Forum:New features

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New features

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6361 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Update: for performance reasons, the attribution feature has been removed until it is working better. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikia have added three new features to Uncyclopedia today.

• You can now embed YouTube videos on any page, simply by using <youtube>id</youtube>. Now you can add irrelevant and totally annoying flash videos to any page! Remember guys, the code for the fish heads song is zLd6itv1Vmk. For more see Wikia:Help:YouTube
• All pages will now show a list of contributors in the page footer. You can remove inappropriate or vandal names, or the name of the main contributor, or just Mhallie's name, he gets too much credit for articles anyway. See Wikia:Help:Attribution
• And all pages will also have a quick link for adding to digg and del.icio.us. A great way of promoting the best pages on Uncyclopedia. Because you just know that the world needs to know more about kitten huffing. See Wikia:Help:Footer links for more.

Please let us know here of any issues or problems, and remember - it's all Splarka's fault -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That footer credit thing is a trip.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube? Hurrah! Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 15:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube? Utter tripe. Whose "brilliant" idea was it to allow adding Flash videos to wikipages anyway? - User:Guest/sig 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly can't see anything useful in putting Youtube vids on Uncyc pages. I could see flash, maybe, in a small few instances, provided the flash is from uncyc contributors. Like Template:Ad could mock all those "game" ad things. But Youtube? Why? --User:Nintendorulez 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The list of contributors in the page footer is ridiculous, and the more popular the page the more stupid the result. I wish it would go back to listing the number of views like it used to once upon a time. ~ Major Sir Todd Lyons GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC 19:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the number of views would be nice; the list of contributors gets really long on stuff like VFH. --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 19:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

number of views has problems because of caching - note that Wikipedia had to take it off a long time ago too. I don't know the technical details, but from what I've been told it's not usable once a wiki grows significantly and has to use memcached. Ask a MediaWiki dev for the clearer answer on why not (mind out for stabbings) -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The two main suggestions I've seen today (this has been enabled across Wikia) are for an easier way to remove a user name from all pages, and a maximum on the numbers of names displayed.

The question on the first is who should be automatically excluded? Blocked users? Users without a user page? (user pages could be deleted for those who should be removed). Or maybe just ignore any edit that is reverted? I suspect we would also keep the current method that allows individual name removal.

On the second, how do we choose which names should be included? The last X to edit? The X with the largest contribution? The first to edit + the last X?

Any thoughts on these, or other suggestions, requests and complaints are welcome :) -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you can find the article's author or, better said, main author by tracking the user with more edits. You can show the creator as well and just the three most active editors, by the same criterion you used to found the main author. herr doktor needsAshuttle  [scream!] 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Exclude those w/o userpage AND blocked users, but also those whose edits were reverted via an admin auto-revert. Put the user with the most/biggest edits first, solve ties in order from first edit to last edit.--<<>> 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

How about just having "Last modified by Anonymous [show all contributors]" where the "show all contributors" is a link that functions the same as the show/hide link on the TOC? Much easier, always takes up hardly any space, and only people who want to see the list can see it.

Not that it bothers me though, I don't see it anyway. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:01, 24 Nov 2006

So when can we expect the new <choose> to be installed? --Algorithm 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's scheduled for next week... subject to disclaminers, batteries not included, servers exploding may delay implementation, ect. ect. ect. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Like the new features?

• Eh, I don't really understand what some features do, like the footer thingy that was complained about, although the youtube feauture I comprehended, and added to the PS3 article.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 03:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See http://wikitravel.org as an example of the footers.

Hoya Crappola! Look at all those names!--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The only useful one is embedded Youtube which will be great for UnNews. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 05:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the YouTube extension, and I think we should limit its use to Uncyc-original content (at least on article pages). It could be a good tool, but we don't want to run the possibility of becoming a video dump...and the most efficient way to prevent this from happening is just a blanket ban on non-Uncyc videos and vigilance in removing such content. If that's not feasible, I don't think we should keep the extension at all. As for the other two features, eh, I don't have strong feelings either way. —rc (t) 07:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(staff hat off) I think there are other places where short clips might be good, I can't think of any right now... but if animated gifs work to add to an article sometimes, then why not a longer video clip. But I think we should be pretty harsh about them really improving the article and not just being someone else's funny clip. Unnews is certainly going to be the first place that this will be truely useful -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

