FANDOM


  • MisterWoodhouse
    MisterWoodhouse closed this thread because:
    New thread created
    20:55, April 30, 2020

    Happy Thursday, Fandom!

    This week, we had two releases and a hotfix go out, so let's get right into the highlights for this week...

    Local CSS and Personal CSS

    The user rights issue mentioned last week was corrected in a hotfix yesterday and admins can now edit the local CSS of their UCP wikis.

    Personal global CSS on the UCP is now available by editing a personal CSS page on ucp.fandom.com which is serving as a temporary Community Central style wiki for the UCP until CC can be transitioned at the end of Phase 1.

    Transparency bugs with PNGs

    We actioned the big transparent background bug for uploaded PNGs and now you should see those images appearing correctly, just in time for you to be using them in crafting your local wiki CSS :)

    Community Feeds Main Page link

    Feeds now has a Main Page link, which some of you have noticed :)

    Loops, my brother

    The Loops extension is now available on the UCP!

    QuickTools

    The QuickTools extension is also working on the UCP!

    ---

    Top Known Issues and the Road Forward

    As I've expressed before, there is a tough balancing act with scheduled work to complete in order to deliver more features, correcting bugs, and actioning your non-bug feedback about features we've delivered.

    We are keenly aware of how these issues affect your experience, especially the most active editors and admins. As such, we went through the bugs and non-bugs to prioritize what should be worked on soonest. Three of these have already been delivered in the form of the CSS rights fix, the transparency images bug, and the Feeds main page link.

    We're also looking at editor performance, preferences issues, toolbar collapsing, image links, the edit count inconsistency, and other top community issues. Look for fixes on these alongside future releases. I cannot promise exact dates until they're underway, but they've been prioritized for fixes by Growth and accepted by the dev teams.

    Thanks for your continued feedback and oh, what's this? A preview of the Mobile Editor...?

      Loading editor
    • Transparency bugs with PNGs. We actioned the big transparent background bug for uploaded PNGs and now you should see those images appearing correctly, just in time for you to be using them in crafting your local wiki CSS :)

      Does this apply to PNGs uploaded while the transparency wasn’t there?

        Loading editor
    • UpnCbs06 wrote:

      Transparency bugs with PNGs. We actioned the big transparent background bug for uploaded PNGs and now you should see those images appearing correctly, just in time for you to be using them in crafting your local wiki CSS :)

      Does this apply to PNGs uploaded while the transparency wasn’t there?

      It should, yes. If it didn't, please let me know so that I can raise it immediately.

        Loading editor
    • Well, good. Time to use Css

        Loading editor
    • This is a great update!!

        Loading editor
    • JustLeafy
      JustLeafy removed this reply because:
      duplicate
      18:26, April 23, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • About the CSS: Will the global CSS for users be installed once the UCP is in its full version?

        Loading editor
    • So since CC transclusion doesn't work in UCP wikis (maybe it will from ucp.fandom.com at some point)... I made a local copy of Template:Animangafooter (with all the subpages integrated into the copy)... here: w:c:nakineko:Template:Localanimangafooter... as you can see image rendering is different in UCP and vignette.wikia.nocookie.net images don't render. This is used widely on legacy wikis, so I hope it gets an increased priority for a fix. (Yes, it is reported on User:Noreplyz/UCP.)

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: So since CC transclusion doesn't work in UCP wikis (maybe it will from ucp.fandom.com at some point)... I made a local copy of Template:Animangafooter (with all the subpages integrated into the copy)... here: w:c:nakineko:Template:Localanimangafooter... as you can see image rendering is different in UCP and vignette.wikia.nocookie.net images don't render. This is used widely on legacy wikis, so I hope it gets an increased priority for a fix. (Yes, it is reported on User:Noreplyz/UCP.)

      It's also on the priority list :) Forgot to mention it specifically when I was writing up the highlights.

        Loading editor
    • Sadly, my CSS that I use on my wiki, I had set up on the Wreck-It Woodhouse wiki in my personal wiki and most of it isn't working. This is very scary too me when all wikis get switched over.

      I also noticed a change in the Avatar resolution it is more crude than originally Wreck-It Woodhouse and CC. (Or is this a result to the personal CSS being messed up?)

      And side note, where do I find to disable the summary pop-up when editing? I usually never fill it when I am a lone editor and the edit is minor.

        Loading editor
    • So, to clarify, local personal CSS is not yet enabled and neither is interwiki transclusion (either from Community Central or UCP Community)?

      Also, in case anyone is wondering, here is the preceeding context to Fandyllic's post.


      KasaneTetz wrote: Ok, here is the link. The visual editor does not appear on anything when I edit. https://splat-hub.fandom.com/wiki/Splat_Hub_Wiki

      As Fandyllic said, the VisualEditor for UCP wikis is very different from the VisualEditor for legacy wikis. I am not having any issues getting the new VisualEditor so perhaps you should post a screenshot of what you get so we can better understand what you are seeing other than "it's not there".

        Loading editor
    • Personal CSS is definitely working on UCP, I haven't had the opportunity to test MediaWiki namespaced CSS but I imagine it should be working there too, given thats the highlight of this week's thread.

      I'm not sure if it's part of upgrading to a more recent MediaWiki version, or architecture changes behind the screen, or something else, but making changes to my personal css and seeing the results has been blazing fast, no more sitting there refreshing my cache for two minutes before finally giving up and entering debug mode to see my changes. Thanks for that!

        Loading editor
    • Quick question is Category Exhibition going to be included and if its not i would suggest it is since it is really handy

      Also good job and thanks for the new updates.

        Loading editor
    • Himmalerin wrote: Personal CSS is definitely working on UCP, I haven't had the opportunity to test MediaWiki namespaced CSS but I imagine it should be working there too, given thats the highlight of this week's thread.

      I'm not sure if it's part of upgrading to a more recent MediaWiki version, or architecture changes behind the screen, or something else, but making changes to my personal css and seeing the results has been blazing fast, no more sitting there refreshing my cache for two minutes before finally giving up and entering debug mode to see my changes. Thanks for that!

      I'll ask about this. It could be that the new platform is faster overall (true), it could be that there's fewer wikis on the new codebase (also true), it could be that MW 1.33 is faster than MW 1.19 (third true), or some sort of combination of performance bonuses.

