Talk: Community Outlook- Wikia's "New Look"

Dunno, perhaps we should use the talkpage for comments? Idk. — Warw/Wick 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been boiling up - but I'm suppressing the rant atm RandomTime 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. How about we move all articles into userspace, so it doesnt disrupt page content? For instance, User:Main Page, User:Cleave, User:Template:Cleave... :p — Warw/Wick 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

lol, sounds like a plan xD-- - (Talk/Contribs) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikia's "New Style"

← Moved from GuildWiki talk:Community Portal

I do not know if any of you are yet aware of this or not, but Wikia is planning to add a new required skin to all Wikia wikis. The article on this is located here. The new skin will cause ads to appear in the middle of articles and thus disrupting content. This could be very bad for GuildWiki as it has the possiblity to drive off editors who simiply do not want ads in the actual content. There is a discussion going on here in which the community it discussing the "New Style". How will this affect GuildWiki? What should we do to try and keep editors interested? We need ideas and discussion. --Shadowphoenix 06:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm @#$% wikia we didn't want to come under their control in the first place, all I have to say about it.-- 06:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but we can't simply ignore this as it affects us as well. --Shadowphoenix 06:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I went and ranted on the "discussion" page.-- 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Logged in users should still be able to use Monobook. So this primarily impacts anon users, and logged-in users who has grown accustomed to the features offered by Monaco. If you are currently using Monobook, hold your fire until Wikia announces they are going to remove Monobook from the user's choice of skin. Anons, and ppl who are currently using Monaco, carry on with the discussion d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just want to reinforce PanSola's note about logged-in users - there are no plans to remove Monobook from the options for logged in users. The update of Monaco will result in a Monaco skin on GuildWiki that looks more than ever like Monobook, but with the added features. Kirkburn (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except for some odd reason the monobook skin on the official wikia wiki, looks like @#$%ing monoco. I dont always log in either to view the site... God knows what will happen...-- 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at our license (see bottom of every page for link), using these big ads on GuildWiki at all seems to me to be a license breach (GFDL is fine with that). I can tolerate the google ads in the side bar as they hopefully cover operating expenses, more or less, but delivering ads like the commercial websites do deserves leagl scrutiny. --mendel 09:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we set the standard skin for anyone to Monobook? Should be possible... No? --- -- (s)talkpage 09:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We lost our ability to set standard skins when we someone sold our souls to Wikia. Alarming change, although unfortunately, not a bunch we can do about it. -Auron 13:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am now extremely angry with wikia RandomTime 15:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The good news is that (in theory) when they see how the format screws everything up, they will hopefully have the good grace to admit it was a mistake and undo it.Entrea [Talk] 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That relies on the assumption that Wikia realises its mistakes. --Dr R. Phalange 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes me laugh is the "more article area" argument. Yeah, with a big add like that you'll have WAY more area... but not article area. Advertising area yes, but not article area. Also, forcing Monaco is a terrible idea. IDK why are they so persistent on forcing it on everyone. I tried Monaco personally, but cot annoyed by the big and unneeded sidebar, and the fact that I couldn't find the discussion pages for quite a while (I found it later... about 1000 pixels away from the place I thought it should be). And the thing that really made me laugh is the "increased traffic" argument. They can't be serious about it... Adds don't concern me personally, since it was a long time since I saw one anywhere and will continue to use Monobook, but I am concerned about random users coming to the wiki. — Poki#3 , 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This will be the final blow to those who were hanging in there and not moving to the official wiki... How many people do you think will stay here after the style change? Triple digits is my guess... I really don't think Wikia realizes that it has a competitor on this one... RoseOfKali 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt hardly anyone will stay. --talk 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

have the admin skin/default skin be monobook. it would be foolish on wikias part to carry out an action which would drive traffic away from the site. 162.84.143.170 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"it would be foolish on wikias part" -- Dude, stop giving them reasons to do it, they like being foolish. --Dr R. Phalange 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

well why dont you stop qqing the corner and take it to the wikia notice board. even if they dont apply it to the entire wiki, point out that changing things may tread close to violations of guildwiki's unique licensing. their advertisers can get over the fact that we don't use their gay skins. if hundreds of anons come in and sign a petition qqing about it, what are they gonna do, force them to leave? stop treating them like evil guys who are just trying to fuck us over and mount a protest. DAMN 162.84.143.170 19:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"When wikis have switched from Monobook to Monaco, they've seen huge jumps in the number of readers, contributors and user logins."
I lol'd. The users probably logged in more so they could change their skin.
The only thing that really affects me (since I'm always logged in) are the ads. It says there will only be 1 ad for logged in members. Where will it be placed in Monobook? I would prefer a banner ad across the very bottom... where it is now. Since they're only talking about Monaco, I hope Monobook will remain exactly the same. --Macros 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Monobook probably won't be touched, so nothing will change. The problem is the add will be viseable in the (forced on us) new default skin that is Monaco. The add will be in the place we currently have infoboxes for skills, locations, monsters, items... everything. You'll have to scroll down on practicly every page to see the infobox... Not to mention that it'll probably preak our main page.

Since Wikia will be monitoring trafic following a week after the change, can we issue a strike? I'm serious here, do our admins have the power to temporarely block the database so we;'ll have an edit cout of 0? — Poki#3 , 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is blocked by an admin, it will mean nothing. The no-edit strike has to be voluntary. All we gotta do is advertise it so that more people see it and know about it. When are they implementing this so that I know not to edit or visit? RoseOfKali 01:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Who cares? I'm sure our css/js wizards will whip up something we can use to fix the site pretty quick. You know what happened when they screwed up Monobook with the migration, it was fixed almost instantly. When this goes live, it'll probably be a few hours tops before someone "customizes" Monaco to the point it won't screw over our pages.Entrea [Talk] 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we can't fix it, we're in trouble. Using the masterful technique of adding a 250x300px image to the top-right, I have recreated the effect of ads on an average skillpage: Entrea [Talk] 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The only way it could be "fixed" to satisfaction is by removing the idiotic in page adds, which is against wikias all might TOS. Needless to say, GWW will grow quite a bit.-- 02:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to put a Snickers (TM) commercial on that Golem. — Poki#3 , 02:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RoseOfKali 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mind moving to wikia, I don't even mind the present ads. I was mildly pissed off that my username was changed despite no active user with my name here. I figured, I'd stay because the articles just look and flow so much better here, not to mention the people I see around here. If they put ads in the way currently proposed then I will be gone. Oh I doubt I could be bothered to give GWW a chance, but I wouldn't be here. Ezekiel [Talk] 06:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd doubt I'd go to GWW, it still sucks worse then guildwiki stuffed with ads, but I doubt I would continue here, whats the point of helpinga wikia that looks like a billboard to the average visiting GW player?-- 07:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As an admin here, I would deal with the change one way or another, and stick around.

As an editor, I suppose I would scoot over to GWW. I'm already an editor there, the unwieldy policies there don't actually cause much damage, and the fact that it's ArenaNet-owned means we don't have to deal with any crap overflowing from non-Guild Wars stuff.

Given the choice of making Wikia more money with their silly advertisement spree, or making ArenaNet a bit of money from the few ads on GWW, I'd rather support the company that runs the game I'm in love with... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what the changes will actually consist of before we get upset. Quizzical 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikia's already done a lot of annoying things, and we're all still here, so yeh, best to complain after the fact. :D -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting comment from one of the Wikia staff people that I thought was worth quoting. I'd read it as saying those who don't use Monaco won't have any changes except possibly for a new ad on the main page--and that those who do use Monaco and object to the changes can switch to a different skin.

• "We've made the choice in this case to show more ads to anonymous users than to logged-in users for precisely that reason. About 95% of Wikia's readers are anonymous readers. 5% of the people here are creating the content that the other 95% read. We know that ads are annoying and distracting, especially when you're trying to write. So we're only showing one ad to logged-in users, and we're not showing any ads on the "content-producing" pages -- talk pages, edit pages, etc. We also know that the 5% of people who contribute don't click on ads much anyway, and often block the ads. That's okay, from a revenue point of view. The 5% are doing more than their share, by writing all the content and building the communities. But somebody's got to pay for the site to keep running, and that has to be the 95%."

