FANDOM


  • MisterWoodhouse
    MisterWoodhouse closed this thread because:
    Closing old release thread to focus feedback onto newest thread
    16:42, April 15, 2020

    Hey gang!

    As we're getting more efficient at doing Unified Community Platform releases, we're moving to multiple releases per week. Since many of those releases will have back-end adjustments or really minor tweaks, we won't be doing a post for every release. Instead, we'll be doing a weekly Release Highlight post to bring in the past week's highlights. If there's something really big, we'll do a Release Highlight to coincide with it, but otherwise everything will wait until Thursday or Friday for the roundup.

    That being said, there wasn't a lot to highlight this week. We iterated on 21 tickets and issued a few hot fixes as well, and here are the highlights:

    • Language wiki sitemaps are fixed
    • User rename tool has been fixed
    • Global blocks behaving correctly on UCP now
    • User group rights corrections for staff

    Next week should have some more exciting stuff, as we have two feature releases planned.

    More on those when they drop.

      Loading editor
    • Good to know, especially about the global blocks behaving correctly on UCP. 

      -Arthur Read fan 

        Loading editor
    • Where is image transparency ?

        Loading editor
    • Hyozanryu wrote: Where is image transparency ?

      Still being worked on.

        Loading editor
    • Why are forums and blogs getting removed? Fourm games players have to migrate to message walls now!

        Loading editor
    • How actively are FANDOM staff reviewing User:Noreplyz/UCP?

        Loading editor
    • Tomodachidudeball wrote: Why are forums and blogs getting removed? Fourm games players have to migrate to message walls now!

      We haven't announced anything about Blogs.

      Forums are being migrated to Discussions, a process which started around 4 years ago.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      We haven't announced anything about Blogs.

      But you can't say they aren't being removed, correct?

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      We haven't announced anything about Blogs.

      But you can't say they aren't being removed, correct?

      We have not decided to remove the blog use case, no.

        Loading editor
    • Hope you can take some feedback, but I'd rather keep forums and discussions separate. A lot of people on the Just Dance wiki are hating the decision, as the Fun & Games board is pretty big on the just dance wiki. So please keep fourms. Ask anyone in the JD wiki and many other wikis and they'll say the same.

        Loading editor
    • Tomodachidudeball wrote: Hope you can take some feedback, but I'd rather keep forums and discussions separate. A lot of people on the Just Dance wiki are hating the decision, as the Fun & Games board is pretty big on the just dance wiki. So please keep fourms. Ask anyone in the JD wiki and many other wikis and they'll say the same.

      The custom code which powers Forum is being retired so that we can update the entire platform to a 7 years new version of the underlying software.

      We will have details on some Discussions enhancements being made as a result of Forums user feedback in the next few weeks.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe you could have the old format and the UCP as options? Users love having options. If you used the current format with forums and the UCP with discussions and allow wiki admins to pick which ones they want, that would work.

        Loading editor
    • Tomodachidudeball wrote: Maybe you could have the old format and the UCP as options? Users love having options. If you used the current format with forums and the UCP with discussions and allow wiki admins to pick which ones they want, that would work.

      One of the main objectives of the UCP project is consolidating our wikis onto one modern codebase. Running multiple codebases is not an option long-term.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, I'm gonna stop talking for now, but please consider my feedback. (Also the reason I thought blogs were getting removed was because they didn't appear on the UCP)

        Loading editor
    • Ok, I do have one more question. How come we can't use the source editor for writing messages or upload images that are already on the wiki (like not uploading an image from your computer) is that coming soon as well?

        Loading editor
    • UCP wikis will have their current editor, the gallery editor, the infobox editor, and the editor for Feeds-based features such as Disucssions and the new message walls. All of these are already available. Fandom is still considering whether or not to port the WikiEditor which is the editor used by Gamepedia. All other editors will be retired. At least, that is the current plan.

        Loading editor
    • But we can't use images that are already on the wiki for message walls.

        Loading editor
    • Discussions, the new message walls, and the in-the-works new comments all use Feeds for core functions. Feeds is effectively a separate platform from the wiki. Therefore, they do not share images. An image uploaded to the wiki is not available in Discussions and vice versa. What I am not sure about is whether or not an image uploaded to Discussions can be re-used in a different Discussions post or in message walls (or comments).

