FANDOM


  • MisterWoodhouse
    MisterWoodhouse closed this thread because:
    New thread time
    19:10, July 2, 2020

    IT BE FRIDAY, SAILERS!

    Just a few updates this week, as we spent a lot of time preparing other work for release.

    Edit Counts

    UserActivity should show the correct number of edits on UCP wikis now. Fun Fact: Edit counts were originally intended to qualify accounts against abuse filters, so the accuracy of them wasn't a priority beyond the first several edits.

    Social Activity Tab

    The new UCP Profile has a new tab called Activity that lists social feature engagement, separate from core wiki contributions.

    Message Wall activity currently shown there. Article Comments and Discussions activity will follow in a later release.

    Message titles can now be edited

    Message titles on Message Wall can now be edited. Pretty straightforward.

    One ThemeDesigner change

    Our only default image in ThemeDesigner was a bokeh-heavy photo of police cruiser lights. This image has been swapped for a blue and red swirl.

    Wikia.org branding ported to UCP

    We have begun prep work for migrating wikia.org wikis, which have separate branding than their Fandom cousins.

      Loading editor
    • I have a question immediately although it isn't related to this specific post. Is there are way to get notified when you post a new update? Or do I just need to keep checking this page.

        Loading editor
    • Check the Technical Updates board every Thursday afternoon (US Eastern Time). If there's not a new thread, check back the next day.

      Alternatively, you may join the Official Discord Server for Fandom and Gamepedia Editors, where I announce the threads every week.

        Loading editor
    • Personally, I just follow the entire board using ?action=watch so I get a notification instantly when a new thread comes up.

        Loading editor
    • Dralkyrie wrote: Personally, I just follow the entire board using ?action=watch so I get a notification instantly when a new thread comes up.

      That also works well.

        Loading editor
    • My thank to both of you

        Loading editor
    • It looks like user-defined toolboxes that were previously available at the bottom of the page no longer seem to work. How do we access stuff like "what links here" now?

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote: It looks like user-defined toolboxes that were previously available at the bottom of the page no longer seem to work. How do we access stuff like "what links here" now?

      Do you have the toolbar collapsed? I just used What Links Here from my toolbar on Wreck It Woodhouse

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      KrytenKoro wrote: It looks like user-defined toolboxes that were previously available at the bottom of the page no longer seem to work. How do we access stuff like "what links here" now?

      Do you have the toolbar collapsed? I just used What Links Here from my toolbar on Wreck It Woodhouse

      Weirdly enough it seems to start out collapsed. Was this an intentional design choice? Because its kind of hard to see the uncollapse arrow right now.

        Loading editor
    • It looks like Special:MultipleUpload (Which, on Legacy, is accessible to all users, and is also on admin dashboards) does not seem to exist on UCP wikis. Are there plans to add that in the future?

        Loading editor
    • Is the Social Activity Tab just for comments or anything on the discussion-like platform?

        Loading editor
    • Hollowness wrote: Is the Social Activity Tab just for comments or anything on the discussion-like platform?

      Message Wall, Article Comments, and Discussions.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Hollowness wrote: Is the Social Activity Tab just for comments or anything on the discussion-like platform?

      Message Wall, Article Comments, and Discussions.

      Thank you, that sounds handy :)

        Loading editor
    • Hollowness wrote: Thank you, that sounds handy :)

      Very :)

        Loading editor
    • Any updates on fixing interlanguage links on UCP wikis?

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Hollowness wrote: Is the Social Activity Tab just for comments or anything on the discussion-like platform?

      Message Wall, Article Comments, and Discussions.

      Hmm, I don't seem to see Article Comments being shown in the Activity tab.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Hollowness wrote: Is the Social Activity Tab just for comments or anything on the discussion-like platform?

      Message Wall, Article Comments, and Discussions.

      Hmm, I don't seem to see Article Comments being shown in the Activity tab.

      Me neither. I als don't see the discussion I just created

        Loading editor
    • uum  me too

        Loading editor
    • I really don't like how everything is discussions-platformed.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      KrytenKoro wrote: It looks like user-defined toolboxes that were previously available at the bottom of the page no longer seem to work. How do we access stuff like "what links here" now?

      Do you have the toolbar collapsed? I just used What Links Here from my toolbar on Wreck It Woodhouse

      It looks like it auto-collapsed, yes. It was pretty difficult to see the uncollapse arrow.

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      KrytenKoro wrote: It looks like user-defined toolboxes that were previously available at the bottom of the page no longer seem to work. How do we access stuff like "what links here" now?

      Do you have the toolbar collapsed? I just used What Links Here from my toolbar on Wreck It Woodhouse

      It looks like it auto-collapsed, yes. It was pretty difficult to see the uncollapse arrow.

      We're fixing that.

        Loading editor
    • Asarta wrote:

      Noreplyz wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Hollowness wrote: Is the Social Activity Tab just for comments or anything on the discussion-like platform?

      Message Wall, Article Comments, and Discussions.

      Hmm, I don't seem to see Article Comments being shown in the Activity tab.

      Me neither. I als don't see the discussion I just created

      I misread the notes. It's intended to have all of that activity soon, but only Message Wall is plugged into it right now.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Asarta wrote:

      Noreplyz wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Hollowness wrote: Is the Social Activity Tab just for comments or anything on the discussion-like platform?

      Message Wall, Article Comments, and Discussions.

      Hmm, I don't seem to see Article Comments being shown in the Activity tab.

      Me neither. I als don't see the discussion I just created

      I misread the notes. It's intended to have all of that activity soon, but only Message Wall is plugged into it right now.

      Okay thanks for clarifying.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:
      I really don't like how everything is discussions-platformed.

      Okay, you didn't have to ignore me.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:
      I really don't like how everything is discussions-platformed.

      Okay, you didn't have to ignore me.

      What's there to reply? It's not going to change. This has been explained to you.

