Forum talk:Community Outlook- Wikia's "New Look"

Dunno, perhaps we should use the talkpage for comments? Idk. &mdash; Warw/Wick 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been boiling up - but I'm suppressing the rant atm Random Time 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. How about we move all articles into userspace, so it doesnt disrupt page content? For instance, User:Main Page, User:Cleave, User:Template:Cleave... :p &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, sounds like a plan xD--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs ) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Monoco
"Anonymous logins went up 223%" No shit? You had to make a account to not put up with the monoco skin!

Thats entire section is a load of crap, optimized to load faster? How exactly is something with more colors and menus going to load faster? "Monaco is easier for new wiki users to understand. The majority of internet users still don't realize that there's an "edit" button on Wikipedia. That's because on Monobook, all the important links and buttons are written in 8.5-point type. Monaco is designed to make the important stuff stand out, like the edit button and the search box." If you cant see the buttons on top of the page already making them bigger isn't going to help you.

"In the past, communities have used various skins – Monaco, Quartz or Monobook. That's a luxury that we can't afford to offer any more, as advertisers strongly prefer a consistent look-and-feel." Fuck the advertisers, they don't run the wikis. Don't even get me started on the ad part...-- 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

no ads on stubs
From w:c:darth:Forum:We_love_you%2C_Wikia.: * Two things in the plan have changed with the first load of feedback... ads won't show on short pages, if it's a stub it will be automatically skipped, and the squished main page idea is on its way out. There will still be the need for a 300px column as part of the right hand side of the page, but the overall width will remain dynamic.

I know this is all a big change, and I know that people are worried and angry. But I also know that change is necessary, and that we will come though it. -- sannse@Wikia (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) So we simply run a bot to add to every single article. Bada-bing, bada-bam -- no new ads for anyone. Who's with me? /fistshake &mdash;Dr Ishmael  20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Highfive Ishmael!  Light   Kitty   20:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Light is my sockpuppet, I totally agree! /highfive Ishy! &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yaya - worth a try - but do you want to change all normal stubs to something like "stubstub" just incase it dosn't work Random Time 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * X2... make a new "stub" template and throw the old one on every article with text like "SCREW WIKIA" and use the new ones on our real stubs! I'm serious.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not stubstub, substub - much better Random Time 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Or Stubly Stub. Like Manly Man but stubby. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As an extension of this, I also propose adding a sitenotice in large text telling anonymous users to create accounts and switch to Monobook in order to protest Wikia's stupidity. Monobook 4ever!  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Go do it, ishy! &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, as long as it removes the horrid ads. Also, MayBot and PhoenixBot have the ability to preform this task as well; if you need any help that is ;o) -- Shadowphoenix  20:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only semi-serious about stubbing the whole wiki, although it is an option. I'll work on the site notice thing, though.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would consider stubbing the entire wiki a great idea. At least just to see the response. Lord of all tyria 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they would consider it a TOS violation... Not that I care, if it fails guildwiki will die anyways...--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename ourselves to StubWiki, or GuildStub then? --- -- (s)talkpage  20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't think it would be hard for them to change it so that a certain page size would make the ads show up whether it's labeled a stub or not? That change sounds a lot easier than un-stubbing everything after it is made.  Quizzical 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't violate a ToS we never signed up for (unless you signed up to Gwiki when it was wikia) I think when I signed up it was gamewikis Random Time 20:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi guys -- Just so you know... The short pages are determined by the length of the article, not by a stub template or category. Check out this page on Communitytest to see how it'll work.


 * Also, Monobook will have the same ads as Monaco will. The right sidebar on Monobook will go away, and Monobook will have the in-article ads. Monobook and Monaco will be the same ad-wise.


