Brickipedia:Forum/Move/Details

Hi. If we move there are a couple of things to work out. Please indicate your thoughts in the sections below.

One wiki vs. three

Either separate wikis for organization/content/customs or all in one. Makes little difference, since with the skin all the projects will be closely linked, but allows for separated recent changes and admins if we want that. I have no preference. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:50, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say separated, at least for customs. Reviews I think should stay integrated with the mainspace, since there are corresponding pages. Jag 22:57, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Per Jag. Also, having separate elected admins might be good and stuff? -Cligra Join the redlink war!

• I think separate linked wikis would be better, provided that images can be easily used throughout the three wikis (eg, to use images from the main wiki on the reviews wiki). And per Cligra NightblazeSaber 23:02, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
• Per NBS and Jag. -- BrickfilmNut Productions!
  • Oh yeah, forgot to mention that images would be uploaded to just one of the three, and then used on all of them. Maybe even a separate project with a bit more of an upload process, because copyrighted images will start to matter when we're all alone. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:21, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
    • images.brickimedia.org? Jag 23:22, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that would work. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:31, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
• Per NBS. --Berrybrick ^(Talk) 23:28, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
• Per NBS –Agent Charge 02:00, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
• Though I'm not an administrator, having multiple wikis seems the most convenient, considering how the Wiki Activity page is often crowded with edits from the customs namespace. βʊʛ™ Ʈҩƪҡ - Customs 02:04, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
• Even though I don't do anything here, I have a large amount of experience with the MediaWiki software, and I recommend you run the different branches off separate subdomains (i.e. customs.brickipedia.org), and use LocalSettings.php to parse the namespaces so you won't need 3 separate installations of MediaWiki on each subdomain. If you want any more info on this, let me know. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:33, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I have a technical team of 6 people that know what to do. If you wanted to help, we could always use more people! Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:38, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd love to do what I can. Would you mind getting on Brickipedia chat? I can respond faster there. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:39, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Will we have to copy the pages onto the Customs wiki? Or will a bot be used?

Aldendan Knight Forever Knight Time! the question is: is or is not

• • I don't think you understand what we mean by "moving pages". They'll just be imported via MediaWiki. -Cligra Join the redlink war!

Infrastructure changes

We could move all of the policies, content, images, rights, etc right over, but IMO we should change things in the moving process. Some of our policies are outdated and need updating. We could make a project here on Brickipedia for that, and get everything done before moving. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:50, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Policies definitly need a fixing. Also, could we just not move over the crap/unused/only used on user pages images? ~ CJC 22:54, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

  I sure hope that's possible. TBH not sure how moving images works, but uncyc was able to do it when they left so we can too :D Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:55, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Support. NightblazeSaber 23:02, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Will it be like wikipedia once we move or will it be more like here?

Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 23:23, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Well, we'll decide that when making the new policies (which will be long and boring btw). I'd prefer if it were more like here, but just organized. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:25, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

  Same, Wikipedia hard :P

Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 23:28, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Support. –Agent Charge 01:57, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We definitely need to fix our policies. StealthNinja Contact [[Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja|Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja Edits]]

Who runs it

I can pay, but I don't want to be the owner. I'd think a board of three people, elected every year. Responsibilities: Making decisions (making votes where needed per common sense), appointing sysadmins to manage servers and technical side. Running contests. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:50, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

What pays for it

Me. With one ad along the side. I can manage everything financially, and submit a report twice a year to the board on how much I'm stealing from the site every year. I'd keep ads up until I could pay for that year and the following year, and maybe a bit more because I'm really greedy. I'd also like to collect money so I can buy sets for good contributors - I would love to see regular content contests with real prizes. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:50, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

And could we use the LEGO Affiliate ads like on Click-a-Brick? Jag 22:57, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if you're sure you can handle it, then that's okay with me. Provided you're certain you can make the money back- I wouldn't want you to lose any money NightblazeSaber 23:02, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
• Per NBS again. :P -- BrickfilmNut Productions!

  Trust me, I have no intention of /losing/ money :P Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:10, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

  And how much money are you going to /make/ on this? Jag 23:16, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

  I have no clue. I'd like to pull even, but a bit more on the side would be a bonus. If it gets too crazy then I'll take down the ad. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:18, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure how much an ad makes now, but if it's anything like it was a couple years ago, then you'll be able to get some pretty awesome sets for your contests! :P If we did a contest like once every month or two, that could really be something that causes people to come here instead of our competitors. Drewlzoo

  Also, someone will obviously have to pay taxes to some Government (Canadian, if Ajr runs the Google Adsense account). Unless, you want to get audited, levied, etc. We all know taxes can eat a hefty sum of money, so why not just incorporate into Brickipedia Inc. and get a 501c3 license so no taxes on the entity? Plus, we could also put the 'crats on a payroll. Incorporating can be *cough* difficult, given the fact the many of our Bureaucrats (or whoever we'd be paying) are not US citizens. Skdhjf^(Talk!) 07:13, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

