Forum:Alienation of new and IP users

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Alienation of new and IP users

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

After seeing more than once a declaration such as "Forum:Please delete me" not just in the forums but on talk pages, I thought we should discuss this.

To new editors and IP editors what would you like to see changed? Please though keep in mind such things as the protection policy is as about maintaining the integrity of the wiki's information, and prior to it we had a huge amount of vandalism following new stories.

I know we all make mistakes, admins as well (I think I've likely made thousands of mistakes). We need to learn and move on, or help the editors to understand their mistakes. Not all bad edits need undoing or reverting but simply may need editing to improve them. Rollbacks or undos might be easier, but may not improve the quality.

To admins how should we change how we're dealing with people, what else should we be doing to help? Are we too quick to hit the undo, rollback, protect, delete or Block buttons? Should policy be changed? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:50, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I would say that yes, you guys tend to be protective of your power and are occasionally rash in your actions. One thing that might help would be a general rule of thumb: when reverting edits, always insert a legitimate reason why you are doing so. Reverting without explaining, IMO, show that you don't care enough about your responsibilities and the other user to explain yourself. I'd like to point out that while Sysops answer to the Wiki Leader (Tangerinedual, I believe), they ultimately still serve the Public. Your job as a Sysop is to make my editing easier, friendlier, and better overall. If you aren't trying to do that, then you are failing at your Sysop position. I realize that it is also the responsibility of the regular user to respect and listen to the Sysops, but if the Sysops don't care enough to really bother with following the rules and helping me, then why should I waste my time with them? --Bold Clone 15:04, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think that some users are hostile, I recall that User:Bold Clone has mentioned that he would describe himself as aggressive. Obviously anyone who has had their edits reverted isn't happy, but I can't recall a case in which this wasn't justified. As long as you answer any inquiries as to their misdoings, it usually ends well. However, some users seem to take a reversion as their call to complain. Unfortunate, but predictable. It's only a small proportion that are blocked, and then its usually for vandalism. It's hard to tell if unregistered users are leaving, but I have noticed a number or registered editors expressing views similar to that one linked above. ----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:23, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I will freely admit that I am an agressive and sometimes even hostile editor, but that is usually because I am frustrated by a Sysop who is probably not following the rules (like the vagueness of rules regarding speculation and short pages). --Bold Clone 15:31, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Bold Clone, we should try and use the summary box to why we are undoing another User's edit(s). I can say, I do try and use the summary box when and I can if I can remember, but on occasions, I have undone another person's edit(s) without explanation, and I hold my hands up to that. Users, who feel there edits are unlawfully reverted, should have no fear of going to the talk page (which in my opinion we need to tighten down on in terms of speculation). When they go to the talk they should be able to have a simple, argument free discussion about the edits why there were undone and maybe even come to a compromise.

All Users should not just read the text, or see the image that is added. They should spend a few moments reading the section around it and thinking logically about it edit, before reverting it if they must. I have experienced this a few times, where I clicked undo, looked at the page afterwards and though "damn, that was actually an good edit." And I will admit, I rarely undo my own edits where I removed an edit from a page (i.e re added the edit.) I will make sure if this happens again in future, I undo my edits.

Some new Users also seem to want to rush into editing. They can make stupid mistakes and a few major mistakes. if this was brought up on there talk page (i.e tell the Users they've made a mistake and pointing them toward the Manual of Style), they usually reply can be "I will look at it later." Which begs the question, "does anyone read the manual of style?" As I have said, I am in the process of making a guide for new Users, which tells them how to edit this wiki, without them having to read through all the manual of style, which, with it's actual length, paragraphs and subpages, is what puts Users of reading it.

