Infosphere talk:Community portal

From The Infosphere, the Futurama Wiki
Revision as of 16:16, 17 October 2014 by Nalexa (talk | contribs) (→‎Would anyone mind if I ran a bot script.....)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page could use some more links on it. Anywhere on the site where there's an external link, it could probably be copied here. And personal sites, any of the users could add.... Maybe I'll add that to the Welcome template... Buddy13 FW16.png 20:50, 11 August 2006 (PDT)

Content from Talk:Futurama Fan Forum

I respect the good faith of our contributors, but do we really need to have articles about fan sites? So far I do not recall we do. --SvipTalk 13:22, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Nope, It's what the Community Portal is for. Also, an article about that site, if we were to do those, really should have a link to the site. - Quolnok 19:25, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
So it's a delete for this article and instead a possible mention for it on the Community Portal. Which actually reminds me, the Community Portal is hardly a structured article on this wiki. I think we ought to do something about it. And if possible, tune down the position of "personal sites", cause given the amount of personal sites I posses, I would have half of all the links there (which is also some of the reason I haven't added any of mine). --SvipTalk 22:53, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
To be honest I probably would have moved it straight to the community portal if I knew where the site was. The portal itself, there's vague rules there like "no competing wikis" and "no adult content". What is currently linked from there is acceptable to me, except possibly Aqua Teen World, I don't know what that show's even about. But that area should generally only link to things viewers might be interested in. Possibly protect that page and have non sysops suggest pages via it's talk. It does look a little weird though. We might consider placing image links in the lower part of side bar too (not for everything obviously), that kind of thing may help encourage linking to us. - Quolnok 01:00, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Hey, it's a member from there site, i added a link to them. - Ps360 9:37 Pm April 2

Split boards from sites?

I suggest the message boards are split from the Futurama sites section. I've added some forums that are mixed Futurama/Simpsons for people that want a message board in a language other than english. Maybe should be in the "other" section, but a Newsgroup is close enough to a forum. Leandro 16:00, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Futurama Sites

Message Boards


Hi, I'm Joeyaa from the Futurama Wikia,

I was looking at how nice the content is here and was wondering if you guys have ever considered merging with us at the Futurama Wiki. The wiki would retain all of its current information and content, as well as all the users would be transferred there with the same user group abilities, and you would gain the benefit of Wikia's servers. If you were to merge with us, this wiki would be stored on the Wikia servers and would no longer require any donations to keep it up, in addition to the fact that the server would be reliable. Wikia offers the skin Monaco, which would be the biggest change, but we at the Futurama Wiki have a customized skin that is pretty "sweet". All content from here would be directly moved to our wiki, and for the common pages we would just use whichever page was better constructed.

