FANDOM


  • If you are reading this, please copy this to any other Wikia wikis that you are active on.

    Introduction

    MediaWiki is the wiki software used by Wikipedia, Wikia, and WikiHow, among lots of other wikis and wiki hosts. Wikia is currently planning to replace the core structure of MediaWiki (including the editor) on all of their wikis with a proprietary program, making it MediaWiki in name and a handful of lines of code only.

    Wikia is shooting themselves in the foot

    Dozens of other wiki hosts, including Wikidot, Wikifoundry, and Wikispaces, use proprietary wiki software, but none of these sites are as successful as Wikia is. Wikia is mainly popular because it uses the MediaWiki software, which (in one form or another) is familiar to users of many other wikis. If Wikia actually implements the new software before next year (which I'm not sure that they will, considering how long the recent redesign took to implement), they WILL lose users.

    What wiki admins should do

    MOVE TO SHOUTWIKI OR EDITTHIS ASAP. WIKIA WILL FORCE THE NEW SOFTWARE DOWN YOUR THROAT IF YOU DON'T.

    TL;DR

    Wikia is effectively killing itself. Move your wiki to another host. #WikiaIsOverParty

      Loading editor
    • Okay I really thought this would actually be a very informative, passionate written plea but this can seriously be seen as copy-and-paste spam.

      However, I can say I've heard of the Lucy experiment and how badly it's affecting the community over at the poor Thirteen Reasons Why Wiki...

        Loading editor
    • Also, it breaks Monobook. (I use Oasis, but someone gave me a link with useskin=monobook in chat, and...)

        Loading editor
    • If you wanted to express your opinion and any facts about the Lucy experiment, you could have actually written something closer to a Community highlighted blog post instead of this.

        Loading editor
    • This is the first I have heard of it.

        Loading editor
    • To rephrase what ATSK said, "Lucy" is a new editor that FANDOM has been working on. "Lucy" is specifically designed to replace source mode/classic editor, though I'd like to argue that the reason why so many wikis are designed the way they are has much to do with source mode editing. If you head over to the Thirteen Reasons Why Wiki, go to a random page and click source mode, you'll see the editor and it's many flaws. It's because of this that the 13RY Wiki is basically deserted and why there's barely an amount of users editing (if any, I haven't checked in much). I'm a friend of one of the admins and she has said that they tried convincing FANDOM to remove the editor because so many users don't understand it plus it's the reason why their community is failing. They have basically given up, and it's really sad because that wiki used to be a really popular wiki. They've tried holding a discussion of having two different wikis, one with the new editor and the other normal but Kickburn said he'll talk with his team about it. That was more than two weeks ago and he hasn't replied yet.

        Loading editor
    • So all this is a recent development? I had the impression (from the original post) this had been looming in the background for years. Maybe I'll check it out.

        Loading editor
    • I myself don't know but I believe it's been going on since April. I myself fail to understand why you would want to replace source mode entirely - in fact, the editor looks more like a bad visual editor at best. I understand if it's part of the modernization FANDOM's obsesses about, but source mode is the reason why so many important pages like the main pages are carefully designed the way they are. I understand if they would want to replace it, but why not still have it as an option to the ones that want it? If it's not broke why fix it. Kickburn said one of the major factors in deciding the editor's fate would be the response and interactions with users, and some have already voiced their disapproval - in fact, one one has yet to say they like it. And that's what happened, really - a once popular wiki becoming deserted, and it's show approaching season 2 and desperately needing the updating the users can't give it.

        Loading editor
    • Let me express my opinions about Lucy, aka the FANDOM Creator, whatever it likes to be called.

      I myself am neutral with this experiment, because it isn't in its final state yet. A good thing about it is its clean and consistent UI. It looks pretty modern, to say the least, but the FANDOM-colored elements should suit the wiki's color theme, like the WDS-buttons should have the color of other buttons. I do also like that it can be loaded very quickly, which is another plus.

      However, I highly disagree with the fact that this will replace the source editor. I do see why source mode is not needed for the FANDOM Creator, but the source editor should be kept for many reasons, like template/MediaWiki editing, main page editing, source mode features in articles like collapsing etc. Sure, source editor looks old, but it's gold and has good functionality. It can receive a few more tools in the toolbar and maybe a new interface to make it look minimal and modern. If anything, I personally think Lucy should be an upgrade to the rich-text editor.

      Another flaw is the lack of categorization. Anybody else thought categories were a very important part of the wiki and the navigation bar of the page header? I bet all of us do and this is very important for readers too, if they want to browse by categories. The problem? They removed the category module on the bottom. While this removes/reduces redundancy, the categories on the article header do not have a button for adding more categories, and the editor doesn't have an option to add categories either, making categorization very difficult.

        Loading editor
    • I myself used to have a neutral position towards Lucy becuase it didn't affect me or any wikis I've been on, but I've seen the effect it had on the wiki and sympathized with the admins and users because I've made contacts and I enjoyed the show but sad I can't really contribute to it.

      However, I think it was a bad decision on FANDOM's part to try out a completely new experiment on such a large wiki (+700 pages and dozens of users) without weighing the effect it can have it on the wiki more than trying out a new editor to get feedback. I'd imagine FANDOM has many test wikis it could have tried out first before perfecting any flaws and trying out and tweaking it on a larger wiki.

        Loading editor
    • You can test the editor here, if you like.

        Loading editor
    • I can see some elements being super useful for Visual Editor, such as the building of an infobox. And I'm guessing the disappearing of the content when you turn on the editor being a flaw that they know of?

        Loading editor
    • The OP is missing the whole point of Lucy. Lucy was made because Wikia wants to make an editor that can be used by non-technical users to make their editing easier. Lucy is just a test. They are developing Lucy so they can replace the broken VisualEditor and Visual mode of the Classic Editor with another editor that fits the needs of users, and to build that editor they would have to collect data from users on how that editor should look like and work. That editor isn't Lucy. Lucy is their way of collecting data from users. Nobody mentioned removing wikitext or the source editor in any of the pages on w:c:fandom-labs, so I'm not sure where the OP got that idea from.

        Loading editor
    • Well, of course they wouldn't talk about such a negative feature as the removal of source mode.

      On the affected wiki (perhaps "afflicted" would be more appropriate), there's no source editor, Kocka. On article pages at least. I am permitted a source editor for template pages. But being a Monobook user, and Monobook having no visual editor, I am unable to edit the article pages at all.

      If this is insisted upon I will not stand for it. Little kids that can't be bothered to understand simple source code shouldn't impede users who can get things done.

      Wikia Staff must have been tripping on "Lucy" when they dreamed up that it might have been a good idea to remove source code editing.

        Loading editor
    • There's no source editor on that wiki because it's a test. They aren't supposed to be testing the source editor, they are supposed to be testing Lucy. w:c:fandom-labs is not how wikis will be looking in future.

      I'm not sure if you've read the page that's linked on the OP, but

      c) such an editor could reduce the need to support 3 different editors to 2
      

      I'm guessing that means they will be removing VisualEditor and Visual mode of Classic Editor and replacing them with a new editor (that's, of course, not Lucy because Lucy can't handle wikitext at all), and leave source editor untouched.

        Loading editor
    • A source editor does not require testing to implement. It's literally an HTML input field and a "submit" button.

      That a source editor has not been permitted makes me fear that Lucy does not have such a wonderful, human-readable, human-editable source code behind it as wikitext. I fear source mode will be taken away, and I would require evidence that this will not be the case - else there will be a stink, from all the loyal and capable power users, and I intend to contribute to it until a source code solution emerges - Wikia or otherwise.

        Loading editor
    • Lucy doesn't have readable source code behind it, yes. Lucy is just injecting itself into MediaWiki for the purpose of testing, their real intentions shouldn't be related to removing wikitext, because that will take away a lot of engineer time. If they wanted to do a project that big, they wouldn't be hiring as little engineers as is working on Lucy.

      Of course, if you want confirmation from Staff that they won't be removing wikitext, ask through Special:Contact/general for a response on this thread, probably.

        Loading editor
    • KockaAdmiralac wrote: There's no source editor on that wiki because it's a test. They aren't supposed to be testing the source editor, they are supposed to be testing Lucy. w:c:fandom-labs is not how wikis will be looking in future.

      I'm not sure if you've read the page that's linked on the OP, but

      c) such an editor could reduce the need to support 3 different editors to 2
      

      I'm guessing that means they will be removing VisualEditor and Visual mode of Classic Editor and replacing them with a new editor (that's, of course, not Lucy because Lucy can't handle wikitext at all), and leave source editor untouched.

      I don't know if by meaning "2", they meant the older editors (excluding Lucy) or not.

      P.S. The staff took 2 years to make the VisualEditor with Wikimedia Commons. If they removed that, it'd be a waste of 2 years.

        Loading editor
    • Will this affecting writing the code for new infoboxes and other templates?

        Loading editor
    • Henstepl wrote: A source editor does not require testing to implement. It's literally an HTML input field and a "submit" button.

      That a source editor has not been permitted makes me fear that Lucy does not have such a wonderful, human-readable, human-editable source code behind it as wikitext.

      I think the key reason we want a source editor is we want exact and specific control of how people see the content we place on the wiki, whether that is a specific design of a template or the positioning of text and images.

