FANDOM


  • So a lot of people have left this place recently, myself included. I decided to come back and check in, and I had an idea. A better idea than before.

    Let's purge the wiki.

    Now when I say that I don't mean let's just delete all the articles. I actually mean let's archive everything and start over. I have been sitting on another wiki, which I grabbed to use as a redirect, for a while now. I want to use it as an archive for old, dead articles and pages on SFW.

    Here's how I see it working:

    1. Every week, SFWBOT would pull 1000 articles that haven't been touched in more than 6 months.
    2. Users would have a week to mark anything in that group that they still want.
    3. Anything that isn't marked would be auto-copied to the archive wiki and edit protected there.
    4. The page on SFW would then be deleted with a delete message that has a link to the archived page.
    5. If someone finds their pages deleted and wants them back, they can simply copy them back to the main wiki again.

    This will allow us to clean out ancient articles that don't meet our standards, and will allow us to clean up the appearance of the wiki. This will hopefully make it more appealing to more users, maybe increasing traffic a bit.

    I've talked with a lot of people who already left. This is something we need to do. There's a lot of trash on this wiki, and it's time to take it out. I think we're all tired of swatting flies.

    Please read the entire thing before you comment. I hate people who can't read.

      Loading editor
    • Are you crazy!?!?!?

      This idea is interesting. Hopefully we do get new people coming here.

      That's... uhh... everything I have to say on this matter

        Loading editor
    • I honestly think I'd be fine with any article I wrote prior to my return tonight being archived. I don't know if I want it deleted forever, but I don't have plans to fix them up any time soon.

      EDIT: Also, I figured I'd help out by marking an unused image from 2011 (specifically Js.jpg) with the Delete template. Did I do it right?

        Loading editor
    • I understand where you're coming from, however, I would be kind of upset if someone who's been MIA (like myself) came back and sees all of their hard work gone. I've put a lot of effort into most of my characters.

      On the other hand, there are a ton of pages that need to be purged. Maybe the six months should be extended and/or the user would be more than a week to defend their pages?

      I dunno. I rarely even use SFW other than to look back at my old work.

        Loading editor
    • I think that it would be useful having standards-defying articles removed, but having old articles removed purely because they are old seems like it might be a problem. If new users want to see quality, removing old, high-quality articles might reduce the likelihood that new users will find high-quality articles and join the wiki due to its overall high quality.

      As a side note, everything really inspirational that made me want to join the wiki has been edited in the last six weeks. I wonder if older articles generally tend to be lower quality?

      At any rate, no matter how we get there, what I personally would like to see on the wiki is to have the average article that one randomly stumbles across be a moderately good article. What I don't want is to make the rare good article even rarer and make the bit of inspiration that gets someone new to join the wiki not find the potential new user before the potential new user's patience runs out and they leave. What I'm afraid of here is that archiving old and good articles (if any exist) along with the bad articles will make good articles rarer.

        Loading editor
    • Rapidthehedgehog wrote: I would be kind of upset if someone who's been MIA (like myself) came back and sees all of their hard work gone.

      Here's the thing. We're not deleting them, just moving them off the main wiki. This same mindset of "Don't delete their stuff!" is what's always holding the wiki back from getting cleaned up. If they cared about their articles, where are they? As I said in the initial post, if their article is archived, they can just copy it back to the wiki. This has been a problem since I joined the wiki. It needs to end.

        Loading editor
    • The other thing about using the bot is that it won't discriminate, so they have no reason to complain about it. It's not like the bot is saying their article isn't good, it's just old and hasn't been touched.

        Loading editor
    • What I'm worried about is newcomers liking the wiki enough to join, while keeping established editors on the wiki. It seems to me that deleting old pages regardless of quality will remove both types of editors; keeping newcomers off the wiki by removing good articles that would encourage them to join by the generally good atmosphere, and kicking established editors off the page due to annoyance over removal of their stuff. I'm all for removal of low-quality articles, but removal of old articles on no grounds other than the articles being old looks to me to not be in the wiki's best interest.

