Forum:Forums too forumy

Forums: Village pump → Forums too forumy

We have Forum:Who is your favourite faction leader and why?, Forum:The next WoW expansion, Forum:Who is your favorite major villain (and why)?, and Forum:Warcraft Next?. I understand that these are for fun, but the Village Pump was usually editorial, and the Warcraft Pump was usually for questions about, and support for, WoW. Is this the direction that should be taken? What about the things Ragestorm was always spouting (In a professional way, of course)?--SWM24 48 21:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, originally we weren't a forum and reprimanded those making forum like discussions... but now we have a forum and I think that was the intended purpose for making the several categories for them, so it won't be just about editorial discussions.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the counter argument before was to find a page and start a discussion on the talk page, but that was always kind of a bad idea due to poor discoverability and discussion topics not really aligning well with existing pages. Perhaps what we really should do is add a "WoWWiki editorial" forum.

On a side note, I like how the forum structure makes topics self-contained so you don't have to scroll past a big section you have no interest in. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:36 PM PST 12 May 2009

Adding a "WoWWiki editorial" forum, seems pointless to me, as that should overlap with the current three "WoWWiki" forums. I actually feel the opposite about the forum structure, as you have to click on each one to see which ones you have an interest in, not just glance at them, but that is minimal extra work. My point above was one of fear that the forums were launched as a 'blog' or 'general forum' in role, in the stead of a more advanced and organized 'Pump' (For lack of better terms).--SWM24 48 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The forums are too forumy? Isn't that like saying this water is too wet? I think this is better than worrying that something you say on a talk page will get you "this is not a forum" replies. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be like saying water is too watery, really. My intent was to say that the forums were portrayed as geared toward general discussion (Like most forums) when launched. I disagree with that. Rolandius, a good tip on how to avoid those replies is to think if your discussion or comment will directly effect, or lead to a consensus that effects, the content of the article.--SWM24 48 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I was getting those replies. I am talking about in general I see a lot of users on talk pages falling into "this is not a forum" type of questions and I think half of them at least didn't mean to. Now they don't have to worry about that with forums added. But with this topic you created, it sounds like you want the forums to follow the talk pages' rule of "this is not a forum"? I am not sure if I got that right. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I love the new forums, I feel so much more comfortable contributing my opinion to the community now, which I never would before, for fear of suffering the fates of other amature posters on the talk pages... Thanks Wowwiki! Max Krist (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The advice about where to post topics, which hasn't changed, is that the forums are for anything too general for specific talk pages. The intention of the forums is not to try and compete with other forums (like the official forums and the various other fansite forums), but since the topics covered - WoW, Warcraft games and lore - are very strongly connected to what we do, it makes sense to have a community area to discuss them. Lore especially gets short shrift on other sites :(

Edit: a note about the Warcraft pump - yes, it mainly leaned towards WoW questions. However, that was never intended. I think general lore discussion topics didn't fit well into a single page view because they can go all sorts of different directions, and feel much more personal (to me, anyway). Kirkburn talk contr 14:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius had it close, but I did not quite mean that rule (Well I did, but saying it that way makes little sense). So the forums were created for general lore discussion? Like an unpoor man's WoW Insider? /shrug Ok...--SWM24 48 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the forums were created because the Village/Warcraft pumps were overwhelmed and hard to maintain. Users want to discuss lore, as it's a huge part of what this website does (better than anywhere else). Kirkburn talk contr 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok.--SWM24 48 00:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Expansion on "Ok": I wanted to understand what is going on. I do not want to be insubordinate or unruly. So, the forums were not created for general lore discussion, but they were partly created for community discussions about lore, and for any discussion not fitting on a specific talk page? The maintenance issues account for why they were created, but my question was (attempting to be) about their direction. If the users of the WoWWiki community want to discuss lore, then so be it. I accept that. It is a community driven knowledge base. /me stops being a stick in the mud.--SWM24 48 20:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

or not 'forumy' enough?

... Just to provide an injection of "it's still a wiki format" to the discussion, my first impression was that the "threads" weren't very much like a message based forum at all. The greatest advantage to this IMO is that it is much easier to track which topics are still getting talked about; and that you don't have quite as much worry about when to archive a section (=thread). The greatest disadvantage, though, is that it is much easier for me to miss (or ignore) threads that I should be interested in, because the title was poorly chosen, or because the discussion veered onto the topic I would comment on. Perhaps an autogenerated page showing "topic" "first paragraph" for each thread would be of use? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I expressed similar concerns with the lack of browsability above. Fandyllic seems to like the way it is now.--SWM24 48 01:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving topics to better names is entirely feasible. I'm not sure it's possible to get the first paragraph of a forum topic to show, but if a forum moves onto a new topic, feel free to it to a new thread (or create a new thread and link them together). Kirkburn talk contr 12:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some means of scavenging the "text before the first section"? ...Accompanied by the change "first post is followed by a section header". Or simply set the standard that the actual post is below the section header, and before the header is the synopsis. A little more work for people starting threads, but you've already got SOME default text for a forum page, why not a default overview?

Perhaps better than coercing the first post into a particular form... You've already got one template at the top of the page. That, or a following template could be used for the 'subject overview'. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we have a forums. It's somewhere to express opinion and it doesn't bother anyone. You're not forced to come. Hehe. Vraul Jawrip (talk · contr) () 02:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)