FANDOM


Forums: Index War Room Removing Discussions
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

While Wikia/Fandom have stated in the past that Discussions isn't being removed and is now a mandatory addition I feel the time has come for us to discuss how much we want it. It's been a few months since we bastardised it and I would like to look at how that's worked out for us.

Firstly, and the most pragmatic thing to look at it is how many users we have gained. At this point, the answer is none. Despite being told in the forum where the feature was added that we should "give it time" and that it may well attract users, it hasn't. In fact we had one user trying to find an admin so they could get moderator rights. When they were contacted about the matter on wiki, they didn't even reply.

Secondly is the mater of moderation. As of right now, the page is not moderated. I did so for a while, however nearly every day new policy violation content was being added. And often by users that put one comment and don't come back.When we discussed bastardising it Fandom agreed to help moderate it. This has not happened. And there have been no users on Discussions that have shown themselves trustworthy enough, and active enough to be given the rights. This gadget requires constant attention which is just a major drain on resources for something that isn't even benefiting the wiki.

Thirdly, and springboarding off my last comment is that this feature does not, and has not benefited the wiki. So far, the extent of discussions of the feature have been nothing more than option questions (what's your favourite map etc.) and looking for players. Neither of these in any way benefit us. While it is granted that we bastardised it and generally don't talk about wiki stff there, on the times we did I linked those users talk pages so they could discuss the issue, they never followed though. One user even told us about pages they felt needed images twice.

From these 3 points alone, I don't think the feature has helped us and think we should have it disabled as right now it's nothing more than an unmoderated wasteland. None of us on the Wiki use it, and none of those that use the feature use the wiki. Personally, I think this should of been a wiki option like chat or article comments so each Wiki has a choice if they have it on. Instead we got it turned on without anyone talking to us and got told "tough shit, you have it now, like it". It's been several months, none of us like it, please take it round back and shoot it. 11:32, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Devil's advocate: It's not a detriment. I say leave it there if it really has no effect on the wiki. I'm sure there would be at least some people somewhere that would be upset to see it go. Joe Copp 13:47, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

There is one small detriment. Checkuser rights don't work there. So it can attract sockpuppets and the only way to get confirmation is to get VSTF or Staff to do a check. Within the first month we actually had a user have about 10 socks. Also while it has our name it mean that every time someone does osmrthing against policy or negative it reflects badly on us. I mean this post gives out the impression we have users being a nuisance on other wikis, even though I doubt it was any of our users. 13:57, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
The last I heard, Wikia was trying to get checkuser rights to be compatible with discussions. I don't know of their progress, however. This would be a good question to ask Wikia if we can.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  06:45, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Although my initial reaction is "Hell yes!", I do have question. Another benefit Wikia Fandom said was that it would draw more people to the wiki itself. Have we seen an uptick or even less of a drop off after release day since the Discussions feature was added? Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 16:48, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed no change to be honest. I'm not sure if the bastardisation is involved, but the wiki and discussions have been like two separate communities. That being said, as noted above, when people did mention something with pages they would never follow though with editing. Even when linked talk pages. 16:51, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
Same here, I don't think it really affected the activity of the wiki itself. HBRa3 menu icon AW Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 17:11, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
Alright, just making sure there wasn't anything that I had missed. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 20:06, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Wikia really stepped out of line by forcing it on us without asking. However now they are rolling it out so we should be able to get rid of it, or it will be compulsory for all. Either way it will still remain bastardized, if we wanted to go meta we could have a forum mocking the best posts because some of them are brilliant. I say yes to removing it, and Wikia have lost a lot of credibility with this one. Heck, if they'd have even asked us first, I'd've actually supported it. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  18:26, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...I don't think that going "meta" and mocking the posts on Discussions is a good route to go in the slightest. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 20:06, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — - Considering that the main thing that they did say that it would bring more editors in.. And it didn't. It's just plagued with rather stupid questions and the such, Most of them can either be answered by a Google search or checking on the main site. Twig (Talk) GLnUhiE.png 19:42, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