Having your wiki on Wikia would also bring an arsenal of staff members whom would allow for support of technical problems and for help, as well as the many Wikia helpers whose only goal is to help expand content. On Wikia, there are even several users who watch recent edits in realtime which would prevent any vandalism from happening and through the Wikia entertainment portal, many new users would come to the wiki which equates to further growth. The merge would be easily done by us from Wikia and wouldn't really be noticed by anyone from here, and this merge would really help expand us, whilst giving you the free technical abilities and even more users to help! I would love to hear some comments about this, so please write down any feedback and any questions you may have. Thanks! Joeyaa 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first time we have been asked by Wikia, dunno if you noticed the section when you edited Buddy's talk page; User talk:Buddy13#Working together. In addition to that, I have, personally, been asking the same question to the community.
Every time, however, we are worried about losing our quality. Not saying that moving to Wikia would lessen the quality of the wiki, but its overall appearance. I said it last time, that "Wikia are to wikis, what geocities are to websites". Harsh, but I somehow still think so.
One of my foremost issues is ads. I don't like ads, and neither would I like ads to appear on this wiki. I know that I won't see the ads, when logged in, but that is not my problem, cause I turn off ads with an adblocker. No, I am worried about our guests. Cause you have to remember that we produce this wiki as an information bank for people, not for ourselves - well, that too, but mostly for everyone else. And an add free, content focused wiki will give people a better impression.
Skin-wise, I do not like the Wikia skin, I know our current isn't exactly pretty, but we are currently working on one, which we personally think will be pretty sweet once released.
And of course, we fear that we will loose influence, we are not power hungry, we just like being in control of our wiki, we like to add extensions when we need them, and so forth.
So you may think, why have this even been brought up by ourselves, when we seem not to want Wikia at all. That is not true. There are several things that appeal to us with a partnership with Wikia:
  1. High maintained and stable servers.
  2. No cost from our side.
  3. Eliminating competition.
The last one is certainly ideal, since it seems odd to remain competitors in such an otherwise narrow field.
Should we (and I think I speak for the rest of the gang when I say this) get involved into a partnership with Wikia, we want at least TWO condition fulfilled; no ads and we want our own Monobook-based skin. We are willing to compromise on the control factor. --SvipTalk 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm about to sound like a dick, but I don't care: The Infosphere will never merge onto Wikia. A reverse merge would be fine, but we've got things pretty much perfect here. We have our own domain name, our own servers (yes, we've had issues, but I think things are better for now), and we have no restrictions, we don't answer to anyone. I think that's the way we likes it. We love the Futurama community, though, and welcome any new members, but I think any attempts to merge should move towards the infosphere (i.e., move from constraint into freedom). There's really no reason to move to Wikia. --Buddy 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Additionally: We were the first and we are the biggest/best. In the business world (i know, bad analogy), the Microsoft is never absorbed by the Macromedia. --Buddy 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
In terms of the skin, you are able to design and view a MonoBook skin, you just have to set it in preferences (it can't be default) and you could get active user to do so, we just can't offer it as default. When it comes down to ads, the few ads that anons see can easily disappear as soon as they make an account, and this encourages them to create an account (which in turn helps the wiki). It really is something simple in reality, you guys receive a stable, free and reliable server (I noticed yours was down yesterday) at the cost of encouraging any IPs to create an account and having Monaco as your default until a user decides to change it for themself. We can even set up redirects on this site so that all the pages would link to the Wikia version just so that all bookmarks and links wouldn't be changed. Even Uncyclodpedia and many other sites have taken the plunge to Wikia just for the server, so obviously it must be worth it. Joeyaa 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, when it comes to updates and extensions, we are able to get extensions by request as Wikia has a library of Wikia-exclusive extensions and some MediaWiki ones are available too. Updates in MediaWiki software is done automatically by the staffers so we don't even need to worry about that unless we have something specific to ask. But, one other point to look at is the fact that there are over a million Wikians on Wikia and when they start searching through different Wikia wikis, all the Futurama fans and even just some common Wikians would start dropping by and increasing our community. Thanks. Joeyaa 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You are not really selling me. I realise our site was down yesterday, but on its best days, our site handles better than yours or Wikipedia. While our site is not as big as yours (understandable), we don't really that big a server. Though, it is really the only thing you have to interest us.
But I cannot see how a link is better than link. And as Buddy said, we would want the merge the reverse way. That is, we get your articles, and your site points to ours instead.
Also, Uncyclopedia has its domain and its own skin. So I don't really see the problem.
As for joining to rid people of ads is a bad encouragement. Our target "consumers" are readers, not editors. We want to appeal to our editors, of course, but mostly, our focus is giving our readers a great experience. And ads does not include a great experience. You think the majority of Wikipedia visitors are editors? --SvipTalk 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge: break