 * Let me know if you have any other questions....... -- Danny (talk ) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Make a copy of every page and template it in the real article? There's always a way... --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah - where can I find a database dump - the old page dosn't work Random Time 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To stub ALL the articles, seems to be a bit drastic, don't you think? Yes, no one likes adds, but is it really worth going through all that trouble? Wikia will most likely notice something like this anyway and take action (like mentioned before, looking at page size and not whether it's stubbed or not). Silver Sunlight 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * O nevermind... maybe I should read edit conflicts :P Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. This wasn't a loophole that we changed because we read your conversation or anything. That's how this is supposed to work. So really do ask if I can clarify anything, just so you don't have to go to the trouble of twisting your wiki around to take advantage of something that wouldn't work anyway. -- Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will adblock give me lots of white space, or no? I fail at firefox add-ons, so I can't tell what my adblock does. Lord of all tyria 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, Monobook will have the same ads as Monaco will. The right sidebar on Monobook will go away, and Monobook will have the in-article ads. Monobook and Monaco will be the same ad-wise.
 * All right, now there's something finally worth getting upset about. Two days of screaming and no one could find anything worth getting upset about, until a Wikia employee has to come volunteer the information.  Amusing, don't you think?
 * And, uh, right sidebar? I don't see a right sidebar.  Do you see a right sidebar?  Quizzical 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Costs
I want to know the exact costs of running THIS wiki, we are not one of your wikis you force the gfdl on and you can't use us to make a profit, which is what I must assume you are putting in more ads for since you wont display the numbers needed to keep running.-- 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't they applying this change to all their wikis? <font face = "Matura MT Script Capitals">Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but most of them are on a GFDL, this is a non commercial license. --[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see your point... but they will never release information like that :) because if they are in fact making profit, by simply not telling anyone about it, they can hide it. <font face = "Matura MT Script Capitals">Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which brings up the legality issue. Unfortunately i know very little about legal practice in online licenses.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In our case, they actually do have a contractual obligation to tell us about it: see the bottom of Gil's comment here. While it's not in the contract that Gravewit signed, it is part of the implicit contract that Wikia made with us, the GuildWiki community, as a compromise to keep us here instead of moving to GWW.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Speaking of which, I can't find any mention of a financial summary for 2008. Granted, we were only hosted by them for 3-4 months, but they still should've posted records for that time.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm particularly concerned that this violates our licensing. Are other wikis on wikia under this licensing? Because if they aren't then we may be an exception. If the ads aren't disruptive, I'm willing to let them pass. But the moment the ads become disruptive, it warrants a closer look at wikia's finances. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A lawsuit over someone trying to make money off of content that has been licensed to be only useable for free would be an interesting case. If it hasn't happened yet, it probably will soon (and would even if GuildWiki had never existed).  Quizzical 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If it has happened, the EFF has most likely been involved. --mendel 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Skin(poll)
What should the default skin of GuildWiki be? Monobook(Current default skin) Monaco(Skin being enforced as default by this change) Other Skin(List below) What does Guildwiki, not wikia staff, think is better for the wiki?-- 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll bet that a lot of people think Monobook is better because they're used to it--which is often primarily because it's the current default. Quizzical 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People are entitled to that, wikia doesn't have a right to decide...--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 21:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Monobook is better because I think Monaco is ugly. It's the same reason I stick with the Windows Classic desktop instead of using the Windows XP crap: I prefer simple, streamlined interfaces without fancy bells-and-whistles stuff.  Yes, I know that I could fix the "ugliness" of Monaco by basically rewriting it in my user CSS file, but I really don't feel like doing all that work.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also use the Windows Classic desktop setup, instead of the newer stuff that Microsoft has pushed with XP and now Vista. And you know why?  Because it's what I've been used to ever since Windows 95.  If I were used to some Vista desktop setup and Microsoft tried to push people to use the 95 setup, I'd protest that, too.  But it's not a problem because I can change the settings and be done with it--just like how people who don't like Monaco can still change their setings to Monobook.  Quizzical 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quiz, you still seem arrogant of the fact that this wiki is for the GW players, we can't ask every single one of them to make a account so it doesn't look like crap and expect them to use Guild wiki and not GWW.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did they even find the new theme? Did a quick Google to find a download of it but nothing at all. -- Tarun 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Monaco? I believe it is a custom skin of Wikia.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah, I wanted to test it on my private network wiki to see what it's like. So I was hoping to find a download. -- Tarun 03:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The poll was reset when you edited it :P <font face = "Matura MT Script Capitals">Silver Sunlight 22:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * wtf... thats a very stupid design... My bad tho..--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter lol almost everyone would choose option one anyway <font face = "Matura MT Script Capitals">Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did see one vote for monaco, otherwise it is now the same as it was before I messed it up :/--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Question for Danny
I do have a question, Danny: what are you guys smoking over there? Whatever it is, it must be pretty damn strong. Can't you tell that no one likes this change? Why are you forcing through a change whose sole benefit (increased ad revenue) directly profits the Wikia corporation while it is already alienating a large portion of "your" communities? Sure, making this change will help Wikia pay for hosting costs... because afterwards you won't have anything to host. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the adds are really distracting, I would consider leaving this wiki and going to the official one. I'm sure I'm not the only one.... <font face = "Matura MT Script Capitals">Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on what one considers to be "distracting" ads. If they start doing the talking ads, the video clip ads (as opposed to minor animation), or (worst of all) the ads that cover up (as opposed to merely moving) content to essentially disable it, then I'll agree.  Quizzical 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So we'll just have to wait and see... *awaits the apocalypse* <font face = "Matura MT Script Capitals">Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From looking at the link posted above about gil's page or sumsuch, and the examples provided from that page... its gonna slow down but the ads will not be too obtrusive. Roland Cyerni 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A few responses ...
Hey everyone,