        Loading editor
    • Pages up for adoption should be kept on the wiki. Also, I honestly don't see a reason to delete good quality pages. Are we going to delete SFW award winning pages just because the user who made them isn't here?

        Loading editor
    • Skyblade743 wrote: Pages up for adoption should be kept on the wiki. Also, I honestly don't see a reason to delete good quality pages. Are we going to delete SFW award winning pages just because the user who made them isn't here?

      I agree with the adoption pages... as long as they meet standards. If pages won awards, someone will probably mark them to be kept. I never said the owner needed to be the one to flag them.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't bother to read the rest because I think deleting pages is a bad idea, maybe we should move them to a separate wiki for archive purposes, like, move them to here.

        Loading editor
    • Akrivus wrote:
      I didn't bother to read the rest because I think deleting pages is a bad idea, maybe we should move them to a separate wiki for archive purposes, like, move them to here.

      You're funny.

        Loading editor
    • Also, give users a week before the move, to remove their pages from the category, so they don't have to relocate their pages all over again. To my mind, that'd be more intuitive than deleting the entire thing.

      Edit: I'm doing this because people are clearly not reading the blog and I'm making fun of them.

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote:

      Skyblade743 wrote: Pages up for adoption should be kept on the wiki. Also, I honestly don't see a reason to delete good quality pages. Are we going to delete SFW award winning pages just because the user who made them isn't here?

      I agree with the adoption pages... as long as they meet standards. If pages won awards, someone will probably mark them to be kept. I never said the owner needed to be the one to flag them.

      The problem is most don't. :P Ok, fair enough.

        Loading editor
    • I second this.

        Loading editor
    • I agree. All articles that do not meet standards or are obviously abandoned should be archived somewhere else.

        Loading editor
    • Winduct wrote:
      I agree. All articles that do not meet standards or are obviously abandoned should be archived somewhere else.

      Articles that don't meet standards get marked and eventually deleted, not archived.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not really with this idea. Since, say you send a page to a different wiki, and someone is absent, when copying it back it's not that easy. Especially if your page has loads of pictures and links. 

        Loading editor
    • Williamcost wrote:
      I'm not really with this idea. Since, say you send a page to a different wiki, and someone is absent, when copying it back it's not that easy. Especially if your page has loads of pictures and links. 

      They just need to port all the templates over so that it becomes an easy copy-paste job.

        Loading editor
    • Detective SkullWolf wrote:
      Winduct wrote:
      I agree. All articles that do not meet standards or are obviously abandoned should be archived somewhere else.
      Articles that don't meet standards get marked and eventually deleted, not archived.

      Even better. Some decent pages however that overflow with good content should be kept however despite their inactivity.

        Loading editor
    • We seriously do need an overhaul cleansing of the wiki though. I find pages all of the time that are either so bad they're good or so under-standards they can't qualify as good pages. If a page has good quality but the user isn't there, archive it so that the user can get it back if they want it. If the page is ghastly below standards, just give the user a fair warning before deleting it.

      I don't think my opinion matters much, so whatever. 

        Loading editor
    • The whole point of doing the 1000 a week is to give everyone a chance to mark the quality pages. The owner doesn't have to be the one to say keep the page.

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote: The whole point of doing the 1000 a week is to give everyone a chance to mark the quality pages. The owner doesn't have to be the one to say keep the page.

      Thanks for clearing that up! If anyone can mark pages that they want to keep, keeping around old, high-quality articles should be much easier to do. With this new piece of information, my vote has changed; I am now supporting this proposal.

        Loading editor
    • Purging Articles won't really help, you should try to be nice, then we'll have more users. I have had some friends try to avoid the community here because people were rude to them. Now if you want to purge articles that aren't good fine, although good articles should be immune to this purge.

        Loading editor
    • WaterKirby1994 wrote: Purging Articles won't really help, you should try to be nice, then we'll have more users. I have had some friends try to avoid the community here because people were rude to them. Now if you want to purge articles that aren't good fine, although good articles should be immune to this purge.

      The purge won't delete the articles. You'll have a week to remove them before they are moved. Also, most of those events happened in the wiki chat, which was poorly moderated. We now use the Discord, which is must livelier and has more moderator attentiveness.

