Board Thread:Wiki news and announcements/@comment-1585211-20160721020948/@comment-2234967-20160721221250

GameGear360 wrote:

I'm in support of option 3 the most, with extra support for removing the pass/fail system. Previously I posted a WIP of the performance article template and didn't get a whole lot of feedback on it. We already have a basis for it, so finishing it and figuring out what's important to include and what's unnecessary/doesn't fit the article's purpose wouldn't be as grueling.
 * What happens to the pre-existing reviews?
 * Option 1: We scrap the pages and remove a review concept from Nerf Wiki. The downside to this is that many editors still enjoy reading these and it would deduct our article count by over 200.
 * Option 2: We keep the review pages as is. The downside to this is that it solves none of our problems.
 * Option 3: We adjust all review pages to now only reflect blaster performance. This would require some adjustments and possibly the removal of a "Pass/Fail" system. The downside to this is that it would be a lengthy process, as well as deciding what constitutes as blaster performance and what is classified as biased statistics (ie. Bobo's Slingfire, was it a lemon, and if so, do we count it in the review?). It's a long ordeal but possibly our best bet.
 * There are other options that may or may not have been mentioned above, or could be proposed.

GameGear360 wrote:

Option 2/3 works for me. My concern with 2 is that it'll make the infobox longer than it should be, but I'm thinking that we could make it a collapsible section. 3 would help to solve that problem, as we could just list off reviews on a separate article, but I'm not too sure about having a separate article in the first place... this is something we could easily discuss, though.
 * What do we do to reflect the changes on the blaster articles themselves?
 * Option 1: We keep it the same, still featuring the "Review" button, and abandon the idea of multiple links to other sites.
 * Option 2: We adjust the template to the system I proposed in the image at the top, and feature a number of links (3 links, 5 links?) to other sites. This involves reaching out to the community and asking for permission to host links to sites we like, as well as deciding what sites to choose and what to ignore. This process could be rather lengthy but at the same time would boost our community involvement exponentially. This may also involve creating a database of links to potential sites and picking a Top 10 or so of various sites. Long process with possibly great results.
 * Option 3: We keep the Review button but also add the aforementioned changes in Option 2. This could be substituted by a link to our Review page similar to how I placed a "See a full review list here" in the image at the top. It would really be a case of one or the other, having both would be unnecessary.
 * Option 4: Someone else could propose an alternate layout or something that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm open to ideas and interpretation.

GameGear360 wrote:

Option 1, for sure, for reasons I've already stated in this thread.
 * What other things could we add to the Review pages as part of this expansion?
 * Option 1: Provided review pages are kept, I proposed a database of sorts of as many reviews possible on a specific blaster from the sites we trust. This would feature in a table with the name of the site, a link, the score (#/10, # stars, Pass/Fail, etc.) as well as possibly an italicized summary of the review (ie. the middle column could simply state a section of the article linked, "the Doublestrike proves to be the best blaster of choice for Zombie Strike sidearms"). I could make up a mockup of what I'm talking about if this is difficult to follow.
 * Option 2: Adjusting the limits to reviews to allow other users to edit them, should they choose to do so. This could be anywhere from a selected few editors (ie. staff + Mojo, Flat, some other users). This could be done as well in a nomination form where a user proposes themselves and other users or staff vote on the position. As well, it could be adjusted to allow every user with 100+ edits, or simply every user in general, the latter I disagree with but it's an idea. The key question here: how?
 * Option 3: Whether or not we want to keep a scoring system. This is entirely optional but I personally think it might be neat to total up all the scores found in Option 1 and determine the aggregate score of the NIC, not of Nerf Wiki itself. It's a mild gimmick but in a way it's probably the most unbiased score a blaster could ever potentially get on the internet if it's been collected from 15+ different reviews and the average was determined by that. Again it might be difficult to grasp but I can produce a photoshop mockup if necessary.

GameGear360 wrote:

I'd say this depends on where the site stands. If it's dead/abandoned/old, then there's nobody to really contact with regards to it. If it exists and is still updated, then we could contact them about it.
 * If we do choose to host links, how would we perform the action of reaching out to the community?
 * Option 1: Private emails between our selected sites, offering them the chance for free advertising provided we are allowed to host their scores and opinions of the blasters.
 * Option 2: Go ahead and feature the reviews anyways without attempting to make any contact and hoping for the best. While I doubt anyone would have any complaints about being hosted here, I don't know if this is a good idea.
 * Option 3: We find a way to propose the idea to the selected sites on their own respective websites. Some may not respond to this (ie. any Youtuber).