Forum:Article comments/Archive

Forums: Index →

Administration Archive

→ Article comments/Archive

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was not to have Article Comments. Article comments are just like blog comments, except for use on regular articles. They replace the need for article talk pages, and also are more accessible to people who don't know their way around a wiki well. Like blog comments, they appear at the bottom of articles, and look the same as blog comments. I propose that we enable this here, for a few reasons which are listed below. The number one reason why I am suggesting that we enable this is increased activity. As it is, we have a very full recent changes with over 500 edits per day in it. While we are the most active, and second biggest toy wiki out there, this is not good enough for me. I want to see many more new users becoming involved, and this is one great way to encourage this. With these article comments, anonymous users with no wiki experience will comment on the articles, and then be welcomed by the Wikia bot. This is good, since some will look at that message and think this is cool, and sign up. I will be doing a revamp of the welcome templates anyways, for more than one reason. It may interest you to know that over a hundred people visit Brickipedia each day. Of those, the vast majority do not edit. I want to change that. Having article comments will allow more anons to get involved, and eventually expand this wiki. This also means that we don't need to worry about those darned talk headers! It should be noted that with this, we will need to revise our policy on talk pages. Not all comments will be about improving the article, and while we could delete some of them, it would become a full time job. However, let's just discuss this first, and worry about minor policy changes after there is some clear support from the community. Thanks for reading, and please vote below! Ajraddatz Talk 23:25, March 9, 2010 (UTC) Support - As nominator. Ajraddatz Talk 23:25, March 9, 2010 (UTC) Strong OpposeWelk, i like the idea, but we'll need to talk about a policy about it. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! Mariofighter3 00:02, March 10, 2010 (UTC) This has gone on too long. There is vandelism, non-suggestive comments AT ALL, and a user was already bnanned for the vandelism. Sorry Ajraddaztz, but this is crazy. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 23:30, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Support - Sure I will go with it. Ajraddatz has clarified it for me. BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) Oppose - I'm not sure. Show me on a test wiki how this will look. From the way a blog article is, it seems like this would make a page look bad. BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) It can be seen here. It isn't as bad as you would think, since it is quite below the content area. Ajraddatz Talk 00:02, March 10, 2010 (UTC) It looks quite good, but would this replace talk pages or would there be both? Maybe comments for "commenting on the article's content" and talk pages for "discussing improvements for the article"? Jag 00:46, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is possible to retain talk pages if required. Oh boy, this forum is gonna get crazy... Ajraddatz Talk 00:47, March 10, 2010 (UTC) What do you mean go crazy? If there is voting, why are the "oppose" and "neutral" headers striked? Jag 00:49, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Those aren't headers, they are the vote that a user put in, and then revoked. Ajraddatz Talk 05:05, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Neutral -OK, I will think about this. There are ups and downs, and the page doesn't look awful. But I'm not really sure if this will work. BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) I have moved the comment admin section to the talk page for now, let's get this vote over with first. Ajraddatz Talk 01:02, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Super Strong Oppose. This would be extremely hectic to patrol. Although the "comment admins" could be a good way of helping out. Another worry is that it will take the focus away from the article itself and be all about the discussion. I don't suppose the formatting of the comments section could be hidden by default, similar to the way {{SWfigs}} is, and maybe not have a huge h1 heading? Per Mariofighter3, there is way too much spam happening. Also there's no discussion tab, there are glitches, the comment header is too big and the comment text is bigger than the article text, making the comment section appear more important than the article itself. I'll definitely be glad when this testing period is over (if the idea is opposed in the vote). NightblazeSaber 04:34, March 10, 2010 (UTC) It would be hectic to patrol, but you really need to think of the benefits to the wiki. More activity. Comment admins are a great way to solve this, but lets also look at the long-term benefits. Not only will editing literally double here (this trend can be seen on basically every wiki that uses them), but with more editors and articles we gain availability to things like local check users and (possibly) oversighters. No, I am not doing this for the future possibility of being a check user (:P), but I would love to see this wiki increase so much in size. As I say, comment admins could help to regulate the thing, we can get User:Wikia to be flagged as a bot and it will work out fine. If every idea was opposed on the basis of it taking more work, then we may as well not run this wiki :P Ajraddatz Talk 05:03, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Also, yes it would be possible to reduce the size of the header, if