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:
      I really don't like how everything is discussions-platformed.
      Okay, you didn't have to ignore me.
      What's there to reply? It's not going to change. This has been explained to you.

      And this has been explained to you....

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:
      I really don't like how everything is discussions-platformed.

      Okay, you didn't have to ignore me.

      What did you expect me to say? The decision has been made and we've stated that we're making Discussions more like Forums thanks to feedback from Forums-heavy communities and Discussions power users.

      Still haven't seen an explanation of your repeated "Fandom no longer being Fandom" claim.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:
      I really don't like how everything is discussions-platformed.
      Okay, you didn't have to ignore me.

      What did you expect me to say? The decision has been made and we've stated that we're making Discussions more like Forums thanks to feedback from Forums-heavy communities and Discussions power users.

      Still haven't seen an explanation of your repeated "Fandom no longer being Fandom" claim.

      That doesn't determine an absolute change. Forums and Discussions are meant to be separate. I gave a whole detailed explanation as to why the UCP should stop, and you dismissed the whole thing like it was nothing.

      And you should be patient. I'm not yet ready to provide my photo evidence explaining what I mean. That will be proved in a later blog.

        Loading editor
    • It just feels improper that the Discussions platform would dominate. That's all.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:
      I really don't like how everything is discussions-platformed.
      Okay, you didn't have to ignore me.

      What did you expect me to say? The decision has been made and we've stated that we're making Discussions more like Forums thanks to feedback from Forums-heavy communities and Discussions power users.

      Still haven't seen an explanation of your repeated "Fandom no longer being Fandom" claim.

      That doesn't determine an absolute change. Forums and Discussions are meant to be separate. I gave a whole detailed explanation as to why the UCP should stop, and you dismissed the whole thing like it was nothing.

      And you should be patient. I'm not yet ready to provide my photo evidence explaining what I mean. That will be proved in a later blog.

      No. Discussions is meant to be a replacement for Forums, as it has been since it was initially rolled out years ago. Forums was never meant to sit side-by-side with Discussions indefinitely.

      You didn't give me details. You gave me a post that admitted to not doing the research necessary to provide an informed opinion on the project.

      You've had a while now.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:


      Nathan Pirate wrote:
      I really don't like how everything is discussions-platformed.
      Okay, you didn't have to ignore me.
      What did you expect me to say? The decision has been made and we've stated that we're making Discussions more like Forums thanks to feedback from Forums-heavy communities and Discussions power users.

      Still haven't seen an explanation of your repeated "Fandom no longer being Fandom" claim.

      That doesn't determine an absolute change. Forums and Discussions are meant to be separate. I gave a whole detailed explanation as to why the UCP should stop, and you dismissed the whole thing like it was nothing.

      And you should be patient. I'm not yet ready to provide my photo evidence explaining what I mean. That will be proved in a later blog.

      No. Discussions is meant to be a replacement for Forums, as it has been since it was initially rolled out years ago. Forums was never meant to sit side-by-side with Discussions indefinitely.

      You didn't give me details. You gave me a post that admitted to not doing the research necessary to provide an informed opinion on the project.

      You've had a while now.

      Excuse me, but I'm sure my blog is detailed enough. And I don't have to say everything in one go.

      You may have intended Discussions as a replacement for Forums, but it ultimately found a way to coexist. And I'm not giving up at all. I will protest this as nicely as possible, and relay the message as far and wide. 

        Loading editor
    • It didn't find a way to coexist. We let it stay until it represented a major blocker for updating the rest of the platform.

      Special:Forum will not be on the new platform. Period.

      DPLForums, however, are already available to be turned on for UCP wikis. They are wiki-based forums.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:
      It didn't find a way to coexist. We let it stay until it represented a major blocker for updating the rest of the platform.

      Special:Forum will not be on the new platform. Period.

      DPLForums, however, are already available to be turned on for UCP wikis. They are wiki-based forums.

      You are being unfair in terms of time.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:
      It didn't find a way to coexist. We let it stay until it represented a major blocker for updating the rest of the platform.

      Special:Forum will not be on the new platform. Period.

      DPLForums, however, are already available to be turned on for UCP wikis. They are wiki-based forums.

      You are being unfair in terms of time.


      How? We've kept Forums around for YEARS longer than intended and even pushed their retirement with UCP back several months.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:


      MisterWoodhouse wrote:
      It didn't find a way to coexist. We let it stay until it represented a major blocker for updating the rest of the platform.

      Special:Forum will not be on the new platform. Period.

      DPLForums, however, are already available to be turned on for UCP wikis. They are wiki-based forums.

      You are being unfair in terms of time.

      How? We've kept Forums around for YEARS longer than intended and even pushed their retirement with UCP back several months.

      It was only years. New wikis have no choice in the matter. And That was long before I made an account.

        Loading editor
    • It's ironic. The UCP was meant to update the system, but it was a big-time downgrade.

        Loading editor
    • Recent Changes is just a broing list. It takes WAY longer to check Autoblocks and Special:ListUsers, no automated message,message wall is all the way at the back, the editor looks childish, I could go on and on.

        Loading editor
    • Did you hear me ?

        Loading editor
    • Okay, I will gather others to back up my claims. They may not fully agree with me, but they can help me with proof.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote: And That was long before I made an account.

      To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm, "Well, there it is."

      We're not going to keep a feature that prevents the core experience from receiving a very necessary update when there's an analogous feature we can continue to develop to more deeply satisfy the use case... all because you didn't get enough time to enjoy it.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: And That was long before I made an account.

      To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm, "Well, there it is."

      We're not going to keep a feature that prevents the core experience from receiving a very necessary update when there's an analogous feature we can continue to develop to more deeply satisfy the use case... all because you didn't get enough time to enjoy it.

      Not my fault the way chronology ran. You didn't even read my other replies.

        Loading editor
    • And Fandom does plenty fine without the update, thank you very much. In fact, it's not an update at all.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Not my fault the way chronology ran. You didn't even read my other replies.

