FANDOM


  • Dab1001
    Dab1001 closed this thread because:
    Vote is over.
    22:32, September 26, 2017

    Article comments have now been enabled on the wiki for three weeks, of the five in the trial period. Now, as per the plan outlined in the original thread, we will now hold a vote on whether to keep the feature active, since they have been enabled long enough for everyone to form a grounded opinion on them.

    So, do you think article comments should remain active on the wiki? Please vote in the thread below, using the following templates:

    Support Support {{Support}} Use this template if you think article comments should remain enabled.
    15px-Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral {{Neutral}} Use this if you neither support nor oppose article comments.
    Oppose Oppose {{Oppose}} Use this if you think article comments should be deactivated.

    In order to be eligible to vote, you must have (by 12/9/17, DD/MM/YY) created an account and made at least 5 contributions to Halo Alpha. If you don't meet the requirements, you're welcome to discuss the topic, but any votes you post will be discounted.

    The vote will span the final two weeks of the trial period, and will end on 26/9/17 (DD/MM/YY), at which point the thread will be closed, votes counted and the result will be acted upon.

    TL;DR: Article comments - yay or nay? Please discuss and vote below.

    Note that this is not a vote about talk pages. Talk pages will remain available and accessible, in the same manner they are now, regardless of the outcome of this vote.

      Loading editor
    • Support Strong Support - While they haven't seen as much use as I expected, what use they have seen was mostly appropriate and hasn't required any major policing to prevent vandalism. Since they're harmless and are miles more modern and user-friendly than talk pages, I strongly support their remaining, as a way to allow the wider community to engage with Halo Alpha.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - Article comments are used mostly for anonymous users to write nonsense or discussion of the subject matter that could just as easily take place in the Forums. Discussion of the article itself can already be done via talk pages. Here's what we've got so far:

      One substantial comment on the article itself:

      2 comments on the article itself, but with no substance:

      9 inane comments:

      Three other:

      Article comments are a troll magnet at worst and unnecessarily redundant at best. Any substantial conversation can be had in the Forums or Talk pages. The only unique aspect of article comments is that they attract and enable inanity.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - I agree with Vektor on this. Although article comments are alot more user-friendly, it's more prone to anons abuse than talk pages. To anons and inexperience user, most would think of it as a comment section to write about the topic and not about article maintenance.

        Loading editor
    • Haloprov
      Haloprov removed this reply because:
      .
      23:02, September 12, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Comment Picture Comment

      I don't see a problem with people using article comments to discuss the topic of an article, rather than the article itself. Encouraging discussion is no bad thing, and with the forums being as underused as they are (and talk pages even more so), I see article comments as a good replacement. Besides the comments like "LOLOLOOLOO" and just "lol", none of your points seem like negatives to me, as the forums have always been used for similarly inane things, such as the thousands of "Who would win in a fight: X or Y?" posts.

        Loading editor
    • [1] Support - So far they're has been a lack of users posting irrevelant messages with the article comments, rather most of the posts have been pretty appropriate and have not broken any of the rules.  I also agree with Dab about how articles comments are more modern and user-friendly than talk pages, and there is nothing wrong with people using article comments to discuss the topic of an article instead of the article itself.

        Loading editor
    • Jo Bach wrote:
      So far they're has been a lack of users posting irrevelant messages with the article comments, rather most of the posts have been pretty appropriate


      You have not paid attention.

      We have had more meaningless Article Comments in the last 3.5 weeks than we had meaningless forum posts or meaningless Talk Page edits in the last several months prior. It is clear that Article Comments incite users to write something even if they have no reason to or nothing meaningful to say.

        Loading editor
    • I think we should look into preventing anons from using article comments. I do agree that comments such as these are a chore to deal with, but I also think that they are a far superior system to talk pages.

      All but one of the comments I've seen which deserve deleting have come from anon users. If we could restrict it to registered users, we'd get the best of both worlds.

        Loading editor
    • That would be ideal.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - Article comments support pointless nonsense over improving/clarifying articles on the wiki. This isn't Facebook.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - You folks seem to forget that there exists a userbase that isn't here to maintain articles. The article comments are being used exactly what they're meant for - commenting on the article. Not everything has to be maintenance. That's just user-unfriendly.

        Loading editor
    • ReDquinox wrote: Not everything has to be maintenance.

      I believe one of our policy pages used to state something along the lines that we are a wiki, not a social media site. I'm not sure if that was overwritten after the split or due to Rebirth, but it was put there for issues such as this.

      We are not running a social media site here; we are running a wiki. Off-topic and misc. discussions in the forums and Discord exist mostly so that people who are here to edit can socialize with each other outside the context of editing. They don't exist for the sole purpose of building a social media base... because we are not a social media site.

      To that end, anything that does not have anything to do with Halo Nation's wiki articles or editors has no use or business here. We are here to build a great wiki, not build a great social media site that also happens to have a wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Ironically, the great majority of users on Discord don't actually do much editing, if any at all.

        Loading editor
    • Vektor0 wrote:
      I believe one of our policy pages used to state something along the lines that we are a wiki, not a social media site. I'm not sure if that was overwritten after the split or due to Rebirth, but it was put there for issues such as this.

      I don't recall having removed a line like that, so it'll probably still be in there somewhere.

        Loading editor
    • 15px-Symbol neutral vote.svg

      Neutral I get both sides. I'm not really positive about comments but I can see that some may find them useful. I do agree with Vektor though that we're a Wiki, and people who come here just to chat, could use forums or just Discord. We are first and foremost a Wiki.

      We could keep them and just make them available for people with accounts, not sure how that'll turn out. People could just make accounts and still say rubbish, but it may also be so that people who are anons may also want to contribute meaningful comments.

        Loading editor
    • Veterans of the Wiki (myself included) don't like to see a lot of changes to the site, however - I think we must move on with the future and accept that Wikia is becoming a semi-social platform. I know they are different but article comments work brilliantly on MLP Wiki.

      I therefore Support Support this notion.

        Loading editor
    • Vektor0
      Vektor0 removed this reply because:
      Accidental restore
      16:32, September 26, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Oppose Oppose I am of the opinion it detracts from the professional appearance of a wikia. I understand the arguement that can be made about increasing the social aspect: but that is why you have userspace/Discord/IRC/talkpages for fufilling the social angles. One navigates to a page on the site to read the content: not inane remarks or opinions on the content of the page.

        Loading editor
    • As of now, voting has ended. The results are:

      Support Support (~44.44%) 15px-Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral (~11.12%) Oppose Oppose (~44.44%)

      There is no clear majority in the results, however Support Support failed to gain a majority, and so article comments will not remain permanently active.

      Since the vote is over, this thread will now be closed.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.