      The answer is that user CSS is more performative, thanks to the special way that MediaWiki handles it, a change made after MW 1.19's release.

        Loading editor
    • Interesting. I tried adding my global JS as mentioned in the original post and it seems like it still isn't being applied. It has been over an hour since I last edited it. Do @import statements get ignored?

        Loading editor
    • @import using /load.php doesn't work yet but if you use the full url to dev it should run fine since dev is a legacy wiki,
      @import url(https://dev.fandom.com/load.php?mode=articles&articles=u:dev:MediaWiki:MiniGlobalNav.css&only=styles)
      instead of the normal
      @import url(/load.php?mode=articles&articles=u:dev:MediaWiki:MiniGlobalNav.css&only=styles)

      importArticles is likely not working for the same reason

        Loading editor
    • Loops, my brother Is this available on the Wreck-It Woodhouse wiki?

        Loading editor
    • Theunknown404 wrote: Loops, my brother Is this available on the Wreck-It Woodhouse wiki?

      Brøther, I have enabled the lööps

        Loading editor
    • Here is what i have tried so far:

      @import "/w:User:Andrewds1021/global.css?ctype=text/css&action=raw";
      @import "https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User:Andrewds1021/global.css?ctype=text/css&action=raw");
      @import url("https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User:Andrewds1021/global.css?ctype=text/css&action=raw");
      @import url("/w:User:Andrewds1021/global.css?ctype=text/css&action=raw");

      None of these work. I'll try using load.php next but does it have to be the dev wiki? I was kind of hoping to just be able to import my global CSS from here on Community Central.

      Also, I noticed that the editor says:

      @import prevents parallel downloads, use <link> instead.

      Given that the link tag is HTML, not CSS, and that MediaWiki does not let users insert link tags, perhaps this should be removed? It seems bad to be giving users a recommendation they aren't allowed to implement.

        Loading editor
    • I'm guessing it's failing because your global.css is just made up of imports which also fail on UCP? I don't know that for sure though

      iirc the css editor has always said that, it's a part of using Ace as the backend I think.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I realized that about 1 hour after posting my reply. So I went ahead and added something other than an import (see here). Anyways, I eventually did get it to work.

      It looks like it has to be done via the full URL using load.php. Root-relative URLs and direct loading appear to not work; at least for now. I am more unhappy about the load.php requirement than I am about the full URL requirement. This makes it really hard to tell where a CSS rule comes from as global, local, personal global, and personal local all get labeled as "load.php" in browser dev tools.

      I know load.php minifies the request but, when you load them directly, the dev tools will tell you where it came from (like "WikiaFooter.css" or "GeSHi.css"). I know you can just open the received stylesheet and comb through it but if there is a lot that have been combined, then it can take quite a while to sort through it and find those short little comments that tell you where it came from.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't see a mention of global personal JS in the first post... did I miss it?

        Loading editor
    • [withdrawn]


      Edit:

      Hang on, I just realized you said "JS", not "CSS". No. There was not mention of JS of any kind.

        Loading editor
    • Has there been any discussion about adding mw:Extension:TemplateData to UCP wikis?

        Loading editor
    • I've created my own bug list on my Wiki of issues I've run into, as I work on developing it. It's mostly for my own purposes. Most of the issues have been recently reported: w:c:rdrii:Help:MediaWiki Unified Community Platform (RDRII Wiki)/Bug List

        Loading editor
    • Would you consider adding things to the list here instead?

        Loading editor
    • I will, eventually. I need to see if any were fixed when the update drops.

        Loading editor
    • There is not set time for updates to drop. If you meant so simply want to wait until the next update thread, then fine.

        Loading editor
    • Can I switch to the old version of FANDOM? I can't get anything in the new version to work.

      The editor refuses to acknowledge that I uploaded new images, source editor is completely ignored by this new version, and I refuse to use it on the grounds that it is unusable.

      Please tell me that there is a way to switch back.

        Loading editor
    • Merge-arrow Starting March 11, 2020, new wikis use the Unified Community Platform (UCP). Fandom has also started to convert some older wikis to UCP. UCP wikis currently have less functionality than pre-UCP wikis and are missing many legacy features. Fandom is continuing to work on adding/porting some missing features. For a user-compiled list of bugs, please see this page.

      I don’t think you can reverse this change

        Loading editor
    • All new wikis are created using UCP and UCP wikis cannot be converted to legacy-platform wikis. The best you can do is repurpose an existing legacy-platform wiki. However, I highly advise against this. All legacy wikis will eventually be converted to UCP wikis so all you will do is delay the inevitable.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, my main issue with Fandom/UCP, as a Gamepedia editor, is the lack of a central hub (sorry if it's redundant... English isn't my first language...) for communication and announcements like the Admin Noticeboard and the Community Portal that are available with Gamepedia.

      Often, discussions about the project/wiki are spred across facebook-like comments and weird blogspaces...

      Wikis on Fandom don't feel like a group effort; they feel like a Reddit post that is trying to be a Wiki.

      EDIT: Please, don't forget to nurture "leadership" and "democracy" while you're busy implementing/migrating forums/blogs/comments/etc. I honestly think that Reddit and Discord are made for that and should live next to wikis, not as an half-baked feature.

        Loading editor
    • Also... Do you have examples of active UCP wikis?

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • UpnCbs06 wrote: This one.

      Thanks, but I was looking for a second one. ;)

        Loading editor
    • here.

        Loading editor
    • BowiQC wrote: Also... Do you have examples of active UCP wikis?

      Not quite active yet, but almost ready to go. Lots of template coding in this one, and more on the way. w:c:rdrii

        Loading editor
    • BowiQC wrote: Honestly, my main issue with Fandom/UCP, as a Gamepedia editor, is the lack of a central hub (sorry if it's redundant... English isn't my first language...) for communication and announcements like the Admin Noticeboard and the Community Portal that are available with Gamepedia.

      [...]

