FANDOM


  • General Questions

    Will Monobook and Monaco skins are going back?

    Will other skins will return in the future?

    The Next Technical Updates

    What date will migration pause end?

    10/(??)/2020

    What date is for Remaining Fandom Wikis stage begin?

    What date is for second batch?

    What date is the 25 last wikis migrated to UCP? (Give me the list and the date)

    == What date will Phase 2 begin? ==

      Loading editor
    • Reply at the bottom...

        Loading editor
    • Most, if not all, of these are "we don't know".

        Loading editor
    • Q: Will Monobook and Monaco skins are going back?

      A: Nope. They are never coming back.

        Loading editor
    • But In Phase 2, it will be coming back as a recreation of Monaco and Monobook

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: Q: Will Monobook and Monaco skins are going back?

      A: Nope. They are never coming back.

      But will the Vector skin be added?

        Loading editor
    • We don't know. Don't count on it - it doesn't suit Fandom's ad needs.

        Loading editor
    • Recommended skin: mw:skin:minerva neue for mobile and mw:skin:vector for desktop

      A highly customizable ui for phase 2 needs.

        Loading editor
    • 180.190.94.96 wrote:

      But In Phase 2, it will be coming back as a recreation of Monaco and Monobook

      Without evidence this is absolutely, completely, and positively false.

        Loading editor
    • As I said, the classic editor was one of my favorite editing tools on FANDOM.

        Loading editor
    • There should be a seperate board for rants about UCP. It'll be a win-win solution, both for the need to complain about the annoying parts and for the need to free the other forum boards from it...

        Loading editor
    • Where is it?

        Loading editor
    • I meant "there should be" as an (irealistic) idea.

        Loading editor
    • ????????

        Loading editor
    • I'm sorry, i'm not native in english so I might choose wrong words.

      Just to clarify: There is no forum board for ranting about UCP, and there will most likely never be. It was a joke becuase a large part of the recent activity is just being upset of UCP.

        Loading editor
    • Your choice of word was clear. I am not sure why XTeodor12 is confused. Maybe they just misread you post.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe there should be a board for "Latest thing FANDOM thinks is cool, but users think is lame".

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:
      Maybe there should be a board for "Latest thing FANDOM thinks is cool, but users think is lame".

      Best idea I've seen in a while xD

        Loading editor
    • Maybe WAM, Sitemap and the last remaining features of legacy, it will be the final wiki that will be ported to UCP

      But on Gamepedia, Cargo is the last but how will implement in fandom wikis? Is Gamepedia Help Wiki the last wiki?

        Loading editor
    • Until any Gamepedia wiki is ported to UCP, lots of stuff is up in the air.

        Loading editor
    • To expand on Fandyllic's reply, Fandom is migrating Gamepedia wikis only after all Fandom wikis have been migrated and they have had time to "fix issues". Given that we don't even know what the end of the Fandom migration looks like, we certainly can't tell you want the Gamepedia migration looks like.

        Loading editor
    • As for the migration of Gamepedia, the first test wave of migrations has actually been announced. An early test migration of Leaguepedia (a large wiki that needs to be stable and also heavily uses Cargo) apparently showed it wasn't that terrible, and it is planned to migrate Leaguepedia in this first wave.

      https://help.gamepedia.com/Gamepedia_SEO_migration_(UCP)

        Loading editor
    • Was the Leaguepedia test wiki ever made public or was the feedback only from FANDOM staff?

        Loading editor
    • The test wasn't public, at least not to my knowledge. Right now there are also some internal tests going on (including one for Minecraft Wiki, which people learned of due to a bug in the notification system).

      The feedback for the Leaguepedia test was likely from Leaguepedia's wiki manager, who is heavily involved with the wiki. From what I've heard, it seems staff expect that all or almost all issues found in that test end up fixed before any future migrations.

