Harry Potter Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Wikia Forum system?


Hi there.

So as many people know, this wiki does have a very small community base and getting people to see these threads is close to impossible, without just canvassing on every user talkpage and that's not even guaranteed to generate a good enough response if the user's do not read their talkpage or don't bother to respond in the discussion.

I would like to recommend that we convert this old wiki-style forum to the Wikia threaded forum module. More information about the threaded system can be found here: Help:Forums

There's a useful feature that the threaded forums include: the ability to highlight a discussion. This means that every user who comes to the wiki will see a notification at the top right: therefore, there cannot be any chance of users complaining about "not getting a voice in a discussion", since they will have been clearly notified.

This will help immensely when it comes to important, wiki wide discussions, whether that be policy changes or discussions involving standard practice.

Please use this discussion area to give your opinion about this proposal. Note that, when the threaded forum system is enabled, these older forums will be archived, but you'll still be able to read them: just won't be able to post in them further.

Leave your opinion in the discussions area.

Thanks! --Sajuuk 14:02, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[]

Use this section to discuss the proposal. --Sajuuk 14:02, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

I´ve read it carefully and I know the system from other wikis. Highlighting discussions could become quite useful. I assume that the "Only discussions to improve articles" policy would also be applied to this? I can imagine some people would write comments like "My Patronus would be..." or "She is my favourite character!" But this is, I think, the only thing I am concerned about.--Rodolphus (talk) 15:45, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
That's a difficult question.
There's a wiki I'm a member of which had a similar policy, but after implementing this, ended up allowing other discussions. Now granted that wiki is a completely different topic to this one and therefore, it's fandom is much more volatile: however, there's a chance that topics about the series in general may pop up. I have no issue managing all of that stuff if needed, but if that happens, it might be important to control the types of topics that come up by restricting it to specific topic subsets.
On the other wiki I mentioned, we had enabled the chat as a "non wiki discussions area", but that didn't work at all. This wiki already has chat but it's pretty much unused and I've never really seen users in there (just the odd one but that's it) so it's quite unlikely anyone will use that as a place to discuss the series.
Hope that helps! --Sajuuk 16:05, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
I put off the vote itself until after there has been some discussion on the subject, as that has been standard procedure before.
About the conversion, if we enable the threaded forum system, is there a way to keep using these older forum? From what I've seen of the threaded forums, they don't seem to be the ideal place to tally votes and striking voters that don't comply with the Voting policy, and all that. What I am proposing is a middle-ground in which we'd have discussions in the newer forums, and votes in the old forum-format (that can be archived and is plainer to read for easy reference) -- would that be feasible? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:43, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
No worries about the vote.
That isn't possible I'm afraid. When the threaded forums are enabled, the whole Forum: namespace is locked and only people with a specific user right can edit them.
There are ways around that problem, such as creating straw polls and making voting threads "after" a discussion has been done.
One method that is quite common is a vote tally script and using support/neutral/oppose templates. The script would be able to count the use of the templates and show coloured bars, with totals for each. That might be one method (which is actually quite popular with threaded forum users).
Something I felt I didn't answer completely was the point that Rodolphus made: I've personally got a dislike for such policies, as that what talkpages are really meant to be used for. Obviously the forums should be used for wiki-wide changes like policy, but I don't personally feel they should be completely restricted to just wiki discussions only, they could be a great way to build up the community of the wiki. Users such as Starstuff have expressed an interest in trying to build the community up some more, as it is pretty quiet around the wiki. --Sajuuk 19:04, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
One benefit that I've not mentioned about converting to the forum module is that there would no longer be any need to sign posts in forum topics, as the forums do that by themselves. So that would make it easier for people to ask questions without having to worry about wiki signatures. --Sajuuk 14:11, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
