Forum:Re-make User Blogs?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Re-make User Blogs?
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 6 January 2010 by Calebchiam.

I think we should bring the user blogs back. They may be useful in the future. What do you think? Youdead00 14:49, December 8, 2009 (UTC)


Support - As nom. Youdead00 14:49, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why? you do not give a reason ‎20px‎AtlandyBeer.png 14:54, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - User blogs? Can you explain what they are? bad_fetustalk 14:56, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
They were one of the new Wikia functions that were added a few months ago, together with the user masthead. They were removed from our wiki, because most people didn't like them. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:50, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Huge oppose - Per Forum:Blogging, Forum:Blogging option for RS Wiki and Forum:"User profile" feature. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:51, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Gaz. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:56, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support. Yes. Again. Still. No, I don't ever learn. Assuming this would be nothing but the blogs, none of the "Points" and such talked about in other discussions. You say, "Well, we're a wiki! Not a social netwprking site!", well I say, we are wikia. That is what we are. We don't have to be strictly a wiki. If new features like this are offered I don't see why we can't just use them. They won't affect anyone in any way. (assuming they're not on the RC.) 19:30, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

My reason for reconsideration below 04:32, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The reason I posted this forum is because user blogs can be a useful substitute for talk pages and an easy way to ask questions. Youdead00 21:59, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

What about the wiki forums? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:00, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - As we have said every time someone brings this up, the RuneScape Wiki is not a social networking site. Also, blogs are not meant for chatting or asking questions, so I'm wondering if you even understand what they're used for.. Andrew talk 23:06, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

This really needs to be added to the list of previously rejected proposals. Andrew talk 23:08, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
A blog. Hmm. Aren't those the things people rant about their political views on? From what I've observed on other Wikia wikis, they're always used as forums, which we've had for two years now. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 02:24, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - As was said severl hundred time before, we are not a social networking site. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:09, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Blogs and social networking sites are two different things anyway. 02:44, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - always and forever. We have the forums, the yew grove, and talk pages to communicate. Want to rant? That's what your userpage or subpages are for. These are absolutely unnecessary. Christine 23:11, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - User:Youdead00/Blog will work fine kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:11, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - We have the RuneScape:Wiki Post that would gladly take an editorial from a user (PLEASE WRITE ONE! REALLY! I'll give you a free set of Rune armor if you write one!  :) You can also post on the forums and even create a place on blogspot. I would even be willing to help set up a joint blog for everybody on blogspot, which has much better blog management tools than Wikia could ever dream, and you can customize the heck out of it (even to earn a few bucks with google ads if you want). As far as starting up the in-wiki blog.... I would have to say this fits on the list of rejected proposals. --Robert Horning 01:58, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Paying someone in-game for an out-of-game service falls under RWIT. XD. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 02:24, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure he knows that. Being obsessed with the RS Economy and all...--
Xmas07 presents.gifSir Scizor1
Talk Click on the presents for your gift! A Christmas not spent spreading cheer is a Christmas wasted that year.
02:42, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm getting overly enthsiastic here. I'm really just trying to encourage folks to write an editorial. 'nuff said. --Robert Horning 12:13, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - This would be a maintenance(only admins can edit the blogs of others) and anti-vandalism(spamming) nightmare. Per all previously stated reasons in this and past discussions. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 03:13, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I am opposing this, but to everyone saying "we're not a social networking site" and "we're a wiki encyclopedia": this is true, but we are also a community. I believe Wikia brought those new features in to improve the community-ness. Although, I don't like them and would find nothing good will come out of the blogs. Chicken7 (talkcontribs) forgot to sign this comment.

Noooooooo- Blog away on your userpage, rant about what ever you like. but official blogs are just stupid. I deleted people off network sites if they blog more than once a year.--Degenret01 09:44, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I probably wouldn't use them much, but why not let the people who want to? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 12:05, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Because they have access to their userpage, subpages, the wiki forums, and even the wiki post if they signed up for that. Those are all suitable replacements for blogs. When I feel the need to express my opinion or write about anything in-game, I simply start a topic on the forums. Lol  Tien  21:35, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above.  Tien  21:35, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - No way. Me no likey. Or rather, per all. --Nup(T) 03:04, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comment- You have a point, that we already have forums, and more. But what if we put them to a minimum? Someone would use them. However, the blogs would have to be protected by some sort which may delete the blog, and block the user. Verdict? Youdead00 00:58, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Or how about an enabling system on your preferences on yes or no to having blogs? Is it possible? ````  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Youdead00 (talk).