      Is this actually a standard thing for Gamepedia? I checked out a few Gamepedia wikis and it looks like there are definitely some that don't have these. Even among the ones that do, they layouts vary quite a bit. This leads me to believe that this is not a feature so much as just a convention adopted by the larger Gamepedia community. As far as I can tell, these pages you mention are nothing more than standard project-namespace pages. Since the project namespace is a part of MediaWiki, Fandom wikis also have this. However, it is up to each wiki to decide how to use it.

      BowiQC wrote: [...]

      EDIT: Please, don't forget to nurture "leadership" and "democracy" while you're busy implementing/migrating forums/blogs/comments/etc. I honestly think that Reddit and Discord are made for that and should live next to wikis, not as an half-baked feature.

      Are you implying that Gamepedia wikis are inherently more democratic that Fandom wikis? Are you saying Fandom wikis lack leadership? I would really like to hear you make your case for this.

      You can think what you want about keeping Reddit and Discord separate from the wiki. However, there are a lot of Fandom users who would disagree with you. Personally, I think it is more convenient to have it all in one place rather than having 3 accounts on 3 platforms to interact with 1 community.


      Edit:

      Also, starting March 11, all new Fandom wikis are created using UCP wikis. So there should be plenty of them up by now. You could probably just pick off of Special:Newwikis to find more examples.

        Loading editor
    • You can think what you want about keeping Reddit and Discord separate from the wiki. However, there are a lot of Fandom users who would disagree with you. Personally, I think it is more convenient to have it all in one place rather than having 3 accounts on 3 platforms to interact with 1 community.

      I'm going to respectfully disagree with you slightly there, because I think he has a point. There are different audiences on different platforms, and myself, I was not a big wiki user until about a little more than a month ago. I'm really starting to enjoy the advantages of wiki-world, but I think some people will just continue to live in reddit world and discord world, and if you want to reach them, you have to go there and offer them links (the lingua franca of the internet) to try to get them to come to yours. (staying on topic, and when appropriate, of course).

        Loading editor
    • Let me clarify. I am not saying wikis shouldn't reach out to existing communities on other platforms. What I am saying is that it is nice to have the local option. Unless I am misunderstanding BowiQC, they are essentially saying that they think forums/blogs/comments are extraneous features because you can always use Reddit instead. That is all fine and dandy if you already use Reddit. However, if you don't, then that is just another platform you have to add to your list. Given that discussion is relevant to a thriving community, I don't see why people would be opposed to having it on one platform.


      Edit:

      Also, I would like to point out that BowiQC, by their own admission, is looking at this from the perspective of a Gamepedia editor. Gamepedia has been run quote differently from Fandom so of course Gamepedia editors are going to think "what is the point" for features they have gotten along just fine without. Similarly, I don't see a point to global achievements. In fact, I am against them. But I am sure there are plenty of Gamepedia editors that could make arguments as to why they are so critical.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote: Given that discussion is relevant to a thriving community, I don't see why people would be opposed to having it on one platform.

      Well, ya, if you put it that way. Actually, come to think of it, not good. If Zuckerberg ever takes a fancy to Wikis and incorporates it into Facebook, Fandom is done for. (edit: and Fandom, if you're listening, you need to stay far ahead in the game so little Mark Z can't ever touch you)

        Loading editor
    • Thanks. I'll try to reply later, but I'm on mobile right now and I don't know how to reply to a specific comment.😅

        Loading editor
    • Fandom combining discussions and wiki content onto a single platform is a very far cry from what Facebook does. Facebook is striving to be involved with literally every aspect of your life. With Fandom, it makes sense to discuss a topic in the same place you are reading about it.

        Loading editor
    • True dat. Having very good forum and blog software is going to be very important in keeping folk from going to Facebook or Reddit to carry out these kind of discussions and building communities at the Wikis.

      BTW: My personal opinion on Facebook (if anyone wants to debate it, do it on my message wall at my wiki, not here.)

        Loading editor
    • BowiQC wrote:
      Honestly, my main issue with Fandom/UCP, as a Gamepedia editor, is the lack of a central hub [...] for communication and announcements like the Admin Noticeboard and the Community Portal that are available with Gamepedia.

      I guess Help:Community_Page is the closest thing on the old Fandom. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if it was not supported by the UCP because admins of most wikis could probably create a better version from scratch. (In my opinion the "Start Here" section causes more problems than it solves.)

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote:

      Are you implying that Gamepedia wikis are inherently more democratic that Fandom wikis? Are you saying Fandom wikis lack leadership? I would really like to hear you make your case for this.

      About the leadership thing, let's just say that I prefer the curated approach of Gamepedia. From what I understand, it's harder to create a wiki on Gamepedia and games often get a wiki from staff members or something. Isn't it? On Fandom, it seems like anyone can create a wiki, which isn't always good.

      About democracy... Well... Let's just say that my first impression of wiki editing on Fandom was Death Stranding Wiki and it was bad. My first edit was deleted by an admin and it felt like there wasn't any specific place where editors could argue and plan together.

      I'm an admin on Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey Wiki (Gamepedia) and I initially worked a lot to help people organize themselves and work together. I also worked on the merging of all the duplicates. As an admin, I would never delete someone's first edit without at least discussing with them, especially when the game has been release the same day... Unless I would want to kill the community.

      In short, I don't appreciate Fandom because of this first impression, but also because there are too many differences between Fandom and Gamepedia. I have troubles finding what I want/need on Fandom. Yeah... I guess it's very subjective.

        Loading editor
    • Forbym wrote: I guess Help:Community_Page is the closest thing on the old Fandom. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if it was not supported by the UCP because admins of most wikis could probably create a better version from scratch. (In my opinion the "Start Here" section causes more problems than it solves.)

      That would be the one. I remember seeing this page on some Fandom Wiki. It's better than nothing, but I don't really like it because discussion isn't really a focus for this page. I like the Talk Namespace, but I sometime think that discussions need to happens in the Project Namespace too, which is where the Community Portal and Admin Noticeboard are. Also, the thing that annoys me the most about Fandom is that the "Discussion/Talk" link for each article is hidden. There's an extra step to reach the Talk page, while it's only one click away on Gamepedia. One more click in UX is a lot. Here are pictures of what I'm explaining.

      2020-04-27 07 25 34-Window
      2020-04-27 07 25 55-Window

      I just think that Fandom's UI is convoluted.