So basically, the changes will be more ads shown to the people who don't register and log in. And to that, I say, so what? Quizzical 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's extremely selfish, I was under the impression that guild wiki exists so GW players can come and reference our info.-- 04:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically, if someone is bothered by the ads, he can register and log in to get things back to how they are now. And if someone doesn't mind the ads, why should you step in and be upset in his place? What's so bad about a system that shows the ads to precisely the people who aren't annoyed by them? Quizzical 04:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...Aside from the fact that to remove all ads and their effects you have be knowledged in the way wikis work, there is no reason that a patron would have to create a account just to view the site without looking at a advertisement for pop tarts on the page for a elite dungeon.-- 04:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if you think there shouldn't be any advertisements on the wiki, how do you think hosting the servers ought to be paid for? Quizzical 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Donations, the banner ads on the bottom, the stuff that has worked before. Not a pic of a box of poptarts where a skill box should be.-- 05:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, just keep on doing the stuff that isn't working now, and hope it magically starts working? Quizzical 05:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe for a second that wikia needs more hosting funds, and if they do they don't deserve to be a host with their shitty service and horrible community relations. Had the original host actualy given us a choice of hosts rather then selling it to wikia then we would not be in the mess and could of found our own non destructive way of keeping guildwiki up...-- 05:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Quizzical; if Wikia has nearly a quarter million dollars to buy wikis, I'm fairly certain they don't need any cash. I'm surprised nobody's brought up how this might be violating site policy, because the income will most likely be paying off wikia staff instead of going to hosting costs.

I'm with Alari; they don't need money, they just want money. And throwing ads in the middle of a page is a piss-poor way to treat a new wiki on the network. -Auron 06:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, now that they've actually posted a test site where we can see how it works, let's have a look: [[1]]

I clicked on a bunch of random pages. Compared to the existing Monaco, it appears that if the top of the page has a bunch of text, it puts the new advertisement in the top right corner. The text near the top simply has slightly shorter lines for a while. I think that's pretty harmless, really. Indeed, it fits with their claim that the new style of advertisement actually allows more room for content on the page than the old banner at the top.

If the top of the page has a picture in the top right corner, it moves the banner under the edit bar, instead of above it. It doesn't add a new picture and destroy the page, but only moves the banner at the top slightly. I'm sorry, but I really can't get terribly upset about moving a banner to be under the edit bar instead of above it, especially when someone who finds this horribly offensive can easily register, log in, and change the skin.

The peculiar thing that might cause trouble is that it doesn't seem consistent in where it puts the advertisement. Even reloading the same page can sometimes render a box advertisement one time and then a banner the next, or vice versa. It tends to err on the side of going with the old type of banner instead of the new boxes, choosing the banner even on some pages where I think the new box advertisement would look better.

That only leaves the main page, where they're going to want to always have an advertisement in the top right corner. I don't know about you, but when I go to the main page, the first thing I want to do is immediately get off the main page--which doesn't even entail looking at the right half of the page at all. Apart from the main page advertisement, even if money were not a factor, one could make a case that the new style of advertisements is less intrusive than the old. Quizzical 07:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Less Disruptive? Lets see right now the main page has 2 ads. one at the bottom and under the sidebar, unnoticeable at first glance, with this there will be two ads shoved in your face right on top of the page, forcing one to scroll down to see content, where before there was no need. Now going to articles, like before now there is only 2 ads out of the way, after this change there will be 3 ads, one still blaring in the viewers face... Until I am shown some numbers relating to hosting this wiki I am with auron that they just want more money, a violation of the license. -- 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The license has been brought up (search for "leagl" on this page). The placement of the ads its kinda haphazard, in [2] I see a corner ad pushing the image down. Can you imagine designing pages for viewers that will see ads when you yourself don't see them? It doesn't fix things that we won't see them when 95% of our readers do because we have to write and lay out the content for them. Put our infoboxes on the left and let the content be crushed between the info and the box? Recommend viewing this site at 1200x1600? Make a dump of the database and set up elsewhere? --mendel 08:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're adding another advertisement to the main page. That's one page. It's not going to be some awful nightmare to redo 1 (one) page, as in, fewer than two pages. Okay, maybe two pages if you count the editcopy, but that can be redone just by copying and pasting the main page.

And what's your point about forcing people to scroll down? On the main page, you already have to do that, in every single skin available, unless you're at some insanely huge resolution that my monitor can't handle. On other pages, the new box advertisements will take less area than the old banners, with only the exception of very low monitor resolutions (possibly including 800x600). Further, they tend to be more likely to use previously empty space. This allows more actual content higher on the pages, which means less scrolling down.

The one thing that I do see as being a problem is the pages that switch which way they render, seemingly at random. Mendel points out one of them, as if you reload that page several times, you'll see it switch back and forth some. That's probably a bug. Quizzical 09:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikia may have turned off corner ads for now, I couldn't get them to appear even on Cat. Fixing the bug? Anyone care to make a page on the testwiki that uses a float:right div/table like our infoboxes? --mendel 10:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently they said that the random bit about ad placement is not a bug. It supposedly picks the banner if the box will break the page, and otherwise picks at random. That means that even within the same skin, a page could render two different ways, which could be awkward to design for. That seems like a rather dumb "feature". Maybe we just have to make sure to design pages such that the system that checks will think that the box breaks the page, in order to get certainty in page design? Quizzical 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be going backwards and forwards on this one at the moment. The options we are looking at right now are: "always a box, unless a conflict with something like a table is detected, then banner" or "either a box or a banner, unless a conflict with something like a table is detected, then banner". The first means more boxes overall (which intrude more into the article), the second means less stability. Our initial understanding of the feedback was that the less boxes the better, but now I'm starting to hear more on the side of stability. Two things that have been tweaked since the announcement: short articles won't show ads, and the idea of the fixed width main page has been discarded. And of course the whole thing has been delayed for a week to gather more feedback and make sure everyone has heard about the change (we are going to send out a global notice to help with that). There won't be a change yet, but it is likely to have the same number of ads as Monaco in the future. However, that will be the lower number of ads seen by logged in users, not the logged out view. And with both, pages such as talk pages, recent changes, forum pages, and so on will not have ads. -- sannse (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Last minute shoring up before the storm

← Moved from GuildWiki talk:Community Portal

Looking over the test wiki, a right-floating infobox will be horribly broken by the new ads. To remedy this, there is a simple coding. Simply by inserting {|width="100%" |} or, with more coding but giving less of a gap, {|border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" align="center" valign="top" class="noprint" |} , can force the ad into a banner format. If we were to place this coding on top of Template:Skill box, Template:WeaponInfo, etc. before the ads go live, we could avoid the new ads altogether. Should we risk shooting the job queue to hell and edit all the templates to avoid the impending page-breaking, or wait to see what happens?Entrea [Talk] 03:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we should wait, and see how the ads affect the pages first. Also, when the job queue does shoot to hell, we can make sure Wikia notices it lines up with the implementation of their new advertising system. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 04:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly "avoiding" the new ad, it's just forcing it into the more desirable of the two configurations (banner >> box). Still, it's a very good idea. —Dr Ishmael 04:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If this works, then every infobox should get a "free sample". — Poki#3 , 06:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the changes have been delayed a week. Quizzical 06:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we do that with site CSS or won't that work? What I'm thinking of is prepending the table codes to the article space div using CSS rewrite (?) rules. I'm very hazy on the details, though; should I look that up? --mendel 07:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding a new node to the DOM tree would require JavaScript, and I'm not well-versed in JS enough to say how difficult it would be to prepend a node into the content <div> (there may be a prepend equivalent to the "appendNode()" function, but I don't know). That would be much more efficient than overloading the job queue. —Dr Ishmael 13:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of the CSS :before selector. As I understand it, you can use it to insert anything before a certain class of element. --mendel 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that would work... we want to insert this table inside the content div, not outside it, which is where :before or :after would place it, I think. I can't seem to make it work from my monobook.css, so I don't know for sure. —Dr Ishmael 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in any case, we have a quick, easy solution that we know will work, and we have a week to find a better one. Unless Wikia gives in, but what are the chances of that?Entrea [Talk] 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Monoco

"Anonymous logins went up 223%" No shit? You had to make a account to not put up with the monoco skin!

