Warriors Wiki:Community Portal/Reporting Center/Other Issues

[STAFF OUTREACH] ~ Day of Editing?
Okay, this is something that I've been considering for quite a while now, and I've brought it up before to 'teldy and the others, but I've gone on deaf ears. Now that we have the reporting center, we can /use/ it for things like this.

So, I propose that one of these days, on one decided by the admins/staff/ect, that we shut off the chat for one whole day to promote editing on the wiki. I know this might come across as a little harsh, since so many of us use the chat for means of communication, but I honestly think there are some who take this chat for granted, and they do not realize that it can very easily be shut off with the click of a switch on the Admin Dashboard.

So, I propose that we shut off the chat, perhaps on a day during the weekend, for an entire 24 hours. After all, we're an encyclopedia-like wiki, so, that doesn't mean we need a chat system. It would be nice to go back to the older days, where people willingly edited, instead of being threatened with chat bans if they don't.

Comments, everyone? Not just staff can comment, I'd think, since there are a lot of users who aren't staff whose opinions would be greatly appreciated.

I heavily support this idea. It might clear up all the issues with other users being forced to edit- they'll either learn to edit or they'll leave, realizing that this Wiki is not a social website. Not many people realize how lucky they are to have chat, I am sometimes guilty about that, I'll admit. Also, the weekend editing day idea would indeed be a wise idea, since as far as I know, people don't do much except chat. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is how I imagine everybody on this Wiki on a weekend. It may seem harsh, yes, but it will be beneficial for the Wiki itself. -- 20:34, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I must say that this is a very good idea. I don't edit nearly as much as I should, and the same goes for other users as well. If we all had a day where the distraction of chat didn't exist, it would be good for everyone. --&#123;&#123;SUBST:Nosubst&#124;User:EmmatheFoxwing/sig&#125;&#125; (talk) 20:36, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Skye. Chat is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, it isn't compulsory. As you said, we're an encyclopedia and the chat is just something for users to socialize with others. Now, I wasn't here in the older days, but I bet that it was a lot easier to get users to edit, since the chat didn't exist. Shutting down chat seems harsh, but I feel like it's needed to get the message to newer users.

Plus, I really need to work on my own horrible editcount...x.x --  Sh   oo   n  Gutt ered

20:43, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps on a holiday when no one wants to edit or work? Ca na  di  a~  Sirius is hiding... 21:07, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is a wonderful idea, quite often I see users in chat that haven't edited in a week or so and they show no effort to edit, I support this idea 100% 23:49, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think the thought and intention of this is good, but I really don't think it'd make a difference honestly. For those who don't want to edit, do you really think chat being off for just one day would make them suddenly want to edit? It's not like this is the only place online for those people to go, so they have to edit if chat's not there. If we take it down, they'll just go somewhere else, no edit, unless they already want to. In which case they should be already and taking down chat won't change anything. I honestly don't think this would make very much difference at all, despite the good intentions. 00:07, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. People hang around chat when they're bored and lazy because chat is an effortless way to waste time. Editting the wiki is work, and I highly doubt they'll want to do that. If they really wanted to do something that took effort, they'd go outside or something, not edit the wiki. And that's saying people will actually want to do something that takes effort. I'm not saying that editting the wiki isn't productive, just that if the rare chance that people actually wanted to do something that takes effort, especially if it was the people who hang around chat all day doing nothing, it probably wouldn't be editting the wiki. 01:17, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this could be a great concept. But I'm not sure if it could work. People could just say, "Oh, I can just blow off this day. They don't KNOW that I'm not there." But I guess if people are willing, it could be a great thing. So if we can get it to work, that would just be awesome. But I'm not sure myself. 19:15 Saturday November 24 2012

I agree with Paleh. Disabling the chat for a day will just be that: disabling the chat for a day. The users on there that don't edit just won't be on for that day, and then when it's reopened they'll be right back on. It won't change a thing. 03:35, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

It might work if we put up a message as well informing people that it's editing day and that that's why the chat is locked up. I dunno. As Paleclaw said, the intention is good, but I don't know if it'll be very effective. The wiki is pretty much hibernating right now. Nothing's getting done. PB's big chapter pages project has fizzled out with little to show for the effort. Many articles are no longer up-to-date because no one can be arsed to fill out the Yellowfang's Secret section. The only project that seems to still be running at full speed right now is PCA, and that project isn't even integral to the point of the wiki.