        Loading editor
    • Oh! And he/him/his are fine when referring to me. 😁

        Loading editor
    • On Gamepedia, if you want to discuss, all you need to do it to create a Talk page or contribute to a Project Page, using the same concepts you had to learn when joining Gamepedia or even Wikipedia.

      On Fandom, if you want to discuss, you need to learn a new mechanic: forum, comment, message board, /f, feed. I just don't understand. Where am I supposed to start a discussion?!

      (Sorry, English isn't my first language.)

      I think that all of this is really dependant of the admins' will, but readers and editors have more power on Gamepedia because the tools are more "in front of your face" and they are available by default on every Gamepedia wiki.

      I also think that UCP need to bring everyone on some kind of local platform, but it has to be "in front of your face" too, and enabled by default. Also, regular users need to be able to understand how it works as well as the admins do.

        Loading editor
    • BowiQC wrote: On Gamepedia, if you want to discuss, all you need to do it to create a Talk page or contribute to a Project Page, using the same concepts you had to learn when joining Gamepedia or even Wikipedia.

      On Fandom, if you want to discuss, you need to learn a new mechanic: forum, comment, message board, /f, feed. I just don't understand. Where am I supposed to start a discussion?!

      Fandom has talk pages too, though they can be turned into Comments. The latter does not really promote discussion.

        Loading editor
    • Hey! I'm not sure how related this is to the recent technical update but I noticed that the editor has completely changed and the way some features are visually have changed as well, is there anyway to revert this at all? Some people I know have said that the editor hasn't changed for them while another person said that it did.

      Here are some pictures for clarification:

      Screen Shot 2020-04-27 at 8.27.15 AM

      The new editor.

      Screen Shot 2020-04-27 at 8.25.19 AM

      The original editor.

      This is just too much of a change for me to work with.

        Loading editor
    • That original editor wasn't even an editor - it was just raw source. The source editor always existed. However, for UCP wikis, the choice at the moment is only Visual Editor of Source Editor, which you can pick in your Preferences. In the first week, it was possible to disable the editors completely, but this has changed (and retroactively to boot). However, the UCP's Source Source was different from the old source with the right module rail etc.; it was closer to vanilla source like Wikipedia has.

      If you want the Source Source back, air your feedback with this form. I hope it's just temporary because they want to port the current look over, but haven't heard anything about it.

        Loading editor
    • I agree that sometimes wikis get created for stupid reasons (like all those tiny abondoned Thomas the Tank Engine wikis). The idea of having a vetting process is something they used to have, got rid of, and are now reinstating with UCP. That said, if Gamepedia's process is as you described, then Fandom will still be more liberal with wiki creation.

      I don't think this is a bad thing. With Gamepedia, the brand is focused on video games. Video games have game companies behind them so it makes sense to have official partnerships, staff initiated wikis, etc. However, Fandom is not just about video games. The intent is that you can create a wiki about your favorite YouTuber, book series, anime, comic, school subject (there is a mathematics wiki), location, etc. I trust you can see how using Gamepedia's current system for video-game focused wikis does not really fit well for some other topics.

      While I sympathise with your experience, extrapolating that to all of Fandom is a gross error. The equivalent would be if I made an edit to the Gamepedia Minecraft Wiki, had it reverted, and then complained that Gamepedia as an entire platform is tyranical. As with any large platform, there will be good admins and bad admins. I can almost guarentee you there are some Gamepedia admins that do the same; you just don't deal with them. Likewise, there are plenty of good admins on Fandom. In fact, I think some of them are a little too forgiving.


      Again, are these Gamepedia pages an actual standard feature? Because I checked some Gamepedia wikis and not all wikis have them. Also, I still don't see how they are different from a normal project-namesapce page. If this is just a convention rather than an actual feature, then Fnadom isn't lacking anything. It is up to each wiki how to use its pages.

      As for the talk pages, those are "hidden" because most wikis use article comments instead.


      Your argument against Forums/comments only makes sense if you assume users are coming from Gampedia or Wikipedia to Fandom. If someone is coming from Fandom to Gamepedia, they would think that talk pages are weird. It is just a matter of what people have gotten used to. So I stand by my initial reply on this subject.

      As for the confusion about where to start a discusstion, that is because Fandom is in the process of changing over features. Once migration is complete, there won't be anymore Forums, just Discussions.

      Could you provide some specific examples of what you consider "in your face" tools that Fandom lacks? When it comes to editing pages, I don't think anything is obsurdly hidden.


      To summarize Tupka217's reply, no. There is no way to "change back" to the previous editor. UCP wikis have this new editor (see the announcement) and that is it.

        Loading editor
    • From what I can tell, Gamepedia has no social features that FANDOM legacy or even UCP wikis don't already have. The Project talk page is almost as old as MediaWikis themselves and talk pages are older.

      Where you should use FANDOM social features is mostly self-evident:

      • Want to send a message to a particular user: Message Wall or User talk page.
      • Want to comment on a specific page: Comments (which onyl appear at the end of main namespace articles and only on wikis where it is enabled).
      • Want to comment on a specific page whether or not Comments are enabled: Talk pages exist for every type of namespace article (Discussions is not a namespace) except Special pages and Forum.
      • Want to discuss something relative to the wiki topic: Forum (which is going to disappear probably around June) or Discussions. Both can have a variable number of boards or categories for more narrow subtopics.

      Gamepedia wikis have this:

      • Talk pages.
      • Some other page re-purposed for discussion, but never specifically designed for it.
      • Possibly some social feature extension, but nothing standardized.
        Loading editor
    • Thanks for the summary Fandyllic. I was thinking it would be nice to hear your view on things since you are both a Fandom and a Gamepedia editor. As opposed to me and BowiQC who are both clearly coming at this from just one side.

        Loading editor
    • BowiQC wrote:
      Death Stranding Wiki its felt like there wasn't any specific place where editors could plan together.

      "Discussion/Talk" link for each article is hidden. There's an extra step to reach the Talk page, while it's only one click away on Gamepedia.

      On Gamepedia, if you want to discuss, all you need to do it to create a Talk page or contribute to a Project Page. On Fandom, if you want to discuss: forum, comment, message board, /f, feed.

      On Gamepedia the tools are more "in front of your face" and they are available by default.