        Loading editor
    • WaterKirby1994: I think that the proposal is to have 1000 articles be marked for archiving every week, during which time users can say that they want to keep any article on the list, even if they didn't create the article. This would let users decide which articles are "good" and should be kept and which are not, essentially just archiving the "bad" articles.

      Please let me know if this response helps somehow.

        Loading editor
    • Still doesn't change the fact that they are gone because users were unkind to them on part of this wiki. Also good quality articles moved to another wiki, won't help here much.

        Loading editor
    • I certainly don't want any unkindness, though I'm not exactly sure what part of this proposal would potentially involve being unkind to other users. I also agree with you that good quality articles being moved to another wiki won't help here much, which is why I'm all for checking through the articles before they get moved.

      I should mention that I see an alternative to deleting all articles that don't get marked for keeping. This alternative is having everyone look through all of the articles, marking them, and then removing the ones that get marked as low-quality articles (or deleting the low-quality ones if they actually defy standards). However, I'm not sure which way makes more sense, or if there's a third way that I haven't seen that makes more sense than either way that I mentioned.

        Loading editor
    • Wikikinetic wrote: I certainly don't want any unkindness, though I'm not exactly sure what part of this proposal would potentially involve being unkind to other users. I also agree with you that good quality articles being moved to another wiki won't help here much, which is why I'm all for checking through the articles before they get moved.

      I should mention that I see an alternative to deleting all articles that don't get marked for keeping. This alternative is having everyone look through all of the articles, marking them, and then removing the ones that get marked as low-quality articles (or deleting the low-quality ones if they actually defy standards). However, I'm not sure which way makes more sense, or if there's a third way that I haven't seen that makes more sense than either way that I mentioned.

      You obviously haven't been around long enough to know how the previous attempts at cleaning up have gone. Just marking pages doesn't work. For every page we check and delete, two more garbage pages are created. The staff were never able to keep up, and with the lower number of them being active lately it's impossible.

        Loading editor
    • WaterKirby1994 wrote: Still doesn't change the fact that they are gone because users were unkind to them on part of this wiki. Also good quality articles moved to another wiki, won't help here much.

      Tell me something. Who actually just reads the random articles that are sitting in this wiki? Nobody comes here to read OTHER PEOPLE's work. Why do we keep it when they've already abandoned it?

        Loading editor
    • Hi, Gamedezyner! In response to your posts:

      Yes, I haven't been around very long. On my user page, it says that I only joined 3 days ago. I did not know about the previous cleanup attempts. I'm not quite sure how your comment applies to what I said, though.

      Also, I actually do come here to read other people's work. That's a large part of what interested me in this wiki: what other people wrote. Then there was also the potential to involve myself in it and post stuff of my own, but I do read other people's stuff regularly.

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner, you just defeated your own reasoning. I read work of a couple of users that I'm friends with or random stuff I find enjoyable. We could have a character rating system, although it probably wouldn't work because of how much negativity this may bring up. I don't want a hatefest, maybe we could comment on the pages we like & feel should stay that are not our own? A certain number of likes & it can become immune to purging, does that sound good?

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote:

      WaterKirby1994 wrote: Still doesn't change the fact that they are gone because users were unkind to them on part of this wiki. Also good quality articles moved to another wiki, won't help here much.

      Tell me something. Who actually just reads the random articles that are sitting in this wiki? Nobody comes here to read OTHER PEOPLE's work. Why do we keep it when they've already abandoned it?

      I have to agree with this. Given the common mindset that 95% of fan fiction is total trash, people generally don't bother reading stuff on this site unless it's theirs. I'm guilty of having this mindset too honestly. I usually don't read fan fiction unless someone recommended it to me or wanted me to read and review it, and that doesn't even happen that often.

        Loading editor
    • Edd Shwartz wrote:

      Gamedezyner wrote:

      WaterKirby1994 wrote: Still doesn't change the fact that they are gone because users were unkind to them on part of this wiki. Also good quality articles moved to another wiki, won't help here much.

