Forum:Wikia's New Style

(Note: pre-release comments are in the archives. I cleared the page to divide them from comments after the release -- sannse (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Just to clarify...
The terms of use currently state "No user shall remove the advertising, or sponsored search features from the wiki in a way which means other users can not view the advertisements." Now this is taken to mean that we can't alter the site-wide skin files to eliminate the ads, but what about posting instructions for how our users can remove them on their end? If I would put up a sitenotice pointing users to instructions for using Firefox with AdBlock, would Wikia staff be compelled to take it down? -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 23:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well... we would ask you to take it down :) We have had exactly that situation in the past, and that was what happened.  I think it's not to much to ask that you don't sabotage the source of income that keeps the wiki going. -- sannse (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And I think it's not too much to ask that you not sabotage the look and feel and flow of our content, but we seem to disagree on that. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 00:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fine to be unhappy about the ads - angry, even - but there's no need to be passive-aggressive about it. If you feel the ads are a problem for your readers and/or editors, it's best to confront the issue - either find some other stable source of revenue for Wikia, or move. Asking Wikia exactly how far you can push them before they throw you off the site is not likely to lead to a happy ending for anyone. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My two cents here, but Wikia appears to have negotiated a better deal than they at first showed us. The 'intelligent' ads--only placing the giant corner boxes of doom on some pages--were a change for the better.  Wikia is pinned between trying to please the ideal of an ad-less Internet, and dealing with the cold reality that if they don't have money for the servers, the servers will shut down.  From what I can see, they've done the best they could given the situation.  --TarrVetus 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What use is a site that few people would like? No one likes ads, but they weren't a problem before until now, where they appear in places that no other decent site would ever think to place. Could not solve it by placing more ads in the bottom in place of the wikia spotlights (leaving only 1 or 2 in the side menu) and leaving the one in the top in the side of the logo like before? Also, could make a ad space in the side that sizes to the page size: The bigger the article, more ads in the side. It seens that two wikis ( and ) are planning to leave, and I would not be surprised if more appear. If this is the best they could have done, I don't want to imagine the worst... Placing tons of stupid ads in the bottom would be much better them this. --18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

June 17th Changes
I wanted to update everyone on where we are with the new ad format change and where we're going. We'll make the first part of the switch to New Monaco tomorrow -- Tuesday, June 17th. This will affect all wikis currently on Monaco, but not those currently on Monobook. We'll be helping wikis on Monobook switch over in the coming weeks.

We've made a number of changes to the original plan based on your feedback and the live tests on the Community Test wiki. We can't take up all your suggestions, or remove the need to make these big changes, but you should know that we continue to read your feedback and act on it where we can.

What you're going to see on the site tomorrow isn't set in stone. We need to see how this works on the site, identify any bugs, collect more data and hear more feedback. Then we need to look at both sides of the equation and figure out the parts that aren't balanced right. We're committed to making Wikia work - both as a company and as a community.

Wikia staff will be around tomorrow to collect feedback and bug reports. Please let us know if you see anything broken or if anything in the new skin doesn't seem to work for your wiki. Thanks for your passion, your suggestions and your patience.

color="Blue">Gil (color="Blue" size="1">talk) 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the fact that the bar with edit, history, move, etc. doesn't line up with the side bar at the top, that should be sorted and isn't too hard. And the ads have screwed the appearance of wikis right up, you could at least chuck 'em at the bottom under the articles? Andre666 09:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It sucks
The banner adds under the article title are not tooo bad, but I hate the square box on the right. The square box messes with the formatting on the page and pushes the primary picture of the page down. That picture should be the primary focus or at least be visible which it hardly is. I feel this just makes the wikia look cheap and unprofessional. --  MadYoer   (Communicate!)  09:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I'm going to need to do some major overhaul with TalkShoe Wiki in order for it to look it's best under New Monaco. Admitidly, some wiki's loog good under New Monaco, but I dislike the ad in the conent. It cheapens Wikia as a whole, just saying. --Taylor Karras talk contributions 09:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, unprofessional wikis are not going to be visited. Wikia you've forgotten what you're supposed to be about!! Andre666 09:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The content is professional. The ad placement isn't. --Taylor Karras talk contributions 09:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Logo
While we have to put up with this agonising change, where do I upload my logo now? Andre666 09:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Wiki.png. --Taylor Karras talk contributions 09:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Logo info --Uberfuzzy 11:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

More Money for You
We make free content and you make advertising dollars off it… then you get greedy and want more money so you start messing with the content that we all created... Try and keep it simple... we make content you make money...not a lot but enough.

