GuildWiki talk:New Monobook

Speed / Performance
Well the first thing I noted is that it takes a lot longer to load and runs a lot worst - most likely due to the extra coded features. I think the current Guildwiki layout is a good example of simple is best. That being said, I'm not on my normal PC - I wouldn't have slow down normally. But not everyone has an amazing PC. RTSFirebat 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugly, keep this one RT | Talk  19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be more "Web 2.0"ish, but IMHO, it's just plain ugly and bloated. Don't go for it. 82.233.109.229 20:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * /agree, I'd keep the current. --Shadowcrest 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this current one is kinda bland, if you ask me. But the other one doesn't look too good either, and one of the pages was hugely glitchy(Had at least 50 lines of code at the top, wtf). I'd like a new layout, but i don't want one that's over-extravagant, and functionality then style. So let's keep using other wikis as guinea pigs =)--Darksyde Never Again 21:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this monobook as it looks nice, has everything in the right place, and is compatible with wikipediaRT | Talk  21:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's got a new skin btw...  Not sure on their timeframe for transition, but one day Monobook will be where CologneBlue is at right now. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm I like wikipedia's new skin. Feels like GuildWiki is an open window, and wikipedia is a closed one, less open space there while comfortable to look at. Not that open windows are uncomfortable. If that makes any sense :) --[[Image:Progr.jpg]] -- talkpage 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeccch. While I wouldn't mind some changes to the layout, that Halo wiki looks awful. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs more cowbell!--Darksyde Never Again 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ew. The Halopedia is bloated to the point that it took about 30 seconds to load. Whereas GuildWiki takes a consistant 2 seconds every time. So please, if you are going to use the new one, is there any way you can make an option to switch between this old style, and the new one? I care not for new features... Everything I need is already on this site. - Tasiden 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

New Features
Please remember to also check out and comment on the new features, as opposed to completely focused on the looks of the skin. Many of the features are independent of that new skin design. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we're currently discussing the impact this new features have, the skin discussion is a after thought. I think the poll feature is pretty fancy, but otherwise there nothing that grabs my eye. RTSFirebat 05:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or does it seem that they are trying to implement something like Myspace or Facebook? Not sure if I'm all for this... I'll have to browse a bit more around. Aggro [[Image:Isk8.png]]  Sk8  05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These are the reason I never use wikia wikis, at least not willingly. They make it default on half their wikis to....--Alari 06:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, the one that is half of their defaults is different from the one being discussed... -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 08:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah id say keep current - 69.248.175.25 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep current. Who cares about all that added fluff. I come here to read info, not to "be amazed" by super slick layouts that actually take away from quick orientation and browsing the site. Generic wiki layout is the best, imo if it ain't broken don't fix it... PLEASE! Dare I compare the new looks to be a similar improvement as Vista is for windows? Yuk. Thanks PuppetX 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Mediawiki:Vista edition is not a welcome upgrade. Avalance 14:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what PuppetX said. Why change it, when everything is easily accessible the way it is?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel all the listed new features are useless. Quiz? PIcture game? If i want to play i can play guildwars, this is a reference website and it's good the way it is, please don't let it become a game-facebook site loosely based on guildwars. --Yukoishii 17:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yukoishii makes an excellent point; we do a fair amount of goofing around on GuildWiki, but it is primarily a reference site. There's no reason to pretend it's anything else. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That stuff might reduce the retardspam, though. Avalance 11:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Or more likely, it would end up just encouraging it. Please, let's not let Guildwiki go the same way as Facebook. Like Yukoshii said, this is a reference site. If you want to screw about with games and polls and quizzes and stuff, the internet is plenty big enough to find somewhere else to do it. I'll sure as heck move on if the changes go ahead. Sloth 19:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see the point of the blog, but those who really want such a thing have other venues to use instead of the wiki (although it would tie more into the community). The picture game is just useless - unless WE were the ones making the decisions on the visuals of Guild Wars.  The polls have some value - could be used to vote on particular builds or on new style sheets, etc.  But I don't feel that those features are enough to make a change over to a system that hopefully most people wouldn't want to use. - Lady Ryln 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User Points System? That seems almost like an invitation to spam, a picture game? I doubt that there are any 5 year olds using GuildWiki, that sounds like something my mother would use teaching her preschoolers. The quizzes and blogs? THIS IS NOT FACEBOOK OR MYSPACE! The look is retarded, I couldn't find anything of any use quickly, whereas the current look I can find everything I need within 15 seconds of quick scanning, not to mention how slow of loads it'll cause the wiki to be. The only decent thing is the polls, and we have un-official polls as it is. As the unsigned comment below said. DO NOT WANT! Matrim 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Change the name from the GuildWiki, to the GWpedia or GW2pedia for the around the corner release of GW2. Its simple, and you would want to do it to break away from the "other" wiki out there that gives you nothing for what you're looking for. Here, here???


