User talk:Dopp

Archives: 1

help
I need big help!Someone hacked into my account! Can you help?Reviewportal77 17:36, August 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears you have control of your account right now. Why don't you just change your e-mail and password yourself and call it a day...you don't need staff help to do that. -- 17:38, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed
Hello, I am Airzel-of-haos, an Administrator from the Bakugan Wikia, and we have a problem. There is a user whom has been creating spam pages that we have repeatedly told him to not make, and when we try to block him, so of my colleagues have gotten a virus, as well as the fact that we cannot block him because when we do, it just sends us back to the Block form. Please help us, it would be greatly appreciated. Ten scy  the  19:08, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you can get help by reporting this to http://vstf.wikia.com --Dopp http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 19:10, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Unblock
Can you unblock me on the Pugs club penguin fanon wiki ? . I only made a copyrights template and did nothing wrong. Happy65


 * Unblocked! Best of luck with the wiki! Let me know if you'd like admin access there again, too. Pug is gone. --Dopp http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 16:35, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. When I return to the wiki from my break, I will ask for rights back . The reason Im on break is that i've got a lot of wikis to take care of like the Club Penguin Wiki ( Rollback ) and Soccer Wiki ( Admin and Bureaucrat ) . Happy65

The utility of the redlinked category (a very late comment)
Commenting has apparently closed on the thread in which the changes to categories was announced. It's taken me this long just to find the argument in favor of making the changes. I hope you don't mind, therefore, if I leave my comments here on your talk page, cause I can't post within the discussion proper.

You make the request that readers
 * ". . . consider this: if a category is applied to 50 pages, isn't it considered "created" at that point? The category page certainly has content: a list of 50 links."
 * No offense, but that's absolute nonsense. A category's prime function isn't to actually contain pages. I know that sounds crazy at first, but hold on.  A category's function is to create the ability for pages to be held in an orderly fashion.  A category's main job is to be a place where pages are held.  And a place is not a place unless it can be located on a map.   A category which is unconnected to other categories — that is a category not on the map, or as MediaWiki calls it, the category tree — is worse than useless.  It's a black hole of information.  If you try to use DPL to access an un-created category, it'll work to a degree, but not always as you expect.  You also run into problems with some advanced parser coding if you're trying to work on un-created categories.  Moreover, you can't find an un-created category, except by going to a page on which the category has been placed or by directly entering its name — completely properly spelled and capitalised, mind — in the search engine.


 * Thus, a category is not even theoretically created by the addition of pages, any more than a city is created by drawing up some blueprints. Yes, there's "content" in the blueprint, but it's not like you can drive your kid to school on the streets in the drawing.  Likewise, a category is only created when it's attached to to the categorical infrastructure — because it's job is to be a place, not to be a list.  The list is a by-product of being a place, in the same way that a list of names in a phone book validates that a place is "real".


 * Were I trying to improve categorical utility, I'd turn off the ability for this list to form on any category that's not been properly created. That way, there would be no visible content on an un-created category, just as there is no content on an un-created page in any other namespace.  Hence people would have an incentive to properly create the category.  No creation, no list.


 * You also say,
 * "A redlink means that a page has no content -- that clicking on it will take you somewhere that doesn't exist. Categories that have articles associated with them do have content worth viewing, though, so they do exist. If they haven't been incorporated into the master organizational structure of the wiki yet, that's a separate issue, and it's what maintenance tools like Special:WantedCategories are for."
 * Again, I couldn't disagree more. A category that is redlinked by definition doesn't exist.  The fact that pages may be linked to it doesn't change that.  To reiterate the above, a place isn't a place unless it can be located on a map.  The notion of incorporation into the master organisational structure of the wiki is not at all a separate issue.  It's the whole ball game.  You seem to be thinking of a category as a page of information which has "content" in the way that a page in ns:0 has "content".  It's not at all the same, though.  The "content" of the category is its relationship to other categories and the ability to manipulate it and the pages attached to it.  Redlinked categories offer very limited manipulation opportunities and so, for all practical purposes they do not exist.  Red, as you point out, is the traditional Wikia color for something which doesn't exist, so it remains appropriate to use it for categories which have not been formally created.


