"@Supermorff
Hey, it is nice to hear something of you after all these months of absence. I hope you're doing fine!"
Doing well, thanks. Pleased to see the wiki's doing well too.
"In regard to the current survey, I'm currently a little puzzled by your part of the argument. If you have skimmed my other survey, it should have been made clear to you that the majority of users, for a variety of reasons, opt for reserving the name despite that the odds are on us as mentioned by me, SilverPlays, Mystic and other users."
Yes, that was very clear. That's why my only suggestion assumed that the community was insisting on not changing the name.
"So, due to the fear of losing the "key words" that identify us as a wiki, I resorted to survey the community's consensus regarding a domain change that does not conceal our identity as a wiki after Wikia Staff migrates all their hosted sites to the ".fandom" domain.
You see, most viewers search for certain "key words" when they are looking for something. And as you can see from my image, even now we barely have anything that declares we are a wiki, and when the migration happens, it will be worse."
That's not really how key words work... You're worried that people will search for the same things, and see the same things in search results, but then decide not to come to the page because the url says sonic.fandom.com instead of sonic.wikia.com? Even though the page link will still say "FANDOM powered by Wikia"? I don't understand the logic.
"You are saying that our wiki name is not the reason about our famousity, but how you are going to convince the horde who voted against changing our site name and nearly all of them have voted now for the domain change?"
I've no intention of convincing the horde about the site name. That's why I didn't comment in the other thread. The only thing I intend to do is set out my reasoning here about why I think changing the url would be a mistake, which I think I've done.
"You say that the site name change is not a big deal and the domain name is, however, a lot of users are seeing it in the exact opposite way, my friend."
Apparently so.
"Also, how does exactly changing the "community name" on the header solve the issue? This text is not displayed on search engines. As actually, the "Sonic News Network" phrase you find on the header and the one you see separated by pipes in search engine headlines have different roots, and they aren't associated."
It's not displayed on search engines but it does affect search results/rankings, because the google algorithm is heavily based on the words in incoming links. I was saying, if you want to rank highly when people search for "Sonic Wiki" or whatever else, changing the community name will ensure that the main page is highly associated with those words. Plus, when someone is on the page, it'll make it doubly clear that this is a wiki in case they weren't sure.
SNN is incredibly privileged on Fandom to have the simplest possible Sonic name for its domain. It isn't the only Sonic wiki on Fandom, but the main reason it has become the predominant one is because of its domain name. (It certainly wasn't the site's name, which came from a small Sonic fan forum that nobody remembers anymore.) Please don't throw that advantage away now. We may get by since SNN is now the largest and most active Sonic site, but every little advantage helps.
A much better way to fix the problem you've identified would be to improve clarity on the site. For example, if you insist on not changing the name, you can still change the link at the top of every page (next to the logo, which currently says 'Sonic News Network') to something more descriptive that includes the word 'wiki'. See what Wookieepedia does, for instance (starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). Because that links to the main page, search engines like google will associate the word 'wiki' with the destination page, preserving search rankings.
I think one reason the rule was defined so vaguely was partly so that people couldn't look for loopholes, like "Ah, you said I can't use this word but actually I've said this similar word and that's allowed", and partly to avoid giving people ideas. As soon as you tell people not to do something, they'll get it in their heads and want to do it. By keeping it vague, people feel they are transgressing the rule by using so-called "mild" profanity, and you can sort of let that slide. But by giving people a list of words that they can't say, you can bet some people will do their darndest to sort of say them without getting in trouble for it.
Perhaps rather than listing words, you could identify types of unwelcome language. For example, you could outright ban types such as:
If you don't think it's necessary, I suggest you don't both with it. As you said, they'll already be closed without being moved as well.
Are you going to close this thread before setting up the new forums? Why not draft the forums and post here so that people have a chance (however brief) to comment on them?
Not sure if you're still interested in responses to this thread, but here goes.
I don't personally like the concept of these pages as "elements", but I do think there's some benefit to keeping them where they are "obstacles". Water in particular is a very prominent feature of the environment in many Sonic games, and it has notable effects. That's worth mentioning somewhere that I don't feel would be adequately covered by a category or by deleting it. As a rule of thumb, if something appears in a sprite or a model (fire burst, electric arc, etc.) then it exists as a hazard and could warrant a page.
As for their use as elements, by which I mostly mean as gimmicks for powers and abilities, I think those should be separated out from the pages of hazards. Then... maybe test out what categories might look like, so that we can have a better idea of what you're suggesting? They don't need to be fully implemented, just an example or two so that we can make more informed decisions.