      Gamepedia v Legacy Fandom v UCP Fandom

      Looking at the 3 different platforms, all have Talk but all different:

      1. Gamepedia → example: Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey
      2. Legacy Fandom → example: Death Stranding Wiki
      3. UPC Fandom → example: Wreck-It Woodhouse community


      Both Gamepedia (Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey) and UPC Fandom (Wreck-It Woodhouse community) are both using MediaWiki 1.33.3. But UCP Fandom is still in building stage so unknown if the the Discussion Link (image reposted below) will be added or a Gamepedia-exclusive.

      2020-04-27 07 25 34-Window


      Fandom permits personalization of wikis and some have used MediaWiki (now live on UPC Fandom) to add a top row that appears on article pages. I keep checking New Wikis looking for a Gamepedia-type wiki that is learning the differences from Gamepedia and can create/plan alternatives so a smooth transition when Gamepedia flips to UCP Fandom.

        Loading editor
    • Ummm.. that screenshot is from Gamepedia and not UCP... the Discussion link is just a link to the talk page with a different name.

      Just because thing have the same name doesn't mean they serve or intend to serve the same function... Gamepedia is really nothing like either FANDOM legacy or UCP at this point.

      Oh and I'm not really a Gamepedia editor, but I know that state of Gamepedia wikis for the most part... they are much closer to vanilla MediaWiki (like Wikipedia) than FANDOM.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, the new Dashboard link (you probably saw a pop-up about it) on Fandom/UCP made me happy, because it looks like Gamepedia. 😅

        Loading editor
    • This format sucks. I created two new wiki yesterday: one for true tears and one for Yawara and to be honest, I don't even want to bother trying to work on them because the UCP or ICP or whatever it's called now is frustrating to use. Wish there was a way to turn it back to the older forma. The older editing format was working just fine so I don't understand why they felt like they needed to change it. 

        Loading editor
    • Friendlyone22 wrote: This format sucks. I created two new wiki yesterday: one for true tears and one for Yawara and to be honest, I don't even want to bother trying to work on them because the UCP or ICP or whatever it's called now is frustrating to use. Wish there was a way to turn it back to the older forma. The older editing format was working just fine so I don't understand why they felt like they needed to change it. 

      What don't you like about it specifically? This is the latest editor provided by the people who make the software our wikis run on.

        Loading editor
    • TableWiz wrote: [...]

      Fandom permits personalization of wikis and some have used MediaWiki (now live on UPC Fandom) to add a top row that appears on article pages. [...]

      I don't quite understand how this would work. Could you link to an example? Or are you just referring to the local navigation menus?


      Fandyllic wrote: Ummm.. that screenshot is from Gamepedia and not UCP... the Discussion link is just a link to the talk page with a different name.

      [...]

      If I am not mistaken, I believe the point was to show us Fandom users the "Discussion" button that Gamepedia has. So it makes perfect sense it would be a Gamepedia wiki.


      BowiQC wrote: Honestly, the new Dashboard link (you probably saw a pop-up about it) on Fandom/UCP made me happy, because it looks like Gamepedia. 😅

      This is the exact issue I mentioned earlier. You dislike aspects of Fandom because it is different from Gamepedia and I dislike aspects of Gamepedia because it is different from Fandom. The underlying issue is that neither of us want to learn a new interface. However, that does not necessarily mean that one is better than the other.

      As for the "Dashboard", that is currently just an experimental script. It has not yet been rolled out Fandom-wide. I get that you like it because it is Gamepedia-like but it is not such a big deal from my perspective.

      The dashboard provides 6 links. 2 of those links link to the same page, just different tabs on the page. So let's consider it 5 links.

      Of those 5 links, 1 is to the local user page which is already available via the same drop-down the dashboard is accessed from. Another is to user preferences which is removed from the drop-down and added to the dashboard submenu when the dashboard is inserted. So, as far as I am concerned, those 2 links don't count as the dashboard actually adds to the number of clicks require to get there.

      Of the remaining 3 links, the first one does the same thing as clicking the "edit" button in the user masthead on the userpage. In the sens that you can now do this from a dashboard, I guess you could argue this "centralized" option is "better". However, the masthead is available via the user page and several other pages. So in terms of saving clicks, this really doesn't do much.

      Thus we are left with 2 links on the dashboard and 2 links is the dashboard submenu. These 4 links are the only ones that, in my opinion, have added any value. Even then, a reasonably experienced user would already know how to access these pages without the new dashboard. The "My Contributions" item in the dashboard submenu saves only 1 click. So, in my opinion, its added value is extremely low.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Friendlyone22 wrote: This format sucks. I created two new wiki yesterday: one for true tears and one for Yawara and to be honest, I don't even want to bother trying to work on them because the UCP or ICP or whatever it's called now is frustrating to use. Wish there was a way to turn it back to the older forma. The older editing format was working just fine so I don't understand why they felt like they needed to change it. 

      What don't you like about it specifically? This is the latest editor provided by the people who make the software our wikis run on.

      It's just awkward to use. For instance, making a table is more frustrating because you can't change the width of the table, or change how many cells/rows you can make. In the older editor, you can just go to 'table properties' and change the amount of cells and rows and width. In this new editor, you can't change it. Making a gallery requires way too many more steps than last time. And the slider gallery, even more so. In the old visual editor, it was easy to center text. That feature is no where to be found in this new editor. Overall it's just annoying to use, especially when you are used to the older editor. I'm sure it's a great thing to have, and it's probably great for a lot of people, but I'm, personally, not a fan. And I wish there was a way for us to choose which editor we would like to use instead of it being forced on us.

        Loading editor
    • Friendlyone22 wrote:

      It's just awkward to use. For instance, making a table is more frustrating because you can't change the width of the table, or change how many cells/rows you can make.

      You can insert rows and columns by clicking the row or column carets on the table, but I agree, it would be nice to edit those properties in the table properties.

        Loading editor
    • I wanted to note that I saw an issue reported on User:Noreplyz/UCP that stated that the talk page for a user's profile no longer goes to the user's message wall. I believe that the current behavior is correct, as the talk page should be used to talk about content on the profile page (on my wiki, this is where content moderation would be logged and explained) rather than directly messaging the user. I know that this is how it works on the Legacy Platform, but I strongly believe in keeping the current behavior.

