Forum:Codference

Forums: Index → War Room → Codference

This forum is to discuss a real-time discussions system whereas users will be able to discuss wiki-matters on a scheduled basis. It will be known as Codference and a proposed Codference page can be seen here.

Codferences will allow us to discuss things quickly and efficiently. Note that this will not replace the War Room, instead it will supplement it.

Codferences will take place on IRC, in the official channel. Whatever off-topic chat that is going on will be cut off to allow the discussions to take place in #wikia-codference, and the discussions will be logged.

So please discuss below and develop this idea if you can. Feedback is appreciated.      23:30, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

You can see an existing form of this in Wookieepedia's Mofferences, where inspiration is taken from. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:17, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Disscusion

I like this idea, but make a channel just for "Codferences", like #wikia-codference
DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   23:32, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

You spelled it with a 'D' instead of an 'n'.

Anyway, although I won't be in it (I'm too whatever to keep on topic), it sounds like a good idea.

Bumblebeeprime09 | This is Bravo Papa Nine, over. 23:34, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

It's a play-on-words. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:35, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there something like this in your sandbox Bovell? Anyway, its a great idea. elmo's ramblings 23:37, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

It's linked to in the proposal. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:43, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to come! But, on your sandbox, why are some of the dates the "42^nd? M170^Talk 23:51, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

This is only a proposal, and the proof of concept present in my sandbox is a parody. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:53, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

What Drk said. If it's in its own channel it would be easier to start and keep on track if there aren't people in the designated chatting area that have no intention of partaking in the codference. On a stylistic note, are codferences meant to be treated, as a concept, as proper nouns? That's going to personally bug me if it's not specified. :P Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 04:52, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Since the word is composed of the abbreviation for Call of Duty, CoDference might be the stylistic choice, making it a proper noun. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 12:39, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

I also think #wikia-codference would be better, especially seeing that we have quite a few people in the channel that do not edit the wiki. N7 TC 08:17, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

I like it. And yep, it would be better to make a separate channel for it. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 12:08, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

I now too believe that it will be better to have it in #wikia-codference. I've changed the original post to reflect people's views that #wikia-codference would be better.      13:10, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

What's more, I could make an IRC gateway like the one on COD:IRC but for #wikia-codference and stick it on the CoDference page, which would mean easy access to all who are interested but do not own clients.      13:12, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

We'll also put "#wikia-codference" in the topic for #wikia-cod? N7 TC 13:20, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

We want as many people to have access to such a meeting as possible, and those that cannot attend will be able to view a log of the discussion afterwards. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 13:44, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Great, that way we have a channel dedicated for codferences :D DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   15:31, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

I like it. I have a question tho; It's just like War Room, but in IRC?.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}00:48, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Similar. We discuss wiki-wide topics that could also find their way to the War Room. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 02:42, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

This idea is brilliant. -- CoD addict (talk) - 03:37, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

It's more convienient than having to find a war room thread, so I'm all for it. Jar ^{making tacky jelly} 16:49, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

This is by no means replacing the War Room. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 01:28, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Downright genius idea. NCD [Talk] 06:03, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Time

When are we planing on having our first CoDference? DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   09:04, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

We want a time convenient for everyone. 18:00 UTC may be a starting place, as across different timezones, that's:

• Pacific Daylight Time (West Coast USA) - 11:00AM
• Mountain Daylight Time - 12:00PM
• Central Daylight Time - 1:00PM
• Eastern Daylight Time (East Coast USA) - 2:00PM
• British Summer Time - 7:00PM
• Central European Summer Time - 8:00PM
• Eastern European Summer Time - 9:00PM

...and so on, but that covers most of the major timezones of our userbase. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 13:28, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

It'll probably be on a saturday/sunday too, chances are more people are free then.      13:37, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Its gonna be later this month? Or early next month? DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   13:56, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Let's at least determine if the community wants a CoDferenee before we schedule one. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 13:59, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

---

Ok, since the vote is 16-0, we need to come up with a time/date for our first codference. Ideas anyone? DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   17:43, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Requirements

Are we gonna have requirements for people to come here? DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   09:04, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

I think the normal requirements (50 mainspace edits or knowing what he is doing, per IAR) are good. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 10:49, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

I would shy away from any requirements at all keep the requirements as limited as possible (such as having 50 main space edits to "vote," should such an action be necessary). We want this to be an open community discussion. You don't have to participate, even just coming to listen is perfectly acceptable. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 13:30, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

But then again, we dont want people like in Special:Chat showing up just to be there. DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   13:54, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

If people are being disruptive, we kick them. But we have no reason to keep people from attending, as all editors are equal. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:11, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could set a key for the channel, and only certain people could know it. Pierogi^Talk 14:38, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

No. That's incredibly exclusive. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:46, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Drk on this. I sit in the special:chat all the time and some (emphasis on some) of the people who go in there aren't exactly people who really have the wiki's best interest at heart or actually edit the wiki on a regular and or positive basis. If people actually edit the wiki imo having an edit requirement for entry shouldn't even be a problem since this is a meeting of editors not everyone who shows up at the right time or comes on the wiki just to chat about CoD. Carbonite 0 18:13, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

As suggested, we could keep voice (+v) limited to people who meet the War Room's 50 main space requirement. To keep people from entering the channel in its entirety, however, is unfair and unnecessarily restricted. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 18:19, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Just some kind of restriction is what I am after since it has been stated it is a meeting of editors so 50 edits is a reasonable requirement to speak. Spectating the meeting is perfectly fine for anyone who doesn't have 50. Carbonite 0 03:42, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