You should really hold off on voting until the actual voting process begins. This is for discussing the proposal and not voting on it. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 20:06, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
Can't be arsed. Just want that.. Stain removed. I had a more eloquent way of saying that before, Just swapping it over to that because I'm tired. Twig (Talk) GLnUhiE.png 20:12, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
As a side thought. And for the sake of "fairness", who thinks I should post this forum in Discussions itself to see if we get any users from there? I mean, if none of the users from discussions come here to state why they don't want it shut down, it somewhat proves a point. And if they do come here then maybe we can at least see some kind of benefit to leaving it on. 21:50, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
This would be imperative, as you say for the sake of fairness. But I wouldn't conclude from a lack of participation that they want it gone.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  06:48, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
Oh no. What I meant was if there was a lack of input it would strengthen mu point about how the app has yet to gain us any new wiki contributors. 11:10, May 18, 2017 (UTC)


The problem with Discussions (and why it isn't bringing in users) is that it was made more as an extension of the mobile app then the wiki itself. While Wikia did allow it to be cross platform, there isn't actually any proper interaction between Discussions and the wiki. Hell, Discussions itself only uses the mobile skin.

This also could explain why it hasn't brought in editors; the mobile version is awful (same for Wikipedia), and people browsing the wiki on their phones and iPods are usually in that 11-15 age bracket (which is even more likely considering the sort of content posted on there).

That being said, I agree with Joe on this one. What's the point in disabling it? While the fact that Checkuser doesn't work on there is annoying, we decided to leave it alone and not moderate it. Right now they are two clear entities that don't interact, and unless issues from there actually cross onto the wiki, it won't ever affect us. Capt. MillerTalk 02:55, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

I sort of think it falls under the same category as chat. That stopped getting used so we disabled it. While we did move to Discord the idea of disabling chat without Discord was still put on the table. Discussions is kind of the same. Like I said above, while we can just ignore it and leave it unmoderated that means we have something with our name on it going unmoderated. If we did leave it like this, I would prefer if we could at least hand it over to someone that is going to moderate it full time. Staff said they were going to do this but have not followed though, and there's been no users on the app itself that have shown themselves to be any kind of moderator. 11:18, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
Also, after speaking with YellowLucario in Discord we've added a bunch of new guidelines. So if need be we are ready to go back to administrating it. However I still feel it's an uneeded feature, and think we need to incorporate more rules and regs that push people on to the Wiki if it's going to be of any success. 13:54, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

VotingEdit

Alright then, looks like we've discussed more than enough. Me and Sam have prepared Discussions for whatever happens next. There's a few options I'll leave but prepare your own if needs be.

Get rid of DicussionsEdit

  1. Pictogram voting support Support — I'd rather get rid of it. This isn't the place for it, with a childish outside community there is no positive to having it. It's been a trainwreck, it needs to go. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  14:57, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support Support — We never wanted it. It's yet to do anything beneficial. It may not be a hindrance as some say, but it's not a benefit either. We can operate without it. 15:01, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting support Support — Bloody idiotic thing that was forced on us with a lie of getting more active editors, Which it hasn't. Twig (Talk) GLnUhiE.png 20:23, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting support Support — It doesn't feel like something a wiki should have. Feels like having lunch hour in a library. We're a source of information more than anything. GhKJh.pngP90DeathmanuceaHlB.png19:09, May 21, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Pictogram voting support Support — Get it outta here Omnipedia Logo No Text BO3 exacri 22:54, May 21, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Pictogram voting support Support — For backstory, after Discussions were basically activated without our consent, all what Wikia Fandom did is set up a forum after (!) enabling them, simply telling us that they've been activated, apparently not understanding that we operate under a consensus for major changes, and that as such it is not up to a single user (Staff or not) to decide what and what not. I'm in my right to say that forcing it on us without asking our permission (no matter how much the community was against it) classifies as power abuse. It's also worth mentioning that I find it a tad unfair to leave the enabling/disabling option to only Fandom staff and not to admins (a bit like the latter can change wiki features like message walls and the like). Our community then agreed to bastardize it and let Fandom take care of the moderation. That all being said, if Fandom had actually done the latter in an effective way, then maybe I would have been fine with keeping Discussions, but since they didn't, I feel removing them is the best course of action. HBRa3 menu icon AW Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 10:49, May 22, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Pictogram voting support Support — To be honest i don't give much of a stuff about discussions considering it doesn't affect me if it exists or not, but if it's causing problems/irrelevant, sure, get rid of it. I'm not adverse to either scenario Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 14:40, May 22, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Pictogram voting support Support — We are not a gaming forum, we are a wiki. Our community isn't geared to make the best out of Discussions, and if anything, the structure of our community would make it burdensome for everyone involved. Discussions is something that hasn't, nor will it ever work out with our wiki into something useful. Personal Didikins Shrek Onions Didikins · Talk 14:44, May 22, 2017 (UTC)
  9. Pictogram voting support Support — Would much rather prefer to leave discussions to places such as the Discord chat. Vinyl PatVinyl.gifThe Mixmaster 20:28, May 22, 2017 (UTC)

