software, released on 2012-05-02 and becoming obsolete in May 2015, stuck with old api modules and without many improvements for admins and users introduced in later releases.

        Loading editor
    • Ciencia, despite what you may believe, I'm not speaking for anyone from Fandom nor have I spoken to anyone more than FishTank, who I'm not speaking for either. I am my own person. (Believe me, I'd love to have a paid job at Fandom. Better than having no job at all, not until I'm done with college.)

      I didn't involve myself in here because I'm Council or because I spoke to anyone. I simply saw your posts crop up on Community Central over the past week, and I've been just sitting here trying to avoid all of it because your attitude is disgusting and I hate dealing with people like you who sit here and throw spitballs at Fandom instead of collaborating with them to try to improve things.

      I'm a council member for one reason only: I'm dedicated to my particular community, and Fandom has given us tools and exposure to manage an encyclopedia, so I want to help provide early feedback on said tools in proper, mature, responsible discussions where both my community and Fandom can help each other, as every community should strive to do.

      In any case...

      However, our community already has infoboxes in place, so making infoboxes easier is a moot point here.

      Wikis grow and evolve, and there will always be change to be made. Just because adding new tools to improve your experience doesn't retroactively apply doesn't mean it shouldn't be done in the first place. You have no idea where WikiDex, or any wiki, will be in five years, so why not make the next editor's experience easier for creating that next infobox you don't know you'll need today?

      PI has limitations, and are subject to eventual bugs and errors caused by Wikia changing their code, since it's not standard and nobody knows how may evolve.

      It's no one's fault but your own if you don't keep up with the Technical Updates on Community Central or pay attention to Fandom's updates in the bottom-right corner that apply globally when major features are implemented or changed. "Eventual bugs and errors" is a moot point because you're talking about software which always has bugs and errors, but if a problem ever showed up, then you could simply contact Fandom and they'd help you fix it. They're not out to leave a wiki in a broken mess.

      PI changed the look of our templates, in some situations (the simple ones) they looked better, in some others there was a clear downgrade in design and functionality.

      That's your own personal opinion. I've browsed through the WikiDex pages and haven't seen any out-of-place infoboxes. This isn't a point worth pursuing, every user will see them differently.

      The mobile skin is a crap. If you need to reinvent the way infoboxes are coded, there's a clear design problem here.

      Indeed, the mobile skin is crap. Fandom said at Community Connect last year that the mobile skin and mobile apps were going to be worked on, but that's completely unrelated to infoboxes. One of the reasons Portable Infoboxes exists is to provide that standard that can conform easily to mobile. You can easily make the exact same infobox in wikitext as you can with PI format, and that format is used in the backend for special display on mobile. Wikitext infoboxes, by virtue of being wikitext, means Fandom can't put anything in the backend on the mobile skin to display them properly.

      Yes, there was a clear design problem: infoboxes looked like crap on mobile. Solution? Portable Infoboxes.

      When the problem is not only infoboxes, but all templates, complex formatted code and tables, then the problem is not wiki code, but the mobile skin itself.

      Agreed. The mobile skin needs more work. But infoboxes are the very top element with the most important information in articles. Being a Pokemon wiki, you should understand that more than anyone else. Ergo, infoboxes were the most important thing for them to get right. I'm still hoping we'll get a solution soon on the table situation, because tables are a necessary evil for us at my wiki, but infoboxes were the top priority, and that's what they tackled first.

      Because of this, I suggested a way to do practically the same PI does, but as a more standard way: CSS classes. You can put them on every part of the wiki and fix pages as a whole, not just infoboxes.
      However, Staff discarded this idea with no other reasoning than "PI should be implemented here. Period."

      I honestly don't know how to respond to this in any simpler terms. That's exactly what Portable Infoboxes are! You have no less freedom with PIs than you did with wikitext infoboxes. All that's changed is the markup, which is easier and more helpful for you and your editors. The PIs' CSS classes on mobile are dictated by Fandom, and beyond wanting a dark theme on mobile web browsers, I see absolutely no problem with the mobile PI CSS. On the desktop side, you have an easy way to add themes to the PIs to add your own CSS in the same way that the wikitext infoboxes had.

      You're literally suggesting that they add CSS classes to help, and that's literally what Portable Infoboxes are.

      Remember also that you are editing on Wikia, that uses MediaWiki 1.19 as its base software, released on 2012-05-02 and becoming obsolete in May 2015, stuck with old api modules and without many improvements for admins and users introduced in later releases.