      (edit2:) Replacing ([[User talk:username|talk]]) with ([[Message Wall:username|wall]])) in all places where it is generated for SpecialPages, and the signature template would be neccessary. To keep it that way would be a misnomer. I don't think the 'User talk:' namespace should be made inaccessible.

      (edit1:) See my profile page on my UCP Wiki for an example of how I make the distinction.

        Loading editor
    • Your conclusion that this behavior is correct is entirely based on what you think the use of the user talk page is. However, the use varies on a per wiki basis. Just because your wiki uses them that way doesn't mean other wikis don't use them some other way. In fact, if it weren't for message walls (which BowiQC is complaining about), then user talk pages would be the only place to directly message the user.

      Take a look at the dev wiki, for example. You can also look at any Gamepedia wiki or Wikipedia. Most wikis use the user talk pages for direct messaging which is why legacy Fandom redirects you from the user talk page to the message wall.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote: Your conclusion that this behavior is correct is entirely based on what you think the use of the user talk page is. However, the use varies on a per wiki basis. Just because your wiki uses them that way doesn't mean other wikis don't use them some other way. In fact, if it weren't for message walls (which BowiQC is complaining about), then user talk pages would be the only place to directly message the user.

      I realized my error in my thinking about this, but this can be solved with replacing ([[User talk:username|talk]]) with ([[Message Wall:username|wall)]]) in all places where it is generated for SpecialPages, and the signature template. To keep it that way would be a misnomer. I don't think the 'User talk:' namespace should be made inaccessible.

      (edit 1:) BTW, I think the Fandom technomages might have heard me. I haven't yet found an instance in SpecialPages where 'talk' is being used, instead they all say 'Message Wall'. Hopefully the 'User talk:' redirect will be avoided.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote:

      I agree that sometimes [...]

      I’m glad to read that Discussions and Forums will be merged or something. :)

      As for tools that are more "in front of your face", I’ll try to be more specific. Have a look at the screenshots below where I’m covering the upper part of an article on Death Stranding Wiki and of another one on the No Man’s Sky Wiki.

      I think that Fandom doesn’t put enough emphasis on the "editing" features and the "community" part of a wiki. Fandom and Gamepedia appear to be two very distinct brands, even when having a quick look at the design of an article. Fandom gladly displays its offer: "GAMES/MOVIES/TV/VIDEO/WIKIS"... ... "WIKIS"?! I just noticed that wikis are one of the items. Fandom, like you said, happily presents itself as a platform for entertainment and... well... fandom... I guess. Also, when Fandom hides Mediawiki-oriented features (Talk, History, etc.), it spends a lot of space advertising curated content on the footer and Web-2.0 content (/f) which, for Death Stranding, has more to do with "fandom" than "Developing the Wiki". Fandom's emphasis on fandom seems detrimental to the development of the wiki.

      On the other hand, Gamepedia appears to have very little to "sell" other than its community-created content, probably on purpose. The UI is almost screaming "CONTRIBUTE TO THIS WIKI" at the reader. If you have a short attention span like me, Gamepedia does a far better job than Fandom at orienting the reader towards their first edit. On Fandom, it’s easy to be distracted by a discussion thread, an ad, or a curated article. On Gamepedia, the last thing you see at the bottom of your article are pretty much the references and the categories.

      While I was doing "life stuffs", I thought about how Fandom doesn’t valorize/empower the editors. At least, that’s how I feel. When I look at a Fandom Main Page or at an article, I wonder whether someone else will ever make the extra step to develop the wiki with me. First, I wonder, "How is anyone supposed to find this? (edit, how-tos, guidelines, etc.)", and "Where can I organize a collective effort on topic X or topic Y?". Then, I wonder, "Is it really worth it?", "Am I the only one here"?. A total noob might even wonder "Am I even allowed to add something here?". Now... Take a step back... If I am thinking all of this myself, how do you expect me to even consider investing time on Fandom?

      Finally, I want to say something about social features, which are obviously richer on Fandom than they are on Gamepedia. When I claimed administrative rights for the wiki on Gamepedia, I wanted to use the tools at my disposal to do community outreach with readers and editors, and I already knew that I would need to use the official Discord server and Reddit server. I kinda failed at that, for numerous (some, personal) reasons, but that’s for another story. 😅 With hindsight, I think that the social features of Fandom would have been useful.

      2020-04-28 16 22 23-Window

      https://deathstranding.fandom.com/wiki/MULE

      2020-04-28 16 24 04-Window

      https://nomanssky.gamepedia.com/Sentinel

        Loading editor
    • BowiQC wrote:

      I’m glad to read that Discussions and Forums will be merged or something. :)

      Forums will not be merged... it will be killed and either the posts archived or converted to Discussions. When I think merger, I would expect more Forum-type features to be retained, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote: That original editor wasn't even an editor - it was just raw source. The source editor always existed. However, for UCP wikis, the choice at the moment is only Visual Editor of Source Editor, which you can pick in your Preferences. In the first week, it was possible to disable the editors completely, but this has changed (and retroactively to boot). However, the UCP's Source Source was different from the old source with the right module rail etc.; it was closer to vanilla source like Wikipedia has.

      If you want the Source Source back, air your feedback with this form. I hope it's just temporary because they want to port the current look over, but haven't heard anything about it.

      "Visual Editor of Source Editor"

      This^ is exactly why I think so many source editors are unhappy with the UCP source editor.

      "I hope it's just temporary because they want to port the current look over, but haven't heard anything about it."

      I wish this was the case, having js pop up to source editor is maddening. But it's looking more and more like that's what it will be- which is probably the most upsetting part of the UCP for me ATM. But I still hope (if that counts for anything) that devs listen and get this sorted.

      I almost feel this is to beautify source editor or have it "visual editor-like". I don't want it beautiful, I want it easy to use, functional and faster. I see zero of that (but to be fair I haven't used it enough to see past the obvious flaws) at it's current state and it has nothing to do with just getting use to it getting use to slower and smaller space is simply tolerating it; not getting use to it. And in the end is an upgrade an upgrade if you are tolerating things?

