Requests for Comment/Community portals on new wikis

Discussion and consensus are vital parts of wikis, as we can clearly see here on Miraheze Meta. Unfortunately, many wikis seem to forgo those processes. From what I've been able to observe, that isn't so much because they don't want to discuss things on their wikis but rather because they don't know how to. Communication is a huge issue that plagues communities across the wiki-world and novice wiki administrators not knowing how to communicate with their own editors properly is a big issue that could set them back a lot. For this reason, I propose that all new wikis from now on include a 'community portal' page where editors and administrators can post discussions relating to editorial matters, wiki governance, local elections, and anything which pertains the community.

'Community portals' already exist, in a de-facto manner, on wikis without dedicated Community portal pages. The main page of the talk page (Talk:Main Page) is commonly used to discuss wiki matters such as seeking consensus for a big page change, discussions around wiki governance (i.e. local elections for admin/bureaucrat)) and more. In fact, we usually encourage people seeking to be elected to administrator or bureaucrat on inactive wikis that they set up an election on Talk:Main Page if the wiki has no community portal-esque page, but this poses an issue as wikis grow. The talk page of the main page is usually used for the aforementioned purpose but is also then used to actually discuss the main page itself. This is an issue because these suggestions can easily get buried if a big discussion is the next thread on the talk page. This also clutters it. It feels rather inappropriate to keep using the talk page of the main page as the center of wiki discussions, especially as wikis grow in size.

The lack of community portals sometimes poses an issue for global rights holders who need to post an important notice regarding the entire wiki. On wikis with no community portal-like page, we have to rely on the talk page of the main page but if the community doesn't really have a place they know 'oh, this is where discussions go so I should check this every so often to put it on my watchlist', then they might be unlikely to even look at it. It also poses issues with things like global ban notifications. Policy requires that a notice be posted on community venues where discussions occur but on wikis without such a page, where do we post them? This would help solve that issue on those wikis.

A big part too why I am proposing this is to encourage community discussions. With a dedicated page, administrators may feel more inclined to ask the community for their feedback on things and users may feel more encouraged to ask questions and discuss wiki matters, thus encouraging boldness. This could ultimately help foster a healthy wiki governance system rather than an oligarchy as can be observed on a handful of wikis. This would also help organisation of topics as now there is a dedicated page the community knows it can use to discuss things rather than wondering "Can I or can I not?" when wanting to post a question on the talk page of the main page. Of course, if local administrators would rather not have such a page then they'd be free to delete it but this would be an initiative to help encourage discussions. Agent Isai Talk to me! 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Community portals)
This page would feature a basic design explaining how to use it, how to add topics, and what it can be used for (discussing wiki matters, elections, etc.) Agent Isai  Talk to me! 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All new wikis will feature a community portal page located at 'Project : Community portal'