  I am fine having the adverts up all the time if it means prizes for contests or making sure the wiki runs fine. As long as there are less adverts than on wikia. --Brick bobby talk it's a trap! 07:18, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

  Fine, but actually I was referring to the taxation aspect of the adverts' income... :) Skdhjf^(Talk!) 07:26, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

  TBH I think it's just easier for me to pay taxes on it. I already pay income taxes on my job, so this isn't too hard to add another little thing. Ajraddatz (Talk) 11:14, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

  Alright, however, you do understand that if there is substantial income being generated, it may boost you into a higher tax bracket. In addition to this, it will have to be reported as self-employment income (not wages) on your personal tax return - I have no idea how Canadians do it, but I am sure that you are able to do it. Has the community decided whether we should be a non-profit entity instead so none of this is taxed? Skdhjf^(Talk!) 15:09, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

  I do understand what it means... The community has not decided whether or not to do this, but this is pretty much the only way that this will work. Creating a registered non-profit organization would take a lot of work on our part for very little benefit. As it is, I am willing to pay very small taxes on the "income" that I earn from this, and otherwise provide Brickimedia with all information regarding money spent and earned. IMO we should be focussing our mental efforts on technical development, not trying to fix a non-existent problem in order to avoid paying the government of Canada a few dollars. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

  Amazing, however, taxation is one of the most fundamental agendas on an "organization's" todo list (especially if it will be generating revenue). Also, I disagree. It's not hard to form a formal business entity, and it will not create little benefits. In addition, theoretically and logically, you are "sole-trading" off of Brickipedia (or Brickimedia). Meaning you will have unlimited liability for all profits, losses, lawsuits, etc. that this entity may come across. Why not just have a small fundraiser at the end of the year to raise a goal of how much the hosting costs so that the income (~50-60 USD, depending on which hosting you use) will be under the taxable level (400 for US, I have no idea for Canada). However, like I said, whoever is running the site financially is still, theoretically sole-trading off of Brickipedia and has unlimited liability for it. This is a serious issue, you can read the stories about the Getty Stock Images lawsuit fiascos, or other ordeals. Sole Trading is not the preferred method when running a website of this scale. Skdhjf^(Talk!) 15:52, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

  You are touching on a good point, that I will be wholly responsible for the finances of Brickimedia, and any liability with it. This, I have done intentionally. As I've said before, I don't want our new project to spend all of its time focussing on things like applying for non-profit status, managing a bank account, needing to worry about lawsuits directed at the organization not a person, etc. I personally think that it will be better if I just worry about this, because with me being the only one concerned with it, it becomes very easy. I pay for what I need to, and I collect the income from the ads. I can also pay for sets for contest, etc, which are then not regulated by any contest rules - I can just mail them out on my own expense to whoever wins. What you are wrong about is that this is not a serious issue. I am not trying to be some financial dictator, nor is what you call "sole trading" going to be any sort of a big deal for a relatively small site like Brickipedia. I again say, let's focus on things which are actually important for the move - content, users, the technical side. If me running the finances doesn't work, then we can re-evaluate that later.

  As a final note, this will not put me up a tax bracket. I am not doing this for-profit; if the ads are bringing in too much money, then I'll take them down (or host more contests). I certainly won't be making the $15,000 required to put me in the next tax bracket. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:17, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, I never implied that you were going to be a "financial dictator". Sole Trading (or Sole Proprietorship) is a an entity classification name - I didn't make it up. It's what you call a person who runs a business under their own name.. O.o I like the fact that you are willing to pay for all this stuff - noting the fact that this is an Internet thing. Skdhjf^(Talk!) 16:41, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Some less crazy stuff about user rights

OK, so no crazy overly-bureaucrat term-based admins. OK :P

Regardless of that, I don't think that we need bureaucrats on every project if we have three (or more). One group of 'crats could handle stuff very well, so I'd want that group to either be global or do all of the rights stuff from the meta wiki (possible via userrights-interwiki). Also oversight/checkuser, sensitive stuff which I don't want to think about too much - appointed by the elected board on one-year terms without a vote? Alternatively checkuser could just be included with the admin group, but it is a bit of a sensitive thing. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:16, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Or even just leave checkuser to the elected board? Jag 23:18, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser is the one that scares me, much more than oversight would. I don't like the sound of including that with admin rights. I think limiting it to three checkusers works well. Everything else sounds good though NightblazeSaber 02:45, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Who and what would the elected board be? I'm assuming it's a group of users that vote on some of the really important stuff, but how do they get to be on the board? Drewlzoo

The board will be elected before we move. Once I draft up a charter for the Brickimedia Association, then we can start a vote on the board. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:57, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

How big would it be? Drewlzoo

Three people, two "representing" Brickipedia and one representing the customs wiki. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:32, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

So, the new Holy Trinity of Power? :P -Cligra Join the redlink war!