We also should explain to Users why we have certain policies in place. Take, for example the Spoiler policy, which prevents spoilers from being added to in-universe articles. Some users, at first do add spoilers to these page, and when you remove them, should it not be common sense, if not compulsory to tell a Users why they can't add to that page and where else they could add it? Mini-mitch\talk 15:32, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

This is already the case, or at least it should be. I prefer to wait until they enquire themselves, and then I always try to reply in a helpful way. The issue is that some users make these replies negative when we should be encouraging users to stay put and help. Of course some will see a simple reversion as a straight off hostile act making them hard to "talk" to, luckily cases like that are rare.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:41, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see a simple reversion without an explanation as hostile, be cause you apparantly don't care enough to explain why you are reverting the edit--you apparantly consider it no better than vandalism, which does not usually need an explanation. If you cared wnough to help out the other user, then you would explain why you did what you did. --Bold Clone 16:22, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think you either misunderstood or didn't read my comment. When I said they may see the undoing of an edit as hostile, I meant any edit. As for not supplying a reason, I nearly always do except when undoing obvious vandalism. It's not as if you yourself don't revert edits. This isn't just an issue of admins being hostile.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:32, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

"When I said they may see the undoing of an edit as hostile, I meant any edit." I knew that; what's your point? --Bold Clone 18:13, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've been pushing the matter in PLEASE DELETE ME where I first encountered it and I'm glad to see this topic discussion open up. Part of the issue is a vague, flaccid style of writing that seems to have become standard these days -- I particularly attacked one usage in the other discussion about "We will have to do something". I know of no way to deal with that sort of flabby writing, as it derives from flabby thinking. I do suggest that when you see a problem, that you say "I" instead of "We".... perhaps that additional level of personal responsibility will make you think about what you can can instead of just referring it to the group mind in a vague future.

Another is to recognize in your thoughts and your speech that everyone here is doing this voluntarily, because of a desire to help, just like the staff. Don't you like to feel appreciated? So do the newcomers who make a changein an article. The first words out of your mouths should be "Thank you". "Thank you for the editing job you did on this section. You obviously put a lot of work into it. Unfortunately, I am going to revert it because of various stylistic issues. I would like to see you helping out more -- Goodness knows we can use it -- but it would probably help if you checked the style guides at..." Or don't even revert it. Send me a message at my talk page asking me if it can't be saved by a thorough editing job. I should describe my editing style as 'aggressive'. I try to figure out what you meant to write, polish it up if it can be polished, and chuck and rewrite if it can't. But bear in mind, always, that you want the help and that you can be forthright without being rude.Boblipton 16:49, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

To me, all you are saying is that is is fault of the admins. It's not, It's a personal fault. And by saying "Thank for you edit. It was reverted because you should not do x." Seems to be a step to far. All we need is for the summary to be used to explain why, it was reverted. Any thanks you, hellos, how are you can be done on a User's talk page. Mini-mitch\talk 17:00, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yet another user suggesting this is an admin only problem (that is Boblipton). Any registered user can revert edits. As you (and many people) say, good manners cost nothing, so why not employ them. I completely agree. However, I don't think it is the job of an admin to pat you on the back. If you edit a wiki to have fun, awesome. If you do it so someone will praise you, I'm not so sure that's so great.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:01, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the entire point of this forum is about how the staff are alienating new users and IPs. You should expect people to come complaining in a forum about the faults of the staff. That said, I know that it isn't always the staff's fault; sometimes it's also the regular user. Regardless, good manners cost nothing (as you said), so we should use them--regular users and the staff. Part of that is for the staff always to explain why they revert edits--this helps to avoid a lot of confusion.--Bold Clone 18:13, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

My goodness, Skittles. I didn't realize that I could revert something. I thought that was an admin feature. However, should I ever use the revert feature, I would make the effort.

Are you feeling underappreciated, Skittles?Boblipton 17:35, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, you've chosen to look past the debate and annoy users. How polite. As for unappreciated, I don't look for satisfaction on the internet, I live in the real world. Please concentrate on the discussion. Thank you. What do you mean "I would make the effort"? Are you suggesting I don't assist new users? If so, I'm afraid you're wrong. If you'd taken the time to read my posts here, I've mentioned that I try to help users in their enquiries. Thanks----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:22, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Good manners cost nothing. So use them, please. Calm down already and get back to the disucssion. This might be why some users may be upset--they don't like your approach. I'm saying that if you are going to be polite and try to help regular users, then you should explain in your summaries why you revert their edits. --Bold Clone 18:49, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna shift this back to the original discussion with my input. As with other admins on the wikia, I look at all unregistered edits and all edits from new users, and I have, as others have also done, reverted edits that just needed a bit of tweaking to get it into the Manual of Style or whatever. But now there has been some unhappy contributors I, personally will ensure that my actions will not put off new members and I'll try to help other users where I can.