      Tell me something. Who actually just reads the random articles that are sitting in this wiki? Nobody comes here to read OTHER PEOPLE's work. Why do we keep it when they've already abandoned it?

      I have to agree with this. Given the common mindset that 95% of fan fiction is total trash, people generally don't bother reading stuff on this site unless it's theirs. I'm guilty of having this mindset too honestly. I usually don't read fan fiction unless someone recommended it to me or wanted me to read and review it, and that doesn't even happen that often.

      This is the thing... It's safe to say that over 90% of all traffic on this site is either contributors or trolls. Nobody comes to SFW to read random articles unless they're playing the 'Your name the hedgehog' game.

      If you do happen to be part of the small percentage who actually read other people's work, then you can be a hero and mark it as still wanted.

      In order to move forward and improve the overall quality of the wiki contents, this is something that needs to be done. We will never accomplish anything by trying to repair broken articles and delete things one by one.

        Loading editor
    • This is your friendly reminder that you might want to set the bot to NOT mark canon pages such as this one. (I really should do something about that unfinished page.)

      Also, what about pages in one's user space, such as this page? Will they be archived or simply left alone?

        Loading editor
    • Userspace has always been protected space on the wiki. The bot would ignore userspace pages.

      A rule of thumb though, mainspace pages should never link to pages within the userspace (except actual userpages obviously).

        Loading editor
    • Also I honestly think we should rework all the canon pages. That's my opinion though. From a technical standpoint, I can tell it not to mark pages within the canon category, but bots can't read a page and determine it's a canon page otherwise.

        Loading editor
    • Don't fursexuals also browse this site for attractive characters as well? Would be interesting if someday I learned someone actually drew 1 of my characters as their waifu. My guess about 80% of those who read articles they didn't create on here are merely collaborators for shared universes, or doing roleplays. Then most of the other 20% are probably either trying to satisfy their perverse curiousity or playing games like see if you can finish reading random articles on here.

        Loading editor
    • L-lewd!

        Loading editor
    • Then there are those people like me who read other people's stuff because they find some of it really interesting. I wonder how much of a percentage people like me are...?

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote:

      A rule of thumb though, mainspace pages should never link to pages within the userspace (except actual userpages obviously).

      Did I screw up and link to Userspace here? It's been a while since I looked over my pages (well, those that haven't been moved to Userspace anyway).

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't know, I haven't been around.

        Loading editor
    • The fact that barely anyone has commented on this so far is really driving my point home about how this place is pretty abandoned.

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote: The fact that barely anyone has commented on this so far is really driving my point home about how this place is pretty abandoned.

      Well, there are only about 150 people here who could comment...further driving your point home.

        Loading editor
    • Just the way you said that about articles linking to userspace pages made me think I'd done something wrong.

      Where did you get the number 150, Wikikinetic?

        Loading editor
    • I got the number from the main page, where it says:

      Since June 7th, 2008, we've had a total of {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages and {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} users.

      As of when I initially posted this message (at about 6 AM UTC on August 2, 2017), that appeared as:

      Since June 7th, 2008, we've had a total of 9,924 pages and 151 users.

      That's where I got the number from.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think a week is enough, if some people have too many articles, maybe make it at least 2.

        Loading editor
    • I've been busy, but I'm back. So how do I mark my articles to keep?

        Loading editor
    • This is only a discussion so far

        Loading editor
    • Juely wrote: I don't think a week is enough, if some people have too many articles, maybe make it at least 2.

      Unless you have three hundred articles that all start with the letter A I don't think that's actually going to be a problem LOL

        Loading editor
    • Create an exempt template for people who don't want to wait. Then when it is all over, have the bot make a second pass and remove all the exempt templates. Or just do it during the first pass and just remove the template when it gets to it without removing the page itself.

        Loading editor
    • What exactly would the exempt template do?

        Loading editor
    • Akrivus wrote: Create an exempt template for people who don't want to wait. Then when it is all over, have the bot make a second pass and remove all the exempt templates. Or just do it during the first pass and just remove the template when it gets to it without removing the page itself.