Makes me want to do more work at Wikipedia...--  MadYoer   (Communicate!)  09:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We are doing this so we can make the enough you speak of, to continue to host and support the wikis. Kirkburn (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Wikia does not make money... The starting investments was what Wikia has been running off of, the amount of money generated by past ads is so insignificant that those investments were being constantly drained and would one day run out. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Jun 17, 2008 @ 13:37 (UTC)


 * The actual google ads give Wikia enought revenue to maintain the site, but Wikia wants more. That's the truth. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bug report: Banner overflow covers controls on image detail page
Picture of bug on image detail pages, banner ads are overflowing into the controls if the article div is smaller than the ad. (They're overflowing tot he left of the box, you probably want them to overflow to the right) Presumably a minor fix. -Derik 10:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Derik, that's been fixed -- sannse (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * *checks timestamps* Ha, 10 minutes. I was right.  Nice turnaround! -Derik 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Box? Banner? Is this a bug?
Sometimes articles show a box in the upper-right, sometimes a banner, but the problem is that I can never anticipate which is going to appear. I was going to start reformatting templates and such for the new skin, but I can't predict if the top of the screen or the top-right is going to be consumed by the ads. Is this a bug? --TarrVetus 11:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Having checked a few articles on Wookieepedia, it looks to me like a feature:
 * User pages, project pages, templates, and very short articles have no ads
 * Most long articles get the by now infamous box in the upper right corner, unless they are:
 * Articles which start with certain templates (like Wookieepedia's ubiquitous character/spaceship/battle/etc. infoboxes) that need banner ads instead because the box would upset the formatting.
 * Do I have this right? If so, I have to say the changes look a lot better than I had worried they would. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After spending a while browsing through the wiki, you're right--the box doesn't appear on every page. That's great!  My biggest problem with it was the conflict between the box ad and traditional right-set infoboxes.  --TarrVetus 13:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right. Special pages and talk pages also have no ads, and depending on how things work out their could be changes to the logic (for example, the box could sometimes be a banner even if there is no clash), but at the moment it's set for "box unless there is a clash". -- sannse (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ads on short pages
I keep getting ads on the short articles on the Lego Star Wars Wiki, the ads keep pushing down the info boxes and they end up below the rest of the content. here are two examples: It makes the pages look ugly and weird. I tested one of the above pages on the CommunityTest Wiki a few days ago and I was the only one who got ads on this page then, I uploaded an image of that page with the ad, which can be found on the talk page. I think it's the fact that the infobox counts as content too, I feel it shouldn't. The infobox gets pushed down by the ad while there are only one or two lines of "real content." The Lego Star Wars Wiki is a smal wiki, for now. But many of the articles wil never grow to be very big, like the ones about the smaller sets. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A short page with an infobox (I tested this page on the test wiki too)
 * Another short page.
 * From what I can see, these pages are just on the borderline between "long" and "short". Depending on your screen resolution and monitor size, they may be long enough to trigger an ad.  On larger monitors, they probably won't -- sannse (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Window size? Wowzers!  Are these things really that sensitive?  That must have been tricky to negotiate!  --TarrVetus 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm seeing the exact same thing on the Half-Life wiki. WHITE SPACE MUCH? That's not the only problem, the ads are also stuffing up image placement, sometimes causing images to bleed over into the text. Example.