I could easily go either way on this. I have been on wiki's that use the new system, though none of them were particularly active. So in regards to knowing how to use them and being comfortable with them I certainly am, in regards to being for a switch over on a wiki so used to the old way, not 100% sure. I definitely see the benefits to being able to highlight discussions easier to get more opinions on it and important discussions noticed quicker. Now while things hadn't been entirely stagnant on this site in regards to new information coming out, there was a lull in how much for a bit, during that lull this site has never really done too much to proactively encourage people to come hang out here, as chat was never utilised as much as it could have been, I began to think of this wiki as more of a 'monitor if a troll pops around, maintain general upkeep' but overall when I had nothing really to add to the site, I didn't see it as a place to come every day and just hang around or discuss things. Now new information has been coming out in larger chunks recently, but I'm sure at some point it's going to change again and we'll have less information coming in and things could go stagnant again, and when there isn't a lot of reason to be here besides monitor for vandals, general upkeep, it makes it harder to get important discussions, votes, etc noticed by everyone. So I really think there could be some useful benefits of the new forum system that could invigorate things around here, presuming enough users were even interested in that. In response to Seth's comment about having both, there is always the possibility of coming up with a new namespace to maintain the older style of discussions/voting if need be, might not be able to call it "Forum:" but we could maybe come up with something else for it. Just a thought, something to think/talk about. User talk:BachLynn23 17:51, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
Our current forum system may not be perfect, but it works, so I don't see a reason to replace it with a completely different system, when we have the option of improving what we already have. There's a simplicity and versatility in the traditional forum style that is lost in the new threaded style. The new threaded style makes it difficult to format things the way you want when making posts, and it removes the ability to view the edit history of forum posts, thereby making it harder to keep track of discussions.
Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha use the classic forum style. Both are large, active wikis for very prominent fandoms, so I don't think this wiki's retention of the classic style is adversely impacting user activity. I think the factors at play between the general inactivity on this community are complex.
I do support creating a forum for casual discussion of the books and movies. I believe that providing a platform for fans to share and discuss their love of all things Potter could help generate interest in the wiki. And I also think we should do more to raise awareness about ongoing discussions, with the aim of increasing participation in them. I just think there are ways we could do this within the existing framework of the wiki -- such as adding notices about important ongoing discussions to Recent Changes. Starstuff (Owl me!) 20:53, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
I just want to clear up some misinformation:
  • The threaded system allows all wikitext, just like in any other aspect of the wiki (except chat), so formatting is not an issue. Even though the toolbar for it only shows a few options, all normal wikitext is available in the system.
  • Edit history exists on posts, just like it does on every other feature (except chat). When a user edits their post, the timestamp in the bottom corner of a threaded forum post will have "Edited by <username here>" and the words "Edited by" is a link to a diff between the versions.
The current forum system was used for a long time on other wiki's which had open discussions and they were a complete mess. Posts weren't signed, people just posted whatever junk they wanted and it went unmoderated, simply because it was impossible to moderate such forum posts. The threaded forums make this easier to remove individual user posts without needing to edit the whole page, and there's no issue with edit conflicts in discussions, making it much easier to have a discussion.
The two sites you linked don't allow people to discuss the series on their forums, they are purely for wiki discussions and they drop large hints to direct any questions about the series to some other website or wiki. So I'm not sure what point you are making by giving examples to wiki's which don't allow a discussion on the series. This is a common policy among wiki's which use this plain text forum system.
Adding notices is not user friendly and is limited to sysops only, not to mention that it is quite easy for a user to completely ignore such notices. Highlighting threads is a much more user friendly system, is not limited to sysops (only those with the "notifyeveryone" user right can highlight threads, which is available through the "Discussions Moderator" user group) and it is much harder to "not" notice a highlighted thread, as it'll be at the top right, where people will always look for notifications.
I don't believe this wiki-style forum system is conducive to a location for people to have a casual discussion about the series though. --Sajuuk 21:18, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
I haven't found a way to view the complete edit history of posts on the new forum system. For example, here is the edit history of this post, which allows you to see individual edits and compare the diffs (which thus allows you to link to specific edits). This is the closest I've thing to an edit history page I've found on the new system (the link is a random thread on the Game of Thrones wiki). It's confusing and does not give you the ability to view or compare individual diffs.