I really respect that you all are so passionate about your community--quite frankly I would be too if I was in your situation. While I don't have much news about the Monaco transition beyond what you have already read, I did want to go ahead and respond to some other issues that you all have brought up during the course of this discussion: I'll continue watching this discussion as well, so please let me know if you have any questions. I'll try to find answers for you and get back as quickly as I can.
 * First of all, you can rest assured that we fully intend to honor your CC BY-NC-SA license. Wikia also hosts Memory Alpha and Uncyclopedia under non-commercial licenses and we have similar arrangements in those cases as well.  Unfortunately, the current ad revenue for this site doesn't even come close to covering the costs of maintaining it.  In fact, we recover an even lower percentage of our costs from this site than we do other Monobook sites because, after listening to your concerns, we moved the Google ad unit back to the bottom of the page rather than the right side.  Unfortunately, I do not have any specific numbers for you right now.  Gil's message, references an annual report, and we have not yet reached the 1-year anniversary since GuildWiki's move to Wikia, but I will still look in to it and get back to you.
 * Second, please voice your opinions on the forum page on Central. While keeping things the same is, unfortunately, not an option, we are listening to any suggestions on how to make the changes work better for your site.  We understand that some of you are angry and upset, but what would help more than anything are comments on what specifically you don't like and, if you have any ideas, how to remedy those issues.
 * Finally, I can't find the original post, but someone asked about database dumps. Database dumps for all of our wikis can be found here.  The site is a little slow right now for reasons unrelated to the announcement, but our engineers are working to fix that right now.