 * Thanks a lot for alienating your contributors by screwing up their work, Wikia, I'm packing my bags and I'm not making another non-discussion edit until this trash is removed from the article area. You clearly haven't really listened to any of the complaints, examples or solutions the community has put forward. Trying to reason any further is a waste of time. --MattyDienhoff 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We chose to use length of the page as the defining factor for "short" pages, so if the page (without the ad) is longer than the limit, then an ad will show. We need some sort of cut-off, and I'm afraid there will always be edge cases.
 * On the images bleeding... I don't see it in your example, is it possible for you to post a screenshot so we can see what you see? Thanks -- sannse (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here it is. On length, infobox code shouldn't be considered part of the article length, it's not a reliable indicator as this page shows. --MattyDienhoff 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * MattyDienhoff, I must agree with you. All the hard work... Thanks! The whole layout is messed up, I'm not amused. It can not be true that you really like pages to look like this? What's the improvement there? --Wild Whiphid 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This would just be a total disaster. Some weird looking ads with a black rectangular in front of our pages? What's going on here? Not only will this keep visitors away with these ugly and unrealiable ads, it could also scare away users from many Wiki's ... Not amused ! --Sompeetalay 14:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For short pages with an infobox, like this one, no ad or at least a banner ad would be better. Is it possible to "ignore" the infoboxes, I mean... they should not be considered content... I think that would solve this problem. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 18:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Objectionable ads
So now that we have an even more diverse array of crap shoved in our faces, is there a central location for reporting ads we find offensive? -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 13:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please mail community@wikia.com or leave a message on User talk:JSharp. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ads Are Pushing Infobox-Like Templates Down
They're pushing them down. Simply put, the page now doesn't look that great. The templates are custom made, and look better than what an infobox would in that case, but it doesn't trigger the box ad to go to a banner. It just pushes it down, and makes the template go below the content. Is there any way to make it so it doesn't without resorting to using Infoboxes for that? Look: There's the page. it should still have the ads pushing it down... It just doesn't look great. -- Omega Blademan   Sound Check   Contribs  14:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously....
...just put a banner for gay fitness on the top of my strength training wiki?

I have to say it again, just because it sounds so rediculous you might think I'm joking. You just put a huge banner for GAY FITNESS on my STRENGTH TRAINING WIKI. Are you out of your fracking skulls?! That is uncool on many, many levels.

I guess the good news is I was only working on my wiki for a couple weeks before this AMAZING UPSET, so finding a new website won't be as difficult a transition for me as it is for some of you guys. But dissapointing just the same.

Tim Donahey 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it's not just girls that find a strong, muscular man attractive. *chuckles*
 * Also, if it's a Google ad, bear in mind that the ads shown might depend on the person watching. When I go to that wiki, I get an ad for an internet application development conference. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like either the banner changed or google changed my sexual demographic, whichever one, it now shows a different banner for me. Oh man though, the other banner was seriously obnoxious.

Anyhow I don't particularly appreciate the lack of control over the content of my wiki and so I've already begun exporting the wiki to a new host, one where I can PAY for the privelage of contextual authority. It sucks though since I'd already begun promoting the wiki and had a virtually pre-wrapped audience visiting it.

This business with the banner has me 31 flavors of pissed off. Oh well, live and learn.

Tim Donahey 17:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim - I've enjoyed working with you on the wiki and helping you ge t itoff the ground
 * Yeah, we're seeing some problems around the site with ads that are sort of low-quality and inappropriate. We're looking right now at changes that we can make in the ad server configuration to get more appropriate ads on the site. You should see a change soon-ish -- I would say by mid-day today.


 * The quality of ads is definitely a problem that we can fix work on. This is the beginning of the first day -- so keep telling us what's wrong, and then please give us a minute to fix it. :) -- Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I appeciate you looking into this, but it seems clear that I have no control over the ads being displayed, and worse yet, Wikia has no control over them. This is a flaw too serious to overlook, imo. If there were the opportunity to pay for an ad-free wiki I would happily take it, but since no option exists I feel that my wiki has been fuzzily handcuffed to whatever the implications of todays (prominent) ads are. No offense to anyone, but my wiki isn't a fanboy site, it is a serious tool for people training to get stronger. The things that they take from my wiki will actually be applied to peoples' lives, and I cannot stand to have the wrong impressions being made. My wiki also has the backing of Mark Rippetoe (the author) and as it were I am representing him and his body of work, and that is a very serious charge I carry. It also has the backing of crossfit.com, another gigantic fitness community that I represent. I am effectively speaking for (and to) all of these people and I am accountable to them first and foremost. I can leave nothing to chance.