LOL SIGNING FAIL 20:12, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Seriously YouDead, did you actually consider why we have oppose reasons or did you just blow past them? Anyhow, that aside, how about if the three of you that want blogs just blog away on your user pages and link to each other so you can keep up with it? Win win for the wiki, you three get to blog, and the rest of the wiki can ignore them. No, that isn't sarcasm, I'm quite serious in this.--Degenret01 03:57, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Yeeeaaahh. What Deg said. Considering others before yourself is a valuable rule you should follow throughout life (sorry if I sound like a philosopher) — Enigma 04:40, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
Part of this proposal, at least as I see it, has to do with making this a "public blog" that would somehow be more visible to the greater wiki community... as is the case on some of the other wikis that have blogs enabled. Linking to each other's user sub-page isn't going to accomplish that sort of task. If a blog is to be created, support for it can and ought to be put onto places like the main page and on the sidebar. What needs to be explained here is that many in this community are resistant to all of the new fangled gadgets that Wikia seems to come up with almost on a continuous basis, and some of them really are a bad idea. In the case of a blog, it may have some use on other wikis, but here there are so many other options available that we really don't need it. That is the source of opposition, and why this proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance of approval. As for enabling personal preferences... that still doesn't address how much linkage goes to those blogs or how they get integrated with other wiki projects like the RSWP. A feature that is all but buried and ignored can and will be a source of trollish behavior and more headaches for admins who indeed would rather ignore this feature in the first place. --Robert Horning 13:26, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
I see your point... but i still don't know why we can't just try it out for a month or a week or so and see how it goes. 16:52, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Wikia is not a runescape forum (as forums, rsc forums, zybez forums etc. ). Blogs are only suitable for forums, there are no other fansites that offer blogs on their main site, because they are not of interest to a large amount of people, as the rest of content is. If you want wikia forums, that's a possibility, but blogs on the main site would be like wikipedia hosting blogs for everyone who wants to. As wikipedia has a direct policy against articles and content that is not of relevance to many people (don't make an article about your friend on wikipedia etc.). We do not wish to lower our standards as a site of quality, easily accessible information about every facet of the game Tortilliachp 16:24, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

... Wait, what? What does this have to do with easily accessible information? Or articles about random people? 16:46, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
As wikipedia has a direct policy against articles and content that is not of relevance to many people (don't make an article about your friend on wikipedia etc.) - Yes, I'm sure millions of people would look for Benzo[k]fluoranthene every day. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:21, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
I believe the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Notability. ** 01:35, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, Hello71 01:37, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Although I'm ambivalent on the issue (harm done to Halopedia and social networking vs. wanting to give a wiki feature a shot) I think the community has overwhelmingly opposed this one, and often. I think this proposal is a good candidate for previously rejected proposal per prior discussions and the amount of opposition. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 20:18, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I just want to say that half the arguments in the former discussions are irrelevant, because we are proposing ONLY THE BLOGS. Not friends. Not Points. Not gifts. Only the blogs. Also blogs are not social networking sites! I can understand why "friends" would make them that, but that is not the proposal. 23:05, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

(but the argument about Admins having a tough time with trolls is understandable) 23:07, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are a major part of social networking sites..."So and so just got home from the party and had a great time!" "What is your opinion about the election? Yada yada yada......" you can use your userspace for anything blog-related. Andrew talk 23:13, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Wait... People are suggesting the forums as an alternative to 'prevent' spammers? Yes, the argument is sound, in and of itself, but the forums have the EXACT SAME PROBLEM with only forum admins being able to delete posts. 03:02, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Dammit! Hello71 03:11, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Please do not curse on this page. Thank you. Youdead00 04:41, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Did you even realize what I was cursing about, or did you just post that after reading, "dammit"? Hello71 01:31, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Some people just don't like "cursing," period. :| 03:30, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - RS:NOT#BLOG Wink Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:38, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