 * ... BTW: GWpedia sounds shit --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 15:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

woohoo
Halopedia is all nice and slow for me ... --- -- (s)talkpage 15:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically...
We get tons of crap that we don't need as a reference wiki, along with longer loading times and crappier looks? If this is implemented, I know at least one person will leave. His name is ♥Thought ful♥  (Talk) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, i don't mind new looks, and my load time for the Halo wiki is just fine. But i read some of the other people's comments. I had no idea there were picture games and blogs and user point system. If the user point system is based solely on post count, it's an awful idea, it'll encourage spam and bullshit. Let your reputation be represented by who knows you, not by how many gold stars are on your forehead.--Darksyde Never Again 15:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This idea is dreadful, full of what I call "bloat". Cluttered pages, slow loading times and an inability to find anything useful in a reasonable amount of time: a bit like most Facebook/MySpace pages these days. Anyone remember when Facebook used to be a profile and a wall where people could meet each other and talk? I wish people (and this is generally a corporate thing) would stop trying to blanket us with all sorts of unnecessary rubbish in an attempt to glean a handful of extra users/customers, at the cost of pissing off a much larger number of users/customers by providing a blanketly mediocre experience for all. Keep Wiki exactly as it is; that's my opinion. Andran Steel 13:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I partially disagree with your last part. I think there are things that can be done to enhance the experience for veteran users and have it newbie friendly too.  The particular stuff being tested right now might not meet those needs at all, but I believe things isn't perfect right now, and that exploring to find out what works and what doesn't work is a good thing to be doing.  If everyone adhered to your mentality, we would not have arrived at Monobook (in fact, we'd all be stuck with UseModWiki). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mid-Level User Opinion
This is my reaction to Halopedia's interface and features. Please note that I am on a low level DSL connection with a computer that is probably just falling off the "cutting edge" of technology. I have made several contributions to existing wiki entries but occasionally have to look up how to do something / play in the sandbox. With this said, my comments:
 * Picture Game: Have not seen it yet. However, I imagine one use is for players to work on their skill timing. I cannot imagine how this would be implemented. Also, I would think by the time most players would find & use such a feature, they no longer need it.
 * Load Time: Totally un-acceptable. Let us be honest, the majority of users are using the wiki in the midst of playing. So response time is the second most important factor. (Accuracy being first.) I've mentored new players and been in PUGs that desperately needed the wiki info and I got it for them. Meanwhile they're frothing at the mouth cause I've been in the wiki for 2 whole minutes reading a mission or longer quest entry.
 * Interface Graphics: In this case I am talking graphics - period. Not response, programming, etc. I guess it's alright. Personally I don't really see any major difference between Halopedia and Guildwiki. Ok, they've got some colored bars with a gradient fill in them. They've also got rounded corners. More organic and nice, but... no big. I would imagine both are possible here as well.
 * Navigation: I have to say I do kind of like the Nav menu they've got. It's sufficiently prominent to be seen yet does not take up too much space.I also like the flyout menus. I would prefer that over the current Guildwiki nav menu. Hide what I don't currently need please. However, if this is a resource or memory hog - or takes too long to load, forget this comment. Load time will take precedence.
 * "Community" Features: Most of the remainder of the features you're asking comments on are related to a community. The reality is that Guildwiki is not a community as some other sites are. Yes we talk and interact - we do not come here as our primary activity. We play GW and come here for info. This means that the vast majority of these community features are wasted resources and most likely a source of abuse. Blogs, Featured image/user, User point system - Nuff Said.
 * Polls & Quizes: Potentially Polls and Quizes might be of use, but should require moderator approval. Because if left wide open you know we're going to get a poll asking which female armor is the hottest. And then things are going to get ugly/stupid from there as users realize the "fun" they could have.
 * Rating System: Ok, I'm talking about the Stars on the articles, to the right of the title. This might have some value as a "Did this article answer your question?" type of thing. It might help to point the Guildwiki community & staff to entries that need to be updated. Admittedly I've never used it on any other site, but maybe here I would. Otherwise it's useless.

I understand and respect the idea that Guildwiki thinks it might need new features and/or a facelift. I will agree with both as long as they provide a bigger, better, more positive response to using the site. Wikis are known to be rather plain and ugly. A pretty wiki would be a nice change. But a pretty wiki in favor of a quick wiki? Quick wiki wins. -- Sabardeyn 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)