      While my involvement with Leaguepedia is not significant (on the level "I know how one module there works"), one wiki I am rather involved with is included in this first wave, so I will be able to provide some feedback and details on what issues (if any) arise from the migration.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, so unfortunately you can't expect honest feedback from a Wiki Manager. They may be good people, but they can't be honest due to their conection to FANDOM.

      However, I'm glad to hear it is going well. As much as FANDOM folks complain about UCP, it will hit Gamepedia like a ton of bricks.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not certain what dishonesty you are talking about. In that case, I believe the WM had reasons to ensure the damage to the wiki was minimal, especially given personal involvement with it.

      I also read "feedback" to mean "reports to developers about issues discovered", did you mean something else?

      As for hitting like a ton of bricks, it kind of already has? The login system migration and the image host move weren't exactly smooth, though it seems most of the issues from these two have been worked out. I believe Fandom got hit by UCP hard due to UCP being in a far earlier stage, but also because this is an upgrade that included 14 major MediaWiki versions, and custom Fandom features needed special attention when porting. Neither of the latter two applies to Gamepedia.

        Loading editor
    • Though I must add, the two processes I listed above actually came with major benefits to Gamepedia. The login system migration means that people no longer need a Twitch account to register (a requirement that put many people off – unfortunately, some vandals too). The new image host is also far more performant than that formerly used on Gamepedia (so File: links no longer come with major performance penalties, having been 5 to 7 times slower than CSS-based solutions, whereas now they are of comparable performance).

        Loading editor
    • Well, FANDOM got hit hard by the dev team lacking the expertise to improve and port existing features to the newer MW base.

      Also, the login system is largely independent of MW, so isn't really a major factor and impacted FANDOM wikis as well (username duplication and poor communication of renamed accounts), just not as much because their login system was far less stupid.

      Gamepedia will be hit hard by a dramatically different UI and possibly social features they've never really had to deal with before. If the impact on Gamepedia was similar to FANDOM legacy wikis, they would have migrated at least 1 wiki much earlier.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not sure what you're talking about with a dramatically different UI? According to multiple staff statements, Gamepedia will retain its current skin (Hydra) before the new design system (with announced emphasis on customizability) is introduced in Phase 2.

      I'm not sure Discussions will be enabled on GPUCP (definitely not immediately), if that's what you meant by social features. If it's profiles, then maybe it's even for the better if Curse profiles go away as they... well, they deserve the extra D and being called "Cursed Profiles". It's not just that there are many issues and little fixes, I suspect some of the key problems are architectural (implementation of profile data as user preferences).

        Loading editor
    • AttemptToCallNil wrote: I'm not sure what you're talking about with a dramatically different UI? According to multiple staff statements, Gamepedia will retain its current skin (Hydra) before the new design system (with announced emphasis on customizability) is introduced in Phase 2.

      I'm not sure Discussions will be enabled on GPUCP (definitely not immediately), if that's what you meant by social features. If it's profiles, then maybe it's even for the better if Curse profiles go away as they... well, they deserve the extra D and being called "Cursed Profiles". It's not just that there are many issues and little fixes, I suspect some of the key problems are architectural (implementation of profile data as user preferences).

      "New design with more customizability"? Is this going to be a new skin, or a modified version of an existing MediaWiki skin? Whatever it is, I can't wait, because despite the various changes to Oasis over the years, it's still beginning to show its age.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, I never heard that they are going to try to maintain the current Gamepedia skin as much as possible (was this in Discord?). I'm wondering if that means Gamepedia won't get social features like Discussions, Message Wall and Comments... If that's true than FANDOM does seem to be trying to minimize the impact on Gamepedia wikis more than it did for FANDOM legacy wikis.

        Loading editor
    • From what I've heard, it's planned to be not so much of a "skin" as something even more versatile; hence I used the term "design system" instead of "skin". I also recall hearing that this system is not going to be any existing MW skin, whether modified or not.