It's been bugging me, but I haven't complained because I figure we'll just work at a sporadic rate and hibernate until DotC starts up.

But my point is this: everyone is slacking these days. About a year ago, PB's chapters thing would have been done within a month, tops, and the book sections on character pages would have been filled out completely within a week of the release of the book. Right now, not so much. I don't necessarily think it's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just a thing. (meandering statement over) 06:04, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea. I agree with Shelly, that some users aren't doing as much as they should, or as much as they used to, but everyone needs a break. There's no need to single out PB, all the projects aren't getting as much attention as they should. I'm not saying we should put off the projects, and I'm not saying the project leaders and members aren't doing a good job. I'm just saying that everyone knows this wiki isn't what it was like back in... even early 2012. You know it's not summer anymore for some of us, and we're all back to working. Sometimes life gets in the way of doing what you want, and there's really nothing you can do.

Anyway, I support this idea. I really like the concept and I think it's a really good... just, a good way to make the wiki more... I don't know. Just make it better. When should we have a one day of editing? Every year? Every month? Every two months? We should announce how we're doing it and when. The idea needs a little work, but Cloudskye did a great job explaining it and bringing it to life. I also agree with Paleh. Some users come here just for the chat. And some users might proceed to vandalize pages, and do other crap if chat gets shut off. We need a way to "get around" all the user complaints if we're going to make this happen. We can't make them want to edit. We can't. So... we need to do some more thinking on this, if it's really going to happen. All I can say is, this is just my opinion, and I think I'm done here. Stormy I'm messing with you ♥ 18:08, November 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I love this idea. In fact, I love it so much, I'd love to see it become a monthly thing if the first one works out well. We may not be able to make them want to edit, Stormy, but at least we can remind them that the point of the wiki is editing. If users vandalize pages... well... We'll deal with them. In fact, I'll volunteer to set the first one on one of my non-D&D saturdays, so that I can be on call all day to deal with anything that Crops up. I'll also offer to make a pretty graphic for the top of the mainpage to explain why our chat isn't there :) 17:25, January 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow, thanks Kit. o.o  I'm still up for this, and would really like to see this go through. Kit is absolutely right when she says that we can't force a user to edit, but at least we can get the point across. We may have the edit restriction in place, but there are still people who take the chat for granted... It'll happen everywhere. Hell, I think the chat being off one day wouldn't just benefit the wiki, but benefit people on a personal level, too.

* randomly pops in* Love this idea. The live chat isn't the most important thing around this wiki, while it may be important to others, and hopefully if there is like a day of editing, users who believe that editing isn't important might see that at least the chat isn't the main thing about WWiki. Imo, I like Kit's suggestion of this being a monthly thing. ;3

I swear I already posted on here.... Anywho!~ I love the idea~ There have been some users who joined and only sit in the chat all day. Even with the chat restriction, they can meet the edit count and then never do anything. I do like the idea of it being monthly. Great idea, Kit~ Ca  na  di  a~  Sirius is hiding... 23:01, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think this would help anything. All it's going to do is keep users away for the day it's happening, and they'll come straight back when it's over to once again sit in the chat and do nothing. 16:28, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it would keep users away for the day? The idea is the put the focus on editing, rather than the chat, for a change. Why would no chat mean that people interested in editing (what the day is intended to encourage) not come? 16:30, January 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mean the users that want to edit would keep away, but the ones that are just sitting there. That's pretty much what happened with the chat restriction. Some of them spammed edits to get the edit count (and then sat in the chat some more), and others haven't been seen since. Those users should be discouraged from using the wiki as a social site, but just a day of no editing will neither keep them from using the wiki as such nor encourage them to edit. It's a neat idea and all, but I don't think it's going to be a miracle cure solution. 16:40, January 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to have misunderstood what's being proposed... It's a day in which we turn the chatroom off. It's not a magic bullet, you are right there, but it would be a day that shines a spotlight on editing. A way to celebrate those who edit by giving them a day devoted entirely to contribution. 17:02, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

[COMMUNITY OUTREACH] File Naming Conventions
Since this was archived without a conclusion, I'm bringing up again as a community thing rather than just admin. So here we go again.