      Some Speculation (not really relevant to the question):

      The images are served from the same image server but they are saved and accessed differently. It seems that even when tagging a page, the preview image is accessed via the same method as an uploaded image despite coming from the wiki. That seems to imply that perhaps every image can be accessed this way but I have no confirmation on that. The URL used by Feeds contains a string of seemingly random letters and numbers. That string happens to be the correct length for an MD5 hash. The issue is, even if that is correct, I have no idea how to figure out what gets used as the input. I tried the image name by itself and that didn't work. Given that the same system is used for avatars, perhaps the input has something to do with the user and timestamp of the upload?

        Loading editor
    • This is exactly why the UCP should be cancelled and the current layout should be kept.

        Loading editor
    • Tomodachidudeball wrote: This is exactly why the UCP should be cancelled and the current layout should be kept.

      While I'd love for message walls and discussions to support wikitext, it's not worth abandoning a major upgrade for.

        Loading editor
    • There are many other reasons why the UCP is a stupid idea. Fourms get removed, blogs potentially get removed, you have to upload an image EVERY TIME you post to a discussion or message wall, even if it's already on the wiki...

      There are many redesigns that have negatively impacted websites, but Fandom alongside YouTube is probably the biggest example.

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote:

      While I'd love for message walls and discussions to support wikitext, it's not worth abandoning a major upgrade for.

      Agreed. Though it would be nice if discussions and message walls on UCP supported wikitext, I'm open to the way FANDOM is planning it as it is, so long as all (or at least most) of the kinks are worked out come wiki moving time.  And yeah, it's not worth abandoning the project over the loss of a few features. There will (at least, likely) be new or similar features that will replace the outgoing ones. 

      Let's just wait and see what happens. 

      -Arthur Read fan 

        Loading editor
    • Listen, some fourm games DEPEND on the ability to add images that are already uploaded on the wiki. It's literally as simple as allowing wiki text on message walls and discussions. Also, why the heck can't you keep the custom code that powers forums? That just seems like a dumb excuse companies use to retire features people love! I've seen Vyond use this excuse in 2016-2017 or so for retiring non-business themes because they "were not compatable" with HTML5. They didn't even migrate to html years after they retired the non-buisness themes. Just keep the fourms or allow us to use the current system for the discussions and message walls.

        Loading editor
    • Tomodachidudeball wrote:

      Listen, some fourm games DEPEND on the ability to add images that are already uploaded on the wiki. It's literally as simple as allowing wiki text on message walls and discussions.

      So not simple at all? (emphasis mine)

        Loading editor
    • How is that not simple?

        Loading editor
    • Tomodachidudeball wrote: How is that not simple?

      It's building in a core feature set from one software to a completely different one.

      You're asking the equivalent of just adding a first-person shooter mode to A Link to the Past.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      We have not decided to remove the blog use case, no.

      This seems like sidestepping. UCP doesn't support blogs right now in any form, correct? So if you never decide to implement the blog use case in UCP and UCP replaces all wikis, it is effectively removed.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      We have not decided to remove the blog use case, no.

      This seems like sidestepping. UCP doesn't support blogs right now in any form, correct? So if you never decide to implement the blog use case in UCP and UCP replaces all wikis, it is effectively removed.

      Oh I'm definitely sidestepping it because we haven't finalized the future of the use case and I don't want people to read too much into my specific word choices.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Tomodachidudeball wrote: How is that not simple?

      It's building in a core feature set from one software to a completely different one.

      You're asking the equivalent of just adding a first-person shooter mode to A Link to the Past.

      What MisterWoodhouse is trying to say is that Forum uses the MediaWiki engine and can support wikitext, but its replacement Discussions runs independently of the MediaWiki engine so doesn't inherit wikitext support. Forum is being removed and Discussions will likely never support wikitext completely (if at all) and FANDOM has decided to do less features with integration with MediaWiki.

      The reason for moving away from MediaWiki integration is apparently to also remove the concern of dependency on MediaWiki changes and allow easier upgrade of the core MediaWiki engine in the future. The drawback is that extensions to FANDOM can't inherit future MediaWiki features either that might happen with integrated extensions.