I obviously haven't deleted my wiki yet, and I will wait at least another day before doing anything irrevocable.

Tim Donahey 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim - I've been enjoying hel you work on the wiki and get it off the ground. It'd be a shame if that all went to waste over the ad situation, so thanks for not deleting it right away. Like Danny said, this is a few first teething problems with the ad system, and he's a Wikia wizard, so wait a bit for us to do some fixing to make it right. Shawn ( talk ) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've enjoyed working on the wiki with you too. At this point, I don't know... You'll have to ask me again tomorrow. Tim Donahey 01:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ads
WTF? It looks more the pages have spam instead of ads. No one cares for ads and now we are forced to see something no one cares?

It mess with templates placed in the top and bottom of the pages, compacting or pushing them.

I want to know people's opinion about it: What you think about the skin? It's better than the previous skin. The previous skin (without ads in articles) was better.

I definitely agree! Why are we forced to have so many stupid ads shoved in our face? When the ads were outside of the content box it was okay, but with ads inside the content boxes it looks terrible and can be confusing. <font color=DodgerBlue>Swannie talk to me 17:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody voted for the new skin by accident, lol. Tim Donahey 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I have been farily neutral on this whole thing. I've seen people talking about it on Wookieepedia and Transformers Wiki, but to be honest, I use Wikipedia skin, so it doesn't affect me. However, I will point out a signle problem with the staffs insistence on keeping this. It's the same problem that the British Empire employed with Inida, and the same one Gandhi recognized would not work: there are more contributers than there are staff. You cannot force us to like this skin. For all the power you have, we...are legion. And if the people don't like it, you have a serious problem. You may try to retaliate by revoking my user rights on the wikis I contribute to, but this sad fact remains: unless you accomodate us by putting in some sort of add closer, you are going to see a massive withdrawl from Wikia. And if there is no one working on the wikis, there is no one looking at the adds. Think about it. I'm not threatening anybody here. I'm just point out a problem. As Boba Fett said, "reality doesn't care if you believe it." -- SFH 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SFH: Monorail guy's said that Monobook will have the same ads as Monaco will. So it WILL affect you.... - SanityOrMadness 17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know. Eventually it will. But my point remains. There is another thing I want to point out. The contributers are saying they're going to leave. They said nothing about leaving the information behind. -- SFH 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ads Without Borders
I just found the following ad (see ) on Muppet Wiki for Fraggle Ringtones. The 728x90 ad is on a white background with no border, which makes it look like content, especially since the ad is contextual about a Muppet product.

While there are no IAB standards that mandate borders on banner ads, many sites require this from their advertisers to separate advertisements from content. This wasn't an issue before, when the 728x90s were outside of the main content area, but I suggest that you institute this requirement. I work for a major advertiser at an online ad agency, and we put borders on all of our banners to meet minimum site requirements and appear legit.

There are other options, of course: creating a bordered template for all ads to live inside, or doing what sites like CNET and AOL do and have text above or below the ads identifying them as such (i.e. "Ad Feedback"). Hyperlinking this text also allows users to report inappropriate or problematic advertisements. -- <font color="Blue">Peter (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 17:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right on that one. That looks bad. We're currently re-jiggering the ad server -- you'll see different ads right now than you did an hour ago. If the no-border ads are still a problem, then we'll work on fixing that. We knew there would be some problems on day one, and we're working hard to correct everything we can. Thanks for the feedback, and for your patience. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it not possible to put the ad banners either at the very top or very bottom of the page outside the actual wiki. It's the difference between putting an ad campaign yard sign in the yard vs in the living room. Tim Donahey 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New Monaco Comments
Perhaps maybe it was stated in the past, I'm not sure, but if Monobook is a personal skin choice, why can't Old Monaco be a personal skin choice?