      That gives people an unfair advantage, and it encourages people to start marking a ton of shit early. I don't like that idea honestly.

        Loading editor
    • I view it as a fair chance for people who might just be gone on vacation or something that week (or maybe their parents take away their phone or something). I think it would save you guys a bit of arguing over a page that was archived while a user was unable to access the internet. I know that seems unlikely, but it could happen. I also don't see the problem with people marking stuff early. Like you said, people don't come to read other people's pages most of the time, so they'd probably only mark their own stuff. I really think you need to elaborate on why "marking a ton of shit early" is a potential problem.

      Also, instead of an exempt template, maybe just make an edit to it. Like, change a comma, then undo the edit yourself. Then it won't be picked up by the bot since it's based on how long it's been since the last edit.

        Loading editor
    • Edd Shwartz wrote:
      I view it as a fair chance for people who might just be gone on vacation or something that week (or maybe their parents take away their phone or something). I think it would save you guys a bit of arguing over a page that was archived while a user was unable to access the internet. I know that seems unlikely, but it could happen. I also don't see the problem with people marking stuff early. Like you said, people don't come to read other people's pages most of the time, so they'd probably only mark their own stuff. I really think you need to elaborate on why "marking a ton of shit early" is a potential problem.

      Also, instead of an exempt template, maybe just make an edit to it. Like, change a comma, then undo the edit yourself. Then it won't be picked up by the bot since it's based on how long it's been since the last edit.

      I don't like having to edit a page twice or go through revision histories, effectively pressing at least 5 buttons at a time, to finish a task that could easily take at least 2 button presses. Also, I don't see how it is an unfair advantage, this is effectively web maintenence, not a racing game, it serves as an insurance policy for those who will be missing during the purge, and as far as marking a ton of shit early goes, that shit is going to get marked later, so, may as well do it sooner.

        Loading editor
    • It's rather obvious that adding the template for every page and then removing it when everything's done will be much harder than just adding a comma to the page and then editing again to remove it. Of course, now that I think about it, I believe it's possible to edit a page without changing any of the content, though I haven't tried in a while.

        Loading editor
    • Edd Shwartz wrote:
      It's rather obvious that adding the template for every page and then removing it when everything's done will be much harder than just adding a comma to the page and then editing again to remove it. Of course, now that I think about it, I believe it's possible to edit a page without changing any of the content, though I haven't tried in a while.

      Did you not read my main post saying the bot would remove it? I get that people assume that computers are magical and don't have any measurable science to them, but finding a pattern and replacing it with blank characters is something I learned how to use in code when I was 11 years old. Also, adding a template is as easy as copy and pasting a string onto a page.

      Copy, go to page, press edit, paste, press submit, repeat last four steps however many times you want. It's that simple.

        Loading editor
    • Well, then, you'll obviously have no probelm with five clicks. Don't tell me one extra click is freaking impossible for you.

        Loading editor
    • It's great I decided to come check this. I respect your idea, but how am I supposed to protect my all 40 article before they get swiped? I need more time than week unless I get power to right away go and protect my pages. Of course what does it matter? I am DA user nowadays and most of the bios here are outdated

        Loading editor
    • I'm just so freaking confused right now. So, you want to basically archive dead pages to another wiki, giving the user 6 months to mark things they want. I think someone else mentioned this though confirmed users may still read pages/articles that weren't edited for say over a year or whatever, and I'm pretty sure people who don't even have an account probably read character pages, old and new for creative imagination (I think WaterKirby explained this better) and whatever since that is most likely the thing that grabbed the attention of nearly all users here right now to join in the first place. I do see why you wanna do this but it's not like no one reads old pages.

        Loading editor
    • Williamcost wrote:
      I'm just so freaking confused right now. So, you want to basically archive dead pages to another wiki, giving the user 6 months to mark things they want. I think someone else mentioned this though confirmed users may still read pages/articles that weren't edited for say over a year or whatever, and I'm pretty sure people who don't even have an account probably read character pages, old and new for creative imagination (I think WaterKirby explained this better) and whatever since that is most likely the thing that grabbed the attention of nearly all users here right now to join in the first place. I do see why you wanna do this but it's not like no one reads old pages.

