FAMEPedia:Community noticeboard

The FAMEPedia identity
This is a bit of a rant and blog in extension of here, regarding just one page that was effectively pasted in from Wikipedia. This is me going on a tangent, so be warned. There is no short version.

In the above, the following response agreed with the relative sloppiness of red links, broken templates and issues in general from the page I strongly criticized. The (reasonable) suggestion was made to assist in cleaning up. Personally, I find there is a prerequisite to doing a project right. And that is clear focus. The trouble is that the example I singled out above is not an isolated case. It's endemic.

Among other things there are many duplicated examples of:
 * Templates being referred to that have no destination, as they have not been imported; additionally, scripts with no actual parameters, in other words, broken wikicode
 * Endless red links, including on many policy pages, including prominent ones from the sidebar
 * Countless noticeboards, some of which are not created that bring the impression of an administrative graveyard - surely, talk pages to the right main pages may suffice.
 * Policy pages building from groundwork references to articles, diffs and obvious wikipedia community culture that literally does not exist here

Other observations include,
 * Surely a wiki with a very small community does not require tons of clearly copy pasted wikipedia policy that is still highly incomplete and makes for no brevity for a non-wikipedian to approach.
 * Similar regarding the technical details with wikipedia obviously edited out for Famepedia, which is a fairly incomplete web of links as well.
 * These pointers make a catch 22. Fail to complete the backend and you have an obvious mess to outsiders, a halfhearted import to insiders. Complete it and you have a stifling, massive structure with no local buildup, only pointing vaguely at the domineering force that has come to the place it is deliberately over a very long time. This wiki and all of its major supporters that I know of have the fatal flaw of taking something that is known to work, without knowing why it works in the context it does.

A wiki of this ambitious scale with its own domain name deserves a system that can grow from its own roots, develop with simple maxims that only expand as they are needed, offer an administrative simplicity that would actually help serve the purpose of being 'wikipedia but less harsh', and truly distinguish itself beyond being an effective wikipedia clone that grasps at greatness and yet only attempts to do so by duplication with a twist, not innovation. Even the logo duplicates wikipedia, yet in appearance it is almost equal to or worse than Wikipedia in design. Wikipedia has a pretty terrible logo design, built primarily from 'it's what we've always done'. One place that could have been innovated, but has instead been duplicated (and I'm sorry to say, rather poorly) including the Wikipedia habit of clinging to a poor design while self-awarely using different designs in other places such as mobile (to compare in this case, the favicon). A shame, because otherwise I think the Famepedia layout is onto something.

All of this is to say I believe Famepedia lacks identity beyond 'it's wikipedia but the admins are less harsh', which is a way to put it that only really makes this wiki look salty. Things such as a secure connection and modern software are not competitive features, they're expectations; neutral to have and flaws to lack in this day and age. Famepedia needs more idea, more principle if it's really going to be viewed as anything more than not-wikipedia for people who don't want to edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason. I'm afraid short of gutting the FAMEPedia namespace and building from a simpler core, there is not too much way to achieve this as I suggested here. But I figured it was worth saying by someone, if only once. The wiki should be built deliberately and with focus, with each component from main page to sidebar and policies serving a purpose built for this community to grow, not ripping word for word with simple search and replace from a conglomerate that is the current mainstream of the internet.

Also, this page comes in the sidebar as the Community noticeboard, then in posting and practice is shown as the Help noticeboard. I do not see a deliberate rationale for this difference. --Raidarr (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , as I said on the Discord, I liked your ideas. I have the same views and I wanted to implement those but when I popped up on the 's talk page, where I suggested these changes to the wiki, it was said that the gadgets (mainly Twinkle) will become useless and either they need to be modified or deleted because of their uselessness, if my proposed changes were executed. I am, however, in support of modifying the gadgets and making a change to the wiki, defining our scope and the purpose.


 * As you may know, we are have a lot of span going on here. A lot of newcomers create the spam pages, which we need to draftify other than deleting, because it was made clear on the Stew noticeboard to do so. Maybe, that's why the admins aren't harsh here.


 * I liked the point: Surely a wiki with a very small community does not require tons of clearly copy pasted wikipedia policy that is still highly incomplete and makes for no brevity for a non-wikipedian to approach. I believe we need to create our own or modifying the existing-related ones. That can't be done without the community vote, but I would say to focus on sorting out other things first.
 * We don't need countless noticeboards either, just a few are good to run the wiki. I would say - one for the entire FAMEPedia is enough for our small community, like we have community noticeboard on Miraheze meta.


 * Also, for the sidebar problem, I will be looking into it. --Mazzaz (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comic book characters
Who is going to create comic book characters for FAMEPediaIron Sword 23 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Articles about book characters seem more out of scope for FAMEPedia. An article comic book series seems more in scope for FP. Bukkit (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

DC Universe Online
What do you guys think about the DC Universe Online article?Iron Sword 23 (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No content, sourcing or infoboxes. I'm afraid it should be moved to a draft page and properly completed. --Raidarr (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay Iron Sword 23 (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is a link to the page? Chimobi (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here you go: DC Universe Online. --Magogre (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the page can be draftified for now as it lacks importance and it fails to identify the subject, It will NOT be DELETED, It will only be moved to Draft: namespace, where you can build it up till it qualifies to appear on Main namespace.
 * Please move page Chimobi (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)