I'd like to suggest formal file naming conventions for personal images and project images, rather than just PCA images, along with an edit to the MediaWiki:Uploadtext page, listing the new file naming conventions for anybody uploading an image to see. Failure to comply with them would result in their file being deleted, which would be clearly stated on the upload page. I've made an example here, listing the suggested naming conventions for each type of file. Any past images will be renamed, or if they're a personal image of an inactive user, tagged for deletion, or deleted.

I think this would help a bit with organization, as well as make it easier to spot and sort out when a user has uploaded more than one personal image. Will also make it a bit easier to identify what images are used in the projects, as some are simply images anyone could, and has, upload/ed, as some are a bit hard to tell at first glance without looking where it's linked.

So let me know what you guys think! Suggested this over half a year ago, so I'd really like to get this rolling this time around. 05:11, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

I sounds like a good idea to me. I don't see why not to. 05:18, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

I really like this idea - it'll be a lot easier to trach down unneeded files if we have this in place. 05:27 Sat Jan 19

The only potential challenge I see is the bulk of images that would need to be moved to make this happen. Which in the end is a minor concern. 14:52, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

True, but the majority of them actually honestly need to be marked for deletion. I've been through the file list on the wiki a couple times, and it looks like about 80% of the images are actually from inactive users, or just plain useless now. So they really need to be marked anyways. That will be a slight challenge sorting through them all and renaming them, but I think we could get it done without much hassle if most people pitch in a bit. 01:19, January 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is inactivity grounds for deletion of a perfectly acceptable image? We shouldn't be deleting the images of people who are using their one. We don't have a space limit. It's also a waste of staff time to patrol for inactive users's images. 01:22, January 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if they're not going to be on the wiki anymore, why should they have a personal image? It's just going to sit there and take up space that could be used for a contributive matter. Honestly, I see no need for an inactive user to even posses a personal image. They're not around, so why does it matter?


 * What I'm saying is why should we waste the time of our staff going through images for people who won't come back? The images aren't hurting anything. Someone should go through and tag for actual violations. It's something we shouldn't be worrying about. They're not "taking up space" that others could use. We have unlimited space. Our editors could do more useful things than play about tagging images for inactive users to delete that violate no other rules. 01:48, January 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether or not they don't violate any rules, what's the point of having them on there if they're not actively being used by a member of the wiki? There are some images that are just sitting there and not being used at all, whether they be on a page or elsewhere. I'd do it myself, honestly. I don't consider it a waste of time and offer my services in favor of it.


 * I have to agree with Kit. Who's to say they won't come back? How would you feel if you came on tomorrow morning and all your images were gone? As far as I can tell, everybody is allowed a personal image if it's their own, and inactive users are a part of "everybody." 03:16, January 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * If they come back, the file can be restored. We have probably 3000 images or so that are from inactive users who never come here anymore. Why take up all the space for someone who most likely doesn't care what happens on here? Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless somebody uploads over that file with the exact name of it, anything that was done with it can be undone. And as for spending all the time one that, you have to spend the time to rename them anyways if we decide to keep them, or mark them if they aren't renamed. Renaming them won't save any time of the staff members, in fact, in my experience renaming actually takes longer. Why not spend that time cleaning up the wiki a bit by getting rid of images that aren't really used anymore as long as they can be restored? Nothing permanent is done, and it'll cut down on the pointless images by a ridiculous amount. 06:00, January 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, the archives to periodically get flushed. It's not always possible to recover images. This is why I cannot do things like pull up the original horrendous banner that Oglog used for the main page.
 * Additionally, I'm going to point out that the Image Use Policy currently supports the practice of removing images over a users first image, and images that are not being used on any page. It does not give staff the right to delete images for inactivity. If you guys want to continue this practice, you'll have to propose a rules change and take that through the formal channels.
 * I've already stated why I think this practice is pointless, and in accordance will not repeat myself. My citation of this refers to more than just the initial file name changeover. I'm talking about the ongoing waste of time it will continue to be to be enforced.
 * 13:27, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kitsu and Breezy on the deletion part. Why should we wast our time on deleting every image when it's being used on profiles? Second, I'd agree with the renaming. owo 01:27, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Well fine, we're getting slightly off topic with the deletion thing, so for now at least we'll just rename them as any image. I still disagree with keeping them, but I'll bring that up in another discussion. Let's focus on the naming conventions. Seems like most everybody so far is in agreement, so that's a good sign. 17:10, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