      I can tell you didn't read the post carefully. Users have a week to say "This article is mine" or "This article is good quality." It's also not done all at once. There will be 1000 done at a time, and I assume we mean in alphebetical order. Therefore, the community goes through the 1000 claiming the pages they want kept on the wiki, and those that aren't claimed are archived.

      Megaphantaze, unless they all start with the letter A, it won't be all at once. See above.

      EDIT: Also, people probably only find this wiki because they looked up a fan fiction/character they liked (whether it be a popular one, their friend's, or just one they follow on another site) and found this in the Google search results. That's true, but generally, I doubt many people come here and look over multiple articles as time goes by.

      EDIT 2: Of course, this is partially moot. If the article's really that good or means that much to someone, someone will say "keep it" and the page won't be archived.

        Loading editor
    • Edd Shwartz wrote:
      Williamcost wrote:
      I'm just so freaking confused right now. So, you want to basically archive dead pages to another wiki, giving the user 6 months to mark things they want. I think someone else mentioned this though confirmed users may still read pages/articles that weren't edited for say over a year or whatever, and I'm pretty sure people who don't even have an account probably read character pages, old and new for creative imagination (I think WaterKirby explained this better) and whatever since that is most likely the thing that grabbed the attention of nearly all users here right now to join in the first place. I do see why you wanna do this but it's not like no one reads old pages.
      I can tell you didn't read the post carefully. Users have a week to say "This article is mine" or "This article is good quality." It's also not done all at once. There will be 1000 done at a time, and I assume we mean in alphebetical order. Therefore, the community goes through the 1000 claiming the pages they want kept on the wiki, and those that aren't claimed are archived.

      Megaphantaze, unless they all start with the letter A, it won't be all at once. See above.

      Do not worry, like i said, the articles are outdated and I already have updated ones elsewhere

        Loading editor
    • Edd Shwartz wrote:
      Well, then, you'll obviously have no probelm with five clicks. Don't tell me one extra click is freaking impossible for you.

      Why are you taking such offense to this? Jesus, now I remember why I left this place.

        Loading editor
    • Edd Shwartz wrote:
      Williamcost wrote:
      I'm just so freaking confused right now. So, you want to basically archive dead pages to another wiki, giving the user 6 months to mark things they want. I think someone else mentioned this though confirmed users may still read pages/articles that weren't edited for say over a year or whatever, and I'm pretty sure people who don't even have an account probably read character pages, old and new for creative imagination (I think WaterKirby explained this better) and whatever since that is most likely the thing that grabbed the attention of nearly all users here right now to join in the first place. I do see why you wanna do this but it's not like no one reads old pages.
      I can tell you didn't read the post carefully. Users have a week to say "This article is mine" or "This article is good quality." It's also not done all at once. There will be 1000 done at a time, and I assume we mean in alphebetical order. Therefore, the community goes through the 1000 claiming the pages they want kept on the wiki, and those that aren't claimed are archived.

      Megaphantaze, unless they all start with the letter A, it won't be all at once. See above.

      EDIT: Also, people probably only find this wiki because they looked up a fan fiction/character they liked (whether it be a popular one, their friend's, or just one they follow on another site) and found this in the Google search results. That's true, but generally, I doubt many people come here and look over multiple articles as time goes by.

      EDIT 2: Of course, this is partially moot. If the article's really that good or means that much to someone, someone will say "keep it" and the page won't be archived.

      Yes I know that. But, I think you should basically take in mind other users who read that sort of content as inspiration or whatever, unless the page is ultimately dead and no one read it. So say a page has decent content on it though it's still quite old, people most likely still read it today. Even though this wiki is slowly dying, new users appear every 2 weeks and most of them come here to make fan fiction characters, since they saw fan characters before they even came to the site so they took inspiration from that they wanted to do that, so taking that away from what I guarantee many people is kinda harsh since guaranteed there's at least one old article that you and many others here like. So yes I do get that you'll be sending it off to a redirect wiki where it's still readable and such and edit protected and all that, yes I get that, though I don't think at least I personally don't think loads of people are gonna go to that wiki just to find a dead page they still like since it's kinda pointless. 