Luma.dash wrote:
My personal recommendation would be to assume consensus is in favour of change unless demonstrated otherwise. This means, if someone wants to make a change, and nobody tells them not to, they should consider that they have explicit permission to make that change. After all, be bold is still the first item on our policy page.
Some people might feel uncomfortable doing this, but they shouldn't. Nothing anyone can do will damage the wiki irreperably. I'm going to repeat that: There is nothing anyone can do that will irreperably damage SNN. Nothing. (Deletions are more awkward to reverse, but not impossible.)
That being the case, people should feel free to experiment. If nothing else, if they don't test the changes that they want to make, how will people make an informed decision about them?
There should ultimately be more editing and more reversing of edits. Reversing edits doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't have been made in the first place, it means that something was tried and it was subsequently determined that it wasn't working. That's fine! That's how wikis are supposed to work!
And if you want to encourage people more people to edit, stop actively discouraging them and throwing barriers in their way. The Welcome message that is posted on new users' message walls doesn't even tell people that they are allowed to edit! There is no encouragement there whatsoever, just a list of things they should do before contributing and a list of things they should never do. If you want a culture shift, that Welcome message is a good place to start.
You have a point, but if in case, someone wants to know which option is the best, like in this thread. How is he ought to do if no one is reacting?
That's a fair point. I suggest just trying one of the options, maybe at random, to see what it looks like. Or try both out on different pages, if that's possible. Maybe threads would get more comments if you could point to examples, i.e. "do you like this page better, or this one?"
But you have given me a nudge to actually go comment on that thread.
I said something like this on the previous thread: If we have fewer active editors than we used to, then the only viable solution is to remove the hard requirements for community engagement, which are now acting as a barrier to change. For discussions, this means removing the requirements for a certain number of people to have commented, and the only way that works is by taking a default assumption of consensus in the event that nobody responds.
My personal recommendation would be to assume consensus is in favour of change unless demonstrated otherwise. This means, if someone wants to make a change, and nobody tells them not to, they should consider that they have explicit permission to make that change. After all, be bold is still the first item on our policy page.
Some people might feel uncomfortable doing this, but they shouldn't. Nothing anyone can do will damage the wiki irreperably. I'm going to repeat that: There is nothing anyone can do that will irreperably damage SNN. Nothing. (Deletions are more awkward to reverse, but not impossible.)
That being the case, people should feel free to experiment. If nothing else, if they don't test the changes that they want to make, how will people make an informed decision about them?
There should ultimately be more editing and more reversing of edits. Reversing edits doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't have been made in the first place, it means that something was tried and it was subsequently determined that it wasn't working. That's fine! That's how wikis are supposed to work!
And if you want to encourage people more people to edit, stop actively discouraging them and throwing barriers in their way. The Welcome message that is posted on new users' message walls doesn't even tell people that they are allowed to edit! There is no encouragement there whatsoever, just a list of things they should do before contributing and a list of things they should never do. If you want a culture shift, that Welcome message is a good place to start.
Luma.dash wrote:
Luma.dash wrote: Actually, to this point, we have agreed to move where the user rights are discussed and given. But the thing is, that no one has agreed to what we should do with major changes.
I actually, have to side with Supermorff idea at the right moment of reverting an idea if it has been done to the mainspace, but users later disencourged it. Or we invite users in chat or in a discussion and talk with them about. As I don't see any outlet to this issue besides those two points.
Yes, that's right. But this thread had taken a side to question whatever we will do after the bureaucrats team has fallen apart. So, creating a new thread for how we manage our applying to changes relating to mainspace, seems repetitive and this thread is on.
Also, I don't think I have the solution myself, furthermore, users have sound their ideas on these thread. Therefore, we should just now, give kudos to whether one of these ideas serve our path.
Ok, but that makes it harder for the community to engage. You're relying on users to 1) not have switched off notifications for this thread when they thouyght it was over, 2) not ignore notifications from this thread, 3) be able and willing to go through the suggestions posted and identify which ones have got valid suggestions. That's all before they actually put any thought into deciding which ideas they want to be implemented.
Since SNN already has an identified problem with community engagement, it needs to be easier for the community to give their opinions. It doesn't matter that this thread is still open. Close it and open a new one that presents the current suggestions simply and without embellishment. It is very easy for people to engage with that, which means they are more likely to engage with it.