Thats entire section is a load of crap, optimized to load faster? How exactly is something with more colors and menus going to load faster? "Monaco is easier for new wiki users to understand. The majority of internet users still don't realize that there's an "edit" button on Wikipedia. That's because on Monobook, all the important links and buttons are written in 8.5-point type. Monaco is designed to make the important stuff stand out, like the edit button and the search box." If you cant see the buttons on top of the page already making them bigger isn't going to help you.

"In the past, communities have used various skins – Monaco, Quartz or Monobook. That's a luxury that we can't afford to offer any more, as advertisers strongly prefer a consistent look-and-feel." Fuck the advertisers, they don't run the wikis. Don't even get me started on the ad part...-- 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

no ads on stubs

From w:c:darth:Forum:We_love_you,_Wikia.:

* Two things in the plan have changed with the first load of feedback... ads won't show on short pages, if it's a stub it will be automatically skipped, and the squished main page idea is on its way out. There will still be the need for a 300px column as part of the right hand side of the page, but the overall width will remain dynamic. I know this is all a big change, and I know that people are worried and angry. But I also know that change is necessary, and that we will come though it. -- sannse@Wikia (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So we simply run a bot to add {{stub}} to every single article. Bada-bing, bada-bam -- no new ads for anyone. Who's with me? /fistshake —Dr Ishmael 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Highfive Ishmael! Light Kitty 20:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Light is my sockpuppet , I totally agree! /highfive Ishy! — Warw/Wick 20:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yaya - worth a try - but do you want to change all normal stubs to something like "stubstub" just incase it dosn't work RandomTime 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X2... make a new "stub" template and throw the old one on every article with text like "SCREW WIKIA" and use the new ones on our real stubs! I'm serious.-- 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not stubstub, substub - much better RandomTime 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Or Stubly Stub. Like Manly Man but stubby. --- -- (s)talkpage 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As an extension of this, I also propose adding a sitenotice in large text telling anonymous users to create accounts and switch to Monobook in order to protest Wikia's stupidity. Monobook 4ever! —Dr Ishmael 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Go do it, ishy! — Warw/Wick 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, as long as it removes the horrid ads. Also, MayBot and PhoenixBot have the ability to preform this task as well; if you need any help that is ;o) --Shadowphoenix 20:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm only semi-serious about stubbing the whole wiki, although it is an option. I'll work on the site notice thing, though. —Dr Ishmael 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would consider stubbing the entire wiki a great idea. At least just to see the response. Lord of all tyria 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if they would consider it a TOS violation... Not that I care, if it fails guildwiki will die anyways...-- 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Perhaps we should rename ourselves to StubWiki, or GuildStub then? --- -- (s)talkpage 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't think it would be hard for them to change it so that a certain page size would make the ads show up whether it's labeled a stub or not? That change sounds a lot easier than un-stubbing everything after it is made. Quizzical 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't violate a ToS we never signed up for (unless you signed up to Gwiki when it was wikia) I think when I signed up it was gamewikis RandomTime 20:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys -- Just so you know... The short pages are determined by the length of the article, not by a stub template or category. Check out this page on Communitytest to see how it'll work.

Also, Monobook will have the same ads as Monaco will. The right sidebar on Monobook will go away, and Monobook will have the in-article ads. Monobook and Monaco will be the same ad-wise.

Let me know if you have any other questions....... -- Danny (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Make a copy of every page and template it in the real article? There's always a way... --- -- (s)talkpage 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - where can I find a database dump - the old page dosn't work RandomTime 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To stub ALL the articles, seems to be a bit drastic, don't you think? Yes, no one likes adds, but is it really worth going through all that trouble? Wikia will most likely notice something like this anyway and take action (like mentioned before, looking at page size and not whether it's stubbed or not). Silver Sunlight 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

O nevermind... maybe I should read edit conflicts :P Silver Sunlight 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This wasn't a loophole that we changed because we read your conversation or anything. That's how this is supposed to work. So really do ask if I can clarify anything, just so you don't have to go to the trouble of twisting your wiki around to take advantage of something that wouldn't work anyway. -- Danny (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Will adblock give me lots of white space, or no? I fail at firefox add-ons, so I can't tell what my adblock does. Lord of all tyria 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Monobook will have the same ads as Monaco will. The right sidebar on Monobook will go away, and Monobook will have the in-article ads. Monobook and Monaco will be the same ad-wise.

All right, now there's something finally worth getting upset about. Two days of screaming and no one could find anything worth getting upset about, until a Wikia employee has to come volunteer the information. Amusing, don't you think?

And, uh, right sidebar? I don't see a right sidebar. Do you see a right sidebar? Quizzical 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have managed to use Firefox Adblock to block all ads on this wiki. I still don't like Monaco though (even without the ads, I think it doesn't look as good as the Monobook skin), but I don't think there is anything we can do about the decision to implement it. Kidburla 00:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can change your personal settings to monobook RandomTime 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Costs

I want to know the exact costs of running THIS wiki, we are not one of your wikis you force the gfdl on and you can't use us to make a profit, which is what I must assume you are putting in more ads for since you wont display the numbers needed to keep running.-- 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't they applying this change to all their wikis? Silver Sunlight 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but most of them are on a GFDL, this is a non commercial license. -- 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see your point... but they will never release information like that :) because if they are in fact making profit, by simply not telling anyone about it, they can hide it. Silver Sunlight 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Which brings up the legality issue. Unfortunately i know very little about legal practice in online licenses.-- 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In our case, they actually do have a contractual obligation to tell us about it: see the bottom of Gil's comment here. While it's not in the contract that Gravewit signed, it is part of the implicit contract that Wikia made with us, the GuildWiki community, as a compromise to keep us here instead of moving to GWW. —Dr Ishmael 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...Speaking of which, I can't find any mention of a financial summary for 2008. Granted, we were only hosted by them for 3-4 months, but they still should've posted records for that time. —Dr Ishmael 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned that this violates our licensing. Are other wikis on wikia under this licensing? Because if they aren't then we may be an exception. If the ads aren't disruptive, I'm willing to let them pass. But the moment the ads become disruptive, it warrants a closer look at wikia's finances. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A lawsuit over someone trying to make money off of content that has been licensed to be only useable for free would be an interesting case. If it hasn't happened yet, it probably will soon (and would even if GuildWiki had never existed). Quizzical 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If it has happened, the EFF has most likely been involved. --mendel 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Skin(poll)

What does Guildwiki, not wikia staff, think is better for the wiki?-- 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet that a lot of people think Monobook is better because they're used to it--which is often primarily because it's the current default. Quizzical 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