[COMMUNITY OUTREACH] Wikia Allegiances
[...] First off, thanks for participating in both the Wikia Wide Fantasy Fellowship! We're bringing that web ring to a close, as you may have noticed. However, the event was such a success that we want to launch another opportunity to tie wiki communities closer together and promote all your wonderful content!

There are actually three alliances to choose from: Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Heroes! All are broadly defined, so your wiki may fit. Check out the Alliance Page for more details and fill out the Choose Your Alliance Page to sign up!

Best, Jorge (profile)•(talk) 00:30, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

So, what do you guys say? 04:25, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great to me! 8D 19:43, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me~

Looks awesome to me. =) 23:16, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds awesome! :D  23:25, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * We should have put this to the vote ages ago. So I finally took care of it. 00:43, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

[CLOSED] Questions about Editing
This is just a question, but I was wondering...

How do I become an editor? I want to become one but I don't see where I can find it. Please tell me how.

thanks,

Greenkit

Hi guys! Just a post warning on page 14, just a little bug that will be fixed in moment. - Best Regards, Greenkit :)

[CLOSED] Characer images
Someone has changed the character images today to pictures that some people may find upseting. I am strongly against this, even if it was mant to be a joke. Can whoever did it please switch them back. The pages I looked at to come to this conclusion were: http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/Spottedleaf http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/Sandstorm http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/Bluestar http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/Mousefur Please change it back A.S.A.P. Thank you, Mouseleaf

Also crookedstar, firestar, leafpool, jayfeather, hollyleaf, and a page called Mistakes in the Warriors series. 68.40.63.200 13:46, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an April Fool's Joke. Stop Reporting it, Please. 13:49, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

[CLOSED] Edit Limit for Chat?
I didn't know where to put this o3o so I sorta just like, y'know put it here..

Anyways, I know this Wikia used to have a edit limit for chat, which was 100 edits and that block has been lifted. I'd like to request that the block be put on it again, but maybe with a little less, like they have to have 50 edits or so, because there are users who have lower than 100 but are great people, y'know?

Anyways, I thought I'd bring this up again because the chat gets flooded with new users who often don't know the rules, bother to look or follow them, and it gets to be some-what of a hassle. It doesn't have to be 50, 25 would also be good, but there should be a limit once more.

Again, I don't know where to put the actually discussion for voting and such, =w=;; so, I decided to bring it up here. -- Echo Harkness   "I was just saying hello!" 02:18 Mon Apr 15


 * I believe the software that limits it (which fails frequently) is still in place. The only thing is that when the software does fail, that isn't considered grounds for a chat ban at this time (my personal feeling is that it should never be). The only recent change made based on this is that we clarified that our rules don't support the banning of people for a software hack failing. BTW: You should convert your signature to the code that keep it a template instead of a mess of code. I can track it down if you can't find it (I /think/ it's in the rules, but I can't swear to that). 12:11, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

No, it was voted to be removed a while ago. I'd be fine with it being reinstated with the stipulation that the software failing is not grounds for a chat ban. 19:23, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. If they manage to get past the flaw in the coding, which is has happened before, then they're welcome and can't get banned for it. As of late, I do think that edit requirement would do a lot more good than bad. I'd gladly welcome it back.

I need to know what happened to the user who, months ago, made the page "Rustystar", please. 1 of my best online friends, what happened to them??!! i forgot their username so ya that be helpful too.