Bastardize it, leave it to WikiaEdit

  1. Pictogram voting support Support — Doesn't affect anything, see no reason in disabling it. Capt. MillerTalk 15:42, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support Weak Support — Wikia will never enforce our local policies; this is why it seems they do nothing. They will only ever enforce the Terms of Use. Perhaps this is enough for now - we can always review it again later, like we are reviewing it now.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  23:42, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Leave it to CoD Wiki's admins and 'cratsEdit

  1. Pictogram voting support Support — The way I see it, we have to at least accept that younger people (11-16) are a core component of the involved CoD fandom. As was previously mentioned, discussions on mobile is far more usable than any of the main site; that alone is likely one of the bigger reasons we haven't seen any influx of users. As younger people tend to browse more often on mobile devices, I don't find it all that appalling that many of the posts are lacking in content, or that post visibility is low [see Sam's discussion post about this forum].

    While I certainly don't have that much faith that Wikia/Fandom will add features that create some coordination between discussions and the main wiki, the fact remains that it's a reasonably active part of our site and has potential to draw more users in. I understand that moderation is an ongoing issue but I truly don't see "it doesn't affect us" as an adequate reason to be rid of something. Discussions is just a fun little side project for younger people or those not so invested in the deep lore present on the wiki to talk about what aspects of the games they enjoy.

    To be honest it's a little puzzling how upset some of you are about the content of the posts. With a few exceptions, they really aren't even that bad. And in regards to moderation, I'll do it when I can--shouldn't be too hard considering it's easy to scroll past all the posts and take out what doesn't belong. I'm quite sure there will be at least someone else that will not be opposed to helping out with this as well since it's so easy.

    I think my root feeling about this is that the CoD fandom, at least from a distanced perspective, has a high degree of "in and out" users that only want to briefly participate in a conversation about a given subject. It's the nature of the fandom and franchise, not a result of discussions. I think discussions is merely a new avenue through which we can see this unfold. Those who want to get involved in the main wiki will do so with or without discussions enabled, but I think discussions may at least improve the chance that they get the opportunity to do so. Joe Copp 18:49, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
    We have set up some new guidelines to deal with unbastardising it and integrating it more. But that means we need people to moderate it. But the biggest issue is how often people post something against guidelines. If people aren't coming on wiki, it stands to reason leaving them warnings on their talk page is going to get ignored. 19:03, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
    Considering the scope of content currently being posted on discussions, I don't have a problem with not leaving talk page messages for deletions. We could put at the top of the guidelines page that "your post can and will be deleted without warning if it breaks these rules." Joe Copp 19:36, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

If we leave it to option 2, I'll set up a forum on CC about asking someone to adopt it. Give them the mod rights so they can deal with it. 15:01, May 18, 2017 (UTC) Also I posted the main forum as well as the voting section on to discussions. So far neither have had any type of reply, but 5 new comments had appeared since the first post, so at least 5 people must have seen it. While it has been a short time, the lack of response does indicate the users on Discussions do not care about the main Wiki. 16:47, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
Discussions post has had 1 response. I told them to come to this forum to input their content and they have yet to do so. 01:46, May 19, 2017 (UTC)
For those curious, the two posts I left on Discussions were this and this. As you can see the first got no responses. The second got a response, however despite being told to input here, have not. Honestly, Discussions has gained 732 posts since its activation in November, which does seem like a lot compared to other Wikis discussions. And many of these posts are made by users that have not returned. Not only are we not getting any new users to the wiki, we're gaining none for Discussions either. Despite assurances that this service would help revitalise us, " This could be an opportunity for you to reach new potential members and to grow the community" it has not. It was activated without our consent and simply has not done anything constructive since its activation. 14:08, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Is there even any indication that Wikia will allow either of the first options? Joe Copp 14:15, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Well it is currently bastardised. So they don't seem to care if we ignore it. On another wiki a staff member replied in regards to if the feature could be turned off with "Can it be turned off? Sure, but except in extreme circumstances, we probably wouldn't as it's a main feature". So while they still ahve the ability to turn it off, and I think if the community disagrees they may do so. Especially given our circumstances that it was turned on without any communication with any of the local admins. 14:24, May 19, 2017 (UTC)


