FANDOM


  • Hello! I'm Wowa, and I'm representing Fandom's Vanguard team. We're users who volunteer to help communities adopt to new technologies and features, like content portability. We've identified your community as a high priority for introducing the Portable Infobox tool, which has a lot of benefits for your community. Rather than get into all of the metrics and numbers (though I can present some of those if you're interested), I'll keep it simple. I'd like upgrade the Infobox templates themselves so that they can be accessible on any current and future platform. Maintaining them if you want to make changes should be very simple.

    I've added drafts for all of your current infoboxes which you can modify or approve early if you'd like. I've put the styling here. Here's a full list of all the drafts:

    Everything should work properly as set up, so if we don't hear back from you, we'll assume there were no problems and will come back and approve the work as-is on or after March 10.

    Also, if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Thanks!

      Loading editor
    • I am actually currently vehemently opposed to the concept of portable infoboxes due to their use of what appears to be a Wikia-specific XML tag over the universally valid wiki table markup. Wiki markup is always preferred over HTML/XML elements where an equivalent wiki markup exists. Besides, anyone who is trying to learn the ins and outs of wiki markup would find these completely useless outside of Wikia wikis.

      But it's not up to me. Such a change would require community consensus before being implemented.

        Loading editor
    • Hi,
      I understand why you do not like Wikia-specific XML code, but portable infoboxes do things on mobile devices that aren't possible with traditional WikiText markup. In my opinion, portable infoboxes bring better benefits than they cause inconveniences.

      Thanks for answering so quickly,
      Wowa

        Loading editor
    • Hi all. Although it's very nice to hear that this wiki community as "a high priority for introducing the Portable Infobox tool" I'd like to ask why this is the case? This wiki has been going through a quiet period for a while now and since the closure of Lionhead it has been even more sparse.

      I do like the idea of having portable templates (I attended one of the recent Town Halls on it I think) but I think it does remove a lot of the learning opportunities that the current codes provide. I am still learning them myself in fact.

      I am saying this is a good move as there does seem to be a lot of advantages to this but only as long as the current markup table markup can be preserved somewhere.

      @Enodoc do you happen to know how many visitors we get to the wiki and how many of those are on mobile devices? That'd be great to help determine whether we really need this at this present time.

        Loading editor
    • Hi WikiaWizard,
      the priority calculation process is mostly determined by the visits of pages without non-portable infoboxes. This means that communities with relatively many page views and very few portable infoboxes have a high chance to be identified as a community with high priority.

      The current templates can be copied anywhere you want, I can make a backup myself if you insist. They naturally will be included in the page history, but I can present them in a more accessible way.

      Thanks for sharing your opinion,
      Wowa

        Loading editor
    • Hello Trollocool. Thanks for the quick response. I understand what you mean now. It's good to know that the Wiki is still well visited.

      I don't think you need to go to the trouble of making a backup as of yet. But if you do have a suggestion in mind that's be great to hear.

      No problems. Looking forward to working with you.

        Loading editor
    • Hey,
      has the community come to a decision yet?

      Best regards,
      Wowa

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Enodoc about us not using Wiki explicit code just for the sake of portability. If it ever becomes clear that tablet and mobile users are having problems, then we could revisit the issue, but at this time I feel we should stick with what we have.

        Loading editor
    • Late to the party, but I'm siding with Enodoc on this one. Call me old fashioned, but why fix what isn't broken as the saying goes? If it works, then its fine. As Garry said above, if there turns out to be issues we can revisit this idea.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        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.
https://fable.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:36096
fable.fandom.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-39
159163
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KSSUZZUUBVNHAO6B2ZRNABKMMLBBTOI3
<urn:uuid:43e356a3-da57-4248-9271-30d951245bd6>
2019-09-22T14:49:38Z
151.101.128.194
text/html
sha1:RN45KRMU4MVUMNQ7YCMLOKNPPZTZSTXM
<urn:uuid:ea65c78e-2425-4868-a46d-4c4e2771fce4>
https://fable.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:36096
response
<urn:uuid:c61e3327-cfc2-4210-955c-3bbdd8236df0>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-68.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/