​
144 Posts
Jacen Fett
PaulSW01
Captain Ricky
Anti-Formal
CommanderLysander

Filter Posts Reset

Categories

Sort By

  • All
  • Following
• 8/11/2017

Migrating Forums to Discussions

Hello all. Almost a year ago, the Star Wars Fanon community voted to enable the Discussions feature. Now, Wikia/FANDOM has started migrating content from the Forum to Discussions. You can read about it here. Currently, wikis can volunteer to have their Forum content migrated to Discussions, but this will eventually happen everywhere, it's just a matter of time. I, personally, think Star Wars Fanon should volunteer now though.
There are some downsides that Wikia/FANDOM has been open about: "a replacement for Forum’s "highlight" function and a more versatile editor for Discussions" are currently in-progress projects that will make Discussions more useful but haven't been released yet. However, if we migrate now, we get to do it as a personalized experience where Staff is paying close attention to the process and ensuring its success. Given that neither Forums nor Discussions are used that much, and most users agreed that they either preferred Discussions or didn't care, I think it makes the most sense for Star Wars Fanon to take this opportunity to be ahead of the curve in regards to the First Order Wikia overlords new FANDOM changes. I'd love to hear what y'all think about this.
0 6
• 6/13/2017

Decide what to do with the wordmark

The recent page header updates mean we should be taking another look at our wordmark. Our wordmark, in case you have never seen it before. I think there are two issues:

the dark grey of "FANON" looks bad on the blue header
the sitename to the right of the wordmark unnecessarily repeats the wordmark.
I think we could either:

change wordmark colors to fit with the header
change the header background color to something else.
And either:

get rid of text in the wordmark to make it graphic-only and keep the sitename text next to it
keep the wordmark as is with graphic+text and replace the sitename with some fancy tagline.
What do you think? Discuss!
0 40
• 9/8/2016

Discussions!

Hey there people! Wikia has introduced a new feature called "Discussions". You can read about it here and here. Long story short, it'll replace the current forums with a new way for users to have forum-like discussions. I would highly encourage you all to check out Wookieepedia's use of the feature here.
I think this could be great for Star Wars Fanon. It's not like we use forums that much, but this could be an easier way for users to collaborate on things. (And yes, I've actually seen users collaborating on things lately.) Beyond that it could also be used for community discussions like this!
I'd love to hear thoughts on this from anyone and everyone. This feature is going to come eventually, but we have a chance to implement it now and offer feedback on how the system could be improved. I think this is a great opportunity for us to get in on the ground floor. How do you all feel about implementing it?
2 13
• 10/16/2015

Archivist adjustment

Hello everyone. I have an idea.
I've noticed that there's been a dearth of activity in the fan-fiction world on this website, and I thought of something that might help to shake things up a bit, add some incentive for people to dust off their old stories and post some new ones, as well as encourage more featured work participation. The gist is that the term "Archivist" would become less of an obligation and more of a status symbol. It would be a recognition that this individual knows how to write a good story, and thus could help other people write their own stories and help decide what's a good story.
Links: featured work page and featured work nomination page

Proposal
Part 1: Any user who has written two or more featured works is automatically granted the title of Archivist. (This would grant the following users the Archivist title: Jedi Master 76, MPK, Sakaros, Tesh Vohore)
Part 2: Item 5 of the Featured Work qualifications on FW page amended to say "It must receive at least 2 votes from the Archivists and 3 votes from the community to become a featured work." from "It must receive at least (2/3) votes from the Archivists and 5 votes from the community to become a featured work." This will make it consistent with the FW nom page, which currently conflicts with it.
Part 3: Update all "2/3 Archivist" vote requirements to say that 2 Archivists are sufficient to override an objection or remove a nomination. I would be fine bumping this up to 3 if more Archivists became active, but I feel that if 2 Archivists agree than objection is not an issue or that a nomination shouldn't be there, then it should be removed. I will monitor this closely for abuse, but I largely trust the judgment of the people we'd be adding.
I don't know how we do consensus on these new boards, but I'll check in on this periodically and gauge consensus two weeks from now. Cheers!
Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 16:03, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
0 32
This post is locked.
• 6/19/2015

Adopting Wikia's new infobox format

Wikia is currently working on a new infobox format, which is detailed on the discussion thread on CC and the help page. I'd like to start a discussion on whether to adopt this new template system.
The main benefits would be much cleaner code—instead of nested tables and conditionals, we could use custom parser tags, greatly lowering the technical barrier needed to create a custom infobox and also making maintenance easier. The code that gets output is also more semantic, incorporating new, descriptive HTML5 tags.
While the information thread I linked has some examples, keep in mind that (almost) anything can be done with CSS, so if those samples are not to your liking, there are almost endless customization options. As such, if this proposition is approved, and a new infobox design is decided on (or we decide to keep the old one), I think we should update our existing infoboxes to use the new syntax.
0 25
• 9/3/2014

Galactic calender changes in Legends/New Expanded Universe: Should we change our formatting?

Recently, Wookieepedia voted to redo the formatting for its year articles, removing the comma in four-digit years (example, "3,956 BBY" was changed to "3956 BBY"). It was a little startling at first, hearing about it, but the more it showed the more it made sense—not leastwise in how most real-world calenders work. So, I propose that we do the same thing here on Star Wars Fanon, that is to say, reworking our BBY/ABY articles so that they drop the comma.
Per a suggestion by Brandon Rhea, this should not deter users from using a pipelink to leave the comma in, should they desire (e.g., [[3956 BBY|3,956 BBY]]).
If this motion is adopted, it will mean a lot of grunt work (possibly done by a bot, but there's no reason why regular users can't do it), but I'm more than happy to work on it.
Admittedly this is somewhat of a minor issue for a Consensus Track, but I also wanted to test out the viability of using the Forum extension for holding a site-wide discussion such as this one. Since I am not aware of a vote-tallying mechanism, perhaps a simple "Yes" or "No" should be the first word of any reply posts, followed by whatever reason one chooses to add. Once a sufficient amount of time has passed, an administrator or the starter of the Consensus Track can count up the votes and, if sufficient consensus has been achieved, make the appropriate changes.
This Consensus Track thread will last for one week, ending on 9 September 2014 at 9:45 EDT (02:45 UTC).
0 3