        Loading editor
    • KATMAKROFAN wrote:

      "New design with more customizability"? Is this going to be a new skin, or a modified version of an existing MediaWiki skin? Whatever it is, I can't wait, because despite the various changes to Oasis over the years, it's still beginning to show its age.

      You seem to be confusing the FANDOM wiki skin "Oasis" with the Gamepedia wiki skin "Hydra" which is a completely different and separate thing.

      The last few replies have been primarily about Gamepedia and UCP.

        Loading editor
    • As for Discussions, message walls and comments, given that a lot of Gamepedia wikis heavily rely on talk pages, I'd say forcing a migration to these custom features, just because they are custom features, would serve no purpose.

        Loading editor
    • That's a shame that we're stuck with Oasis, the same skin we've had since 2009. *yawn* MediaWiki-default Vector is pretty versatile, as I have seen on many wikis on Miraheze and the (sadly) now-long-dead Referata. The thing with the default MediaWiki skins, such as Vector and Monobook, is that they're timeless, which is exactly why most MW-based wikis (such as the WMF wikis and RationalWiki) have held onto one of these two for so long. The same can't be said about Oasis.

        Loading editor
    • AttemptToCallNil wrote:

      As for Discussions, message walls and comments, given that a lot of Gamepedia wikis heavily rely on talk pages, I'd say forcing a migration to these custom features, just because they are custom features, would serve no purpose.

      There wouldn't be a forced migration. I believe except for Message Wall, Discussions and Comments can work along side talk pages.

      But, it sounds like it won't happen if you, who seems to be the most knowledgeable person about the Gamepedia UCP issues I've encountered on these boards, doesn't know about it. So, FANDOM is probably being more accommodating with Gamepedia, which isn't much of a surprise.

        Loading editor
    • Strange that you say Fandom the company is probably being more accommodating with Gamepedia, because at times I feel the inverse. UCP uses an approach far closer to that of Gamepedia (modern and updated MediaWiki with less custom code), so that reason alone mitigates some of the impact. (Also Gamepedia's community is, uh, significantly less "wild" than on Fandom, which shapes the environment: feedback from Gamepedia editors is much more constructive, looking at what comments Fandom users post on blogs, and what happens on the Discord server.)

      It's not just about tech, it's about the brand and the future of Gamepedia. New wikis can no longer be requested on Gamepedia (except non-English wikis where the English wiki already exists), and it's still not known whether wiki creation or requesting will be re-opened in the future (after UCP Phase 1 is complete); staff say they have nothing to announce on that subject. The Fandom brand is getting a lot more attention than the Gamepedia brand (at least IMO; though I'm not sure what at all could be used to show the inverse).

      There were some surveys shared that, uh, looked quite suspicions. One of them directly asked, "How likely are you to leave Gamepedia if [this thing about Gamepedia, for several such things] changed?" The other asked "What gaming community is Gamepedia part of?" and something among the lines of "What improvements to Gamepedia can you suggest?", then it apparently stopped accepting answers from Gamepedia editors.

      As for the points I forgot to mention.

      1. Gamepedia's Help Wiki is not a central wiki from a tech perspective, it's central for community help. The tech-central wiki is a different one that can't be accessed by ordinary editors (so I know next to nothing about it).
      2. Yes, the Discord server is where a lot of communication is taking place. I agree with the concerns that it's noticeably more closed than an on-wiki discussion platform. I don't think any communication there is conceptually critical, but some discussions with staff there do clarify things.
        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote: Okay, so unfortunately you can't expect honest feedback from a Wiki Manager. They may be good people, but they can't be honest due to their conection to FANDOM.

      Yep, the last two months I have learned that while Wiki Managers are good people, they honestly are only one stone further from wiki admins. They also are sadly being ignored just as much as the user base when they report wiki issues. Likely, we will have to just sit back and wait to see what comes next.