Second, Wikia stated that these new ads would not be "distracting" - and to be perfectly honest I find a huge colorful banner incredibly distracting - isn't that the point, to distract you into buying the product? -- <font color="Green">LordTBT <font color="Green" size="2">Talk! 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * New Monaco isn't a whole new skin, it was an update of old Monaco. So the old version has gone, and it would require a lot of work to make it a separate skin.
 * I think you are right that ads will distracting to some extent, but hopefully we can keep that to a minimum. As Danny says above, we are currently changing the ad sever setting to try and improve the quality of the ads being shown -- sannse (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the ads could be put in pages if your not logged in? --From TrekkyStarOpen Hailing Frequencies 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's very disappointing then...I really liked Old Monaco...I would've even been happy with Old Monaco having the box ad. =( -- <font color="Green">LordTBT <font color="Green" size="2">Talk! 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you considered moving the text area down to show the banner then? That's possible with css/js changes.  The down side is that the ads would still be in the same place, and that's not balanced with the content starting higher... but you can do this if you choose to -- sannse (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've considered that myself but then there would be nothing. There's no way to get Wiki_wide.png to replace Wiki.png and we can't do alternate advertising due to the fact that it's against Wikia's ToS. --<font color="#306ac1">Taylor Karras <font color="#e13f5d">talk <font color="#51b732">contributions 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also I'm not sure if this is a legitimate complaint, but I have spotted a flashy animated Doritos banner ad, as well as a flashy in your face Eve computer game banner ad. Given it was stated "Distracting movement in the ads will be kept to a minimum" I'm not sure I would describe missiles fired from gunships for a computer game "minimum". --<font color="Green">LordTBT  <font color="Green" size="2">Talk! 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt, despite what may have been said, that "flashy" ads will be kept to a minimum. There's a reason the program used to create most banners is called Flash.  In today's market, Wikia probably won't be able to limit the animation in banners like that and still sell the space to advertisers.  It's wishful thinking, in my opinion.  -- <font color="Blue">Peter  (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We didn't say there won't be any movement. We said that we would keep it to a minimum, because we know how important it is not to distract people from reading and writing. There are active discussions going on at Wikia about what kinds of ads we should and shouldn't have. Finding the right balance is going to be an ongoing process. I would expect that as we figure that out, you're going to see ads sometimes that you think are really annoying -- I hope not that often. Keep telling us when you think something is over the line. That'll help us figure out where the line is. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, besides just the "text" banners, they're all pretty annoying, which is, in itself, a distraction. The worst part is when I reload the wiki and there's a second or two before the banner loads, when the wiki looks exactly how I'd like it to look, and I think maybe this time it won't appear, maybe this time... and then it does... so basically everytime I reload my wiki I get my hopes up and then consequently dashed within a second or two... and that's a second or two that I didn't spend thinking about how I can improve my wiki. Actually today is the first day since I began my wiki that I haven't made any revisions...  there were things I wanted to do today on it... but I haven't so much as added punctuation.  I think I'm depressed. Tim Donahey 01:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Forums
The ads show on the forums. Is that a glitch or what? MarioGalaxy2433g5 { talk /contribs/Logs} 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wierd. They are also on image pages. MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "7. Ads will only appear on article pages, image pages, preview pages and category pages."
 * Sorry Mario. --Fandyllic 22:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

True article area comparison reprise
See at right... I made this as an attempt at correcting the version presented on Wikia's New Style, since it did not show the area covered by the ad in the content area which can't legitimately be called "article area".

Does this seem right? The original is from Changes to Monaco section shown at right.