With RC on this one. I think the video option can be a definite plus, but we need to make sure that people don't just gratuitously add a link to their stupid video (in much the same way as they add a link to their stupid website, or a stupid picture etc.). Maybe HTBFANJS needs a minor update to reflect policy on these new features. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I do like them. But, as RC and Codeine suggest, YouTube makes our attempts to control the ***FREE PR0N & BOOBIES!!!!**** entries more difficult. Not that we should get rid of them. But I fear an upsurge in exhibitionism.--Procopius 14:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Luckily for us, YouTube doesn't allow any nudity, or even any obscenity in their videos. So we should be AOK on that front. I also agree with only allowing original uncyc content, like Composure1's videos. However, I think a few exceptions could be made, The assassination of JFK for example, if it would be beneficial to the article, it might me good to at least give it a try.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Uncyc vids could be useful in a select few examples, but an extension for YouTube would just lead to trouble. Why not just an extension to upload vids alongside images, audio, etc? That way there's less potential for abuse. I mean, why would we put all Uncyc-based vids on Youtube? It just seems a bit foolish to me. --User:Nintendorulez 17:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We'd need our own player, which would be alot of work, but I'm sure it already being looked into.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The YouTube extension was requested by the CABAL for reasons known to the CABAL. All will become apparent when the CABAL stops being really really lazy. There IS No CABAL. Goodnight. ----Rev. Isra (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You Know

Havent we been here before? It would be nice if these sorts of things were first brought up in the form of "Hey guys, we at Wikia are floating around these ideas and want to see what you think about them." While you seem to be really good at the "good news!" followed by the informing us of whats already been decided technique, and have even added some unique flair to it by having "one of our own" deliver the message, it really isnt a cool way to do things to our site. Or atleast thats what you claimed it was back when you bought us out - and made nice promises that you wouldnt take us in a direction we didnt want and would never again pull something on us without us knowing. And others said it too, Wikia wont do anything bad because it would cause us to leave and they dont want that. But the reality is that there is a divergence of interests that now exists, I said it back then and it stands just as true today. This is again why it was a mistake, yes even a boldfaced one, to sell this site to wikia and surrender our autonomy as a project, and as a community. What we see today is an example of them both doing something in their interests, and them not coming to us to begin with - because the fact is they dont have to. Youtube embed? Why would we want Youtube? We wouldnt, and we dont. We are supposed to be our own site, it would be like embedding things from Urban Dictionary or the Onion here. They are great and all, but they arent us. But this was probably some sort of commercial deal where money was made over something. I can understand why they would just do this and not tell us beforehand, but only when you approach this from the standpoint of them acting in Wikia's, and not our own intererest. It doesnt make any sense if you still think that they are acting in ours, because for one thing we dont want this, and for another they would have tried to find out what we wanted before doing it. The next two things are slightly puzzling, and are in total lack of benefits for us that I dont quite know what to say. Having quick links to diggs and delicious.tk might have also been done for commercial reasons, but honestly I doubt the premise that either of them would have money at all by the looks at them. Having people at the bottom of the page is just a solidly bad idea, why was page views removed anyways? Were we asked about that either? Neither of these latter two additions strike me as something we would agree to, so why were they done without even brining it up? A line has to be drawn in the issue of pulling the wool over our eyes - and it already has been drawn. We came out against it months ago, but time and time again its disregarded. The truth of the matter is that the reason they do this, act without asking, is because they dont have to ask, and will always opt to do things like this behind our backs and only tell us of it after its done. Because then the discussion, at best, would be framed as removing something rather than whether to add it. At worst, the discussion is totally ignored. Either way, Wikia has been given a few months to show its colors, back in July people defended the sell out by saying of all companies that could have done it they were glad it was Wikia. But a company is a company, and this just shows ever more clearer the mistake that it indeed was to sell Uncyclopedia to someone or something that will not act in our interests. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again I was in two minds whether to answer this, because I don't think anything I can say will convince you that Wikia is not an evil conglomeration bent on world domination. But, meh, when have I ever been able to keep quiet?

I spend a good part of my working day responding to "how do I... ?" questions. Not so much from Uncyclopedia, because there are so many wiki-capable people here, but from the smaller wikis we host. One that I've had many times is "how do I embed this cool video/music/java game I've found?" Obviously I'm not only only going to say "you can't", but I'm going to go to the techs and say "why can't we do this, this is fun and people will like it!"