      It's very possible that future iterations of the new editor could refine this sort of customisation and totally rid of a need for a source editor. Right now, what you put into the editor is exactly what you'll see on the other end, and that's something that is hard to do on a web interface. Since it is a work in progress product, I expect more and more ways of presenting and positioning content in the ways we want in the future.

        Loading editor
    • Hey there - as mentioned by others above, the Lucy experiment (a.k.a. 'FANDOM Creator') is an experimental test feature that we've been quietly working on, alongside other, more 'normal' projects. It is enabled on several public wikis in order to get real-world data on how effective it is.

      With it, we're trying out a completely different way of making articles that is much more 'data driven' without requiring coding knowledge, which ultimately may or may not work. We strongly feel this is worth testing, so we've had a small team working on it for a while, and it's still subject to pretty significant changes.

      We haven't made plans to switch every wiki to this new style - the very future of the experiment depends on how well it works on test wikis (and failure is an accepted possibility). We will be continuing to keep a close eye on how the test wikis are performing, and we know that it would not make sense to switch everyone to something that performs worse then the current editors.

      If you do test it out, we very much welcome your feedback on http://fandom-labs.wikia.com/d (and do check out FANDOM Labs for a variety of background info about the experiment itself).

      Thanks!

        Loading editor
    • Wikia is mainly popular because it uses the MediaWiki software, which (in one form or another) is familiar to users of many other wikis.

      This is stupid to assume this. FANDOM isn't popular because of the software it runs, it's popular because of what it is. Furthermore, this development is hardly going to make people stop using FANDOM. The platform itself runs on a heavily forked version of MediaWiki, and won't get support past MW 1.19, if people were going to leave because of MW problems, they'd have done so very long time ago.

      Forking MW is what has allowed Staff to bring things like Discussions etc, without them, I'm sure activity across the whole platform would plummet.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      Henstepl wrote: A source editor does not require testing to implement. It's literally an HTML input field and a "submit" button.

      That a source editor has not been permitted makes me fear that Lucy does not have such a wonderful, human-readable, human-editable source code behind it as wikitext.

      I think the key reason we want a source editor is we want exact and specific control of how people see the content we place on the wiki, whether that is a specific design of a template or the positioning of text and images.

      It's very possible that future iterations of the new editor could refine this sort of customisation and totally rid of a need for a source editor. Right now, what you put into the editor is exactly what you'll see on the other end, and that's something that is hard to do on a web interface. Since it is a work in progress product, I expect more and more ways of presenting and positioning content in the ways we want in the future.

      There never was a point-and-click GUI that couldn't be severely beat by efficient usage of the keyboard. Ask users of the text editor Vim.

      I look forward to never making an edit to any wiki with Lucy enabled in my life, if point-and-click (and avoidance of Monobook) should be obligatory.

        Loading editor
    • Not including a source mode is intended at this point of testing: GUI-driven document creation apps like Word do not provide a source mode - nor do they need one - and we want to see whether this editor can reproduce a similar kind of experience.

      If there was a source mode, it would make validating the GUI-first approach much, much harder. Still, it's a topic we're always thinking about as the experiment matures and we add more features.

        Loading editor
    • Ok.

        Loading editor
    • That is a great point Kirkburn. However, that sometimes leaves certain features to be desired. MS Word does not always format things the way users want.

        Loading editor
    • I have had time to think about this, and I think I have some variously non-paranoid predictions. Here is what I see in the future.

      I see some users and wikis benefiting from Lucy, from getting their wiki going faster than they could with a source code-based software and without any interested-and-technically-inclined users around to facilitate it all for them.

      I see Lucy having a finite number of features, far less than those possible with source mode - and granted I see this being sufficient for many users and wikis.

      • I see that this implies the potential for an automated software export to similarly-displaying Mediawiki source code (identical display is not necessary) and an ethical obligation for this export to be made available. Some wikis will mature up, fill themselves with very competent users, and want to switch. They must not be denied this.
      • I see that Mediawiki source code will not uniformly import to Lucy; some users will want to switch to Lucy, and they should not be denied this either; it however cannot be as simple as a button click.

      I see that Lucy editing will almost certainly not be implemented directly into Monobook, and I see based on Wikia's track record for special pages broken entirely in Monobook, only telling the user "switch to Wikia in preferences kthx" if not nothing (leaving it to them to find it out for themselves)

      • I fear that despite that 99% of Monobook users would be placated by an easily-achievable automatic redirect to ?useskin=wikia for purposes of editing Lucy wikis, or at least a clickable link provided, Wikia will choose instead to disenfranchise Monobook users with either a broken page or a "switch to Wikia in preferences kthx" exactly as they have pointlessly offended them on the pages I linked before

      I fear that Special:CreateNewWiki shall have a giant Lucy option and a tiny Enable Source Code option as tiny, insignificant, unnoticeable, semi-transparent as the "Source Editor" button on Special:InfoboxBuilder

        Loading editor
    • I already warned this was going to happen. FANDOOM is stuck in MediaWiki 1.19, the site is slow, and they are implementing features outside of the wiki engine.

      FANDOOM may turn our wikis in wordpress sites where the only editor is a Visual/WYSIWYG/html editor, converting all pages to plain html. This is cheaper to maintain and consumes less resources from the server since it doesn't need to parse wikitext to HTML (just serve the HTML directly). Lucy is the first step/experiment into this direction.

        Loading editor
    • If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

      There are massive steps that would significantly update the user experience. The software would require massive changes and frankly, there isn't a total need for that change now. The main focus is for readability and smoothness for casual editors. If there  a massive update in the pipes, it won't be shown until years to come.

        Loading editor
    • So is it likely that it will see long-term implementation across the FANDOM network in years to come?

        Loading editor
    • yes. The software for editing tools would require significant rewrite. in other words, gradual.

      For example, in fact, the visual editor on Wikipedia (not wikia) took a few years to write. Source code editing was a pain in the butt and it took a while for the Wikimedia Foundation to produce it.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah. Plus it has some complicated features. IMO, the VisualEditor is actually easy to use, especially for new users, except that it is buggy.

        Loading editor
    • I feel I should reiterate that the FANDOM Creator is an experiment from just one of our development teams. Whether or not it's something we continue expanding very much depends on how successful the experiment is (or isn't). There's still many ways it can be improved, but with these kinds of tests it is pretty important to try and get feedback early in the process, otherwise you can end up focussing development time on the wrong things.

      One of the main questions we're looking to answer is: without the limitations imposed by MediaWiki's existing rules, can a better editor be made? (For example, it can make doing Semantic MediaWiki-style work much simpler, since we're building data query support as a native feature.)

      If you're interested it in, I do strongly recommend checking out http://fandom-labs.wikia.com for more info, and leaving feedback on Discussions there.

        Loading editor
    • What happened to the 13 Reasons Why Wikia? It's just gone?

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • I keep getting 404'd through Google search.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Try 13reasonswhytv.wikia.com. That's their new backup.

        Loading editor
    • Echo Spy wrote:
      Try 13reasonswhytv.wikia.com. That's their new backup.

      I remeber hearing earlier toady that staff removed the 'Explore' tab from the naviagation bar there recently. Not sure if that's related though.


      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 01:06, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • That's so odd.

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:

      Echo Spy wrote:
      Try 13reasonswhytv.wikia.com. That's their new backup.

      I remeber hearing earlier toady that staff removed the 'Explore' tab from the naviagation bar there recently. Not sure if that's related though.

      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 01:06, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

      It's still there.

        Loading editor
    • Echo Spy wrote:

      It's still there.

      That's bizzare. It was on a forum discussion here just this morning (for my time zone anyway), and someone linked to the 13reasons wiki, and poof, no Explore tab.

        Loading editor
    • http://13reasonswhy.wikia.com/

      That 13 reasons wiki does not have one, at least. Are you referring to a different one?

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote: http://13reasonswhy.wikia.com/

      That 13 reasons wiki does not have one, at least. Are you referring to a different one?

      Yeah, 13reasonswhytv.wikia.com.

        Loading editor
    • Echo Spy wrote:

      Fan26 wrote: http://13reasonswhy.wikia.com/

      That 13 reasons wiki does not have one, at least. Are you referring to a different one?

      Yeah, 13reasonswhytv.wikia.com.

      Huh. What about the one that was allegedly closed? What was that URL?e

        Loading editor
    • How are the 13 Reasons Why wiki and Explore tab issues relevant to the original topic?

        Loading editor
    • Fandom lately has been shoving everything down people's throats, expecting Wiki's to suck up to them. It doesn't work. It seems 13 reasons why wiki is gone, and it won't be long before other places are gone because of how they post bad videos just for the money. Must suck working for Fandom if you're not for this. Thankfully, there's ways to make the wiki on a new website.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote: How are the 13 Reasons Why wiki and Explore tab issues relevant to the original topic?

      They're not. I just forgot to mention to the other guy who originally asked about them to start a new thread.

        Loading editor
    • 13reasonswhy.wikia.com has received some more tweaks recently, as part of the Fandom Creator (Lucy) test, which is why it looks a bit different. The 404 issue is due to changes in the URL schema there - I'll bring this up with the team.