      I read them. Not every reply warrants a response. Some just get a recording in our feedback sheet.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Not my fault the way chronology ran. You didn't even read my other replies.

      I read them. Not every reply warrants a response. Some just get a recording in our feedback sheet.

      I don't know what the heck a feedback sheet even is. All I know is you ignored key points.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Not my fault the way chronology ran. You didn't even read my other replies.

      I read them. Not every reply warrants a response. Some just get a recording in our feedback sheet.

      I don't know what the heck a feedback sheet even is. All I know is you ignored key points.

      We document all the feedback we receive in a shared spreadsheet so that we can gauge the nature of each point as well as commonalities with other feedback expressed.

      You seem to be operating under the assumption that we're just doing this because we want to. It's actually quite a feedback-focused project.

      Documenting your feedback is not ignoring it.

      I don't have enough hours in the day to get into a back and forth conversation with every person who offers feedback.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:


      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Not my fault the way chronology ran. You didn't even read my other replies.

      I read them. Not every reply warrants a response. Some just get a recording in our feedback sheet.
      I don't know what the heck a feedback sheet even is. All I know is you ignored key points.
      We document all the feedback we receive in a shared spreadsheet so that we can gauge the nature of each point as well as commonalities with other feedback expressed.

      You seem to be operating under the assumption that we're just doing this because we want to. It's actually quite a feedback-focused project.

      Documenting your feedback is not ignoring it.

      I don't have enough hours in the day to get into a back and forth conversation with every person who offers feedback.

      Well, can you link me an official debate thread about the UCP then ?

        Loading editor
    • Where in the quoted message implies there was an "official debate about the UCP"?

        Loading editor
    • Himmalerin wrote:
      Where in the quoted message implies there was an "official debate about the UCP"?

      Nowhere. I was simply requesting in response. Why ?

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Well, can you link me an official debate thread about the UCP then ?

      There isn't one.

      If your goal is to stop the project, you can pack it in. It will not. We are committed to the goals of this project and will be unifying the two platforms onto one modern, MediaWiki 1.33-powered platform which we can keep up to date in the future.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Well, can you link me an official debate thread about the UCP then ?

      There isn't one.

      If your goal is to stop the project, you can pack it in. It will not. We are committed to the goals of this project and will be unifying the two platforms onto one modern, MediaWiki 1.33-powered platform which we can keep up to date in the future.

      Wanna bet ? I'm gonna work hard to protest it as far and wide as possible. What you're aiming for is far from modern. You're the one who should be packing it in, because I'm gonna make things right. 

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Well, can you link me an official debate thread about the UCP then ?

      There isn't one.

      If your goal is to stop the project, you can pack it in. It will not. We are committed to the goals of this project and will be unifying the two platforms onto one modern, MediaWiki 1.33-powered platform which we can keep up to date in the future.

      Wanna bet ? I'm gonna work hard to protest it as far and wide as possible. What you're aiming for is far from modern. You're the one who should be packing it in, because I'm gonna make things right. 

      I don't bet.

      If you're just going to disrupt the project because you don't like it, I can guarantee that it will not end well for you.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      Well, can you link me an official debate thread about the UCP then ?

      There isn't one.

      If your goal is to stop the project, you can pack it in. It will not. We are committed to the goals of this project and will be unifying the two platforms onto one modern, MediaWiki 1.33-powered platform which we can keep up to date in the future.

      Wanna bet ? I'm gonna work hard to protest it as far and wide as possible. What you're aiming for is far from modern. You're the one who should be packing it in, because I'm gonna make things right. 

      I don't bet.

      If you're just going to disrupt the project because you don't like it, I can guarantee that it will not end well for you.

      I don't think so. I have the right to speak my mind. It's not just because I don't like it, it's because a classic system is being destroyed. You corrupt yourself. The UCP cannot be the only solution. Your hatred of threads has clouded you. Admit it. And I'm not going anywhere.  You could've at least delayed it all until the Coronavirus thing ends, or make it so that new wikis can choose. Your corruptness disappoints me. I expected more from you. I will not rest until all is back to normal.

        Loading editor
    • UCP was not the only solution. We examined other routes and our expert analysis concluded that they were not feasible for a variety of reasons. You assume that we didn't do our jobs and due diligence. The team working on this has hundreds of years of wiki experience combined. We did our homework. We know the challenges of the system better than you ever will. If you cannot accept that the people who are doing the work know more about how Fandom works that you do, I cannot help you.

      First and only warning about personal attacks.

        Loading editor
    • I am not in love with the UCP so far and I still feel there are somethings not being addressed nor fixed yet. I am squeaky wheeling the things that matter to me (and I think others too) and that is how I am doing my part to help staff and the UCP (though sometimes it prolly just looks like endless qq's).

      Raging for a revert won't get you what you want and you distract from actual possible compromises and additions. Please feel free to express your upset and concerns about certain issues but please save the soap box for a ticket or your own thread.

      I feel this is a bit derailing from the point I am following these recent highlight threads and it just comes across as non-stop ranting.

        Loading editor
    • Hollowness wrote: I am not in love with the UCP so far and I still feel there are somethings not being addressed nor fixed yet. I am squeaky wheeling the things that matter to me (and I think others too) and that is how I am doing my part to help staff and the UCP (though sometimes it prolly just looks like endless qq's).

      Raging for a revert won't get you what you want and you distract from actual possible compromises and additions. Please feel free to express your upset and concerns about certain issues but please save the soap box for a ticket or your own thread.

      I feel this is a bit derailing from the point I am following these recent highlight threads and it just comes across as non-stop ranting.

      Well said, but don't sell yourself short.

      Your feedback has been invaluable and far from "endless qq's"

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Well said, but don't sell yourself short.