Thanks! --KyleH (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * any more the eviscerate executioners strike spike dont work that much but its fairly effective. very weak against any type of anti-melee and shock is a costly interrupt skill. -- Dr R. Phalange 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, you had enough money to steal this wiki. I don't believe for a second anything you people say about hosting costs, not til I see some proof. And what about eviscerate?--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * dont work that much but its fairly effective. very weak against any type of anti-melee -- Dr R. Phalange 02:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How effective is it against illegal commercial advertisements? --[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 02:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * it throws a boner at them -- Dr R. Phalange 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * GW:AGF applies to Wikia staff too. If they say they aren't making money, I believe them. Just deal with it, they aren't evil people. If this latest ad layout is as bad as we know it will be, they'll change it back, and if not, we'll just find a way to force it onto banner ads. It's not the end of the world, just try and deal with it with more maturity than a 5-year-old kid.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I must break AGF then, because I find it hard to believe that after they were able to buy out Guildwiki they are now having hosting problems...--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 03:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No GuildWiki policy applies to someone who's willing to ruin it by breaking licenses and ignoring the whole Wikia community. Think of the bigger picture and stop sticking to your little policies. -- Dr R. Phalange 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it's mostly pointless arguing over the new ad layout. By adding a very simple string of coding to all our templates, the ad can be forced into a banner layout. Look at the test wiki's cat page.It will never, no matter what, show a box ad, and it uses more coding than is truly needed.<font color="#4682b4">Entrea  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A question of whether they're making money or not on a given wiki could be very hard to answer. The amount of revenue they get from each wiki is probably easily computed.  But what about the costs?  What fraction of their server costs are due to GuildWiki, for example?  Sure, they can compute the numbers of edits, page views, etc., but viewing a 500 byte page surely takes less bandwidth than viewing a 50 KB page.  Even if they can compute bandwidth used, the time of day in which it is used probably matters, too.
 * And what about staff costs? How much of the salaries paid by Wikia are due to each wiki?  Page views, bandwidth used, number of edits, number of registered users, number of pages, and anything else that you could use as a measure of the "size" of a wiki likely won't be all that good of a proxy for how often people from the wiki run to staff for help.  Some costs scale up with the number of wikis a lot more than others; if Wikia didn't host anything for a week, they wouldn't suddenly have $0 in expenses that week.  How should those be divvied among the various wikis?
 * If one person looked at all the data available to Wikia and computed a number, he could perhaps compute a number as an approximation to the cost of hosting the wiki. A different person looking at the same data might compute a different number by divvying various expenses differently among the wikis.  And neither of them would necessarily be "wrong".
 * This situation reminds me of baseball and hockey executives crying poverty over how they're losing tons of money when it came time for labor negotiations, while the players union said it was a bunch of garbage and owners were making plenty of money. Of course, it also reminds me of companies going broke in the dot-com bust.  Quizzical 03:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The way the promise has been written as documented in the Wikia Move article, you take our revenue (Pageviews, what have you) and offset that against our share of the total operating costs for wikia. The interesting issue is how the acquisition costs are figured: if wikia is running at a loss because it spends money on acquisitions, would we be running at a profit if acquisitions (including ours) were not counted? That's hard to tell, and I wouldn't presume to decide if acquisitions money comes out of the profit, or whether they're part of a larger operating strategy and thus count towards operating costs. --mendel 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One more question, then: Above, Danny said, "Monobook will have the same ads as Monaco will ... Monobook and Monaco will be the same ad-wise." Since the real point of this change is the ads... why can't we keep Monobook as our default skin? Frankly, I see the forced skin-change as screwing us over more than the additional advertisement. [edit] Also, on the "annual report" thing, I assumed "annual" referred to calendar years, so that we should have seen a report sometime in January covering the last few monmths of 2007. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ads are a large part of this, and obviously with the strong feelings they are dominating the conversation. But they aren't the only aspect.  The other big factor is long-term growth across all the wikis on Wikia. I know many of you will feel that these changes won't help there, but a lot of the differences between Monaco and Monobook are aimed at getting people to see that there is a community around, see that they can edit, and to join the wiki.  These things might seem obvious when you know Monobook, but people still visit wikis and don't realise they can edit (I get emails all the time with people sending in corrections they don't know they could make themselves).  A consistent look on all Wikia wikis (valuable for newbies and advertisers), an easier to learn interface, a single default skin that we can concentrate future development on (features like editing tips are only available on Monaco), and more useful and sellable ad space are the goals here -- sannse (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you people realize that their is a competitor to this wiki, and as you screw us and our viewers over there will more visitors to the other wiki, I don't think that is in the best interests of your community. --[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A few quotes:
Have a look at Wikia_Move - I found it very interesting - read through the talk with wikia after the contract - and see what has (and hasn't) been kept up 05:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Inevitable conflict: ads vs. content
Read my thoughts in full over on the wikia forum: Ads vs. Content. Basically, I advocate interstitial ads getting shoved on top of the page by Javascript after page load for unregistered users - this has the advantage of not breaking page design -, and Project Wonderful-style ads to replace the google ads we have now. Thoughts? --mendel 07:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)