      By request, and since we know the Fandom Creator test is quite unusual, we also set up 13reasonswhytv.wikia.com as a separate, 'normal' version of the wiki. Please feel free to edit either or both!

        Loading editor
    • Oh, okay. We're the admins on board with this?

        Loading editor
    • Yes, the separate wiki was set up after discussion with them. It started with all the content from just before the Fandom Creator experiment started, with the same people set as admin. (Essentially, we reactivated the 'backup' wiki.)

        Loading editor
    • so the "tv" one is "normal" wiki while the other is a "test" wiki?

        Loading editor
    • MechQueste wrote: so the "tv" one is "normal" wiki while the other is a "test" wiki?

      I think so.

        Loading editor
    • This sounds bad, very bad. Wiki text is not that hard to learn. Sure it is limited, but that was the point.

      • ''italic text'' for italic text
      • '''bold text''' for bold text
      • = First tier header =
      • == Second tier header == (and it goes up to six)
      • * list item

      Is the thinking behind this people are too lazy to learn the simple wiki markup? Lady Aleena (talk) 09:05, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

      Also, the more graphical the editor, the longer it takes the edit page to load. It takes forever as it is to get to the source editor. More bells and whistles means slower load times. For people like me who write articles outside the wiki them paste them in, this will be torture waiting for the editor to load. Lady Aleena (talk) 09:10, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • Lady Aleena wrote: This sounds bad, very bad. Wiki text is not that hard to learn. Sure it is limited, but that was the point.

      • ''italic text'' for italic text
      • '''bold text''' for bold text
      • = First tier header =
      • == Second tier head == (and it goes up to six)
      • * list item

      Is the thinking behind this people are too lazy to learn the simple wiki markup? Lady Aleena (talk) 09:05, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

      Seeing that no response has been given to my statement of an ethical requirement for a (clearly possible) export to wikitext, I would suppose that some amount of motivation behind this is probably more that it is a plausibly-deniable reason to remove the threat of Special:Export and migration to another host for Lucy-afflicted wikis.

      An entrenchment if you will. Security.

      But, yes, it could also serve as an admission of defeat in explanation of wiki markup. Unfortunately there will always be those folks who refuse to even consider the possibility of understanding a source code... I wouldn't say we should care about them, but they exist.

        Loading editor
    • Just to let you know how bad adding more bells and whistles are, there are times where loading a page here takes me back to when I was using dial-up. The pages load that slowly. A graphical editor will slow it down even more. Lady Aleena (talk) 09:30, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • A big question we want to answer as part of this is: can we create an editor where wikitext / HTML knowledge is not needed? While I am sure many are comfortable editing source code, many others may not be - and that does not imply they are 'lazy', just not interesting in learning a coding language. A core tenet of FANDOM is that we want wikis to be open to editing by everyone with appropriate knowledge - not just the more technically-inclined. (Consider how complex wikitext can become inside some templates.)

      The basic design of the experimental editor should make it much faster to load than the VisualEditor (or classic rich-text editor) - speed is a very important consideration for the experiment.

        Loading editor
    • Will source mode remain? I find it easier to add and edit templates through source mode as well as an important part of the mobile editing experience.

        Loading editor
    • Whether we'd add a source mode to this experiment is hard to say - it really depends on the progress of the experiment. Ideally you shouldn't need to write source code to do most things - but I make no claims that the editor has reached that kind of state yet.

      (Including a source editor at this point would somewhat defeat the purpose of the experiment - you can't really test how effective a visual editor is at covering user needs when it can easily be avoided.)

      Whether or not the experiment ever reaches a point where it could replace the existing editors (on existing wikis) is even harder to say, since it depends so heavily on how the experiment performs. We wouldn't want to replace something that works with something that doesn't.

        Loading editor
    • Ah, I see. Looking back at earlier replies, I think I see what Lucy is supposed to be: a possible replacement for the flawed source editor. That I can support.

        Loading editor
    • On wikipedia, there is a hybrid of sorts between source and visual. it works well and its still being pushed further (its still in beta). It would be that.

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't mind a source mode that provides certain characters, such as the divider | as a button you could click to add it. They have that on Wikipedia's source mode.

      However, I believe we have strayed far off topic on a month-old thread here asking the same rotating circle of questions over and over again.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, even as a "potential thing" this sounds like a bad idea from the word "Lucy" (which invokes images of a bad Luc Besson movie), and reading about the crash and burn on a test wiki isn't encouraging either. Recreating a visual editor is one thing, but potentially removing the source editor is a pretty sure-fire way of alienating the ones who rely on it and want to keep it. This read like another potential update that will benefit one group and is not a help to the other party who disagree with it, and will likely not be given an opt-out option if it ever comes to pass.

      Even the most "relevant" social media platforms maintain a basic html / source editor for their userbase, largely for the sake of usability and functionality and don't remove it based on how many people will use it verses how many people use a visual editor. It's a basic fundamental editor that's treated like a requirement, as it should be. It's a no fuss, no muss editor that keeps things at their simplest, and it's complex enough for people who are top-tier coders.

      MechQueste wrote: On wikipedia, there is a hybrid of sorts between source and visual. it works well and its still being pushed further (its still in beta). It would be that.

      Wikipedia.org's visual and source editor is more or less the functional ideal for any Wikifarm editor, definitely one I'd attempt on modeling any wiki editor after.

        Loading editor
    • JustLeafy wrote: You can test the editor here, if you like.

      Thanks. I already don't like it, but it seems much faster than VE, at least.

      It really should have a source edit mode, if only to track how often users will try it to see how the underlying markup would look.

      I really wish companies like Fandom had more experienced employees with software. They appear to be making all the same mistakes other companies have made and are making. Atlassian took a similar route as this for Confluence and generally is making it progressively worse.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      JustLeafy wrote: You can test the editor here, if you like.

      Thanks. I already don't like it, but it seems much faster than VE, at least.

      It really should have a source edit mode, if only to track how often users will try it to see how the underlying markup would look.

      I really wish companies like Fandom had more experienced employees with software. They appear to be making all the same mistakes other companies have made and are making. Atlassian took a similar route as this for Confluence and generally is making it progressively worse.

      TBH, I do like its UI, too, not gonna lie. Other than that, it is pretty much as buggy as VE, but like five time worse.

      I do also kind of wish for a source editor mode. Maybe the editor should've been a visual and source mode at the same time, or at least keep the good ol' source editor.

      TBH, I would actually like to manage some styles as a FANDOM employee (aka doing global interface changes). BTW, I'd actually listen a bit more to the feedback.

        Loading editor
    • I personally think Fandom should focus on improving the exiting lineup of services: in particular Mobile. There are a lot of things already good things. However, they are a little primitive and are in need of improvement and refinement to a level where the editing can be less rough and clunky. Mobile viewing needs to be improved and at least catch up to Wikipedia's mobile mode. Both need refinement. 


      It doesn't mean Fandom should stop. The phrase "innovate or die" prevalent in Silicon Valley still applies significantly. Perhaps the developers need better "innovation" along the lines of refinement and adding ease of access to the current tools.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry to break it to you, but there isn't much innovation at Fandom. As someone who has worked in Silicon Valley for 30+ years, Fandom is more of a marketing company that uses some technology.

      I'm not exactly sure what this thread was originally supposed to be about, but maybe we should start a new thread about the experimental editor.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: Sorry to break it to you, but there isn't much innovation at Fandom. As someone who has worked in Silicon Valley for 30+ years, Fandom is more of a marketing company that uses some technology.

      I'm not exactly sure what this thread was originally supposed to be about, but maybe we should start a new thread about the experimental editor.

      I think the original thread was about Lucy, it just drowned in a never ending series of unrelated replies.

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote: Sorry to break it to you, but there isn't much innovation at Fandom. As someone who has worked in Silicon Valley for 30+ years, Fandom is more of a marketing company that uses some technology.

      I'm not exactly sure what this thread was originally supposed to be about, but maybe we should start a new thread about the experimental editor.

      I think the original thread was about Lucy, it just drowned in a never ending series of unrelated replies.

      It was, but it included many complaints that were inaccurate and suggestions that were foolish without convincing justifications.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      Fan26 wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote: Sorry to break it to you, but there isn't much innovation at Fandom. As someone who has worked in Silicon Valley for 30+ years, Fandom is more of a marketing company that uses some technology.

      I'm not exactly sure what this thread was originally supposed to be about, but maybe we should start a new thread about the experimental editor.

      I think the original thread was about Lucy, it just drowned in a never ending series of unrelated replies.

      It was, but it included many complaints that were inaccurate and suggestions that were foolish without convincing justifications.

      That too. Kirkburn has explained it pretty well: Lucy is an experimental editor that Amy or may not be deployed on every wiki in the future with the purpose of fixing the flawed VisialSditor system.

        Loading editor
    • It all depends on the success of the experiment. To me, the only good thing about the editor so far is the very fast loading time and modern UI.

      Probably most in this thread haven't realized, but at the time the experiment was released, History pages also had a redesign.

        Loading editor
    • The problems with the VE are many and "Lucy" experimental editor mostly only fixes the loading issue. For the nice UI, it looks like many, many other limitations and problems have been introduced that could take years to fix if they decide to fix them.