      Your feedback has been invaluable and far from "endless qq's"

      Well, I am a woman with opinions; which is rarely in short supply XD

        Loading editor
    • While I'm not currently in love with the UCP layout and will find ways to incorporate non-UCP friendly styles into the CSS that I intend to write for UCP wikis, I do know that arguing against the discontinuation of certain features such as Special:Forum isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

      To those people that have been arguing against the discontinuation of soon to be discontinued features: You got to work on improving what UCP will offer. Not argue your way into preserving what has already been stated will not be carried over to UCP wikis.

        Loading editor
    • I accept that the UCP is the future.... but I don't have to like it. The unsaid reasoning behind the direction is that FANDOM made many, many mistakes in the course of software development. While they may be making less mistakes, they are also reducing the feature set dramatically at first and some of those features may never return.

      I'm waiting to see the first Gamepedia migrations and see how those folks react. I get this sense that Gamepedia folks will have an outsized influence on what we will see in UCP once they start having to deal with it.

        Loading editor
    • Wikia.org being UCP too?

      BRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH

        Loading editor
    • Were you expecting any different?

        Loading editor
    • No.

        Loading editor
    • I know right? If it's going to happen with Fandom, then it's obviously going to happen with Wikia.org.

        Loading editor
    • Well UCP seems valuable to me in the future I think, once it's done the community will enjoy it and like it. I created a blog about some of the advantages and disadvantages of it also. And after reading through this entire thread, quite frankly people need to be more civilised in their feedback sometimes.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse
      MisterWoodhouse removed this reply because:
      Personal attack
      22:36, June 23, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • Hollowness wrote:
      I am not in love with the UCP so far and I still feel there are somethings not being addressed nor fixed yet. I am squeaky wheeling the things that matter to me (and I think others too) and that is how I am doing my part to help staff and the UCP (though sometimes it prolly just looks like endless qq's).

      Raging for a revert won't get you what you want and you distract from actual possible compromises and additions. Please feel free to express your upset and concerns about certain issues but please save the soap box for a ticket or your own thread.

      I feel this is a bit derailing from the point I am following these recent highlight threads and it just comes across as non-stop ranting.

      I have not raged. I am arguing peacdefully (though no one can tell, since I'm not speaking aloud). I have thought up multiple possible compromises long before Phase One even began, to little avail. I am an ordinary person, who wants to prevent a change for the worse. Nothing more, nothing less.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote: I have not raged. I am arguing peacdefully (though no one can tell, since I'm not speaking aloud). I have thought up multiple possible compromises long before Phase One even began, to little avail. I am an ordinary person, who wants to prevent a change for the worse. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Phase One started before you had an account.

        Loading editor
    • C.Syde65 wrote:
      While I'm not currently in love with the UCP layout and will find ways to incorporate non-UCP friendly styles into the CSS that I intend to write for UCP wikis, I do know that arguing against the discontinuation of certain features such as Special:Forum isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

      To those people that have been arguing against the discontinuation of soon to be discontinued features: You got to work on improving what UCP will offer. Not argue your way into preserving what has already been stated will not be carried over to UCP wikis.

      I should note that anything, even done decisions, can change. Pessimistic statements such as yours are not the way. If enough people disagree with the UCP, if enough wikis refuse to migrate, then it is possible to make a difference. By no means do I consider it even remotely likely this will happen, but I know that I can make a difference.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: I have not raged. I am arguing peacdefully (though no one can tell, since I'm not speaking aloud). I have thought up multiple possible compromises long before Phase One even began, to little avail. I am an ordinary person, who wants to prevent a change for the worse. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Phase One started before you had an account.

      I knew fandom before I made an account though.

        Loading editor
    • Will community central migrate to UCP? If so, are we going to get rid of forums for discussions or keep them?

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: I have not raged. I am arguing peacdefully (though no one can tell, since I'm not speaking aloud). I have thought up multiple possible compromises long before Phase One even began, to little avail. I am an ordinary person, who wants to prevent a change for the worse. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Phase One started before you had an account.

      I knew fandom before I made an account though.

      So, the feedback was never shared before Phase One.

        Loading editor
    • Benellim4super90 wrote:
      Will community central migrate to UCP? If so, are we going to get rid of forums for discussions or keep them?

      Whichever is done, it will not be good.

        Loading editor
    • per an earlier discussion CC will be one of the last to migrate since so many things rely on it

        Loading editor
    • Ok

        Loading editor
    • Benellim4super90 wrote: Will community central migrate to UCP? If so, are we going to get rid of forums for discussions or keep them?

      Community Central will likely be the final Fandom wiki migrated to UCP, as it serves as a distribution hub for a bunch of global tools.

      We will be moving CC Forums to Discussions. It is not an exception.

        Loading editor
    • That’s a lot of d posts.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: I have not raged. I am arguing peacdefully (though no one can tell, since I'm not speaking aloud). I have thought up multiple possible compromises long before Phase One even began, to little avail. I am an ordinary person, who wants to prevent a change for the worse. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Phase One started before you had an account.
      I knew fandom before I made an account though.

      So, the feedback was never shared before Phase One.

      I made my account in April. Also, I don't need to share everything before something starts. Last-minute-cancellations are a thing. And restore reply #64, that was not a personal attack. 

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      And restore reply #64, that was not a personal attack. 

      No.

        Loading editor
    • Benellim4super90 wrote: That’s a lot of d posts.

      It is indeed. There are some other Forums communities out there with massive totals as well.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      And restore reply #64, that was not a personal attack. 

      No.

      It wasn't a personal attack though.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      It wasn't a personal attack though.

      It was. You've called me corrupt, stupid, and Dr. Clodhouse because you don't like the project that we're doing. Cut it out or you'll face more serious consequences than a simple reply removal.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      It wasn't a personal attack though.

      It was. You've called me corrupt, stupid, and Dr. Clodhouse because you don't like the project that we're doing. Cut it out or you'll face more serious consequences than a simple reply removal.

      I didn't say any of that in Reply #64. That was elsewhere. You've said much worse. 

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      I didn't say any of that in Reply #64. That was elsewhere. You've said much worse. 

      False on both accounts and you will now drop this, as it is contrary to the thread purpose.