Wikia has many benefits and transferring the data from here to there would ensure little competition between our two sites, a strong, reliable server, on request support, free host, more users, more articles, more editors, helpers and staffers that will teach and aid, the many bots that we have, and the possibility/eligibility for promotions/contests by the staff and community. We would be completely okay keeping all the content and all the neat things you guys have down, and would be proud to do so. So, what do you think? I honestly think this is th eboost both of our sites need. Joeyaa 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, I've heard a few arguments for and against merging with Wikia. As a Wikia and Wikipedia user, I can tell you that merging with the Wikia Futurama Wiki is definitely a desirable option.
I've heard several arguments against merging with the Wikia Futurama Wiki, and I'll answer them.
  • We hate ads. -- Now we all know this is an argument many wikis make against Wikia. However, ads are a neccessary evil to keep most wikis running. I realise that this wiki apparently doesn't have ads, or at least I haven't seen them - however, no ads also means that there is a low level of technical support and quality about the wiki. Overall, the wiki looks worse with no ads and a poor "look" as opposed to a small number of ads and a much better "look". Wikia has ads, but it is necessary to keep Wikia running. Refusing to let Wikia have ads and counting this against them is like refusing to pay taxes and complaining that the government is not handing out enough services.
    • Now, I've seen quite a few examples of wikis merging into Wikia. Other than Uncyclopedia, there's also Halopedia. They were more than happy outside Wikia, but they joined Wikia because of the more stable server and the greater set of features. Prior to their joining, they were a popular but technically problemed wiki. After their joining, they are now one of the most popular wikis on Wikia. Hundreds of users join each week!
  • We don't need a higher level of technical support -- I mean...really? A wiki can never have enough technical support. From what I've seen around this wiki, technical support here is nowhere near the level of Wikia.
  • Joining to rid people of ads is bad encouragement, and wikis are there for the readers, not the editors -- I've never heard such an argument before, because it's simply wrong. It goes against what wikis are about. Wikis are about the editors and satisfying them. Hence the fact that anyone can edit. Of course, readers are important - but wikis cannot exist without editors, they are that important. Therefore, encouraging people to join to get rid of ads is a good encouragement because it encourages more people to make an account and edit.
  • We'd prefer a merge the other way. -- Unlikely. Wikia's never really deleted a wiki where most users transferred to an external one, because it simply doesn't make sense for them to do so. If you're really that concerned about the domain name and the name of the wiki, I'm pretty certain you can make the domain while making the wiki name Infosphere.
  • We don't need a bigger, more stable server -- It's been mentioned above that the wiki went down for a period of time, but that normally, the wiki handles better than Wikipedia or Wikia. This argument is rather weak...because Wikia and Wikipedia go down much, much less than any independently hosted wiki, due to their size and stability.
So I hope you take all that into consideration. Thanks. WHSL-The 888th Avatar 10:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Say what you want, but we are not going to compromise on the ads. You realise that most of us have jobs on the side, where we earn a bit of cash, some of this (from our pockets) are invested in the site to keep it running. I agree that, as of right now, the site is not in terrible good shape, but we are working on it and we think we can be done with a new upgraded look to the site. Your argument that without ads, the design won't be good doesn't ring sense to me.
The difference between us and Uncyclopedia and Halopedia are that these two wikis are so much more popular. Ours is popular, but within a narrow stream of popular culture.
As of right now, we don't really need a higher level of technical support, I have personal plenty of experience with running webservers and wikis, and am all the support we need right now. I am personal responsible for keeping this wiki alive.
I still stand by that joining to rid of ads is bad encouragement. You should use something else to encourage people, say, "this looks like a brilliant wiki, but I feel I can contribute to make it even more brilliant". If anything, that's the way that Wikipedia works.
I know you are not going to give us a merge the other way, and we are only going to accept that. For our part, everything is going great here. And while we wouldn't mind, not at all, in fact the opposite, more editors and members of the Futurama community, we don't want to compromise on what we have right now.
It's true that our server went down the other day, and which is why I am considering getting our own dedicated virtual machine, which is currently what the wiki runs on, without other sites as well. But given this was an off chance of happening, I'd say that we are not that desperate right now.
I took all those into consideration, and while a new better server, more editors and technical support certainly would be nice, we are not desperately in need of it. And given our position, I think we can make some demands, if not a lot, before talks of a merge. --SvipTalk 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, when a wiki grows up and has a satisfactory level of self support they move off wikia. I'm fairly sure this was the case with, but I could be mistaken there.
"Wikis are about the editors and satisfying them." - I disagree, a wiki should not think of itself as being for editors, yes editors are very important to the process due to the fact they provide the content, but that content is put there to be read. By readers. A wiki is a content driven website, the goal of any content driven website is to provide content to a reader or viewer. It just happens that a larger number of wiki readers are also content providers. Get the readers to stay and they may become content providers, but if they don't then at least they are sticking around to read the content. Wiki contributors wouldn't contribute if they didn't think any readers would come. It was my experience as a reader that lead me here rather than there to be a contributor.
I digress, there are some good reasons to merge, but the benefits to this wiki - as it currently stands - aren't large enough to cause us merge into wikia. The wikia wiki, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from such a merge. While the community needs only one Futurama wiki, most will eventually find both alternatives and either choose to read and possibly edit ours or try to help you guys out. - Quolnok 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge: break 2