People are entitled to that, wikia doesn't have a right to decide...-- 21:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Monobook is better because I think Monaco is ugly. It's the same reason I stick with the Windows Classic desktop instead of using the Windows XP crap: I prefer simple, streamlined interfaces without fancy bells-and-whistles stuff. Yes, I know that I could fix the "ugliness" of Monaco by basically rewriting it in my user CSS file, but I really don't feel like doing all that work. —Dr Ishmael 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I also use the Windows Classic desktop setup, instead of the newer stuff that Microsoft has pushed with XP and now Vista. And you know why? Because it's what I've been used to ever since Windows 95. If I were used to some Vista desktop setup and Microsoft tried to push people to use the 95 setup, I'd protest that, too. But it's not a problem because I can change the settings and be done with it--just like how people who don't like Monaco can still change their setings to Monobook. Quizzical 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Quiz, you still seem arrogant of the fact that this wiki is for the GW players, we can't ask every single one of them to make a account so it doesn't look like crap and expect them to use Guild wiki and not GWW.-- 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did they even find the new theme? Did a quick Google to find a download of it but nothing at all. -- Tarun 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Monaco? I believe it is a custom skin of Wikia.-- 22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I wanted to test it on my private network wiki to see what it's like. So I was hoping to find a download. -- Tarun 03:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The poll was reset when you edited it :P Silver Sunlight 22:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

wtf... thats a very stupid design... My bad tho..-- 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter lol almost everyone would choose option one anyway Silver Sunlight 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did see one vote for monaco, otherwise it is now the same as it was before I messed it up :/-- 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Question for Danny

I do have a question, Danny: what are you guys smoking over there? Whatever it is, it must be pretty damn strong. Can't you tell that no one likes this change? Why are you forcing through a change whose sole benefit (increased ad revenue) directly profits the Wikia corporation while it is already alienating a large portion of "your" communities? Sure, making this change will help Wikia pay for hosting costs... because afterwards you won't have anything to host. —Dr Ishmael 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If the adds are really distracting, I would consider leaving this wiki and going to the official one. I'm sure I'm not the only one.... Silver Sunlight 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what one considers to be "distracting" ads. If they start doing the talking ads, the video clip ads (as opposed to minor animation), or (worst of all) the ads that cover up (as opposed to merely moving) content to essentially disable it, then I'll agree. Quizzical 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So we'll just have to wait and see... *awaits the apocalypse* Silver Sunlight 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From looking at the link posted above about gil's page or sumsuch, and the examples provided from that page... its gonna slow down but the ads will not be too obtrusive. Roland Cyerni 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A few responses ...

Hey everyone,

I really respect that you all are so passionate about your community--quite frankly I would be too if I was in your situation. While I don't have much news about the Monaco transition beyond what you have already read, I did want to go ahead and respond to some other issues that you all have brought up during the course of this discussion:

• First of all, you can rest assured that we fully intend to honor your CC BY-NC-SA license. Wikia also hosts Memory Alpha and Uncyclopedia under non-commercial licenses and we have similar arrangements in those cases as well. Unfortunately, the current ad revenue for this site doesn't even come close to covering the costs of maintaining it. In fact, we recover an even lower percentage of our costs from this site than we do other Monobook sites because, after listening to your concerns, we moved the Google ad unit back to the bottom of the page rather than the right side. Unfortunately, I do not have any specific numbers for you right now. Gil's message, references an annual report, and we have not yet reached the 1-year anniversary since GuildWiki's move to Wikia, but I will still look in to it and get back to you.
• Second, please voice your opinions on the forum page on Central. While keeping things the same is, unfortunately, not an option, we are listening to any suggestions on how to make the changes work better for your site. We understand that some of you are angry and upset, but what would help more than anything are comments on what specifically you don't like and, if you have any ideas, how to remedy those issues.
• Finally, I can't find the original post, but someone asked about database dumps. Database dumps for all of our wikis can be found here. The site is a little slow right now for reasons unrelated to the announcement, but our engineers are working to fix that right now.

I'll continue watching this discussion as well, so please let me know if you have any questions. I'll try to find answers for you and get back as quickly as I can.

Thanks! --KyleH (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

any more the eviscerate executioners strike spike dont work that much but its fairly effective. very weak against any type of anti-melee and shock is a costly interrupt skill. --Dr R. Phalange 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit, you had enough money to steal this wiki. I don't believe for a second anything you people say about hosting costs, not til I see some proof. And what about eviscerate?-- 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

dont work that much but its fairly effective. very weak against any type of anti-melee --Dr R. Phalange 02:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How effective is it against illegal commercial advertisements? -- 02:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

it throws a boner at them --Dr R. Phalange 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting.-- 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

GW:AGF applies to Wikia staff too. If they say they aren't making money, I believe them. Just deal with it, they aren't evil people. If this latest ad layout is as bad as we know it will be, they'll change it back, and if not, we'll just find a way to force it onto banner ads. It's not the end of the world, just try and deal with it with more maturity than a 5-year-old kid.Entrea [Talk] 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I must break AGF then, because I find it hard to believe that after they were able to buy out Guildwiki they are now having hosting problems...-- 03:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No GuildWiki policy applies to someone who's willing to ruin it by breaking licenses and ignoring the whole Wikia community. Think of the bigger picture and stop sticking to your little policies. --Dr R. Phalange 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it's mostly pointless arguing over the new ad layout. By adding a very simple string of coding to all our templates, the ad can be forced into a banner layout. Look at the test wiki's cat page.It will never, no matter what, show a box ad, and it uses more coding than is truly needed.Entrea [Talk] 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A question of whether they're making money or not on a given wiki could be very hard to answer. The amount of revenue they get from each wiki is probably easily computed. But what about the costs? What fraction of their server costs are due to GuildWiki, for example? Sure, they can compute the numbers of edits, page views, etc., but viewing a 500 byte page surely takes less bandwidth than viewing a 50 KB page. Even if they can compute bandwidth used, the time of day in which it is used probably matters, too.

And what about staff costs? How much of the salaries paid by Wikia are due to each wiki? Page views, bandwidth used, number of edits, number of registered users, number of pages, and anything else that you could use as a measure of the "size" of a wiki likely won't be all that good of a proxy for how often people from the wiki run to staff for help. Some costs scale up with the number of wikis a lot more than others; if Wikia didn't host anything for a week, they wouldn't suddenly have $0 in expenses that week. How should those be divvied among the various wikis?

If one person looked at all the data available to Wikia and computed a number, he could perhaps compute a number as an approximation to the cost of hosting the wiki. A different person looking at the same data might compute a different number by divvying various expenses differently among the wikis. And neither of them would necessarily be "wrong".

This situation reminds me of baseball and hockey executives crying poverty over how they're losing tons of money when it came time for labor negotiations, while the players union said it was a bunch of garbage and owners were making plenty of money. Of course, it also reminds me of companies going broke in the dot-com bust. Quizzical 03:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The way the promise has been written as documented in the Wikia Move article, you take our revenue (Pageviews, what have you) and offset that against our share of the total operating costs for wikia. The interesting issue is how the acquisition costs are figured: if wikia is running at a loss because it spends money on acquisitions, would we be running at a profit if acquisitions (including ours) were not counted? That's hard to tell, and I wouldn't presume to decide if acquisitions money comes out of the profit, or whether they're part of a larger operating strategy and thus count towards operating costs. --mendel 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One more question, then: Above, Danny said, "Monobook will have the same ads as Monaco will ... Monobook and Monaco will be the same ad-wise." Since the real point of this change is the ads... why can't we keep Monobook as our default skin? Frankly, I see the forced skin-change as screwing us over more than the additional advertisement. [edit] Also, on the "annual report" thing, I assumed "annual" referred to calendar years, so that we should have seen a report sometime in January covering the last few monmths of 2007. —Dr Ishmael 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ads are a large part of this, and obviously with the strong feelings they are dominating the conversation. But they aren't the only aspect. The other big factor is long-term growth across all the wikis on Wikia. I know many of you will feel that these changes won't help there, but a lot of the differences between Monaco and Monobook are aimed at getting people to see that there is a community around, see that they can edit, and to join the wiki. These things might seem obvious when you know Monobook, but people still visit wikis and don't realise they can edit (I get emails all the time with people sending in corrections they don't know they could make themselves). A consistent look on all Wikia wikis (valuable for newbies and advertisers), an easier to learn interface, a single default skin that we can concentrate future development on (features like editing tips are only available on Monaco), and more useful and sellable ad space are the goals here -- sannse (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you people realize that their is a competitor to this wiki, and as you screw us and our viewers over there will more visitors to the other wiki, I don't think that is in the best interests of your community. -- 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So Wikia is actually throwing money away on GuildWiki? Where were the financial analysts and advisors when Wikia decided to purchase GuildWiki? Don't you have a responsibility to your shareholders to maximize profit? 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

isnt there a way that we can view it the old way even if it changes?--Clouddyl 21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't. The changes being implemented will affect the current default skin, monobook, as well. 21:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

but, some other sites that wikia owns dont have to change, just cos we are low income doesnt mean we dont matter surely, they could buy us they could at least treat us right...--Clouddyl 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it: 1) Logged-in users using the Monobook skin will not see any changes; 2) Logged-in users using Monaco will see the updates to the Monaco skin, but no additional ads; 3) Anonymous users will see the most changes - our default skin switches to the new Monaco and new ads are inserted. —Dr Ishmael 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understood "Also, Monobook will have the same ads as Monaco will. The right sidebar on Monobook will go away, and Monobook will have the in-article ads. Monobook and Monaco will be the same ad-wise." to mean that monobook would be affected in the same manner. Was I incorrect in this? 18:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

so, ours will change or not? --Clouddyl 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No it will, for some reason.-- 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

but why?--Clouddyl 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find out let me know.-- 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A few quotes:

Have a look at GuildWiki:Wikia_Move - I found it very interesting - read through the talk with wikia after the contract - and see what has (and hasn't) been kept up 05:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord. That's, what, 3, 4 promises they haven't kept? 71.254.148.42 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? If there are any specific concerns that you have, let me know and I'll be happy to address those issues. --KyleH (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look, then, at the promises Gil made:

• We will continue hosting gamewikis content

No problem there.

• We will actively promote guildwars content to our other users and similarly promote other wikis on guildwars via the system we call “spotlights”

I don't often browse other Wikia wikis, so I can only assume we're in the standard Wikia Spotlight "rotation".

• We will continue to do regular data dumps of the content as we do on all wikis

w:Database_dump. The wikistats site is, unfortunately, very unresponsive most of the time. I've checked a couple times over the past week and haven't been able to get in yet. I don't see any reason to call this a broken promise, though, as it doesn't affect GuildWiki specifically.

• We will report to you annually on the profits or losses from the ads on the content and will track accumulated deficits until we reach a lifetime breakeven (ie if we lose money in 2008 as we expect to, we have the right to earn that back in later years without it being deemed a profit). After reaching breakeven, any profits would be returned to the community as sponsorships for visitors to attend fan events, or prizes, etc

As I've already stated, I assumed this would be calendar-year annually, not based on when GuildWiki had been acquired. Simple misunderstanding, not a broken promise.

• We will migrate the wiki to the new wikia skin later this year, that you can see at http://halo.wikia.com or http://starwars.wikia.com so you can use the new widgets and other tools we have developed. However monobook as always remains an option for those who prefer it

Yep, Monobook's still here.

• We will continue to support you with technical services and live support as needed

Wikia staff (especially Kyle) have been extremely helpful and generally very quick to respond to any issues we've had.

Sorry Mr. Anonymous IP, but I don't see where you're counting any broken promises there. —Dr Ishmael 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Inevitable conflict: ads vs. content

Read my thoughts in full over on the wikia forum: Ads vs. Content. Basically, I advocate interstitial ads getting shoved on top of the page by Javascript after page load for unregistered users - this has the advantage of not breaking page design -, and Project Wonderful-style ads to replace the google ads we have now. Thoughts? --mendel 07:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Boycott

If you are planning to leave GW for GWW if the changes go through, you might consider adding your name to this Boycott list. --mendel 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, look at the ads... http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Image:New_monaco_mainpage.jpg RandomTime 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LMAO! they look rediculous :(--Clouddyl 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My main concerns

I haven't carefully read everything on this page and the related stuff just yet, but I felt it necessary to get my thoughts down...

1. The ad location is the same location as the info box on not only this wiki, but must wikis. It will push the infobox down on the page. On smaller resolution monitors, it will push the infobox off the screen and take up almost half the content section. Have you considered at least moving it below the infobox? Additionally, on articles that have a TOC and an infobox, there is some open screen real-estate between those two things that could be used for ads. I can deal with ads in the content space but the chosen location is terrible. I would rather have ads on talk pages, in the middle of a big block of text, even pop-ups than have it interfere with the content. How about having one of those hide buttons on the ad so that it minimizes after a person sees it? This will actually cause the person to consciously look at the ad (as opposed to ignoring it; advertisers can understand that) and also allow them to keep the ad from interfering with the content while they are browsing.
2. Most stub articles are subcategorized into types of stubs: NPC-stubs, weapon-stubs, glossary-stubs. Will those be counted as stubs and not have the advertisements? They are still stubs.
3. We are not the only wiki of Guild Wars info. If our users don't like this, they will just move over to the official wiki. Anything that will encourage the users to move over to the other wiki, will only weaken this site. Players come here because we are older and more complete. Contributors stay here because of loyalty and stubbornness and the friends we have here. However, if browsing the official wiki becomes a more pleasant experience than staying here, I'm afraid that both contributions and pageviews on this site will plummet. I'm not even just saying this out of concern for us but I'm concerned that Wikia too will lose out by doing this.
4. How exactly does this effect monobook. I, and I'm sure many others, would like to continue using this familiar skin. People like familiarity. Are the ads in the content section still going to appear in the same place? What about other ads?
5. I have every intension of encouraging anonymous users to register accounts and change their skin over to monobook.
6. I am concerned about the licensing. I would be interested in seeing some financial reports sooner rather than later. I don't think it best to wait until a year has passed since the acquisition. This has a vital impact on our license.
7. I understand that Wikia needs to have ads somewhere to pay for their wikis. I also know that one of the things we are fighting here is change. If GuildWiki had always had ads around, we would be used to it and no one would care.
8. It is very important to me to protect this wiki. It is a community that I care about and a resource I find invaluable. I don't want it to be lost. And after the pain of the acquisition, I don't think that Wikia does either.

—♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

1. Already solved. It's easy to modify infoboxes to create a forced banner ad.
2. Stubs are by page length, not a stub tag. Any short page will get no ad, whether or not its in a stub cat.
3. That's a problem, but the changes will be minimal once my banner-ad scheme is complete.
4. Monobook will have an ad at the top instead of bottom. No biggie.
5. Good.
6. I personally trust Wikia on this one, hey say they arent making money, they probably aren't. Especially with so much AdBlock and css hacks.
7. We'll adapt pretty quick like we did when we first got the ads in their current layout.
8. We've pulled through worse than this before. We'll make it.

Entrea [Talk] 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions: 4 Why does it have to change though, it looks inoffensive at the bottom, you arent forced to look at it 6 Whats adblock, and also, is there a way you can change it just for yourself so the ads aren't there? (if that makes sense) --Clouddyl 22:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why it has to change, ask Wikia. Adblock is a FireFox extension that blocks advertisements from appearing on your computer, and many people either use that or modify Special:Mypage/monobook.css to block ads wiki-side.Entrea [Talk] 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Stubs are short articles, usually without images, and they are the ones least affected by shoving an ad in their content space. Yet these are the pages where no such ads will be shown. Why? --mendel 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Because not as much money can be made with pages that are hardly seen, i.e. stubs. --Dr R. Phalange 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning holds for talk pages - only active editors usually use them, especially in userspace. But for stubs, I don't think their views depend on length - it depends on how popular their key words are and how high they are ranked in external and our internal search engine. A page being short may mean it is not edited much, but it does not necessarily follow that it is seen less than longer pages. --mendel 01:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A stub is a stub because it is likely that minimal information can be acquired for it. That is likely to mean that less people will search for it because it isn't as common or easily found as other things (hence why the article information is scarce). If there is a lot of information about something (and so it isn't a short page), it stands to reason it's getting more attention and so is likely to bring more money through ads. --Dr R. Phalange 02:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that short articles will be impacted more by ads being placed on them. Meaning the ad will be far more noticeable on a shorter article, especially articles that don't even require scrolling. Perhaps this is another reason they are omitting these? -- I~sk8 (T/C) 02:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much precisely the reason we're omitting ads on short pages. Some stubs actually do get a lot of pageviews, but we felt that the ads would be too pervasive on short articles (there shouldn't be more ad than there is article), so we decided to remove them all together. --KyleH (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus a lot of people were concerned about the stub+infobox interaction with the ads, which works even less well than a normal page+infobox.Entrea [Talk] 03:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Entrea, with that said, what do we suppose will happen to "longer" stub articles? Articles that are still stubs, but not below the size restriction of the "no ads" limitations? Will what you just stated be an issue then? Are there any (alot) of stubs that are a reasonable length? -- I~sk8 (T/C) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Timing Update (and more info)