        Loading editor
    • Also, are user blogs going to be done away with?

        Loading editor
    • Benellim4super90 wrote: Also, are user blogs going to be done away with?

      Blogs are coming to the UCP :)

      Dev work is happening right now.

        Loading editor
    • Ok And press f to pay respects to the police cruiser

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse
      MisterWoodhouse removed this reply because:
      Disruption
      23:07, June 23, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • Also, your "variety of reasons" to veto the other solutions besides UCP have never been disclosed. Like I said, your statements are just as "vague and hyperbolic" as mine.

        Loading editor
    • And will there be chat?

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote: Also, your "variety of reasons" to veto the other solutions besides UCP have never been disclosed. Like I said, your statements are just as "vague and hyperbolic" as mine.

      I'm not going to disclose internal engineering discussions.

        Loading editor
    • Benellim4super90 wrote: And will there be chat?

      No announcement has been made regarding chat, as noted elsewhere.

        Loading editor
    • Benellim4super90 wrote: And will there be chat?

      See User:Noreplyz/UCP#Missing features, it’ll eventually come however the arrival date isn’t known yet.

        Loading editor
    • Oh

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: Also, your "variety of reasons" to veto the other solutions besides UCP have never been disclosed. Like I said, your statements are just as "vague and hyperbolic" as mine.

      I'm not going to disclose internal engineering discussions.

      Guess you got no case on that part, then.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: Also, your "variety of reasons" to veto the other solutions besides UCP have never been disclosed. Like I said, your statements are just as "vague and hyperbolic" as mine.

      I'm not going to disclose internal engineering discussions.

      Guess you got no case on that part, then.

      Let's see how I can disclose it then...

      Updating the legacy platform wasn't viable technically due to the number of core customizations made to MediaWiki in the past several years, namely Forums, Message Wall, Article Comments, and the reverse engineered stuff from later MW updates.

      Porting to Gamepedia wasn't viable due to the size of Fandom.

        Loading editor
    • UpnCbs06 wrote:

      Benellim4super90 wrote: And will there be chat?

      See User:Noreplyz/UCP#Missing features, it’ll eventually come however the arrival date isn’t known yet.

      That is an unofficial list. We have made no such promise.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: Also, your "variety of reasons" to veto the other solutions besides UCP have never been disclosed. Like I said, your statements are just as "vague and hyperbolic" as mine.

      I'm not going to disclose internal engineering discussions.
      Guess you got no case on that part, then.

      Let's see how I can disclose it then...

      Updating the legacy platform wasn't viable technically due to the number of core customizations made to MediaWiki in the past several years, namely Forums, Message Wall, Article Comments, and the reverse engineered stuff from later MW updates.

      Porting to Gamepedia wasn't viable due to the size of Fandom.

      We don't need porting to Gamepedia. And MediaWiki like, barely even matters. These reaosons are hugely outweighed by why the UCP is bad.

        Loading editor
    • MediaWiki is what fandom runs on

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote: And MediaWiki like, barely even matters.

      MediaWiki is the core of the platform. It's why we have a platform.

      Saying that is like saying the engine in your car barely even matters.

        Loading editor
    • Unless the Standard Platform has a chance of returning a few years later (with the Threads re-created with a new code) as part of a Retro Project, I really need this to stop.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote: Unless the Standard Platform has a chance of returning a few years later (with the Threads re-created with a new code) as part of a Retro Project, I really need this to stop.

      Not happening.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: Unless the Standard Platform has a chance of returning a few years later (with the Threads re-created with a new code) as part of a Retro Project, I really need this to stop.

      Not happening.

      How do you know ?

        Loading editor
    • I was told by family it's possible. You just don't want it to.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: Unless the Standard Platform has a chance of returning a few years later (with the Threads re-created with a new code) as part of a Retro Project, I really need this to stop.

      Not happening.

      How do you know ?

      Because it's part of my job to know that.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: Unless the Standard Platform has a chance of returning a few years later (with the Threads re-created with a new code) as part of a Retro Project, I really need this to stop.

      Not happening.
      How do you know ?

      Because it's part of my job to know that.

      I said how, not why.

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Nathan Pirate wrote: Unless the Standard Platform has a chance of returning a few years later (with the Threads re-created with a new code) as part of a Retro Project, I really need this to stop.

      Not happening.
      How do you know ?

      Because it's part of my job to know that.

      I said how, not why.

      My reply works for both.

      Please stop disrupting this thread. You will not be warned again.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse
      MisterWoodhouse removed this reply because:
      Disruption
      23:24, June 23, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • MisterWoodhouse
      MisterWoodhouse removed this reply because:
      Disruption
      23:25, June 23, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • Nathan Pirate wrote: SP returning in a Retro is still digitally possible.

      But it would also defeat the entire purpose of upgrading to UCP

        Loading editor
    • Nathan Pirate wrote: I have not raged. I am arguing peacdefully (though no one can tell, since I'm not speaking aloud). I have thought up multiple possible compromises long before Phase One even began, to little avail. I am an ordinary person, who wants to prevent a change for the worse. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Without speaking aloud, raging and/or ranting online can and is seen by the frequency of argumentative posts without solutions and personal attacks shown (or in some cases shown and deleted). I would say you are 2/3 of the online definition of online raging.

      What someone does when they are pissed off on the internet.

      people that are raging are:

      Spamming forums

      cussing people out on the internet

      obviously angry

      ~ urbandictionary 4th definition of raging


      As I suggested before perhaps you might want to ticket your grievance or compose your own thread instead.

        Loading editor
    • Botuczy
      Botuczy removed this reply because:
      botuczy is stupi
      08:01, June 24, 2020
      This reply has been removed
    • 4th definition? Let's just say the 5th definition doesn't exist...

        Loading editor
    • I finally got my css fixed thanks to the guidance on User:Noreplyz/UCP#Missing features, it would have been massively better interaction to have publicized that link for people commenting on the changeover, rather than just telling me that it's something I'll have to figure out on my own.