Deadline - Because I want this forum closed properly, I'm trying something new and giving it a deadline. On Wednesday 24th May 9:00 PM BST I am closing this forum. So votes must come in now to be counted. 16:38, May 21, 2017 (UTC)


Hey everyone. Sam encouraged me to post some comments here and I’d like to offer some candid thoughts.

I think it’s a bit contradictory to acknowledge that you’ve been ignoring Discussions and take pride in the fact that it’s “bastardized” but then also complain that it’s not benefitting the wiki. You won’t draw any benefit from Discussions by ignoring it. It’s not going to benefit the wiki unless people from the wiki are there, talking about the wiki. Someone needs to put in a some time to create a culture there that you want to have.

I know this is one of the hardest things to hear, but if you want this community to grow in the future, you will need to change how you do things and have an open mind about new tools that become available.

The vast majority of web visitors leave once they find the one thing they wanted. Trying to capture them and turn them into editors is extremely difficult. With the app users in Discussions — they have downloaded the app, looked at the article content, and didn’t delete it, which means they can imagine coming back again. They have created an account in order to post in Discussions. They have joined the community. Regardless of whether you consider them worthy, they are there. Like with any community, there’s a spectrum of types. Some are still going to bail after one post. But some are diamonds in the rough, who will stick around if given a reason. Our data shows that app users who use Discussions spend more time reading articles than app users who don’t. They have accounts, they are engaged. You can grow the community by taking advantage of this opportunity that is right here on callofduty.wikia.com

Or look at it another way — what do you really have to lose? A little bit of time posting, replying and moderating? You spent a month last year debating how to change things here to revitalize the community. What came from that? Lots of changes were proposed. There were some great ideas. Was any plan made? Were any ideas implemented? Did you come together again to see what worked, and what other things you should try? That conversation should have been a pivotal moment for the community, taking place right before the release of a new game. But it petered out into nothing. You’re possibly at another pivotal moment here. Don’t be short-sighted or held back by fear of change.

Potential editors are there. They just need clear and helpful guidance. The app user Titanpilot made several inquires about content addition. In most cases, this is the type of answer he got. He hasn’t come back in a while. But look at Jdawge713 here. That user got the kind of welcome that an editing inquiry deserves. Has he tried editing? Not yet. But six months later, he is still around, coming back for legit on-topic conversation with others, in the feature that so many of you are ready to dismiss.

The app users, and mobile users in general, are where the next generation of editors are going to come from. This is a simple fact. And you cannot reasonably expect them to find success here if you simply link them to a talk page say “go there”. Or post a link to a wiki-style forum with zero context and expect them to understand what it means. They will need patient guidance at first. Just like all of you did once.

For a few of you, it sounds like Discussions is forever tainted by the way in which it arrived on the community. I think that’s a pretty self-defeating perspective. Sometimes change comes whether you want it or not. If you care about growing this community, use every option out there and try to make it work. But if you’re truly and honestly content with the status quo here, by all means, sit and stew about how horrible Fandom is. I’m here right now trying to reiterate that we are all working toward the same goals: getting your content seen by more eyes, getting more people to create accounts and participate, getting more content created. The community app and Discussions are tools to help achieve those things, people just need to start using them to the community’s advantage.

This comment is long enough, so if anyone interested in the plan I’ve outlined, you can read about it on Sam’s talk page. There is no secret sauce to make it work perfectly. What’s worked on Nukapedia or Wookieepedia may not work in the exact same way here. But we’re going to try, and adapt as needed, and anyone who’s excited by the idea should feel free to jump in. Kat, where are you?? You told me you saw potential with Discussions and you set a great example early on. Joe Copp, it sounds like you’re excited and are willing to help out! So we’ll figure out the best line of communication. Thanks for reading. -BertH @fandom (help forum | blog) 07:17, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

