Forum:The future of GuildWars Wikia

The dealio

GuildWiki is moving to Curse. This is not going to change. What may or may not change is what we do with GuildWars@Wikia, hereafter referred to as GW@W. If we allow this wiki to follow the trend of all other wikis moving away, then Wikia will demote all of our admins, global-block objectors, remove messages directing users to GuildWiki, and wait in vain for a new "community" to take up residence. This means they continue to leech off our traffic for a while, the wiki degrades further and further, we lose a lot of pageviews that are rightfully ours, and everyone loses. However, I'd like to propose a deal to Wikia. In exchange for allowing us to point users to GuildWiki however we like, we will repurpose GW@W as a unique GW resource which will generate its own traffic based on its own merit, use Oasis to its fullest advantage, and be cool. I understand that many of our editors no longer wish to contribute to Wikia in any way. I, however, will not be abandoning GW@W, regardless of the outcome. I believe there would be a significant population remaining, and perhaps our new focus would draw new editors as well.

So the question is... what will our new focus be? 11:50, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I don't share your pessimistic outlook. Time and again Sannse has stressed that communities would be free to "rebuild" their wiki communities, and so far has only de-opped admins who were putatively not interested in doing this rebuilding. Lest you be tagged as such, I'd advise against pushing for any moves before the will of the "remaining" community has become clear, in other words, while this is now a good place to gather ideas and discuss potential, any decisions as to what should or should not happen need to be embarked on after the "GuildWiki" community has left. Not only do I see tis as part of my duty as bureaucrat, I am actually actively interested in finding out how people who like Wikia's new direction can change this wiki to align itself more with this. As should be apparent from my ideas, I see a lot of potential. --◄mendel► 13:06, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pragmatic rather than pessimistic. 00:50, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ideas

• rebrand as guildwars@wikia (already consensus), fix Project: namespace
• avoid being a third "Guild Wars Encyclopedia"? -> poll
  • if yes, do we link to gww, guildwiki, or both for encyclopedic content?
• dark "gaming" skin similar to guildwars.com site design
  • if we don't do that, we could have "Theme weeks", i.e. try out the pre-fabricated Wikia themes for a week each
• Take advantage of Wikia features we have so far shunned: Rich Text Editor, Article comments, Achievements
• Use more <gallery>s
• Invite fan fiction and fan art
• guild and player pages with no restrictions
• ???
• Profit!

--◄mendel► 11:40, November 6, 2010 (UTC) & 10:47, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Here are some things I can see us doing on GuildWars@Wikia that would mesh well with Wikia's and Oasis's tools and features.

• Fan fiction
• Editorial articles that cover non-encyclopedic topics- Quizzical has many excellent articles in his userspace, for example
• Profession-specific walkthroughs and suggested builds for missions, dungeons, and elite areas
• Guild of the Week (a la classic ArenaNet)
• Adventure blogging
  • This is basically a cool way of saying "I'm going to write about what I did on Guild Wars today." Users could roleplay, or provide guidance to other players, or just keep a record for themselves.

12:00, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

you need a hobby. -Auron 12:48, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

• starts blogging*I cast magic missile at The Darkness!

Oh, and Mendel, you're wrong, it's "???" and then "Profit!", not "... ?"--El_Nazgir 12:55, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Changed, thanks for the tip. --◄mendel► 13:14, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

A bit more seriously: I'll probably stay lurking here, do some good admin deeds and get demoted for following local policies (see the WoWwiki haloween), but if turns out to be something I'm not really interested in, I'll go to gwiki fulltime. So wikia, don't demote me for no reason at all yet! --El_Nazgir 12:55, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

We will certainly revisit local policies. For example, GW:SIGN might be changed to only allow default-looking signatures, as this is how our attributions on the wiki interface look anyway, and it would be confusing to have different attributions. --◄mendel► 13:14, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sticking to the strictest interpretation of "community" as opposed to the current encyclopedic model could work very well in regards to not dividing the editor base on content needed for either wiki; in addition, it would enforce the idea of these actions being a fork rather than an abandonment, reducing ill-will on either side. Maybe we could even see a fan-driven revival of some classic anet features such as the Scribe. Definite vote in favor of "avoid being a third 'Guild Wars Encyclopedia'". -- Renian (T|C|Ѫ) 13:39, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if I'm doing this right (first time actually) but I felt interested in saying something. I've been hanging around the wiki for quit awhile now (just the encyclopedia part, not usually talk pages and whatnot) and I did a little reading about why everyone is moving and I can certainly see the point. Certainly where I go to get my guild wars information is irrelevant to me - I'll be just as happy putting a different address in as I was here - I do think it would be neat to do something a little different with whats left of this site rather than regurgitating information contained on two other wikis. I see it said that the wikia guys have a bunch of tools for building a community and I think it would be neat to explore that. What really caught my eye and ultimately convinced me to take the time to write this was an idea by Felix above. I think editorials which cover non-encyclopedic content would be superb. Stuff like profession specific information, especially by area/dungeon/mission would more than amazing. Obviously I can hit pvx wiki and find some help getting a build together but having a site that offered more than just the numbers would be really cool. Kind of taking the straight and impartial information found in the current wiki and adding experienced context to it. I'm much less interested in finding someones role-play/fan fiction in the main area, but would support such artistic endeavors in their own section. I know I've probably violated some wiki traditions by dropping this here, if someone knowledgeable would do whatever is needed and place where appropriate rather than just deleting it, I'd appreciate it. You could even append a link or word about what I should have done and I promise I'll remember for next time. I'm off to read that Quizzical page you linked to, thanks. 139.142.249.131 14:59, November 14, 2010 (UTC) R