Luma.dash wrote: Actually, to this point, we have agreed to move where the user rights are discussed and given. But the thing is, that no one has agreed to what we should do with major changes.
I actually, have to side with Supermorff idea at the right moment of reverting an idea if it has been done to the mainspace, but users later disencourged it. Or we invite users in chat or in a discussion and talk with them about. As I don't see any outlet to this issue besides those two points.
I guess my point is that those aren't the decisions that this thread was created to make. Engagement will fall over time if you use past threads to discuss new business. It's great that we've decided to use discussions for user rights, but if you want to gather opinions on the major changes issue, I suggest making a new thread for it. This one hasn't stalled so much as it has run its course.
Journalistic wrote: Would you look at that. The thread to restore community consensus stalls because the so-called community is reluctant to discuss it further.
This community is certainly thriving, yes. Let's protect it as much as we can, like, 5 users?
Oh yeah, there's a still a community here. Let's lower the minimum count for admin votes from 15 to 10?
Maybe Sega should release Sonic Mania early so we can get some activity here for once, haha. Good riddance.
Is there a decision that you think needs to be made?
Ultrasonic9000 wrote:
Luma.dash wrote: I believe we can create a board for user rights requests. Where every request can be held there, and then any admin can highlight it or even a discussion moderator (someday). Do not forget that admins like Mystic Monkey keep an eye on discussions, so it an easy job. This also makes talking about user rights less confusing to users new to our policy, who fear to sound their voices on such pages.
That is actually not a bad idea. That way, we can get lots of people to notice it. A problem with the current system is that it is so anomynous.
I also think Luma.dash has a good idea. User rights requests could easily be on a discussion board.
Hi everyone. Ultra asked me to voice my opinion on this thread, so I am going to do that.
First of all, I don't think anyone did anything wrong, and I don't think anyone deserves any recriminations (even self-recriminations). Trying out new things and reverting to the previous versions if the new things don't work is one of the main reasons that wikis work so well. Nothing is set in stone, and anything can be changed.
On that basis, if the people who were going to form this new council have decided that, for any reason whatsoever, they don't want to do that anymore, it's absolutely appropriate to go back to the way things were before. In exactly the same way, it was absolutely appropriate to suggest a change in the first place.
Unfortunately, this means we're left in the position of not having solved the problem that brought this up in the first place. How do we make community decision-making more efficient with a smaller active user base?
Off the top of my head, I can think of two main types of community decisions:
"should I do this thing?"
A part of the solution is cultural. For the first question, when a user thinks something might improve the wiki (or just a page on the wiki) and wants to ask the community whether they should do this thing, the answer should automatically be "yes". Be bold! (Being bold is, yes, still the first guideline on Sonic News Network:Policy.) Yes, do the thing! You have explicit permission to do the thing. But this must be accompanied by an acknowledgement that everyone else has explicit permission to undo the thing if they think it was better before. (Remember, trying something out then changing it back if it doesn't work is a cornerstone of a good wiki.)
In this situation, you only need to hold a discussion with the wider community if 1) two people disagree about whether the thing is good or not, and 2) the two people have tried talking to each other civilly and cannot come to an agreement.
There is no rules change here, just a shift in encouraging people to use the freedom they already have. You can encourage this by using more permissive language in user greetings, by flagging up a willingness for new editors to try things out without repercussions (except for potential reverts), etc. Essentially, you solve it through advertising.
"should this person get some user rights?"
User rights have changed a lot since we made the rules about requesting them. Bureaucrats no longer have admin rights by default, and there's a new content moderator role, for example. This should mean that users are only given the rights that are appropriate to them. Someone who is trustworthy and will follow community consensus might be made a bureaucrat, so they can give and remove user rights, but if they don't also edit very much they wouldn't be a content moderator or an admin. Someone who edits a lot and would usefully protect delete pages could be a content moderator, but they don't want to edit the wiki theme and they aren't good at dealing with people (blocking and moderating discussions), so they wouldn't be an admin.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, user rights are just tools to help the wiki, not ranks or status badges. Having some extra rights doesn't also give authority over other users, and nobody "deserves" to be an admin or a bureaucrat no matter how much they edit or how friendly they are. The only important consideration is whether this person is suited to the specific tools they are being offered, and whether they can be trusted to use those tools to improve the wiki in accordance with community consensus.