      You do realize you're completely off the mark here? Yes, the base version of the software we're using is MediaWiki 1.19, but at this point, so much has been backported from MediaWiki 1.25 or even created independently of MediaWiki itself that there isn't any need to upgrade. It doesn't matter if the MediaWiki project maintains 1.19 or not anymore, because Fandom maintains it for us. It has nothing to do with any of this.

        Loading editor
    • Ciencia Al Poder wrote: This has nothing about old ways of doing things or not wanting to evolve. Remember also that you are editing on Wikia, that uses MediaWiki 1.19 as its base software, released on 2012-05-02 and becoming obsolete in May 2015, stuck with old api modules and without many improvements for admins and users introduced in later releases.

      That is not how software development works at Fandom. You will find that many downstream security patches are, and continue to be integrated. Don't let the version number fool you, a lot of the base MediaWiki install used by Fandom bears little resemblance to even the last 1.19 security update released to the public. It's effectively MediaWiki 1.19+, and despite the version showing, a lot of later MediaWiki code has been incorporated. This is what it means to "fork" a project like MediaWiki.

        Loading editor
    • Forgot to respond to one last thing:

      Ciencia Al Poder wrote:

      To make this story more complete, and I admit that I was elegantly telling staff to f*** off, they previously told me to f*** off in several ways, like when they enabled discussions on our wiki without even notifying us (the admins of the wiki) about this. And of course, when we told them to disable discussions. So this was clearly a way to tell Staff that if they don't cooperate with us, we won't cooperate with them.

      That is a completely different story. I've never heard of Fandom enabling Discussions on a wiki without that wiki's permission, because that feature is still very much in beta. If you came here about Fandom forcibly enabling Discussions on your wiki, that would have been a completely different thing. There's no reason they should have done that. Only new wikis get Discussions by default, but all old wikis are waiting until the feature has matured before having it enabled there.

      I get why they couldn't disable it - you can't disable Discussions after you've enabled it - but they certainly should not have enabled it in the first place. On that, I totally agree with you.

      Still, that does not outright excuse you to act like this to Fandom staff, especially any of them who may not have been involved in the Discussions debacle, when they try to help you with something completely different and 100% beneficial to your community.

        Loading editor
    • @SlyCooperFan1: You are talking as if PI is the only solution to the problem, when it is not, because as you already agreed, there are more problems than infoboxes. CSS classes can be placed everywhere, not only inside infoboxes, and doesn't require any special markup. I was trying to open up this path with the Staff but as I said it wasn't being taken into account at all. Infoboxes are a 5% of our page surface. We should look for a more global solution to this.

      About 1.19, it lacks lots of features like api endpoints, view how many hidden revisions are between a diff, etc. I don't know if a lot of later MediaWiki code has been incorporated, but not the UI features, at least.

      Anyway, this post wasn't about how good PI are, but how Wikia staff imposes a decision despite having 0 support from a community.

        Loading editor
    • I recall that a wiki requires Discussions to have a Community App.

        Loading editor
    • Ciencia Al Poder wrote: view how many hidden revisions are between a diff

      Well, that omission should make sense, even to you. The only thing that feature would provoke is questions, which Fandom, due to the nature of what often gets hidden, cannot answer.

        Loading editor
    • PI is a specific solution for a specific problem: infoboxes on mobile. Fandom recognized the problem, created a solution, and now we have to implement it to conform to mobile standards.

      Infoboxes may be 5% of your page content area, but it's certainly more than 5% of what your average reader is looking at, especially on mobile. That's the point I'm trying to make - infoboxes are massively important, far more than just 5%, to the people looking anything up on a wiki.

      About 1.19, it lacks lots of features like api endpoints

      http://www.wikia.com/api/v1/

      view how many hidden revisions are between a diff, etc.

      You're telling me you don't see "5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown" on this page?

      Anyway, this post wasn't about how good PI are, but how Wikia staff imposes a decision despite having 0 support from a community.

      Fandom staff imposed that decision because, as I have been trying to explain, it is a mutual win-win for both Fandom AND your wiki and its users, both logged in and logged out, both desktop and mobile. You wanted a better mobile experience, Fandom gave you PIs, you rejected and asked for something that does exactly what PIs do... what more are you looking for here?

      @Speedit:

      I recall that a wiki requires Discussions to have a Community App.