Support

 * 1)  as proposer, per argument in the foreword of the RfC.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  this can work out for new wikis as they get used to MediaWiki and how to use Miraheze. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 19:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per the explanation provided above, I think it would be a good idea and a good attempt at improving communication on wikis. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. OrangeStar (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I really like this idea. Why not give it a strong support then - yeah, I’ll do that. And maybe even add it to an existing wiki. Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 22:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Community portals are helpful as it requires proper communication and issues with miscommunication can complicate the growth of new wikis or even being closed due to global policy violations like Content Policy. My new wiki could benefit that only when done properly. TF3RDL (talk &#124; contribs &#124; FANDOM &#124; Wikipedia) 06:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Collaboration is a cornerstone of the wiki philosophy and environment. Creating central dedicated spaces for discussion is very beneficial to supporting communicative activity. Default community portal page(s) should be created in a format which permits immediate use and provides a simple process for organization by the project's contributors.  dross  (t • c • g) 12:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  As one of those 'new wikis' that didn't know community portal was a thing and finds talk pages clunky, I am in full support of this. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  Per the comments stated above - I have no objections to such a proposal and it would be an interesting experiment to see whether it is successful at achieving its objectives. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) No problems here. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 14:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) I agree Silicona (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) WE STAN NEW STUFF! PrincessTricktyy197 (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) Very helpful draft.Miraheze should be kind to new users. by Buel ·Talk·e-mail 10:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14) This is always immensely helpful and could prove useful for community discussions. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This is not cool. Pre-creating pages is a page out of the Fandom book. People can create it themself if they want. And there's nothing wrong with using Talk:Main Page unless the local community needs otherwise, in which case, it can be handled locally. What I might support is a Wikimedia-like system which has arrays of pages for various purposes which point to specific pages for purposes (as not all wikis have the same pages, either because they're in different languages or are structured differently). If you create Community portal, where does the list of pages that could potentially be useful stop? There's no need to automatically insert this, and "they can delete it" doesn't help, because they can also create a page that doesn't exist. Naleksuh (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this RfC is being proposed because communities want to discuss things but don't know how. They could easily create a page, but they don't know if that's the proper venue. This would solve that for them, and allow them to be able to discuss. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 04:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What Fandom does is something extreme like populating the entire Help namespace and Template namespace. This seeks to only create one page for adequate discussions. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Why we cannot just edit text that is inserted to created Main Page? Something like "How to start discussion on my new wiki?".--MrJaroslavik (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 0.001% of people would put any effort into creating such a page even if they did agree communication is important. This seeks to make it easy to make discussions and encourage them by already having a page there that exists for the purpose. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  per above
 * 2)  Using the main page talk already exists, why autocreate this page if the farm is (and I quote Agent) "100% vanilla MediaWiki"? The page should be made if there is clear need, not because not all wikis are like Meta where talk pages are used to change x, some use talk pages differently and operate differently. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 23:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire foreword lays out the whole argument against using the talk page of the main page. This farm attempts to have an as vanilla as possible experience but, wherever I said what you quote I said, it's certainly wrong. Us enabling over 40 extensions by default on all wikis is certainly not making this be a 100% vanilla experience. Or us changing the default main page either. What about our use of custom system messages? Or our use of CentralAuth, GlobalPreferences, GlobalBlocking and GlobalUserPage. And what about the behavior on private wikis where the main page is viewable by default? That's certainly not vanilla of us. You cannot say that this would make the farm not a 100% vanilla farm if we aren't 100% vanilla to begin with. Kindly point out where this proposal states that it wants all wikis to be like Meta. Not all wikis are like Meta and that's fine. This proposal only seeks to encourage communication because about 95% of wikis lack communication, the number is probably 99.9% on smaller wikis. If a wiki doesn't want it then no problem, delete it and voila. If you don't want it on your own wikis then the delete button exists and no reprocussions would occur. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  My experience has taught me that creating more topics is a bad idea unless someone can maintain it.  I have never been very social.  I love the idea of community portals, but if I am the only active editor for my wiki, I'd be concerned about being absent for extended periods of time.  Contributors don't always respect what they find and knowing that the page is representative of "Community" this will only make more work on editors to monitor their own sites (as in monitor diplomatically - as in spending additional time to say things in a way that will not be viewed as offensive in response to new community comments).  I for one don't want to spend that much time checking community portals.  I especially do not want to monitor my own community portal or to learn to set one up especially if the portal must meet standards.  It helps when there are many eyes but when there are only a few sets of eyes, this is so much more work than I'd like to add to my to do list.  If I misunderstand the actual cost of construction of the community portal, please correct me.  It has been my experience that community portals require active engagement/discourse to be effective.  Imamy (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) The only component that bugs me is exactly how this will be executed, especially in considering the different needs of various communities which may (or may not) have existing concepts on doing this. I mean this beyond the immediate answer 'if you have something you want to do just replace it'. I'm just advocating having as much of an 'open book' formula that avoids unnecessary complexity as far as it is possible. I can't realistically vote on a plan with a very uncertain execution. --Raidarr (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what this proposal seeks. I sent you a draft of my proposed community portal design a few days ago and I plan to publish it for community input once this passes. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm wondering, how do we really execute this proposal if it passes. I have some querries like, is the CreateWiki process going to be used to create this page, just like it was used to create the Main page? In terms of languages, how would you have have the page on a new Chinese language wiki, I presume the default community portal page is going to be in English language, so if a user requests a new Chinese wiki, would the English language version be used or is there a way that a translated version of the page would be used for such wikis? --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   08:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)