Based on these views, my gut instinct is just to make it a lot easier for people to get user rights. Change the discussion from "who supports this person getting user rights?" to "does anyone think this person will not use these rights appropriately?". Lack of engagement is then not a problem, and the discussion can move forward as an approval.
But people also need to be more engaged with the possibility of removing user rights if they are being misused. For example, if a content moderator or admin is deleting pages that should not be deleted, they should lose their user rights and their ability to delete pages. Indeed, if anyone in the community thinks that the user with extra rights is using them inappropriately, that might be a signal that the rights should be revoked, at least until a new discussion can be held about it. (Remember, trying something new and changing it back if it doesn't work is what wikis are built for!)
The only exception is for bureaucrats, which cannot be easily revoked and therefore require active approval by the community before being granted. (But not necessarily from 15 people. The actual number needn't be specified, but be a reasonable number given how active the wiki is at the time.)
I would especially like to see a lot more people with content moderator privileges. It has a lot of useful tools, while being relatively hard to misuse (lacking the admin's ability to block users, etc.).
Those are my thoughts. Happy to discuss it with anyone, but otherwise feel free to use these ideas or not as you see fit.
Ultrasonic9000 wrote:
Supermorff wrote: From what I can tell, you have identified a problem that currently exists on SNN. The problem is that the community is insufficiently engaged with the management of the wiki for it to run smoothly. Your solution is to remove the need for community engagement.
What is your ultimate goal? Do you foresee greater community engagement in future? If so, do you plan to reverse this decision when it happens? Or do you think that community engagement will remain at roughly the same low level in future? Do you want community engagement to be higher, and if so do you have plans to encourage that?
If you decide to make a change like this (and far be it from me to dissuade you since I am one of the least active users here), then my recommended solution would be to reduce the need for community engagement rather than eliminating it altogether. Keep the structures that facilitate it in place. Perhaps fewer users need to give their support for a particular motion to pass (10 or 5 users need to vote on bureaucrats, for instance). Perhaps you can even shift discussions to be more of an opportunity for people to disagree, and assume lack of engagement is implicit endorsement/willingness. But as soon as you put all of the authority in the hands of a very small elite and remove opportunity for regular users to have their say, community engagement will probably drop further because users won't feel that their opinions matter.
I had not thought of that. That makes sense. Maybe that is not so good an idea after all.
By all means, do something. A problem has been identified and steps should be taken to fix it. But if the goal is to bring community engagement back up to a level it was at previously, then your solution should encourage more community engagement, not less.
From what I can tell, you have identified a problem that currently exists on SNN. The problem is that the community is insufficiently engaged with the management of the wiki for it to run smoothly. Your solution is to remove the need for community engagement.
What is your ultimate goal? Do you foresee greater community engagement in future? If so, do you plan to reverse this decision when it happens? Or do you think that community engagement will remain at roughly the same low level in future? Do you want community engagement to be higher, and if so do you have plans to encourage that?
If you decide to make a change like this (and far be it from me to dissuade you since I am one of the least active users here), then my recommended solution would be to reduce the need for community engagement rather than eliminating it altogether. Keep the structures that facilitate it in place. Perhaps fewer users need to give their support for a particular motion to pass (10 or 5 users need to vote on bureaucrats, for instance). Perhaps you can even shift discussions to be more of an opportunity for people to disagree, and assume lack of engagement is implicit endorsement/willingness. But as soon as you put all of the authority in the hands of a very small elite and remove opportunity for regular users to have their say, community engagement will probably drop further because users won't feel that their opinions matter.
Relevant: http://geektyrant.com/news/sonic-vs-superman-and-flash-in-the-underdog-art
Sorry if someone already linked to it
The main reasons we went with pages instead of categories for stage themes is because stage themes aren't official designations.
As others have mentioned, being included in a category just alphabetises the categorised pages and prevents adding any useful context. There are many stages that are listed under certain themes along with comments like "this stage has elements of multiple themes, and here are the elements relevant to this theme". So I would recommend keeping the pages.
Then, for exactly the same reason, I disagree with making categories because the stage themes aren't official. They are highly subjective collections of levels. Even the themes we picked and the names we gave them are just what we thought was clearest and most relevant. I much prefer categories that are factual and objective and not subject to change, but these themes aren't. If you think the themes are complete and appropriately chosen, that just means we did our job well, it doesn't mean that categorisation is the way forward.
Just two cents from a mostly retired user.
Might be a compatibility issue with Chrome, then. I still suggest contacting Wikia support, and telling them that two people with the issue are using Chrome. They might know how to fix it.