      The more I play with it, the more I realize the OP's criticisms were not far off. I get weird db query errors just visiting some pages and the nice way of navigating to pages by knowing the name and changing the URL is now largely impossible. The amount of things you can do with this new version of storing wiki data is probably less than 5% of MediaWiki and will only work for the most basic of wiki pages. Game wikis will want to stay far away from this new way.

        Loading editor
    • It changes the URL-page relationship?

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote:

      It changes the URL-page relationship?

      Yes, it looks like FANDOM Creator is actually a frontend for some kind of CMS, so pages now appear like:

      http://fc.wikia.com/wiki/#######/lowercase-pagename-withdashes-forspaces

      ‌####### is probably a CMS DB id #.

        Loading editor
    • TBH, I'm not really a big fan of the new URL provider right now, because at most times, I access pages by typing in their name on the URL.

        Loading editor
    • "MOVE TO SHOUTWIKI OR EDITTHIS ASAP. WIKIA WILL FORCE THE NEW SOFTWARE DOWN YOUR THROAT IF YOU DON'T." i don't know why but that sounds like a threat

        Loading editor
    • Interesting. I have seen a lot of other sites with URLs like that. I just assumed is was to avoid having a systemic URL. This conclusion coming from the observation that it is mostly video hosting sites that I have seen this on.

        Loading editor
    • I just thought of another way graphical editors fail.

      When I write a series of articles, I first write them in a text editor (formatting and all) then paste them into the source mode editor. Unless the graphical editor can interpret wikicode and parse it accordingly, I will no longer be able to write a dozen article starters at a time (to keep consistency between similar articles).

      Since I write articles mostly on titles of things, a graphical editor may not pick up the '''''Title''''' I use at the beginning of any article that is about a work.

      Here is what I wrote yesterday for a wiki:

      '''''Space: Above and Beyond''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] from 1995 to 1996 for one season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Ray Butts".
      
      '''''Nash Bridges''''' is an American television series that ran on [[CBS]] from 1996 to 2001 for six seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Power Play".
      
      '''''Everybody Hates Chris''''' is an American television series that ran on [[UPN]] from 2005 to 2006 and then on [[The CW]] from 2006 to 2009 for four seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Everybody Hates Playboy".
      
      '''''New Amsterdam''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] in 2008 for one season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Love Hurts".
      
      '''''Reaper''''' is an American television series that ran on [[The CW]] from 2007 to 2009 for two seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Devil and Sam Oliver".
      
      '''''Saving Grace''''' is an American television series that ran on [[TNT]] from 2007 to 2010 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "It's a Fierce, White-Hot, Mighty Love".
      
      '''''Californication''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Showtime]] from 2007 to 2014 for seven seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Raw & the Cooked".
      
      '''''United States of Tera''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Showtime]] from 2009 to 2011 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the pilot.
      
      '''''The Middle''''' is an American television series that began running on [[ABC]] from 2009 and is currently on its eighth season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Map".
      
      '''''Kingdom''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Audience Network]] from 2014 to 2017 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Please Refrain from Crying".
      
      '''''That '70s Show''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] from 1998 to 2006 for eight seasons. It spun off ''[[That '80s Show]]''.  It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Eric Gets Suspended".
      
      '''''That '80s Show''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] in 2002 for one season. The series is a spin-off of ''[[That '70s Show]]''.
      
      '''''Sordid Lives: The Series''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Logo]] in 2008 for one season. The series is a spin-off of ''[[Sordid Lives]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Pills, Poison and Penises".
      
      '''''Sordid Lives''''' is an American film released in 2000 that spun-off ''[[Sordid Lives: The Series]]''.
      
      '''''Burn Notice'''' is an American television series that ran on the [[USA Network]] from 2007 to 2013 for seven seasons. It spun off ''[[Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Scatter Point".
      
      '''''Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe''''' is an American television film that aired on the [[USA Network]] in 2011. It is a prequel spin-off of ''[[Burn Notice]]''.
      
      '''''Shameless''''' is an American television series that began running on [[Showtime]] from 2011 and is currently on its seventh season. It is a non-contiguous spin-off of ''[[Shameless (UK)|]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "I'll Light a Candle for You Every Day".
      
      '''''Shameless''''' is a British television series that ran on [[Channel 4]] from 2004 to 2013 for eleven seasons. It spun off the non-contiguous ''[[Shameless (US)|]]''.
      
      '''''Justified''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FX]] from 2010 to 2015 for six seasons. It crossed over with ''[[Karen Sisco]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Riverbrook".
      
      '''''Karen Sisco''''' is an American television series that ran on [[ABC]] in 2003 for one season. It crossed over with ''[[Justified]]''.
      

      Can I still do the same with a graphical editor? Probably not. I would have to go through and format the text and create the links while in the graphical editor instead of writing the articles with the wikicode in a text editor and pasting it in.

      My wrists are starting to scream at me about too much mousing needed to use graphical editors. Lady Aleena (talk) 11:20, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • Lady Aleena wrote: I just thought of another way graphical editors fail.

      When I write a series of articles, I first write them in a text editor (formatting and all) then paste them into the source mode editor. Unless the graphical editor can interpret wikicode and parse it accordingly, I will no longer be able to write a dozen article starters at a time (to keep consistency between similar articles).

      Since I write articles mostly on titles of things, a graphical editor may not pick up the '''''Title''''' I use at the beginning of any article that is about a work.

      Here is what I wrote yesterday for a wiki:

      '''''Space: Above and Beyond''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] from 1995 to 1996 for one season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Ray Butts".
      
      '''''Nash Bridges''''' is an American television series that ran on [[CBS]] from 1996 to 2001 for six seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Power Play".
      
      '''''Everybody Hates Chris''''' is an American television series that ran on [[UPN]] from 2005 to 2006 and then on [[The CW]] from 2006 to 2009 for four seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Everybody Hates Playboy".
      
      '''''New Amsterdam''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] in 2008 for one season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Love Hurts".
      
      '''''Reaper''''' is an American television series that ran on [[The CW]] from 2007 to 2009 for two seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Devil and Sam Oliver".
      
      '''''Saving Grace''''' is an American television series that ran on [[TNT]] from 2007 to 2010 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "It's a Fierce, White-Hot, Mighty Love".
      
      '''''Californication''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Showtime]] from 2007 to 2014 for seven seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Raw & the Cooked".
      
      '''''United States of Tera''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Showtime]] from 2009 to 2011 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the pilot.
      
      '''''The Middle''''' is an American television series that began running on [[ABC]] from 2009 and is currently on its eighth season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Map".
      
      '''''Kingdom''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Audience Network]] from 2014 to 2017 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Please Refrain from Crying".
      
      '''''That '70s Show''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] from 1998 to 2006 for eight seasons. It spun off ''[[That '80s Show]]''.  It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Eric Gets Suspended".
      
      '''''That '80s Show''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] in 2002 for one season. The series is a spin-off of ''[[That '70s Show]]''.
      
      '''''Sordid Lives: The Series''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Logo]] in 2008 for one season. The series is a spin-off of ''[[Sordid Lives]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Pills, Poison and Penises".
      
      '''''Sordid Lives''''' is an American film released in 2000 that spun-off ''[[Sordid Lives: The Series]]''.
      
      '''''Burn Notice'''' is an American television series that ran on the [[USA Network]] from 2007 to 2013 for seven seasons. It spun off ''[[Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Scatter Point".
      
      '''''Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe''''' is an American television film that aired on the [[USA Network]] in 2011. It is a prequel spin-off of ''[[Burn Notice]]''.
      
      '''''Shameless''''' is an American television series that began running on [[Showtime]] from 2011 and is currently on its seventh season. It is a non-contiguous spin-off of ''[[Shameless (UK)|]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "I'll Light a Candle for You Every Day".
      
      '''''Shameless''''' is a British television series that ran on [[Channel 4]] from 2004 to 2013 for eleven seasons. It spun off the non-contiguous ''[[Shameless (US)|]]''.
      
      '''''Justified''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FX]] from 2010 to 2015 for six seasons. It crossed over with ''[[Karen Sisco]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Riverbrook".
      
      '''''Karen Sisco''''' is an American television series that ran on [[ABC]] in 2003 for one season. It crossed over with ''[[Justified]]''.
      

      Can I still do the same with a graphical editor? Probably not. I would have to go through and format the text and create the links while in the graphical editor instead of writing the articles with the wikicode in a text editor and pasting it in.

      My wrists are starting to scream at me about too much mousing needed to use graphical editors. Lady Aleena (talk) 11:20, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

      You know there is a source mode available, right?
        Loading editor
    • Fan26, for now. However, if I am reading this thread correctly, we may lose source mode if "Lucy" is implemented on all wikis on Fandom. If source mode is taken away, my editing days here on Fandom will end. Lady Aleena (talk) 11:27, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

      Graphical editors hurt more than they help, in my opinion. Lady Aleena (talk) 11:30, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • Seriously? I was under the impression it was a newer version of Visual Editor. And if you're worried about it being everywhere, I'm gonna remind you: it's still in an experimental test phase.

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't mind if the new editor was just source and visual mode combined. As long as it can be possible to have HTML input, I would be fine.