      This is probably a subjective matter which could be why this is even happening in the first place, and my opinion probably won't matter though keep in mind in some shape or another the people who still read old pages attract new users.

        Loading editor
    • Akrivus wrote:
      Edd Shwartz wrote:
      Well, then, you'll obviously have no probelm with five clicks. Don't tell me one extra click is freaking impossible for you.
      Why are you taking such offense to this? Jesus, now I remember why I left this place.

      I'm sorry for getting snappy, but you were being unrealistic. It wouldn't have been that much work.

        Loading editor
    • Edd Shwartz wrote:

      Akrivus wrote:
      Edd Shwartz wrote:
      Well, then, you'll obviously have no probelm with five clicks. Don't tell me one extra click is freaking impossible for you.
      Why are you taking such offense to this? Jesus, now I remember why I left this place.

      I'm sorry for getting snappy, but you were being unrealistic. It wouldn't have been that much work.

      You get very easily threatened by things you don't understand, and I get that, either way, I don't see this passing through with all the negative feedback it has gotten.

        Loading editor
    • You don't seem to understand. I wasn't threatened. I just felt you were being unreasonable.

      You are right in that this won't pass. There are just too many objections, though I don't agree with most of them.

        Loading editor
    • So does anyone have an actual objection for themselves? Or is everyone just afraid it's going to hurt someone's feelings? I'm tired of this place shooting down progress because they're too afraid to delete an article.

      PAGES CAN BE UNDELETED

      WHO THE FUCK CARES IF IT GETS DELETED WHEN IT HASN'T BEEN TOUCHED IN AGES ANYWAY?

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote:
      So does anyone have an actual objection for themselves? Or is everyone just afraid it's going to hurt someone's feelings? I'm tired of this place shooting down progress because they're too afraid to delete an article.

      PAGES CAN BE UNDELETED

      WHO THE FUCK CARES IF IT GETS DELETED WHEN IT HASN'T BEEN TOUCHED IN AGES ANYWAY?

      Calm down, okay? If people have real objections they can take it up with you or any of the admins. Jiminy Crickets...

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote:
      So does anyone have an actual objection for themselves? Or is everyone just afraid it's going to hurt someone's feelings? I'm tired of this place shooting down progress because they're too afraid to delete an article.

      PAGES CAN BE UNDELETED

      WHO THE FUCK CARES IF IT GETS DELETED WHEN IT HASN'T BEEN TOUCHED IN AGES ANYWAY?

      At least for what I'm trying to say is that people look At old pages which attracts users to the site in the first place. Deleting them would confuse newer people firstly, and in my opinion be kinda pointless at least to them. And chill out lol.

      @Reens: Jimmy Crickets???

        Loading editor
    • @Williamcost: Jiminy Crickets. Another saying for good grief or gee whiz.

        Loading editor
    • Take a look at this. Let's take a look where our page views are coming from together.

      When the numbers get down to double digits you'll notice how close they all are. This is consistent with search engine spiders, so the numbers at that point are pretty unreliable.

      Let's focus specifically on pages with triple digits for views for simplicity sake. How many of those pages haven't been edited in 6 months or more?

        Loading editor
    • Just throwing this out there, but leaving pages that haven't been edited in six months could also have the opposite effect: The first page a new visitor finds on the wiki could be so bad in their eyes that it would cause this person to deem the wiki stupid and leave forever without so much as a second thought.

        Loading editor
    • How do you mark pages

        Loading editor
    • Edd Shwartz wrote:
      Just throwing this out there, but leaving pages that haven't been edited in six months could also have the opposite effect: The first page a new visitor finds on the wiki could be so bad in their eyes that it would cause this person to deem the wiki stupid and leave forever without so much as a second thought.

