Forum:New System For Wiki News

For
As the creator, I vote in favor of the project. Arbington 02:18, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) As it currently stands, I favor the proposal. SpartHawg948 02:24, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems good. Bastian964 20:05, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I vote yes, looks promising. MEffect Fan 20:15, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) On the condition I listed below. Lancer1289 03:27, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) My issue has been addressed. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:03, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * What about one-liners without any associated blog posts? For instance, the 'Yay us! It's been three years!' and 'Yay Lancer! You're an admin!' news posts? Those were just quick little blurbs that I really can't seen being expanded into the sort of news 'stories' that this approach seems to be going for, nor do the example sites you provided address this concern. SpartHawg948 00:23, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. No, they don't address any such concern. Perhaps, at least for new admins, a brief "interview" of sorts could be conducted with said new admin, detailing things such as why/when they joined the site, and what they plan to accomplish as an admin? Anniversary type news stories could contain interviews with members who've been here since the beggining/ a long time, perhaps? These are just suggestions, and sadly, I hadn't thought of this issue. Arbington 00:29, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow... that kinda sucks. Whenever I do those blurbs they're spur of the moment things. I really don't want to do interviews and all that. That just strikes me as a little silly when the intended purpose is to just give a brief little 'atta-boy'. Additionally, for anniversary things, who would I interview? Me? SpartHawg948 00:38, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. So, you're the only one left who's been here from the start? That's a bit of an issue if we were to do interviews. As would the extra effort for the adminship messages. Well, that was my go at the problem, I really can't think of much else to do about it. Come to think of it, I don't think the wikis I used as an example note anniversaries or adminship. Hmm. Arbington 00:47, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, near as I can tell, I'm the only currently active editor from way back in 2007. One of the other admins has been around almost as long, but she isn't active at present, and the one who pretty much started the wiki seems to have vanished. I'm fine with an update of the news system, I'd just like to keep it so that it's possible to add little one- or two-liners. And how does this proposal relate to the current new system that came about as part of the front page overhaul (i.e. two sections, one for Mass Effect News and one for Wiki News)? Would this incorporate that, or would the two-sections arrangement be scrapped in favor of this? SpartHawg948 00:58, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Commdor and I agreed that the two sections system wouldn't really work for this, though I initially hoped to use it. Also, I just thought Commdor should be mentioned, as he was the last one to do anything major to the news section. I thought that that was what went in that section of the form, that it was there to mention who made the page/system you're changing. If not, I can remove it, I just tried to fill out the entire form. Arbington 01:07, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I see. Not sure if I'm comfortable with a brand-new system that was agreed on by pretty much everybody being shelved so quickly, but we'll see how it goes. Well, I think I've asked enough questions, and know all I need to know to vote. SpartHawg948 01:13, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had an idea. Many wikis use the header notification system (I don't know the proper term) for messages like the adminship and anniversary notices. I believe ours says something like "Mass Effect 2 has been released!", or at least it did last time I checked. We could use this method, and that way we don't lose the pleasant, community-oriented one-liners. Arbington 01:17, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * But what about months (such as last month) where we have two such one-liners in rapid succession? SpartHawg948 01:20, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

That's unlikely to happen again. Looking through the main page's history, we've had eight wiki-related news items since December 16, 2007 ("Mass Effect Wiki reaches 500 articles!"). There's another possible one dated July 18, 2007, but I can't tell if it refers to the launch of the wiki or the launch of the ME official site ("the site has launched!"). All others have been about the ME franchise. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:42, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, but as we saw last month, not outside the realm of the possible. What with the new Wiki News section (which would be scrapped under this proposal), I was hoping to start pointing out new features of the wiki and all that, since there have been some big changes lately. Anyways, it's something that has happened, which automatically puts it on my 'contingency plan' list, which is one of the things I check when looking at new proposals. If the proposed change wouldn't be able to handle situations that, far from being hypothetical, have actually happened in the past, I'm far less likely to support it. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, after all. SpartHawg948 01:47, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Two ideas, just a sec. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:03, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, neither panned out. What about just making very short blog entries? Or a page entitled "Mass Effect Wiki:Wiki News" or some variation therein. All wiki-related news would be listed there, and a link to this page would be placed directly underneath or above the blog column on the mp. Nothing pretty, but we have to bend somewhere. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:06, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... well, there we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the need to bend to accommodate a new system, when the old system already does everything that is asked of it, including the stuff the new system can't. SpartHawg948 03:08, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading through this conversation, I also really don't feal comfortable with modding the current system when the new one we have, which is less than a week old, seems to work just fine. I also can see Spart's point in that this system does have some other issues that I didn't think of and for those reasons, I have some very real concerns in the content this new system can handle. I was worried about regulation, but apparenlty I didn't think of everything. Lancer1289 03:19, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * To be very blunt, the only hurdle here appears to be that Spart thinks short news items don't warrant blog posts. Dragon Age Wiki thinks otherwise:, . The system is fine. We're making a mountain out of a molehill. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:48, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still would beg to differ. One or two line blogs look tacky and unprofessional, especially to someone who is A) Averse to blogging unless absolutely necessary or on a voluminous subject; and B) Looking forward to making the most of the new Wiki News section. To be very blunt in turn, this entire exercise seems to be nothing but change for the sake of change. If it wasn't a less-capable revamp of a system we literally just got done revamping, maybe. But it is. The Dragon Age wiki feels differently? Great for them. They also, for example, don't feel it necessary to give major characters from the Dragon Age novels and expansions more than a sentence or two of info in their articles. They do their thing, we do ours, and that's fine by me. I prefer professionalism to change for the sake of change. SpartHawg948 04:22, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

The last system wasn't revamped, however. That was merely a cosmetic change as part of a series of changes, rather than a functional update to the news system itself. I expected us to be using bullets for some time yet, but I also expected that at some point in the short-term we would upgrade to something better. The current system is crude. We have to edit the main page every time we update the news, and once an old news item is removed, it is lost. The new system would have rules and organization and entries would be archived. It is not change for the sake of change, it is an improvement. But I digress, this has shifted from discussion to argument. If you can't be persuaded, I'll let it go. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:57, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for this new system as long as it retains the functions of the old one. I personally was very excited to see both a Mass Effect News section and a Wiki News section, and am pretty opposed to losing that. Were it incorporated into the new system, I'd be all for it. And I hate blogging, and rarely do it myself (with one notable exception), so the idea of a blog created for the sole purpose of putting in one line which under the current system could easily be done without needing a blog strikes me as asinine in the extreme. Keep the two sections, and remove the necessity for making blogs for each and every story, and I'll support it 100%. Remove the two sections, and make blog posts mandatory even for one-line blurbs, and I'll oppose it 100%. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. SpartHawg948 06:14, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I duck off to write a report, and all this happens. Personally, If we do implement this new system, I think we should make sure everyone is happy. I'm possibly the world's biggest fan of comprimises, but if this is going to replace the system we put in merely a week ago, it's going to have to be perfect. The only problem with my admin interviews idea was extra effort, so really, I don't think that one should be entirely off the table. Anniverseries and such are really one of the most common things I see in various wiki header alert areas (still don't know the proper term), so I see that as working just fine here. I also would not be at all opposed to bringing back the two-section system, using this system intstead of the main page edit system. SpartHawg earlier raised the issue of having more then one header announcement, which is entirely possible, and indeed is done all the