      And say, what about custom templates? Source editing Infoboxes? MediaWiki pages?

        Loading editor
    • I can't see the big issue here. The only change necessary to make Lucy/Fandom Creator usable is a source mode. I use the source mode mainly because the mobile site is unusable and the Visual Ediot glitches out every time (I use a mobile device nearly entirely). So to make everyone happy, keep their user base, and make sure that wiki's remain usable, Wikia should listen to their users and add in the source editor mode. It's not exactly difficult.

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote: Seriously? I was under the impression it was a newer version of Visual Editor. And if you're worried about it being everywhere, I'm gonna remind you: it's still in an experimental test phase.

      If I am reading the posts correctly, Lucy will be a replacement for the current (old and new) systems; not an addition.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      Andrewds1021 wrote:

      It changes the URL-page relationship?

      Yes, it looks like FANDOM Creator is actually a frontend for some kind of CMS, so pages now appear like:

      http://fc.wikia.com/wiki/#######/lowercase-pagename-withdashes-forspaces

      ‌####### is probably a CMS DB id #.

      As I already said, this looks like a simple wordpress site, with a visual editor that is not other thing than a WYSIWIG HTML editor. The code behind that editor is plain HTML, not wikitext, that's why there won't be source code, and if there is, it will be plain HTML, a lot harder to interpret that wikitext.

        Loading editor
    • WikiText is certainly easier to use than HTML.

        Loading editor
    • MTIF wrote: "MOVE TO SHOUTWIKI OR EDITTHIS ASAP. WIKIA WILL FORCE THE NEW SOFTWARE DOWN YOUR THROAT IF YOU DON'T." i don't know why but that sounds like a threat

      Criticizing something that is "forced" and commanding people to leave at the same time...
      Niiiice.

        Loading editor
    • I've moved one of the largest Spanish wikis outside of FANDOOM. I'm paying the hosting and it has no ads, loads a lot faster and has a lot of improvements missing in the 1.19 version of MediaWiki

        Loading editor
    • Ciencia Al Poder wrote: I've moved one of the largest Spanish wikis outside of FANDOOM. I'm paying the hosting and it has no ads, loads a lot faster and has a lot of improvements missing in the 1.19 version of MediaWiki

      I know you're not deliberately spamming here, but openly advertising another site could be viewed by Staff or CC Admins as spam.

        Loading editor
    • I know, staff has already forbidden to link to the new site even on user pages.

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:

      Ciencia Al Poder wrote:

      I've moved one of the largest Spanish wikis outside of FANDOOM. I'm paying the hosting and it has no ads, loads a lot faster and has a lot of improvements missing in the 1.19 version of MediaWiki

      I know you're not deliberately spamming here, but openly advertising another site could be viewed by Staff or CC Admins as spam.

      Not as bad as the OP. Fandom staff has been alienating admins for years. They bring this stuff on themselves.

      Ciencia may find that self hosting will get very expensive if the site takes as much traffic as the original Fandom version does for the popular wikis. I suspect low SEO is saving costs for now.

        Loading editor
    • Regarding the URL scheme for the test wiki - it certainly is a bit unusual (and subject to change, like most of it).

      One particular thing this allows is for multiple pages to have the same name, so disambiguation pages become less of a concern - and since the editor is very data-oriented, it's often better to have pages with 'proper' names. For example instead of "Alice (actress)" and "Alice (episode)", both pages would be named Alice, but the properties of the pages would mark them as different.

      (Note: I've you're a new viewer of this thread, I recommend seeing this post above for some background on the experiment: Thread:1293757#21)

        Loading editor
    • "Unusual" is being charitable, but I suppose you have to toe the company line. It really would be better if there was an auto-disambiguation feature and have the number be optional unless there were two articles with the same name.

      Atlassian's Confluence, which I'm not a fan of, actually does a decent job in this regard in that they only use id numbers when the name is duplicated or is difficult to represent in a URL.

      While I applaud the ambition of this new idea, it doesn't give the impression of being well thought-out and is very reminiscent of the stick-to-the-wall approach that has not served Fandom well.

        Loading editor
    • Like many aspects of the experiment, it is subject to change - particularly if we find this behaviour is more harmful than helpful. We actually have some experience with Confluence - I'll point out this particular behaviour to the team, just in case they're not already aware.

        Loading editor
    • My account Mead-1992-25 on Rocky and Bullwinkle Wiki is blocked by PyroGothNerd and Trivialist! What can i do?

        Loading editor
    • @Mead-1992-25 : I suggest messaging Special:Contact/general with details of the issue, and the FANDOM support team can advise you further.

        Loading editor
    • Jen-Ledger wrote:

      MTIF wrote: "MOVE TO SHOUTWIKI OR EDITTHIS ASAP. WIKIA WILL FORCE THE NEW SOFTWARE DOWN YOUR THROAT IF YOU DON'T." i don't know why but that sounds like a threat

      Criticizing something that is "forced" and commanding people to leave at the same time...

      Niiiice.

      True.

        Loading editor
    • JustLeafy wrote: You can test the editor here, if you like.

      OH.

      No no no no no no no no no

      Leave me and my Source Mode

        Loading editor
    • Love Robin wrote:

      JustLeafy wrote: You can test the editor here, if you like.

      OH.

      No no no no no no no no no

      Leave me and my Source Mode

      I do hope the new editor in some way could be a flawless visual and source editor at the same time, but I don't see that to it right now.

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:

      Lady Aleena wrote: I just thought of another way graphical editors fail.

      When I write a series of articles, I first write them in a text editor (formatting and all) then paste them into the source mode editor. Unless the graphical editor can interpret wikicode and parse it accordingly, I will no longer be able to write a dozen article starters at a time (to keep consistency between similar articles).

      Since I write articles mostly on titles of things, a graphical editor may not pick up the '''''Title''''' I use at the beginning of any article that is about a work.

      Here is what I wrote yesterday for a wiki:

      '''''Space: Above and Beyond''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] from 1995 to 1996 for one season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Ray Butts".
      
      '''''Nash Bridges''''' is an American television series that ran on [[CBS]] from 1996 to 2001 for six seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Power Play".
      
      '''''Everybody Hates Chris''''' is an American television series that ran on [[UPN]] from 2005 to 2006 and then on [[The CW]] from 2006 to 2009 for four seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Everybody Hates Playboy".
      
      '''''New Amsterdam''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] in 2008 for one season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Love Hurts".
      
      '''''Reaper''''' is an American television series that ran on [[The CW]] from 2007 to 2009 for two seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Devil and Sam Oliver".
      
      '''''Saving Grace''''' is an American television series that ran on [[TNT]] from 2007 to 2010 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "It's a Fierce, White-Hot, Mighty Love".
      
      '''''Californication''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Showtime]] from 2007 to 2014 for seven seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Raw & the Cooked".
      
      '''''United States of Tera''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Showtime]] from 2009 to 2011 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the pilot.
      
      '''''The Middle''''' is an American television series that began running on [[ABC]] from 2009 and is currently on its eighth season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Map".
      
      '''''Kingdom''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Audience Network]] from 2014 to 2017 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Please Refrain from Crying".
      
      '''''That '70s Show''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] from 1998 to 2006 for eight seasons. It spun off ''[[That '80s Show]]''.  It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Eric Gets Suspended".
      
      '''''That '80s Show''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] in 2002 for one season. The series is a spin-off of ''[[That '70s Show]]''.
      
      '''''Sordid Lives: The Series''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Logo]] in 2008 for one season. The series is a spin-off of ''[[Sordid Lives]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Pills, Poison and Penises".
      
      '''''Sordid Lives''''' is an American film released in 2000 that spun-off ''[[Sordid Lives: The Series]]''.
      
      '''''Burn Notice'''' is an American television series that ran on the [[USA Network]] from 2007 to 2013 for seven seasons. It spun off ''[[Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Scatter Point".
      
      '''''Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe''''' is an American television film that aired on the [[USA Network]] in 2011. It is a prequel spin-off of ''[[Burn Notice]]''.
      
      '''''Shameless''''' is an American television series that began running on [[Showtime]] from 2011 and is currently on its seventh season. It is a non-contiguous spin-off of ''[[Shameless (UK)|]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "I'll Light a Candle for You Every Day".
      
      '''''Shameless''''' is a British television series that ran on [[Channel 4]] from 2004 to 2013 for eleven seasons. It spun off the non-contiguous ''[[Shameless (US)|]]''.
      
      '''''Justified''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FX]] from 2010 to 2015 for six seasons. It crossed over with ''[[Karen Sisco]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Riverbrook".
      
      '''''Karen Sisco''''' is an American television series that ran on [[ABC]] in 2003 for one season. It crossed over with ''[[Justified]]''.
      

      Can I still do the same with a graphical editor? Probably not. I would have to go through and format the text and create the links while in the graphical editor instead of writing the articles with the wikicode in a text editor and pasting it in.

      My wrists are starting to scream at me about too much mousing needed to use graphical editors. Lady Aleena (talk) 11:20, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

      You know there is a source mode available, right?

      I suggest you read Kickburn's earlier reply

      >>>Not including a source mode is intended at this point of testing: GUI-driven document creation apps like Word do not provide a source mode - nor do they need one - and we want to see whether this editor can reproduce a similar kind of experience.

