Forum:Site changes

Ten Forward → Site changes (Reply | Watch)

Hi everyone, just an update on ongoing site changes --

• Platform update - i think we're running at full capacity, with the exception of a couple areas we could tweak with the interface. I'm happy to say the platform update is treating us well.. anyone with issues to report please speak up.
• Site security - in accordance with the webhosts at Fandom, we're locking down some administrator functions to admins who haven't played an active role in the past 4 to 18 months. A rule change will be suggested that inactive admins and bureaucrats can reapply to participate in that way with an abbreviated approval process, pending their actual return to Fandom and this wiki.
• That brings us to rule changes. Fandom is very clear we're going to have readable rules going forward. everyone with ideas for rules speak up. probably the best way to keep everyone updated will be a rules newsfeed where all current topics are bumped to the top.
  • In accordance for openness with rule changes, i'm considering a forum regarding past bans, blocks and warnings -- users who are at home at other Fandom wikis shoul feel at home here, and, subject to rules getting in the way, i'm hoping to open up a number of past bans and blocks as new rules come into effect.
• Also on the agenda with the platform is activating updates brought to us by Fandom. Will we activate message walls, commetary discussions, or stick with the talk page system? also, are talk pages from 15 years ago worth archiving in any certain way? (that was the wild west of the internet and while we can gain some clarity in certain policy discussions, others amount to 2 decades of vandalism). Feel free to bring up concerns about archiving talk pages and adjusting to new comms.

Thanks everyone, we've certainly grown into our mission statement. We are going on 16 years old here and we have more pages than Memory Alpha -- we're onto something big here. Keep on Trekking! = captainmike 23:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

We already have plenty of readable rules at Memory Beta:Policies and guidelines. What kind of rules is Memory Beta lacking? --NetSpiker (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think everything from Memory Beta's history is worth archiving. I still like to re-read Forum:Becoming an administrator, Forum:How does one speak to an admin and Forum:Why is this wiki not allowing admin status for major contributors whenever I need a good laugh. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And I'm more comfortable using talk pages than message walls or commentary discussion. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of them are great data sources and policy decisions too - but there are a few that are off topic. those are the ones i'm referring to.

In terms of rules, yes we have them already. the Fandom push is that our rules be published in a way that are easy to refer to, so we're going to need to refine the way they're presented and fill in any non-sequiturs. As i recall, last year i found a rule that called for canon articles to be immediately deleted if the subjects were not derived from a book also. obviously, the rules need updating -- captainmike 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The policies already seem well presented to me. Did Fandom provide an example of what they have a problem with? Can you post a link to what they said? --NetSpiker (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

from the Fandom central community:

In order to ensure that all good intentioned contributors have the opportunity to contribute, effective April 1st, the following Wiki Rules and Blocking policy will be enacted globally and all wikis will be required to follow it:

1. Rules for your wikis must be defined and easily found. These rules must not violate Fandom’s Terms of Use or be overly restrictive.

…

The policies are spread over a number of pages, so a simple post with a roadmap of the most important ones will probably meet this criteria.

Also, some policies do exist on forum pages and talk pages, as they were either drafts, or were decided upon in a discussion and then never written to the project namespace. we'll need to put those in a better place. for example, last year's "what is Memory Beta" discussion would make a great summary of our mission statement - but right now it is in a forum and not linked to policies and guidelines -- captainmike 23:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to decide which policies are "most important". Memory Beta:Policies and guidelines already serves as a good roadmap and trying to put lots of policies in a single post would just create an overly long post, making those policies harder to read. The Fandom quote doesn't mention Memory Beta specifically, so it was probably sent to all wikis, even the ones that didn't need it. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

The decisions from "What is Memory Beta" about cards, action figures, using author annotations to identify characters and which Star Trek Online duty officers deserve an article should definitely be added to Memory Beta:Inclusion policy. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the excellent Forum:What Is Memory Beta discussion, here are links from some other pertinent conversations and their key points:

• Which stories get a standalone page? – Stories printed on the backs of trading cards and titled segments of a video game aren't thought of as solo stories but rather as portions of a whole, like chapters in a book, so we describe these on the main page for the source they appear in. The Forum:Brazilian Star Trek comics and Memory Beta:Pages for administration/Warped sections conversations suggest that a story published only in the form of a synopsis, outline or script isn't considered a complete release of that story, so it wouldn't get a standalone page.
• What actors get a page? – The Forum:Articles on actors conversation discusses the qualifications for a performer to have a real-world article on MB and how to handle it, so that we aren't duplicating the efforts of Memory Alpha.
• Formatting a brand new story page – The Forum:The Q Gambit and newer comics conversation has great advice for making a professional-looking page. In particular, it advises omitting a subsection if you're not providing any content for it, rather than creating blank subsections. It also talks about the naming of universes and timelines.
• Handling gender identity – Forum:Gender brings up an excellent way to be inclusive and respectful of gender on character pages.
• How to use tables – The Forum:Table standardization page raises concerns about using the super-powerful complex table-creation capabilities of the wiki editor without community oversight. MB has preset tables tested to work across multiple devices. -- Meacott (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

THank you Meacott, these are useful links i haven't had time to look up, but having them at a glance here will be easier to add them to the admin and rules materials -- captainmike 15:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)