What if the requirements are something like 250 mainspace edits, kind of like the CDWC? M170^Talk 14:43, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

This is a meeting of editors, not a clan. This should be something that nearly everyone can participate in. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:46, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any requirement to join the Codference, or even take part, only the usual 50 MS edits to vote in it, should a vote take place. elmo's ramblings 14:47, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just did not want to be left out. So are they going to take place next Saturday or Sunday, like Callofduty4 said? M170^Talk 14:49, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

In all probability, yes. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:59, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

So what topics will be discussed in a Codference as opposed to the topics discussed in the war room?File:AdvancedRookieSig2.png 16:40, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Some topics discussed in CoDferences might find their way to the War Room to solidify a proper consensus (i.e. we might decide we want a new main page in a CoDference, but put up a topic in the War Room to vote on submissions). It's still, however, wiki-wide topic discussion, just as you would find in the War Room. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 17:19, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

So in a way, CoDferences are a way of speeding up war room discussions.File:AdvancedRookieSig2.png 17:22, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Only for certain topics that would otherwise become stagnant after a week or two (example being Forum:Discussing the Affiliates and Friends Page, which is a discussion that could be facilitated in real time). Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 17:40, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe for a requirement, you have to have been here for a certain amount of time, just so the people who come know more about what's going on in the wiki. Jar ^{making tacky jelly} 16:49, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

I doubt people who don't know what's going on in the wiki will know about this if they don't know what's going on in the wiki. War Room discussions are open to anyone who finds the page and the same should be done for this. If someone is disruptive, however, that's completely different. Similar to what Bovell mentioned, we could always use +v to control chatflow. I mean, if a dozen people are talking at the same time no one's going to be able to follow the conversation. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 19:14, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Should we also make it mandatory to use Wikia usernames?      13:44, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Although COD:IRC provides that identification can also be present in the hostmask, there is no reason why users should participate in CoDference discussion without using their Wikia username. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:03, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

I say we make it mandatory to use our wikia names, so there isnt any confusion then and later (on the logs). DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   18:42, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

I say we make it mandatory except for people with wikia cloaks. Pierogi^Talk 16:50, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to /whois people in the middle of a discussion to figure out who they are. Nicks should be recognizable. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 16:54, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Logs/Minutes

Since this would be a real time discussion unlike the War Room, would there be some kind log of what is said? Such as if someone forgets to attend they can at least read what was said or a summary of it, for public viewing and just for reference in general. Example:
Log of Codference regarding "Mainpage changes"
User Y 1/23/56 12:34: The main page needs more ponies.
User X 1/23/56 12:34: I agree.
User Z 1/23/56 12:34: It needs more Apple Bloom!
User W 1/23/56 12:34: And Pinkie Pie!
End of log
Carbonite 0 03:42, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Apple_Bloom and Fluttershy will be making logs of the meetings. DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   03:47, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

There will be a complete log of the discussion, as well as minutes to briefly summarize the results of discussion on each individual topic. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 12:12, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

So you mean after every major topic, there will be a recap of sorts? DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   19:54, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Minutes will be a recap of each individual topic while there will also be a complete log of what was said as well. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 19:59, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

If need be, I can also set up a bot to log conversations, which would stay on all the time. User:Sactage/s.js 21:25, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette

How are we going to keep users from derailing others' topics? - CoD addict (talk) 15:57, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Going on an earlier idea, the channel will be set on moderated (+m). Those who do not meet the War Room's 50 main space edit requirement will not be give voice (+v), in order to control chatflow. They can however, remain in the channel and listen (or rather, watch) the discussion's progress.

Mediators (channel ops) will also kick voiced users who intentionally derail discussion. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 16:27, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Vote

So putting everything together, we're going to have:

• Scheduled meetings, which will be tactically scheduled so as to allow the majority of people to attend
• A dedicated Codference channel, located at #wikia-codference
  • Which is open to all
    • But where only users with over 50 mainspace will be allowed to partake in discussions
  • Which is logged
    • And these logs will be accessible by all those who are interested
  • Where users must use their Wikia username
  • Where only the topics of hand can be discussed

Vote below on whether you support this proposal.

Support

1. Strong Support — As co-nominator and points listed above. This is a viable way to discuss matters quickly and with bare efficiency.      21:50, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
2. Strong Support — A great idea. User:Sactage/s.js 21:52, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
3. Strong Support — Great idea from the start, improving these ideas only makes me happier DrkDragonz66   Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   21:52, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
4. Strong Support — Per nom. Pierogi^Talk 21:54, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
5. Strong Support — Awesome idea if we have to discuss topics that will be cleared in a few hours/minutes.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}21:55, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
6. Support — Per all. — -- mr_expert talk 21:58, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
7. Strong Support — Per all. Carbonite 0 22:05, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
8. Strong Support — Per all elmo's ramblings 22:12, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
9. Support — As the other co-nominator I suppose Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 22:17, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
10. Support — This means serious business, which also means an opportunity to get the wiki into the right direction. --Scottie theNerd 15:38, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
11. Support — More op flags for Rainbow Dash makes Rainbow Dash a happy brony. But seriously, if it speeds up War Room processes by all means go for it. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 15:43, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
12. Extremely Strong Support — Per all. M170^Talk 15:44, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
13. Support — Per all. We need to speed up the discussion process.File:AdvancedRookieSig2.png 15:45, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
14. Extremely Strong Support — "Lets do this." N7 TC 15:46, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
15. Strong Support — Per all, a great tool for the wiki if implemented successfully. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 15:48, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
16. Support — Per all. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 17:25, July 21, 2011 (UTC)