Maybe this format is simpler, and thus friendlier to newer/more inexperienced users, but it seemingly comes at the cost of stripping away useful functionality.
Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha, two major wikis with active user bases, are getting by just fine with the old forum system. That's why I brought them up. Whether or not they have casual discussion forums is irrelevant. This is obviously a separate wiki, and we could choose to create a third forum for casual discussion if we wanted, without having to switch to a completely different forum system. Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia have different forums for different types of discussion. That was also what I was trying to show by linking to them. Starstuff (Owl me!) 23:31, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of giving an example, here is a post by me on another wiki that uses threaded forums, which has been edited. If you click the "Edited by" part of this post, you will see the edit diff, which is formatted just like any other article diff. Note that it is not possible to see full diff's on the threaded forum due to how it was coded, but you can see diff's between revisions.
This diff link is also visible on the "history" page you linked for a threaded forum, assuming that the user has actually made an edit. If they don't make any edits to their post, then the link will not be there (as there would be no point). --Sajuuk 15:59, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
Notices — the main advantage a extension «Forum», but it makes no sense to include if the Wikia go to «Discussions». FANSG (talk) 17:03, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that the Forum module will be replaced with Discussions, though Wikia has indicated they want to improve the Forum module with a better system (despite many disagreeing with such a thing). Discussions is filled with largely low quality nonsense posts on the few communities it's being trialled on. --Sajuuk 17:08, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
Bump. --Sajuuk 08:25, April 11, 2016 (UTC)
Final bump. --Sajuuk 09:54, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
My quick 2cents (or does it have to be pence ;) - if the goal is to encourage more discussion / participation then a threaded interface (ala Gmail, Twitter, most forum software) is far more familiar to most people. The easy of simply replying without having to worry about signatures, indenting, or deleting the previous posts, makes it simpler for anyone to join in.
Anything that can be done to highlight open topics of discussion would be helpful IMHO. Given the growing interest in Fantastic Beasts, I think an increasing number of people will want to talk, find sources, edit articles, speculate, and debate so having an easy to use discussion module working before hand seems wise. Cheers Ironyak1 (talk) 10:45, April 17, 2016 (UTC) 
Based on just this discussion section, there's a majority in support. So what exactly needs to happen now to get this change done?
PS: I'll gladly help out with forum moderation with threaded forums if a sysop wants to make me a Discussions Moderator. --Sajuuk 06:43, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact that forum discussions with the old way of doing things can go weeks to months to years without proper attention simply because there's no way to highlight important discussions regarding policy debates and voting. As well as the fact that new forums would make it far easier to discuss improving articles with the link back to the article would de-clutter the current article talk page situation, which I've never liked as it becomes a mess of old discussions from years ago. Then again in general I'm not a fan of clutter, though given the fact that many wikian's are not known for their ability to change from their old ways of doing things, simply because they are used to the old ways, does not surprise me, especially on this wiki. I get change is scary to some, and such, I'm sure there's still a lot of old people out there in the world who still don't understand why we had to make the change to computers and internet when everything was just fine before all the new shiny technology came out. I however, can't ignore the amount of times, over the years that I've heard users complain about trying to get in touch with admins, or important questions on forums, or user rights votes or various other things that never get addressed in anything resembling a timely manner. This problem was most notably apparent when chat was first turned on but no and issues arose from it but were not being addressed. It's funny actually, the last few times I've been brought back to this wiki from inactivity were when I was messaged on my talk page or because someone needed answers and weren't getting them anywhere so they took to messaging every admin on the list. Sajuuk just wants to see the wiki continue to flourish and grow and was forced to constantly bump people's talk pages and discussion pages just to try to get anyone to respond. In fact one of the reasons I went inactive was because of the lack of real community feel with this wiki and inability to get discussions going, which isn't really the point, but if we could be highlighting these important discussions, it might at least help get people more involved in the discussions. User talk:BachLynn23 16:41, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Vote[]

Advertisement