      That might explain it, I don't know if WikiDex is integrated in the English Pokemon Community App. A community indeed has to enable Discussions to have a Community App because that's how the app templates are designed, and Fandom can't easily change that to suit an individual wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Speedit wrote:
      I recall that a wiki requires Discussions to have a Community App.
      Aye. When I sent in a request for a Community App I wasn’t aware of this, & so they just enabled it without even asking me. They didn’t say “hey you need Discussions enabled to get it, would you like to enable it?” They just did it. I’m not particularly miffed, because we have Forum & it was bound to be replaced by Discussions inevitably, & we did get a Mobile App out of it (which I asked for in the first place), but it still should’ve been a choice. If a Wiki is large & doesn’t want a Mobile App if it means they have to enable Discussions, then they should have the option to say “no”. Otherwise “community rule” is 100% pretense.
        Loading editor
    • Cqm

      Ciencia Al Poder wrote: ... enabled discussions on our wiki without even notifying us ...

      I just went through all 33 admins and counted 21 posts to discussions between them. Who is moderating/managing this? Enabling something when there is no obvious desire by the community to engage serves no purpose. You might as well have created a new subreddit.


      @TwoTailedFox: Truth be told, I don't find your arguments on w:c:yugioh:Forum:New Portable-style Infoboxes overly compelling with regards to the syntax. To claim they make creating infoboxes easier is obviously going to be subjective based on personal preference and what you're used to. This is forgetting that infoboxes are not pages that receive a notable number of edits each week - you make them once, then fix or add to them as your needs change which are infrequent events. Perhaps you find PI more maintainable, which is the quality that really matters in terms of syntax, but I'd rather have a more flexible base when I have problems I need to fix.

      Looking over the reddit thread you linked to from that forum, I'm not really surprised that the experience on mobile is so poor when they don't use an infobox class. Not being able to style things on mobile is a pain point, but you do get some things for free if you use appropriate classes. Changing to PI is clearly a huge improvement based on what you had, but I wonder what you might have got from some subtle class changes.

        Loading editor
    • TwoTailedFox wrote:

      Ciencia Al Poder wrote: view how many hidden revisions are between a diff

      Well, that omission should make sense, even to you. The only thing that feature would provoke is questions, which Fandom, due to the nature of what often gets hidden, cannot answer.

      I probably didn't explained myself correctly... If you do a diff between 2 non-adjacent revisions, you could see how many revisions are between them (example) and even the revert button warns you about that. But of course, only someone used to work with a recent MediaWiki version can appreciate the big differences between MediaWiki 1.28 and wikia's 1.19 fork.

        Loading editor
    • Ursuul wrote:

      Aye. When I sent in a request for a Community App I wasn’t aware of this, & so they just enabled it without even asking me. They didn’t say “hey you need Discussions enabled to get it, would you like to enable it?” They just did it. I’m not particularly miffed, because we have Forum & it was bound to be replaced by Discussions inevitably, & we did get a Mobile App out of it (which I asked for in the first place), but it still should’ve been a choice. If a Wiki is large & doesn’t want a Mobile App if it means they have to enable Discussions, then they should have the option to say “no”. Otherwise “community rule” is 100% pretense.

      This is certainly problematic. I would hope Fandom would come out and apologize for this and actually warn communities in contact emails that Discussions will be enabled if they really want to go through with having a Community App. Just going ahead with it without warning and an option to back out is not what they should have done at all.

        Loading editor
    • Ciencia Al Poder wrote:

      I probably didn't explained myself correctly... If you do a diff between 2 non-adjacent revisions, you could see how many revisions are between them (example) and even the revert button warns you about that. But of course, only someone used to work with a recent MediaWiki version can appreciate the big differences between MediaWiki 1.28 and wikia's 1.19 fork.

      And I gave you an example of that actually being implemented here on Fandom.

        Loading editor
    • Cqm

      SlyCooperFan1 wrote: You do realize you're completely off the mark here? Yes, the base version of the software we're using is MediaWiki 1.19, but at this point, so much has been backported from MediaWiki 1.25 or even created independently of MediaWiki itself that there isn't any need to upgrade. It doesn't matter if the MediaWiki project maintains 1.19 or not anymore, because Fandom maintains it for us. It has nothing to do with any of this.