      That's also quite a valid point. Unless you are talking about what I said, I didn't say I disagree fully with the idea though to take consideration that some old pages with decent content are obviously the pages to bring people to the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • i like idea of celebrating dead people who died for wiki but why delete articles over 600 years old i do not believe has been around for 600 years

      sorry for english i am russia i use translate

        Loading editor
    • Your English is fine. I understand that a lot of the meaning of this discussion probably got skewed during translation from English to Russian, so I'm going to try to help resolve your problems by rephrasing what's going on. If this is unclear, let me know and I will rephrase it again.

      I don't think that it's supposed to be about celebrating dead people or deleting 600-year-old articles. I think it's supposed to be about archiving 6-month-old (or older) articles.

      By the way, you are quite right that the wiki has not been around for 600 years; the Sonic Fanon Wiki has been around since June 7th, 2008, which means that it has been around for a little over 9 years. The early Internet wasn't even around until the 1960s, so this actually couldn't have been around for 600 years. (For more information on the history of the Internet, see this article.)

      If you have any questions, please let me know. And like I said, I can try to rephrase this again if you want.

        Loading editor
    • His English is objectively bad. It's super clear he has no idea what's going on. I could understand if he actually spoke SOME English, but he clearly doesn't. How does six weeks get translated into 600 years? The language barrier is far, far too strong for him to remain active on the wiki. Sorry, but somebody had to say it.

        Loading editor
    • I think it's Google Translate, not his translation skills...

      Is there any way we can keep someone who has that much trouble translating? If possible, I don't want to lose another potentially useful user, considering what a hard time this wiki has keeping users.

        Loading editor
    • Wikikinetic wrote:
      I think it's Google Translate, not his translation skills...

      Is there any way we can keep someone who has that much trouble translating? If possible, I don't want to lose another potentially useful user, considering what a hard time this wiki has keeping users.

      If he uses Google Translate this religiously, he has no understanding of the English language. I can use Google translate too, but that doesn't mean I know anything about French. 

      He isn't going to be a "useful user" if the language barrier is this strong. The wiki policy surely says something about needing some level of knowledge about grammar.

        Loading editor
    • I just checked, and like you said, the wiki policy does say something about this. The Article Standards say:

      All content must maintain proper usage of English and grammar, regardless of the owner's first language.

      I guess that means that this user can't really help here...Too bad, really, because I would like to see this go somewhere. It is somewhat original, I think...

        Loading editor
    • Wikikinetic wrote:
      I just checked, and like you said, the wiki policy does say something about this. The Article Standards say::All content must maintain proper usage of English and grammar, regardless of the owner's first language.I guess that means that this user can't really help here...Too bad, really, because I would like to see this go somewhere. It is somewhat original, I think...

      This is a little original, but I've seen the money manipulation done in an anime called BoBoBo-Bo~Bo-BoBo. Look up "Bobobo Halekulani"

        Loading editor
    • OK, I did that. Its entry on Wikipedia is here. This entry gives me a general impression of the character's powers (though it really needs to be rewritten).

      Anyway, thanks for pointing me to this! I thought that these powers had probably been used somewhere, but wasn't quite sure where.

        Loading editor
    • people please i am very sorry for my bad english and i do not mean to derail the conversation with my bad english and bad character. i am still learning

        Loading editor
    • The conversation had kind of ground to a halt before you showed up, so you're not derailing it. I think that most of the reason why the conversation has changed to be about you is because I over-explained when I tried to respond to you, which accidentally made you the focus of the discussion. I apologize if that was actually what happened.

        Loading editor
    • it is ok, thank you

        Loading editor
    • I'm gonna poke this thread with a stick here and see what happens.

      Still want to work out some kind of wiki purge.

        Loading editor
    • wiki purge like a roleplay where we kill each other? because i'm up for that

        Loading editor
    • i think a wiki purge where when you kill characters they get deleted is cool

        Loading editor
    • support

        Loading editor
    • Dude, this happened months ago.

        Loading editor
    • we should still do it though i am in support wiki purge wiki purge kill all the characters and delete their pages only the winners keep their pages winners yes WINNING

        Loading editor
    • I don't think anyone has any spare time to devote for a "wiki purge" anymore.

        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.