        Loading editor
    • You can't even change the size of an image or add a caption....this is ridiculous!

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:


      Tomodachidudeball wrote: How is that not simple?

      It's building in a core feature set from one software to a completely different one.

      You're asking the equivalent of just adding a first-person shooter mode to A Link to the Past.

      What MisterWoodhouse is trying to say is that Forum uses the MediaWiki engine and can support wikitext, but its replacement Discussions runs independently of the MediaWiki engine so doesn't inherit wikitext support. Forum is being removed and Discussions will likely never support wikitext completely (if at all) and FANDOM has decided to do less features with integration with MediaWiki.

      The reason for moving away from MediaWiki integration is apparently to also remove the concern of dependency on MediaWiki changes and allow easier upgrade of the core MediaWiki engine in the future. The drawback is that extensions to FANDOM can't inherit future MediaWiki features either that might happen with integrated extensions.

      Exactly. (Nice comparison by the way, MisterWoodhouse! I totally understood that!) 

      The way I see it, blogs (or at least a very similar feature replacement) could be rebuilt based on the wiki page format, rather than on the forum format that I'm pretty sure is the current underpinnings for blogs. Correct me if I'm wrong about the blog platform basis. 

      -Arthur Read fan 

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, just keep MediaWiki. It's clearly better for fandom anyway.

        Loading editor
    • UCP is all about keeping MediaWiki. Fandom scrapped their idea about moving off MediaWiki to their own custom platform (Lucy) in favor of keeping and updating MediaWiki

        Loading editor
    • Exactly as Himmalerin said. Fandom actually tried several of their own platforms and they all crash and burned. Fandom's current version of MediaWiki is heavily modified and based on a very old version. So at this point, it is essentially a custom platform. UCP does away with this platform and changes over to a more standard and more current version of MediaWiki.

      That doesn't mean I won't miss wikitext support in discussions. In fact, I will miss it very much. However, the general train of thought is that, on the whole, the loss of wikitext in that particular aspect is acceptable in exchange for the immediate and continued improvements that updating MediaWiki will bring to pretty much everything else.

      On top of all of that, you are about 4 years too late. This decision was made years ago.

        Loading editor
    • Tomodachidudeball, just so you know, it may seem all simple to you, but you know nothing about the coding world, judging by your comments (especially the "it's so simple, just allow wikitext").

        Loading editor
    • If any active UCP communities want to copy this for use on their own Wikis, I've written this document for my UCP wiki: [MediaWiki Unified Community Platform (RDRII Wiki)]

        Loading editor
    • I don't think it's fair to give both the same description, a "modified version", considering one is mainly vanilla, and the other one is modded beyond recognition. That's like comparing a texture pack with Skyblock.

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote: I don't think it's fair to give both the same description, a "modified version", considering one is mainly vanilla, and the other one is modded beyond recognition. That's like comparing a texture pack with Skyblock.

      Updated to use the word 'customized' as per MisterWoodhouse's original announcement. Thank you for your input.

        Loading editor
    • Thedarkgreenmeme wrote:
      If any active UCP communities want to copy this for use on their own Wikis, I've written this document for my UCP wiki: [MediaWiki Unified Community Platform (RDRII Wiki)]

      How the heck am I supposed to do this? (I could get into touch with AlexTheJustDancer but...)

        Loading editor
    • It's just a boilerplate text. However, it would require manual updating for anyone who uses it. The fakespace attempt is MediaWiki, which this really isn't for.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not sure what you are really trying to say there, but as I am learning this platform, I go to MediaWiki to read the documentation, since there is little to none to speak of here for that portion of UCP. Using the old documentation based on 1.19 is not going to cut it.

        Loading editor
    • MediaWiki: is a namespace, used for system alterations, messages and more - actual technical stuff. What you have is a Help: or Project: page.

      Edit: also, looks like you forgot to close a tag in the other thread.

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote: Edit: also, looks like you forgot to close a tag in the other thread.

      Yep, I broke it good. I can't even edit it to fix it.

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote: MediaWiki: is a namespace, used for system alterations, messages and more - actual technical stuff. What you have is a Help: or Project: page.