needed. Ajraddatz Talk 05:19, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Major Oppose. Recipe Wiki also has this and what I've noticed is that it's not really used for what it's supposed to. It's mostly the sight for tons of spam messages and other unkind remarks. Like Nighthawk said, it would be too hard to patrol. So a lot of times if somebody writes spam messages we will never know. This would just make the unregistered users (who mostly spam) spam even more. Construction Worker Do you need help? 11:40, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Oppose/Support Like the others said, and that would mean deleting every talk page. I probably wont use it however I support testing it out for a week. GG 360 11:51, March 10, 2010 (UTC) I don't know if a week would be long enough to see all of the possible consequences, but a testing period sounds great to me, and then after that period of time maybe a vote can be held which must have both admin and community support if it's to stay. NightblazeSaber 12:15, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Weak Oppose I saw the example and it seems to take a lot of space. Since many articles on this Wiki are still quite short, this wouldn't look good in my opinion, it would look better if we had longer articles (which we will have in future). Maybe there is a way to make that comment section shorter? Oh, and what is the biggest toy wiki? BS01? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 12:43, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Transformers wiki. We need about 378 more articles to equal them :) NightblazeSaber 13:15, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Well, there is some... variety in the voting. Right now we are sitting at about 50/50. One thing that I would like to point out is this; it really doesn't make the articles look bad, since it is out of the content area. I will admit that I at first opposed the idea when it was presented on the FarmVille wiki, but already activity there is starting to really pick up. My point is this: Yes, it could be difficult at times, but ultimately you just need to look to the clear benefits to the wiki. With Recipes, their editors literally tripled after the article comments came into place. The Mafia Wars wiki doubled. Already, after one day, the FarmVille wiki has had about 20 comments. Also, no, every talk page would not be deleted. We would just have the option of not using them. Don't worry, you won't lose any edits and if you like you can still use the old talk pages. Ajraddatz Talk 14:13, March 10, 2010 (UTC) How about waiting a few days to watch Farmville wiki and see what happens? Then we could do a little test period. And is there a possibility to make the comment section smaller? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 14:16, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Yes and yes, although it would look just as bad small IMO. Ajraddatz Talk 14:22, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose for the moment. The article comments still have a lot of bugs, that I have passed to the team, and they are working on.. but yet are still having problems. As I know, as an admin over at Recipes, article comments vandalism prone, and I dont think a new right could hold the ability.. Just deleting article comments I do belive isnt possible, will have to check that. Recipes contributers I reckon didnt come from that. If you noticed, when those contributers show'd up, the Recipes Wiki Giveaway was on.. a competition with real prizes by Wikia. --Lcawte 15:29, March 10, 2010 (UTC) The fact still maintains that it is increasing activity on other wikis. Also, yes, there are specific rights for the comments, so it is possibe to create this user group. As stated many times above, this is proven to increase activity and that should be out ultimate objective. If we were this worried about vandalism, why don't we just lock down the wiki to only specific people? The point is that if we ever want to increase in size, this is how we do it. Also, the article comments are pretty unglitchy right now, except of course for the diffs, but those should be fixed soon. Ajraddatz Talk 15:46, March 10, 2010 (UTC) It is also possible to blacklist certain words and phrases, such as nonsense, which I would be willing to set up/maitntain. I understand all of the above reasons for opposing, I too opposed these at first, but ultimatly this is for the best. Ajraddatz Talk 15:46, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Err, non mainspace pages, TOC errors.. --Lcawte 16:51, March 10, 2010 (UTC) These comments would only be enabled on the mainspace articles, which doesn't have any glitches. Recipes is experimenting with stuff, we will just have the comments in the mainspace. Ajraddatz Talk 16:54, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Oh wait, are you refering to the deletion log glitches? I wouldn't worry about those, they should be fixed soon and don't affect anything terribly. Ajraddatz Talk 16:56, March 10, 2010 (UTC) No I am not, and err Recipes.. not really dude. Lrn2read fully? --Lcawte 17:02, March 10, 2010 (UTC) I have read what you said fully, and it is not fair to use recipes as a good example. See w:c:mafiawars or w:c:farmville for some better examples. For Mafia Wars, it was getting about 50 edits per day, and now it is getting 200+. Ajraddatz Talk 17:05, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Test I see this mentioned in the wall of debate above and would like to see it in progress before producing a weak or strong oppose or support. Kingcjc Major Oppose I agree with CW and do not like the idea of haveing comments at the bottom of every page. It distracts the reader and is not very becomming. I think talk pages are a much better way of discussing a page.