We are constantly listening to what people are asking for, not just here at Uncyclopedia but on all the wikis we host. And when we hear people asking for something, we add it to the future features list and work out if and how we can provide it. We gather ideas from the forums around Wikia (including this one but especially the one on the Central Wikia), from question we get asked on-wiki, by email and on IRC, and from staff ideas. And yes, we do talk to people about these ideas, and get them to test them where that would help (as some Uncyclopedians kindly did with the YouTube feature).

Just to be clear, there was no agreement between Wikia and YouTube, this is just a requested feature that's been provided. And I would suspect that had we provided it to some wikis and not others, that would not have made people here happy. The digg and delicious links are about helping all the wikis we host to promote themselves and so grow into stable and successful wikis. Not, I think, a sinister aim... Attribution is something that other wikis have (notably WikiTravel) and is a popular feature there. If we see something good, we obviously want it for the wikis we host too.

Another point, all of these features are available, not compulsory. The attribution can be removed by mediawiki message - if that's the choice of the community as a whole (I'd ask that you give it a chance first, and us time to develop it further from the feedback we are getting)(once the performance issues are sorted and it's back). Digg and delicious links are in a part of the footer that can't be modified, but they can certainly be ignored, and are discrete enough not to be a bother. YouTube again is a community decision, as RC says above, this could be limited to Unnews and other home-grown video if that's what the community wants - or disabled if that's the decision. From the comments above though, I think the general feeling is that this could be fun, that's certainly how I feel about it. I announced these features with my staff hat on, I was particularly pleased to do so at Uncyclopedia because I had my Uncyclopedian hat on underneath it. Rangeley, you may not believe that those two hats can sit well together, but I do - because I know the good intent of Wikia and the complete lack of sinister mind-eating attack-bots hidden within these features. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sannse, what do you take me for? You know, this has always been thrown at me as a response to any of my statements about this issue - Wikia isnt an evil conglomeration! Nothing I can say will change your mind! But the sad part is that this point everyone seems to want to refute is not a point I have ever made. The shear fact that you open your response by saying you dont think you can convince me that they arent evil, when I have never made this claim, is both annoying and insulting. I have always claimed that Wikia is a company which will act on its own, seperate interests as the owner of Uncyclopedia. Back when I argued that losing our autonomy in this fashion was bad, I had high profile people tell me that "Wikia isnt evil" and that the change of ownership would only cut out the middle man and let Wikia give us things that we wanted faster - they would not do something we didnt want. But that is obviously not what they are doing, because they did not ask us what we thought about these things before adding them - obviously disqualifying them from fitting in the "adding stuff we wanted" category.

I dont want anyone to respond to my statements in favor of community foreknowledge by saying "dont be hatin', wikia isnt evil." It really isnt a hard thing to do, I even gave you an example above since the idea of foreknowledge seems to be an alien concept to you. Allow me to put it in simple terms. You think of something at Wikia. You come here, start a topic saying "Hey guys, we are floating around these ideas and want to know what you think about them," and if we say no they arent added. That is the sort of community input we had under Chronarion. If things are no different than under him, you will bring up changes here first beforehand and not afterwards.

Or just misrepresent what I am saying, thats cool too. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I have misrepresented you. I feel your comments above amount to more than just "talk to us earlier", there seems to be an assumption of ill intent (for example in saying that we must have added You Tube because of a hidden financial agreement). "Wikia is evil" is not a quote of course, but a paraphrase. I apologise if I have overstated your meaning.

I don't think it's practical to discuss in depth with Uncyclopedia each time we consider a new feature. There are a lot in the pipeline, including those requested by other wikis than Uncyclopedia. We talk to people about what they would like to see added, we come up with ideas we think will be cool ourselves, we try things to see if they are practical, test them and ask people from various wikis to test them... This is very normal development practice. And then we put them out there on the wikis for people to use if they want to. If Uncyclopedia chooses not to use You Tube or Attribution, that's fine, it's a community decision. I'm not saying we won't discuss things of course, but I don't think that means that every feature that we offer you has to be pre-agreed. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

While I do not think Wikia has "ill intent," I do beleive they have their own intentions and their own desires, and it was this reason that they were interested in buying us out in the first place. You know this, despite either not wanting to admit it or simply not wanting to admit it publicly. I dont think that everything Wikia does needs to be told to us, for instance a simple upgrade of the software is not really necessary. But if it is something big enough to make us a topic about, such as these 3 things, it is inexcusable for Wikia or its hand picked messengers to not be able to ask us if we want it to begin with.

