Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
1) I've read that this Wikia has no top editors, and I agree with that, but why does it say that on the tab. I mean, I know it's users with the most edits, but why specifically that word. Same with pretty much everything there. Why not something like frequent.
2) What's the point of the one of the best articles being featured. It's not going to draw many users, since most of them cover what pretty much everyone here is familiar with, and it's not going to draw new editors, since they're already great. Sure, some can help, but why not nominate some of the articles that need the most help, since more people would help. Sure, the stuff they cover can be more obscure, but the more hardcore fans would know, right?
OK, so i'm sorta proposing changes, but i'm pretty sure it's just that there's an obvious answer that i'm not seeing.
- 1) That's just the MediaWiki code that the list of highest editors uses. I don't think there's a way to change it, but I'll have a look. If there is, what would you prefer to change it to? -- Supermorff (talk) 08:51, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Checked: Actually, it's really easy to change the label and I was just being daft. I've changed it to 'Highest editors' for now, which is only marginally better. If you've got a better suggestion, let me know. -- Supermorff (talk) 09:55, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Most frequent or most prominent. Those aern't too much better either. Two more things.
1)Is there a way to change the tab??
- 1) What tab? I've already changed it from Top editors to Highest editors. Your suggestions for 'Most frequent' and 'Most prominent' are not accurate as the list only incorporates absolute total and doesn't take account of time.
- 2) Not a clue for the second question. Lots of wikis do it, so do we. That's why I didn't answer. -- Supermorff (talk) 10:19, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
The "Top Content" tab. I know it's possible, I was just wondering if there was a way to add others under, say a "Users" tab. That's why I asked, cause I didn't know any other links we could provide under a users tab other that with most edits. IDK, maybe active rollbacks, admins, and 'crats, buy removing admins from the "Community" tab, because I can't think of any other ways to reword it.
Oh, and BTW, do you have any reasons for liking (or not wanting to change) the whole good articles get featured thingy, because if not (or if I disagree) i'll probably start a site discussion soon. TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 10:38, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
- I can change the tab. I can add two (maybe three?) more subheadings. The thing is, the ones that are there now update automatically, and I don't want to add any that I have to update manually. I suppose I could add a list based on Category:Administrators, but that would probably be better under the Administrators sub-heading under Community. What I can't do is add any additional tabs (top-level headings) to the five already there (if that's what you meant).
- I don't have any strong feelings about the Featured Article, so feel free to make a site discussion, but I think the reason for it is to showcase good work done on the wiki as an example to follow (maybe?). Make a site discussion (never a bad idea), but I suspect most people would prefer to keep it. -- Supermorff (talk) 11:09, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I meant, so nevermind. Just stick with highest for now.
Do you think it could be to introduce our style, but we have other links. Maybe it's to attract new users, but the rest of this place looks great!! I guess it could mislead users, because we apparently can't change the font (since it still says Weekly Poll, and that could mislead users. But whatever, I still think we should highlight an article in need of help, so i'll probably start one soon, unless someone awnsers the question. I suspect most people would like it too, but whatever. TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 11:36, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if you've been following recent site discussions, particularly Forum:A Few Main Page Changes, but the Weekly Poll header in particular is being changed right now by Bullet Francisco. (In fact I do know and you have, because you voted. Oh well...) -- Supermorff (talk) 11:57, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
- I know. We're planning on changing it, but it hasn't been, so we might not know the correct font. Therefore, we couldn't change Featured Article to say something else, which could mislead people in to thinking that that's our best work, and leave. The rest of the main page looks awesome, however, so it's probably safe to assume that there's a lot of admins. Is it possible to add a description right under the, um, banner?? If so, then we could do that just in case. The only other problem is that it takes a while to put up a new featured article, so we might not get much done, but whatever, it'd still help, which is something i'm all for! :DTheAwesomefroggy (talk) 12:07, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
- I do know the correct font, and if you want me to change the headers to something else, you could have asked me here. And the reason that it takes awhile to put up a new featured article is because there aren't any nominations getting approved by the community, which isn't a bad thing. Now that I think of it, I have a solution of sorts... -- 19:28, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry it took me so long to write this response, I got sorta sidetracked. Well, your solution is good, but that's not the reason i'm against the featured article (for now, anyways, since i'm still pretty sure there's an obvious answer), is because I see no point to actually having it, and I think that (for now) having a random rotation of "crappy" articles would better benefit the community, as there will be more help. In fact, I think (for now) that this idea is even better, because nominations would've taken forever. I'm not sure on the current state of your rotation idea, but if it does get passed, then I think (for now) that we should make the "crappy" articles featured. The reason I brought up the font, is because it could lead some people to think that those articles are our best work (even though the rest of the main page is awesome.) And yes, I know I said that before. Again, i'll probably start a site discussion soon if I don't get a satisfying answer. TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 11:52, August 11, 2012 (UTC)