--Agent Chase: :Agents in Action! 19:01, March 12, 2010 (UTC) Support They do not look that bad, and anyway is there a page where you can see recent comments? Jag 19:13, March 12, 2010 (UTC) From Lcawte's talk page: Hey Lcawte, you should know that I know where you are coming from in your arguement against the article comments. While they are a high hit for vandalism, there are more constructive comments than unconstructive (well, maybe not on recipes ;) ), but the do increase activity. The article comments use the same user rights as the blog comments, so it is possible to make a comment admin group. Ultimatly, there aren't too many other ways that we can increase activity here short of giving away LEGO (I'll chip in $5 :P), so I think that we should at least try this. If Brickipedia gets more activity, then we get more fun stuff like our own Check Users, amoungst other things. Happy editing, Ajraddatz Talk 17:04, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Also, the vandalism won't be as bad as people are thinking that it is. One thing that WIkia doesn't want to admin is that Recipes is really don't doing too well. It is not a good example of article comments working. Also, it is possible for a wiki to have their own local blacklist, although it would require staff to set it up. We need to take risks if things are going to get done... Ajraddatz Talk 17:14, March 10, 2010 (UTC) I am now going to request that article comments be enabled, and we will give them a two week testing period. After that time has expired, we will look back and re-open this vote. Thanks. Ajraddatz Talk 23:33, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Fine on this side. For tests that is. GG 360 23:44, March 10, 2010 (UTC) oppose I like the idea, I really do, but I find talk pages lot more original, professional, and easier to follow comments to me. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 02:34, March 11, 2010 (UTC) >.> Consider the larger picture, and this also does not just delete talk pages. They are still there if you want to use them. The point here is increasing activity. Anyways, please stop voting until the trial is over. Ajraddatz Talk 02:55, March 11, 2010 (UTC) How long will it be before the comment section shows up on the articles? Jag 05:41, March 11, 2010 (UTC) Vandalism already Here's just another reason why this is a bad idea: (Check the comments) 1694 Galactic Scout. Not even a day after this was activated, there is already vandalism. Construction Worker Do you need help? 17:36, March 12, 2010 (UTC) That isn't spam, and this comment is not warrented. Instead of just dismissing it right away, give it a chance. You are the only one here who isn't. Ajraddatz Talk 17:38, March 12, 2010 (UTC) Well swearing is pretty much spam. I'm not dismissing it right away, but I've seen what these things do and it's not pretty. Construction Worker Do you need help? 17:39, March 12, 2010 (UTC) Ok, vandalism. Construction Worker Do you need help? 17:42, March 12, 2010 (UTC) Bug This is the bug I was talking about... and pointed out to you Ajr.. its back here.. My talk TOC: * 1 Licensed themes * 2 Re: External links * 3 Re: Block * 4 Re: ID Bot * 5 IRC * 6 BAG * 7 hi * 8 Article Comments * 9 Pywikipediabot * 10 Comments <------------- Not a real section, it should be a link to the Article comments, but they dont show up on these types of pages.. --Lcawte 22:01, March 12, 2010 (UTC) Talk pages What's the go with the removal of this tab? I was under the impression that this still stayed. NightblazeSaber 00:21, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh... Didn't we agree to have the talk pages saved? Look before you leap, young padawans, as I am watching you... Stormsaw1 Talk Special:Editcount/Stormsaw1 Edits 06:27, March 13, 2010 (UTC) (Sorry for all the mumbo-jumbo this week:) The talk pages are still there, but to get to them, you have to manually change the URL to "Talk: " <whataver>. Which is annoying. And I keep clicking "edit" now when I want to see the talk page because the other tabs have moved their positions. NightblazeSaber 06:33, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Well that totally sucks. can't we re-add the talk discussion tab? Stormsaw1 Talk Special:Editcount/Stormsaw1 Edits 20:31, March 13, 2010 (UTC) I'll look into this, I wasn't aware that people wanted it still... Ajraddatz Talk 22:24, March 14, 2010 (UTC) WTF? I wasn't around for some days. What happened? I hope this is just a temporary test. I would like to keep the talk pages even if we enable the new blog comment system. It's an entirely different way of how to discuss things. It may be better for casual visitors but I don't like the idea of me or other admins or power users posting questions (like: what's the source for this? or Can someone fix the template? etc.) in the comments section. Some stuff should stay behind the scenes. ;) So: Blog comments for general questions or comments Talk pages for internal stuff. Sometime ago, I also had the idea of using the comments system for user reviews. Like it was done on Brickset until they changed this recently. --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 09:29, March 13, 2010 (UTC) btw, is there a way to keep track of all comments (other than the rc page; is it even displayed there?) --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 09:33, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Apparently there will be a two week test and a vote afterwards. And also according to above, the talk pages are staying, but the tab has mysteriously disappeared (though they are still accessible via changing the URL). I can see it's brought a fair few new users in, but spam is on a bit of an increase