To counter some of your points. While we had begun ignoring it. For the first few months I moderated it. After it became a one man job I simply didn't have the time of effort to keep it up. But in that time there was no users that even showed a hint of wanting to edit. I would be more than happy to help if users ever said what they needed to help them. Per example, that user which I told had to edit on a talk page. I did that with the assumption he had some knowledge of Wikia systems. If that was not the case he could of replied "How do I do that?" and I would of expanded on it. I cannot assist users that do not let me know how they need help.
Forums like the one you linked come up more times than just once. The reason nothing ever comes from them is because they're never anything more than "The franchise is dying, we're doing all we can". It lasted a month because unlike this forum which has a vote and active discussion, it never came down to a consensus. Personally, I'm also finding it very rude that everytime we say we don't like this feature everyone accuses us we're "scared of change". This wiki currently uses the new Oasis skin, in fact we were one of the first to try it. We also were one of the first to try out the chat system, and as of recently we're even using the new header display. We're not "scared of change", and if you had asked if we wanted this app added instead of just turning it on without any consent chances are more of us would have supported it. One of the main reasons Joe Copp is for it is because he was away at the time so for him it was a feature added before he had a chance to say anything. But please stop saying things like "Don’t be short-sighted or held back by fear of change" because it's just rude.
As stated above. I would be more than glad to assist users when they ask for it. If my help isn't good enough then they can ask for more clarification. But the app has been up about 7 months, so the fact a user has been there 6 months and still not become an editor is more a mark against it than a mark for it. CoD isn't doing massively great, and a long-term solution likely won't come. Yes you can post research that more people use their phones than desktop, but I know from my own studies that most people that use phone apps do so on the go and are poorly optimised to become editors.
Fandom was created as Wikia, a site about sharing information, now it seems to be changing its stance to become some kind of mobile social site. Perhaps on Wookiepedia and Fallout it works, because those types of communites have a lot to discuss. Those are lore rich environments with a lot to talk and debate about. This can lead to friendships which may then result in editors. Meanwhile all we have are umpteen comments asking "what is your favourite gun/map/character?". In fact it's become so obvious users on the app are pointing it out. This seems like a feature that will work on some wikis and not others. Given this feature is still in beta I think it would be better for Fandom to look at this and realise "Oh, it works here, but not here, perhaps we should make this a Wiki feature that admins can choose to use rather than a mandatory one". I mean, we don't use article comments because of the way we use our talk pages, but on other wikis they use article comments to great effectiveness due to the way their wiki works, like entertainment ones.
My overall point being this feature will work well in some places and not well in others. You can't just keep accusing people of being "short-sighted and scared of change" because that's actually making those that oppose Discussions even more opposed to it because they feel like it's an insult. I am glad you chose to put your points here though, as it allows for much greater community consensus, and other users may see your points better than over two talk pages. If anyone on the Discussions app would like help editing this forum I am more than happy to help them. But ignoring the comments does not allow me to help them. 09:40, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
While it is true that I wasn't active when discussions was enabled, I do want to clarify that the biggest reason I support the use of it is that I don't see it as a detriment to the wiki. Joe Copp 11:14, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, I misread your reasoning. Thanks for correcting me. 11:34, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
I truly don't mean to come across as rude. I am just trying to offer a candid perspective on the state of things as I see them. Discussions, like any feature, is something that can work differently for different communities. I think there's still more exploring to be done to see how it can work best on Call of Duty Wiki and other similar gaming communities. It does not necessarily need to be "social" in the way that bothers those who want to maintain the encyclopedia/resource identity of the community. Discussions can be a tool to enhance that. It's up to the community to define what can and can't be discussed there. But it takes some sustained effort to enforce those guidelines (sometimes harshly), AND going a little overboard to guide the people new to the wiki world, AND be consistently creating the type of content you want to see there, to set the example. All those elements have to be there. Once the users there start seeing that consistently over time, it will be clear what kind of conversations are appropriate and it won't always need as much work to maintain that, it will become self-perpetuating. The sustained effort is what we'd like to try over the next couple months. -BertH @fandom (help forum | blog) 12:54, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

Forum Closed — Discussions will be being shut down. Wikia, we are formally requesting the closure of Discussions. It has been up for 7 months and has been a total disaster. Please do the right thing and make it optional, otherwise you are letting yourselves and the community down by pushing something that not everybody wants. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  20:08, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

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.