Forum:"New look" - feature vote

From The Vault - Fallout Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > "New look" - feature vote
 
Gametitle-Wiki.png
Gametitle-Wiki.png

Wikia has put up a new blog regarding the FaceWikiShack skin, in which they specifically state that image attribution, category galleries and "related pages" are now considered optional and can be removed if desired. As such, I'm calling a vote to gauge whether our community wants these removed. Please vote on each feature individually, with Yes meaning "keep this feature" and No meaning "remove it".

A short description of each of those features (for those who can't directly connect the terms to something on the site):

  • Image attribution: This is the "added by" line (with username and avatar) which appears below every thumbnail with the new skin. For an example, see the first image in Great War.
  • Category galleries: A fairly recent addition which displays 8 randomly selected images at the top of each category page. See e.g. Category:Human characters.
  • Related pages: The autogenerated 3 image links which appear in a "read more"-titled section at the bottom of every article. See e.g. Mississippi Quantum pie.

Votes[edit source]

Poll.png
Poll finished on December 17, 2010.
A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.

Keep image attribution?[edit source]

  • No -- Porter21 (talk): Misleading (uploader is not the same as author), ugly, vanity has no place in wikis.
  • No -- Braindigitalis 10:52, December 10, 2010 (UTC) - As above
  • No -- Thecrystalcrow 11:55, December 10, 2010 (UTC): The added "content" is purposeless.
  • No --Kris User Hola.jpg Worse than useless actually, it detracts from the wiki.
  • No --Gothemasticator 12:20, December 10, 2010 (UTC): We don't attribute anything else within an article, and it stands out like a call for attention.
  • No -- http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) Wikia's not Vanity Fair nor is it a competition.
  • No Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog.jpg 15:07, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No -- Pongsifu 17:21, December 10, 2010 (UTC) Don't like this even if I'm the one who added the image.
  • No serves no purpose to the actual article in question. ☣Avatar☣ 20:54, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Agent c 22:52, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Why was this added in the first place? Hal10k (Leonard Bernstein!) 02:02, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • No - Though I doubt this would be kept, I still think it's a terrible thing. Nitty Tok. 02:36, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Hrafn Wulf 01:18, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Anon talk 18:19, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Takes up space, means the image has to be smaller.JaspertheViking :D? 18:24, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • No I agree with Porter --Jspoel 15:13, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Keep category galleries?[edit source]

  • NeutralIcon neutral.png -- Porter21 (talk): Personally, I find them to be in the way when trying to look up pages in a category, but I see some potential for them to be helpful to readers.
  • No -- Braindigitalis 10:53, December 10, 2010 (UTC) - Ugly clutter, please remove
  • No -- Thecrystalcrow 11:58, December 10, 2010 (UTC): In my opinion, it makes the page too cluttered. I would rather see the list instead of a couple rows of images possibly unrelated to the specific information I would be looking for. It would seem to make more sense to have the images at the bottom of the article/page.
  • Yes --Kris User Hola.jpg I like the pretty pictures. Just kidding, No
  • No --Gothemasticator 12:20, December 10, 2010 (UTC): Clutter, in the way.
  • NeutralIcon neutral.png -- http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) I don't mind them.
  • No Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog.jpg 15:07, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No -- Pongsifu 17:21, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Ugly clutter that destracts from the actual purpose of categories, especially to be placed main focus at the top of the page. ☣Avatar☣ 20:54, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Agent c 22:52, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Hal10k (Leonard Bernstein!) 02:02, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Anon talk 18:19, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • No just no.JaspertheViking :D? 18:24, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Administrative pages don t need this, it s confusing (at first i mistook it for an image) --Jspoel 15:13, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Keep "related pages"?[edit source]

  • No -- Porter21 (talk): It's not a bad idea in principle, but the relevance of the pages it chooses is lacking and having it appear below navboxes etc just looks plain ugly.
  • No -- Braindigitalis 10:54, December 10, 2010 (UTC) - Ugly and pretty useless
  • NeutralIcon neutral.png -- Thecrystalcrow 12:01, December 10, 2010 (UTC) I actually have used this feature, though the relevance of some of the entries may be questionable. I do believe the images are too large, as well.
  • No --Kris User Hola.jpg That's what the "See also" section is for. No "See also" section on a given page? No need for "related" on that page.
  • No --Gothemasticator 12:20, December 10, 2010 (UTC): Relevance is the key word here.
  • NeutralIcon neutral.png -- http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) If we can revamp them into an auto-generated see-also section, they can be kept.
  • No Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog.jpg 15:07, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No This is just a waste of time as I go on this to get stuff relevant to what 'm doing in my game not what someone classes as relavant. AZButcher 17:13, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No -- Pongsifu 17:23, December 10, 2010 (UTC) The only one I think is "ok". Looks alright, but at the same time looks almost like an ad.
  • No next to pointless due to the random nature of loosely connected pages, also looks very ugly and poorly formated. ☣Avatar☣ 20:54, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No If its truly "Related", it should be mentioned in the actual article, not blind picked by a computer that doesn't understand the material. Agent c 22:52, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Hal10k (Leonard Bernstein!) 02:02, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Anon talk 18:19, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • No Even I'm lost for words.JaspertheViking :D? 18:24, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I like it. It s not that prominent on the page. If you should scroll down to it, it invites you to browse a bit, stay a little longer, take a better look a similar pages. Especially if there s a nice image displayed. And it s not totally random, same category --Jspoel 15:13, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit source]

Bumping - one day left. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:19, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Result[edit source]

Consensus: All these features should be disabled. I have temporarily removed them via CSS (which, as usual, might take a while to update for individual users) and requested them to be turned off properly via Special:Contact. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:09, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Update: Category galleries and the "related pages" module have been turned off properly now; this is currently not possible for the image attribution, so I've been advised to stick to removing it via CSS. -- Porter21 (talk) 16:33, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
If I may ask, how can I remove these optional wiki features you referred to in this forum thread from the Modding wiki? I can't stand looking at the related article boxes any more. Thanks in advance - Ghouly89 (Talk) 02:37, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ask them to be disabled via Special:Contact on the Modding wiki ;) That works for category galleries and related pages. To remove image attribution, see the CSS at the end of MediaWiki:Wikia.css. -- Porter21 (talk) 07:27, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks, Porter.--Gothemasticator 03:31, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed ;) - Ghouly89 (Talk) 05:19, December 20, 2010 (UTC)