      I was told a good game the last nine months, but it seems like a lot of things are not turning out as planned. We might not be being told the truth about how many staff were let go five months ago. The devs seem quite slow to reaction to UCP needs, and it seems the devs are deleting error/bug reports, because many I had forwarded through the Wiki Managers seem to have been lost/forgotten. So this much I have learned, file your bug reports directly through zendesk so you got a email trail, because they take bug reports as suggested fixes instead of being real problems.

        Loading editor
    • I honestly don't think bug reports are ignored or deleted.

      Look at the issue list for any nontrivial project with a public bug tracker.

      etc.

      It's not possible to fix all of them without an increase in developer throughput on the level of several orders of magnitude, so some form of bug triage likely needs to take place. I don't have any reason to claim that Fandom's internal processes intentionally disadvantage user-reported bugs, even though I have no reason to claim they don't either.

        Loading editor
    • AttemptToCallNil wrote: I honestly don't think bug reports are ignored or deleted.

      It's not possible to fix all of them without an increase in developer throughput on the level of several orders of magnitude, so some form of bug triage likely needs to take place. I don't have any reason to claim that Fandom's internal processes intentionally disadvantage user-reported bugs, even though I have no reason to claim they don't either.

      Most reports are of the same issues. One side tells me to report every last issue I have, then I am told that Wiki Managers can do the reports for me. Now you are telling me that they might be overburdened with reports. If so, then it is on them for asking for reports to begin with. Do they think people enjoy reporting bugs? Because I sure don't like reporting them. They need to stop all thing BS and be honest about what is happening. The UCP honeymoon is over, time to nut-up or shut-up. (Zombieland quote)

        Loading editor
    • One more thing, everything I have said has been in frustration with the system. I however really wish the best for all the Fandom staff, and I wouldn't be here twelve years later if I didn't believe in Fandom.

      This is them going back to pre-2019 thinking. Seems openness is over, we are back to fending for ourselves on here. That is what I'm seeing. They put in some folks inbetween, but pretty much put them at the same level as us.

      UCP started from good intentions, but everything so far has fallen short. People still believe in you Fandom, you need to step up and explain. We need the truth.

        Loading editor
    • Chat and message walls, I hope. A banner that says iPadOS?

        Loading editor
    • AttemptToCallNil, it sounds like one of your major gripes and thus reasons for thinking that Fandom Inc. has been more accommodating to Fandom wikis is that they aren't taking enough feedback and/or are manipulating survey results by closing polling. Those of us here on Fandom have faced a similar frustration with a lack of transparency/answers regarding the migration. The fact that Fandom started first does not mean that Fandom somehow has inside information that Gamepedia does not.

      Overall, I think the migration will impact Gamepedia wikis less than Fandom wikis. As you said, Gamepedia is not jumping 14 software versions and losing a ton of custom features. That said, I find it hard to believe that Gamepedia would keep the current layout in the long run. Perhaps in the immediate future it will, but part of having a "unified" platform is having a uniform look. As for the social features, I would imaging that Gamepedia would have an option to just turn them off; I am pretty sure Fandom can. So in the end, I think both Gamepedia and Fandom will have significant changes. However, I believe that a larger portion of Fandom's changes will be actual functionality compared to Gamepedia's changes.


      Edit:

      By the way, has there been any word on what will happen with interwiki maps on Gamepedia? As far as I am aware, Gamepedia and Fandom have completely opposite approaches. Gamepedia allows admins to edit and interwiki map more or less however they want while Fandom requires admins to submit a request to staff which may or may not get approved.

        Loading editor
    • I hope they add text to speak.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote: I find it hard to believe that Gamepedia would keep the current layout in the long run. Perhaps in the immediate future it will, but part of having a "unified" platform is having a uniform look.

      I believe it was stated several times that there would be a new design system in Phase 2 that will be both for Fandom and Gamepedia, which would become the "uniform look" for both platforms. I don't think they'll make other skin changes before that.