      And my other pet peeve, and I am not sure if there is a way to opt out of it is the pop ups to add summary- I just so much prefer this in the editing page and not as another js pop up. I tried to do a few quick edits to test on the test UCP and I wanted to pick up my monitor and throw it by the last summary pop up (and I haven't wanted to damage computer equipment since wiping in heroic mode in WOW trying to get a rusted protodrake (two head seats RIP, but we did finally get our guild that mount)).

      Having it as js- isn't the answer in my honest opinion. If anything this has me having unnecessary resentment to those who use visual editor because if we were source editor as a majority I don't think we'd be having this issue (which isn't fair and might not be accurate but I can't help but be upset and resentful about it).

        Loading editor
    • ^ This

        Loading editor
    • Hollowness wrote: I almost feel this is to beautify source editor or have it "visual editor-like". I don't want it beautiful, I want it easy to use, functional and faster. I see zero of that (but to be fair I haven't used it enough to see past the obvious flaws) at it's current state and it has nothing to do with just getting use to it getting use to slower and smaller space is simply tolerating it; not getting use to it. And in the end is an upgrade an upgrade if you are tolerating things?

      I am genuinely not understanding your issue with the source editor. It uses a non-proportional font, it breaks lines at exactly 121 characters, and I can scale it in my browser to fit the whole screen. Having done a lot of coding in Linux in text mode, I feel very at home with this editor, especially with its extremely smart syntax highlighting that can help me try to figure out wtf I was trying to do with a bunch of messy TemplateParser #if: and #switch: statements.

      The add-ons are cool. I found one place where this was very useful, in writing a #redirect for a file system object that I didn't want typed to the internal file format extension in the name, that one is forced to contend with for image files in MediaWiki. To create the redirect for a file that doesn't yet exist in the file system, I type #redirect, space, then click Media in the toolbar, upload the image I wanted, insert and save, the redirect is written. (the trailing parameters are ignored in the redirect statement).

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: Forums will not be merged... it will be killed and either the posts archived or converted to Discussions. When I think merger, I would expect more Forum-type features to be retained, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

      I see. Sorry. I still don't know the difference between Forums and Discussions. Is "Discussions" "/f", and "forums" where we are right now?

        Loading editor
    • Right. Discussions are at XXX.fandom.com/f and Forums (and message wall threads) are at XXX.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:###

        Loading editor
    • Thedarkgreenmeme wrote:

      If you want to genuinely understand maybe read all the existing complaints about it. I already explained slow loading, annoying summary pop up and less space.

      Edit: but I am a mass editor, I have over 100k+ edits on one of my wikis in the past year alone. So for me slow loading and an extra pop up- 100k+ times is a lot of annoyance and time wasted, which is a big deal as a mass editor. I suppose if I was a casual editor would find this fine and just deal.

        Loading editor
    • About the Dashboard. See this: https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Dashboard. It's also part of the new feature. It answers to some of my complains with the Fandom.

        Loading editor
    • Fair point. However, I am guessing it was easier for Fandom to simply program a redirect from User_talk to Message_Wall rather than go into the core and change everything there.


      It is true that the search bar in the global navigation header is a bit confusing. That is something that keeps popping up as a topic now and then. However, in terms of the position on screen, it is the same as Gamepedia; the top-right corner.

      I can understand your frustration with having to use drop-down menus instead of having every option openly displayed. I think the over simplification of interfaces is a real issue with web design. That said, the drop-down menus are clearly indicated.

      Again, I look at what you are trying to access and I don't think the issue is that they are actually inaccessible on Fandom (except for talk pages). To me, the issue seems to be just that they aren't where you, as a Gamepedia editor, expect them to be. Likewise, I think a Fandom editor would have some trouble adjusting to Gamepedia's layout.

      To address the talk pages, I think that ultimately is yet another thing that comes down to habit. Your apparent obsession with links to talk pages is because you see that as critical to having discussions on the wiki. However, if you go to talk pages on most Fandom wikis, you will see nothing there. Why? Because Fandom holds discussions using these other features which you find odd because you have never used them before. However, from the perspective of a Fandom user, what is the point of linking to an empty page? One thing that is nice about Fandom's discussion features is that only the author and admins can edit posts. If you posted a comment on a talk page, there is nothing stopping me from completely rewriting your comment. Yes, users can look through the page history. However, new/casual users aren't going to even know to do that. By having these additional editing restrictions, Fandom's discussion features prevent vandalism and confusion. Users can't claim (as easily) "I didn't write that! Someone is trying to frame me!"

      Fandom has long been obsessed with the casual reader/editor. Neglect of the poweruser is an issue that has long plagued Fandom development and one that they fully acknowledge. However, if we grant them that they are focusing on the casual user, then the changes they have made make sense. Whether or not they are neglecting the powerusers too much is a separate issue. To this end, I think Discussions v. Forum is a perfect example. However, based on a glance at the following posts, I think I will save that topic for later. This is just speculation, but I think the focus on readers is due to how Fandom makes money. Fandom is entirely ad-based. There is no "Pro" subscription you can pay for like you do with Gamepedia. Since reduced ads are available to all registered users free of charge, Fandom's dependence on anonymous readers grows stronger. Hence the focus on drawing in readers rather than pleasing editors.

      I agree that Fandom and Gamepedia put forth very different images regarding their brands. That is partially why I am skeptical of this "unification" process. If you want a really good example of the difference, just look at how the interwiki map is handled. On Gamepedia, local admins can pretty much do whatever they want. They can add whichever sites they want and even allow transclusion. On Fandom, it is the complete opposite. Nothing gets added without Fandom's approval (and they are pretty stringent on what is "acceptable"). Even then, transclusion is never allowed (except from Community Central).


      There is a decent number of users here on Community Central that agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think we will be getting the old source editor back anytime soon. As MisterWoodhouse already explained, the new JS-based editor is the factory default (plus a few Fandom tweaks) for this new version of MediaWiki.