This is a case of it being one or the other - either community oversight goes and we still have the final say like we had under Chronarion, or we dont. People claimed we still did when the purchase occured, I didnt beleive them. If you will simply admit that this site is no longer our own and we no longer have the say we previously enjoyed, that is one thing. Its another to claim we still have the say, but then only tell us of additions after they are settled issues and our say no longer matters. I want a straight forward answer from which I can determine my expectations. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've no problem in saying Wikia has "their own intentions and their own desires". As I've said before, the intention is to be a successful and profitable business. I guess where we differ is that I don't see that as incompatible with wanting Uncyclopedia to be a successful wiki with a strong and happy community. Quite the opposite in fact, that's what's needed across all the wikis we host in order to make Wikia successful and profitable. Unhappy contributors mean dead wikis.... and there is no future in that. sannse<staff/> (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As Carlb touched on below, the point at which people become unhappy, and the point at which people leave is not the same point. I am unhappy with Uncyclopedia, otherwise I wouldnt be here writing, but at the same time I am not at the point at which I want to leave, otherwise I wouldnt be here writing. I have already said that Wikia does not want to take things to the point that we leave, but they instead want to walk in the grey area. Having an entity who will walk in this grey area is not something to be proud of. As I said before, Wikia is a smart business, not a stupid one. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikia began hosting Uncyclopedia back in March of last year. We've been getting new upgrades from Wikia since March of last year. While normally it isn't "big enough for us to make a topic about", we get new features all of the time. I believe the reason sannse decided to announce this particular upgrade at the Forum was not to provoke you into arguing with her, but instead to show how cool these new upgrades are. Wikia does it's best to provide it with what it thinks is best, and if there is something that you don't like there is no reason for you to go and make such a big deal out of it. Instead, you might create a new topic and see what everyone else's opinion on the matter is.

No matter how much you whine and carry on, and make a big deal out of something as small as an upgrade, Wikia is still going to host Uncyclopedia. When the site goes down, they will continue to work as hard as they can until it comes back up. When someone goes out of their way to request a new feature that they think would be a great addition to the site, Wikia will do it's best to create this feature. And I'm sure that every time sannse comes to the Forum to make an announcement and makes the mistake of mentioning Wikia and Uncyclopedia in the same sentence, you will be here to argue with her until she grows tired and you claim victory.

Next time, before you begin your rant, take a minute and think of all the things that Wikia does for us. Than think of all the things we'd have to deal with ourselves if it weren't for them. Finally, think of all of the other things they could be doing, all of the other people they could be helping, if you weren't being such an ass all of the time.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Tompkins. You are free to think this way. I on the other hand will continue to object when things are added to this community which we do not want, and which we were not asked about. You may not see this as important, and instead view it as whining, but I see it as important. Wikia has done things beneficial to us, this is something I said way back in July. "The only reason that they would aggressively pursue our purchase is because they could implement changes in the direction they want, that we would not have otherwise done or wanted. That is not to say everything they will do is bad, hardly. Some things will most certainly be things we wanted. Some things will be cool additions, that will give us a momentary feeling of "Hey, I wish I thought of that!" But, just as it is ignorant to think it will be all bad, it is ignorant to think that everything they will do will be good for us. Rest assured, everything they do will be good for them, but what is good for them is not necessarily good for us." I cannot seem to make it clear enough the point I have continually attempted to make - Wikia is now in the position to do things without our consent whereas they were not in the position when they were merely hosting us. As owners, they can take us where they want when they want. Every time I look down and see links to "digg" and "delicious," its a reminder of this fact. We didnt ask for it, we dont want it, but its there. What you are trying to argue, atleast from what I gather, is that we should take the bad because they do good things too. What I am saying is that we should never accept things harmful to our community, and while I dont think that we should have a seperate entity in a position that it can do these things, now that we are in this position I am fully prepared to stand up for what I see. I dont see any of these additions as beneficial, but more importantly I dont see that they were ever brought up with us. While its great that Wikia projects out there wanted them, I thought we made it clear we wanted to be independent from them? This surely goes against that. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: (from your earlier post that you referenced above)