Now lets try to put this discussion to rest, everyone who had added to this discussion agrees that something needs to be done to the way everyone handles new users when they come to the wikia. Mini-Mitch has said that he is planning to, or in the process of, making a "guide to new users" which should help any new user to get to grips with the style of the wikia. I think this is a brilliant idea and it should serve to aid people to see where they have gone wrong before and try to correct their previous mistakes when they edit the wikia further. I suggest we implement this tool on the "welcome to the wikia" template and perhaps post it on user's talk pages if their edits are at threat of being reverted/changed.

Does anyone else have any ideas about how we can help new users to get to grips with editing? --Revan\Talk 18:42, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to add really. I agree with everything in the above. A guide for new users is a fantastic idea.----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:45, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way to help new users would be to make a comprehensive guide on how to edit properly and place it on welcome templates, which is the current plan. I still think that to make future interaction better, Sysops and other users should explain why they revert edits, whether it be in the summary section or a quick message on the TP. --Bold Clone 18:49, May 6, 2011 (UTC) It could act in a similar way to the vandalism template, although it would be a full article and not a warning, perhaps a template that urges users to read the guide? --Revan\Talk 18:47, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but please keep it short. Nothing makes someone feel welcome when he wants to put in a period where it belongs like having to slog through twenty pages of instructions.... with commas where there should be periods.Boblipton 18:57, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it will be, the Manual of Style is the long version really, this just needs to be short and give a few quick tips such as "write in the past tense" etc. --Revan\Talk 18:58, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

You can always add links if the reader wants to go more in depth.----Skittles the hog--Talk 19:12, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

The guide will be as long as it needs to be. I had it one one page, but it did look too long, so I broke it down into different pages: Editing, images, User page, talk pages, forums and others. Rest assure it won't be as long as the MOS. Mini-mitch\talk 12:11, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Guides really don't work. Unfortunately. What we tried at Memory Alpha was a series of "edit hint" templates. These put a simple comment on a user's talk page explaining what was done wrong and why (pointing to the appropriate policy/etc), and all that need be done is something like:

{{subst:edithint-spoilers}} -- ~~~~

The template even fills in a section header. A system might that might assist with the issues being seen here. -- sulfur 14:40, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Just because a guide did not work on one wiki, does not mean it won't work on another. I think; once I've finished it, we should give it a good, and linked it to the welcome template, and you idea, which seems fantastic, could be used if Users choose not to read the guide or the MOS. Can you upload a screenshot of one of these please and post it here or on my talk page? Just to see what it would look like on a User's talk page? Mini-mitch\talk 14:48, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

I like Sulphur's idea. Templates would be very helpful in guiding new users. I think you need to make the guide a bit more simple. No one wants to read pages upon pages of instructions. It's a bit off putting. Try to condense topics and include "read more" options so you can stifle blocks of text out.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:17, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Boblipton's post is probably the most insightful in this discussion. I think we are awfully quick to simply point out errors, rather than taking the time to walk people through why their edits were not as we expect them to be. I think it should be a requirement of admins that they, at least once a month, go through the logs to check edits done by new contributors. They should then make comments upon those edits, pointing out what was great, and gently guiding them away from bad habits. I think we especially need to notice people who, like Bob, make somewhat incremental changes to articles. Copy editors should be praised, cause they're doing the work that most of us don't want to. We all want to add a paragraph or two on a piece of information from the latest story we've experienced. But how many of us want to go to an article on a subject with which we're unfamiliar and edit purely for grammar and punctuation. Not that many of us that come to this forum — but there are a actually a lot of users who drop by to do just that. These users must be cultivated. Bob is absolutely right that gratitude, and not sarcasm, should be our first response to most users. And when we find that we've erred on the side of sarcasm or harshness, we should apologize and move forward more constructively.

A way that I have also found effective of engaging new editors is to invite them to discussions here. Now, standard wiki advice on consensus building wisely says you don't invite everyone and their mother to the party. Do that every time and you'll never be able to close the discussion and move on. However, on arbitrary matters where the choices are incredibly clear-cut — like, "Should we call this thing x or y" — a big group of respondents is the way to go. What I often do is use {{Please see}} on the 50 or so people who've most recently edited, regardless of their IP status or number of edits. My point is, the people who participate in this forum are the ones most likely to stick around. So get as many people as possible into this forum.