with it too. And the fact that the comments text is larger than the article text is driving me crazy. I don't know if there's a way to keep track of comments only, I can't find one. I know it is clogging up the RC a bit though :/ NightblazeSaber 09:35, March 13, 2010 (UTC) I think there might be the possibility of putting a link to the respective talk page into the footer section (where links to History, Related changes, What links here are kept as well) I don't know if it is displayed on monobook skins though. --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 09:43, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Can't the tab remain where it was before? NightblazeSaber 09:51, March 13, 2010 (UTC) That would be the best. The link is just Plan B ;) --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 09:54, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Isn't wtf swearing? BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) For all we know, LegOtaku could be referring to the World Taekwondo Federation or the Wisconsin Tourism Federation Kingcjc 21:15, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Doubt it, but whatever. BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) I wouldnt count WTF as a swear, only if he actually said the full thing anyway, not the acroynm. Kingcjc 21:20, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Ok, not that I care about swearing anyways. BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) Question When you delete a page, does the comments automaticly delete? Kingcjc 21:08, March 13, 2010 (UTC) No, theres an option for talk subpages? Though it doesnt appear to work unless you have the talk page created.. --Lcawte 23:37, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Another Glitch The bit where you change comment pages doesn't appear to work at all. NightblazeSaber 23:21, March 13, 2010 (UTC) I think it does work. if there are two pages, you'll first see page two, which has the highlight around it. To go to page one, you have to click the one, even though it isn't highlighted. And is it possible to allow more comments per page? I don't necessarily enjoy flipping through pages. Stormsaw1 Talk Special:Editcount/Stormsaw1 Edits 02:53, March 14, 2010 (UTC) Must be a browser thing then, because it's definitely not working for me. NightblazeSaber 03:32, March 14, 2010 (UTC) Hmmmm... That's weird. Stormsaw1 Talk Special:Editcount/Stormsaw1 Edits 04:22, March 14, 2010 (UTC) It works fine for me. Jag 18:49, March 14, 2010 (UTC) It is a cache thing, which is worse on some browsers than others. Ajraddatz Talk 22:16, March 14, 2010 (UTC) Yeah it's working now :) NightblazeSaber 13:12, March 15, 2010 (UTC) Current Opinions I think it's good, since I've been seeing a lot of IP users getting in on it too, and it's a bit more social than the talkpages. I would like to see some Comment Moderators though:) Stormsaw1 Talk Special:Editcount/Stormsaw1 Edits 01:45, March 15, 2010 (UTC) I agree. How about the mods aren't admins? BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) What do you mean? I don't think they would need all powers of adminship, but it would be helpful to have blocking rights. Stormsaw1 Talk Special:Editcount/Stormsaw1 Edits 01:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC) Well, since there won't be any new admins for a long time, how about some dedicated people like CW and MF3 get the job. It is clear that some people don't like them. There has been increased vandalism, and increased socialization, but at the same time there have been some productive comments. I am very sad to see people oppose this solely because of the increased vandalism, especially with the current steps being taken to help in it's prevention. The comment moderator user group will only be requested once this is permanently enabled here, otherwise we would need to remove it once the test is over. Links to talk pages will be added again as soon as possible, for those concerned with that. I am really happy to see Brickipedia active with random people coming an discussing/editing more than ever before. To everyone who is opposing: Do you really want to go back to the old low activity level, just to prevent the occasional vandal? Ajraddatz Talk 03:09, March 15, 2010 (UTC) I would support it, can we decide who the Comment Mods are first, that way we will not waste a couple of weeks deciding it while there are a lot of unproductive comments? Jag 04:40, March 15, 2010 (UTC) Occasional vandal? I would say at least 20-30% of these comments are vandalism/spam, and I haven't really seen too many productive comments. To me, the article is much more important than the comments, and the way it's formatted with the comments section being bigger than the article text is unacceptable. And yes, I would prefer a lower activity level, as there are not too many new users who are doing article edits, it's just been all on comments, which isn't really helping. But if the discussion tab is put back, and the size of the comments are reduced, then I might consider not 1000% opposing this. NightblazeSaber 04:47, March 15, 2010 (UTC) Ajr I sort or get you, but I would support for the next two weeks you make some active users like us admin and then at the end take back the rights. GG 360 11:10, March 15, 2010 (UTC) I oppose the idea now, because, as Nhl said, most comments are personal opinions and vandalism. Comments can't be tagged with delete templates, so every time vandalism appears an admin must be contacted. I think our Talk pages should do. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 12:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC) There is a place, Project:Vandalism reports Ajraddatz Talk 13:13, March 15, 2010 (UTC) Talk:Ajraddatz