      Honestly, most of this stuff would probably go over better if editors were allowed some sort of test period and vote. A lot of this top-down dictation gives the appearance of forgetting that wikia's main product is created by volunteers with a strong open-web culture, where good-will and community consensus is essential, not ordinary market principles.

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote:
      I finally got my css fixed thanks to the guidance on User:Noreplyz/UCP#Missing features, it would have been massively better interaction to have publicized that link for people commenting on the changeover, rather than just telling me that it's something I'll have to figure out on my own.

      Honestly, most of this stuff would probably go over better if editors were allowed some sort of test period and vote. A lot of this top-down dictation gives the appearance of forgetting that wikia's main product is created by volunteers with a strong open-web culture, where good-will and community consensus is essential, not ordinary market principles.

      I agree with the second part. Why can't the editors choose if they want an unneccessary change?

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote: I finally got my css fixed thanks to the guidance on User:Noreplyz/UCP#Missing features, it would have been massively better interaction to have publicized that link for people commenting on the changeover, rather than just telling me that it's something I'll have to figure out on my own.

      Honestly, most of this stuff would probably go over better if editors were allowed some sort of test period and vote. A lot of this top-down dictation gives the appearance of forgetting that wikia's main product is created by volunteers with a strong open-web culture, where good-will and community consensus is essential, not ordinary market principles.

      The new wikis period was the test period, allowing editors to try out the new platform. I even encouraged folks to try it on my UCP wiki. We are unable to make test versions of all wikis on the new platform at scale.

      The project is a result of years of feedback from editors which all amounted to a conclusion, given a name by Ursuul: feature derelict.

      Being out of sync with MediaWiki development prevented us from taking advantage of not only their advancements, but also those of extensions writers whose features required newer versions of MediaWiki. By updating the platform, we get both and provide a strong foundation for future development of our own without making extensive core customizations that would harm future update efforts.

      That list is not official, which is why it has not been amplified by staff. We have our own list regarding the UCP: https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Help%3AUnified_Community_Platform

        Loading editor
    • Botuczy wrote:

      I agree with the second part. Why can't the editors choose if they want an unneccessary change?

      Because software updates aren't up for a vote and a project focus is combining separate platforms onto one install. Giving editors a choice on UCP would run counter to the point of it.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Botuczy wrote:

      I agree with the second part. Why can't the editors choose if they want an unneccessary change?

      Because software updates aren't up for a vote and a project focus is combining separate platforms onto one install. Giving editors a choice on UCP would run counter to the point of it.

      Dude. You can't just go "imma let ucp ruin the entire wikia without even knowing".

      Would it kill you to ask?

        Loading editor
    • Botuczy wrote:

      Dude. You can't just go "imma let ucp ruin the entire wikia without even knowing".

      Citation required.

      Botuczy wrote:

      Would it kill you to ask?

      We did ask. We asked a subset of the most trusted and knowledgeable editors on the site.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Botuczy wrote:

      Dude. You can't just go "imma let ucp ruin the entire wikia without even knowing".

      Citation required.


      Botuczy wrote:

      Would it kill you to ask?

      We did ask. We asked a subset of the most trusted and knowledgeable editors on the site.

      But by "asking" i meant "asking everyone", not just "hello these people do you want it i don't care if those others want it".

      You want citation on ruining the entire wikias? No chat? Check. No blogs? Check. No badges? Check. No JS? Check. No old editor and the new one is revamped too? Check. I SAID SO? Check. It will affect every wikia once? DOUBLE CHECK! We can't even say our opinions? TRIPLE CHECK!!! No wikitext in anything that ISN'T AN ARTICLE? 999999999999999999999999x CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Loading editor
    • > The new wikis period was the test period, allowing editors to try out the new platform.

      I mean, the way FANDOM communicates this kind of stuff to users isn't really noticeable or great. I was barely aware that any change was coming, much less that it would change the editing process itself, and as far as I can tell the blog posts about UCP didn't communicate in any way that there would be changes to the core editing experience. It was made to sound as if it was pretty much just a change to the article comments/discussions features. None of the other editors in the communities that I've talked to seem aware of UCP either, and they are all fairly intense on wiki-editing. I realize that's a small sample-size, but it's the kind of thing I've seen each time there's been a major change like this.

      > I even encouraged folks to try it on my UCP wiki.

      The UCP wiki doesn't have content to interact with that I can find (Categories, Images, etc.). Most of the problems I've run into is stuff I couldn't have discovered on that wiki, as it requires actual content and editing, not just visual layout.

      > We are unable to make test versions of all wikis on the new platform at scale.

      I mean, yeah, that's part of the problem I'm saying. It just comes off as very anti-community, and that's a problem I've seen various wikis get very angry at in the past. The whole ethos of a wiki is a community building something together via consensus, and the way these changes are mandated instead comes off feeling like you're typical corporate shindig -- and I get that FANDOM is for-profit, but there's still a limit. I understand these things are difficult, but at a certain point, how many more huge communities like tfwiki or uncyclopedia are you guys willing to chase off? I mean, just look at Nathan's stuff above -- you can't claim that the changeover and how it would affect people was well-communicated, when you're getting stuff like that.

      > Being out of sync with MediaWiki development prevented us from taking advantage of not only their advancements, but also those of extensions writers whose features required newer versions of MediaWiki. By updating the platform, we get both and provide a strong foundation for future development of our own without making extensive core customizations that would harm future update efforts.

      I mean, I'm still confused on this, because a lot of the editor-experience changes seem to make us less like the mediawiki site. As I asked earlier, can you provide me with a link to a mediawiki site using the UCP-changes for my clarity?

      > That list is not official, which is why it has not been amplified by staff.

      Your list wasn't amplified either, as far as I can tell. As I said before, when I asked a specific question about how to fix stuff that the UCP changeover broke, I was just told to figure it out on my own. Nobody explained to me that I'd have to move my css over to the ucp wiki, change the import url code, none of that. Why is dev time being spent yelling at a frustrated editor above, instead of providing answers on how to fix this stuff?