      Part of the issue with the new editor is the distrust generated by the now-legacy VisualEditor. That editor was (arguably still is) constantly plagues with bugs and quirks; all while offering only the basic most functions. While the now-legacy VisualEditor does offer a source mode, you have to revert to visual mode in order to save your changes. Therefore, any issue with visual mode automatically because an issue for source mode as well. Past issues have run the full spectrum from deleting content that wasn't changed to adding tons of interface-related XML upon saving. One of the most frequent issues that new users have is the caching. They will make a change to a template but the VisualEditor won't recognize the changes. Removed parameters will still appear and new parameters won't show.

      My biggest issue is with the compatibility for older browsers. However, as Fandom moves more and more towards the future, that is becoming a larger and larger issue for more and more of the entire platform; not just the editor. In most cases, a simple JS polyfill would go a long way. I'll stop here since I have ranted about this before.


      BowiQC, since you are not as familiar with the variety of discussion features on Fandom, here are some links to examples.

      1. wiki-style forums (a.k.a. DPLforum)
      2. Thread-based discussions (retiring with transition to UCP)
        1. Forums (you're in it right now)
        2. message walls
        3. article comments - scroll to bottom of article
        4. legacy blog comments - scroll to bottom of blog
      3. Feeds-based discussions
        1. Discussions - already on some legacy-platform wikis
        2. message walls
        3. article comments - in the works
        4. blog comments - blogs may not be ported

      I am well aware of what the Dashboard is. As a frequent Community Central editor, I noticed it the day it was added. What I am saying is that right now it is a custom JS script imported from the dev wiki on a per wiki basis. It is not yet a standard feature applied farm-wide. Furthermore, as I previously explained, I don't think it adds much value. But that is just my opinion. Clearly you disagree.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote:

      There is a decent number of users here on Community Central that agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think we will be getting the old source editor back anytime soon. As MisterWoodhouse already explained, the new JS-based editor is the factory default (plus a few Fandom tweaks) for this new version of MediaWiki.

      Yeah, unfortunately.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote: If you want a really good example of the difference, just look at how the interwiki map is handled. On Gamepedia, local admins can pretty much do whatever they want. They can add whichever sites they want and even allow transclusion. On Fandom, it is the complete opposite. Nothing gets added without Fandom's approval (and they are pretty stringent on what is "acceptable"). Even then, transclusion is never allowed (except from Community Central).

      Just curious, why is this? Do bad sources for transclusions open an easy avenue for DoS attacks?

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote: As MisterWoodhouse already explained, the new JS-based editor is the factory default (plus a few Fandom tweaks) for this new version of MediaWiki.

      Uh what? UCP's "editor" is actually VisualEditor (even the "source" editor is actually just VisualEditor), and is not the default editor for MediaWiki (it even requires other services to be running that aren't part of MediaWiki, Parsoid (which is required for VisualEditor to even view or edit pages) and RESTBase). See this page for a list of all of MediaWiki's editors.

        Loading editor
    • Thedarkgreenmeme wrote:

      Andrewds1021 wrote: If you want a really good example of the difference, just look at how the interwiki map is handled. On Gamepedia, local admins can pretty much do whatever they want. They can add whichever sites they want and even allow transclusion. On Fandom, it is the complete opposite. Nothing gets added without Fandom's approval (and they are pretty stringent on what is "acceptable"). Even then, transclusion is never allowed (except from Community Central).

      Just curious, why is this? Do bad sources for transclusions open an easy avenue for DoS attacks?

      This is crosswiki transclusion, right? For crosswiki transclusion, the reason I've heard the most for it being only enabled on Community Central is that it's more server intensive than normal transclusion. There's a pretty good explanation of (what I think is) the current method here.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      This is crosswiki transclusion, right? For crosswiki transclusion, the reason I've heard the most for it being only enabled on Community Central is that it's more server intensive than normal transclusion. There's a pretty good explanation of (what I think is) the current method here.

      Crosswiki transclusion from CC doesn't work on UCP yet, correct? I haven't checked if it works from ucp.fandom.com, but I also don't know what the markup would be.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:

      Crosswiki transclusion from CC doesn't work on UCP yet, correct? I haven't checked if it works from ucp.fandom.com, but I also don't know what the markup would be.

      Apparently, not at the moment:

      w:c:rdrii:Help talk:MediaWiki Unified Community Platform (RDRII Wiki)/Bug List#Interwiki Transclusion Example

        Loading editor
    • We know that transclusion from CC doesn't work on UCP, but FANDOM staff have given hints that ucp.fandom.com might be a temporary placeholder location for stuff that was served from CC for legacy wikis. However, since it is unlikely that markup like {{:w:ucp:STUFF}} or {{:w:c:ucp:STUFF}} will work. Also, generally stuff doesn't work unless FANDOM staff says there is a fix or a new implementation.

        Loading editor
    • Given the following, I am guessing there is no interwiki transclusion on UCP; even from the UCP wiki.

      1. They only mentioned substituting UCP wiki for CC with regards to CSS
      2. The CSS requires use of full URLs
        • Hinting that this was a quick fix rather than a long-term fix
      3. The UCP wiki is is not in the UCP interwiki map
        • The "w:c:" format is not an actual interiwki link but something handled by InterwikiDispatcher (Fandom's custom code). That is why Gamepedia doesn't have a similar feature.
        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: (see above)

      I added those cases to: w:c:rdrii:Help talk:MediaWiki Unified Community Platform (RDRII Wiki)/Bug List#Interwiki Transclusion Example If you want to check it out for yourself.

        Loading editor
    • Scary Transclusion is still being worked on, as the implementation we put out did not work.

        Loading editor
    • Regarding that, how is it going to work long-term once Gamepedia gets UCP as well? As far as I can tell, Gamepedia currently allows local admins to control the interwiki map and scary transclusion at will. This is the complete opposite of Fandom. Will the two farms keep that difference or will one change over from its current approach to the other approach?


      What I meant by "deafualt" was really more along the lines of "common" or "normal". Yes, there is a plaintext one that is called the "default". However, the page clearly explains that it is intended for when JS is disabled. If JS is enabled, as it typically the case, they expect that wikis will use the one that UCP is. At least, that is what the page makes it seem like. The fact that it requires a separate service does not mean it is not supposed to be the norm. Sort of like how Fandom is now expecting Discord to be the norm for chatting rather than the chat extension. Perhaps I should have put some more thought into my exact phrasing.

        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.