Forum:Feedback for wiki improvement

Hi all! I just want to gather feedback to better understand the wiki's progression and how it's been treating everyone so far. Just answer the questionnaire and put your answer down using bullet points (that's using the asterisk button in case you didn't know or have forgotten how to). To clear things up, the first bullet point is (A), second is (B), third is (C) and fourth is (D).

Oh, I'll add more questions soon. For now, I'll just limit them to seven. Cheers! — subtank   08:45, 25 January 2014 (EST)

The Questionnaire

 * 1) How long have you been visiting the wiki on a casual basis?
 * 2) *Since 2005.
 * 3) *Since 2007.
 * 4) *Since 2010.
 * 5) *Since 2012.
 * 6) What do you think of the wiki's presentation/looks in general?
 * 7) *Looks awesome!
 * 8) *Looks okay.
 * 9) *Needs to be updated...
 * 10) *Others (please state in one sentence... keep it short)
 * 11) Generally, in terms of quality, the articles in this wiki is...
 * 12) *Accurate for the most part, up-to-date.
 * 13) *Not up-to-date. Lacking new content.
 * 14) *Needs more improvement as there are tons of glaring inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
 * 15) *Others (please state in one sentence... keep it short)
 * 16) What do you think of the administration of this wiki?
 * 17) *Doing a good job thus far. Can I be sysop now?
 * 18) *Doing a bad job. Don't block me for putting this!
 * 19) *Needs more administrators. Nominate me!
 * 20) *Less is more.
 * 21) What do you think of the wiki in terms of accessibility (i.e. pageload, mobile view)?
 * 22) *It's very accessible. No issues from me so far.
 * 23) *Bearable. The wiki needs more improvement in this front.
 * 24) *Very bad. I can't access it at times.
 * 25) *Others (please state in one sentence... keep it short)
 * 26) What do you think of the templates used in this wiki (in case you don't know what a template is, click me)?
 * 27) *It looks up-to-date, is very accessible and instruction on using 'em in articles is easy to understand.
 * 28) *I get confused at times with the how-to instructions.
 * 29) *More can be done with the design.
 * 30) *Others (please state in one sentence... keep it short)
 * 31) Lastly, in terms of community-related features (i.e. forums, QA, IRC), what do you think could be improved on?
 * 32) *A short paragraph at most. Don't do an essay... :)

Comments
Oh, a proper questionnaire will be created soon. — subtank   08:53, 25 January 2014 (EST)

1. C 2. A 3. D - I'd say as far as canon content goes, it is pretty up to date and accurate. As far as multiplayer content goes, that's not really up to date. 4. Both A and C. -I'd say we're doing a pretty good job, but having only eight admins at the moment seems a little low. 5. A 6. A 7. I'd say IRC use (I'm partly to blame, I hardly go on the channel) could be improved upon, like promoting it more as a means of conversing it between members. Well, that about sums it up for me.-- 11:45, 25 January 2014 (EST)

1. C 2. C - I like the wiki's design format, but we could start experimenting with a darker and more advanced look. Bright blue with white backgrounds gets a little tiring after a while. 3. A - For the most part I feel this wiki is good about updating its pages. What's more needed is probably trimming and unifying to make sure major articles don't get left with gigantic dumps of information that might not all be necessary. 4. A - I'm happy with our other administrators. It's clear they're putting in plenty of work and not merely sitting on their throne to let the plebians add all the info. 5. A - Very accessible. Though I recommended updating the look above, I recognize that this bright look also helps keep the wiki to look easy to access and easy to read. 6. A 7. I think the forums could use some help in separating topics better. There's a good bit of overlap, so perhaps either moving their links or making it clearer what goes where should be in order. My thoughts. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 22:18, 25 January 2014 (EST)


 * Just wondering what you meant by "advanced look"? I can think of a few examples, especially this wiki's design. — subtank   09:46, 26 January 2014 (EST)

Probably something like Halo Fanon's look, with its backgrounds of the galaxy and starry sky. Or maybe akin to the look we had when Halo: Reach came out. Trying to find a picture of it. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (EST)

1. C (well, '09, but... yeah.) 2. A - I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm amazed every time I see it, but it does its job and I don't see any reason to make it any "darker" or any of those gimmicky fads. Wikipedia does well with its minimalist interface and so do we. 3. B - I almost picked A, but then again it's hard to ignore all the out-of-date pages we still have. One issue that comes to mind is how every time new stuff comes out people tend to rush to updating appearance lists or making new pages about tertiary characters, when the main effort should be focused on coming up with a decent plot synopsis and updating pages about more primary/important topics (can't say I'm entirely blameless myself). Hell, we still don't have summaries for the first issues of Escalation. I wish we had better ways to point editors to pages in need of attention; the "marked article" templates seem to have next to no effect. I've entertained the idea of a monthly/weekly "articles for improvement" project which would highlight a batch of pages in need of work, but then again I'm not sure if that would do the job. 4. A 5. A - A lot better on mobile than Wikia sites, for one. 6. A 7. Mostly no complaints about anything, though there have been times when the ability to edit your own user board comments would've come useful.--Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 10:30, 26 January 2014 (EST)


 * Actually, something can be done about these "out-of-date" pages. A notice would be added to the main page as well as in the community portal. These pages would be rotated randomly. I'll think of something to make sure more can be done on this end. — subtank   19:36, 26 January 2014 (EST)


 * That sounds like a good idea. Pages in the "Needs Updating" category could be placed in some kind of rolling banner to alert editors on what needs work. So that they're not merely found by a few people who feel like sinking hours into a page, but can be collectively repaired. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (EST)


 * 1) A - Well, since 2004.
 * 2) C - I think it looks nice, but it's been this way for a while and has gotten to look stale. Studies have found productivity goes up when walls are painted different colors every so often, and the same holds true here.
 * 3) A - For the most part... There are still some older, not often trafficked articles that have issues.
 * 4) A - Well enough.
 * 5) D - I don't have a smartphone, so I can't say.
 * 6) A - The good parts of Wikipedia templates have successfully been incorporated.
 * 7) I don't know. The only thing I can think of is that the wiki-based forums have always been a bit odd to get used to. Something more like the old Wikia blog commenting system with YouTube-style threading would be an improvement--but understandably incredibly hard to code up. --Dragonc laws (talk ) 16:28, 1 February 2014 (EST)


 * Regarding the wiki's look, there is a short-term, individual remedy for that via Special:Preferences. I suppose we could consider adding more skins to give users more choices. To mangle Ford, ''"you can have any colour as long as it's white". — subtank   15:09, 5 February 2014 (EST)

1. C 2. A 3. A 4. A 5. A 6. B 7. No comment. --LinkFox101113 12:49, 7 February 2014 (EST)

1. B 2. A - its very nice, I much prefer the Wikipedia-style layout over the Wikia layout. 3. B - while the majority of the articles on the wiki are fine, there are quite a few, mainly older, articles that may need updating as mentioned previously. 4. A 5. A - quite accessible 6. A - no complaints whatsoever. 7. I agree with Dragonclaws' idea about implenting something similar to Wikia's blog system for the forums, but I understand that it would be a right PITA to something like that get up and running. –  Nohomers48 (talk • contribs • wiki) ''' 21:58, 17 February 2014 (EST)