      (That being said, apparently something's still broken with how the css is handled now -- for some reason, the pseudomonobook code removes the page-level "edit" buttons on UCP wikis, something it didn't do on pre-UCP wikis, so I have to type in ?action=edit by hand. Any chance I could get a pointer on how to get this fixed?)

        Loading editor
    • Asking everyone is not feasible and you know that, so don't demand impossible requirements as a way to get what you want.

      As for the rest of it, looks like more hyperbole, which you've been asked not to do. Have you even paid attention to the updates?

      Blogs? Coming.

      Badges? Coming.

      JS? Coming.

      Is it done? No.

      Are we migrating wikis in a compulsory fashion before they have the features they need to thrive? Also no.

      And we haven't prevented any valid opinions from being shared, so quit the hyperbole for the final time, Botuczy.

      With that, I'll ask you not to derail the Release Highlights thread any further. If you have new actionable feedback, it may be shared. Otherwise, please take your feedback to a more appropriate channel.

        Loading editor
    • > We asked a subset of the most trusted and knowledgeable editors on the site.

      Dude, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. That runs entirely counter to wiki-culture. You're talking about Silicon Valley-type decision making.

      Wikis don't ask the "senior editors" in private about big changes. They have highly-publicized, community-wide discussions, and make decisions based on consensus. This is why y'all keep seeing so much angry pushback -- even if the actual decisions are technically sound, the way you're making them is a *huge* slap in the face to communities that are fundamentally designed to run in an opposite manner.

      Like, I get that nothing any of us can say will change the direction of things at this point, I get that having major wiki communities fleeing the service won't change things since y'all are aggressively exploiting SEO to make sure that FANDOM wikis stay on type of search results, quality and accuracy of content or popularity among the relevant fan communities be damned, but just...y'all have spent nearly a decade seemingly not grasping why people get so angry at what you're doing.

      I just wish y'all would give more care to what the experience of being an editor is like.


      Back to my main issue though, please advise on the full-page edit button error.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:
      Asking everyone is not feasible and you know that, so don't demand impossible requirements as a way to get what you want.

      As for the rest of it, looks like more hyperbole, which you've been asked not to do. Have you even paid attention to the updates?

      Blogs? Coming.

      Badges? Coming.

      JS? Coming.

      Is it done? No.

      Are we migrating wikis in a compulsory fashion before they have the features they need to thrive? Also no.

      And we haven't prevented any valid opinions from being shared, so quit the hyperbole for the final time, Botuczy.

      With that, I'll ask you not to derail the Release Highlights thread any further. If you have new actionable feedback, it may be shared. Otherwise, please take your feedback to a more appropriate channel.

      How is "ask before you act" even remote hyperbole?

        Loading editor
    • Botuczy wrote:

      How is "ask before you act" even remote hyperbole?

      Didn't say it was.

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote: Blogs? Coming.

      Badges? Coming.

      JS? Coming.

      Any idea which ones will be enableable by admins, and which ones will have to be requested to Staff?

        Loading editor
    • "Is it done? No."

      ...for clarity, could you explain why the changeover was started before these features were completed? If you were planning on eventually carrying them over, why was it necessary to do these things out-of-order?

      That's another part of this, is that the releases keep feeling like the editor-base is being used for surprise bug-testing.

      "Asking everyone is not feasible and you know that, so don't demand impossible requirements as a way to get what you want."

      What's preventing FANDOM from starting a public forum on each affected wiki?

      I mean, the wikis I edit at get enough FANDOM staff coming buy asking what they can edit to improve our SEO, why did none of them start a forum?

      (And why do the FANDOM staff come to the wiki admins directly for personal discussions on this stuff in the first place, instead of starting public forums?)

        Loading editor
    • But you did say it for the rest of the things I said.

      Also, I know they are coming over, but... i don't want to wait for months if not years just to get back features!

      Also, I hate the word "hyperbole". I want you to stop calling me that.

      The MediaWiki, which should be the entire update in and of itself, is just a minor change warping over with UCP's insanity.

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote: "Is it done? No."

      ...for clarity, could you explain why the changeover was started before these features were completed? If you were planning on eventually carrying them over, why was it necessary to do these things out-of-order?

      That's another part of this, is that the releases keep feeling like the editor-base is being used for surprise bug-testing.

      Rebuilding the platform on new software and releasing it in a "big bang" fashion would introduce a significant amount of bugs and make tracking them down very difficult.

      By releasing with bi-weekly increments, we are able to trace bugs to causes more efficiently and tackle them more quickly.

      Since not every wiki utilizes every feature, moving over wikis which will have the feature set they need to thrive earlier allows better data to improve platform stability and performance.

      We have QA as part of the dev process as well as a supertester group of the most savvy editors on staff reviewing things, but not very bug will be caught, as we cannot compare with the scale of the full userbase.

      A 100% bug free release is a pipe dream. If you find a company that manages to pull it off, let me know, so I can buy those developers several drinks.

        Loading editor
    • Botuczy wrote:

      The MediaWiki, which should be the entire update in and of itself, is just a minor change warping over with UCP's insanity.

      Updating the core of the entire platform, which runs 400,000+ wikis in multiple languages for 300 million monthly users is "just a minor change" to you?

      That's hyperbole right there.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry, I guess "bug" wasn't the correct word there. "lack-of-feature", then. It didn't make sense to me to roll this out before it had the features that were known would need to eventually roll out.

      "Since not every wiki utilizes every feature, moving over wikis which will have the feature set they need to thrive earlier allows better data to improve platform stability and performance."

      There's a *lot* of these features that I've notified y'all about that are core editing components. That's what I'm confused about.

      "Rebuilding the platform on new software and releasing it in a "big bang" fashion would introduce a significant amount of bugs and make tracking them down very difficult."