      Well, yes, exactly. Except I don't need to use the help namespace because I won't be using that many help documents. After have been being a user of many wikis (including your own) over the years had absolutely no idea that there was a MediaWiki: namespace until just a few weeks ago, when I started administering my own. It would only bother a very select few wiki users. MediaWiki is only part of the title of the document, because I would think the full verbose proper name of the project should be 'MediaWiki 1.33 Unified Community Platform Customization by Fandom and Gamepedia' but I thought what I used was a little more concise.

        Loading editor
    • What you have now is a mainspace article - and because you use custom namespaces for all content, that's going to screw up your statistics and functionality. Making it a Project: page is probably easier. I haven't tried Help: yet on UCP.

        Loading editor
    • On UCP there's some link hackery going on. [[Help:Getting Started]], [[Help:Contributing]], [[Help:Community Management]], [[Help:Contents]], and [[Help:Index]] all go directly to their respective pages on CC w/o even a redirect. Any custom Help pages go to the proper location. Even if you manually create one of the above pages any links that would lead there instead lead to CC.

      So your wiki's Help:Rules (or whatever your wiki names their rules page) is ok, but if your wiki has a Help:Contributing they're out of luck and will need to move the page so links can point to the correct spot.

        Loading editor
    • There's no longer a Shared Help. I foresee a lot of problems with people not realizing they've navigated away from the wiki they were on.

        Loading editor
    • Some issues I haven't seen reported yet:

      • Notification in save dialog contains link to non-existing page. See Thread:1841043.
      • Syntaxhighlight not working; at all as far as I can tell. See Thread:1842705.

      Also, for some reason, I am having trouble using the default UCP editor as a registered user. I am able to load it as an anon. I have my user preference set to source mode, if that matters. However, I did launch source mode via the edit drop-down as an anon without issue. I am using MS Edge 44 on Windows 10.


      I agree with Tupka217 that the implementation could be improved. However, I definitely like the larger idea you were going for.


      UCP does have shared help pages. However, it appears to have been deliberately changed to link rather than transclude. I assume this is, at least in part, due to the fact that UCP wikis still do not allow interwiki transclusion even from Community Central. I really hope they will though.

        Loading editor
    • The Source Editor on UCP appears to be horribly broken today. I would file a ticket, but I'm sure the developers will notice this on their own.

        Loading editor
    • Thedarkgreenmeme wrote: The Source Editor on UCP appears to be horribly broken today. I would file a ticket, but I'm sure the developers will notice this on their own.

      The source editor seems to be working fine for me, what part of it is broken for you?

        Loading editor
    • It took me a while to figure out what exactly what was going on, but when you start typing, and the text automatically wraps, the text caret is shown in the wrong place on the line that just wrapped. The offset text caret seems to stick around, and I haven't quite figured out how to reset it for a workaround. It confused the heck out of me while.

        Loading editor
    • Thedarkgreenmeme wrote: It took me a while to figure out what exactly what was going on, but when you start typing, and the text automatically wraps, the text caret is shown in the wrong place on the line that just wrapped. The offset text caret seems to stick around, and I haven't quite figured out how to reset it for a workaround. It confused the heck out of me while.

      Oh yeah I've noticed that too, it might be worth S:Cing about since.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: How actively are FANDOM staff reviewing User:Noreplyz/UCP?

      There's no expectation for Staff to review it - the purpose of the page is specifically for people helping out to have a reference point for bugs on the new platform. It's clearly written at the top of the page.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote: How actively are FANDOM staff reviewing User:Noreplyz/UCP?

      There's no expectation for Staff to review it - the purpose of the page is specifically for people helping out to have a reference point for bugs on the new platform. It's clearly written at the top of the page.

      If that's true, then FANDOM staff should have no problem confirming it.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      Noreplyz wrote:

      Fandyllic wrote: How actively are FANDOM staff reviewing User:Noreplyz/UCP?

      There's no expectation for Staff to review it - the purpose of the page is specifically for people helping out to have a reference point for bugs on the new platform. It's clearly written at the top of the page.

      If that's true, then FANDOM staff should have no problem confirming it.

      I've been reviewing Nore's list.

        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.