If they speak the truth that our interests will not be abandoned, why would they have lowered their profitability by taking on the domain as an expense? The answer to this is that they now can take the site to places that are in their interests. It is the only logical thing to expect from good businesspeople. They would not have taken on that expense if they did not get something out of it; more than they put in. It is here that lies the divergence of interests. - Rangeley

frankly this sounds pretty commi to me. "we aren't evil conglomerates" is a polite way of greeting commis worldwide. tracing every little bane to evil imperialism is also a nice li'l rhetorical trick practiced by commis worldwide (besides the russian reversal of course). (you've precluded the win-win situation in your argument). The only other way I can read your lament (for the loss of egalitarianism/democracy) is that perhaps you had something more than a contributor's interest in the site: more specifically that of a stakeholder? did not chronarion share the spoils equally? bad bad chronarion. -- mowgli 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Youtube embed is interesting (but, like youtube itself I won't be using it), "credits" frighten me (I'd prefer the "hit counter", as it strokes my ego without pushing it too far), and digg/delicious links don't bother me. My question is: so when are we getting those "sinister mind-eating attack-bots" you mentioned? I, for one, could use them on a bunch of pages. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Big problems with MediaWiki compatability... damn things are fiddly -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see Youtube being terribly useful, as we normally want to have original content and not merely serve as a linkfarm or a scrapbook of content cut-and-pasted from other sites. Too soon to tell whether this will be abused to link shock images, but I do expect that we will see links to content that doesn't have a whole lot to do with Uncyclopedia. Someone finds something elsewhere, it's mildly amusing, it's dumped here.

As for editorial autonomy? Interesting that you mention Wikitravel! They're having the same problems - in April '06, one of the founders of the project thought that it would be utterly hilarious to secretly sell the site out to some corporation, in their case Internet Brands™, with no prior warning to the community. A back-room deal. The payoff? Undisclosed, but most likely includes a job with that firm for that one person. The new owners eventually may plaster the site with advertising (as their licence is CC but without the non-commercial restriction); at that point the editorial autonomy of the project would be jeopardised. Heaven forbid that an article on a city say anything negative about a hotel or attraction that might otherwise buy an ad! Effectively, longstanding editors of the wiki have suddenly become little more than unpaid employees of some outside corporation. Yes, initially the wiki looks like it always did; people express justifiable concern but stop short of forking the entire project. The community is left indefinitely in a holding pattern, wondering what will become of the project and whether it will be taken in some undesirable direction in the months or years to come. Sound familiar? --Carlb 19:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. It doesn't... The only bit I can relate to Uncyclopedia is the word "wiki". Other than that, no (or very vague and twisted) resemblence what so ever. But maybe I'm just not paranoid enough...

As for the YouTube-extention... I agree that we shouldn't use content from another website. We must be proud of our own work and encourage this to other users. If only we could get hold of those YouTube machines that make them moving pictures... What's the technical term again? A camera? A webcam? Whatever it's called, nobody has one, and thus no Uncyclopedian can make a video of their own. But, even if we could, I definitely don't like the fact that we would be using YouTube's technology... It makes me feel the same kind of dirty every time I upload an image I created in Photoshop. You know... The kind that never washes off? But what's worse about this extention is the fact that we'd basicly be giving YouTube free publicity every time someone uses it. A real no-return-on-investment type deal. No attraction for potential new Uncyclopedians; no way to tell the YouTubers about our site; no new field for us to creatively express ourselves in...

Sucks to be sold-out. ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|VFP|+S 04:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand why people have strong feelings both ways on this, but my suggestion is if it's that sore an issue the constructive thing to do is to come up with an alternative way for people to upload video without using youtube so people have options. I don't know anything about how to do that. Video is memory intensive and will open up a whole new vista of huffing nightmares, however, so you may want to consider if maybe linking from youtube doesn't have its benefits as well as drawbacks (one issue is if youtube removes a video, the links won't work anymore). But be aware that if people don't have another way to do it, or aren't told how to do it somewhere in the welcome links if such a method is already possible, they'll just use the youtube method. --Hrodulf 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Video is memory intensive and will open up a whole new vista of huffing nightmares

i don't think this is a problem. storage space is cheap. however, the feature is a radical departure from uncylopedia's advertised (but not taken seriously) charter of "being a parody of wikipedia." i am ambivalent about the issue - things should be allowed to evolve IMO (preferably commercially so that it can finance it's own growth). -- mowgli 16:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the nature of some of the pictures we've gotten, you don't think there may be some, um, issues with people uploading video here? --Hrodulf 17:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