      Fair enough, I'm just still confused about core editing stuff like the edit window, show-changes, message notifications, and the like still being in an unported fashion. Especially because those features absolutely are needed to thrive on the wiki I'm running into UCP on.

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote: Sorry, I guess "bug" wasn't the correct word there. "lack-of-feature", then. It didn't make sense to me to roll this out before it had the features that were known would need to eventually roll out.

      "Since not every wiki utilizes every feature, moving over wikis which will have the feature set they need to thrive earlier allows better data to improve platform stability and performance."

      There's a *lot* of these features that I've notified y'all about that are core editing components. That's what I'm confused about.

      "Rebuilding the platform on new software and releasing it in a "big bang" fashion would introduce a significant amount of bugs and make tracking them down very difficult."

      Fair enough, I'm just still confused about core editing stuff like the edit window, show-changes, message notifications, and the like still being in an unported fashion. Especially because those features absolutely are needed to thrive on the wiki I'm running into UCP on.

      A lot of those are fast follows, so keep an eye on the release highlights

        Loading editor
    • To be honest, all the complaining here only distracts from actual feedback. If you have real feedback try and make a blog (like I did) or contact Fandom Staff with it. Just to clarify, I am not directing this at the latest comment, or any one person but to the community as a whole who reads this.

        Loading editor
    • Universal Omega wrote: To be honest, all the complaining here only distracts from actual feedback. If you have real feedback try and make a blog (like I did) or contact Fandom Staff with it. Just to clarify, I am not directing this at the latest comment, or any one person but to the community as a whole who reads this.

      Well said, UO.

        Loading editor
    • Seconded. UCP may not be absolutely perfect but right now, but everyone should keep in mind that it is still in a beta phase and the Fandom staff are trying their best they can to improve the new platform and spread awareness about it!

        Loading editor
    • TortoiseCat5 wrote:
      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      Blogs? Coming.

      Badges? Coming.

      JS? Coming.

      Any idea which ones will be enableable by admins, and which ones will have to be requested to Staff?

      You got skipped over in the conversation but I don't see why it'd change from how it is now: blogs will be toggleable in the admin dashboard and achievements/js will need staff activation

        Loading editor
    • I'm not able to post on the message wall of IP users, now.

        Loading editor
    • Also, is there a way to make it so that you can save changes without scrolling all the way back to the top of the page? This is very annoying to work around, especially with long articles.

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote: Also, is there a way to make it so that you can save changes without scrolling all the way back to the top of the page? This is very annoying to work around, especially with long articles.

      We're working on that now.

      Checking on anon Message Wall progress.

        Loading editor
    • Botuczy wrote: 4th definition? Let's just say the 5th definition doesn't exist...

      Actually, there is a 5th and 6th. Or are you just trolling?

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote: I'm not able to post on the message wall of IP users, now.

      Since anon users cannot receive notification of wall messages anyway (even on legacy), what is the use case you've been running through this?

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      KrytenKoro wrote:

      I'm not able to post on the message wall of IP users, now.

      Since anon users cannot receive notification of wall messages anyway (even on legacy), what is the use case you've been running through this?

      I don't know what KrytenKoro's specific use case is, but even though anons don't get notifications, being able to leave them messages is still useful for the non-vandals. You can encourage them to register, clarify guidelines/policy, and answer questions.

        Loading editor
    • On one of the posts you said "Message notification bug

      Yesterday, we hotfixed the UCP bug that prevented messages from triggering notifications for users. Please let us know if you still see this happening! "

      I still see this happening, me and some other people aren't giving us notifications for message wall stuff.

        Loading editor
    • https://ucp.fandom.com/ When can people post here?

        Loading editor
    • Benellim4super90 wrote: https://ucp.fandom.com/ When can people post here?

      It's a placeholder wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Oh

        Loading editor
    • That didn't really answer the question, did it?

        Loading editor
    • XD

        Loading editor
    • MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      KrytenKoro wrote: I'm not able to post on the message wall of IP users, now.

      Since anon users cannot receive notification of wall messages anyway (even on legacy), what is the use case you've been running through this?

      ...thanking them for their edit.

      WTF?

        Loading editor
    • Wut

        Loading editor
    • KrytenKoro wrote:

      MisterWoodhouse wrote:

      KrytenKoro wrote: I'm not able to post on the message wall of IP users, now.

      Since anon users cannot receive notification of wall messages anyway (even on legacy), what is the use case you've been running through this?

      ...thanking them for their edit.

      WTF?

      The chances of an anon user finding messages placed on their message wall are quite slim. They aren't notified about it, so they have almost no way of knowing it's there - unless they somehow manage to go thru Special:WikiActivity or Special:RecentChanges at the right time to see the message.

      And besides that, IP addresses change quite often. When they get a new IP, they would automatically get a new message wall as well, since IP users are switching along with their message walls. So trying to reach out to an anon user on their message wall is essentially useless and futile. You're more likely to get a hold of them in article comments than anywhere else.

        Loading editor
    • WTF!

        Loading editor
    • hmm?

        Loading editor
    • Himmalerin wrote: hmm?

      If you are referring to the User above you just look at their message wall. Let's just say they like to stir something often. Probably best to pay no heed.

        Loading editor
    • why does woodhouse like to link twiiter so much? 

        Loading editor
    • So trying to reach out to an anon user on their message wall is essentially useless and futile.

      Just because someone is editing as IP doesn't mean they're ignorant of recent changes, and people were able to check responses before the flagged notifications existed. Article comments is also not really a good place to be thanking every anon who makes a useful edit, as on many wikis it's used to suggest improvements to the article itself.

      FANDOM needs to consider use-cases outside of its assumed standard.

        Loading editor
    • Something (else) that has been bothering me is that the UCP has both edit and edit source after each header which is bordering on spam IMO (# of headers x2 the word edit on a page). Is there a way to have just edit like before and user pref pulls up your preferred editor? Or even a work around users have found to hide one?

        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.