time elsewhere. The absolute last thing I want to do is mess up this wiki's sense of community, so if we do this, I want it done right. In fact, we don't even have to do this at all! I simply started the project to see if this system would look good and funtion properly on this wiki, and I only got serious about it once others started showing their support. Back on topic, though, does anyone else have any more ideas? Arbington 06:23, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did have one more concern in addition to the ones above. So, if we take the news away from the main page (by which I mean that it's no longer handled/edited as part of the main page), how will we ensure that the news is actually news, and not speculation or nonsense? After all, blogs are part of each user's own user page, and as such, no outside individual (even admins) has the ability to go in and make changes for any reason other than vandalism. So add that to my list of concerns: 1) two sections; 2) Blogs not mandatory for news; 3) maintaining the 'news-worthiness' of the news. SpartHawg948 06:28, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * That was something I brought up initally, and Commdor suggested having only a select group of editors be able to make the news blogs, which if this im implemented, I have to support. At the very least have some regualtion about it I do have a few ideas on that point. Lancer1289 06:34, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) Well, the way a blog is added to the news section is by adding it to Category:News, so not all blogs show up as news, and that's good, because not all blogs are news. Also, as Dammej stated back when this was discussed on my talk page, the wikicode can be edited to allow only certain users blogs to show up, and thus, the "News Group" mentioned above. Arbington 06:36, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * How would this 'News Group' be selected? By whom and all that? SpartHawg948 06:42, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I assumed you and Lancer, as the wiki's admins, would select members based on your trust in their ability to submit newsworthy articles. Really, it'd be up to you guys who gets to post news. Arbington 06:47, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any chance of that making it into the proposal? It'd help clarify things quite a bit. At the very least, one of my concerns has been addressed, although I still have two critical concerns, enumerated above, that trouble me with this proposal. SpartHawg948 06:48, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's officially in the proposal. As for news not having to be in blog form, that's one concern I can't really help with, as the system kind of showcases the blog part, making it easier for visitors and members to comment on news, and addin the chance tom make the story more informative. The two sections thing, as I've said, I will galdly implement, but we then reach the whole "one-liner blog" issue again. Really, it becomes a little clunky with two sections, in my opinion, but I'd gladly make the change, if you can get everyone to agree on it. After all, even the creator of the two-section system, Commdor, opposes the idea. Arbington 07:03, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Tip: You can link a category (without adding an article to it), by simply placing a colon before the category. e.g.  produces Category:News. SpartHawg's first concern (least priority) is near-trivial to solve. Two bloglists pulling from two different categories pretty much covers it. The second concern is orders of magnitude more complex. If he's that much against having to write a blog post in order to make news, it's possible that we could code up a solution in DPL, similar to how CDNLatestStory pulls the latest story from that archive. This system would necessarily be more complex however, and I'm unsure if it'd be worth the trouble. Bloglists are basically drop-in solutions, as demonstrated by the relative ease with which Arbington was able to whip up a prototype. They do a lot of really complex and cool stuff behind the curtains, which is why they're so appealing for socialized news. I'm unwilling to invest effort in re-inventing this rather clever wheel, so if SpartHawg is unwilling to waver on the "necessity of blog post" issue (And no one else wants to attempt to re-invent the wheel), then I'm pretty sure that the proposal is dead-in-the-water, at least as far as gaining SpartHawg's support.
 * It occurs to me that there could be underlying issues that are at the root of this aversion to the blogposts though, so I'm just asking for a little clarification from SpartHawg: Is the issue with using the blog system period, or just how such small tidbits would be presented on the front page? (That is, such a tiny sentence or two wrapped up in a giant box with comments etc). I think we could possibly solve the latter issue without too much effort, but it'd be nice to know if any investigation would be worthwhile before pursuing it.
 * Sorry for the wall of text. I need to get less wordy. :\ -- Dammej ( talk ) 07:11, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... We seem to be at an impasse then. I'm all about the two separate sections, as it was one of my absolute favorites features of the new front page. Commdor opposes it. And I, on the other hand, oppose the blog posting, rather vehemently, and that seems to be the entire point of this.