Sulfur, as usual, has a great technical idea, and I'd support it. But of course we do need to back up the template messages with bigger articles to which users can go from the template message. Tangerineduel and I at one time played with getting some basic grammatical points together, and we've jointly expanded the help pages a noticeable amount in the last year. What we need is a list of various points of grammar, wiki etiquette, and typical "problem" areas. That would guide us in how we might then structure a more dynamic Manual of Style — one comprised of a lot of linked — but, importantly, short — articles to back up these template messages.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:30:15 Thu 12 May 2011 

Revisiting

I think we need to come to some conclusion with this. With new second half of the series coming out at the end of the month, there is a high chance we will get some new Users. Some may be temporary, some may not be. We should decide and talk about how best not to alienate these new Users and how (or if) we will used the templates suggested in the above discussion, or create a guide for new Users. MM/Want to talk? 16:06, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to revisit how we interpret vandalism, and especially unintentional vandalism. I don't think blocking is necessary in every instance of vandalism, especially when it can be something not done with malice.

I think the block command has been used a bit like a battering ram where a simple note on a talk page would have sufficed. Several of the recent blocks could have been sorted out via a talk comment, rather than a block I think.

We need to be, I think a lot more forgiving and patient with new users and explain some things to them.

As admins we need to be the ones who have the buckets of patience with the new users, not the other way around.

With Miracle Day we've left the story pages unprotected and we haven't seen any major vandalism, should we continue and carry that through to the Doctor Who episodes? Leaving them to be edited by everyone? We can then wait and see if the page attracts bad faith edits before protecting it.

I agree that a short guide would be useful, but how short?

I've often toyed with the idea that it should be incredibly basic with examples to illustrate it, as that's how I learnt how to edit, by looking at the Wiki and following suit, so;

• Use British spelling for everything on this wiki, so that's colour not color, realise not realize, see our spelling policy for more information.
• All in-universe articles are past tense see; Fourth Doctor, Liz Shaw, Dronid for examples.
• All story pages have a layout which is common across all formats see; The Krotons, Red Dawn, Love and War.

That would be about it, the Manual of Style, is quite literally what it's become a full manual of style, with all the heft of a manual for style and writing. I don't think overloading any guide for new users is perhaps the best method (the MoS is there for a full explanation of stuff), new users want to jump in and edit straight away, so being able to read examples of articles is better way of understanding how things work. --Tangerineduel / talk 07:13, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

I think all of your ideas are good, and more wikis should try moving in the same direction (or at least watch this one to see how it goes). Especially the idea of a brief edit guide; that's so much better than a single sentence linking to a massive Manual of Style that nobody will ever read. But, I have some comments to add.

First, taking your idea farther: I don't know if there's a way to do this with the software, but if you could make the brief edit guide actually visible on the page the first few times a user (or IP) makes an edit, that would be hugely helpful. Similarly, if someone tries to edit, say, the plot section of the latest episode's article, a link to a good example of a plot section from a previous article would be great.

When someone makes a silly mistake in their first edit, if you tell someone what they did wrong and revert their edit, they get frustrated; if you find a way to fix their mistake but preserve the important part of their contribution (and then explain why you changed it), they often understand that you're trying to train them up as a member of the team, so they stick around. Of course that's more work, but if your goal is to attract and retain editors, that's the best way I know of.

The idea of "in-universe" isn't as obvious and clear-cut to someone who isn't a regular in some kind of fandom-based wiki (or forum, newsgroup, etc.). For example, the plot of an episode describes what happened in the universe, but it's not an in-universe section. Also, there are out-of-universe sections on in-universe pages and vice-versa (e.g., "Behind the Scenes" on character pages). I'm not sure how to get this all across, but maybe give examples first: "Articles about characters, cities, wars and other in-universe stuff are past tense; articles about episodes, writers, and other real-world things are not." (But not with the words "stuff" and "things", hopefully.)