 * Your mention of special:WantedCategories is, well, funny. WC doesn't update often enough to be useful to people who are actually trying to police and maintain complicated category structures.  What makes it amusing, though, is that it contains evidence of the negative impact of this change upon wiki maintenance.  At tardis, for the first six months of this year, we averaged no more than 10 wanted categories — most of them blatantly frivolous or the temporary result of deleting a category.  Since the change, the number of WantedCategories has skyrocketed.  Now we're at 70+.  And they're, for the most part, reasonable new categories that fit the syntactical pattern of existing categories.  Why? Because people don't know they're creating a category that doesn't exist.  Even I sometimes walk away from a page thinking I've added a perfectly valid category these days, only to find out later that it's not.  [Only just a few minutes ago, in fact, did I realise that w:c:Category:Help didn't exist!]  The only way to make sure you're not adding a bum category is to physically visit it.  We shouldn't have to click on a category after adding it to a page just to check and see if the category is real.

You also say
 * "It allows readers (you know, the people you're building the wiki for) to see what they expect to see when they click on a category link: a list of pages that use that category. In the old system, they were launched into an editing page, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever"
 * And here I get you, to a point. This is a very tricky thing, because we do need to balance the needs of the user versus the needs of the editor.  Yes, we are ultimately building all this for non-editors to read.  On the other hand, readers aren't just expecting a list.  They are expecting the ability to navigate forward and back from that category.  If they've taken an interest in the category link at all, it means they want to navigate categories. If it's an un-created category, they can't do that.  Yes they can look at a list of apple trees, for instance, but they can't go on from there to other fruit-bearing trees.


 * Again, a category is not about the list. It's about the relationship between that category and its parents and children.  It's about geography and navigation.


 * You say it makes no sense whatsoever to get thrown into a editing page, and I'd completely agree with that. That's why we changed the message at MediaWiki:Newarticletext.  We went to great pains at tardis to make sure that people were never confused about what they were doing.  So there is a nice little message, w:c:tardis:Template:newcategorytext, which used to pop up when people clicked on a redlinked category.  It's completely wiki-novice friendly, and it's styled for our wiki.


 * For precisely the reason of reader-friendliness that you cited, we made sure that every namespace had its own newarticletext message. And yet Wikia have gone and basically disabled access to our very thoughtful and deliberate new category page.


 * Now readers just get this unbelievably ugly, terse message, "This page needs content. You can help by adding a sentence or a photo!"  Our readers are no longer even told they're on a category page by this message. (Well, technically, if they look under the page name, they can see they're on a category page, but it's not nearly as clear as on our wiki's new category page text.) It makes categories seem like any other page — and they're not.    Seriously, it's so frustrating to have a simplified, ugly message overriding our own custom message, which was of benefit to both readers and editors alike.

Finally, you say
 * "And (b) if you misspell something, you won't see it right away... but auto-suggest has been making life better in that department for awhile now."
 * Oh, my sweet Lord. What absolute disaster this single sentence contains for our wiki.  Please, before you extoll the virtues of auto-suggest — which are indeed considerable — try working on a wiki where the subject is British, but a lot of the editors are American, Canadian and Australian. Try working at a place where there are regular disputes about which words in a category get capitalised, and which don't.


 * At tardis, it absolutely, vitally, integrally matters that the category is category:Comic colourists, not category:Comic colorists. Or that it's category:Virgin Missing Adventures novels, not category:Virgin Missing Adventures Novels.  Or, the big daddy, category:The Doctor's TARDIS, not category:The Doctor's Tardis. Spelling is so vital to us that we actually have a spelling policy — which probably is quite unusual for Wikia wikis.  Indeed I've had to make multiple category moves simply on the basis that the spelling offended our spelling policy.  For instance, there were many categories which used the word "organization", spelled the American way.  I had to change them to " organisation", spelled in compliance with our spelling policy.  Now, Wikia's come along to make it easier than ever to allow for all those "organization" cats to come back, solely because our American friends aren't seeing the redlink that makes them query their spelling.


 * Autosuggest is fine when you're adding a category without editing the page proper. I love the Wikia skin convenience of being able to hit that little "add category" button and to have that nice, quick little menu of possible categories pop right up for me.


 * But, imagine working on a wiki where people don't always use Wikia skin — even though you've taken the effort to make your Monobook logo to say — in bold letters — "Switch to the Wikia skin". There is no category add button in MonoBook, so you have to enter it manually. And although there is autosuggest with manual entry, a lot of people type faster than in-line autosuggest works.  And even amongst our Wikia skin users, many don't regularly wait to added the categories after they create a page.  They type in the categories manually, again defeating the in-line auto-suggest.


 * My point is that it's simple to defeat auto-suggest, even if you like it and would prefer to use it. And on a wiki like ours, where spelling and capitalisation are constantly at issue, it is a nightmare that redlinked categories are now blue.  It's not just "inconvenient", it's not just that we're being forced to "adjust the way [we] do things a bit".  It's an absolute disaster.