--Fandyllic 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. The new ad format launched on New Monaco first. Once we make sure that it works properly on Monaco, we'll be adding the new ad format to Monobook as well. The right sidebar on Monobook will be taken out, and articles in Monobook will have ads in the content area. So the comparison that we posted will apply once it rolls out completely. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 19:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Without the ad sidebar, Monobook would be wider than Monaco, not narrower as depicted on the diagram. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like I need to do some more editing of my image. Can we at least agree that the original image presented in the Changes to Monaco section is misleading by counting space taken up ads as available for article content?
 * By the the way, I didn't change the original image... some other people keep doing that. --Fandyllic 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fandyllic, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of going over the same ground. New Monaco launched today. I know that you're not happy with it, and I'm sorry about that. But it looks like you think that you can argue it away, and that's just not the case. If you're having a problem with the new format on your wiki, please let us know, and we'll be happy to come help you out with it. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you don't want people to have an accurate understanding of what you're doing? Sounds like you just don't want to be honest because it will make people even more unhappy. How is presenting an accurate diagram of the new style "going over the same ground?" You must be getting tired of getting beat up on. I'm sorry for that, but maybe you should change jobs or something.


 * Anyway, I made an update image that reflects the alternate top banner version of New Monaco for people's edification... --Fandyllic 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hide option
Is it possible to include some sort of hide option within the ad box, so that we can hide it if we don't want to look at it? -- SFH 22:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL &larr; paraphrased Wikia response for brevity. --Fandyllic 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm actually more interested in a genuine response instead of something from the guy whose dug in his heels. -- SFH 00:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Preview Pages
I'm experiencing an issue with the Preview pages. I know that the ads are supposed to show up there so we know what the page will look like with them in place, but as the image on the right shows, the ad is showing up too high on the page and doesn't give an accurate reflection of the final page. Can someone please look into this? -- <font color="Blue">Peter (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter that bug has been reported and acknowledged. najevi 01:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The most honest opinion about New Monaco
I have never been dissapointed in my life. I don't get why this had to happen, well I know what happens because advertisers who now perfer annoying us with ads right over for just telling us that something is available. This is why New Monaco seriously sucks and why this is going to seriously be one long rant which you should read, in fact you should read every bit of it because i'm PISSED AS HELL WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT TYING IN CAPS RIGHT NOW. And now I'm slightly less pissed, for the fact that New Monaco works on a few wikis where the look feels... right. Everywhere else. It's just a freaking mess, just look at my wiki which now looks like a mess and now I'll have to enlist some help but I can't get some because EVERYBODY FREAKING HATES ME RIGHT NOW!

Now I know what your saying, but Taylor, why don't you use Firefox with AdBlock Plus and NoScript, or why don't you just block the ads. Simple it is because it is so simple... BECAUSE WIKIA NEEDS AD REVENUE TO SURVIVE and this is the worst way to gain revenue, advertisements like this would make people want to block them and prevent companies from surviving. You do know that the more people block ads the more a company dies. Especially when an ad is so intrusive and so freaking disrupting. If I were someone else. I would not want to see an ad pop up or an ad having sound or an ad that disrupts content. No because these "advertisers" want more ads distrupting content and that these advertisers don't have much thought in them in order to design an advertising solution that does get more clicks and isn't distruptive as hell. I mean I do not 'want' TO BE INTERUPTED WHEN READING AN ARTICLE. Why can't the advertisers just think instead of using brawn, brawn never works because it's stupid, it's worthless and it's unnecessary.

Speaking about the advertisements, whatever heppened to the staff you know. They used to be honest but now they seem to be lieing to us, now I know they might be lieing to us about the advertisers but if the advertisers have any brains in their thick skulls then they would think that this is completly unnecessary and completly distracting. Which is what apparently advertisers want, big, disruptive and stupid. Oh this is defiantly what our pea-brained imbisols want. To look at an ad and buy our products. When I first looked at New Monaco. I thought how this would affect my wiki since it's designed specifcally for Old Monaco. When the changes hit. I was shocked to see that it was uglier then before, as you see previously. This marks a low for Wikia which used to be prominent in Wiki design but has hit because they don't think about how it affects them. If I had a wiki that was perfect the way it is. Would I change it? No! I would only change it slightly by adding new features but the point is is that if someone is happy with the way a wiki looks then they would want it to remain the same. Not have some person go and say. HEY, THIS ISN'T RIGHT LET'S CHANGE IT!!!. That's what a freaking idiot would say. And my behaivor on the IRC is influenced by this. Probably Danny's and Sannse's beahiveor because what they're saying is that they're trying to reafirm me when in reality they're thinking ''"We know that you hate New Monaco but we're just saying how good it'll be but in reality we don't care about you and we only care about ourselves and our company and not the guy who has the opinions, oh look, he impersonated someone he must be a troublemaker, we don't care so BAN, BAN, BAN!. The way they treat this makes me act the way I am. "HUMAN BEINGS HAVE FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS TOO YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT SOULLESS ROBOTS WE'RE HUMANS!" . The way I've been treated and the way I am acting makes me certain that I do not want to be a part of this Wikia community any more.

