Reviving the Site
This site is being revitalized and revamped. Notice the pretty colors. Now lets get some people in here to edit this sucker. --Adam We 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm glad to see that the site is now back up and operational (no more random half-assed stuff). PRETTY COLORS?!?! This site feels like a bad website straight out of the early 90's. It's lost its wiki feel and some things have become difficult to read. I would immediatly suggest reversion of the colors to the classic WIKI color system. --CannedhamX 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Having a color scheme makes the site look more inviting to those who are not necessarily accustomed to traditional wiki sites. For example, the Star Trek wiki used a stylesheet to give its site great visual appeal, and it paid off. I do agree that some of this is a bit hard to read. I was simply trying to use the Family Guy colors to spruce up the site a bit. The stylesheet could use some tweaking. I think a color scheme is important, but it could definately use some change. If you have some ideas for a better color design, let's discuss that on the stylesheet talk page. --Adam We 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well it's certainly colorful! And it's always good to see a wikia being customised. I've got two suggestions: recent changes is a vital link for any wikia. It's a way of getting your contributors to visit and check edits to all pages, not just the ones they have written or come across. It's hard to keep an eye out for vandalism without going to recent changes, and hard to find recent changes without a clear link on all pages. So I'd suggest putting that back into the navigation box (or maybe in a box by itself?). Secondly, I find the red on blue links almost impossible to read. Maybe a duller colour would work? The green visited links are readable for me, its just the red that makes my eyes cross. I like what you've done with the active tabs too, that works well. The orange and blue is rather too bright for my eyes, but then that's a personal thing and I'm not a regular here! - a bit of fiddling and this could really work as a distinctive colour scheme -- sannse (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, so I have a question that I'm opening up for discussion. If nobody chooses to reply, I'll just make the decision myself, but I figured it'd be a good idea to open it up. What do we think about people uploading images that are only used on their user pages? I know I myself am guilty of this, so I'm going to actually go and move any images I have on here off the site and just link to it from another website. Personally, I don't think we should allow images that aren't directly related to articles. It's use of the wikia server for private entertainment, and that's not what it was intended for. Thoughts? http://www.freewebs.com/justkevi/Adam%5FWe%5FIcon.png Adam We (talk)
If it were up to me, I'd set the limit to be no more then one user image per person, this is of course assuming that they then proceed to provide content. Right now we are still somewhat of a slow moving site but if we ever get an over abundance of users and their images then yes, I'd say go ahead and remove them. So... until it becomes a problem, user image away. Any other thoughts?
--CannedhamX 03:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Its happening once again, the FG Wiki is being vandalized left and right. This last happened in Feb. of 06' and nearly caused me leave the wiki all together. I really don't want to do that again. It was many months until I returned and only after I seeing commitment from another Wikipedian like myself. So that having been said... How can we put a stop to this vandalism?
--CannedhamX 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
what the duce is vandalism. how can you have vandlism on a site like this
felic70 ya wont know me but coming soon
Vandalism is when users add information to pages that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Because these pages are editable by the general public, anyone can make any page say anything. http://www.freewebs.com/justkevi/Adam%5FWe%5FIcon.png Adam We (talk)
Stub templatesDoes anybody know why
is placed at the top of the article? It would look a lot better at the bottom with the categories. John Reaves (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's there so it immediately attracts the attention of the reader to inform them that the article is not fully complete/accurate, and that they should feel welcome to make modifications. Stuff at the bottom often gets written off as fluff. http://www.freewebs.com/justkevi/Adam%5FWe%5FIcon.png Adam We (talk)
Voice your opinion here.
I LOVE the color scheme!!!! I don't think we need to change it at all. Depressio1992 03:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I was against it at first, but it has kinda grown on me. However I'd still be all for changing it, I mean if my first impression was against it, it might turn others away from it as well. I'm a classic wiki colored kinda guy, so I'd say that, but thats just me. Gives it a more official feel. --Jake 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a wee bit bright, but otherwise not too bad. DAWUSS 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Change please i utterly sucks please the color scheme is horrid try the classic colors try anything just not this horrid red and blue,
- Stop complaining and create your own http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:User_style
- The default http://www.wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.css can be simply copied.
- --Matthias 13:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, I agree with Jake, above, that the original wiki color is the best looking. I don't really care though, as long as the site looks alright, and new contributions are showing up. -- Aaron
As per requests, the stylesheet has been removed. http://www.freewebs.com/justkevi/Adam%5FWe%5FIcon.png Adam We (talk)
I believe we need a few new sections to help divide up the info better.
Under the navigation box to the left I feel we should have a label for Merchandise, as there isnt a direct way to get their it seems.
Also, on the home page we should have a page that we can put info such as info about the shows history, ratings, podcasts, broadcasters, awards , reviews and criticism and other stuff that is already at the wikipedia site for family guy.
I guess it could all go on the home page, but it seems like it would clutter things too much and should get its own section Grande13 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a place I can plug Fan History's Family Guy article? And would it be possible for a regular contributor to this wiki to drop by Fan History, edit the article to include information about this wiki, maybe create a page on Fan History about Family Guy Wiki? Thanks! (And completely unrelated, anyone from the Chicago area, Wiki Wednesday, Chicago is being held on July 9. Would love to see some people from this wiki here.) --PurplePopple 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hello. I have been running a Family Guy website now for about 3 years, and I like this Wiki! The colors are great, pictures I might just use a few. I wanted to maybe offer some of my media if it is possible for music and stuff. Check out http://www.31spoonerst.com and in the media section, there might be a few songs and stuff on there that might be useful on this site!
User:31SpoonerSt.com 14:39, 7 July 2008
In case no one has noticed there is a picture of Spongebob and Patrick having gay sex. Not only is this non-famil guy related but it's disturbing. Whoever's in charge of this wikia needs to take action against this.