      >>>If there was a source mode, it would make validating the GUI-first approach much, much harder. Still, it's a topic we're always thinking about as the experiment matures and we add more features.

      Source mode is going if this test is successful

        Loading editor
    • Agent c wrote:

      Fan26 wrote:

      Lady Aleena wrote: I just thought of another way graphical editors fail.

      When I write a series of articles, I first write them in a text editor (formatting and all) then paste them into the source mode editor. Unless the graphical editor can interpret wikicode and parse it accordingly, I will no longer be able to write a dozen article starters at a time (to keep consistency between similar articles).

      Since I write articles mostly on titles of things, a graphical editor may not pick up the '''''Title''''' I use at the beginning of any article that is about a work.

      Here is what I wrote yesterday for a wiki:

      '''''Space: Above and Beyond''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] from 1995 to 1996 for one season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Ray Butts".
      
      '''''Nash Bridges''''' is an American television series that ran on [[CBS]] from 1996 to 2001 for six seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Power Play".
      
      '''''Everybody Hates Chris''''' is an American television series that ran on [[UPN]] from 2005 to 2006 and then on [[The CW]] from 2006 to 2009 for four seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Everybody Hates Playboy".
      
      '''''New Amsterdam''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] in 2008 for one season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Love Hurts".
      
      '''''Reaper''''' is an American television series that ran on [[The CW]] from 2007 to 2009 for two seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Devil and Sam Oliver".
      
      '''''Saving Grace''''' is an American television series that ran on [[TNT]] from 2007 to 2010 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "It's a Fierce, White-Hot, Mighty Love".
      
      '''''Californication''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Showtime]] from 2007 to 2014 for seven seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Raw & the Cooked".
      
      '''''United States of Tera''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Showtime]] from 2009 to 2011 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the pilot.
      
      '''''The Middle''''' is an American television series that began running on [[ABC]] from 2009 and is currently on its eighth season. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "The Map".
      
      '''''Kingdom''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Audience Network]] from 2014 to 2017 for three seasons. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Please Refrain from Crying".
      
      '''''That '70s Show''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] from 1998 to 2006 for eight seasons. It spun off ''[[That '80s Show]]''.  It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Eric Gets Suspended".
      
      '''''That '80s Show''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FOX]] in 2002 for one season. The series is a spin-off of ''[[That '70s Show]]''.
      
      '''''Sordid Lives: The Series''''' is an American television series that ran on [[Logo]] in 2008 for one season. The series is a spin-off of ''[[Sordid Lives]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Pills, Poison and Penises".
      
      '''''Sordid Lives''''' is an American film released in 2000 that spun-off ''[[Sordid Lives: The Series]]''.
      
      '''''Burn Notice'''' is an American television series that ran on the [[USA Network]] from 2007 to 2013 for seven seasons. It spun off ''[[Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Scatter Point".
      
      '''''Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe''''' is an American television film that aired on the [[USA Network]] in 2011. It is a prequel spin-off of ''[[Burn Notice]]''.
      
      '''''Shameless''''' is an American television series that began running on [[Showtime]] from 2011 and is currently on its seventh season. It is a non-contiguous spin-off of ''[[Shameless (UK)|]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "I'll Light a Candle for You Every Day".
      
      '''''Shameless''''' is a British television series that ran on [[Channel 4]] from 2004 to 2013 for eleven seasons. It spun off the non-contiguous ''[[Shameless (US)|]]''.
      
      '''''Justified''''' is an American television series that ran on [[FX]] from 2010 to 2015 for six seasons. It crossed over with ''[[Karen Sisco]]''. It is connected to the Tommy Westphall universe through the appearance of [[Morley cigarettes]] in the episode "Riverbrook".
      
      '''''Karen Sisco''''' is an American television series that ran on [[ABC]] in 2003 for one season. It crossed over with ''[[Justified]]''.
      

      Can I still do the same with a graphical editor? Probably not. I would have to go through and format the text and create the links while in the graphical editor instead of writing the articles with the wikicode in a text editor and pasting it in.

      My wrists are starting to scream at me about too much mousing needed to use graphical editors. Lady Aleena (talk) 11:20, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

      You know there is a source mode available, right?

      I suggest you read Kickburn's earlier reply

      >>>Not including a source mode is intended at this point of testing: GUI-driven document creation apps like Word do not provide a source mode - nor do they need one - and we want to see whether this editor can reproduce a similar kind of experience.

      >>>If there was a source mode, it would make validating the GUI-first approach much, much harder. Still, it's a topic we're always thinking about as the experiment matures and we add more features.

      Source mode is going if this test is successful

      Well, then I guess we should hope Lucy fails. I like the current source editor.

        Loading editor
    • If anything, I hope Lucy would just be an addition, or at least an upgrade to the classic RTE.

        Loading editor
    • JustLeafy wrote: If anything, I hope Lucy would just be an addition, or at least an upgrade to the classic RTE.

      It can't be an addition. That's why the "experiment" wiki has 2 diverging databases: one is powered by MediaWiki, the other is a wordpress-like. It doesn't even display monobook skin. It has no RecentChanges. It doesn't have page histories where you can actually compare source code, because there's no source code. Well, there is source code, but that's plain HTML and not really suitable to compare revisions.

        Loading editor
    • Ciencia Al Poder wrote:

      JustLeafy wrote: If anything, I hope Lucy would just be an addition, or at least an upgrade to the classic RTE.

      It can't be an addition. That's why the "experiment" wiki has 2 diverging databases: one is powered by MediaWiki, the other is a wordpress-like. It doesn't even display monobook skin. It has no RecentChanges. It doesn't have page histories where you can actually compare source code, because there's no source code. Well, there is source code, but that's plain HTML and not really suitable to compare revisions.

      Sadly...

        Loading editor
    • JustLeafy wrote:

      Ciencia Al Poder wrote:

      JustLeafy wrote: If anything, I hope Lucy would just be an addition, or at least an upgrade to the classic RTE.

      It can't be an addition. That's why the "experiment" wiki has 2 diverging databases: one is powered by MediaWiki, the other is a wordpress-like. It doesn't even display monobook skin. It has no RecentChanges. It doesn't have page histories where you can actually compare source code, because there's no source code. Well, there is source code, but that's plain HTML and not really suitable to compare revisions.

      Sadly...

      Hopefully staff will listen to this thread and realize they should just keep the source and visual editors the way they appear now.

      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 18:36, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:

      JustLeafy wrote:

      Ciencia Al Poder wrote:

      JustLeafy wrote: If anything, I hope Lucy would just be an addition, or at least an upgrade to the classic RTE.

      It can't be an addition. That's why the "experiment" wiki has 2 diverging databases: one is powered by MediaWiki, the other is a wordpress-like. It doesn't even display monobook skin. It has no RecentChanges. It doesn't have page histories where you can actually compare source code, because there's no source code. Well, there is source code, but that's plain HTML and not really suitable to compare revisions.

      Sadly...

      Hopefully staff will listen to this thread and realize they should just keep the source and visual editors the way they appear now.

      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 18:36, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

      That would be nice. Then again, they aren't really happy working here, so it's not like they give a care.

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:

      JustLeafy wrote:

      Ciencia Al Poder wrote:

      JustLeafy wrote: If anything, I hope Lucy would just be an addition, or at least an upgrade to the classic RTE.

      It can't be an addition. That's why the "experiment" wiki has 2 diverging databases: one is powered by MediaWiki, the other is a wordpress-like. It doesn't even display monobook skin. It has no RecentChanges. It doesn't have page histories where you can actually compare source code, because there's no source code. Well, there is source code, but that's plain HTML and not really suitable to compare revisions.

      Sadly...
      Hopefully staff will listen to this thread and realize they should just keep the source and visual editors the way they appear now.

      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 18:36, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

      They didn't listen about "featured video" until a reporter started sniffing around... And we're still not sure they're actually listening.

        Loading editor
    • FWIW, I would like to restate that this is an unfinished, on-going experiment that we welcome feedback on - and even if it has a degree of success, that does not mean it's something that would suddenly get rolled out everywhere. We certainly do not deny how useful wikitext can be, but we do want to test whether there are other, more data-driven and potentially friendlier, ways of creating wikis.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, I'm aware it's still in the experimental phase-which is good, meaning Lucy has plenty of time to be improved. I'm interested to see where it could go, but at the same time, I hope staff will consider the values of also keeping the source mode as an option.

        Loading editor
    • Kirkburn wrote: FWIW, I would like to restate that this is an unfinished, on-going experiment that we welcome feedback on - and even if it has a degree of success, that does not mean it's something that would suddenly get rolled out everywhere. We certainly do not deny how useful wikitext can be, but we do want to test whether there are other, more data-driven and potentially friendlier, ways of creating wikis.

      Having a great editor for anons and new users is a good idea, but if it cripples or frustrates the most productive contributors, it is a net bad idea. Anons and new users may have enthusiasm at points, but the most dedicated and productive users rarely can rely on a pseudo WYSIWYG editor.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: Having a great editor for anons and new users is a good idea, but if it cripples or frustrates the most productive contributors, it is a net bad idea. Anons and new users may have enthusiasm at points, but the most dedicated and productive users rarely can rely on a pseudo WYSIWYG editor.