 * Now, as to why I so adamantly oppose the blog commenting. Yes, part of it is because I find the idea of creating a blog post for one ...ahem... darn sentence. It's beyond ludicrous. Beyond asinine. Find me a word that combines ludicrous and asinine, then multiplies it by at least 30, and that's what the concept of one-liner blogs is. The second reason is because I did want to get more active in site news, but don't like using blogs for frivolous things. If you've seen my blogs, you know I don't use them often. There's exactly one that I've put any effort into. The rest are little once-off things that now just clutter my blog tab. The idea of having to create a new blog each and every time a new item of news comes up is abhorrent to someone of my 'smarter, not harder', 'less is more', 'waste not want not' mindset. It's way too much needless clutter when a quick little one-liner in the news section of the main page gets the exact same thing done. SpartHawg948 07:25, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Impasse indeed. Unfortunately, I rather like the blog system, because I think it lets people comment on and discuss the news better. I see your point, SpartHawg, but unfortunately, I also see my point. I think I've got one last idea, though. Would it work to have one Blog type news section for the game-related news, and then a seperate section, more akin to our current sections, for site news? Arbington 07:59, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as it's done properly (i.e. the other Wiki News section, or whatever it's called, doesn't look like the cheap, second-rate 'poor relation'), that idea sounds just fine to me! SpartHawg948 08:02, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll see what I can whip up here. Arbington 08:05, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been implemented. What do you think? Will this work? Arbington 08:14, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * So many indents... Well, it's not ideal, but compromise never is, now is it? Nobody leaves happy. At best, everyone gets something, no one gets everything. Ah well... yeah, it works for me. I tended to shy away from the game-related news anyways, so that isn't a huge loss. SpartHawg948 08:17, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Spoke too soon. When I first saw the latest version, I had one question, but forgot to ask it. Now, if another line or two gets added to the Wiki News section, will it cause overlap with the bottom border? SpartHawg948 08:21, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me check real quick. Arbington 08:23, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It would not appear so. Are there any other issues you see/anticipate? Arbington 08:29, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't think of any... yet! :P Seriously though, it's nice to know that we can do something the U.S. government can't... secure our southern border! Just thought that one up. Yeah, I'm as cool with this as I can be with just about any compromise. Or, as 80's guy would say, Awesome. Awesome to the max. :) SpartHawg948 08:33, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

BAM. No more indent. This might set things back, but I feel like I should point it out. Blog posts will be the only source for news in the top section. So if someone wants to point out something like "Mass Effect 3 is released," it'll still have to be a blog post. Unless the intention is to place that sort of stuff in the second section along with news related mostly to the wiki. Also: the back catalogue of the current news posts would have to be 'converted' to blog posts in some fashion in order for them to show up in the blog list. Not sure if that's what was intended, but the thought came to mind. I also think that the 'news' headline at the top of the bloglist is a bit redundant, so I think the bloglist could do with some styling customization. -- Dammej ( talk ) 08:42, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll fix it now, but as soon as it's done, I'm turning in for the night. I've got a Debate club thing tomorrow. Arbington 08:48, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Neat! I was going to sign up for one of those a couple of quarters ago, but the meet times coincided with a class I was taking, so I didn't... SpartHawg948 09:13, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all the comments. There's... a lot. What I would say based on the Sandbox is that I feel like the news should be more prominent, it's too far down the sidebar. Also the Mass Effect News section appears to be creeping out of the sidebar a tad (Safari 5).JakePT 09:29, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot indeed. Not to open a whole new can of worms, but where would the news go to make it more prominent? The only way to move it up the side bar would be to either move something else down, or off. Personally, I'd rather leave the FA on the sidebar, though if needs be, it could be shifted, though that'd likely mean that some of the articles that have been nominated for FA would probably no longer make the grade (being long enough for the sidebar, but not for the main body of the page). Now, if it could be done without making too much of a headache for people, the Cerberus Daily News might work for getting moved off the sidebar. If we did so, we'd be able to display the story in its entirety, as I know that there was some dissatisfaction over not being able to see it all. Just a few thoughts. SpartHawg948 09:37, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, I wouldn't be at all opposed to moving the CDN section so we can see the whole story. I guess I'll try it out and see how it looks. Arbington 23:16, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I moved it to the center area, but I, in my inexperience, I've found I don't know how to make it show the whole article. What, exactly, do I do? Arbington 23:34, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since it currently uses the same system that displays the article on the front page, we probably shouldn't change it for the prototype, since it'll then display the whole article on the right-hand-side of the main page, which would be huge. You might just copy the template from today's article and put that in place of . Todays story text is:


 * If/when we get to a point where the system gets implemented, then we can change it back to using the LatestStory template to make it dynamic, and change the template so that it includes the whole story. -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:41, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I changed it. Anything else? Arbington 00:00, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as two hours have elapsed, and no one has made any more objections, I guess I'll put this up for voting. Arbington 02:18, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

I've only got a single reservation about this. I've grown to prefer the CDN section in the right column with the Cerberus icon. If it absolutely has to be moved, then I'd rather see it below the Contents section, and still with the Cerberus logo image (and we're not keeping the italics, are we?). If this is doable, I'll change my vote to support. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:48, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Shows how much attention I'd payed. I didn't even notice the logo was absent. I wholeheartedly agree, the logo needs re-added. I have no strong feelings on it being either above or below the contents section. SpartHawg948 20:58, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh, I sorta forgot that the other template wouldn't look the same as the right-side bar. Were this not hosted in Arbington's User space, I'd fix it right now. I agree. I prefer the styling that's used on the right-hand side of the page. Also, to address JakePT's comment about the box being slightly off-center, adding style="margin:auto;" inside the tag will fix that. -- Dammej ( talk ) 21:08, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider my vote an oppose if the Cerberus symbol isn't added back in. Bastian964 00:12, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * And My vote can be treated against as well if said Cerberus symbol is not readded. That Cerberus symbol needs to come back before I agree as well. Lancer1289 03:26, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been gone for the last few days guys, I've got a lot of real-world stuff going on right now I have to attend to. I was told (I think) that modifying the CDN template (the one with the Cerberus logo) to show the whole story on the project page would also modify the current main page. I'm not totally 100% sure that that's the case, but I at least remember it as such. It'll be fixed if this is implemented, unless someone can go on the project page and change it now in a way not destructive to the real main page. Arbington 22:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I or Dammej can take a whack at it if you'll give us permission to edit your sandbox. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Permission granted. Arbington 00:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Got it working. You can't see the full changes to the section until this is implemented because the changes aren't compatible with the main page as is, and the main page and project page use the same template. It'll show the full story and headline though when we do carry this out, rest assured. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:03, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the admittedly terse edit summary, I just don't want people looking at our front page and getting the false impression that we try to cram that whole story on the right-hand side. I didn't have time until now to leave a full reply; my main concern was keeping the main page looking good. I've added in simple static content in place of the template, so this should give people an idea of what it'll look like when the proposal goes through. -- Dammej ( talk ) 01:43, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew what you meant, you only did what I was about to do anyway. :) -- Commdor (Talk) 01:56, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, righto! In the future though, I'd refrain from doing any sort of 'test' edits to templates or pages that have that sort of exposure. I'm not precisely sure how much traffic the main page sees, but if even one person looks at the main page and sees something messed up and crazy, then I think we've failed to properly service them. Apologies for making a 10-minute span of test edits sound like a huge deal, but it really is a big deal in my eyes. I don't mean to chastise you unfairly or anything, but merely give the impression that this was not the ideal way to test out how an edit looks. We have many options available to us to test out how things will look (especially in a project forum or sandbox page), so making test edits to "production" templates and pages should only happen as an extreme last resort. At least, that's my thinking. I forget that I'm certainly not an authority figure on the matter, so perhaps I'm spouting off a load of BS. But I do care about making the wiki look great, so I hope that my words at least ring true. -- Dammej ( talk ) 02:09, August 14, 2010 (UTC)