      Andrewds1021 wrote: By the way, has there been any word on what will happen with interwiki maps on Gamepedia? As far as I am aware, Gamepedia and Fandom have completely opposite approaches. Gamepedia allows admins to edit and interwiki map more or less however they want while Fandom requires admins to submit a request to staff which may or may not get approved.

      No word yet. I've been thinking about this a bit, and it's a difficult thing. I find it likely that staff will try to implement the same system as on Fandom, however, I'm not sure how it reconciles with custom Special:Interwiki entries some GP wikis have that point to non-wiki resources (with possibilities up to modules heavily dependent on the interwiki syntax to work), as well as the fact that some wikis use strongly different interwiki lists (I saw one wiki have a list that looked positively ancient).

        Loading editor
    • If there are even more skin changes to come, then I don't understand why they bothered to make a new one for Fandom in the mean time. The current Fandom UCP skin already has some significant differences from the legacy skin. I guess we'll just have to wait and see on this one. If what you say it true, then that is good news for Gamepedia. It would make the transition a bit more gradual. I think the simultaneous change in functionality and aesthetic is a significant contribution to the backlash Fandom UCP has encountered.

      Even if Gamepedia interwiki maps get restricted, I would imagine that they would allow wikis to keep what they currently have. Having custom entries in the map doesn't do much harm unless the prefix conflicts with one in the standardized map. As it is not all Fandom wiki have the same "standard" map because it changed over time and Fandom never, to my knowledge, updated the maps on older wikis.

        Loading editor
    • Andrewds1021 wrote: If there are even more skin changes to come, then I don't understand why they bothered to make a new one for Fandom in the mean time. The current Fandom UCP skin already has some significant differences from the legacy skin.

      UCP Fandom wikis use the Oasis skin, which hasn't changed that much. Any very visible "design" changes are most likely associated with technical feature changes unrelated to the skin itself. This most notably includes the editor (both the visual one and its source mode).

      Andrewds1021 wrote: Even if Gamepedia interwiki maps get restricted, I would imagine that they would allow wikis to keep what they currently have. Having custom entries in the map doesn't do much harm unless the prefix conflicts with one in the standardized map. As it is not all Fandom wiki have the same "standard" map because it changed over time and Fandom never, to my knowledge, updated the maps on older wikis.

      Yeah, I don't think they'll break existing interwikis. Especially if you say Fandom doesn't have an inherent requirement of a single global map at the moment, I don't think the interwiki system on Gamepedia will be broken in other ways than being made inaccessible to local admins.

        Loading editor
    • I suppose your point about the skin is mostly true. However, the appearance of various special pages have also changed significantly. If the aesthetics of the new/updated features is an indication of style of future skins, I am going to be very unhappy.

      Just to make sure it is clear, Fandom does not have a global interwiki map that all wikis are constantly using. However, it does have an interwiki map that gets copied when a new wiki is created.

        Loading editor
    • I think what changes you see in special pages is mainly a change in core MediaWiki, specifically a shift from a pure HTML design to an OOUI-based design. It's indeed controversial (in part because it may be somewhat harder to work with using JavaScript, and because it doesn't appeal to the more "conventional" of desktop users), but if I recall/understand correctly, it's intended to improve mobile experience (which I'm not sure even applies to Fandom because it handles mobile visitors differently than Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia). I don't think the OOUI design can be disabled in LocalSettings.php or otherwise server-side, though I may be mistaken because there are so many settings I'm not sure anyone can know them all.

        Loading editor
    • Moving to a design the required more client-size processing seems like the opposite of what you would want if the goal is to be more mobile friendly. Thanks for the info.

        Loading editor
    • Looks like if FANDOM keeps up with WMF, even OOUI will be obsolete...

      https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/20/wikimedia_react_javascript/

        Loading editor
    • Guys, just ignore fandylic, he is one of those guys who has a time of the month and he is currently in that time, just ignore him for a while and he will simmer down. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.