      That's why it's a test and not a released editor mode in any way. If they manage to replicate all source mode features in a WYSIWYG editor and make wikitext migratable to their syntax, would you really need source mode? If they don't, they'll probably mark the experiment as a failure and try work on a wikitext editor with features editors liked in Lucy.

        Loading editor
    • KockaAdmiralac wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote: Having a great editor for anons and new users is a good idea, but if it cripples or frustrates the most productive contributors, it is a net bad idea. Anons and new users may have enthusiasm at points, but the most dedicated and productive users rarely can rely on a pseudo WYSIWYG editor.

      That's why it's a test and not a released editor mode in any way. If they manage to replicate all source mode features in a WYSIWYG editor and make wikitext migratable to their syntax, would you really need source mode? If they don't, they'll probably mark the experiment as a failure and try work on a wikitext editor with features editors liked in Lucy.

      A) You're talking about fully WYSIWYG editor that replicates at least 80-90% of the source editor capabilities which Fandom doesn't have nearly enough dev resources to pull off. Aka it's a pipe dream.

      B) I mentioned a pseudo WYSIWYG editor, because that's the best we can hope for. Atlassian has already pioneered the WYSIWYG editor as the prime method of content creation in Confluence (corporate wiki that's major feature is tie in to JIRA) and guess what happened? They took away most of the markup editing support and have almost no customizability. Does that sound like a viable direction for Fandom content creation? Sure if you want crappy cookie-cutter wikis.

      C) Fandom's standard for failure does not necessarily include pleasing contributors. This is a presumption.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: A) You're talking about fully WYSIWYG editor that replicates at least 80-90% of the source editor capabilities which Fandom doesn't have nearly enough dev resources to pull off. Aka it's a pipe dream.

      Correct, that's why you can submit feedback on Lucy hoping that feedback will be used in a new visual editor that will replace two currently crappy ones. If Wikia actually wanted to replace the actual editors they wouldn't make a team that small for implementing Lucy.

      Fandyllic wrote: B) I mentioned a pseudo WYSIWYG editor, because that's the best we can hope for. Atlassian has already pioneered the WYSIWYG editor as the prime method of content creation in Confluence (corporate wiki that's major feature is tie in to JIRA) and guess what happened? They took away most of the markup editing support and have almost no customizability. Does that sound like a viable direction for Fandom content creation? Sure if you want crappy cookie-cutter wikis.

      I'm sure Wikia will be able to provide more customizability in a WYSIWYG editor. A Staff member mentioned implementing widgets that could be populated with JavaScript into Lucy (though I'm pretty sure that hasn't been implemented yet).

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      C) Fandom's standard for failure does not necessarily include pleasing contributors. This is a presumption.

      Maybe more than you think. I recently came across that journalist's story about the poor quality of the videos forced on the Fallout Wiki. Just some food for thought.


      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 19:01, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote:

      C) Fandom's standard for failure does not necessarily include pleasing contributors. This is a presumption.

      Maybe less than you think. I recently came across that journalist's story about the poor quality of the videos forced on the Fallout Wiki. Just some food for thought.


      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 19:01, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

      Just because there is a story, doesn't mean Fandom didn't just special case Nukapedia. They also might just be waiting until media attention dies down and re-introduce.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      Fan26 wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote:

      C) Fandom's standard for failure does not necessarily include pleasing contributors. This is a presumption.

      Maybe less than you think. I recently came across that journalist's story about the poor quality of the videos forced on the Fallout Wiki. Just some food for thought.


      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 19:01, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

      Just because there is a story, doesn't mean Fandom didn't just special case Nukapedia. They also might just be waiting until media attention dies down and re-introduce.


      Oop, my bad! the 'less' up there was meant to be a more. It was a typo though. I was agreeing with you.

        Loading editor
    • Hah, okay. This reminds of the following joke/story: My grandfather gave my dad some advice before he died, "Son, just remember... Always... I mean never... well, it's one of those." And then he died.

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote:

      C) Fandom's standard for failure does not necessarily include pleasing contributors. This is a presumption.

      Maybe more than you think. I recently came across that journalist's story about the poor quality of the videos forced on the Fallout Wiki. Just some food for thought.


      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 19:01, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

      I've seen those videos, and they're just the WORST videos. They're as cringy as Sernadoes and LipsyJimmy's clickbait, and that's bad. Wikia only put those wastes of space up because they wanted the ad revenue on it.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      Fan26 wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote:

      C) Fandom's standard for failure does not necessarily include pleasing contributors. This is a presumption.

      Maybe less than you think. I recently came across that journalist's story about the poor quality of the videos forced on the Fallout Wiki. Just some food for thought.


      80px-PMCS Red Snifit Idle Animated Yo.-User:Fan26 (Talk) 19:01, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

      Just because there is a story, doesn't mean Fandom didn't just special case Nukapedia. They also might just be waiting until media attention dies down and re-introduce.

      The original special case pull was from runescape. I understand the developer was extremely displeased about the content...

        Loading editor
    • I suspect most of the effort for better quality videos is being put on the TV/movie side. From what I've seen, Fandom doesn't have any good game-based video host/narrators.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:
      I suspect most of the effort for better quality videos is being put on the TV/movie side. From what I've seen, Fandom doesn't have any good game-based video host/narrators.

      Yeah. The videos they put up on Wookieedia are reputable-either movie, game, or TV trailers if applicable, or explanation, non-theroy videos from a respected source-the YouTube channel Star Wars Explained. Though the autoplay is annoying, they are at least of good quality. 




        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:
      Fandyllic wrote:
      I suspect most of the effort for better quality videos is being put on the TV/movie side. From what I've seen, Fandom doesn't have any good game-based video host/narrators.
      Yeah. The videos they put up on Wookieedia are reputable-either movie, game, or TV trailers if applicable, or explanation, non-theroy videos from a respected source-the YouTube channel Star Wars Explained. Though the autoplay is annoying, they are at least of good quality. 




      It goes a lot further than that.  Its clear they never bothered to actually read our Wiki's guidelines and were unfamiliar with anything to do with our wiki beyond knowing where to find our logo.


      Rather than actually deal with the subject of one video the narrator got "bored" and decided to show the same clip of an unrelated character getting their head clear of their torso... and in another case produced a video of a type they were specifically told beforehand wouldn't be acceptable (a "our favourite 5" video).

      But I digress, and this is getting off the thread's point.  If you want to talk more about "Featured Video", please hit me up on my TP with some contact details, I'd love to discuss it more with other wikis grappling with this.

        Loading editor
    • I haven't got a full picture of "Lucy" yet, but I have seen users say FANDOM plan to completely move on from relying on MediaWiki, including its API. As a developer myself, I find the notion very disappointing to hear. I understand that FANDOM want to stand out of the crowd and carry on leading the innovation for wikis, but this is a step too far for me. Yes, they will probably have their own new API, but the API they've made in the past such as Nirvana has been simply very inefficient and abysmal to use. I don't think the demo wiki looks good with it either.

        Loading editor
    • Hmm... both the other admins and myself heavily rely on the source mode editor in my community.

      I never liked the visual mode editor, as it doesn't work with tabbers, which are used extensively at my wiki, so we can properly present our content without creating countless subpages or really long pages, that would be both hard to read and use long loding times.

      So, I hope, that Lucy will either be an addition or replace the visual mode editor.

      If the source mode editor was gone, I would probably move my whole wiki over to DeviantArt, because working on the wiki would get pretty much impossible.

      To KnazO

      I totally agree with you. The demo wiki greatly reminds me of an old word press site and the header is a bit dodgy. If I click on Characters, it shows both the whole set of character names and moves me to the corresponding category instead of just doing the latter as it should be.

        Loading editor
    • FYI, the main "Lucy" test wiki is 13reasonswhy.wikia.com (I feel bad for the fans of the show) and the experimental wiki is xn--e28h.wikia.com, but currently feedback is supposed to go to fandom-labs.wikia.com/d/ (don't ask me why).

        Loading editor
    • Just in case this was missed further up the thread, http://13reasonswhytv.wikia.com is a wikitext-based version of the '13 Reasons Why' wiki, which is also open for normal editing.

        Loading editor
    • Pretty much feedback goes over there because it is pretty much like the Community Council, but for the experimental editor. I have no perfect or very accurate reason, but that may be a good reason.

      Also, the reason why c:13reasonswhy became the "main" "Lucy" wiki is because it is pretty much the first wiki to be affected with this experiment, aside from c:fandom-labs.

      Moreover, c:xn--e28h is a wiki intentionally built for testing this feature, or just freely have fun in general. Pretty much like c:communitytest, except with the experimental editor and design.

        Loading editor
    • Kirkburn wrote:
      Just in case this was missed further up the thread, http://13reasonswhytv.wikia.com is a wikitext-based version of the '13 Reasons Why' wiki, which is also open for normal editing.

      So what was the line of thought behind "Remove Wikitext!"?

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:

      Kirkburn wrote:
      Just in case this was missed further up the thread, http://13reasonswhytv.wikia.com is a wikitext-based version of the '13 Reasons Why' wiki, which is also open for normal editing.