If this wiki cease being encyclopedic...

Sub-sectioning for a potentially major topic

I personally also support avoid being a third "Guild Wars Encyclopedia". This does, however, raises a question: Would that entail deleting all encyclopedic articles on this wiki? Or do we simply cease maintaining them and let them degrade? Or we turn them into short articles with only introductory/basic information, while providing links to other encyclopedic wikis for people interested in more details? Any other ideas? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:40, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

If we cut everything that needs to be maintained (with a view to reduced manpower and not wanting to suffer obvious degradation), then the game mechanics would pretty much have to go away; we could probably keep the images and the lore, which would come in handy for fan art or fanfic. I assume some pages could be merged then, since we'd end up with an awful lot of short pages (e.g. about items).

Linking to the encyclopedic wikis makes sense; some people here already have a tab that directs them to the equivalent page on GWW and vice versa. We'd have to check with Sannse if establishing something like that (possibly as part of the top nav, or along a vertical page edge) would be ok with our overlords, since it'd definitely link off Wikia, but at the same time makes our wiki work better and be more attractive.

Another factor that influences this is how the licensing issue plays out - if we need to change the license of this wiki, then we'd have to start from scratch or copy a whole lot of stuff from GWW. --◄mendel► 23:59, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, what would create a need to change the license? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:11, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

See GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal#Oasis_skin_and_the_NC_license and pvx:PvXwiki_talk:Community_Portal#CC-BY-NC-SA_2.5_and_the_DMCA. --◄mendel► 01:04, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

More ideas

• RfA admins, appoint new ones (when? not immediately)
• remove non-active admins from lists as the guarantee to "admin for life" extends to GuildWiki only?
• re-examine editing policies
• reduce bureaucratic rules, allow more freedom

--◄mendel► 13:14, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Re: "remove non-active admins" <- Support. But I would like them to get a note (in addition to the regular "GuildWiki has moved" note everyone gets) explaining they still have admin for life over at GuildWiki. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:32, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all points. 00:49, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

• replace "editcopy" system for mainpage with something else (semi-protect mainpage for registered users?)
• add mainpage column tags
• change mainpage layout to reflect new content focus and better invite contributors

--◄mendel► 01:38, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

• cut down on template use (because they don't work well with the RTE)
• Replace infoboxes with images.
  Reasoning: Infoboxes don't look that well with the right-hand sidebar anyway, and with the content so far down the page. If we reduce game mechanics (see the section above), a lot of the info is going to go away anyway.
• think about re-designing navboxes
• maybe combine ultra-short pages that now have little more info than a navbox (items?)

--◄mendel► 10:10, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

• re-examine the category system
  • each page with a category says "Read more: first category" in the page header
    • some pages list two categories in the headers (why?)
  • make sure the category pages are useful
  • make sure the category displayed in the header is chosen well

--◄mendel► 23:30, November 9, 2010 (UTC) & 08:52, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Editcopy System

I argue the editcopy system topic is independent to the future of this wiki. It's a present matter even if GuildWiki wasn't leaving, and it's a present matter no matter if anything else is changing/not-changing with this wiki. Wikia's new feature borked something presently and we want to unbork it one way or another. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 02:29, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that the skin change broke the editcopy system, so it needs to be changed for the future with the New Look. It's not a matter for the fork because that will have monobook, and the editcopy system will continue to work there.