Hey everyone,

I have some new information for you regarding Monaco and its implementation on GuildWiki. In short: GuildWiki will not be transitioned to New Monaco at the same time as the rest of Wikia. While may need to revisit this discussion at some point in the future, we want to make sure that you have plenty of time to evaluate and customize Monaco before we implement it on the site. I would still encourage you to try it out in your own personal preferences and think of ways that it can be improved as we move forward, but it is not something that you need to worry about right this second.

Regarding a few of the other issues voiced in this thread:

• Mononook will always be a personal choice for logged-in users.
• Encouraging users to register for any reason is great, even if it means they see less ads. :)

I really appreciate your passion regarding this change and everything else--it's your wiki, and you have worked hard to make it what it is today. While there are some compromises that we might have to make (together) in the future, we'll do everything we can to support the health and the integrity of the community.

-- KyleH (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. With luck, we'll find a good way to make the ads compatible with our infoboxes pretty soon. Unfortunately, they're just too important to accept having them moved down the page.Entrea [Talk] 23:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I should point out that this was the plan from the start, but I misunderstood some (important) details during some conversations with my boss. I'm sorry about that. :( --KyleH (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kyle, thank you so much. Your contributions always make me feel like Wikia is listening and understands our concerns. I know its not always possible to give us everything we want, but I at least feel like you're trying. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 23:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well certainly, they're listening. One doesn't send a bunch of staff people out to reply a bunch of posts if you're not listening. The problem is that advertisers say they have to do something intrinsically obnoxious, and what Wikia wants feedback on is how to do it in the least obnoxious manner possible. Quizzical 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, the change that we were told would not take place did in fact take place. What happened? 10:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As has been announced, Monaco has been updated to New Monaco. Our default skin is still Monobook, and Monobook still has no ads. --mendel 11:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidently when Kyle said "GuildWiki will not be transitioned to New Monaco at the same time as the rest of Wikia," he only meant that the default skin would not be set to Monaco. Back to monobook for me, then. 11:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... well the ads are very annoying and somewhat distracting. I don't like how they shift the edit section buttons over on pages, though, the only other choice would be for them to be covered up... either way, it just looks weird. And the top banner ads seem to clash with the pages, being that they are very vibrant in colors, and they stand out big time... (duh the point of advertisements...) I guess the only good thing about this, is that ABP not only blocks them, but I don't get these unsightly blank spaces either, the pages all appear as they would typically without the ads. So, there is no reason for me to migrate back to monobook... I'll be keeping my monaco for the time being. -- I~sk8 (T/C) 12:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly how I understood Kyle's message - we'd get New Monaco at the same time as everyone else, but it wouldn't become our default until later. This gives us time to play with New Monaco and get it re-designed to our tastes before it gets forced on all our anonymous visitors. —Dr Ishmael 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope that "later" never comes... — Poki#3 , 14:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I logged out and the default skin has indeed become New Monaco Gaming. 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They made the default skin gaming?! I do like the skin, but there are too many color clashes and illegible items under that skin currently... That could drive anon users crazy. -- I~sk8 (T/C) 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the default skin did change, it is a bug and not an intentional change. I'm seeing Monobook when I browse anonymously though. Try clearing your cookies and see if Monaco gaming sticks. --KyleH (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing Monobook when I'm anonymous in Firefox, but when I try it in IE, it looks like it's loading Monaco Gamer (all I see is the dark blue background), then IE freezes. —Dr Ishmael 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like my last comment somehow got deleted or didn't take or something, so let's try again. I tried visiting some other wikis while logged in, and it still displayed in Monobook. They had ads in a right sidebar, but I didn't see top banner or top right corner box ads. Perhaps only Monaco has the new ads for now, and they'll be added to Monobook later?

GuildWiki still showed as Monobook when not logged in, while the other wikis showed as Monaco with the new ads. I used a different browser for the latter test, so unless Firefox can somehow borrow Opera's cache, it looks like other wikis have made the transition to New Monaco default, but Monobook hasn't been changed for now. Quizzical 01:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't see how it could be a case of cookies when I've never used Monaco Gaming. Given that other people aren't having the same problem, though, I'd be willing to bet it's just an unintentional blip. 03:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Failure to Communicate

In three short years a fantasy game has become embroiled in reality. The big Wikia Corporation has taken over our little Wiki. Please support my position on the quest 'Failure to Communicate'. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.16.191.239 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

Script Error

Could someone fix the damn script error The ad at teh bottom is throwing an object missing 90% , sometimes it says Yahoo is undefined. If you are bewildered at this post. Please view in IE and note the error on the left side of the bottom status bar. I don't care about the font, but I do not like the error.wav in my ear and having to close the alert every view of every page. Feel Free to email me if you need more info 24.16.72.140 05:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting any .WAVs played - I get a small "Error on page" message in the status bar - but that seems common with IE. RandomTime 05:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha - you just need to turn debugging off, and it will go away. Ugh - It shouldn't be on in the first place, click here for info on how to remove RandomTime 05:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

RT, Banthor posted on the GuildWiki_talk:Wikia staff noticeboard that "as a web developer I need to keep error trapping on because Quality is job one", so your suggestion isn't going to solve it for him. What we oughtto try is to define YAHOO in our site Javascript, that would immediately fix that one. The rest depends on what objects are missing, really. --◄mendel► 06:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to do anything to fix bugs in ads that aren't part of our content - unless it were a serious bug that actually prevented a lot of people from viewing the site. This is Wikia's problem, not ours.

@Banthor, since you have to keep debugging turned on in IE, why not browse GuildWiki with Firefox/Opera instead? You can leave IE configured for your work, and use the other browser for your recreational websurfing. —Dr Ishmael 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

All the changes...