      So what was the line of thought behind "Remove Wikitext!"?

      It really means: Remove most customization!

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      Fan26 wrote:

      Kirkburn wrote:
      Just in case this was missed further up the thread, http://13reasonswhytv.wikia.com is a wikitext-based version of the '13 Reasons Why' wiki, which is also open for normal editing.

      So what was the line of thought behind "Remove Wikitext!"?

      It really means: Remove most customization!

      Wanna know the worst part? The Dev Wiki slowly becoming more and more useless for site-wide customization, which is slowly reducing... I do hope the Dev Wiki will at least still have a use for personal CSS/JS scripts.

        Loading editor
    • A significant part of the test is to see whether it is possible to make a more data-driven, UI-first editor that does not rely on users potentially having to deal with complex code, yet still allows them to make varied, engaging content.

      To put it another way: the aim is not to remove wikitext, but to look at whether wikitext is a necessary part of wiki life, and whether a different style of editing can allow you to do other, more interesting stuff without it.

      With data at the centre of the editor, it could unlock some pretty interesting possibilities like being able to do proper data queries (a bit like Semantic MediaWiki), and easily provide accurate semantic information about article information (like writing a date of birth that can be recognised as such by other tools). Hopefully as the experiment continues, we can make those aspects easier to understand and utilize.

      But again, we know that wikitext has served wikis well for a long time - and that fact isn't being discounted.

        Loading editor
    • Kirkburn wrote:

      A significant part of the test is to see whether it is possible to make a more data-driven, UI-first editor that does not rely on users potentially having to deal with complex code, yet still allows them to make varied, engaging content.

      To put it another way: the aim is not to remove wikitext, but to look at whether wikitext is a necessary part of wiki life, and whether a different style of editing can allow you to do other, more interesting stuff without it.

      With data at the centre of the editor, it could unlock some pretty interesting possibilities like being able to do proper data queries (a bit like Semantic MediaWiki), and easily provide accurate semantic information about article information (like writing a date of birth that can be recognised as such by other tools). Hopefully as the experiment continues, we can make those aspects easier to understand and utilize.

      But again, we know that wikitext has served wikis well for a long time - and that fact isn't being discounted.

      Most of us understand the end goal behind the experiment, but at least I'm pretty sure Fandom doesn't have even half the development resources to do even an adequate job.

      Atlassian has way more resources, way more experience, a more interconnected data-driven base, and huge head start and they still couldn't come up with anything that doesn't strip out 80% of the customization that even comes close to Fandom's current version of MediaWiki or Wikipedia.

        Loading editor
    • To be honest, there are a couple reasons why wikitext is still needed.

      • 1. Most of the long-time users, or source editor users, basically rely on wikitext when editing the source of a page, a template or other things.
      • 2. When the wikis will convert into the experimental design with wikitext removed, it would heavily mess up the formatting of many articles, and this is especially a problem in the bigger wikis with articles containing constructive and heavily formatted text. Say an article has the following: "VisualEditor" is a WYSIWYG editor." (just an example), with wikitext removed, it would be like this: "'''VisualEditor'''" is a ''WYSIWYG'' [[Help:Editing|editor]]." and the same would happen to many articles.

      So at this point, I wouldn't like to see wikitext removed, especially because of these two problems.

        Loading editor
    • JustLeafy wrote:

      • 2. When the wikis will convert into the experimental design with wikitext removed, it would heavily mess up the formatting of many articles, and this is especially a problem in the bigger wikis with articles containing constructive and heavily formatted text. Say an article has the following: "VisualEditor" is a WYSIWYG editor." (just an example), with wikitext removed, it would be like this: "'''VisualEditor'''" is a ''WYSIWYG'' [[Help:Editing|editor]]." and the same would happen to many articles.

      So at this point, I wouldn't like to see wikitext removed, especially because of these two problems.

      No, because what will remain on the wiki after the change will be the rendered HTML of the pages, not the wikitext!

        Loading editor
    • If it's not clear to most people yet, the "Lucy" editor really means the complete removal of wikitext based editing probably any markup editing at all, aka no source edit mode. This is not like the Visual Editor or its predecessor, the RTE. It is a complete overhaul of the "wiki" engine. It really isn't a wiki at all.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, it's just a social site made out to look like a wiki.

        Loading editor
    • It's actually less than a social site. A social site would have more control over what data you're able to see from other users. This new thing is more like a class project with no clear goal.

        Loading editor
    • It's clear now staff does not enjoy working here anymore. If they did, they would care about the Features they are adding.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: If it's not clear to most people yet, the "Lucy" editor really means the complete removal of wikitext based editing probably any markup editing at all, aka no source edit mode. This is not like the Visual Editor or its predecessor, the RTE. It is a complete overhaul of the "wiki" engine. It really isn't a wiki at all.

      I mean, yeah, the opening post made that pretty clear, and so did the posts following it. It was a bit puzzling when people in the middle of the thread started saying "it's just a possible replacement for the visual editor, not the removal of wikitext" and not the opposite.

      And as much as they say that this is "just an experiment", like most things here, it's just something that's on the horizon and I'm guessing one way they plan on solving the "wiki exodus problem" they've had since the early 2000s, but it isn't ready for a public thread announcement from the sounds of things.

      And this sucks because there are no alternative wikifarm sites to use where free hosting is a possibility, like there was when LiveJournal staffers forked from LiveJournal to create Dreamwidth.org or even Archive of Our Own as a substitute for Fanfiction.Net (who, funny enough, even got rid of their source editor IIRC). I can't pay for server hosting and I'm guessing the thousands of other people here can't either.

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote:
      It's clear now staff does not enjoy working here anymore. If they did, they would care about the Features they are adding.

      um, what? 

        Loading editor
    • Spongebobvstheloudhouse wrote:
      Fan26 wrote:
      It's clear now staff does not enjoy working here anymore. If they did, they would care about the Features they are adding.
      um, what? 

      I'm not sure how one links to the other... but interesting things can be learned when you look at a company on Glassdoor.com

        Loading editor
    • I would like to stress once more that this is an experiment - we absolutely recognise the value of wikitext and its many features and extensions, but we would like to test whether there are more ways of making user-contributed knowledge-bases that may offer significant advantages. It may be that this particular style is not an approach that works - but it's worth trying out. The fact we're testing it does not guarantee that it'll be rolled out widely - it may only ever be appropriate for a particular kind of community, for example (or even none at all).

      I would note that the experimental editor actually includes it's own kind of querying markup that lets you construct tables of data, for example - it's more than just basic formatting abilities. (However, that may not be super-clear in the current version.)

        Loading editor
    • I might support Lucy as a requestable option. That would make sense.

        Loading editor
    • Fan26 wrote: It's clear now staff does not enjoy working here anymore. If they did, they would care about the Features they are adding.

      I'd also like to apologize for this.

        Loading editor
    • Kirkburn wrote: I would like to stress once more that this is an experiment - we absolutely recognise the value of wikitext and its many features and extensions, but we would like to test whether there are more ways of making user-contributed knowledge-bases that may offer significant advantages. It may be that this particular style is not an approach that works - but it's worth trying out. The fact we're testing it does not guarantee that it'll be rolled out widely - it may only ever be appropriate for a particular kind of community, for example (or even none at all).

      I would note that the experimental editor actually includes it's own kind of querying markup that lets you construct tables of data, for example - it's more than just basic formatting abilities. (However, that may not be super-clear in the current version.)

      Just leave things the way they are, and you staff members better make damn sure what the community needs before shoving un-needed features down our throats. I'm just pissed over featured videos, so I hope Lucy doesn't turn out to be one of wikia's greatest failures.

        Loading editor
    • Vortexdome wrote:

      Kirkburn wrote: I would like to stress once more that this is an experiment - we absolutely recognise the value of wikitext and its many features and extensions, but we would like to test whether there are more ways of making user-contributed knowledge-bases that may offer significant advantages. It may be that this particular style is not an approach that works - but it's worth trying out. The fact we're testing it does not guarantee that it'll be rolled out widely - it may only ever be appropriate for a particular kind of community, for example (or even none at all).

      I would note that the experimental editor actually includes it's own kind of querying markup that lets you construct tables of data, for example - it's more than just basic formatting abilities. (However, that may not be super-clear in the current version.)

      Just leave things the way they are, and you staff members better make damn sure what the community needs before shoving un-needed features down our throats. I'm just pissed over featured videos, so I hope Lucy doesn't turn out to be one of wikia's greatest failures.

      To be fair, I don't think Kirkburn has anything to do with the video thing... But it does speak to how that issue has harmed the trust that exists between community and wikia.  What is destroyed is hard to rebuild.

        Loading editor
    • Kirkburn wrote:

      I would note that the experimental editor actually includes it's own kind of querying markup that lets you construct tables of data, for example - it's more than just basic formatting abilities. (However, that may not be super-clear in the current version.)

      Does it allow column or row spanning?

      Like:

      Table with column and row spanning
      This header
      spans 2 rows
      This header spans 2 columns
      Cell 1 Cell 2
      Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3
        Loading editor
    • Fan26
      Fan26 removed this reply because:
      accidentally necroposted while viewing this thread
      19:19, November 7, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.