Finally, a trivial bit. This is red-pen grammar-nazi stuff, but the edit guide really needs to be absolutely perfectly written, because it's going to be what people read right before making their own edits. So: The first sentence is a run-on. There should be a semicolon or full stop before 'see' (or, if you want to be ultra-modern British, leave that as a comma but remove most of the other commas). The other two sentences use semicolons to introduce lists, and semicolons can't do that; you can use a colon that way, or an em dash, but for something this simple, it's better (at least in British English, which is what matters here) to have no punctuation. On the other hand, those same two sentences need semicolons before 'see' (or, better yet, full stops); you've got it in the wrong clause. The last sentence would be simpler as 'All story pages have a common layout, across all formats'. The italics for the American spellings in the first sentence are weird (italics don't just mean 'emphasis, but not as much as bold'). And you probably want to put the spellings in quotes (because you're talking about the word 'colour', not about colours)—and it's a good idea to have quotes somewhere anyway, so that Americans realize they're supposed to use single quotes where they'd normally use double quotes. --173.228.85.35 07:13, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

[admin note: actually single quotes are not supposed to be used here. Though we are generally pro-British in our use of spelling and punctuation, we have to make an exception for quotation marks, because the single quote has a meaning in wikicode that the double quote doesn't. In other words, we use the American standard for quotation marks — double on the outside, single on the inside:

He said, "I can't believe FDR said, 'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'"

When emphasising the way something is spelled, it's generally better to use italics, unless doing so will potentially change the meaning of the sentence, such as by implying that the word is a title.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 23:19:26 Thu 08 Sep 2011 ]

In regards to what is written above, I think that anyone (particularly admins) undoing an edit should give a reason in the edit summary. Not every user is as familiar with policy and style guidelines as the admins, and I think they need to remember that. I recently made a number of good faith edits, which were undone without explanation. I then left a message on the relevant admin's talk page, to which I have still not yet had a reply. Admins need to remember that a wiki is supposed to be something anyone can edit. I'm not wanting an explanation because I'm annoyed my work has been undone - on the contrary, I want an explanation so that I can see what I did wrong and avoid doing it in future, thus saving the admins' time as well.

Please don't take this as a criticism of the admins - they do a lot of very good work which we all appreciate - but by doing this they could save themselves a lot of time in the long run. Aliyoda 10:39, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

These are some great points, and certainly some of them could be implemented.

As I said above, I am interested in trying to find a sulfur-like solution of having bite-sized templates about very specific editing matters which we can use on user talk pages. So that's high on my priority list.

As for a message that appears the first few times an editor edits, that's really interesting, but would require some custom JS. I've never seen that anywhere, but it's essentially a variation of the achievements feature. I'll look into the technicals on that one.

As for summaries, well, I think we were making progress on that point until the new editor was forced upon us. The new editor doesn't have any sort of auto-suggest on it, which means that you'll probably see a decline in the number of edits that are revision-noted. A lot of editors depend upon typing in a set phrase into the box — once — and then recalling it with a few keystrokes when necessary. Now that the log of remembered phrases is gone, the revision notes will probably slide a bit. That's not to say that revision notes aren't still important, or that we shouldn't be leaving them. And I know that wikia are scrambling even now to return that feature. But it is harder to leave good revision notes now, and you will — temporarily — see a decline in them, especially in routine situations.

That said, if you do encounter a situation where a good faith edit has been reverted without explanation, feel free to leave a query on the reverting editor's talk page. If that produces no satisfactory result, go to an admin who's not involved in the dispute for a neutral review. If that doesn't work, start a thread here. Or, go to Special:Chat and see if anyone's around to answer your question live. As long as you're courteous whilst making a lot of noise, you will get answered by someone.

Anyway, when we get past this storm of technical problems being caused by the introduction of what is, essentially, a beta editor by Wikia, the innovations brought up in this thread are at the top of my to-do list. Please continue to leave messages in this thread as and when you have ideas about how to improve accessibility for new and IP users.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 23:19:26 Thu 08 Sep 2011 

Other than urging people to offer an explanation when they perform a reversion, I have nothing to offer on the subject at the moment. Boblipton 23:55, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I also notice that tabbing through the fields of the new editor skips over the edit summary field, which can't be helping either…

Anyway, most of these ideas probably aren't technically feasible, but I guess it can't hurt to mention them.