I was disappointed with the site moving with Wikia. I was even more disappointed with the ads; they are an eye sore. Then we had the user name crisis, in which many people waited a week to a month to get their account "fixed." Now they are switching to the ugliest choice for style of the Wikia default across all Wikia just because the ads asked them to?? Are you kidding me? Monaco is a terrible skin in the first place! The average user doesn't have time to go reskin a website themselves! From what I've seen with user pages, most people don't even know what CSS is! These changes are a big mistake and people are leaving every second with them. I'm tired of going to a website and the people thinking we need animate ads everywhere. Oh, sure, they won't be on user pages. But still. If people wanted to donate, they would. All an add is going to do is make someone close the page and not even bother with it. Give us the option, don't try to force it on us. Thanks. My two cents are done. Maeve 00:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if we culminated the "two cents" of all the users that would say that exact same thing, Wikia would probably be able to run their entire site for a month! But you know, yes this is showing how companies like this are run by ads, but it also proves yet again how the ad industry is killing itself. By putting the ads absolutely everywhere, people ignore them, go to places where there AREN'T ads, or get stuff like Ad Block Pro, so they don't have to deal with the damn things. They go to public broadcasting networks, switch channels, use a DVR or other recording device to skip ads, etc. Ridiculous --Gimmethegepgun 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what is the problem? The Official Wiki seems better so why not go there instead? What is it exactly that we are trying to save?213.202.139.184 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the admins are working on a Monaco mod that will look a lot more like Monobook (what we have now), and this will be installed on this wiki. Please don't assume that this wiki will get the same monobook as everybody else. There will, however, be ads, but less of those to registered users. --◄mendel► 17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what we are trying to avoid with all this mess. We don't want our users to just get fed up and go somewhere else. We have built a great community here with all of our contributions, and without a community, we don't exist. Even with all the changes that roll out, I will not leave this place for GWW. I have lots of time and effort put into place here, too many contributions to just forget about, too many friends I have made here to forget about and just move on from. The "just leave" attitude is not what we want to come about from all of this. We have many people here working, to try to not let all these changes affect the every day users as much as possible. All that we ask is that you be patient, as we don't have all the control in these situations, and do understand, that we are not exactly thrilled with all of the changes that are rolling out either. -my 2 cents. -- I~sk8 (T/C) 18:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well, this is a really silly unnecessary change, and I thought the community had made it pretty clear that WE DIDN'T WANT MONACO. I may not be an active member but I do consult this here very fine wiki a lot, even on my mobile phone and... that's where it now fails :( My phone doesn't work well with the new skin... Lol ok it's a silly argument but I just had to say something. I really really didn't like the look of the front page I just got a moment ago when clicking here as not signed in. Looks muddled and unclear oh and it loads slower too. PuppetX 18:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is terrible. It looks horrible.Gorbachev116 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Right when I was considering joining Guildwiki, instead of GWW, at least partly... xX; Looks like that possibility's over now. Seriously, I refuse to have to log in every single time to view a wiki... This is quite ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.89.173.117 (contribs) .

You could set it to "remember me" --Gimmethegepgun 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, is there any difference between logged in and not logged in users? Monaco has not been set as the default skin yet, and both user bases see the same ads (unless you use Firefox with Ad block plus, kinda eliminates all the hastle entirely :D). Too many people are extremely over-reacting about changes, that we still have some control over. -- I~sk8 (T/C) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, ABP = teh h4xx0rz --Gimmethegepgun 06:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried switching to New Monaco and looking at a bunch of pages to see what it did with the advertisement. All of the monster pages, skill pages, and armor pages that I looked at displayed a banner ad rather than a box. This is probably good, as the structure of the page makes it so that a box ad would make the page look incredibly dumb.

The mission pages, on the other hand, seemed erratic as to whether they wanted the box or the banner. All of Prophecies had a box except for Ring of Fire. Most of Factions missions, meanwhile, used a banner, with only Arborstone, Sunjiang District, and Unwaking Waters getting a bpx. For Nightfall, meanwhile, it was kind of random. I think that either the box or the banner looks fine, but it might be nice if it were more consistent.

Showing the page preview often displays a box when the actual page will use a banner instead, though. Quizzical 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right... I'll stop QQing and go download adblock, then. 76.89.173.117 11:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi all. We've looked at all the discussions, and have a proposal about ads that we would like your feedback on. Perhaps you could call in to the Central Wikia and have a read. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't care to click the link, the crux of the new proposal is that logged-in users would see fewer or possibly no advertisements. Apparently only about 1% of Wikia users log in. Quizzical 09:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've spent quite a bit of time tonight flicking back and forth between wikia and the official site. I haven't found a lot of difference in quality of discussion but i have made some observations, namely:

1 Official is quicker with updates

2 Wikia is more likely to crash

3 I don't mind commercials but if they flash or make noise i go somewhere else

4 Wikia is more liely to have comments signed by players with elaborate sign-offs. Probaly an indication of their computer literacy or a measure of their nerd factor.

5 Neither site is tolerant of new users. If you don't key in the exact description of an artefact you have seen on-screen for less than 0.1s you get a mis-direct. I was brought up on Google:- If you do a typo you get some options.

6 I'd like to finish with a question:- Which site starts most comment threads with a question or comment by a staffe: a) Wikia b) Official c)It's a wash d) None of the above e) could you repeat the question?

And finally I'll try to sign with 78.16.161.79 02:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For the first note, they put the update page up on the official wiki BEFORE it even goes up on guildwars.com, so there's no POSSIBLE way to compete with that. For tolerance, use the search thing, if it's spelled correctly it'll work if you put everything in lower case. As for the rest, 2. yes wikia sucks, 3. ABP>all, 4. who cares?, 6. official, since all the anet employees are there. --Gimmethegepgun 02:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

3 ABP? pls elaborate

1. Offical is quicker with updates as they have more users.
2. Yeah, that sucks
3. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865
4. Huh?
5. That's a problem with MediaWiki - there probably is a spell check extention - but it would be hard to work with all the custom pages we have
6. If you are talking about ArenaNet staff, it's offical, one of the things they did when they started it (Makes me mad, imo). Wikia staff are quite quick to responce, and User:KyleH is normaly in IRC RandomTime 05:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding number 4., the signatures on the official wiki are not as elaborate because the policy that governs signatures there only allows a 19 by 19 pixel graphic to be used.

If you like google's spelling suggestions, you could try searching our site on google: Click this and enter you search terms after the "site:guildwars.wikia.com". For example, an search on abadons chosen rewards me with a suggestion that puts me on the right track. Admins, can we put this google link on the site bar or even make a search box for google? Or maybe the wikia web search (haven't tried if it does the spelling suggestions though)? --◄mendel► 13:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We would need Root access - however there is a MediaWiki:Googlesearch RandomTime 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What is that? A Monaco widget? --◄mendel► 02:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't know - but there's something RandomTime 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Googlesearch is a footer that is appended to the search results page when the internal search engine is disabled. As far as I know, there is no easy way to add a Google search box to the site, but I imagine you might be able to accomplish it using javascript? --KyleH (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple with javascript. If anyone's interested in adding this, see here and here. -- AT(talk | contribs) 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

whats new

Firstly, can we change the sitewide monaco to our modified version? (Project:Monaco skin improvement/Forum:Monaco customization). Second, do we have any information on when we have to change our default skin yet? Third, I thought that these ads weren't going to appear on talk pages and yet I see one here. Fourth, I thought that our infoboxes all had tables in them which forced the banner style ad. Can we change it so that all pages with infoboxes use the banner style so that the ad doesn't force the infobox down on the page? Lastly, what's going on with the permanent link button on monaco? Its something we lose in the transition that I'd rather keep. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 20:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hola! It's probably easiest for me to address this point-by-point:

1. All of the modifications living in MediaWiki:Monaco-common.css look fine to me. I see no problem with using that.
2. There is no set date for when you have to change the skin. As you know, it's something that will have to happen eventually, so we'd like you to make the change as soon as you've customized Monaco to your liking (or at least as close to your liking as you are able to get it).
3. Ads don't appear on any of the normal talk namespaces (Talk, User talk, etc.), but do appear on custom namespaces, including the talk namespaces corresponding to those custom namespaces (the Forum namespace is a custom namespace). I'm not sure if that is intentional behavior or not, but I'll check on that and get back to you.
4. As far as I can tell, all of your infoboxes (or at least all of the ones I've hit using random page) use tables which force a banner ad. I haven't been able to get any page with an infobox to render with a 300x250. It seems like you won't have to worry about your pages with infoboxes.
5. The addition of a permanent link button to the Monaco skin is currently in testing. I expect it to be released in the very near future. I don't have an exact date for that feature's implementation other than "soon".

   Quick update: The code for this addition was committed last night, so you should see it implemented by next Tuesday at the latest. --KyleH (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. --KyleH (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Status?

