Forum:Wiki Review 2

Hello everyone! This is a continuation of the wiki recap I said we were to have every 3 months so that we all have a consensus on certain things around here. This forum is meant to help us determine a few things that the community needs input on. The subjects may be from the past as well. There will be a list of voting sections here. Don't be afraid to vote for what you want. Thanks guys!

Voting

Rollback Editor Highlight
I have noticed that this has been an issue that has been bothering everyone for a while, so I'd like to bring it up again. First off, I want to say that even though rollback editors aren't a big deal, they still are considered to be users with rights. I have seen many wikis with rollback highlights, and if they aren't a big deal, then I don't see what the big deal is to keep the highlight. This section is to see who wouldn't like to see the highlight removed. Voting will end on November 19, 2011.

Support

 * 1) I support not removing the highlight per reasons stated above.
 * 2) i support not removing them based on the fact it gave/gives new editors something to strive for a little something to let them know they are recognized for their efforts in contributing to the wiki. Although as you can see my opinion may be a bit biased  10:22, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Depends mostly on the opinions of rollback editors if they want it or not. I personally think you encourage more contributions if highlights weren't limited to users with rights. LionsLight 06:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  05:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) The colors are used to distinguish between users with certain access rights. Although rollbacks have one additional tool then others they are not able to perform administrative tasks therefore allowing them a highlight would serve no purpose. I don't think a user needs to know who has rollbacks rights as, in a hypothetical situation, won't see the need in a user contacting a rollback simply to request them save time to revert an edit rather than themselves undoing it. It's simply used to distinguish between users who can offer additional aid to others. It's false advertising giving them a highlight.  07:12, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) No need. Not important. They're not mods. They're just regular users with one added ability. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Affiliates
This is a new topic that needs to be discussed sooner or later. Per a previous forum, I'd like to know the community's opinion about adding an Affiliates section on the main page. It wouldn't be anything like the wikia gaming footer/header, it would be a small section off to the side with other's wiki logos. Basically we add their logo to our main page and they add ours to their main page so we can exchange and attract more editors. Voting will end on November 19, 2011.

Support

 * 1) I don't see why not. It would not only bring new editors, but our wiki's name would get around wikia even more.

Neutral

 * 1) Really could go either way on this one. I doubt it'll bring a large or noticeable influx of new editors, but I'm not sure if there's any real harm to doing it anyways.--Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:08, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) it would bring more advertisement to the wiki and also to the game itself but it would also assosiate our wiki with anothers so if we ever did we would have to be extremely careful who we get into bed with so to speak  10:29, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) oppose Very little benefit to us. 05:37, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Do not support The majority of your editors are LoL players, the only way you'd get a significant increase in contributors is by affiliating with large LoL forums LionsLight 06:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) We would receive no benefit from it  07:13, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) It's currently fine the way it already is. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Emoticons
This is minor. I just want to know if everyone is ok with re-adding emoticons to chat. Wikia has removed the lag from them, and I don't see harm with having them. Voting will end on November 17, 2011.

Support

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2)  05:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral
I believe certain people should be able to use it, though(to avoid abuse). But in all honestly, emoticons aren't really necessary. I'm not against it because I'm sure a bunch of people would love it on chat. Just keep it tone down so that people won't be spamming it on chat. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 10:37, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm more interested in having templates that allow you to respond to people when they do something. If someone constantly join or sign out of chat, you can place this:

Oppose

 * 1) I don't see them adding that much more, and even if they don't come coupled with lag, I feel that they'll wind up just being bothersome. Furthermore, as a fan of punctuation-all-over-the-place, I usually find them in places they weren't intended. --Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:11, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I've repeated my reasons for a long, long time.

Removal of Article Comments
I don't really want to remove them, but I have to make sure we have consensus on every corner of the wiki. I have seen a few wikis that remove article comments. I personally think that they can let people who don't know how to edit whatsoever add some information about a certain page. Although we do get some vandals and spammers, we have enough mods, admins, and crats who can handle them. Voting will end on November 16, 2011.

Oppose

 * 1) No strong reason to remove them.
 * 2) Definitely not, they are most of the wiki's activity :/ 05:37, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Nope Agreed with Ajraddatz, they provide plenty of activity on the Wiki. LionsLight 06:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) No way They provide activity, and bring in new editors. If they really are becoming a bother, mayhaps they can be separated or cordoned off, but not removed.--Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:13, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I think the real question is: Why should we remove this? ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Agreed most of our contributions come from here give people more of a reason to visit the wiki.  10:12, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Voting Polls
This is something that wiki recently added for use to decide whether to keep or not. I don't see polls causing any problems, but consensus should still be taken just in case. Voting will end on November 16, 2011.

Oppose

 * 1) No need.
 * 2) no need 05:38, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Unnecessary --Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:15, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) ^ ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Blogs
This is also quite minor. I want to see if anyone has a good reason to remove or not to remove blogs from the wiki. They can be useless and spam, but they can also be a great way for editors to interact. Voting will end on November 16, 2011.

Oppose

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) No 05:38, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) They're like the article comments. They attract contributors! ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) unfortunately sometimes we do get spam blogs but for the most part it inspires activity on the wiki i also love reading the comedic blogs myself :)  10:32, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Badges
I have requested wikia regarding the badges. The reason we removed them in the first place was because of the mess we made with all of the custom badges. But if wikia somehow can reset the original badge system, then I want them to be added back for a couple reasons. Not only do they motivate users to edit, it may also convince anons to create accounts and learn more about the wiki and wikia itself. Voting will end on November 19, 2011.

Support

 * 1) I only support adding them back if wikia can reset them.
 * 2) support original system, per above. 05:38, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) When i fist joined the wiki it was a good incentive to contribute more maby its just my ego but i liked the idea of having badges that show off my skillz but i agree with tech if they can be reset.  10:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I remember badges. They were pretty cool. I understand that some might enjoy having them add in, but it isn't as important.  Not interested. I just hope it won't cause any problem like in the past. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Tons-of-spam for everyone if these come back.

Rollback Rights
Now that I was able to see what it would be like to promote all of our rollback editors to chat mod, I don't see a need for it. There are some rollback editors that never go on chat, so this section is about the package user rights for chat mod and rollback. Voting will end on November 19, 2011.

Support

 * 1) I don't see a need for them to be a package deal. If you need chat mod, apply for chat mod, if you need rollback, apply for rollback, if you need both, apply for both.
 * 2) yep rollback =/= chatmod 05:39, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes IRC Moderators require different skills from Rollback editors. Both should be picked on a case by case basis. LionsLight 06:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Hurr  07:14, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Ditto --Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:17, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Why was this combined in the first place? lol ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion/Comments

 * This is all I can currently think of that we might need community consensus on. If you have any other topics that you would discuss, please let me know here in the comments section or you can leave a message on my talk page. T[h]anks for voicing all of your opinions!