Forum

• Would it be possible to have a fourth sub-site for the forum, and have it not Mediawiki-based but still somehow linked so you don't have to log in separately? (eg, using a Eurobricks-style forum). Or does a site have to be completely Mediawiki? NightblazeSaber 02:45, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

  There isn't an easy way to have an external forum, but there are some very good ones in MediaWiki - I have a testing dev wiki up at here. It's really easy to manage, and works pretty much like a regular forum. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:48, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

  It would be nice to have a separate wiki for the forums–with a different set of recent changes for it. In think that that would be the main pro (If it's possible, though). –Agent Charge

Admins

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was nvm I don't want to stir up too much here, but I think that being an admin is very distracting from actually improving the wiki. From personal experience, having the tools for too long also makes you really used to having them, to the point of not really thinking when you do stuff. I dunno how receptive others will be to this, but maybe electing a fixed number of admins twice, or three times a year to serve six month terms? That would also move away from constant voting to just two or three events. IDK about this one, but bite away. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:50, February 4, 2013 (UTC) Aren't admin rights just a toolbox though? It seems more like a viewpoint shift, not a rights change, is needed. Jag 22:57, February 4, 2013 (UTC) Hm. Per Ajr, but also Jag. Having all people who want to run for admin run at the same time is definitely a good idea, but I'm not entirely sure if we want to do this or not, really. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Bite :D I don't know about the other admins, but suddenly not being able to instantly delete vandalism and block offenders would be very frustrating. NightblazeSaber 23:02, February 4, 2013 (UTC) Once again, per NBS. :P -- BrickfilmNut Productions! Meh, don't mind this then. Just an idea I've had on the plate for a while. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:11, February 4, 2013 (UTC) Regulations to running maybe? -LazerzSoH --- Destroy, Destroy, Exterminate!

Might be the wrong place to have this

I have some questions about the move. What will happen to the accounts? Will everyone be able to edit? There won't be a chat, will there? (Yes I luv chat <3 ) What will the rights be like? No more roll back or patroller? I'll come back with more questions if I have them. Will stuff like the F12 not continue? And do we plan to have this wiki being run, along with the new site? Would we start selling sets or figures like other LEGO sites?-LazerzSoH --- Destroy, Destroy, Exterminate!

I'll try and answer what I can. There should be a way to import accounts, everyone will be able to edit. We could use chat here still or IRC. Rights will be the same (if not very similar) to what we currently have - rollback will definitly still exist. I don't see why F12 wouldn't continue. What do you mean by selling? Like a shop? If that, then no. ~ CJC 17:59, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers! -LazerzSoH --- Destroy, Destroy, Exterminate!

Keep in mind, when we are our own site we can do whatever we want (and are technically able to do). A store in the future is not out of the realm of possibility, nor is anything really. But no, we would not initially have it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:18, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

If we still have this wiki, it would be very easy to continue to use this chat. We could create links to it from that wiki. It would just have a different URL, and it would require users to have accounts here, too. Drewlzoo

That makes me think. I think we should have a different wiki for chat than this one. Otherwise it will just keep some attention on this one, especially if users have to create accounts. Some new wiki with virtually nothing else would be best, I think. --Berrybrick ^(Talk) 20:27, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Nah, we can keep using the chat here. Then, we'll need to keep our admin bits here because we are still using this wiki for something. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:29, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

You won't be able to use chat as part of an external wiki, it will belong to the remaining and future community of this wiki. That's not to say people can't visit it, unless that future community decides otherwise of course. But, for example, you wouldn't be able to use it to promote the other wiki by linking people in chat to the fork. -- sannse (help forum | blog) 00:10, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

We won't be spamming the chat with links, no. But we can use it within the already established policies here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:46, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I do understand what Sannse is saying, though. In order for us to be able to use this chat, we'll have to get permission from whoever decides to stay here. It's kind of like how we do the Official Friends. As long as they're okay with sharing their chat with us, then it's fine. We'd still have to obey all the policies here, though. Not from the new wiki. Drewlzoo

I'm saying that there will be no difference between those who decide to stay here and us. I know that I for one will stay and use/moderate chat, as well as still remove any vandalism from this site after we leave. I don't want to see it completely ruined, nor would that be very beneficial for us. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:46, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Somehow we've got about the same conversation on two pages, my fault I think :) Anyway, as I said on the other page, it's complex. The chat is provided as a part of the Wikia service. It's for building connections between contributors here, and for discussing wiki business and discussions. It's not here to provide that service for another site. I don't mean that everyone in chat must also be a wiki contributor, but chat here can't be an extension of a new site. for one thing, it might interfere with the new community here. If they don't have a chat space of their own, because it's already occupied with people who aren't using it to discuss building and growing this wiki, that that might slow this wiki's recovery -- sannse (help forum | blog) 23:34, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, it shouldn't be a problem. We're working on an alternative... Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:35, February 7, 2013 (UTC)