Re: your post on Sannse's talk, I've looked through the history of the editcopy page some, and anon edits have either been vandalism or mistaken attempts at updating the weekly/daily information (one case of a revert), so requiring them to make an account before editing the page wouldn't be much of a loss. Anons can still make suggestions via the mainpage talkpage or the CP talk, just differently. --◄mendel► 02:46, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

With official permission, would it be ok to keep the editcopy system (I can do the js)? We can *still* open up main page to allow any registered users to edit. The editcopy system still has the advantage of letting one person to demonstrate his layout-impacting ideas in a form easily previewable by everyone else, if the person is seeking feedback. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:41, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

If the person is seeking feedback, I'd strongly advise them to make an account, because the community interacts better with people who have a (nick)name. I'd like to postpone deciding this until we have come up with a new mainpage design for the new wiki - although it strikes me that in that phase the ability to make suggestions (and to actually roll trials that are not live) would come in most handy. A simple workaround could be to create a new wiki for just that purpose. :-P --◄mendel► 23:25, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of an editcopy system, having an account does not help me generate a preview of my proposal of layout-impacting changes to the main page in a way that is easily viewable by everybody, unless I *actually* change the physical main page. That is NOT what I want to do, as the proposal is still in a conceptual phase seeking feedback (perhaps with placeholders in various places). Let me rephrase the last statement from my above post in a negative way: "The removal of the editcopy system has the disadvantage of not letting a person (even a Bcrat) to demonstrate his layout-impacting ideas in a form easily previewable by everyone else, if the person is seeking feedback". -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:26, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

• Save your layout to the main page, revert your edit, link to the version you created.
• Make a screenshot.

I finally got your point, though. ;)

Suggestion: Put your javascript (with <script> tags) in a mediawiki: page and <verbatim> that onto the editcopy. (See also Forum:Coding). --◄mendel► 01:25, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, otherwise would've tossed it into Common.js/AllInOneLoader and add extra processing to all pages. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:37, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Script's done and functional (turns out to be a lot simpler than I originally anticipated). I've embedded it into the editcopy message, and if anyone sets up editcopy2 or 3 or 4 as alternative competing proposals, by transcluding the message they'll get the same effect. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 10:41, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Move to forum?

We've barely ever used the forum namespace, and it doesn't confer any advantages anyway. 00:50, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

We've used subpages of the CP talk even more rarely (see [1]). We've got about 20 forums going. The advantage is that you don't need a placeholder on the actual page, and that listing the Forum namespace makes it easier to find this later. --◄mendel► 00:59, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Your face is void. 01:02, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

You told me on irc I could move it if I wanted to. So I did. --◄mendel► 11:51, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

relicense

I wonder if we should drop the noncommercial "NC" in the license to adjust to the fact that Wikia runs this wiki, more or less. To do so all at once would certainly be seen by Wikia staff as an act of "vandalism", but if we think that the license lets Wikia host this content under more secure copyright terms, then we should start preparing for a change now by dual-licensing any new contributions to be also CC BY-SA, with the view of eliminating the old NC content at some future time. --◄mendel► 16:50, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should wait until after the move to start fiddling with licensing. 19:14, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean all of guildwars@wikia's articles would have to be rewritten? Otherwise, we'd have to get the permission of everybody who had ever edited any article that'd had it's licensing changed, surely? — Warw/Wick 19:53, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

That's the plan anyway. 19:55, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that all of the plans we're discussing here are to be implemented only after the move, and that we're just collecting ideas to get a running start and keep people interested in what's happening here.

The dual license means that for the time being nothing would need to get rewritten; with the move to artcile comments we'd lose the talkpages anyway; we're planning to cut a lot of the game mechanics; so that when/if we go from dual to single license (CC BY-SA), there'd already be a lot of new, dual-licensed content that we could keep. --◄mendel► 20:37, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

It might be interesting to check for discussions of the Memory-Alpha community regarding any issues/concerns/plans/actions with the NC part of the license arise from the recent development. Compared to us, MA is much larger, more active, and has a higher profile. Star Trek will remain very relevant long after only a handful of people caring about Guild Wars. If there is going to be any actual (external) trouble with the way Wikia-hosted wikis is being run by Wikia vs the Creative Commons NC clause, it would be hard to leave out Memory-Alpha. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:02, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at w:c:memory-alpha:Forum:Yet another skin change, and it doesn't look as if they're moving. They have invested considerable time and effort into adapting the new skin, so much so that Wikia calls them "by far one of the most helpful communities in helping us find bugs with the new look release". I don't think that licensing will be an issue there: "I don't want to have the site taken offline or the database locked over a lawsuit, and while I'm not sure if that's what would happen, I don't think anyone wants to find out." (Archduk3 03:51, October 6, 2010)

So thank you for the pointer, it's been an interesting hour investigating that, but I doubt any license "trouble" is going to originate there. --◄mendel► 00:14, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Meh, so much for that )-: BTW when I wrote "external" trouble above, I was thinking activists/lawyers not part of the communities taking an interest for whatever reason. I was categorizing issues between the communities hosted on Wikia vs Wikia as "internal". -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:19, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think Danny of pvxwiki is trying a DMCA takedown notice. --◄mendel► 00:47, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, I definitely would want to know how that turns out! -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:56, November 11, 2010 (UTC)