That is completely and utterly unrelated. It states that player names cannot be put in articles, which, IMHO, is a ridiculous blanket policy. Hello71 01:31, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Yes. If there are many witnesses, or if it's simply generally known, that Mr. Bobby exploited the Glitching Glitch, it should be stated that Mr. Bobby was the one who exploited the glitch. 03:30, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Did you even read that before you posted a link to it? o_O it has absofruitly nothing to do with this. 03:30, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
It has about as much to do with this as assume good faith has to do with assuming good faith on the yew grove (the policy has nothing to do with anything other than editing and vandalism, last I checked). Given, I should have quoted a different policy, but I would not render it totally irrelevant. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:46, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Here, let's try this. Tehkitty-cat also made some great points. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 21:35, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
The whole point of the Yew Grove is to change the rules a little, Stelercus. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 23:13, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
What are you trying to say? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:44, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
You were quoting an existing rule. This thread is about changing that rule. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:53, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Exactly! That's why I made this forum. Blogs may be very useful in opinion.Youdead00 04:25, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

No they wouldn't. Why is this discussion not closed yet.. Andrew talk 04:54, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
The discussion isn't closed yet because there is still ongoing discussion. Raising the issue and trying to understand why a policy is in place or questioning why a policy exists and challenging that policy certainly is a legitimate action to take. However, closing this discussion serves nobody, even if the outcome seems certain. At the very least, education through strong arguments about why this policy of rejecting the Wikia blog interface can be quite informative. --Robert Horning 15:38, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Even though I still do not understand how this would interfere with the quality of the site or anything else, (which is why I'm not opposing) I am more/less using my userspace as a blog, and it's working fine, and the only real difference would be the way it is presented and lack of a comments section. But I really think we will not know the effects that an actual blog would have on this wiki until we try it. 04:32, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The blogs could be a useful....substitute to the Yew Grove and the forums i needed. Also, they would also be subsitutes to talk pages if they cannot be archived. Youdead00 00:08, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Couldn't people just create a subpage titled blog? (Like User:Example/Blog) scoot4.pngscooties 02:20, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Youdead, I don't think you understand what you're talking about..blogs have absolutely nothing to do with the forums or the Yew Grove. The forums are for discussing the wiki and the game (plus anything else in the OT forum). The Yew Grove is where we make major decisions as a community. I challenge you to look up the definition of a blog. It is neither of those, so how could it be a substitute for either of them? Talk pages are for discussing something specific with one more people. How and why would we need blogs to substitute this.. Andrew talk 04:51, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How and why? Who says we cannot discuss RuneScape topics on user blogs? Think about that! Youdead00 20:09, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

The key word is can. It would be pretty hard to moderate these blogs. And that would be a waste of time. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:07, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing here that is stopping you (Youdead00) from creating a blog on blogspot, wordpress, or some other common blog website (free or commercial) that could discuss issues related to Runescape, this wiki, other fansites, and more. If you create such a blog, please let us know, and you are certainly free to use the forums to recruit blog participants if you want to take the initiative, and that does not require "community" approval if you want to go that route. Please, stick with arguments why the specific blog feature that I think you want to have "turned on" should be activated by Wikia for the RS Wiki. I get it that you want to get some blogs started. Repeating that you want the blogs activating and presuming that all of the other suggestions previously mentioned are irrelevent... or even failing to answer with counter arguments for why it is something that administrators and participants on this wiki with years of experience are suggesting this is bad idea have not been made. Please make a well thought out counter-argument other than "I want this feature for Christmas, pretty please!" --Robert Horning 23:01, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - as there's no point supporting - by far the easiest option if you don't want to creat a blog on wordpress, blogspot etc (all of which fantastically easy blog sites) then you can simply have a /blog pat of your user area and run your blog from there, and people can read/comment (although what with teh decaying html i'd say itsd have to be on the talk page) and simply have a link to it in ure sig. --Zilenserz 15:10, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - per all opposes. Blogs are a waste of time. Fishing.png NnK Oliver (600613) talk 15:29, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. Swiz Talk Review Me 16:48, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - We won't bring back the User Blogs feature. C.ChiamTalk 11:30, January 6, 2010 (UTC)