Hey guys ... I haven't seen any changes to the proposed Monaco skin lately. Does that mean it's ready for prime time? How are things going on that front? --KyleH (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that its ready for release. I've made a page talking about the skin and stuff in general GuildWiki:Skin which I'm going to put in the site notice as the change goes through so people can talk to us and get info if needed. I am going to make the change later today or tomorrow unless someone has objections. As far as making the change goes, should I move all the code onto the MediaWiki:Monaco.css (thats the right page, yes?) or just put the imports on there? Off the top of my head, I can't remember what I'm changing lol. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 18:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:monaco.css is the correct file. I would probably just transclude MediaWiki:Monaco-common.css rather than using imports. You could also just move MediaWiki:Monaco-common.css and all the appropriate subpages to monaco.css. One thing to keep in mind is that once you change the skin to monaco-custom, anyone that wants to see Monobook will need to select Monobook in their preferences, AND uncheck the box that says "Let the admins override my skin choice. (recommended)". --KyleH (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Will having all the pages transcluded affect load times? Also, is the wording on GuildWiki:Skin clear enough that people will understand how to change their skins and such if they don't like our changes? —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that transcluding will increase page load times because it would be cached anyway, but the best option is definitely just to copy all of the contents in to MediaWiki:monaco.css. I played around with the wording on GuildWiki:Skin. Perhaps that makes it a little bit more clear? --KyleH (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This brings up a related (but totally irrelevant) question: Is there a way to see a different skin on a different wiki? As silly as it sounds, say I want Monobook on this wiki but Monaco on another? Will that be possible once our default skin changes? (I'm, fairly certain the answer is "no", but I have to ask).Entrea [Talk] 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. :( --KyleH (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems staying logged in related to this change?

Does anyone else have a hard time getting GWiki to remember you now if you asked it to login? Prior to this skin change being planned, I NEVER had a problem remaining logged in on any browser. Now I can no longer get it to remember my login on NS, Firefox, OR Explorer. It seems rather odd now that once they adopt a new skin where "logged in users" won't see as many ads, I suddenly have to log in EACH and every time I visit this page, rather than the roughly once every few weeks it used to be. And as a rhetorical question, has Wikia actually done anything GOOD for us yet? DKS01 04:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't had any trouble staying logged in, even with switching between my main and bot accounts. I use the Monobook skin, but that shouldn't make any difference to the login cookie. If you haven't tried this already, clear your browser's cookies and cache, then log back in. —Dr Ishmael 05:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Already did that, no luck. And it is ONLY a problem on this particular site. My music forums, Myspace, Yahoo, ANY other site I visit regularly keeps me logged it but this one. And this one ONLY became a problem once the skin change was announced, which still strikes me as odd, as I believe little in coincedences. DKS01 07:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The good: Wikia's kept the servers running and provided tech support to us. --◄mendel► 08:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen other reports of this recently - has anyone else experienced it? I can't see any way this can be connected to the skin (and it's most certainly not intended behaviour of course!)

DKS01, please can you clear you cookies again, log back in, and on your next page view check for the following cookies: wikicitiesUserID, wikicitiesUserName, wikicities_session and wikicitiesToken - all of them will have the .wikia.com domain name. Please let me know what you find. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. I post my complaint here, change nothing, and now it works. Yet it was nothing on Wikia's side, apparently. Odd timing how it manages to fix itself right the next day after my complaint without me making any new effort to fix it(after the previous many failed)... DKS01 04:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ever since the new changes, it logs me out EVERY time, even with "Remember me" checked. It's annoying. Not to mention it takes three minutes or more to login when I do login. I'm on a high speed connection, it should not take this long. Also, seeing multiple adds still even though I'm logged in. Some of them questionable. I'll post screenshots next time I see questionable adds. Maeve 23:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As of a few months ago, it started often saying I wasn't logged in when I first went to the page. Reloading the page would make it recognize me as logged in. Quizzical 00:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Same with me. 00:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. I can't seem to reproduce the cookie problem myself, but I'll point our tech team in this direction so that they can take a look at the problem. For those of you that are still having difficulty: when did the problem start? Did it just start this week, or have you been having difficulty for a while?

DKS01: This (or the staff noticeboard) is the perfect place to voice your concerns in order to get things fixed. I don't believe that our tech team made any changes to resolve the issue, but it is entirely possible that it was incidentally fixed by a code release that went out this morning. Either way, I'm glad that everything is working for you now. Let me know if you have any more difficulty.

Maeve: it looks to me like you have your preferences set to Monobook. You should still be seeing advertisements in Monobook. Ads are only removed for logged-in users who view the site using Monaco. If you are using Monaco and still see ads on pages other than the homepage, please check your preferences and make sure that "Show all advertisements" is not checked, then follow-up here so I can look in to it. Thanks! --KyleH (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had this cookie problem for a long time, unfortunately, I do not know when it started. Cress Arvein 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this has been going on for months... every single time I go to GuildWiki, it says I'm not logged in. But once I click on a link, or reload, it says I am. Also, it's been happening at NWN2 wiki too. The thing that annoys me most is, I have to look at the default skin (monaco) until I reload. Yes, I have "remember me" checked. Yes, I've deleted my cookies and cleared my cache many, many times since this has started. Yes, this has happened to me on both IE7 and FF3.

If fact, I think this started almost exactly when GWiki switched over to Wikia servers... --Macros 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this issue limited to a specific browser (version)? Firefox2 and IE7 remember me when I open the wiki through the search bar. --◄mendel► 06:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's happening to me in IE7 at least. 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute there...You can only remove ads if you use Monaco? That's rubbish! I don't want to use Monaco because it's terrible. Maeve 03:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

/sigh. Get an ad-blocker already. Cress Arvein 03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You see old-style ads in monobook, that is, a banner at the bottom and a small google ad in the sidebar - just like it was before the change. I don't find that to be a problem. --◄mendel► 06:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the claims on this page regarding Transformers Wiki are misleading

This page claims "When wikis have switched from Monobook to Monaco, they've seen huge jumps in the number of readers, contributors and user logins. As an example, Teletraan-I: The Transformers Wiki switched to Monaco in April. Comparing January (in Monobook) to May (in Monaco), the wiki's traffic jumped up 46%. Anonymous logins went up 223%, and use of the search box went up an amazing 541%. People clicked on items in the navigation flyout menus 38,000 times in May, and the number of active editors went up 51%, from 78 in January to 118 in May." The actual truth is here http://complaintwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page#Transformers and on their new wiki http://tfwiki.net - and it is much less flattering. TFwiki.net has left Wikia because of the ad-heavy forced reskins and will not be returning. --carlb 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of us (most notably User:M.mendel) have followed Transformers wiki's interactions with wikia, and their decision to rehost elsewhere; I hope everything is going well for you all. The misleading statistics are rather disappointing, but we certainly didn't switch to Monaco voluntarily at any rate, so it's not as though they influenced the decision much. 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The page is a copy of Wikia's promotional material, mostly. It is outdated and I doubt anybody is going to consult it, so your point is kind of moot - as is the point that is made about GuildWiki on the complaints wiki, as by and large the ads have been ok in last half year or longer. But thanks for linking to complaintwiki.org anyway. There's a programming wiki of some sort that's moved off Wikia as well, but the name escapes me. --◄mendel► 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are lies, damned lies and statistics, especially where marketing and big business in concerned. Statistics can easily be used to give a particular side of the story: and besides, if the community is unhappy what's the point of having an increased number of visitors? Anyway, time for me to pop back into my box for the winter. -- Hindleyite 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox pushed down

I was previewing my infobox template edits from an anon persepctive when I noticed the infobox getting pushed down - is this a result of my edit, or has this always been that way? --◄mendel► 10:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the skill box is the only infobox that currently forces a banner-style ad, and, unlike the other infoboxes, which are simply floating tables, it starts with a fake header for the "edit skill details" line. --◄mendel► 10:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC) & 11:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It also happened to Peppermint Shield (Template:ShieldInfo) before my edit. --◄mendel► 11:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's standard design for new-monaco. Check out, for example, Memory Alpha (logout first or use a different browser, I can't force it to refresh into new-monaco in Firefox for some reason). —Dr Ishmael 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we keep that from happening? --◄mendel► 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember back when this skin was being rolled out, people found a way to trick it into always showing a banner ad... I think it involved an empty table at the top of the page or something. The infoboxes don't count because they float, of course. —Dr Ishmael 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)