Forum:Article comments

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Article comments
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 March 2011 by Cook Me Plox.


On some wikis they have the ability to have article comments at the bottom of pages where users can post their thoughts of those things, the wikis that I know that have that are the degrassi and twilight wiki. I propose that this wiki have the ability added so we can discuss the articles.

--Turok Obama 02:06, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - The feature you are referring to was removed from this wiki after an almost unanimous decision in a thread. I'll go have a look for the thread link in a sec. If you want to leave comments you can always just head to the article's talk page to discuss it. - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 02:10, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

We were discussing using it for comments here but realised it wasn't possible to use on a single page. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:13, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
Forum:Blogging - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 02:17, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
That's the blog extension which is different to this. Here is an example of blogs and here is an example of this feature, at the bottom of each page. Ps. It was the only wiki I could find that had it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:27, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Talk pages look better as they are not added on to the bottom of the page, but on a separate page. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:13, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - per Sentra246. Talk pages don't need to be included in the article page itself. Smithing 02:45, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Comments look untidy on an encyclopaedia. 222 talk 02:50, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Sentra, plus it's not the best looking feature for an article. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:59, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Talk pages are usually always ignored. The only time messages ever get some form of notability is in the Recent Changes, then the discussion lay dormant forever, until someone else happens to stumple upon it by accident. Comments would make it easier to notice when a discussion is happening, and would make it easier for viewers who have noticed a problem with the article but don't know how to/want to change it. It may also make it easier to keep topical discussions on the pages it concerns. As the Yew Grove is really the only place where everyone checks, all discussions, even those about minor issues, end up on the YG. Article comments would make it easier to have a discussions about a page ON the page. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 04:10, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ewww oppose Rambling nonsensical off the wall comments and you want them on the article? It would look terrible, it would distract from the article, it is very non encyclopedic and in the end they would be longer than the articles themselves. While there is a positive or two, such as making it easier for people to point out problems, I consider this to be a not strong argument. Anyone who can't find a talk page will be too inept to actually leave a comment in the comment section.--Degenret01 04:19, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

A few things. I'm pretty sure we can limit how many comments are displayed by default. 2nd, I can easily find a talk page but 99% of the time I will not bother to actually look at it, and will not bother to make a post on it as I would hardly expect a reply in the next year. Viewers, they may not find the talk page, and if they do, be confused 'cause there's usually nothing there! Comments is welcoming, as it actually has an input box. I have no reply to 'being encyclopedic' except that every wiki doesn't have to be ultra-encyclopedic and that the comments will just help us become a more comprehensive encyclopedia and more friendly fansite. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:33, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
There is only one problem with that, all edits previously made to the talk namespace will not be accessible once the ArticleComments are activated. Same as if you had ArticleComments then switched to original Talk pages, you couldn't access previous edits to said NS. This also applies to how the Blog extension works and why we don't have it. Having such activated here could become an administrative nightmare. Ryan PM 08:55, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have already talked on IRC on getting the beta version of [[w:c:wikialabs:Special:WikiaLabs|WikiaLabs]] enabled here for the ability to turn off and on certain features without the requests of Wikia Staff. However none of the administrators seemed to know what I was referring to or was told to just wait until Wikia rolls out this tool in several months. I just don't believe in having an extension that, while it does not affect SEO, can spam the article pages while still being listed under another NS. OFF - wgEnableArticleCommentsExt forever. Ryan PM 05:26, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Unencyclopedic. You would need admin to delete spam/offencive comments. And blogging is slowly poisoning the world. Wink Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:49, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It's not encyclopedic and doesn't add to the article. I even think it would attract more vandalism. We have talk pages for this. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 09:05, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I struggle to think of a worse way to conduct a discussion than via a comments section. When I look at an article, I don't want to see a futile attempt at a talk page, I want to read the article. I honestly have no idea what Wikia was thinking when they created the comments sections, and I never want to see them here. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:02, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Too disturbing. If I want info, I don't want some random spam by someone who thought that'd be funny. Maybe it would be useful to have an index of some sort though (maybe the same thing Quarenon has here) if that's possible (less urgent alternative to [[RS:RFC]]) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:38, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Yeah, let's go add lots of nonsense talk to all the articles we have. Great idea. bad_fetustalk 16:00, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Very strong support - I love article comments - they allow readers to get involved. Per cluck cluck. Ajraddatz 05:17, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Most likely, this is just going to lead to more spam. Discussions serve this purpose more effectively. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 11:07, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Appose - It's a encyclopedy, not a forum. I think comments belong on the discussion page, and nowere else.--Darth Stefan (Talk) 12:07, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

trololol --Iiii I I I 15:47, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - what everyone else said. --Iiii I I I 15:47, March 13, 2011 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Article comments. Request complete. The reason given was: This discussion has ran its course, so I made a pie chart to illustrate my point. [1]

Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 18:02, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Drag the image on that page to the tab you are on to see the source url(even though imageshack tries to hide it for pplz without accounts). Looks better without Imageshack ads Wink JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:10, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Article comments will not be enabled at this time. ʞooɔ 22:23, March 14, 2011 (UTC)