Also to those guys who say "Your just afraid of change, and your just a baby, and your just an idiot". Stop It, Stop It! Just Stop It!!! That could not be any further from the truth. Change is good when it's good, but change can also be bad when it's planed out poorly. Take for instance how Wookieepedia used to look, there used to be something majestic. Now I see what appears to be a snowy hill. So... WHERE'S THE AT-ST MAN?. This is what I hate about people who think advertising over design. They don't think about how it's going to effect us or effect the wikis. Sure there's the "But why not move the content down?". Easy, because moving the content down would of course leave a blank space where something should be place like say I don't know... "ADS !?!?!?"". Because Wikia put their ads in articles. They also made it nearly impossibe to put an ad in a header which looks better then content ads because these ads makes people want to block them. It's simple because peeople like to get annoyed and they say no many times and yet they keep coming up. That's the process of annyoance which is to annoy someone until they buy it, but instead these guys want to get rid of the ads because it is sooooo annoying. Did you ever think about the wiki's that had heavily customized Monaco skins that took advantage of Old Monaco. Did you?

The reason New Monaco sucks is because the ads are so freaking instrusive. That's the point I've been getting accross here. The ads are intrusive, it's annoying and it's ugly to to it. As I said before, New Monaco looks good on some wiki's But what about the other wiki's that don't look good under new monaco? Also please try to be honest and give us some honest answers instead of giving us what seems to be symphamy and compassion. I want the truth and so does everyone else around here, I'm not attempting to stir up drama or at least give the impression that I'm stupid but let's try to stop that K? I know I may get blocked or superblocked for writing this 5 paragraph rant or opinion on how New Monaco sucks but at least it'll give people some *thought*, well I'm calm now. --<font color="#306ac1">Taylor Karras <font color="#e13f5d">talk <font color="#51b732">contributions 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My View, Part 2
I made a fairly long post a couple days ago expressing my general support for this change, given my understanding for why it's happening, but also expressing some concerns. My chief concern was with single images being moved down; but, honestly, that's not an incredibly big deal.

After reviewing some more of my articles using New Monaco, I found a problem: infoboxes. They really don't look very good when pushed down by the tandem ad. Last time I asked what it would take to cause an info-box type table to force the ad to the leaderboard. Turns out that when you have nested tables, that seems to be the criteria for pushing the ad to a leaderboard.

So, technically, everybody could make a nested tabled infobox for all their articles and never see a tandem ad. That would probably be considered violating the TOS, but I expressed my view last time that it may be a possibility that would happen.

These nested table infoboxes were already a reality on some wikis, like the oft-mentioned Wookiepedia. I doubt they're trying to circumvent the system, and that these were already in place, but doesn't that show a flaw in this new system? I'd venture that most articles on Wookiepedia use an infobox that has nested tables, thus forcing a leaderboard. Surely such a high traffic wiki like WP is going to cause a problem with the advertising system you've worked so hard to put in place?

I'm not saying I am mad at them for having most of their articles with nested table infoboxes ads, just pointing out a flaw in your planning with wikis that already have a good number of articles like this.

Are you going to force them to change their infoboxes so that more of their articles show a tandem ad, or will they be allowed to keep them as-is? I think your decisions on these popular wikis will set precedent. Just saying... --Dymero 02:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm using empty tables to force a banner ad where the article would look ugly with a 300x250 ad. --<font color="#306ac1">Taylor Karras <font color="#e13f5d">talk <font color="#51b732">contributions 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)