      There isn't that much that gets backported because it's so tightly integrated into everything else. Security patches get backported, which are generally small, limited in scope and really worth having, but not much else. Backporting in any quantity has the same problems as upgrading - Wikia made too many modifications to make upgrading easy. Sure, there are some features that are similar, but there are others that Wikia doesn't really maintain and have fallen behind.

      The V1 API is very, very different to the MediaWiki API (I'm not even sure if it's updated anymore). It provides access to Wikia specific things like avatars, but it a long way short of what the current MediaWiki API supports.

        Loading editor
    • Cqm wrote:

      @TwoTailedFox: Truth be told, I don't find your arguments on w:c:yugioh:Forum:New Portable-style Infoboxes overly compelling with regards to the syntax. To claim they make creating infoboxes easier is obviously going to be subjective based on personal preference and what you're used to. This is forgetting that infoboxes are not pages that receive a notable number of edits each week - you make them once, then fix or add to them as your needs change which are infrequent events. Perhaps you find PI more maintainable, which is the quality that really matters in terms of syntax, but I'd rather have a more flexible base when I have problems I need to fix.

      Looking over the reddit thread you linked to from that forum, I'm not really surprised that the experience on mobile is so poor when they don't use an infobox class. Not being able to style things on mobile is a pain point, but you do get some things for free if you use appropriate classes. Changing to PI is clearly a huge improvement based on what you had, but I wonder what you might have got from some subtle class changes.

      One of the biggest problems has been that the admin team of the Wiki invariably do not use mobile - and thus have been blind to how important it is, and they have focused their efforts soley on desktop. This is as much about reversing years of mobile neglect as it is bringing the wiki kicking and screaming into 2017 and beyond. The style issue on mobile ties back here, too.

      Perhaps in hindsight, "easier" may have been a poor choice of words; however, I do certainly find them more maintainable, and because of how some, like myself, look at the syntax, the way we organise it makes it easier to find sections in need of change.

      One of the features I have mentioned elsewhere is that it cuts down on ParserFunctions I need to call. The syntax has explicit #if support integrated, and that makes for much cleaner code overall.

        Loading editor
    • It seems to me that this debate boils down to whether you consider infoboxes to be content or not. If you consider them to be part of the underlying wiki design, and I guess that's Fandom's view of it and that of those sympathetic to their "side", then this is just another design update like there have been plenty in Wikia's history. Forcefully reverting such design changes on your wiki is, if I recall correctly, a terms of use violation (my only experience with that is that when Wikia introduced fluid layout, it was strictly forbidden to add CSS that fixed the width).

      However, if you consider infoboxes to be part of the wiki content, then Fandom enforcing PI without or against community consensus appears as a violation of the idea that we contributors have the control over our content. Hence the fear some have expressed here that Fandom begins enforcing bigger content changes.

      Disclaimer: I'm not a regular CC visitor. Apologies if I appear to be ill-informed...

        Loading editor
    • Ciencia Al Poder, instead of worrying about the portable infobox you should investigate hosting the wiki yourself (or between the admins).

      Seriously the WikiDex looks like a really cool and innovative wiki and you could do so much more with it were it free from Wikia and their staff. Also you benefit from a mobile skin that actually works (check out the Refreshed skin), the potential for https hosting etc.

      You should check out NIWA, Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance.

        Loading editor
    • Gray Catbird wrote: It seems to me that this debate boils down to whether you consider infoboxes to be content or not. If you consider them to be part of the underlying wiki design, and I guess that's Fandom's view of it and that of those sympathetic to their "side", then this is just another design update like there have been plenty in Wikia's history. Forcefully reverting such design changes on your wiki is, if I recall correctly, a terms of use violation (my only experience with that is that when Wikia introduced fluid layout, it was strictly forbidden to add CSS that fixed the width).

      However, if you consider infoboxes to be part of the wiki content, then Fandom enforcing PI without or against community consensus appears as a violation of the idea that we contributors have the control over our content. Hence the fear some have expressed here that Fandom begins enforcing bigger content changes.

      Disclaimer: I'm not a regular CC visitor. Apologies if I appear to be ill-informed...

      Unfortunately, your argument sounds similar to the bogus one Microsoft used for IE for years.

        Loading editor
    • 80.229.116.230 wrote: Ciencia Al Poder, instead of worrying about the portable infobox you should investigate hosting the wiki yourself (or between the admins).

      Seriously the WikiDex looks like a really cool and innovative wiki and you could do so much more with it were it free from Wikia and their staff. Also you benefit from a mobile skin that actually works (check out the Refreshed skin), the potential for https hosting etc.

