Forum:This is a forum post

Quote #273 added on Thursday, 2009-02-05 21:11

[21:45:26] *** Prophet has joined #wowwiki [21:46:40]  anyone here? [21:48:48]  helo? [21:48:56] *** Prophet has left #wowwiki [21:50:29]  damn, we just missed Medivh [21:55:02] <@pcj> quick, to the caverns of time!

By the command of Lord g0urra of IRC, I commandeth thee to post in these forums. 22:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hail! 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hail Lord g0urra! DuTempete (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I'm awesome. -- 23:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Forum setup situation

 * Continued from Wowpedia talk:Village pump

Current situation: awaiting a CSS update to fix some of the spacing issues, and to introduce the "new post" icon. Forums and categories set up. Stickied threads can also be set up - but they require another set of categories (like "Category:WoWWiki general forum sticky"). Sound good? 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. -- 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stickied threads now supported: works by adding 'Category:[X] forum sticky' manually to a thread. I've done this with Forum:Welcome to the forums! as a general welcome message for all the forums. CSS is updated, refresh to see it. Proper launch around this time tomorrow sound good? 23:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- 23:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Some other notes:
 * Making it possible to archiving threads should be pretty easy to set up, but probably pointless at the moment as we won't have anything to archive for a while.
 * Deleting off-topic threads - should be no issues.
 * Moving threads to improve their names - should be no issues, though be aware of redirect names.
 * Thread names - everything is in the forum namespace, so thread names should be fairly specific, else we'll get conflicts. However, continuing an old thread, assuming it's not got too long or off-topic isn't a particularly bad thing.
 * Sections in threads - shouldn't be an issue, especially if it helps navigation. 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Live!
Okay, we are live! Big thanks to pcj and Gourra for helping set them up, thanks to Fandyllic for reminding me! 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sitenotices updated
 * Sidebar updated
 * Forum:Welcome to the forums! created to welcome people to the forums and give general information and guidelines about them. (Not intended as a discussion thread.)
 * Village pump and Warcraft pump introductions have been updated. They will warrant more overt notices and archiving at some point in the future - however, since there may be active discussions and important info on there, I caution restraint (and/or moving any active topics to the forums as has already been done with several of the topics).
 * Links and references to the village and warcraft pumps still need checking and changing around the wiki.


 * Edit: I've done a news post now, and have checked the main page portals. I'm sure there are many more links around the place though. 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A few days later
So, what do we think? I'm pretty happy with it so far. The non-WoWWiki forums seem to be going down pretty well - it probably helps that those are new, and without real precedent. However, transitioning from the Village pump does seem to be slower/harder as there's so much history there. Hopefully it shouldn't take too long to get used to, with more and more topics getting switched/updated on there. 18:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * More on Forum:Forums too forumy. Hmm... Do we need something  to make forum links less painful?   --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, added. -- 23:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the intent to convert all the Village/Warcraft Pump archives?-- 01:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, but it would be good to ensure any important and current topics get represented on the forum. 12:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That name is taken!
Tried it out just now, situation is just as I thought. These "forum threads" are wiki pages. Which means that you cannot have a new thread that shares a name with an old, archived thread. (Presumably, you'd SEE unarchived ones...)

While that's fine if what you're looking for is "am I actually continuing a discussion from before" (which would be aided if the "name collision" error page actually had a link to said existing page), may not be precisely what folks had in mind.

How about a "date of first post" disambiguation added to archived threads? Or even "date of last post before archiving".

Wish list: If you enter a topic name previously used -even if disambiguated as above- the collision page would show you all the disambiguated links as well. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed it's possible we could get overlap in forum names, but I think the easier option is just to ensure threads are named well, rather than create a date system for them. I think it will take quite some time for thread name overlap to even become noticeable - if two topics could get a really similar name, it's possible they shouldn't be two different topics in the first place. 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)