Quolnok: No. Most of the biggest topical wikis are on Wikia. Uncyclopedia. Wookieepedia. Halopedia. WOWWiki. Memory Alpha. They are all on Wikia.
Anyway...about the no good appearance without ads. You didn't understand me. I meant that Wikia can make better skins for its wikis because it has the funding to, which comes from the ads.
About the wiki being about readers. It doesn't "just happen" that some readers are also content providers. Most potential content providers will need encouragement to become real content providers. Assuming it "just happens" is the wrong way to run a wiki. That's why everyone has welcome templates and stuff.
The Wikia wiki would not benefit from any merge into Infosphere, not because we wouldn't be willing to edit here, but because Wikia never destroys the outgoing wiki database. This means that the wiki will still be there, and there will still be competition. WHSL-The 888th Avatar 09:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is, you would like our content, but this wiki would remain for us to keep on using. That's like saying, "sure, we want what you have, but if you don't like it here, you can remain with your old content".
The more and more I go through this, the more and more I realise that the Infosphere cannot be benefit from this in any way. The servers, sure, we cannot get big ones like Wikia, but we can get the ones we need for our wiki. Ads, well, they are still a non-negotiable, cause we run our current wiki find without ads.
Lack of competition, is that really a good thing? I mean, it was competition that finally got Microsoft to upgrade their Internet Explorer. So... maybe not.
And then comes a kicker. If you are talking about merge, that means, in some way, we are going to get your content as well. And can I just say a thing about your content... it is terrible! I mean take a look at this article, not only is it entirely wrong, it is only filled with terrible formatting and made up stuff. And this article have been this way for a long time. Your contributors are hardly as dedicated as ours. You say you have people standing by Recent Changes in real time? Why did they not catch all the crap?
Also, no, we don't assume it "just happens" that contributors arrive. We assume that, because of our brilliant wiki and good content, editors will be intrigued to join our wiki and contribute. Besides, how good a contributor can they be if they were only encouraged by lack of ads?
No, deep down, you need us more than we need you. --SvipTalk 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

one Question about Affilliates in The Infosphere

How I can be an affiliate of The Infosphere? Because I have a Chilean Forum about conversation and other things --SolidRaiden 05:21, 16 January 2011 (CET)

Is it related to Futurama? --Sviptalk 19:47, 16 January 2011 (CET)

Am I doing something wrong...

Is there a reason this page hasn't been touched in years? Nalexa (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2014 (CEST)

What do you mean? Why would it be? Sanfazer: [talk] 22:42, 24 August 2014 (CEST).
Because this is not an inactive wiki? Nalexa (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2014 (CEST)
Despite it being an active wiki, sometimes pages go unedited for two or three years. That's a common occurrence. I do understand what you mean, because this is a high-visibility page, but I guess there just hasn't been any reason for anyone to edit it, even though the wiki is being edited basically every day. We may be an active wiki, but, compared to Wikipedia or Wookieepedia, Wikipedia being most people's reference point, we are a small wiki. The "active users" special page is currently not working, but I would guess we have about ten registered users who have made an edit in the last 30 days, if not less. Sanfazer: [talk] 16:46, 2 September 2014 (CEST).
I know a Wiki that started in 2010 with over 70 CP archives. Nalexa (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (CEST)
Which wiki is it? Sanfazer: [talk] 22:18, 7 September 2014 (CEST).
the scratch wiki Nalexa (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2014 (CEST)
Oh. Okay. Sanfazer: [talk] 12:44, 1 October 2014 (CEST).
Those guys started up in 2010. And IPs can't edit. And you guys haven't even made one archive :P. And they make really big archives. Nalexa (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2014 (CEST)
I guess there just hasn't been any need for archives yet. Sanfazer: [talk] 18:56, 1 October 2014 (CEST).


What is this crossover? Are we moving to Wikia? NO! I HATE WIKIA! PLEASE SAY NO! Nalexa (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2014 (CEST)

Would anyone mind if I ran a bot script.....

I use it on another Wiki, so it's been tested. If someone makes an error (such as not categorizing a new page or not signing their post) they will receive a notification. All it needs is an account and a few set-up pages. Nalexa (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2014 (CEST)

You should ask Svip. Sanfazer: [talk] 11:40, 11 October 2014 (CEST).
Also, this page is not for discussion about the community. *This one* is. Sanfazer: [talk] 12:00, 11 October 2014 (CEST).
Geez, no offense to Svip but is there anything that doesn't involve asking him? I mean he's not bad just inactive. And how is the community portal not for the community? Nalexa (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2014 (CEST)
It's not. It's for listing websites that may interest the community.
Svip is the steward. Sanfazer: [talk] 20:32, 11 October 2014 (CEST).
I'm gonna have a hard time getting used to this "CP is not the community discussion page" thing. Also, this wiki has stweards? Yay! Nalexa (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2014 (CEST)
Well, it was pretty obvious I thought it was the main talk page. I kept using it like one, I thought it was weird nobody had used it in years, the Scratch Wiki has 70 archives, I tried to make the project page redirect to the discussion. Fine, I'll start using the conference table. Nalexa (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2014 (CEST)