i haven't seen the videos uploaded recently. the caveat at the top of this page claims that the feature has been temporarily disabled. but i see your point. furthermore, i see red links and lotsa them after google completes its stranglehold on youtube. -- mowgli 18:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

so sorry. i totally missed your point. you were taking about "uploading" videos here in your last post while i was thinking of embedded youtube videos. ah, nevermind. -- mowgli 07:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For now I believe it would be smart to stick with YouTube as our video provider. While it would be smart to look into developing our own video player, we haven't even had enough time to assess whether videos would be a worthwhile addition to our site. As I mentioned before, YouTube is pretty good about censoring their videos. So that shouldn't be much of a problem. If someone posts a video to the site that doesn't look all that funny to you, all you have to do is delete a few words. If we had people upload directly to the site with some sort of 'UnVideoPlayer' it would be alot more difficult to get rid of these videos.

Of course, if we do decide that videos are a good idea, it wouldn't be too terribly time difficult to set up a new deletion system and some new deletion protocol. In the meantime, I think it's important we at least give this YouTube stuff a try, and if there is a majority of people that think it's a bad idea, it'd be pretty easy to get rid of. As of right now, only people that visit the forum regularly (<30) know that this extension exisits. I think we should start expirementing a bit within the site, and after a couple weeks or so see what the general response is - maybe through some kind of poll on the main page (or at least linked to on the main page). After all, I'd hate for a couple of angry admins to ruin it for everyone.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: For the conspiracy theorists, the YouTube (or the idea of implementing an embedded video onto pages) MIGHT have been requested for a secret project. I'm not saying it was (that'd be blabbing), but I hate to see Wikia get torn up for "giving us something we didn't ask for" when some people kind of maybe might have asked for it. And, without some kind of Cabal or something, it IS kinda hard for Wikia to ask us if we want features or not and get anything resembling a definitive yes or no before implementing an upgrade (which they did when Chron still had the domain, WITHOUT asking the community first, unless Chron was the entire community, in which case I volunteer to be the entire community, just to make everyone happy).--<<>> 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Danish

How come we haven't got any Danish Babel boxes??? kjhf 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Want one? Make one! To get a code like {{lang|da|N}} to return a li'l green userpage box with "da-N This user is a native speaker of Blueberry Danish": Just create Template:LangName da as a one-word entry containing the name of the language (Danish) and create the corresponding category:User da by dropping {{langlevels|[[Danish]]}} or a suitable translation there. --66.102.73.110 23:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

a request to evil admins: please introduce the "click and vote if you like this page" ticker and/or restore "page views" counter. i don't think a discussion or vote is necessary to implement this. in any case, we can have a discussion and/or vote after you have made this change permanent. -- mowgli 14:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The page view count thing was disabled because it was memory intensive. Last I knew, Chron was still said to be working on the voting vaporware feature. ;-p --65.122.208.5 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, are memory issues different from storage space issues? i don't understand this (for a remote server). -- mowgli 17:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem as I understand it (remembering I'm not technical) is about getting accurate figures while still using caching of pages to minimise the load on the server. It's responding to database queries (which happen each time you call up a page) which is difficult and resource intensive. We use various ways to work around this, but that means the counter no longer works.

On the page rating idea... watch this space!! It's been requested a lot, and is one of the things I'm really looking forward to trying. Hopefully this will be ready to try out on all the wikis we host very soon. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to get to have any input on how the page rating system will work, or is there a place where it is getting discussed? As I imagine this'll be quite a major change, and is one of those things that I'm guessing people will not appreciate wikia implementing without warning nor discussion. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 18:00, 26 Nov 2006

why spang, was the "page views" feature a major change ever? i see this one as only slightly different. i understand "page views" was removed for operational reasons alone. wikipedia never had "page views" (correct me if i'm wrong). or is it that we are discussing whether uncyc ought to parody wikipedia or parody everything? -- mowgli 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The page rating system and view counters are completely different things. I wasn't commenting on the page view system, just saying that introducing a rating system has been discussed a lot, and I just want to make sure that we have some input on what actually gets introduced. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 18:55, 26 Nov 2006

yes, i follow. didn't know that it had been discussed a lot. the two can be different. -- mowgli 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go Spang (an all): Forum:Rate this forum post. I've put the link there, so that comments etc. don't get lost here. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)