One idea that I saw on another wiki (I can't remember which one, but probably not a Wikia site): Edit summaries are mandatory for any edit (in the main page space, if you don't check the "minor edit" box) that either reverts a previous edit, spans more than one paragraph, or is on a semi-protected page. I'm not sure whether that actually encourages better information, or just encourages people to leave useless summaries (or, worse, discourages edits). But it might be worth looking into any other sites' experiences with similar features.

In that big sidebar on the right, add a section (closed by default) that contains an outline of the MoS (and possibly other pages referred to by the MoS, like layout guide, canon policy, etc.). Next to each heading, there's a "cite" button. If you click that button, it creates (or appends) an edit summary saying "Per Tardis:Manual of Style#Incarnations of the Doctor". (Assuming you can put links in summaries?) It would be even better if a one-line comment could be attached to each MoS heading, and the edit summary would include that comment (as long as someone can think of a good one-line summary of each section in the MoS). This idea was shamelessly stolen from MusicBrainz, who had a long discussion where everyone agreed how cool this would be and then nobody implemented it.

And another one: In the sidebar section with the summary box, a "talk" button. When you click this, the edit summary expands. Whatever you type there becomes a new section on the article's Talk page, and your edit summary is a "see talk page" link to that new section. (Maybe I'm too interested in the talk pages, but it seems to me that they're an incredibly useful feature on Wikipedia and a handful of other wikis, but almost completely useless on most Wikia sites, and that's a serious problem.)

Finally, if someone reverts an edit of yours, or changes the same lines as a recent edit of yours, and includes an edit summary, auto-post it to your talk page. Probably not useful for IP users. And it would annoying for regular editors, so it would have to be toggleable, and probably disabled by default for existing users, but enabled by default for new users. And it might be nicer if they showed up in a box of some kind instead of mixed in with the regular posts on your talk page. But forgetting the details: as a new user, it might be nice to see that "you have a new message" thing, click on it, and see someone's follow-up to your contribution. And, knowing that the new users are more likely to see and read your summary might make people more interested in writing one. --173.228.85.35 04:20, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

All these are really interesting, but they're all well above my pay grade. Pretty sure that the only people who can put anything in the right column — what's technically called the "right skyscraper" or "right rail" — are Wikia themselves. I've seen some unusual things in a few Wikia wikis, but I think they've all been features available in different "divisions", rather than being site-specific variations. For instance, at w:c:fallout, they have a calendar in their right rail, but that's because they're in the Games division. We're in Entertainment, so that's a feature we can't currently access. None of the big wikis have anything non-standard in their right rails, to my knowledge, but I have seen a few "experimental" wikis where coding geniuses lark about. And maybe there might be something there.

As for the compulsory edit summary, that is a feature of Wikia wikis, but it's a preference you personally have to set for yourself. This wiki can't do anything to make you tick that box.

The rest of your suggestions are just . . . out there. They're great, don't get me wrong, but they're well beyond anything that I think could be done with the current revision of the MediaWiki software — much less Wikia's implementation of it. I think it could be done through an extension, but Wikia are in control of what extensions we can use, and they're completely unlikely to use an extension that one wiki created, given their sloth to commit to even basic javascript fixes, that every sensible wiki implements.

Now, the direct link to a talk page from the editing page, that's an awesome idea. And since we're in a period fo time where the staff are actively taking suggestions about how this new editor is working, I think you should submit it as an additional feature request. They'll probably just "take it under advisement", but you never know. The particular staff member heading up the new editor implementation is exactly the one you want to put this idea in front of. He's the guy most interested in pushing wikia to its limits. So I'd suggest you submit a Special:Contact on that one point. Even if someone else responds, the idea will almost certainly be placed in front of him.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:05:50 Thu 15 Sep 2011 

Sorry it took so long to get back. As I said at the top, "most of these ideas probably aren't technically feasible", and I had no idea how to get them to someone who can do something with them, but I was kind of hoping someone else (like you) would. But I went to Special:Contact, and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do there. Is it the "I want to offer some feedback" link under "Participating on Wikia"? Or something else? Thanks. --70.36.140.19 14:01, September 17, 2011 (UTC)