 * There was a vote on this topic in the forum, and it's wrapped up without a limit being enacted. 20:27, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

[COMMUNITY OUTREACH] Switch to Non-forum-namespace Forum System?
I think it's time to discuss the possibility of switching from the Forum-namespace forum system to the more user-friendly and easier to expand and adjust inbuilt forum system. Everyone can see it being demonstrated Here on Community Test Wikia. I'd like to hear from everyone. It would not be suitable for our voting booth, but we could create a voting center to continue to run votes using the system we're used to on the community portal. Let me know what you think, folks. Weight in on this initial discussion! 00:54, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now, apologies. As someone who was involved with the development of the forums, I've seen what it can do. I'm still not real pleased with it, and it still seems too Facebook-y for my likes. Now, if everyone else wishes to go and implement it, by all means, do so. However, I'm against it and would rather stick to the forum system that we have now.


 * I don't find it overly Facebooky simply because it's convient for the means in which we ususally use the forums (present a primary topic and collect comments on it). My primary reasoning for it is the confusion and the barrier to entry for newbies on the current forum system. Talk pages are already confusing enough, and simplifying the forums would be a step that would aid in (IMO) increaing project participation and project communication by giving them an easier than talkpage means for the conversations they need to have. PCA, for example, would benefit becasue it would be simple and quick to set them up with multiple forums for the multiple topics they have. Imagine how much less clutters approvals for images could be with new forums. 18:11, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

I realize that I'm extremely late with posting this, but if this discussion is still going on, I kinda like this idea. The forum system shown on the link provided looks pretty good, and I good idea imo as the forums currently are kinda confusing. At least they were, to me.

[STAFF OUTREACH] ~ Blanks Being Used on DeviantART
My friend saw a user on dA posting chararts using blanks from this site. Unless the rules have changed since I was here last, the only place you are allowed to use these blanks is on this wiki, and not even for avatars.

http://themask02.deviantart.com/

I'm not sure if this person has received special permission to use these blanks, but they are not giving credit anywhere.

I'm sorry if my report is structured incorrectly and this is none of my business, but I feel it is important to let this wiki (especially the creator of the blanks) know because all their hard work is being claimed by someone else.

(I also apologize for my signature) 23:41, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

No, they are not allowed to be using the blanks. I'm pretty nifty with deviantART, and I'll contact the staff about getting it removed. 16:04, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

[STAFF OUTREACH] ~ Tallstar's Image Found on Another Website
This user has posted Tallstar's StarClan image on their profile picture here . This image belongs to this site and they are not giving credit to anyone, and it violates the Image Use Policy. This person has been informed, but they have not removed it from their user page. 14:02, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

[STAFF OUTREACH] Blanks Being Used on a Different Wiki
I don't really know if this is what I'm supposed to do, but it seems like it... I don't know what else to do, and if this isn't what is supposed to go here, I'm sorry. I'm also not sure if I'm doing this correctly. I'm quite dumb...

Anyway. A wiki has been using the blanks here. While I'm still fairly new, I'm pretty sure that's not allowed. This wiki is this one http://flamestreams-story.wikia.com I don't know what to do, and I believe I have no authority or right  pretty sure those are synonyms lol   to tell the user to remove it.

I left him/her a message about it, and s/he either deleted my message, or my crappy internet decided to be crappy and not load it onto the page.

I apologize if I did anything wrong with this. I'm rather stupid and noobish, but I really hope I did this right :/

[STAFF OUTREACH] Blanks being used on a different Wiki
It has come to my attention that a different wiki called "Beachclan Wiki" link has been using the artwork that this wiki has created. The link to this wiki is http://beachclan.wikia.com/wiki/Beachclan_Wiki

Thank you,

--Shuckle* (talk) 18:20, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

[STAFF OUTREACH] Blanks being used on a different Wiki
While puttering around other wikis, I discovered that a wiki called "Dimstar's Past Wiki" has been using one of the blanks for their character Dimstar. The said blank can be found here:

http://dimstarspast.wikia.com/wiki/File:Dimstar.leader.png

Thank you,

Shuckle* (talk) 00:41, April 22, 2014 (UTC)

[STAFF OUTREACH] Blanks being used on a different wiki
It has come to my attention that the wiki, Warriors Fanon Wiki, has been using our blanks without any found permission.

http://warriorscatsfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Warriors_Fanon_Wiki

Thank you,

--Shuckle* (talk) 01:31, April 27, 2014 (UTC)