While I thank the dev team for at least returning redlinks when we make an inline link to an un-created page, and I also thank them for making it possible to make a change to personal CSS, I have to say that it's not enough. The very people who need to see red-links most are those people who wouldn't know how to change their personal CSS. And the CSS won't stop new category pages from bypassing the text demanded by w:c:tardis:MediaWiki:Newarticletext.

I completely reject the notion that average readers who are used to seeing redlinks within the body of articles will be confused when they see and click on a redlink in a category section.

Yes, we should never forget our readers. Yes, we should alter the messages seen when they click on a redlink, so that they understand what's going on. But we shouldn't believe them such total idiots that they won't understand what a redlink means — unless we're prepared to remove redlinks altogether, from every aspect of the wiki.

I therefore request that this entire bluelink disaster be reversed. There are other, much simpler ways of making sure readers aren't confused. Why not just make a default, but overridable through MediaWiki:Newarticletext, message that appears on every new category page? That seems to be the reason that this change was made. You want non-editing users to understand what's going on. So take the time to include a default message to them, and be done with it.

All in the world you guys are trying to say with this redlink/bluelink move is:


 * This category page is still under construction. You won't be able to navigate from this category to another one, like you can on most category pages.


 * If pages have already been put into this category, however, they will appear below.


 * If you'd like to help edit this category — primarily by connecting it to another category — you can do so in the editing area below.

As far as I can tell, that's all you guys really are trying to do with this move. So just say it in a few lines of text rather than completely changing the definition and functionality of a category page? 21:04:17 Fri 26 Aug 2011
 * p.s. I apologise in advance if this comes across as an attack upon you personally. I am of course mindful of the adage, "Don't shoot the messenger." "You" here generally means the collective entity that is Wikia.


 * Very impressive writeup CzechOut. I agree wholeheartedly and hope that it's heard/read and not simply tl;dr'd. This, in essence, is what the rest of us have stressed since the change, but in a more complete manner. Rappy 21:36, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to write this out, CzechOut, and I appreciate how strongly you care about this issue. It's true that I'm just the messenger -- not at all a decision-maker on this matter -- so I've passed your writing forward to the folks who made this choice, and who continue to improve related features at Wikia. I know they have some different perspectives (and different use cases) regarding some of the issues you raised here, though, so I hope you'll be willing to work with the situation regardless of how it plays out. Thanks again.  --Dopp http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog)  21:52, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with Czechout's post, and hope the staff will consider changing their mind on this, or engage us in the debate of why they're not changing their mind. I think the change is no different to removing all redlinks, with the justification that "a page with a title and links to it has some content, so shouldn't be red".
 * Also, just as a side note, I think if you were going to get rid of any redlinks on wikia, the ones to do would be the ones for users who haven't made a userpage. On many wikis the automatic userpage-creator thing doesn't work, and seeing a load of redlinks for usernames on recentchanges or page history is irrelevant as to who has filled out a userpage. But, I don't want to encourage more redlink removal, I'd much rather fix the current situation than any further changes! Just thought I'd mention it--Acer4666 09:10, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair points, thanks. --Dopp http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 16:43, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Userpagetemplate
Hi, just wanted to nudge you about your Wikia: userpagetemplate, as it does define the background colour but not text colour. This leads to light text in light background in wikis that has light text colour (usually dark-themed wikis). (: –Tm_T (Talk) 23:22, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm on it, thanks! --Dopp http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 23:46, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Ban
Hi, this is Honeyfur again. One of my users, Werebereus, was recently banned for harassing other users. I can assure you that he's done nothing of the sort. His personality sometimes comes across as strong, but he hasn't abused anything. I'd like to request that you unban him, please. -- Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 01:24, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Hi Honeyfur, Werebereus evaded a ban by following a user to other wikis, and demanding that he continue arguing with him in spaces where he couldn't be blocked. This was excessive, and because it brought a dispute to wikis that weren't involved in the matter, it is grounds for being removed from Wikia. If Werebereus would like to explain the situation further, he can reach us at Special:Contact. --Dopp http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 16:59, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Archive
Hi Dopp,

You might want to archive your talk as it's getting pretty long. Just a suggestion. Thanks, -- 01:55, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks!

Can I bring my top wikis back without deleting the new favourite wikis section? And how do you archive talk? Dynovan | Let's Talk 13:44, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dynovan, sorry, Top Wikis has been replaced by the new favorite wikis section. If it's not working the way you'd like, can you tell me why? (And you can archive talk by creating a subpage and copying content over.  See? I just did it.) --Dopp http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog)  16:48, August 29, 2011 (UTC)