      You should check out NIWA, Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance.

      This is only a good solution if you're willing to give up the many advantages of Fandom which includes help from many experienced admins and staff (but also much, much more). If you don't bring that experience along with you (from what I've heard WikiDex is sorely lacking in the technical knowledge department outside of Ciencia), you are unlikely to find it at your destination.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: Unfortunately, your argument sounds similar to the bogus one Microsoft used for IE for years.

      Sorry to ask, but could you elaborate? I'm not familiar with what Microsoft may have said about IE.

      For the record, I couldn't care less about portable infoboxes implementation or non-implementation, since my wiki doesn't use complicated infoboxes anyways. However I find it very unfair that Fandom would have enforced something I see as an optional change in the absence of or against a community consensus.

      At the same time, I've long known that Wikia sometimes makes changes that are simply not optional, but I thought these changes limited themselves to the website design, how the content is framed. Which, brings me back to my first argument: Fandom's control may or may not extent to infoboxes, depending of whether you think they're part of the Fandom-controlled design or part of the user-controlled content. It seems clear that for Fandom, it's the former.

        Loading editor
    • Gray Catbird wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote: Unfortunately, your argument sounds similar to the bogus one Microsoft used for IE for years.

      Sorry to ask, but could you elaborate? I'm not familiar with what Microsoft may have said about IE.

      Microsoft used to say, if you use Windows, you had to get IE because it was integrated as part of the OS. This wasn't true and eventually they got busted.

      While I like PIs (I hate IE), they are definitely not required for a wiki to work, they are just preferred. The argument is not about what is content or integrate wiki design, as PIs clearly are not. The argument s about whether Fandom wants to negotiate with a community or it's just a PR cover.

      Gray Catbird wrote:

      For the record, I couldn't care less about portable infoboxes implementation or non-implementation, since my wiki doesn't use complicated infoboxes anyways. However I find it very unfair that Fandom would have enforced something I see as an optional change in the absence of or against a community consensus.

      At the same time, I've long known that Wikia sometimes makes changes that are simply not optional, but I thought these changes limited themselves to the website design, how the content is framed. Which, brings me back to my first argument: Fandom's control may or may not extent to infoboxes, depending of whether you think they're part of the Fandom-controlled design or part of the user-controlled content. It seems clear that for Fandom, it's the former.

      It's Fandom's choice whether to make things non-optional, but they have to weigh the reaction of the community. For WikiDex, they did a poor job coordinating and most of the public communications shows they did not respect the admins of the wiki. Although I think PIs are almost always a benefit, they aren't a benefit replacing all infoboxes. We went through this on WoWWiki and while Vanguard did a pretty good job, they really weren't that great in following up with problems found later. Fortunately, I'm very comfortable with PIs, so I just fixed most of the problems myself.

      From what I can tell, if a wiki's admins are cooperative and ask questions and hold Fandom accountable for making sure the infoboxes match look and functionality, things will go fine. On the other hand, immediate resistance just makes Fandom staff go kind of bonkers and they become @ssholes. Worse, they think they are being reasonable. When the situation calls for pull back and de-escalation, they just entrench and become dictatorial.

      I've told most of this stuff to at least one Fandom staff member directly, but I'm not sure they quite get the problem.

        Loading editor
    • (I hate IE too!) Thank you, I understand better now. I think that's a very good point. PIs have been ostensibly presented as an optional option, and therefore should be treated as such. A shame it all seems to have descended into this.

        Loading editor
    • Hello,

      I've posted the official Fandom response on a blog with the same topic. You can read the comment here

        Loading editor
    • 80.229.116.230 wrote: Also you benefit from a mobile skin that actually works (check out the Refreshed skin), the potential for https hosting etc.

      Noticed this page had issues. IMO, even applying CSS +JS to MB is better.

      EDIT: Just as a note - that screenshot is a thought experiment I coded for what ways Mercury is more technically capable than Wikiamobile.

        Loading editor
    • Why was Ciencia Al Poder globally blocked? I mean, why wasn't he blocked only on WikiDex?

        Loading editor
    • @Speedit Check out coasterpedia.net the skin works pretty well and would be even better with Wikia's weight behind it

        Loading editor
    • @Rexaf According to Wikia staff he was reverting staff changes using a bot. It was probably to prevent him vandalising other wikis as well

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message