Forums: Index ⇒ WoWWiki general → Keep or remove new optional features?
These three new wiki features have now been deemed optional, or opt-out:
- Related pages
- Category galleries
- Image attribution
You can see an example of related page ("Read more") and image attribution at Project at Firewing Point. For an example of category galleries, see Category:Events.
Would you guys prefer to keep or remove some/all of these features? Please leave your feedback on each feature in the sections below. JoePlay (talk) 20:32, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Related pages[]
- Keep
- I'm okay with this. --
Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:24 PM PST 23 Dec 2010 - I think this also has value. HooperBandP (talk) 01:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I very much like this feature. User:WoWMiesha
- Please keep them. User:cameron.nielsen80
- Please, keep them. They are all great features. And Against what is said below the page recommendations are not in any way random, they are always something from the same group. To say the least these are good features and should be kept. -------<THE GMoD - Admin - Founder - Slipknot.Wikia.Com>---- (talk) 04:53, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
- So tell me how Stonetalon Pass, Aurius Rivendare and Beezil Linkspanner have anything to do with Skeletal raptor, cuz those are the 3 that pop up. They have 2 categories in common: the Cataclysm stub category & the speculation category. Those aren't great categories to be using for comparison purposes. To have to add so many categories to a blacklist to get related pages to work properly, seems really stupid. We'd also have to go through most pages started in the last few months and fix them all as many are missing proper categories. Thats a lot of work for practically no reward. Resa1983 (talk) 10:22, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Specific categories can be blacklisted, so they are not taken into account when creating the list of related pages. I don't think adding all the stubs and speculation ones will be that big of an issue. Ausir(talk) 18:15, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, its more than you think. You'll need to blacklist absolutely everything in Category:Things_to_do, including all subcategories. Resa1983 (talk) 19:35, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Specific categories can be blacklisted, so they are not taken into account when creating the list of related pages. I don't think adding all the stubs and speculation ones will be that big of an issue. Ausir(talk) 18:15, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
- So tell me how Stonetalon Pass, Aurius Rivendare and Beezil Linkspanner have anything to do with Skeletal raptor, cuz those are the 3 that pop up. They have 2 categories in common: the Cataclysm stub category & the speculation category. Those aren't great categories to be using for comparison purposes. To have to add so many categories to a blacklist to get related pages to work properly, seems really stupid. We'd also have to go through most pages started in the last few months and fix them all as many are missing proper categories. Thats a lot of work for practically no reward. Resa1983 (talk) 10:22, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a good feature. It provides you with options to choose what you consider related. If you find something that is not necessarily related to what you are looking for simply don't look at that related page. Pretty easy if you ask me and well you did. Like anything else this is a new feature and will need to be improved upon. As with any new feature there will be bugs to be worked out. Overall I like the direction in which this is going. User:Fschwalenberg
- Remove
- I really do not like this feature. One reason is that it often suggests pages to me that seem random. I find this annoying. ANother reason that on occasion it shows me an inappropriate image along with the related page. Not sure if this is a mistake or what, but it very much bothers me. Though if there was a way to just choose not to use this option, that would satisfy me. EDIT: Resa1983 (talk) seems to understand exactly what I mean by random.:) -Lauren the Weirdo (talk • contr) 15:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't want to see the Related Pages (aka Read More section), you can add the following to Special:MyPage/wikia.css (or for you specifically, User:Lauren the Weirdo/wikia.css):
.RelatedPagesModule { display: none; }
- -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:33 PM PST 28 Dec 2010
- If you don't want to see the Related Pages (aka Read More section), you can add the following to Special:MyPage/wikia.css (or for you specifically, User:Lauren the Weirdo/wikia.css):
- Its a very poor feature which doesn't display closely related pages despite new settings and updates to attempt to make it better. Just because 2 pages have 3 categories in common, doesn't mean the page is remotely related, due to several large categories (ie uncommon, rare, epic categories). They really should scan the page, and check for any links to other pages, and display them first if they have enough cats in common. Remove it, and if they manage to make it better, then do a vote to re-add. Resa1983 (talk) 00:47, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Category galleries[]
- Keep
- I don't like the way it displays narrow images, but I can live with it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:24 PM PST 23 Dec 2010
- Keep, can be improved upon in the future though. HooperBandP (talk) 01:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. Keep for now, improve for the future User:WowMiesha
- Pretty cool idea. I agree with keeping it and improving in the future. -Lauren the Weirdo
- Remove
- Displays random images/category images. Random isn't good, most recent stuff for Cataclysm is what should be displayed. Would have to add new categories just to make sure it doesn't display old or outdated stuff. Has issues with the {{for}} template. Resa1983 (talk) 00:47, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Image attribution[]
- VOTE CLOSED: Image attribution was turned off. See below.
- Keep
- -
- Remove
- It isn't image attribution. It is image updater/uploader attribution which is totally different. --
Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:24 PM PST 23 Dec 2010
- Absolutely remove. Worse idea ever. HooperBandP (talk) 01:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. -Lauren the Weirdo
- Agree with Fandyllic. This 'feature' never should have been implemented in the first place. Resa1983 (talk) 00:47, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Remove ddcorkum (talk) 04:44, December 30, 2010 (UTC) - (There is no relation between who uploads the image and to whome it should be attributed.)
General comments[]
Is this a vote? How are people going to know to vote? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:24 PM PST 23 Dec 2010
- You can let people know by adding a link to this page to MediaWiki:Community-corner. Ausir(talk) 01:10, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
Since no one wanted to keep image attribution, I just disabled it. JoePlay (talk) 21:51, January 4, 2011 (UTC)